Excellent analysis of Irenaeus and Roman Catholic claims

Timothy Kauffman has a series entitled "The Visible Apostolicity of the Invisibly Shepherded Church"   ( a series of 8 articles)

I have read Part 5 which deals with Irenaeus and the Roman Catholic claims of Papal authority.

It is very good. I learned a lot of new valuable information about Irenaeus and church history.

I also read Part 1, which is very good also.  Tim has done a lot of work and provided a lot of great information at his web-site/blog.  I wish I had time to fully digest more of it.

I encourage everyone to check out his material on this 8 part series and the one below.

See the links to each of the 8 articles at Apologetics and Agape.

This is also very good in dealing with Mary and the lack of any evidence in the early Patristic sources on Mary's sinlessness or Immaculate conception.

5 Reasons to seriously doubt the Papacy

http://bnonn.com/5-reasons-to-seriously-doubt-the-papacy/

And more:

http://michaeljkruger.com/were-early-churches-ruled-by-elders-or-a-single-bishop/

13 Things you didn't know about the Papacy

13 Things you didn't know about the Papacy over at Triablogue:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/05/13-things-you-didnt-know-about-papacy.html

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/13-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-papacy/

John Bugay over at Triablogue, has an excellent summary here of the Papacy issues.  

Because of space, and the purpose to keep to a one page sheet evangelistic tract, it may be hard to include these other issues:

I would add:  (this is not a criticism of John's article, just some other points that came to mind after I read through his summary.)

14.   that Peter himself calls himself "fellow-elder" in 1 Peter 5:1. no heirachy of mono-episcopate or papacy idea.

15.  Also, if Peter had a successor, a bishop of Rome as infallible successor, he would have said, "listen to him, who will be able to remind you of these things (spiritual truths)" or "he is the living voice, who will be able to stir up your sincere minds", etc. in 2 Peter 1:12-18; but instead, Peter points them to his letter/scripture - 3:1 - this is the second letter by which I am writing to you in order to stir up your sincere minds" - same idea in 2 Peter 1:12-18 - knowing that he is about to die, he is diligent to put forth effort to stir up their sincere minds - (diligent by writing the letter from prison before his death.)

16.  I would distinquish between the RC idea of infallible succession of person and office (bishop/ mono-episcopate) to Peter vs. the biblical idea of appointing qualified elders - as in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 and 1 Timothy 3.  ( maybe need more details on # 5 - the quote by Oscar Cullman about the principle of succession. Does Cullman explain the difference between the Roman Catholic claim of infallible apostolic succession in the successors of Peter and other church bishops  vs. the Biblical idea of appointing qualified elders in each local church? - Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5; I Timothy 3:1 ff, ?)

17.  Some kind of an explanation of "papa" (father) and acknowledge 1 Cor. 4:15-17 and 1 Timothy 1:2 as something that existed - calling someone a spiritual father - one who led a person to Christ and /or taught them the gospel and discipled them in the Scriptures as a young Christian, etc. And that existed in the early church in all the churches as all ministers/elders/ later development into "priest" were considered and called "papa"/father (spiritual father), so bishops and elders of other areas were called "papa", such as Cyprian in Carthage and Athanasius in Alexandria - even today, the leader of the Coptic Church in Egypt is called "Pope". The point is, "Pope" was never an exclusive term only for the bishop of Rome, but was used for all ministers in all churches. (until centuries later)

Study of Matthew 16:18 - Peter and the Rock

Some resources on studies on Matthew 16:18, Peter and the Rock, the Papacy, etc. ; linked to over at my other blog, "Apologetics and Agape".  

See also The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, by William Webster
http://www.amazon.com/Church-Rome-at-Bar-History/dp/0851517102/ref=pd_sim_b_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=0281M43FC8CV71VXE3EX

And:  Holy Scripture:  The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume 2, by William Webster (volume 1- by David King, and volume 3 are excellent also)
http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Scripture-Historical-Reformation-Principle/dp/1893531031/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y

The Matthew 16 Controversy, by William Webster
http://www.amazon.com/The-Matthew-16-Controversy-Peter/dp/1879737256

Patristic references to Matthew 16:18, Peter, and the Rock, compiled by William Webster

Just in case you haven't seen this yet

Really cool that the Called to Communion folks allowed a full article by an Evangelical Reformed Protestant, on the historical issues of the mono-episocate, apostolic succession, and the early church in Rome and how they relate to the Papacy claims. (article by Brandon Addison)

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/03/the-quest-for-the-historical-church-a-protestant-assessment/

John Bugay comments on this also. 

Cyril of Alexandria was the real influencial theologian behind Chalcedon, not Leo I, bishop of Rome

Ruins from ancient Chalcedon(Today: Kadikoy), across the waters from ancient Constantinople (today Istanbul) across the entrance of the Bosphus straight, modern Turkey. 

Ruins from either a tower wall or, according to a sign there that I have seen myself (in Turkish- I can read some of it and had help with other friends in translating more of it.), an ancient water depot in Kadikoy, Turkey, which was called Chalcedon where the Fourth Ecumenical Council was held in 451 AD.   The Turks are restoring it right now and explain this is from "Eski Kadikoy" (ancient Kadikoy) and "Byzantion" and the Turks call it "Kalkedon".  

I am enjoying listening to and watching the Boston College Debate about the Papacy with James White and Rob Zins for the Protestant position vs. Robert Sungenis and Scott Butler for the Romanist position.  I had seen Scott Butler's meltdown before, but never the full debate.  

Dr. White included some information that up until now, I was not aware of, about the Council of Chalcedon, Leo I, and Cyril of Alexandria. (around the 2 hour, 6 minute mark) So I googled around and found the details from William Webster (I should have known!).  Below is a portion of a larger article by William Webster, in defending against Roman Catholic Steve Ray's claims.

This again proves that there was no such thing as a Papacy in the early centuries, and even Leo I, cannot really claim to be the "first Pope".    Many church history textbooks, unfortunately, are misleading and anachronistic, by writing things like, "Pope Leo I" or "Leo I, the first Pope" or  "Gregory the Great, bishop of Rome from 590-604 AD, the first Pope".  Even Gregory in 601 AD did not claim to be univeral bishop and in fact rebuked John of Constantinople for making such a claim. Gregory wrote the the Emperor Maurice:  "Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the percursor of AntiChrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others.  ( Gregory I, bishop of Rome, 590-604 AD; Book VII, Epistle XXXIII)

From William Webster's article:

The Council of Chalcedon
Peter Has Spoken Through Leo
Steve Ray asserts that the early councils give evidence to their belief in papal primacy. He gives the example of the fathers at Chalcedon who proclaimed ‘Peter has spoken through Leo’ as a result of examining Leo’s Tome, his doctrinal defense of the Trinity and the nature of Christ. The impression given by Roman apologists to this proclamation of the fathers at Chalcedon is one of blind submission to the doctrinal teachings of the pope. Such is not the case. In fact, just the opposite. What is rarely ever explained by these apologists is that Leo’s Tome and its doctrinal teaching was only accepted by the Council when it was thoroughly analyzed and determined not be in conflict with the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria. John Meyendorff gives the following helpful information on Leo and Chalcedon:  (my emphasis and coloring) 

