Faith and Fibonacci

If Catholicism doesn’t make sense to you, do not become Catholic. Really.  We mean that. Catholics believe that faith must be reasonable. And when Christ said to “come let us reason together” he was encouraging us to base our beliefs on that which corresponds to reality. And if after you study, truly study Catholicism with an open mind and spirit, it doesn’t seem to correspond with reality nor with logic nor with the Bible, then we would not want you to go against your conscience, nor your common sense.

Finding Truth

In general, Catholics believe that the fullness of Truth doesn’t come downloaded into one’s mental hard drive at birth, at baptism or with any revelation or by the Holy Spirit. Then all the born-again Christian has to do is just dig deeply into themselves to find Truth. No, truth is other than we are. It is outside us. However, humans have been given the capacity by God to recognize truth when it is presented. We are expected to have the “ahaa!” moment when we discover the Truth.  

And when Truth is presented to us, it is supposed to make sense.

Catholics believe that faith must be based upon reason. Faith should never be illogical or create cognitive dissonance in your thinking. Faith isn’t about accepting blindly that 2 + 2 = 5. If that is what any faith feels like to you, there is a true problem. I’m not saying truth is easy to understand, not by any stretch. Truth can be as complex as quantum physics, but once you get it, you should be able to see that it is in line with reality.

Let me explain with a personal experience.

I don’t want to sound critical, but I need to make a point using what I know. When I was a Seventh-day Adventists I thought faith was accepting or at least struggling with all your might to accept something as true that didn’t seem rational. If you keep to superficial Adventism and Sabbatarianism, you don’t see the illogic.  But when you start in-depth studying of Ellen White’s writings comparing them to her other writings and then to the Bible, you have to either let go of logic and have a blind faith that it somehow made sense to someone smarter than yourself or you have to conceal your panic and pray your faith would survive this continual onslaught of disorienting theology.

Then, when my husband and I left the SDA church and entered the wide swath of Protestantism, theology seemed to be much more acquainted with the real world and the Bible. Yet, the more we studied in different denominations, we began to recognizes that same old rule of faith we heard within Adventism. Faith is about the struggle to believe that which is irrational. Just believe. Have simple faith.

Protestant theology didn’t seem to work on the minute level but on a general, overarching level. I felt pressured to accept the illogical, both on an individual and on a broad basis.

When I would question an individual denomination about how their interpretation conflicted with scripture, instead of answering my question, I would hear often, “Don’t study yourself out of the church! Just have simple faith.” Which meant to me, “We don’t have an answer, accept the illogical.” When those words are in the context of a warm, godly smile it can send you into despair, for it makes you feel you are being unfaithful to God not to just accept irrationality.

On a broader basis, Protestantism is a battle of cognitive dissonance. They claim the Bible is the sole authority and it is the infallible Word of God, but then they took out books that didn’t fit their theology and tell each Protestant that they can trust their own personal interpretation of this infallible truth. So when truly sincere, brilliant Christian scholars, who can fluently read scripture in its original languages all come up with different interpretations of truth and morals, we have the recipe for moral chaos. That is irrational. 

Truth isn’t up to us to decide. The belief that Christ left moral decisions up to the individual to figure out by using a textbook hasn’t worked out well. The outcome has been disunity and moral confusion. That isn’t rational. 

I found the Protestant idea of faith as confusing as the Adventist idea of faith, just in different ways. Faith to them seems to be about believing the unbelievable. 

Catholic Faith

Perhaps faith isn’t supposed to be accepting the irrational. Perhaps faith is something different. Catholicism has taught me that faith is based upon reason. It isn’t accepting something that makes no sense. It is imagining that there is more, an extension of what we already know into what we do not know.

Take for example the Fibonacci sequence of numbers: 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, ... These are rational numbers placed in a sequence that is understandable when we are taught that we add the first two numbers to get the third then we add that number to the next one to get fourth number such as: 0 + 1 = 1, 1 + 1 = 2, 1 + 2 = 3 and so on.  These are not random numbers, but they build upon each other to make a pattern. They are a rational pattern. If a snarky elementary student were to ask a teacher, “What are the Fibonacci numbers in googolplex?” The teacher would respond, “I don’t know them precisely because we haven’t yet counted up to that point, but we know for a fact these sequences can go on into infinity because it is based upon rational processes.”

We can make a pretty good about what we don’t know based upon what we do know. 

Catholics idea of faith is like this. We add together scripture, philosophy, tradition, historical documents and archeology and present them in a reasonable way in order to allow someone to conclude that it is reasonable to believe in Christ as well as the Catholic Church. Protestants faith seemed more to me, like unrelated numbers strung together without thought and we are asked to believe they make sense. 

