Rod Bennett on Marcus Grodi's Coming Home Network, again

There is nothing much new here, if you have listened to Rod Bennett in his previous testimony on the Coming Home Network, and other lectures that are on you tube and catholic web-sites (some are radio interviews and question and answer pod-casts); and if you have seen and read my previous blog posts on my friend (both here at Beggar's All, and at Apologetics and Agape).

See here for my series on Rod Bennett's first book, Four Witnesses.   (Part 1)

Part 2

Part 3

See here for Rod's lecture on the Great Apostasy in "the Four Witnesses Brought Me Home".

See here on Timothy Kaufman's refutation of Baptismal Regeneration and the way Rod uses Justin Martyr to bolster the claim that baptismal regeneration was an early unanimous belief.





Rod became a Roman Catholic in 1996, and has now gone on to write several more books.

His newest book is The Apostasy That Wasn't.

Even though both sides repeat a lot of the same arguments; I still think it is important for me to repeat the Protestant responses and apologetic answers to the Roman Catholics who keep making these claims.  Even though this is all a repeat of many issues that Protestants and RCs keep debating, I wanted to have these points here together in one blog article with Rod's lecture, because it seems good to me.

Again, nothing is meant as a personal attack; I am merely defending the historic Protestant Evangelical position against the Roman Catholic Apologetic arguments. 

Rod Bennett's recent appearance on Marcus Grodi's "Coming Home Network", again.

http://www.chnetwork.org/journey-home/rod-bennet-former-baptist-evangelical/
with comment box

Below is most of my response (edited and developed from the combox comments at the chnetwork site, not at the You Tube link) to Rod's interview and responses to some Roman Catholics who commented.  I am not repeating the RC arguments here. In order to get the Roman Catholic comments, go the link and see the comboxes.

---------- 

Issues revolving around church history, Sola Scriptura, the canon, and tradition:

Rod is right in that our Southern Baptist Mega Church did not teach us about church history, and it did not prepare us to understand church history.  But knowledgable Protestants do not have that "great apostasy" view like the Mormons, JWs, or "the Fields of the Woods" (A. J. Tomlinson, founder of Church of God that later splintered into the Church of God of Prophesy and the Church of God, Cleveland, Tennessee,etc.) Rod tells that story of "The Fields of the Woods" and Tomlinson in his latest book, The Apostasy That Wasn't, and in his lecture, "The Four Witnesses Brought Me Home".  He may have mentioned that in his first book, but I don't remember for sure.  Another group that likes to promote the "Great Apostasy" theory are the the Seventh Day Adventists (who teach that Sunday Worship is the mark of the beast and was done by Constantine).  Another common view of "The Great Apostasy" is like the liberal and conspiracy theory views of Dan Brown of the DaVinci Code fame or "the Christ of history vs. the Christ of faith" paradigm.   Knowledgeable Protestants just don't have that view, that Rod tries to lump in with those false groups.  But Rod is right that some, in fact too many, Evangelicals are ignorant of church history and many of the Evangelical free church types, many Baptists, and Charismatics and Pentecostals do see church history wrongly as in the "Great Apostasy" theory.  I remember in seminary, when some one called this the "BOBO" theory, "Being true in the NT, then, "Blink Off sometime after NT was finished, Blink On with Luther".

Knowledgable Protestants who believe the Bible and appreciate church history appreciate Ignatius, Polycarp, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Cyprian, Athanasius, Augustine, Jerome, the Cappadocian fathers, Anselm, etc. But they were not infallible; they made some mistakes.

Knowledgable Protestants don't say "the church went totally bust" or "went off the rails", etc.

At first, I thought Rod was saying that Constantine did make Christianity the state religion, rather than that is what many Evangelicals (and others also) believe.  It is a common mistake repeated a lot, even in history books.   A couple of the RC commenters helped me see Rod was not saying that.  