Leo did not participate personally in the council, but his legates at Chalcedon carried with them another remarkable letter addressed to the assembled fathers and expressing the pope’s wish that ‘the rights and honor of the most blessed apostle Peter be preserved’; that, not being able to come himself, the pope be allowed ‘to preside’...at the council in the persons of his legates; and that no debate about the faith be actually held, since ‘the orthodox and pure confession on the mystery of the Incarnation has been already manifested, in the fullest and clearest way, in his letter to bishop Flavian of blessed memory.’ No wonder that his legates were not allowed to read this unrealistic and embarrassing letter before the end of the sixteenth session, at a time when acrimonious debates on the issue had already taken place! Obviously, no one in the East considered that a papal fiat was sufficient to have an issue closed. Furthermore, the debate showed clearly that the Tome of Leo to Flavian was accepted on merits, and not because it was issued by the pope. Upon the presentation of the text, in Greek translation, during the second session, part of the assembly greeted the reading with approval (‘Peter has spoken through Leo!’ they shouted), but the bishops from the Illyricum and Palestine fiercely objected against passages which they considered as incompatible with the teachings of St Cyril of Alexandria. It took several days of commission work, under the presidence of Anatolius of Constantinople, to convince them that Leo was not opposing Cyril. The episode clearly shows that it was Cyril, not Leo, who was considered at Chalcedon as the ultimate criterion of christological orthodoxy. Leo’s views were under suspicion of Nestorianism as late as the fifth session, when the same Illyrians, still rejecting those who departed from Cyrillian terminology, shouted: ‘The opponents are Nestorians, let them go to Rome!’ The final formula approved by the council was anything but a simple acceptance of Leo’s text. It was a compromise, which could be imposed on the Fathers when they were convinced that Leo and Cyril expressed the same truth, only using different expressions (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1989), p. 155-156.).

Chalcedon Rejects Leo's Demands
The fact that the Coucil of Chalcedon did not subscribe to the theory of papal supremacy as espoused by Vatican I is also seen in its acceptance of the 28th canon in which it refused to submit to the demands of pope Leo I. The following is a brief history of this incident taken from The Matthew 16 Controversy:

The papal legates strenously objected to the passage of canon 28 and Leo, the bishop of Rome, refused to accept it. However, the Council refused to acquiesce to papal demands and received the canon as valid, overriding the papal objections. As Meyendorff states:

The commissioners bluntly declared the issue closed—‘All was confirmed by the council,’ they said—explicitly denying any papal right of veto (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1989), p. 183).

W.H.C. Frend comments:

By Canon 28 not only were the decisions in favor of Constantinople as New Rome ratified, but its patriarchal jurisdiction extended into Thrace on the one hand, and Asia and Pontus in Asia Minor on the other. The legates were not deceived by the primacy of honor accorded to Rome. They protested loud and long. The Council, however, had decided, and the decision of the Council was superior to the wishes even of the Bishop of Rome (W.H.C. Frend, The Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965), p. 232).

Even though Leo rejected this canon—and the Eastern bishops eagerly sought his approval— his nonacceptance did not affect the validity of the canon. As Robert Eno observes:

The easterners seemed to attach a great deal of importance to obtaining Leo’s approval of the canon, given the flattering terms in which they sought it. Even though they failed to obtain it, they regarded it as valid and canonical anyway (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), p. 117).

From a jurisdictional standpoint it is clear that Nicaea, I Constantinople and Chalcedon do not support the teaching of Vatican I on papal primacy. After pointing out that Chalcedon refused to submit to the demands of the Bishop of Rome, Frend sums up the historical reality of the ecclesiology of the patristic age with these observations:

So ended Chalcedon. The Church was still the Church of the great patriarchates, maintaining an equilibrium in respect of each other, whose differences could be solved, not by the edict of one against the other but by a council inspired and directed if no longer presided over by the Emperor. It was a system of Church government opposed to that of the papacy, but one which like its rival has stood the test of time (W.H.C. Frend, The Early Church (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1965), p. 232).

The fact that the Council fathers at Chalcedon received canon 28 as valid in direct opposition to papal demands demonstrates conclusively that papal primacy was not an historical reality at that time. Some have asserted, however, that because the Eastern bishops sought Leo’s confirmation of the canon, this proves that they implicitly acknowledged the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Herbert Scott, for example, states:

Impartial examination of this celebrated XXVIIIth Canon of Chalcedon and its circumstances...shows that instead of depreciating papal claims it supports them...The Headship of Rome is shown and confessed in the very act of the bishops of this fragment of a council trying to obtain Leo’s confirmation of their canon (S. Herbert Scott, The Eastern Churches and the Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928), p. 199).

While it is true that the Eastern bishops sought Leo’s confirmation of canon 28, it is not true to assume their belief in papal primacy. This is demonstrated from a very simple historical reality: The bishops did not submit to papal demands. They sought Leo’s confirmation, even using strongly primatial language in their appeals to him, but in the end they received the canon as valid despite his continuing opposition. The early Church greatly valued unity and sought it whenever possible. This was the desire of the bishops of Chalcedon in trying to obtain a unanimous decision regarding canon 28. However, the lack of confirmation by the Bishop of Rome did not prevent this canon from becoming ratified and received into the canon law of the Eastern Church and eventually that of the West as well. From a jurisdictional standpoint, therefore, it is clear that neither Nicaea, I Constantinople nor Chalcedon support the teaching of Vatican I on papal primacy.

W.J. Sparrow–Simpson likewise affirms the fact that the history of Chalcedon proves that the early Church held to a view of Church government which was antithetical to that formulated by the Roman Bishops and Vatican I:

What was the true relation of the Pope and the Council to each other? How was it understood in primitive times? Did the Collective Episcopate regard itself as subordinated, with no independent judgment of its own, to decisions of the Roman authority? Or was the Council conscious of possessing power to accept or refuse the papal utterances brought before it? Bossuet maintained that the treatment of Papal Letters by the early General Councils afforded convincing proof against their belief in any theory of papal in errancy. The famous letter of Leo to Flavia was laid before the Council of Chalcedon in the following terms: ‘Let the Bishops say whether the teaching of the 318 Fathers (the Council of Nice) or that of the 150 (Constantinople) agrees with the letter of Leo.’ Nor was Leo’s letter accepted until its agreement with the standards of the former Ecumenical Councils had been ascertained. The very signatures of the subscribing Bishops bears this out—‘The letter of Leo agrees,’ says one, ‘with the Creed of the 318 Fathers and of the 150 Fathers, and with the decisions at Ephesus under St Cyril. Wherefore I assent and willingly subscribe.’ Thus the act of the Episcopate at Chalcedon was one of critical investigation and authoritative judgment, not of blind submission to an infallible voice (W.J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility(London: John Murray, 1909), p. 28) (The Matthew 16 Controversy, pp. 177-179, 181).

William Webster

Another Ironic thing about Jason Stellman's conversion testimony to Roman Catholicism

Jason Stellman, in the interview at Called to Communion, in his testimony about how he converted to Roman Catholicism, basically asserted that we should be able to find the Protestant paradigm for Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, and church authority in the early church.  He claims that there is no positive case for the Protestant paradigm in the early church after the apostle John died.  Yet, it seems that one of the earliest writings, 1 Clement, if not the earliest, (after the NT books) does indeed have the 3 principles that are closer to the Protestant paradigm than a Roman Catholic one.  I am not saying the early church is or was "Protestant"; that would be anachronistic.  It was neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant; but these three principles found in 1 Clement are closer to the Protestant way of doing things than any Roman Catholic paradigm.  We Protestants can "let the early be the early church" (Dr. White) and when they made mistakes, we confess that they are fallible men and not inspired apostles and their writings are not inspired, and yet, we have an infallible rule - the Scriptures, by which to judge them.  

See Part 3 of Dr. White's response.