You may need a teacher to explain how Catholic doctrines are reasonable, as it may not be evident by just a cursory look, but the more you study Catholicism, it doesn’t ask anything irrational of you. That makes me feel.... at peace and within reality.

So if Catholicism doesn’t do that for you, you shouldn’t be Catholic. However, we do ask that you don’t just throw it all up because it is hard to understand. Perhaps, if left alone you wouldn’t have understood the Fibonacci numbers either. Let a good Catholic apologist explain it, just as you would want a good algebra teacher to explain algebra. Catholic faith makes sense. It isn’t about blind faith.

Here is another good article on the subject of the early church:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/authority-of-the-first-popes

By:

 Fr. Longenecker

 From the Standing on My Head! Website

 I'm a former Evangelical, then an Anglican priest, now a Catholic priest.

Authority of the First Popes

The Chair of St Peter

The Early Church and the Development of the Papacy

The Trail of Blood





Some time ago an acquaintance from my days as a fundamentalist sent me an email. Kevin had become a Baptist pastor and was disappointed that I had been “deceived by the Catholic Church”. He wanted to know my reasons for becoming Catholic.

I get such emails from time to time, and rather than get involved in arguments about purgatory or candles or Mary worship or indulgences, I usually cut straight to the point and try to engage my correspondent with the question of authority in the Church.

Kevin told me that to follow the Pope was an ancient error, and when I asked where he got his authority he promised to send me a book called The Trail of Blood. This book, written by a Baptist pastor called J.M.Carroll explains that Baptists are not really Protestants because they never broke away from the Catholic Church. Instead they are part of an ancient line of “true and faithful Biblical Christians” dating right back through the Waldensians and Henricians to the Cathars, the Novatians, Montanists and eventually John the Baptist.” This view is called Baptist Successionism or Landmarkism and it is also taught by John T Christian in his book,The History of the Baptists.

Baptist Successionism is a theory more theological than historical. For the proponents, the fact that there is no historical proof for their theory simply shows how good the Catholic Church was at persecution and cover up. Baptist Successionism can never be disproved because all that is required for their succession to be transmitted was a small group of faithful people somewhere at sometime who kept the flame of the true faith alive. The authors of this fake history skim happily over the heretical beliefs of their supposed forefathers in the faith. It is sufficient that all these groups were opposed to, and persecuted by, the Catholics.

Most educated Evangelicals would snicker at such bogus scholarship and many more are totally ignorant of the works of J.M.Carroll and the arcane historical theories of Baptist Successionism. Nevertheless, the basic assumptions of Baptist Successionism provide the foundation for most current independent Baptist explanations of early Church history, and these assumptions are the foundation for the typical independent Baptist understanding of the Church. The assumptions about the early church are these: 1) Jesus Christ never intended such a thing as a monarchical papacy 2) The church of the New Testament age was de-centralized 2) the early church was essentially local and congregational in government. 3) The church became hierarchical after the conversion of Constantine in the fourth century and 4) the papacy was invented by Pope Leo the Great who reigned from 440 – 460.


Just the Facts

The basic assumptions the typical Evangelical has about the papacy are part of the wallpaper in the Evangelical world. Being brought up in an independent Bible Church, I was taught that our little fellowship of Christians meeting to study the Bible, pray and sing gospel songs was like the ‘early Christians’ meeting in their house churches. I had a mental picture of ‘Catholic Pope’ which I had pieced together from a whole range of biased sources. When I heard the word ‘pope’ I pictured a corpulent Italian with the juicy name “Borgia” who drank a lot of wine, was supposed to be celibate, but who not only had mistresses, but sons who he called ‘nephews’. This ‘pope’ had big banquets in one of his many palaces, was very rich, rode out to war when he felt like it and liked to tell Michelangelo how to paint. That this ‘pope’ was a later invention of the corrupt Catholic Church was simply part of the whole colorful story.But of course, the idea that the florid Renaissance pope is typical of all popes is not a Catholic invention, but a Protestant one. Protestantism has been compelled to rewrite all history according to it’s own necessities. As French historian Augustin Thierry has written, “To live, Protestantism found itself forced to build up a history of its own.”

The five basic assumptions of non-Catholic Christians can be corrected by looking at the history of the early church. Did Jesus envision and plan a monarchical papacy? Was the early church de-centralized? Was the early church essentially local and congregational? Did the early church only become hierarchical after the emperor was converted? Did Leo the Great invent the papacy in the fifth century? To examine this we’ll have to put on one side the preconceptions and mental images of Borgia popes and get down to ‘just the facts ma’am.’