Polycarp and Relics:

Rod mentioned what happened after Polycarp was burned at the stake. If one reads the account carefully, (The account of Polycarp's martyrdom is available at ccel.org or newadvent.org ) it does not say that after they buried them, they took out his bones next year for exhibition or stored them in a reliquary in a church for exhibition, or prayed to Polycarp, or kissed his bones, etc. It says that they honored his remains by gathering them up after he was burned, and then they buried them.  I think Timothy Kauffman makes a good case for understanding that "depositing" just meant burial.     See Timothy Kauffman's excellent article on this issue of the early church and relics here.  

They remembered him the next year on the anniversary of his martyrdom, but the text does not indicate that they brought out his bones for exhibition or veneration or kissing them or staring at them or praying before them. And the passage does not say they prayed to Polycarp for him to pray for them.

The Proto-Evangelium of James and Mary:

Rod mentions the Proto-evangelium of James.  The Proto-evangelium of James was mentioned and used as a basis for the Marian dogma of the Perpetual virginity of Mary, etc. It is Gnostic tinged, since it implies that Jesus just "popped out" from inside of Mary, without the normal pains of childbirth and passing through the birth canal. This is a problem of Roman Catholicism - basing a dogma on a non-canonical writing. It is a Gnostic idea to think that Jesus was not born in the normal human way that we all are - after all, He was 100 % human, and that is a dogma that Protestants agree with the RCC on - Jesus is 100% God and 100 % man - the God-man; the second person of the Trinity who became flesh/human. (John 1:1-5; 1:14; Philippians 2:5-8)

Athanasius, canon, Sola Scriptura

Much of Rod's new book, The Apostasy that Wasn't, was about Athanasius and his fight to defend Nicene orthodoxy and the Arian heresy.  However, Protestants love Athanasius and his fight against Arianism. He also wrote: "they (the Arians, the heretics) have the buildings, but you have the faith" (Letter 29) The heretical Arians held the external buildings and priesthood and bishoprics for some 60 years. Protestants agree with Athanasius and others who resisted Arianism. To try and imply that Protestants think the early church went completely off is wrong.

Athanasius also wrote:
"in these alone (the 27 books of the NT) are the doctrine of godliness" (that is Sola Scriptura in seed form). (Letter 39) "Alone" = (Greek, "mono" = alone, which in Latin, "Sola")

And, Athanasius also wrote, "the holy and God-breathed Scriptures are self-sufficient for the preaching of the truth." (Contra Gentiles, "Against the Heathen", 1:3)

Athanasisus also wrote:
"Vainly do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things . . . " (De Synoodis 6)

The Mass and Eucharist:

Rod claimed that the Didache has a Roman Catholic mass in it.  The Didache does not have anything in it that implies transubstantiation or a RC mass. It does not even imply the "real presence" in the Eucharist.  The word Eucharist is used, but that is not a problem in itself. Protestants would use it, if it was not for the all the RC and transubstantiation associations with it because of the centuries of man-made traditions added to it.  It just points to "thanksgiving" and being thankful for the Lord Jesus' atonement on the cross.  Using the word "Eucharist" in the early writings, does not mean backloading the word with all the development of the meaning of the Lord's Supper that slowly takes place over centuries all the way up until 1215 AD. 

General church history and the "great apostasy" question:

The corruptions that people like John Wycliffe in the 1300s, Jan Hus in the 1400s, and Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin in the 1500s objected to was a very slow process of an emphasis on externals, penances, works, rituals, visiting shrines and relics, and the addition of man-made traditions like purgatory and praying to dead saints, indulgences, transubstantiation, Marian dogmas, Papal doctrines, priestly ex opera operato powers, etc. that had eclipsed or hidden the true teaching of Scripture on justification and sanctification; and understanding the distinction between the two.