At one point, Jason said basically something like, "Jesus would not have set it up with Sola Scriptura as a guiding principle, because Jesus is not stupid."  Yet, as Dr. White pointed out, it is ironic that he has already said that Professors Michael Horton and Steve Baugh were very smart; smarter than he is; and they knew their theology and church history and Greek and exegesis much better than he did.  Jason admitted this; but says that for Jesus to set up Sola Scriptura as a guide for the church is "stupid".  So how does Jason know whether he is being smart enough to know that he understands Jesus properly?  How does he know that Horton, Baugh, White are not correct, since they all believe that Jesus and the apostles did teach that principle.  Jesus' teaches principles in the Gospels of saying things like "thus it is written" and "you make the word of God void by your traditions", and "search the Scriptures" and "have you not read what God said to you?".   How does Jason know that his decision to rely upon his own mind and judgment and call Jesus and the apostles constantly pointing back to the Scriptures as something that is "stupid"? Jason also kept saying things like "He (Jesus) just woudda", "he just woudda" set it up the way that Roman Catholicism says.  "Just woulda" is not good enough; that is just Jason's own subjective personal decision.  He is using his own judgment and understanding of what "should be".   Jason gives no evidence of what he was arguing for, just his own decision, his own opinion - "It should have been this way".  Instead, something closer to the Protestant paradigm is there in the earliest times. 

Well, let's see - 

Earliest writing after the New Testament writings:  I Clement  (96 AD)  

1.  Each Local Church has a college of elders (presbyters)  (No Pope, not even a mono-episcopate yet)  1 Clement 42, 44 - elders and bishops are the same office.

Clement of Rome ( 96 AD) - Presbyters and Bishops are the same office – I Clement 44, confirming Acts 14:23; 20:17, 28; Titus 1:5-7; I Peter 5:1-4. Clement, with the Biblical passages, along with Philippians 1:1 (bishops and deacons), along with the Didache (15) (bishops and deacons), and with Jerome’s statement that a “A presbyter, therefore, is the same as a bishop” and that the bishops being appointed above the presbyters was “a custom, not by divine appointment” (Jerome, Commentary on Titus, PL 26:562-563, cited by James White in Perspectives on Church Government, Five Views of Church Polity, Broadman and Holman, 2004, p. 251-252) shows that the deepest and oldest history is that local churches had two offices 1. elders (overseers, who teach and shepherd the flock or do the work of pastors) and 2. deacons (servants, ministers); and that it was later that the office of bishop (episcopos/overseer) was separated out from and made above the college of plurality of elders for each church.

In I Clement 42, he shows that there are only 2 church offices, bishops (elders) and deacons.

In I Clement 44, he clearly shows that the bishop/overseer/episcopos is the same office as elder/presbyter.

The evidence in I Clement is that Clement himself is not a “pope”, as the Roman Catholics claim, but the moderator or secretary spokesman or “president”, in the words of Justin Martyr for the college of elders from the church at Rome. This is one church writing to another church.

“The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.” ( I Clement preface before paragraph 1)

I Clement rebukes the Corinthian church for deposing the elders there who have served faithfully. (42-44, 47, 54) He calls what the Corinthians have done, by getting rid of the presbyters, “a detestable and unholy schism, so alien and strange to those chosen by God” (paragraph 1) The Corinthians got rid of their elders out of jealousy and arrogance, as the rebuke of jealousy and pride is a major theme of this letter: (paragraphs 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6; 9; 16; 43-44; 46; 54 ) He exhorts the Corinthians to humility and repentance. (1: 7-8 and 1:13; 48, 57)

“Therefore it is right and holy, brothers, that we should be obedient to God rather than follow those who in arrogance and unruliness have set themselves up as leaders in abominable jealousy.” (1:14 – Michael Holmes’ translation. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations of Their writings. Second Edition. J. B. Lightfoot and J. R. Harmer, editors and translators. Micheal Holmes, editor and reviser. Baker Books, 1992, p. 43.)

“It is disgraceful, dear friends, yes, utterly disgraceful and unworthy of your conduct in Christ, that it should be reported that the well-established and ancient church of the Corinthians, because of one or two persons, is rebelling against its presbyters.” (I Clement 47:6)

“Only let the flock of Christ be at peace with its duly appointed presbyters.” ( I Clement 54)

These are principles that Protestants would agree with - local church authority of a plurality or college of elders and another church encouraging them to follow that pattern and the Scriptures.

2.  Sola Scriptura in principle

Clement also exhorted the church of the Corinthians to go back to the Scriptures:

“Let us study the records of the things that have happened from the beginning. Why was our father Abraham blessed? Was it not because he attained righteousness and truth through faith?” (I Clement, 31)

He quotes from the epistle to the Hebrews in I Clement 36, several times, which shows the early church affirmed it as Scripture very early on; even though some others in other places struggled with accepting it as canonical.

In I Clement 45, he gives a good description of inspiration and inerrancy – “You have searched the Scriptures, which are true, which were given by the Holy Spirit; you know that nothing unrighteous or counterfeit is written in them. You will not find that righteous people have ever been thrust out by holy men.”

In I Clement 47, he again points them back to the Scriptures and says, “Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the apostle. What did he write to you in the beginning of the gospel?  Truly he wrote to you in the Spirit about himself and Cephas and Apollos, because even then you had split into factions.”  If Peter was the first Pope, or if the illustration of Jason's about siding with Peter if there was a tie in voting with 6 apostles vs. 6 apostles on an issue, "they would side with Peter (Cephas)".  Well, if there was any truth to that "Peter principle" - why didn't Paul use it in 1 Corinthians to solve the disunity problem?  Instead Paul said, "do not go beyond what is written".  If that "Peter principle" was true, why didn't Clement use it in 1 Clement?  He didn't, instead he wrote, "Take up the epistle of Paul that he wrote to you, O Corinthians!"  Go back to the Scriptures  "do not go beyond what is written" - 1 Cor. 4:6 - that would solve the issue of the party spirit and schisms and splits and personality cults.  No pope or bishop or bishop of bishops or council is appealed to. 

When we read the Scriptures on this issue and indeed, when we take up the letter of I Corinthians, we find the solution to the problem there. Paul wrote in I Corinthians 4:6, in the same context of the divisions and disunity and factions (1 Corinthians 1:10-11; 3:1-10; 4:1-6), “Do not go beyond what is written.” Paul gives them the Scriptural solution and Clement points them back to the bible. No papal encyclical here. Here in 1 Corinthians, Paul actually uses a general principle of a kind of early form of Sola Scriptura, even though all the Scriptures have not been written yet. “Do not go beyond what is written” surely refers to his exhortations and instructions in the letter itself, in dealing with the factions in the church, since he says, “I have applied these things figuratively to Apollos and myself.” It shows that the final authority is Scripture, not what a bishop or future pope or council says.

Added later Tuesday morning (10:00am), Dec. 11: 

1 Corinthians 4:6 - after saying "do not exceed what is written", the inspired apostle gives the reason and purpose for the command to not go beyond Scripture:  "so that no one of you may become arrogant in behalf of one against another."  There it is.  Too bad Stephen, bishop of Rome in 258 AD did not read nor obey the Scriptures here.  Cyprian, Firmillian and 85 other bishops from all over had to rebuke Stephen for his arrogance in claiming to be "bishop of bishops".   This is something very clear in early church history that proves that the Papal doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church is wrong and Jason Stellman should have known this.  Too bad Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 did not read nor obey 1 Corinthians 4:6 when he said "It is necessary for every human creature to be submitted to the Roman Pontiff in order to be saved."  (Papal encyclical "Unam Sanctum") 

Many other times Clement says, "thus it is written" and quotes from the OT extensively (all of Psalm 51 and Isaiah 53), and some from the NT and has many allusions from the NT.  

