Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
The Brown-Callam Debate
Click for welcome and introduction.
In 2000, Mr. David Brown, gospel preacher for the churches of Christ, and Fr. Daniel Callam, CSM, priest of the Congregation of St. Basil, debated for four extraordinarily illuminating evenings.
Free audio files (RealPlayer) of all 24 parts of this excellent debate can be downloaded here.
(Note: The audio file for Callam's first speech on night 2 is incomplete. A complete but much lower quality version of this speech in wma format can be downloaded by clicking here. )
DVDs of the debate can be purchased from World Video Bible School by clicking here.
In 2000, Mr. David Brown, gospel preacher for the churches of Christ, and Fr. Daniel Callam, CSM, priest of the Congregation of St. Basil, debated for four extraordinarily illuminating evenings.
Free audio files (RealPlayer) of all 24 parts of this excellent debate can be downloaded here.
(Note: The audio file for Callam's first speech on night 2 is incomplete. A complete but much lower quality version of this speech in wma format can be downloaded by clicking here. )
DVDs of the debate can be purchased from World Video Bible School by clicking here.
The Campbell-Purcell Debate
Google Books has a complete facsimile of A Debate on the Roman Catholic Religion by Restoration Movement leader and spiritual father of the churches of Christ Alexander Campbell and Bishop John B. Purcell. It's downloadable as a pdf for free.
Backward, Christian Solider
Click for Welcome and Introduction
Jeff Childers
c. 1998
Not too long ago, I was going through some old papers. I stumbled across a letter from a Church of Christ preacher, dated not long after I was received into the Catholic Church. The letter was sincere and well intentioned, if nor particularly calm or polite, and the gentleman was listing a number of Catholic doctrines and practices which were not clearly mentioned in the Bible.
“Show me from the Bible,” the preacher demanded, “what part candles play in true Christian worship!” (If fluorescent lights were good enough for the apostles...)
This may be absurd example, but as Catholics we face a constant challenge from our non-Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ who object to our belief in the development of doctrine. "For a church to be the New Testament church," writes David J. Riggs, echoing the sentiments of many active anti-Catholic fundamentalists, "it must be identical to the one in the New Testament...Churches today with variations in name, work, worship, etc., are not following the apostles' doctrine and, thus, are not one with the apostles.” 1
Most of the churches of our non-Catholic friends were established according to Mr. Riggs' pattern: believing the Catholic Church to be corrupt since her teachings and practices are not identical to the New Testament Church's, individuals studies the Bible, and adopted as their beliefs only what they believed they found therein.
As Catholics, we don't claim to be identical to the New Testament Church, but believe that the Church's teachings have developed over the years under the Spirit's guidance. As Vatican II explained:
"The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her."2
This is a controversy that's age-old: Should doctrine develop, or should we try to be identical to the biblical Church? Thinking about that question recently, it occurred to me that the answer could likely be found by examining exactly how both individual believers and the Church as a whole come to know what is true—and, if we learn from the way Jesus taught—what better way to do that than by telling a story. So, gather round, folks, for story hour.
Hambone's Journey
This is the story of a guy named "Hambone," and his journey of faith. It's a story not at all dissimilar from those of millions of faithful people everywhere, including many members of the Church of Christ--a noble tale of a good man's continuous quest for truth--his quest to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord.
Young Hambone, like the vast majority of people, believes in God. He doesn't have a very concrete idea of who or what God is, but his gut instincts and his reason tell him that there is a Creator, and that there is "someone up there" watching over him. Though he doesn't know very much about him, either, he respects Jesus as, at the very least, a good and noble man, a man of ethics and peace; he knows as well that a lot of people find themselves feeling closer to God through Jesus. One day, then, he decides that he wants to know more about this ancient Jewish carpenter.
He turns, of course, to the New Testament to find out about him. A little leery at first, since he realizes the New Testament was written by people who believed in Jesus as Savior--he wonders, reasonably enough if people with strongly held convictions can be trusted to accurately give an objective account of the focus of those convictions--in the end, he figures that the New Testament, particularly the Gospels, is by far the closest account of Jesus to his actual lifetime. So, for the first time in his life, Hambone sits down to really, truly study the Bible.
He finds himself very moved by the story of Jesus--by his message of love, peace, and justice. A chill runs down his spine as he reads of the torture and death of the Nazarene; another, when he reads of his triumphant resurrection. So moved is Hambone, that he wants to believe that the story is true, that the account is inspired of God.
What does he do? He prays. He reflects. He consults believers--posing questions to them and, more importantly, to himself.
At certain stages in his reflection, his reasoning brings up objections, reasons why the gospel might not be true. Could the resurrection not have been staged by the apostles? Could Jesus, he asks himself, not have merely been unconscious when removed from the cross? Isn't it possible that the texts of the New Testament have been altered through the ages? These are not, mind you, the cynical scoffings of a hardened skeptic, but honest questions from a sincere man at the very dawn of his life of grace. They are honest questions deserving of an honest answer, and there is no sin in his asking them.