Rod's main point is that many Evangelicals and cultic groups both seem to think that there was a great apostasy with Constantine around 313 AD - 325 and afterward.   It is true that many Baptists and free church Evangelicals and Charismatics probably are ignorant of the details of church history and wrongly think there was a complete apostasy with Constantine.  But this idea get mixed up with cultic groups and liberal theology and Rod does an effective job of lumping them all together.  

All these groups (cultic groups, liberal theology, semi-cultic groups (Seventh Day Adventism), and uninformed Evangelicals), even though totally unlike one another, seem to blame everything on Constantine.  Anti-Trinitarian groups, cultic groups, historical revisionism as in the Dan Brown Da Vinci code type of thinking, and a lot of liberal theology (the whole "separating the Christ of history from the Christ of faith" liberal paradigm).  We don't say the early church went off the rails completely - At least not until the Council of Trent ( 1545-1563) - that is where the Roman Catholic Church knowingly condemned the doctrine of justification by faith alone; and only then did it become a completely false church.

Athanasius is claimed to have had a high view of Mary as arc of the covenant: 

A Roman Catholic named Anthony cited from a work attributed to Athanasius called, “the Homily of the Papyrus of Turin”. 

There is some doubt about the work that has been attributed to Athanasius called, "The Homily of the Papyrus of Turin" - it was found more recently and was unknown in the west for centuries. It is not part of the standard works of the early church fathers and was not in Migne's Patrology.

"I wonder whether this is spurious or genuine. The name of the document is not itself frightfully reassuring. It suggests attribution to Athanasius based on a single copy (probably in Coptic-Sahaddic not Greek) from the 6th century or so. As far as I can tell, it was unknown to the Western church as part of the Athanasian corpus and has become known via the journal Le Muséon in 1958." (Turretinfan, at his blog,) ( with my editing for clarity.)

Even if that can be proven it was from Athanasius himself, it is just his private opinion. It carries no weight at all as authoritative. We can accept the good and Biblical things from the fathers, and reject the man-made traditions and opinions as just that. They are not infallible. Only Scripture is infallible.

Back to issues of Tradition, Canon, Sola Scriptura, church, and the Trinity:

Rod and another Roman Catholic commentator mention sacred tradition, and as we all know, their main text for that is 2 Thessalonians 2:15.  

Sacred tradition of the apostles was all eventually written down. 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 3:6; (very early epistles - 51-52 AD - it is reasonable to assume that the things he was teaching orally and not written down yet at the time, were later written down in other letters like Romans, Colossians, the pastoral epistles, etc.) 1 Corinthians 11:2; 15:1-9, Jude 3. 

The harmonization of sound exegesis of passages such as Jude 3 (the faith was once for all delivered to the saints), 2 Peter 1:3-4 (His divine power has given us everything we need for life and godliness); and John 17:8 (Jesus praying to the Father, "the words You gave Me, I have given to them" - to the disciples), John 17:17 (Your Word is truth), John 14:26 (the Holy Spirit will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you), and John 16:13 (The Holy Spirit will guide you into all the truth), with 2 Tim. 3:16-17 (All Scripture is God-breathed; and is sufficient to equip the man of God for every good work), and 2 Peter 3:16 (Peter considers all of Paul's letters as Scripture), and Hebrews 1:1-3 (in the last final days, God has spoken decisively and finally through His Son) - all of these together strongly implies that everything we need was written down for us, and that with the death of the apostles, there will be no more revelation.  

A Roman Catholic claims that the Trinity is only known through later tradition (meaning the interpretation of the church, in RC understanding), church councils and creeds.

Athanasius speaking of the Holy Trinity - well, since the Holy Trinity is scriptural and we Protestants agree with that, and Athanasius was writing against the heresies of the Arians, Sabellians, and Tropici, that is not a good example of something that becomes particularly Roman Catholic that Protestants disagree with, that is called as part of the "Rule of Faith" or "the Tradition". The Rule of Faith or "the tradition" spoken of by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Athanasius are all doctrinal statements based on the organization around the Trinity, that are similar to the Apostles Creed, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, etc. that Protestants agree with that are in infallible Scripture.