There are a couple of unknown quotes(23:4 and 46:2), and a couple that seem to be from the Apocrypha book of Wisdom of Solomon, but even those 2 are similar to canonical passages (one (Wisdom of Solomon 2:24 at 1 Clement 3:4) is close to Romans 5:12 and the other (Wisdom of Solomon 12:12 at 1 Clement 27:5).  Even so, Clement is not infallible and so we don't have to justify the mistakes that early church fathers and writers made.  1 Clement 25 and the use of the legend of the Phoenix bird is indeed strange, but all this proves that 1 Clement is not canonical Scripture, and shows how the early church has mixtures of false ideas within it.   Clement is not infallible nor a Pope (there was no such office or idea in the early centuries); and it also shows the important of using Scripture to judge the early church writers and never accept them as infallible; as only the Scriptures are infallible. 

3.  Justification by Faith Alone

Clement also has an early statement on justification by faith apart from good works wrought by us within us. Mediate on these beautiful biblically based words - 

“All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.” I Clement 32

It is clear that one of the earliest, if not the earliest non-canonical early church writings, 1 Clement, has 3 principles that are closer to the Protestant paradigm of "doing church" than the Roman Catholic paradigm. 

An Army of Scholars Studying Ancient Rome, the Church of Ancient Rome, and the Book of Romans

Some time ago, it was pointed out to me that Peter Lampe was a flash in the pan. That his work was insignificant.

Several days ago, Steve Hays suggested to me and several other of us that we look up Robert Jewett’s commentary on Romans (a $90.00 retail value!) and check out the information on Romans 16 and the early Roman church.

Matthew Schultz has done so, and the link to the pages is here. I highly recommend you take a look at this, if you’re interested in what the church in ancient Rome was like – my hope is to go through this and post some of the more relevant passages, but for now, this is an exceptionally rich source.

Meanwhile looking up more information on Robert Jewett, and I came across this:

D. THE ROMANS ARCHIVE IN HEIDELBERG
A large bibliography of critical studies on Paul's letter to the Romans written from 1830 onwards has been assembled and many of the articles and monographs have been copied and gathered into a research archive now located in Heidelberg. The list of titles is presently more than 1000 pages long, single spaced, and will probably grow to 1500 pages when the project is compete. At present approximately 25% of this bibliography is available either in duplicated form in the files of the Heidelberg archive or in the monograph collection associated with the project.

The plan is to scan the entire bibliography and in cooperation with the university computer office, to place it on a website that would be available to students and scholars around the world. Since more has been written on Romans, verse for verse, than on any other biblical writing, or indeed, any other classic in the western world, and since only partial bibliographies are presently available, this project would provide a significant service. We hope that by 2004 the photographic scans of the bibliography would be available to scholars, and that by 2008 each item would be available in a version that could be downloaded and searched. In view of the thematic range of Romans, this bibliography would be useful to scholars in a number of fields.

Background and Development of the Project
The initial bibliography has been collected by Peter Lampe in connection with his book, Die Stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1987, 1989); English translation, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003) and by Robert Jewett in connection with writing the Hermeneia Commentary on Romans since 1980, including a series of preliminary publications. The agreement to create a united research archive was made in 1995, to be located in Kiel where Lampe was serving as Professor of New Testament. When he was called to the chair in Heidelberg in 1999, an invitation was extended for Jewett to become a guest professor in connection with locating the archive here. An agreement on this was reached as Lampe negotiated his post with the university. The Evanston research archive was brought to Heidelberg in the summer of 2000 and was joined with Lampe’s archive in a renovated portion of the WTS building at Kisselgasse 1.

The scanning project is associated with the Forschungsstelle für die Wirkungsgeschichte des paulinischen Briefes an die Römer, attached to Lampe’s chair in Heidelberg.

[W]ith the commencement of a research grant for the bibliography project from the University of Heidelberg at the beginning of 2002, many of the technical aspects of the project have been researched and resolved; arrangements with the university computer center and the university library are in progress; the first staff persons were engaged; and the process of scanning with newly purchased equipment will begin later this spring.

The Need for a Comprehensive Bibliography on Romans
Romans is the only biblical book for which no comprehensive bibliography has been published; it remains the sole biblical writing on which a bibliographical article in the Theologische Rundschau article has never appeared. The reason for this is that the bibliography is so immense that no one has been able to master it...

While it is self evident that reliable, comprehensive bibliographies are needed in every field, the crucial role that Paul’s letter to the Romans has played in theological development since the Reformation makes this an urgent desideratum. Now that computerized techniques of assembling bibliographies are available, and scanning techniques well developed, it is possible to break this deadlock and make this rich research available to scholars everywhere. Since so many of the items in the current bibliography that have been located through library and journal searches are available only in limited locations, they are available only to those with the means and time to travel. Most scholars and theological students around the world do not have such resources. The development of an on-line bibliography with the full texts of these studies will thus contribute to the productivity of scholars. Increased access to the scholarship of other nations and earlier generations will also encourage ecumenicity.

The Scope and Organization of the Bibliography
The Romans bibliography is organized in three sections: introductory issues; studies related to specific pericopes; and theological, thematic studies. In view of the range of the argument of Romans and its decisive role in ecclesiastical debate over the centuries, the latter section includes most of the important themes in biblical theology. The table of contents for the bibliography is attached.

Scholarly studies from all over the world are included. Since there is such a large polemical literature on Romans, only critical items of scholarly interest are included For the most part such articles discuss the Greek terms and the historical and cultural background of the argument. Important theological studies are included but merely polemical articles defending ecclesiastical traditions are not. If all articles and books related to Romans were included, the bibliography would be twice or three times as large, and far less useful for scholarly work. Although Romans research in Europe and North America has long restricted its bibliographic interest to the North Atlantic, Joseph A. Fitzmyer’s commentary in 1993 listed hundreds of Italian, Spanish, Portuguese and Latin American items for the first time, some of which predated the development of the bibliographic surveys in Biblica, New Testament Abstracts, and Internationaler Zeitschriftenschau für Bibelwissenschaften und Grenzgebieten. Fully one third of his commentary consists of bibibliography he gathered over the years of working in the libraries of Italy and Spain. Jewett has conducted similar bibliographic surveys in Switzerland, Scandinavia, Germany, Great Britain, and the United States. The plan is for Lampe and Jewett to extend such surveys into the Netherlands and eastern Europe over the course of the next several years...

I'm amazed at the power of the Internet; I have said in the past that I believe that the Internet in our day will have the same kind of effect on the message of the Reformation that the printing press had in Luther's day.

As I said, I just found this off the cuff. It would seem as if the sheer weight of this effort has already had an immense effect on Roman thinking on the papacy. (See my articles on the non-existent early papacy). It will be interesting to follow up and see where all of this continues to lead.


Update: I do need to apologize. It was not Blogahon who was arguing that Lampe wasn't a serious scholar. On the other hand, Sean was noting that Lampe was "arguing from silence":

you should expand your reading a bit. There are many very smart and equally challenging Catholic theologians who don't argue from silence as much as Peter Lampe and who don't draw the same conclusions as your go to set of texts.

http://deregnisduobus.blogspot.com/2008/08/god-said-it-i-believe-it-but-what.html

And again:
You are very selective in the church historians that you embrace...very selective. Lampe's argument is one from silence and even if it wasn't it does not destroy the papacy.

http://deregnisduobus.blogspot.com/2009/01/bono-luther-and-seeds-of-modernity.html


It was another writer over there who was saying that Lampe was essentially not a serious scholar.

I have been unable to turn up any indication that serious scholarship is interested in his work. I haven't found any reviews discussing his work or that other scholars are basing their work on his. This suggests to me that Lampe is not quite in the mainstream as you think he is....