Did Jesus Plan a Monarchical Papacy?


Jesus certainly did not plan for the inflated and corrupt popes of the popular imagination. He intended to found a church, but the church was not democratic in structure. It was established with clear individual leadership. In Matthew 16.18-19 Jesus says to Simon Peter, “You are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it.” So, Jesus established his church not on a congregational model, but on the model of personal leadership.

Was this a monarchical papacy? In a way it was. In Matthew 16 Jesus goes on to say to Peter, “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” This is a direct reference back to Isaiah 22.22, where the prophet recognizes Eliakim as the steward of the royal House of David. The steward was the Prime Minister of the Kingdom. The keys of the kingdom were the sign of his personal authority delegated by the king himself.

Jesus never intended a monarchical papacy in the corrupt sense of the Pope being an absolute worldly monarch, but the church leadership Jesus intended was ‘monarchical’ in the sense that it was based on his authority as King of Kings.


The Early Papacy – 2

The reference to Isaiah 22 shows that the structure of Jesus’ kingdom was modeled on King David’s dynastic court. In Luke 1.32-33 Jesus’ birth is announced in royal terms. He will inherit the throne of his father David. He will rule over the house of Jacob and his kingdom shall never end. Like Eliakim, to whom Jesus refers, Peter is to be the appointed authority in this court, and as such his role is that of steward and ruler in the absence of the High King, the scion of the House of David. That Peter assumes this pre-eminent role of leadership in the early church is attested to throughout the New Testament from his first place in the list of the apostles, to his dynamic preaching on the day of Pentecost, his decision making at the Council of Jerusalem and the deference shown to him by St Paul and the other apostles.

Did Jesus plan the monarchical papacy? He did not plan for the sometimes corrupt, venal and worldly papacy that it has sometimes become down through history, but Jesus did plan for one man to be his royal delegate on earth. He did plan for one man to lead the others (Lk.22.32) He did plan for one man to take up the spiritual and temporal leadership of his church. This is shown not only through the famous passage from Matthew 16, but also in the final chapter of John’s gospel where Jesus the Good Shepherd hands his pastoral role over to Peter.


Was the early church de-centralized?

Independent Evangelical churches follow the Baptist Successionist idea that the early church was de-centralized. They like to imagine that the early Christians met in their homes for Bible study and prayer, and that in this pure form they existed independently of any central authority. It is easy to imagine that long ago in the ancient world transportation and communication was rare and difficult and that no form of centralized church authority could have existed even if it was desirable.

The most straightforward reading of the Acts of the Apostles shows this to be untrue, and a further reading of early church documents shows this to be no more than a back-projected invention. In the Acts of the Apostles what we find is a church that is immediately centralized in Jerusalem. When Peter has his disturbing vision in which God directs him to admit the Gentiles to the Church, he references back at once to the apostolic leadership in Jerusalem.(Acts 11:2)

The mission of the infant church was directed from Jerusalem, with Barnabas and Agabus being sent to Antioch (Acts 11:22,27) The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) was convened to decide on the Gentile decision and a letter of instruction was sent to the new churches in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia. (Acts 15:23) We see Philip, John Mark, Barnabas and Paul traveling to and from Jerusalem and providing a teaching and disciplinary link from the new churches back to the centralized church in Jerusalem.

After the martyrdom of James the leadership shifts to Peter and Paul. The authority is not centered on Jerusalem, but through their epistles to the various churches, we see a centralized authority that is vested in Peter and Paul as apostles. This central authority was very soon focussed on Rome, so that St Ignatius, a bishop of the church in Antioch would write to the Romans in the year 108 affirming that their church was the one that had the “superior place in love among the churches.’”

Historian Eamon Duffy suggests that the earliest leadership in the Roman church may have been more conciliar than monarchical because in his letter to the Corinthians, Clement of Rome doesn’t write as the Bishop of Rome, but even if this is so Duffy confirms that the early church believed Clement was the fourth Bishop of Rome and read Clement’s letter as support for centralized Roman authority. He also concedes that by the time of Irenaeus in the mid second century the centralizing role of the Bishop of Rome was already well established. From then on, citation after citation from the apostolic Fathers can be compiled to show that the whole church from Gaul to North Africa and from Syria to Spain affirm the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and Paul.

The acceptance of this centralized authority was a sign of belonging to the one true church so that St Jerome could write to Pope Damasus in the mid 300s, “I think it is my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul… My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!”


Was the Early Church Local and Congregational?