On the "canon" of Scripture. All of the 27 NT books and letters were God-breathed / inspired, the moment they were written from around 45 AD to 96 AD, with most written before 70 AD. They were individual scrolls written to different places by different authors and from different areas. The form of a codex was not even in existance in the first century. A simple codex - flattening out the sheets of papyri and tying more than one book together - which later became basis for book making with a binding. 'canon" originally just meant "standard", "rule", "law" before it came to mean "list". They were canon or standard already because they were God-breathed at the time of the writing of them in the first century. Just because it took time to even know about them(some areas would not have known about every NT book until enough time passed for all the areas to communicate with one another about all the different books), then discern them all as Scripture, and then gather them together in one "codex", does not make that in itself some sort of infallible act. It is true and correct, but it was a natural part of a process of history. Irenaeus and Tertullian (around 180-220 AD) list most all of the 27 NT books in their writings. Before then, we just don't have anyone writing the volume that they wrote to quote from all or most of the books. What we have that is extant from writers earlier than those 2 are very small works and short letters. (Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Didache, Hermas, Justin Martyr)

Although the word Trinity, and homo-ousias (same substance) and hupostasis (for person of the 3 persons formula for the Trinity) are not words for the Trinity in the NT (though hupostasis is used for Jesus' nature/ being in Hebrews 1:3, the word was later adopted for the person that is "existing under" the one substance (ousia); although those words are not employed in the text of the NT in the doctrine of the Trinity, the doctrine is Biblical in that the concept and doctrine is taught by harmonizing all that Scripture says about the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (and based on Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 and Matthew 3:13-17, and others). That is the proper role of theological development, or proper interpretations, which the Roman Catholic Church calls tradition also. (beyond the revelatory traditions that were apostolic, as in 2 Thess. 2:15 and 1 Cor. 11:2, etc.) There is proper doctrinal and theological development, and then there is improper (additions, corruptions), which is what the RC dogmas about Mary (beyond the ones Protestants agree with such as the Virgin Birth of Christ), Popes, indulgences, purgatory, penances, trafficking in relics, prayers to Mary and dead saints, priests, ex opere operato powers, Transubstantiation, etc. - these are man-made traditions that are not in the early centuries and not biblical.

If you go back and look at the context of De Decretis (Defense of the Nicene Definition) 27, it is all about explaining Scripture. "this view was transmitted from Father to Father" just means the proper interpretation of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity, which Athanasius explains and Protestants agree with that. Athanasius (about 300-373 AD) mentions Origen, who was about a century before him. (250 AD) The quote does not go against Sola Scriptura, it merely is testifying that the Nicene Creed was Biblical. He was condemning Arianism and Sabellianism (Modalism) and Protestants agree with that. So that quote is not saying Creeds or Bishops or fathers are above Scripture, it is only saying that the fathers properly interpreted the Scriptures on that issue - the issue of the Deity of Christ and the Trinity, which is all Biblical.

The To Serapion, On the Holy Spirit, against the Tropici heretics, 1:28 quote, is in Athansius' work on the Holy Spirit against the heretical group called the Tropici, and if you look at the context of that also, he is quoting Scripture about the Deity of the Holy Spirit, and the Trinity, and so the Tradition, the teaching and faith of the universal church at the time was the sound doctrine about the Trinity, which Protestants agree with, so that, (and the other quotes) do not exalt some extra-Biblical tradition above Scripture, but rather are expressing the proper interpretation of infallible Scripture.