Again, Lampe doesn't seem to have made much inroad into scholarly discussions. Fly-leaf recommendations don't count, particularly if they are from liberal Catholics like Duffy who are on record as advocating for a weakening of the authority exercised by John Paul II and Cardinal Ratzinger.

http://deregnisduobus.blogspot.com/2008/09/scratching-surface-of-pivotal-passage.html

Built on Sinking Sand: The “Scriptural” Foundation for the Papacy (2)

I wanted to follow up with my look at the defense of the papacy that Scott Windsor gave (in conjunction with his “defense” of the Donation of Constantine).

I’ve already noted that he misunderstood or misrepresented what William Webster was saying about that document; I’ve also commented his “scriptural evidence”:

Scriptural Foundation:
Matthew 16:18 – “And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” Here we have Jesus bestowing upon Peter (whose name means “rock”) the foundation of the Church. In fact, in the Aramaic, which is what Jesus was likely speaking when speaking to His Apostles, and also the likely original language that the book of Matthew was written in, there is no distinction between the name “Peter” (Kepha) and the term for “rock” (kepha). Hence, if we stuck closer to the original language (instead of transliterating it to Greek and then English), that same verse would read something like: “… thou art Kepha, and upon this kepha will I build My Church.” This one verse alone is enough for one who has The Faith....

This notion is very thoroughly dismantled by an investigation of the earliest translations of the Gospel into the Syriac language, which itself is a later version of the Aramaic.

In my first response to this Scriptural argument, I cited David Garland (“Reading Matthew”, New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1995) contending that there is a very good possibility that the possible “underlying Aramaic” for the “petros/petra” wordplay (possibly “kepha/kepha” in the unknown Aramaic) may well have been “kepha/tnra” – which then separates the Greek “petros/petra” by more than just gender issues; it changes the whole meaning of the wordplay. And this “changed wordplay” greatly advances the (already likely) scenario that Peter is not “the rock” of that verse.

Following on what Garland pointed out, Everett Ferguson, in his “The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today” (Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996), also affirms that in the Syriac language, which is a later form of Aramaic, does indeed make the “kepha/tnra” distinction in existing Syriac translations of the Gospel of Matthew:

The difficulties of applying the rock to Peter come in the text of Matthew 16 itself.

(1) The wording does not naturally lend itself to this interpretation. On the surface level there is the change from the second person of direct address (“You are Peter”) to the third person of indirect address (“on this rock”). If the author of Matthew had wanted to say that Jesus intended to build the church on Peter, there were certainly less ambiguous ways of doing it.

(2) The Greek text of Matthew and some strands of the Syriac tradition (pertinent here because Syriac is a later form of Aramaic) make a distinction between the words for Peter and the Rock. They seem to understand a different referent for Jesus’ words.

(3) Aramaic perhaps could have made a distinction, as Syriac did, either by different words or by the distinction between masculine and feminine (preserved in Greek by different endings).

(4) At any rate, if Jesus used the same word with the same sense in both cases, the wordplay is lost. There is no wordplay if the same word is used twice with the same meaning [“kepha/kepha”]. A play on words requires similarities of sound, different meanings of the same word (possible here if Jesus used the same word, once for Peter and once for another “rock”), or different words with the same idea (again possible here if Jesus used two different expressions represented by different but similar words in Greek). The difference in Greek and some Syriac texts indicate that a wordplay was intended here.

(5) Nowhere else in the New Testament or earliest Christian texts is Peter understood as the foundation stone of the church. Where Matthew uses rock elsewhere in a symbolic sense, the reference is to the teachings of Jesus (Matt 7:24).

So like Garland, Ferguson here is citing Caragounis’s intensive look into the Syriac. The argument that many of us former Roman Catholics have heard all of our lives, that Jesus used the same word for both Peter and for the rock upon which he would build the church [“Thou art Kepha, and on this kepha”] is literally without foundation.

In a private email, “Constantine” has pointed out that, at Vatican I, Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick pointed out that there were no less than five different scenarios for that verse extant in the early church Schaff summarizes this:

But of the passage Matt. xvi., which is more frequently quoted by Popes and Papists than any other passage in the Bible, there are no less than five different patristic interpretations; the rock on which Christ built his Church being referred to Christ by sixteen Fathers (including Augustine); to the faith or confession of Peter by forty-four (including Chrysostom, Ambrose, Hilary, Jerome, and Augustine again); to Peter professing the faith by seventeen; to all the Apostles, whom Peter represented by his primacy, by eight; to all the faithful, who, believing in Christ as the Son of God, are constituted the living stones of the Church.

Truth Unites ... and Divides had also pointed this out in a comment, here.

The Schaff citation is Volume 1, “Creeds of Christendom,” pg 186, and can be found at this link.

And as for the “five different patristic interpretations,” that would be corroborated by primary-source research by William Webster.


Caragounis’s work supports the interpretation that it was “Peter’s confession” that is the “this petra” of Matt 16:18 – and according to Vatican I’s Archbishop Kenrick, this particular interpretation is supported by no less than forty-four patristic interpreters.

As another aside here: Ratzinger makes mention of the Caragounis work in his “Called to Communion.” He says that Caragounis’s work is “just as unconvincing as earlier interpretations of this sort.” (Pg 60, n. 14. But one wonders if he is exercising the Roman practice of “lying without lying” otherwise known as mental reservation. Ratzinger says that Caragounis's study “is just as unconvincing [to me] as earlier interpretations of this sort.” He of course concludes his note here without any effort at all to say precisely why it is unconvincing.

Needless to say, I'm not inclined to accept Ratzinger's word on this topic.

As Windsor says, "This one verse alone is enough for one who has The Faith, but for the Protestant opposition, they require more so let us go on."

In upcoming posts, I'll look at his treatment of this topic in the early church.

Built on Sinking Sand: The “Scriptural” Foundation for the Papacy

Scott Windsor here says “that (James) White and (William) Webster try to make [the case] that the entire doctrine of the papacy hinges on and/or was created due to this forged document. This could not be further from the truth.”

First, this is not at all what they said. Here is what they said:

In the middle of the ninth century, a radical change began in the Western Church, which dramatically altered the Constitution of the Church, and laid the ground work for the full development of the papacy. The papacy could never have emerged [as a political force in the Middle Ages] without a fundamental restructuring of the Constitution of the Church and of men’s perceptions of the history of that Constitution.

And of course, this “radical change” was that Rome began “foisting” the notion that it not only had spiritual “primacy” (always in question), but that it now also had temporal primacy -- that it could exercise sovereign authority over kings.

The real point that William Webster is making is that Rome has no problem in using lies, forgeries, whatever misinformation it can find to press into service the notion that the pope is in charge of the whole world.

Of course, that use of lies, forgeries, and fictions, has been well-documented.

But the fact that Windsor can get away with mis-stating White and Webster's true intention (and apparently this is an argument he has made in the past) is evidence of the true impoverishment that he and his like-minded fellows unknowingly suffering under.

On to what Scott says is the “scriptural evidence”:

Scriptural Foundation:
Matthew 16:18 – “And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” Here we have Jesus bestowing upon Peter (whose name means “rock”) the foundation of the Church. In fact, in the Aramaic, which is what Jesus was likely speaking when speaking to His Apostles, and also the likely original language that the book of Matthew was written in, there is no distinction between the name “Peter” (Kepha) and the term for “rock” (kepha). Hence, if we stuck closer to the original language (instead of transliterating it to Greek and then English), that same verse would read something like: “… thou art Kepha, and upon this kepha will I build My Church.” This one verse alone is enough for one who has The Faith....