What does he do? He prays. He reflects. He consults believers--posing questions to them and, more importantly, to himself. Hambone finally comes to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, and the scriptures as his written word. Confessing his new-found faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, he is baptized in the thrice holy name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Though, tragically, for many, this can be the end of the journey, not so for noble Hambone. He's committed and zealous--he passionately desires to spiritually mature, so he continues to prayerfully read and reflect upon the treasures of the scripture.
It comes to pass that our hero starts to wonder about the nature of Jesus Christ. The Lord's question to the apostles echoes through the hall of his memory: "Who do you, Hambone, say that I am? That's right, I'm talkin' to you!" Now, good old Hambone's faith is solid--there's no doubt in his mind that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God." But Hambone wants more than a memory verse--he longs for a deeper understanding of what this means. Like a parched deer jonesing for a pure stream, his soul cries out to truly know his Lord. Yep, he's got the Jesus jones, and he need his fix!
In all this excitement, new questions arise for poor Hambone. If Jesus and the Father are one, could Christ then be a unified Yahweh appearing in different modes at different times? If the Father is greater than the Son, and if the Father alone is good and alone knows the hour of the Day of Wrath, could Jesus not be the merely greatest of all creatures? After all, doesn't a Son come after his Father? And isn't God's only begotten Son the firstborn of all creation? But then again, the Word was with God and was God--so Jesus must be God, then, mustn't he? Could that mean there are two Gods? Throw the Holy Spirit in for good measure, and Hambone's in quite a pickle! Our friend Hambone's no arch-heretic: he's a sincere believer trying to better know his beloved Master. Though at any given point in his reflection, he may lean toward adopting an untrue position, this is just the natural course of open, honest study. Poor ol' Hambone even gets frustrated a time or two, and finds himself briefly wondering if this Jesus business is worth all the effort. After all, if he can't ever know anything with any certainty, why bother? Hambone truly loves his Lord, though, and he snaps out of his momentary funk, more determined than ever to understand the truth. So, what does he do? You guessed it! He prays. He reflects. He consults believers--posing questions to them and, more importantly, to himself. Eventually, he becomes convinced that Jesus of Nazareth is God the Son, coequal and coeternal with the Father.
And so it goes with Hambone for the rest of his life. He practically lives and breathes sacred scripture, always plumbing it for new depths of wisdom. After awhile, he pretty much masters the basics, the first principles of Christianity, but every reading of scripture sheds new light into the glorious mysteries of Jesus Christ. From time to time, new questions arise. Every time, he studies, prays, reflects, and joins together with his fellow Christians to find the answers. Sometimes, he'll find himself questioning something he thought was true and, upon diligent study, determine that he had been mistaken. Other times, he'll start to consider a new idea for awhile, but in the end determine that his original belief was correct.
This lifelong process of reflection--this is how Hambone came to know the truth, and, with some variety depending mostly on one's upbringing, the same way all faithful Christians come to know the truth. But Hambone, like all faithful Christians, never stops thirsting after the grace that is knowledge of the Lord--never considers himself fully learned of the truth.
The lifelong process of learning, the constant reflection on God's Word, even the temporary dalliances with innocent heresy and frustration--this is the life of the Christian, and it is a gloriously abundant life indeed!
Electa's Journey
If you'll be so kind as to humor this weaver of tales, I'd like to continue our story hour just a little longer. Let's look at another journey of faith. This time it's a lady, "Electa." Electa's no ordinary lady, that's for sure. First of all, she's more than just a little long in the tooth--going on 2,000 pretty quick-like. All her knicks and bruises make it awfully obvious she's done some serious time in the school of hard knocks, but the old girl's as sharp as a tack, and still going strong with no sign of stopping. She's a pretty lucky girl, too. Back in her day, it was very important for a young girl to be married off to a good man, and boy did she hit the jackpot! Electa's husband is none other than Jesus Christ himself. She always felt a little unworthy to receive such an honor--she didn't do anything to deserve it after all--but her hubby constantly reminds her that he chose her and not the other way around. "You are black but beautiful," he wrote her in a poem once, plus a lot of other nice things that still kind of make her blush.
She's different from other ladies in another way, too. See, most folks are, well, just the one person. Not Electa, brother. No, sir. Why, this old lady's made up of millions upon millions of people, spread throughout time and space, above, on and under the earth. She's a veritable assembly of people, called out by Jesus for salvation. A lot of people like to call her "the Church," and she's just fine with that.
Her journey of faith has been very much like Hambone's. While the Church is greater than the sum of her parts, in a very real way the life and journey of faith of the individual Christian is a microcosm of the life and journey of the Church. This Lady Electa, the Bride of Christ who, together with the Spirit, says, "come," (Rev.22:17) learned in her infancy, when she numbered only twelve, the truths of the gospel at the feet of Jesus Christ. Like the individual Christian, the Church ruminates and reflects on that gospel. As the centuries passed, new questions arose for her to reflect on.