Here is more of the full quote: (It is all based on Matthew 28:19 and 2 Cor. 13:14, and Ephesians 4:6: 

28. But, beyond these sayings, let us look at the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, the Apostles preached, and the Fathers kept. Upon this the Church is founded, and he who should fall away from it would not be a Christian, and should no longer be so called. There is, then, a Triad, holy and complete, confessed to be God in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, [based on Matthew 28:19; 2 Cor. 13:14] having nothing foreign or external mixed with it, not composed of one that creates and one that is originated, but all creative; and it is consistent and in nature indivisible, and its activity is one. The Father does all things through the Word in the Holy Spirit. Thus the unity of the holy Triad is preserved. Thus one God is preached in the Church, ‘who is over all, and through all, and in all’ [ Ephesians 4:6] — ‘over all’, as Father, as beginning, as fountain; ‘through all’, through the Word; ‘in all’, in the Holy Spirit. It is a Triad not only in name and form of speech, but in truth and actuality. For as the Father is he that is, so also his Word is one that is and God over all. And the Holy Spirit is not without actual existence, but exists and has true being. Less than these (Persons) the Catholic Church does not hold, lest she sink to the level of the modern Jews, imitators of Caiaphas, and to the level of Sabellius. Nor does she add to them by speculation, lest she be carried into the polytheism of the heathen. And that they may know this to be the faith of the Church, let them learn how the Lord, when sending forth the Apostles, ordered them to lay this foundation for the Church, saying: ‘Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.’ [ Matthew 28:19 ] The Apostles went, and thus they taught; and this is the preaching that extends to the whole Church which is under heaven.  (Athanasius, To Serapion, against the Tropici heretics,  Book 1:28, Translated, intro, and notes by C.R. B. Shapland.) 

It is the same principle for the other 2 quotes; they are not exalting some kind of extra-biblical man made tradition over Scripture, but Athanasius is saying the proper interpretation of Scripture about the Deity of Christ and the Trinity is passed down by the fathers.

Athanasius' work Decretis or Defense of the Nicene Definition you can find it at

www.ccel.org

www.newadvent.org

Prayers to the dead:

A Roman Catholic commenter claims that praying to the dead is early and good. 

No; Scripture is clear and forbids praying to the dead. Pray only to God. The angel rebuked John several times for worshiping the angel. Revelation 19:10 and 22:8-9. 

The issue of Mary:

Mary is more honored by us (Protestants) by teaching what Scripture says about her and her faith and humility, but that she admitted she was a sinner and needed salvation ( Luke 1:46) and that Jesus was born of the virgin. (Matthew 1:18-25; Luke 1:26-37; chapter 2) Matthew 1:25 is clear - "until" 'εως 'ου = heos hou = "until, and after that, no more". Mary and Joseph had other children after Jesus. Matthew 12:46-47; 13:55-56; Mark 3:32; 6:3; John 7:5-10; Luke 8:19-20; Galatians 1:19

 Praying to Mary and thinking she is a co-mediatrix, is a clear violation of 1 Timothy 2:5 - for there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ . . .

In later centuries, the church was wrong on over-exalting Mary and praying to her and having icons and statues to her later. The New Eve statements (Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian) are not a big deal. God used her as the channel / instrument to bring the Messiah into the world.

But the other stuff about Mary, which developed later, especially after Athanasius, Totally wrong. Mary was a godly woman and Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, but she was not perpetual virgin and we should not pray to her. Prayers to her are later anyway, but they are still wrong. She was not sinless, nor Immaculately conceived, nor bodily assumed. These are all man-made traditions.

"Theotokos", as originally meant, about Jesus being God from conception (and thus pre-existent before the conception in the womb of Mary) was right; but Nestorius was right in that people will get the wrong impression and think Christians are saying Mary brought God into existence, which is exactly what Muslims thought by hearing this, and even to this day, the Muslims still misunderstand and think Christians worship Mary and over-exalt Mary and the Qur'an thought Mary was part of the Trinity because of your church's error and man-made traditions. (The Qur'an, Surah 5:116, with 5:72-78) puts Mary, Jesus, and God as the Trinity, with Surah 4:171 - "say not three", etc.)