We find no evidence of a network of independent, local churches ruled democratically by individual congregations. Instead, from the beginning we find the churches ruled by elders (bishops) So in the New Testament we find the apostles appointing elders in the churches. (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5) The elders kept in touch with the apostles and with the elders of the other churches through travel and communication by epistle. (I Pt.1:1; 5:1) Anne Rice, the author of the Christ the Lord series of novels, points out how excellent and rapid the lines of communication and travel were in the Roman Empire.

In the early church we do not find independent congregations meeting on their own and determining their own affairs by reading the Bible. We have to remember that in the first two centuries there was no Bible as such for the canon of the New Testament had not yet been decided. Instead, from the earliest time we find churches ruled by the bishops and clergy whose authenticity is validated by their succession from the apostles. So Clement of Rome writes, “Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. Therefore for this reason… they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry.” Ignatius of Antioch in Syria writes letters to six different churches and instructs the Romans, “be submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to the Father and the Apostles to Christ…that there may be unity.”

This apostolic ministry was present in each city, but centralized in Rome. The idea of a church being independent, local and congregational is rejected. Thus, by the late second century Irenaeus writes, “Those who wish to see the truth can observe in every church the tradition of the Apostles made manifest in the whole world…therefore we refute those who hold unauthorized assemblies…by pointing to the greatest and oldest church, a church known to all men, which was founded and established at Rome by the most renowned Apostles Peter and Paul…for this Church has the position of leadership and authority, and therefore every church, that is, the faithful everywhere must needs agree with the church at Rome for in her the apostolic tradition has ever been preserved by the faithful from all parts of the world.”


Did the Church only become hierarchical after Constantine?


Independent Evangelicals imagine that the church only became hierarchical after it was ‘infected’ by the emperor Constantine’s conversion in 315. At that time, they argue, the monarchical model came across from the court of the emperor and the church moved from being independent, local and congregational to being a centralized, hierarchical arm of the Roman Empire.

The Early Papacy – 3
As we have seen, the idea of a monarchical papacy was there from the beginning in Jesus’ identity as the Great scion of David the King with Peter as his steward. The steward, like the king he served, was to be the servant and shepherd of all, but he was also meant to rule as through the charism of individual leadership. This form of governance was hierarchical from the beginning for it is grounded in Jesus’ own concept of the Kingdom of God. A kingdom is hierarchical through and through, and the church, as Christ’s kingdom is hierarchical from its foundations. Furthermore, the leadership of the Jewish church (on which the Christian church was modeled) was hierarchical with it’s orders of rabbis, priests and elders.

Obedience to the bishop as the head of the church was crucial. So Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Christians at Smyrna and condemns individualistic congregationalism in terms that are clearly hierarchical: “All of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the Apostles; respect the deacons as ordained by God. Let no one do anything that pertains to the church apart from the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop or one who he has delegated….it is not permitted to baptize or hold a love feast independently of the bishop.”

The hierarchical nature of the church is confirmed and sealed through the apostolic succession. Church leaders are appointed by the successors of the apostles, and there is a clear chain of command which validates a church and it’s ministry. So Ireneaeus writes, “It is our duty to obey those presbyters who are in the Church who have their succession from the Apostles..the others who stand apart from the primitive succession and assemble in any place whatever we ought to regard with suspicion either as heretics and unsound in doctrine or as schismatics…all have fallen away from the truth.”

Throughout the New Testament and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers the church is portrayed as centralized, hierarchical and universal. The need for unity is stressed. Heresy and schism are anathema. Unity is guaranteed by allegiance to the clear hierarchical chain of command: God sent his Son Jesus. Jesus sent the Apostles. The Apostles appointed their successors. The Bishops are in charge. So Clement of Rome writes, “The Apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus the Christ was sent from God. Thus Christ is from God, the Apostles from Christ. in both cases the process was orderly and derived from the will of God.”


Was Leo the Great the First Pope?


The term ‘pope’ is from the Greek word ‘pappas’ which means ‘Father.’ In the first three centuries it was used of any bishop, and eventually the term was used for the Bishop of Alexandria, and finally by the sixth century it was used exclusively for the Bishop of Rome. Therefore it is an open question who was the first ‘pope’ as such.

The critics of the Catholic Church aren’t really worried about when the term ‘pope’ was first used. What they mean when they say that Leo the Great (440-461) was the first pope is that this is when the papacy began to assume worldly power. This is, therefore, simply a problem in definition of terms. By ‘pope’ the Evangelical means what I thought of as ‘pope’ after my Evangelical childhood. By ‘pope’ they mean ‘corrupt earthly ruler’. In that respect Leo the Great might be termed the ‘first pope’ because he was the one, (in the face of the disintegrating Roman Empire) who stepped up and got involved in temporal power without apology.