This is the thing that I was taught was taught for years. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and so supposedly [no one can know this for certain] Jesus would have said, “You are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my church.”

This is ecclesiastical vaporware.

Never mind that we don't have any record of what Jesus said, other than the Scriptural record. So to base an argument like this one: the divine institution of the papacy, on the possibility that Jesus said “Kepha/kepha,” and then to require the rest of professing Christendom to accept this claim, is (a) arrogant, and (b) false.

Jesus did not ever mince words. If he were setting up a foundational structure of popes/bishops, we might have expected a clear and articulate word from him about what exactly he was going to “build”. According to Hebrews 1, Jesus Himself is “the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being. He sustains all things by his powerful word.”

Where is the “powerful word” on the papacy? Where is the powerful word on this “leadership for all time,” against which the gates of hell will supposedly not prevail?

Instead, an Aramaic word-play -- I should say, a possible Aramaic word-play, that nobody really understands -- is foundational to Roman and papal authority.

Both David Garland (“Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel”, New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1995) and Everett Ferguson (“The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today”, Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1996) point to the 1990 study by C.C. Caragounis, “Peter and the Rock” (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter)

Here’s Garland’s account:

C.C. Caragounis’s study of this passage carefully argues, however, that the rock refers to something other than Peter. The demonstrative pronoun “this” [in the phrase “on this rock”] logically should refer to something other than the speaker or the one spoken to and would be appropriate only if Jesus were speaking about Peter in the third person and not speaking to him. If Jesus were referring to Peter, it would have been clearer to have, “You are Rock, and upon you I will build my church” (Caragounis 89). Petros usually meant a free-standing “stone” that could be picked up; and petrausually was used to mean “rock,” “cliff,” or “bedrock.” But the two terms could reverse their meaning and no clear-cut distinction can be made between the two (Caragounis, 12, 15). If the two words were intended to refer to the same thing, petros could have been used in both places since it could be used to mean both stone and rock. The use of two different terms in the saying, petros and petra, implies that the two were to be distinguished from each other.

The appeal to a hypothetical Aramaic saying is not decisive. Caragounis contends that if an Aramaic word lay behind the Greek petra, it was probably tnra (compare the Syriac version). According to Caragounis, each of the two words in the word-play has a separate referent and a separate meaning (Caragounis, 90). The word-play (Petros, petra) has two foci, similarity and dissimilarity. ”Petros has given utterance to a petra, but the petra is not Petros.” The similarity is “in the sound and general sense.” The dissimilarity is in the meaning of specific reference. Petros, a man’s nickname, refers to a stone; petra refers to bedrock, the content of his confession (Caragounis, 109). The assertion “you are Peter” is a solemn affirmation formula to introduce what follows: “As surely as you are [called] Petros, on this rock of what you have just said I will build my church” (Caragounis, 108-113).

Ferguson takes Caragounis’s work even further, analyzing not only the Syriac, but also the language into the Old Testament, and I'll get into that in the next installment.

Meanwhile, if Jesus ever did speak of the papacy, he did it in terms like this:

Luke 14: Now he told a parable to those who were invited, when he noticed how they chose the places of honor, saying to them, “When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in a place of honor, lest someone more distinguished than you be invited by him, and he who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Give your place to this person,’ and then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at table with you. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

The papacy is an office that clearly, having been invited to the table as a leader of the church in the capital city of the empire, made a conscious and sustained effort to take a place of honor, which Jesus himself said “is not mine to give” (Matt 20:23).

Scott Windsor on the Papacy: The Donation of Constantine

I’ve wanted to get back to this topic not merely because I said I would, but because I believe, with Robert Reymond, that Rome’s exegesis of Matthew 16 and its historically developed claim to authoritative primacy in the Christian world simply cannot be demonstrated and sustained from Scripture itself. This claim is surely one of the great hoaxes foisted upon professing Christendom, upon which false base rests the whole papal sacerdotal system.

Now, to be sure, if it is a hoax, and “foisted upon professing Christendom” to boot, then to be sure, it has caused great harm.

Scott Windsor (“CathApol”) takes issue with my statement that The Donation of Constantine was “a complete lie.” Windsor says, The “Donation of Constantine” was indeed a forgery, but it is not a “complete lie” in supporting the papacy. The “lie” is that it came from the 8th-9th century, and not Constantine. Statements regarding the papacy are factual and predate the forgeries, as you will see below.

The “lie” involves not only the actual content of the document, but then, how it was used. First, let’s look briefly at what that document was and how it was used in the late medieval world to assert papal power over secular rulers.

In the eighth century, Constantine was known primarily through the account of him in the legend of Pope Sylvester. In this he was incorrectly portrayed as an emperor who had persecuted Christianity until struck down with leprosy. On rejecting the suggestion of his pagan priests that he bathe in the blood of sacrificed babies, he had a vision of Saints Peter and Paul telling him to find Bishop Sylvester, who cured, healed and baptized him. Onto this core narrative was grafted the claim that when Constantine subsequently decided to leave for the East, out of gratitude he entrusted Pope Sylvester with a set of imperial regalia, including a crown, and with the authority for himself and his successors to appoint an emperor in the West should circumstances ever require it. (Roger Collins, “Keepers of the Keys of Heaven,” New York: Basic Books (2009) 148-149)

Derek Wilson, in his biography of Charlemagne, is a bit more descriptive:

[This document] told a dramatic tale of the emperor going as a leprosy-inflicted supplicant to Pope Sylvester I, receiving Christian baptism at his hands and being in the same instant miraculously healed. This story, based on the Old Testament account of the healing of Naaman (2 Kings 5), was a total fabrication. Constantine was not baptized until the very end of his life, in 337, two years after the death of Sylvester. But it was a good story and an impressive prologue to what followed. In gratitude, so the document claimed, Constantine made a spectacular gift of his own authority to Sylvester and his heirs forever:

We decree that the sacred See of Blessed Peter shall be gloriously exalted even above our Empire and earthly throne … as over all churches of God in all the world … We convey to Sylvester, universal Pope, both our palace and likewise all provinces and palaces and districts of the city of Rome and Italy and of the regions of the west.

In other words, papal territory had for centuries been an independent state and had ever been part of the [French] exarchate. The so-called Donation of Constantine was a thoroughgoing forgery, made for a specific purpose, at a particular place and time. It was the means chosen to achieve a specific end in a desperate situation, and it doubtless did not occur to the criminals who created it that it would be used to excuse a millennium of political intrigue, wars and carnage. (Derek Wilson, “Charlemagne” New York: Doubleday (2006) 23-24).

The document itself, a complete fabrication, was used to twist the arms of kings in that day and for many centuries beyond. It set up the tensions -- an untenable situation, really, that made the “break” of the Reformation so much more dramatic.

As the Catholic Encyclopedia notes, “Gregory VII himself never quoted this document in his long warfare for ecclesiastical liberty against the secular power. But Urban II made use of it in 1091 to support his claims on the island of Corsica. Later popes (Innocent III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV) took its authority for granted (Innocent III, Sermo de sancto Silvestro, in P.L., CCXVII, 481 sqq.; Raynaldus, Annales, ad an. 1236, n. 24; Potthast, Regesta, no. 11,848), and ecclesiastical writers often adduced its evidence in favour of the papacy.” We can see some of the further “fruit” of that document also in, for example, the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam, in which another pope is still emphasizing his superiority over another French king. (In this document, Boniface VIII proclaims that “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”)

In fact, the legend behind this document is quite a bit older than the eighth century. As I’ve noted, there were a tremendous number of legendary documents and forgeries cropping up around first of all, the person of Peter in the second century, and later around the office of Bishops of Rome after the time of Constantine. Among these was a document known as The Acts of Sylvester. Shotwell and Loomis briefly describe this document, “originating, as they probably do, before the period of our study is over, and making bold capital for the Roman See out of the renown of the Great Constantine by ascribing that emperor’s bodily healing and religious conversion of the agency of the Roman bishop Sylvester. Ignored at first by every reputable historian, this fable made its way, gathering volume as it went, re-enforced eventually by a forged Donation, until it had imposed upon all Europe the conception of Silvester as the potent influence behind Constantine’s most striking measures and of Constantine himself as the dutiful servant of the See of Peter.”