A Roman Catholic asks, "How do you think the Church Fathers read the Scriptures regarding Our Lady?

Many of them said she sinned. Origen, Chrysostom, Tertullian, Basil, Cyril of Alexandria

Tertullian said she had a normal marriage after Jesus was born. She was not perpetual virgin.

Basil the Great:
Basil commented on the sword of Luke 2:35-36 stating, “Even you yourself [Mary], who hast been taught from on high the things concerning the Lord, shall be reached by some doubt. This is the sword” (Basil of Caesarea, Letter, 260, 9 italics mine).

Cyril of Alexandria (A. D. 376 – 444) also taught that Mary sinned in severe ways thereby holding to a position in opposition to an immaculate conception:

“For, doubtless, some such train of thought as this passed through her mind: ‘I conceived Him That is mocked upon the Cross. He said, indeed, that He was the true Son of Almighty God, but it may be that He was deceived; He may have erred when He said: I am the Life. How did His crucifixion come to pass? and how was He entangled in the snares of His murderers? How was it that He did not prevail over the conspiracy of His persecutors against Him? And why does He not come down from the Cross, though He bade Lazarus return to life, and struck all Judaea with amazement by His miracles?" The woman, as is likely, not exactly understanding the mystery, wandered astray into some such train of thought” (Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on John, Book 12).

1 Clement, elders and bishops, and NT priests and Latin:

One RC wrote:
I mean, up until the late 4th century, the Epistle of St. James had not even been quoted in the west.

Actually, 1 Clement 23:3 seems to be combination of James 1:8 and 2 Peter 3:4, and Clement of Rome is western, and dated at 96 AD. Also a strong case for patristic witness to 2 Peter.

Even if it can be proven Athanasius did write the Homily of the Papyrus of Turin, it is just his opinion. It just does not sound like him, when I read his other writings.

You are right, I am not infallible; but neither is any human - no bishop of Rome or "Pope" was ever infallible, not matter how much your RC Church claims it.

Only Scripture is infallible (as opposed to interpretations later in history, non-apostolic traditions, creeds, church councils, bishops, priests, etc.), because it is revelation from God, and only God is infallible. Since God is infallible and perfect, it is a function of His attributes; and Scripture is His Word, therefore Scripture is infallible. Since man makes mistakes, he and Popes and bishops cannot be infallible, since they are human.

An RC commenter seemed to claim I was saying that 1 Clement taught Sola Scriptura.  I did not say 1 Clement taught Sola Scriptura, rather I was responding to his claim that the epistle of James was not even quoted in the west until the late 4th Century.

One RC wrote:
I mean, up until the late 4th century, the Epistle of St. James had not even been quoted in the west.

And my answer was:
Actually, 1 Clement 23:3 seems to be combination of James 1:8 and 2 Peter 3:4, and Clement of Rome is western, and dated at 96 AD. Also a strong case for patristic witness to 2 Peter.

1 Clement (96 AD) is actually proof that each church had a plurality of elders, and understood that the office of elder and overseer (bishop) was the same. 1 Clement 42-44. This confirms the clear teaching of Scripture in Titus 1:5-7 (elder and bishop same office/person); Acts 14:23 (elders - plural - for each church); 1 Peter 5:1-4 - each elder is to oversee and shepherd (pastor) the flock. Peter is "fellow-elder", not a Pope nor a "bishop over all other bishops", (a false doctrine that came along centuries later.) Acts 20:17 (elders) - Acts 20:28 - each elder is to oversee and shepherd the flock. Clement does not claim any special office for himself, never says "I am Pope" or "bishop over bishops" and writes "from the church at Rome" "to the church at Corinth". He was right to rebuke the schism and rebellion in the Corinthian church for deposing the elders because of jealousy, for they had no good reason to rebel against their church elders.