However, seeing the pope as merely a temporal ruler and disapproving is to be too simplistic. Catholics understand the pope’s power to be spiritual. While certain popes did assume temporal power, they often did so reluctantly, and did not always wield that power in a corrupt way. Whether popes should have assumed worldly wealth and power is arguable, but at the heart of their ministry, like the Lord they served, they should have known that their kingdom was not of this world. Their rule was to be hierarchical and monarchical in the sense that they were serving the King of Kings and Lord of Lords. It was not first and foremost to be hierarchical and monarchical in the worldly sense.

The Protestant idea that the papacy was a fifth century invention relies on a false understanding of the papacy itself. After the establishment of the church at Constantine’s conversion the church hierarchy did indeed become more influential in the kingdoms of this world, but that is not the essence of the papacy. The essence of the papacy lies in Jesus’ ordination of Peter as his royal steward, and his commission to assume the role of Good Shepherd in Christ’s absence. The idea, therefore, that Leo the Great was the first ‘pope’ is a red herring based on a misunderstanding of the pope’s true role.


The Early Church Today


From the Reformation onward, Protestant Christians have fallen into the trap of Restorationism. This is the idea that the existing church has become corrupt and departed from the true gospel and that a new church that is faithful to the New Testament can be created. These sincere Christians then attempt to ‘restore’ the church by creating a new church. The problem is, each new group of restorationists invariably create a church of their own liking determined by their contemporary cultural assumptions. They then imagine that the early church was like the one they have invented.

All of the historical documents show that, in essence, the closest thing we have today to the early church is actually the Catholic Church. In these main points the Catholic Church is today what she has always been. Her leadership is unapologetically monarchical and hierarchical. Her teaching authority is centralized and universal, and the pope is what he has always been, the universal pastor of Christ’s Church, the steward of Christ’s kingdom and the Rock on which Christ builds his Church.

Connecting the Dots Between the Early Church and Catholicism, Part I

Many Protestants think the Catholic church began with Constantine and the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. However, Catholics claim that their church goes all the way back to Jesus giving Peter the Keys to His Kingdom in Matthew 16:18. And this is not an insignificant Christian disagreement.

I have been at a loss to show inquirers how the Catholic Church was the church Christ started. For Orthodox and Catholics it is somehow so assumed, that it would be like my children asking me to prove I am married to their father. Our marriage license, I hope, is back in our storage in Texas as well as wedding photos. It will take a great deal of time, travel, expense and digging for me to prove without a doubt that I am legally married to my husband. (Especially if my kids wouldn’t accept a current copy of an old document.)

That is kind of how I feel about my Protestant brethren’s question. But it is a very valid question that needs to be answered. Yet, I have found few resources that are condensed, in one small volume that I can hand to them that would be convincing. So I will attempt try a short and longer version of connecting the dots from the first century church to the fifth century church (as this is the period when Protestants believe that the church picked up pagan ideas and corrupted the church, thus taking away its authority.)

What dots?

Physical Dots: First we need a physical line of successors: Peter appoints a leader to pass on the faith after he dies and then that guy appoints a leader and so on. That’s a simple task.

Authority Dots: Secondly, we need find out through early church sources who the members saw as authoritative and what the church leaders taught about authority. Did the church see Peter’s successors as having the same authority Peter did? Was there a centralized authority in Rome?

Doctrinal Dots: What did the early church teach? Can we link the early church to the Catholic Church today through doctrines?

Here’s why this is vital to understand. If the Protestants are correct and the church was seeped in paganism to the point of irrevocably corrupting it and God abandon His church before the time of Constantine and a new church formed calling itself Catholic, then we must rationally question the canon of scripture, the Trinity doctrine, the doctrines surrounding the Divinity of Christ. For it was after Constantine that the Bible was compiled and declared infallible. It was the Catholic church (then corrupted as Protestants claim) that met in councils and decided dogmas, doctrines and disciples that even Protestants go by today.

Therefore, if there is sufficient evidence that the earliest church believed much the same things as the church of Constantine and this is what it believes today and it saw Peter’s successors as having authority and there was a centralized authority in the bishops and Rome in particular, then we have, in a sense, connected Peter with whoever the new pope is going to be. Of course, this is not exhaustive but a superficial look into the subject. But it is eye-opening for those who believe that the early church looked more like Protestantism than Catholicism.