This “Acts of Sylvester,” they classified, as among “the apocryphal achievements of the early bishops, the spurious acts, miracles and decrees attributed to them, invented apparently, as the apocryphal Acts of Peter were invented, to enhance the popular reverence for the supposititious doer.”

As Wilson had noted about the Donation, the exact circumstances of the creation of this legend is unknown. But not only was it a “complete lie,” but as Reymond noted, it was one of the with many inventions, fictions, and forgeries, that not only became dogma, but which then was “foisted upon the world” in the service of the insatiable Roman quest for power.

Windsor says that “Statements regarding the papacy are factual and predate the forgeries, as you will see below.” My hope in the next few posts is to treat each of the statements he gives in support of the papacy, to show that these, as well, are part of the same weave of misunderstanding that led to the “development” of the papacy.

The Late Development of the Bishop of Rome

John Bugay has posted on Hermas and the structure of the early Roman church before. I don't have anything original to add to that discussion.

However, I'd like to provide some corroboration by Roman Catholic scholars Raymond Brown and John Meier, whose book received both the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur (bold mine):

There is no doubt that it [The Shepherd of Hermas] was written at Rome (Vis. 1.1.1.; 2.1.1; 4.1.2); and the suggestion that Clement would send it abroad (Vis. 2.4.3) may mean that Hermas' revelations had church status in Rome...[characterizing the letter] Bernard ("Shepherd" 34-35) may be closer to the mark: "Thus I Clement, like Hermas, is a Christian work which leans heavily on late-Jewish and early Jewish-Christian tradition and apologetics, and this raises the question as to the composition of the Roman Church in the late first and early second centuries. There would appear to be grounds for thinking that the influence of the Jewish-Christian element in the Church remained strong into the second century." I would rephrase slightly, for I think of Rome as containing a dominant Jewish/Gentile Christianity that had strong loyalties to Jerusalem and the Jewish tradition. The author of Hermas may have been ethnically a pure Gentile, but he would be representative of that continuing strain of Christianity. The indication that there was still a church structure of presbyter-bishops and deacons⁴³³ indicates how conservative the Roman church was.¹

The footnote (#433) referenced above reads (bold mine):

433. See p. 163 above. All the references to presbyters and bishops are in the sections that some would judge chronologically early. However, if the men sitting on the bench in Man. 11.1 are presbyters, then the structure of presbyter-bishops lasted into the 140s. Telfer, Office 61, however, thinks it unquestionable that by the time Hermas was finished there was a single-bishop at Rome.²

Page 163 (and the previous page) reveals the following discussion (bold mine):

An older generation of Roman Catholic scholars assumed that the single-bishop practice was already in place in Rome in the 90s or earlier; and they opined that, as fourth pope (third from Peter), Clement was exercising the primacy of the bishop of Rome in giving directions to the church of Corinth. The failure of Clement to use his own name or speak personally should have called that theory into question from the start, were there not other decisive evidence against it. As the ecumenical book Peter in the New Testament (done by Roman Catholics and Protestants together) affirmed, the connection between a Petrine function in the first century and a fully developed Roman papacy required several centuries of development, so that it is anachronistic to think of the early Roman church leaders functioning as later popes (see footnote 275 above). Moreover, the Roman episcopal list shows confusion...All of this can be explained if we recognize that the threefold order of single-bishop, with subordinate presbyters and deacons, was not in place at Rome at the end of the first century; rather the twofold order of presbyter-bishops and deacons, attested a decade before in I Peter 5:1-5, was still operative. Indeed, the signal failure of Ignatius (ca. 110) to mention the single-bishop in his letter to the Romans (a very prominent theme in his other letters) and the usage of Hermas, which speaks of plural presbyters (Vis. 2.4.2) and bishops (Sim. 9.27.2), make it likely that the single-bishop structure did not come to Rome till ca. 140-150.³

Some observations:

1. This work received both the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur. It therefore carries more general weight than those whose only qualifications as Catholic apologists are a keyboard and an internet connection.

2. Brown and Meier are established Catholic scholars. They therefore carry more weight than otherwise unknown lay-Catholic apologists on the subject.

3. Brown and Meier state their position in direct contrast to previous generations of Roman Catholic scholars. Even on something as important as the nature of the church government of Rome, with particular application to the power and authority of the bishop(s) there, Catholic scholarship has not been consistent. This observation plays into a variety of problems with Roman Catholicism, some of which are fairly obvious.

4. There are lay-Catholic apologists who object to the term "Roman Catholic." This, however, is how Brown and Meier both refer to themselves and previous generations of scholars within their own denomination. If it's acceptable for Brown and Meier, and morally consistent with Catholicism proper (via the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur), it should be acceptable to lay-Catholic internet apologists.

____________

1. Antioch and Rome: New Testament Cradles of Catholic Christianity (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1983, 2004), 203-204.

2. Ibid., 204.

3. Ibid., 162-163.

Some concluding thoughts from the Called to Communion discussion 1

I’ve mentioned in the past that the issue of the early papacy (or rather the non-existent early papacy) is the “soft underbelly” of Roman claims. If anyone has been involved in these types of discussions – Catholic/Protestant – you know there is always something that can be brought up to evade or change the topic. (The phrase “oh yeah, but what about this…” comes to mind.)

I’ve outlined in another post what Roman Catholics have traditionally believed about the papacy, things which I believed in my early years (the 60’s and the 70’s) – and it’ll be useful to recap them here:

1. The pope is the chief bishop, primate, and leader of the whole Church of Christ on earth.

2. He has episcopal jurisdiction over all members of the Church.

3. To be a member of the Catholic Church, a man must be in communion with the Pope.

4. The providential guidance of God will see to it that the Pope shall never commit the Church to error in any matter of religion.

(Source, Adrian Fortescue, “The Early Papacy”)

These four items are things that are said always to have been believed – and Vatican 1 etched them into stone, so to speak. But these thing are said to have been believed back into the earliest days of the church. From the beginning, according to some.

Fortescue goes on to state that the underpinning, further, revolves around these three foundational elements:

But all of this depends on something else, he said. "All of this depends further on three more theses, into which we cannot enter here." (Pg 51)

These three theses that he did not touch are:

1. "That our Lord gave these rights to the Apostle St. Peter."

2. "That St. Peter must have a successor in them."

3. "That his successor is the Bishop of Rome."

Ratzinger tried to defend these three theses in his “Called to Communion.” And some time ago, I started to get into this and analyze it – it is a genuinely weak set of arguments, given what we know today.

* * *

Peter Lampe’s work (which we know as “From Paul to Valentinus: Christians in Rome During the First Two Centuries”) was first published in Germany in 1987. This work was not a first-of-a-kind work by any stretch. It was sort of a tying together of a lot of disparate threads of thought, which had started more than half a century prior. Here is a summary of some of the major efforts that I’ve found:

In 1927, James Shotwell and Louise Loomis compiled virtually every document that had been used in support of the papacy from the first five centuries of the church (“The See of Peter,” New York and Oxford: Columbia University Press, ©1927, 1955, 1991). These were grouped roughly into “three distinct sets of texts on the ascendancy of the Papacy within the Roman Catholic Church.”