There was no hierarchy of one bishop over the college of elders, until Ignatius, who comes a few years after Clement. ( Ignatius, around 107-117 AD) Even so, it was a practical practice, Jerome around 400 AD, agrees that bishops are elders and elders are bishops, and calls what Ignatius and others after him did, as "custom", rather than revelation/in Scripture. (commentary on Pastoral Epistles).

The problem in Latin Christianity (later, Tertullian and Cyprian) was the conflating of the term of priest in the OT with the idea of elder in the NT. A priest in the OT (Kohen) was translated in the NT and Clement as heireus, priesthood as heirosunaes 'ειρωσυνης (in 1 Clement 43:2, which you quoted). In the NT, an priest is the Greek word heireus / 'ειρευς where that word in 1 Clement is derived. The Hebrew for that was Kohen כהנ and yet both Hebrew and Greek had other words for "elder" ( Greek: presbuteros / πρεσβυτερος ). There was another Latin term for those that offered the sacrifices in the temple (the priests). Latin = sacerdos, where we get "sacerdotal" from.

But in English and in Roman Catholicism, the elder/ presbuteros and the priest / Sacerdos got combined into "priest" because they (what later became Roman Catholicism exemplified in the Mass and Transubstantiation - mainly developed from 800s AD to 1215 AD) wanted to combine the ideas of offering sacrifices with the office of elder. But in the NT, there is no sacerdotal office in the NT church, as Jesus was and is our mediator/ high priest, and priest according to the order of Melchizadek (Hebrews 5, 7) and He offered the last and final sacrifice, Himself.  And when the NT does refer to priests and priesthood, aside from Christ, it is talking about all believers in Christ who are priests who offer spiritual sacrifices of praise and thanksgiving to God.  (1 Peter 2:5-10; Revelation 1:6; Revelation 5:10)  There is no special NT office of priests for the churches, as it was for Israel in the OT. 

Since elder in the NT was NOT a sacerdos, it was wrong for the Latin development of the word into priest, rather than to keep the two words separate and clear.

Clement is pointing out that there was jealousy, envy and strive over the OT priests in the OT times; and there was jealousy and strive against the elders/bishops in the church of Corinth, but he is not saying that elders/bishops are priests like in the OT. The Corinthians were wrong to allow the presbyter-overseers to be deposed, and Clement rightly rebukes them for that; but Clement was not teaching any mono-episcopate or NT priesthood; and he clearly affirmed that elders and overseers (episcopos, translated sometimes as "bishop") are the same office, just as Titus 1:5-7; Acts 20:17, 28; 1 Peter 5:1-4; Acts 14:23; and Philippians 1:1, 1 Timothy 3, 5 show. The NT, 1 Clement, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas show that the earliest NT and earliest in church history local church government was a plurality of elders and they were all expected to be shepherds (pastors) and overseers and there was no mono-episcopate; and definitely no "bishop over all other bishops". The mono-episcopte developed from Ignatius onward, and it grew to a bishop over a larger area, and then, centuries later, evolved into the claims of the bishop of Rome (as "Pope"), but the East never accepted such a claim.

He clearly teaches that they are the same office, if you read 1 Clement 42 to 44 fairly.

especially this section of paragraph 44:

"For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that ye have removed some men of excellent behavior from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honor." I Clement 44:4-5

Conclusion:  Rod is wrong.

Those early pious beliefs or side comments (like using the word Eucharist, or "Catholic" or the "Mary as the New Eve" comments by Tertullian, Irenaeus, and Justin Martyr, or the respect shown to Polycarp's bones, or that they seem to teach baptismal regeneration, or the mono-episcopate from Ignatius onward, or the conflating of the Latin creation of the word priest from the Greek presbuteros that developed, etc.)  by early church fathers that RC developed into later dogmas, are not things that mean a complete apostasy of the whole church in the early centuries (Constantine or a little later) at that time. The church existed even in the time of Wycliffe, Hus, Luther, though it has drifted far and was full of corruption.  The real apostasy does not come until the Council of Trent in 1545-1563.