If you can trust the first century Christians and show that they were very connected by authority and doctrine to the fourth and fifth century Christians, we can have full faith that the church when it created the New Testament and compiled the Bible. Its Councils were sound. That same Holy Spirit was guiding them as a group, as a Body, throughout the centuries.

You don’t want to read a book and I don’t have time to write one. But here’s a start. First I will show you a quick chart of evidence by half century and then I will source the evidence from the early church fathers below it. If you have any to add let me know. 

Connecting the Dots Between the Early Church and Catholicism, Part II

Physical Dots:

I used Wikipedia because it is non-partisan. But there are many other sources. 

Pontificate	Name
33 – 64/67	Peter
64/67(?) – 76/79(?)	Linus
76/79(?) – 88 /92	Anacletus (Cletus)
88/92 – 97	Clement I
97/99 – 105/107	Evaristus

105/107 – 115	Alexander I
115/116 – 125	Sixtus I
125 – 136/138	Telesphorus
136/138 – 140/142	Hyginus
140/142 – 155	Pius I
155–166	Anicetus
c.166 – 174/175	Soter
174/175 – 189	Eleuterus
189 – 198/199	Victor I
199-217	Zephyrinus

c.217 – 222/223	Callixtus I
222/223 – 230	Urban I
230- 235	Pontian
235– 236 (44 days)	Anterus
236- 250	Fabian
251-253	Cornelius
253- 254	Lucius I
254-257	Stephen I
257- 258	Sixtus II
259- 268	Dionysius
269-274	Felix I
275- 283	Eutychian
283- 296	Caius
296-304	Marcellinus

308–309	Marcellus I
c.309 – c.310	Eusebius
311-314	Miltiades (Melchiades)
314-335	Sylvester I

Authority Dots:

Was the Early Church organized with a central authority?

While many Evangelicals mimic what they believe the early church looked like-- casual, homey with no rituals, meeting in homes for independent Bible study, praise time and prayers and ending with a potluck, this is a false understanding. 

In the Acts of the Apostles and early Church Father’s documents and archaeological discoveries, we find a highly ritualized, formal church. Men stood on one side, the ladies on the other. Though churches were in homes, the homes were usually renovated to look very formal with liturgical designs and altars, candles, and an eight-sided baptismal font.

Jerusalem was the place of authority and the first general council of the Christian church, recorded in Acts 15, it unilaterally decided that circumcision was no longer needed. After the AD 70 destruction of the Temple, Rome slowly became the new central authority of the church.

As early as AD 92, Clement the bishop at Rome, wrote a letter using his authority to the church members of Corinth. In AD 108 martyr and bishop of Antioch, Ignatius, called the church at Rome “superior” among the churches. There is no record of any church considering itself independent from the others at this time and church affairs were decided by the local bishops, not in democratic vote from everyone reading the Bible. The traveling Apostles united the churches. 

Doctrinal Dots: 

Below is a list of doctrines I have compiled so far that were known at least by the date the bishops were addressing the doctrine. Most likely they were known well before the time they were written about. I have them grouped by half-century. This is not a complete list by any means, just some of the more debated doctrines between Catholics and Protestants. Each doctrine will be sourced below this section more fully with quotes and authors of early church fathers and other witnesses. This is more for those needing a quick scan.

AD 50-100

• Authority

Linus, then Clement leaders of Rome (possibly referred to in II Tim .4: 21 and Phil. 4: 3).  The authoritative letter of Clement so broadly used that Ethiopian NT included it until the 16th century. Heresy dealt with by bishops, proving their authority.

• Verbal Confession

• Sunday, The Lord’s Day, gathering for Communion.

• Reports that Mary gave birth without pain, evidence of her lack of original sin.

• Use of OT Septuagint (Catholic Bible) as scriptures in Didache, Letter of Barnabas, Epistle of Clement

• Unified church, unified symbols, rites, liturgy

• Heavenly entities intercede for humans with prayers.

100-150

• Authority

Ignatius letters state that to follow Christ, you must follow bishops.

• Use of OT Septuagint (Catholic Bible) as scriptures by Bishop of Smyrna, Polycarp

• Penance

• Eucharist, Real Presence

• Tradition as well as scripture authoritative.

• Mary, ever virgin

150-200

• Eucharist, Real Presence

• Mary, full of grace
• Veneration of relics

• Purgatory

• Bishops deal with heresy

• Bishop of Rome being called “pope”and known universally as last word on church matters.

• Widespread knowledge that Peter and Paul set up Roman church and the bishop of Rome is leader. 