Without going into detail, the vast majority turned out to be, at best, a “curious and less respectable set of documents, the popular apocryphal literature, which grew up around the figure of Peter almost as soon as reliable records began, literature sprung from misconceptions and confusions or else frankly fictitious.”

In the 40’s, 50’s, and 60’s, a Lutheran theologian named Oscar Cullmann wrote a major study, “Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr” (the first English translation Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953). In this work, Cullmann analyzed both the theological claims of the papacy (and provided major exegetical studies of Matthew 16:17-19 and related texts). As well, he analyzed the historical literature in tremendous detail, in order to ascertain Peter’s role in the early church, as well as the concept of “succession.” He concluded among other things:

The original Church was led by [Peter], and he led it only in its earliest period. For as soon as the foundation for this leadership is laid, Peter will give it up. Another, James, will take it over in Jerusalem, while Peter will concentrate entirely on his missionary work and will do so, indeed, in a subordinate role under James.

This later subordination of Peter under James is a fact important in every respect. It confirms first of all that the leadership of the Church by Peter also has its significance for us chiefly as a starting point. [This is a point that Cullman has been making throughout: the fact that Peter is "first" is a unique fact. There is no "successor" to Peter. Any leadership role that was given to Peter, any primacy, was completed by this time. It was non-continuing in any way.].

James is the actual head of the Church from the moment that Peter dedicates himself completely to missionary work. The memory of that fact was steadily retained in the whole of Jewish Christianity, which took an interest in the ancient traditions. According to Hegesippus, “The brother of the Lord, James, takes over the leadership of the Church with the Apostles. (Citing Eusebius E.H. II, 3, 4).

Particularly important is the fact that the Pseudo-Clementina, which are friendly to Peter, clearly subordinate Peter to James. Peter has to “give an accounting” to James, “the bishop of the holy Church.” To him Peter sends his public addresses, and [Pseudo-]Clement calls him [James] “Bishop of Bishops,” “leader of the holy church of the Hebrews and of the churches founded everywhere by God’s providence. [Pseudo-]Clement traces Peter’s commission to him [Clement] back to a commission that James gave to Peter. These late reports thus agree with what we can learn concerning James from the letters of Paul and the book of Acts.

[In other words, any "Petrine succession" to Clement came through a commission to James. This document, by the way, was one of the documents that was widely believed for hundreds of years, known as the "Pseudo-Isidore Decretals."]

It will not do, however, to make some such objection as that Peter went to Rome just at that time in order to “transfer” the primacy from Jerusalem to that place. In reality Peter does not leave Jerusalem in order to transfer the primacy elsewhere; he leaves rather to spread the Gospel. But the significant thing, as said, is that in relation to the new leadership at Jerusalem he does not continue in some superior position, as though James were only his substitute, or were only Bishop of the church at Jerusalem, already sunk to the position of a local church. He rather subordinates himself to the authority of James as the central government. (Cullman, “Peter,” 224-226).

There is more to this, and I’d love to publish it some time.

In 1969, Daniel William O’Connor published “Peter in Rome,” a critical study designed to look at the question of whether Peter actually ever was in Rome. And the answer there was “yes, but likely only at the end of his life. It is probable that he was martyred and buried there. His bones were never recovered.”

In 1973, there was a major work, “Peter in the New Testament,” subtitled “A Collaborative Assessment by Protestant and Roman Catholic Scholars (© 1973 Augsburg Publishing House. I have a Wipf and Stock reprint). This work was edited by Raymond Brown, Karl Donfried and John Reumann, “from discussions by” about nine different Roman Catholic and Lutheran scholars, as part of “the United States Lutheran—Roman Catholic Dialogue” that was going on, and its topic was “the Role of the Papacy in the Universal Church.

The conclusion of this group was really to have raised more questions than they answered, and at the end, the reader was referred to the second phase of this work, a patristic study “co-chaired by the Ref. Dr. A.C. Piepkorn of Concordia Seminary, St. Louis, Missouri, and by Professor J. McCue of the School of Religion at the State University of Iowa (Iowa City).

I have not been able to track down this work, but a 2004 survey by a Franciscan priest Rev. Adriano Garuti (“Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Ecumenical Dialogue” San Francisco: Ignatius Press) summarizes the Catholic-Lutheran dialogue this way:

In spite of a certain rapprochement (which is unthinkable if it is confronted with the theory of the papacy formulated by the First Vatican Council), it is impossible to overlook the controverted points which still exist, especially concerning the ius divinum and the fullness of the power of the Bishop of Rome (pg 193).

Dr. Peter Lampe is a Lutheran scholar who is one of the signatories of the 1998 document that was presented in advance of the “Joint Declaration on Justification,” which strongly suggested that that “Joint Declaration” was a mistake.

* * *

As I mentioned, Lampe’s study came out in 1987. In 1989, the Vatican began its own historical study. The results of this study have not been published, as far as I know. (If they had found something favorable, don’t you think they would be crowing about it? But instead, what came out of that, was the 1995 encyclical, Ut Unum Sint, in which we see the spectacle of a pope asking for theological input on ways “to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation.”)

Shortly thereafter, the Vatican held a “theological” symposium on the papacy in 1996, and the strongest reassurances for the papacy that came out of that was, “we are aware of development in the papacy” … “Peter was the leader of the apostles” … “the bishop of Rome is [somehow] the successor of Peter, based on the fact that Peter and Paul died in Rome…”

The symposium is characterized by its properly doctrinal nature, aimed at extracting the essential points of the substance of the doctrine on the Primacy, according to the Catholic Church's conviction of faith...

In addition, there was a document of “reflections” published, just to keep everyone “on the same page,” that is, “These "Reflections" - appended to the symposium - are meant only to recall the essential points of Catholic doctrine on the primacy…” – this is now what it is essential to believe.

THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH
Reflections of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect
Tarcisio Bertone, Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary

No longer are the boastful claims made by Fortescue a part of the calculation. As much as possible, historical considerations have been stripped from “what it is now essential to believe”.

Note this paragraph from the conclusion of that theological symposium, written by Ratzinger:

On the basis of the New Testament witness, the Catholic Church teaches, as a doctrine of faith, that the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter in his primatial service in the universal Church;13 this succession explains the preeminence of the Church of Rome,14 enriched also by the preaching and martyrdom of St Paul.

Note the bone given to Paul, although Peter and Paul were “Founders” of the church at Rome. Note also that somehow, in some undefined way, it is “the New Testament witness” where this “succession” “explains” “the preeminence of the Church of Rome”.

This “explanation” may be found in Ratzinger’s “Called to Communion,” and I will say here, that it is such a tremendous stretch, that I find it to be laughable. (You may not, but then again…)

The summary of that document is:

13. … it is essential to state that discerning whether the possible ways of exercising the Petrine ministry correspond to its nature is a discernment to be made in Ecclesia, i.e., with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and in fraternal dialogue between the Roman Pontiff and the other Bishops, according to the Church's concrete needs. But, at the same time, it is clear that only the Pope (or the Pope with an Ecumenical Council) has, as the Successor of Peter, the authority and the competence to say the last word on the ways to exercise his pastoral ministry in the universal Church.

So, in effect, "nanny-nanny-boo-boo on you."

Nevertheless, there is going to be a “last word” on the papacy; it is forthcoming, and it is going to be the result of these historical studies that these Called to Communion folks are mocking and dismissing right now.