• Apostolic succession

• Verbal public confession

• Oral tradition still as authoritative as written tradition

• Old Testament Septuagint Canon cited as scripture

• Infant baptism

• Local church councils, but they recognize ultimate authority at Rome

200-250

• Rome clearly the authority over all church, acknowledged by bishops

• Infant Baptism

• Confession to priest/ Penance/ Priests have authority to forgive sins

• Old Testament Septuagint (Catholic Bible) quoted as scripture

• Oral as well as written Tradition considered authoritative

• Intercession of Saints

• Bishops deal with heretics

• Eucharist

• Mary Immaculate, ever virgin and full of grace, her role in salvation

• Church Councils deal with heresy and church government. The local councils of Carthage and the general councils at Rome. 

250-300

• Intercession of Saints

• nuns and priestly celibacy dealt with in councils as if they were long around.

• Veneration of Relics

Connecting the Dots Between the Early Church and Catholicism, Part III

SOURCES OF DOCTRINAL TIMELINE

If you are interested in reading the sources and/or quotes of the early Church Fathers on the doctrines above, here they are: 

Timeline with Quotes

AD 48/49 

The book of Acts 15 records the first Christian Church Council. It took place in Jerusalem. This is a visible church with God’s appointed leadership deciding on laws for the whole church. It unilaterally said, without appealing to explicit Old Testament passages, that circumcision is out. This was not left for individual Christians to decide according to their consciences, it was law from then for Christians and letters were sent out to all the churches with this decree. The Church, begun by Christ and given His Holy Spirit guided the leaders in their decision.

AD 67-78 

The leader, after the death of St. Peter in Rome, was Linus (possibly referred to in II Tim. 4:21) 

We know that St. John in his vision recorded in Revelation, saw the seven churches in Asia Minor as well as the church-planting of St. Paul. So at this time we know the church was spreading and that they were still under the authority of the Apostles and those the Apostles chose as leaders such as Timothy and Titus. 

AD 70 

Confession

Confess your sins in church, and do not go up to your prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of life. . . . On the Lord’s Day gather together, break bread, and give thanks, after confessing your transgressions so that your sacrifice may be pure. (Didache 4:14, 14:1). 

Mary, Full of Grace

[T]he report concerning the child was noised abroad in Bethlehem. Some said, ‘The Virgin Mary has given birth before she was married two months.’ And many said, ‘She has not given birth; the midwife has not gone up to her, and we heard no cries of pain.’" (Ascension of Isaiah 11). 

[Ten years later] So the Virgin became a mother with great mercies. And she labored and bore the Son, but without pain, because it did not occur without purpose. And she did not seek a midwife, because he caused her to give life. She bore as a strong man, with will . . . " (Odes of Solomon 19 [A.D. 80]). 

Old Testament Canon (Septuagint with Deuterocanonical's or Apocrypha) 

You shall not waver with regard to your decisions [Sirach 1:28]. Do not be someone who stretches out his hands to receive but withdraws them when it comes to giving [Sirach 4:31]" (Didache 4:5). 

AD 74

Confession (and denominations)

You shall not make a schism, but you shall pacify those that contend by bringing them together. You shall confess your sins. You shall not go to prayer with an evil conscience. This is the way of light. (Letter of Barnabas 19). 

Old Testament Canon (Septuagint)

Since, therefore, [Christ] was about to be manifested and to suffer in the flesh, his suffering was foreshown. For the prophet speaks against evil, ‘Woe to their soul, because they have counseled an evil counsel against themselves’ [Is. 3:9], saying, ‘Let us bind the righteous man because he is displeasing to us’ [Wisdom 2:12.]" (Letter of Barnabas 6:7). 

By the word of his might [God] established all things, and by his word he can overthrow them. ‘Who shall say to him, "What have you done?" or who shall resist the power of his strength?’ [Wisdom 12:12]" (Letter to the Corinthians 27:5 [ca. A.D. 80]).

Pre- AD 79 

Pater Noster was the name of a mysterious Latin word square that has been found in many places from England to Mesopotamia. Two were found at Pompeii which would have to date back to before 79 AD when the city was destroyed.

Late first century...

Clement bishop of Rome, the companion of Paul mentioned in Philippians 4:3. With Paul in AD 57 in Phillipi. He assumed leadership position for church and wrote authoritative disciplinary letter to the people at Corinth.This Epistle was held in very great esteem by the early Church. The Epistle read in numerous churches, as being almost on a level with the canonical writings--in the Alexandrian ms., immediately after the inspired books. Clement of Rome wrote: 

Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on the question of the bishop’s office. Therefore for this reason . . . they appointed the aforesaid persons and later made further provision that if they should fall asleep other tested men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians, 44). 

The apostles received the gospel for us from the Lord Jesus Christ: Jesus the Christ was sent from God. Thus Christ is from God, the apostles from Christ. In both cases the process was orderly and derived from the will of God. (Letter to the Corinthians, ch. 42)

Heresy: Docetism begins Belief that Jesus' physical body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion; that is, Jesus only seemed to have a physical body and to physically die, but in reality he was incorporeal, a pure spirit, and hence could not physically die

AD 80

Intercession of those in Heaven

But those who are weak and slothful in prayer, hesitate to ask anything from the Lord; but the Lord is full of compassion, and gives without fail to all who ask him. But you, [Hermas,] having been strengthened by the holy angel [you saw], and having obtained from him such intercession, and not being slothful, why do not you ask of the Lord understanding, and receive it from him?’ (The Shepherd of Hermas 3:5:4). 

AD 110 

Authority/Penance/Unity

Bishop of Antioch, Ignatius, wrote several letters instructing the members to “be submissive to the bishop and to one another as Jesus Christ was to the Father and the Apostles to Christ . . . that there may be unity.” He also wrote to the churches about the authority of the bishops and the supreme authority of Rome: 

All of you follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and the presbytery as the apostles; respect the deacons as ordained by God. Let no one do anything that pertains to the church apart from the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is under the bishop or one who he has delegated . . . it is not permitted to baptize or hold a love feast independently of the bishop. (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, ch. 8)

Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Letter to the Romans 4:3).  [Giving Rome primacy]

For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of penance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Philadelphians 3). 

Eucharist not symbolic 

I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible. (Letter to the Romans 7:3). 

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1). 

AD 120

Oral Tradition

Papias, [bishop of Hierapolis] who is now mentioned by us, affirms that he received the sayings of the apostles from those who accompanied them, and he, moreover, asserts that he heard in person Aristion and the presbyter John. Accordingly, he mentions them frequently by name, and in his writings gives their traditions [concerning Jesus]. . . . [There are] other passages of his in which he relates some miraculous deeds, stating that he acquired the knowledge of them from tradition." (fragment in Eusebius, Church History 3:39). 

  

AD 135

Septuagint part of OT Canon. Polycarp of Smyrna wrote with the idea that the book of Tobit was scripture: 

When you can do good, defer it not, because ‘alms delivers from death’ [Tobit. 4:10, 12:9]. Be all of you subject to one another [1 Pet. 5:5], having your conduct blameless among the Gentiles [1 Pet. 2:12], and the Lord may not be blasphemed through you. But woe to him by whom the name of the Lord is blasphemed [Is. 52:5]!" (Letter to the Philadelphians 10). 

AD 150

Tradition

At that time there flourished in the Church Hegesippus, whom we know from what has gone before, and Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, and another bishop, Pinytus of Crete, and besides these, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and, finally, Irenaeus. From them has come down to us in writing, the sound and orthodox faith received from tradition." (Eusebius of Caesarea, Church History 4:21). 

AD 151 

Eucharist not symbolic

We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" ( Justin Martyr, First Apology 66). 

AD 155

Mary, Full of Grace

[Jesus] became man by the Virgin so that the course which was taken by disobedience in the beginning through the agency of the serpent might be also the very course by which it would be put down. Eve, a virgin and undefiled, conceived the word of the serpent and bore disobedience and death. But the Virgin Mary received faith and joy when the angel Gabriel announced to her the glad tidings that the Spirit of the Lord would come upon her and the power of the Most High would overshadow her, for which reason the Holy One being born of her is the Son of God. And she replied ‘Be it done unto me according to your word’ [Luke 1:38]" (Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho the Jew 100). 

AD 156

The veneration of relics is seen explicitly as early as the account of Polycarp’s martyrdom written by the Smyrnaeans in A.D. 156. 

AD 160

Purgatory/Intercessory prayer

And after the exhibition, Tryphaena again received her [Thecla]. For her daughter Falconilla had died, and said to her in a dream: ‘Mother, you shall have this stranger Thecla in my place, in order that she may pray concerning me, and that I may be transferred to the place of the righteous’" (Acts of Paul and Thecla). 

AD 170 

Heresy

Montanus, declared a heretic by Asian councils, again showing a centralized church with authority. 

AD 180 

Confession

Ireneaus talks about public confession (not explicit if it is before church or to priest alone.) (Against Heresies 1:22).  

Referring to bishop of Rome, “Pope”

You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Dionysius of Corinth, Letter to Pope Soter, in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).