Difficult questions for the individual; such as which ancient writings are inspired, what is the nature of Jesus Christ, and what is the interrelation between Father, Son, and Spirit; can be answered by the individual precisely because the Church as a whole spent four centuries asking questions, studying, consulting with one another, and praying. At times, individuals arose within her, often sincerely, on occasion maliciously, proposing answers to these questions which proved inadequate. Yet the Church always got through these difficult times--and did so, just like the individual Christian, by asking questions, reflecting on God's word, consulting with one another, and praying.
The only apparent difference between the Church's method of obtaining truth and that of the individual is that precious gift of God, his Holy Spirit, which guides and leads Holy Mother Church into all truth; a Spirit that is with her always, even to the end of the world. Such was the promise of God to his Church, spoken by the Prophet Isaiah centuries before her foundation: “This is the Covenant with them which I have made, says the Lord: My Spirit which is upon you and my words that I have put into your mouth shall never leave your mouth, nor the mouths of your children, nor the mouths of your children’s children from now on and forever, says the Lord. Rise up in splendor! Your light has come, the glory of the Lord shines upon you.” (Isaiah 59:20-60:1) It's only an apparent difference, though, because the individual can align himself with the Church, and let the wisdom of the ages be his guide along the long journey home.
The macrocosm follows after the pattern of the microcosm. Like the individual Christian, the Church is constantly learning, constantly finding new and deeper meaning in the precious revelation that is Jesus Christ, God the Eternal Word, a Word "once and for all" handed down to her through the apostles. (Jude 3) While never turning her back on the foundation of her beliefs, she constantly builds on that foundation with new insights gained from twenty centuries of contemplation, as St. Vincent explained 1,570 years ago:
"But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress...Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning...
"But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view, - if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practiced negligently should thenceforward be practiced with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils, - this, and nothing else, - she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.” (The Commonitorium)
If, then, the beliefs and practices of an elderly, life-long student of God's Word cannot be expected to be, and, indeed, should not be identical to those of his youth and immaturity sixty years prior, why should the modern Church, having matured 2,000 years, be identical in faith and practice to the Church of the New Testament? It seems to this storyteller that she should not.
Jeff Childers
c. 1998
Not too long ago, I was going through some old papers. I stumbled across a letter from a Church of Christ preacher, dated not long after I was received into the Catholic Church. The letter was sincere and well intentioned, if nor particularly calm or polite, and the gentleman was listing a number of Catholic doctrines and practices which were not clearly mentioned in the Bible.
“Show me from the Bible,” the preacher demanded, “what part candles play in true Christian worship!” (If fluorescent lights were good enough for the apostles...)
This may be absurd example, but as Catholics we face a constant challenge from our non-Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ who object to our belief in the development of doctrine. "For a church to be the New Testament church," writes David J. Riggs, echoing the sentiments of many active anti-Catholic fundamentalists, "it must be identical to the one in the New Testament...Churches today with variations in name, work, worship, etc., are not following the apostles' doctrine and, thus, are not one with the apostles.” 1
Most of the churches of our non-Catholic friends were established according to Mr. Riggs' pattern: believing the Catholic Church to be corrupt since her teachings and practices are not identical to the New Testament Church's, individuals studies the Bible, and adopted as their beliefs only what they believed they found therein.
As Catholics, we don't claim to be identical to the New Testament Church, but believe that the Church's teachings have developed over the years under the Spirit's guidance. As Vatican II explained:
"The tradition which comes from the apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts, through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For, as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her."2
This is a controversy that's age-old: Should doctrine develop, or should we try to be identical to the biblical Church? Thinking about that question recently, it occurred to me that the answer could likely be found by examining exactly how both individual believers and the Church as a whole come to know what is true—and, if we learn from the way Jesus taught—what better way to do that than by telling a story. So, gather round, folks, for story hour.
Hambone's Journey
This is the story of a guy named "Hambone," and his journey of faith. It's a story not at all dissimilar from those of millions of faithful people everywhere, including many members of the Church of Christ--a noble tale of a good man's continuous quest for truth--his quest to grow in the grace and knowledge of the Lord.
Young Hambone, like the vast majority of people, believes in God. He doesn't have a very concrete idea of who or what God is, but his gut instincts and his reason tell him that there is a Creator, and that there is "someone up there" watching over him. Though he doesn't know very much about him, either, he respects Jesus as, at the very least, a good and noble man, a man of ethics and peace; he knows as well that a lot of people find themselves feeling closer to God through Jesus. One day, then, he decides that he wants to know more about this ancient Jewish carpenter.
He turns, of course, to the New Testament to find out about him. A little leery at first, since he realizes the New Testament was written by people who believed in Jesus as Savior--he wonders, reasonably enough if people with strongly held convictions can be trusted to accurately give an objective account of the focus of those convictions--in the end, he figures that the New Testament, particularly the Gospels, is by far the closest account of Jesus to his actual lifetime. So, for the first time in his life, Hambone sits down to really, truly study the Bible.
He finds himself very moved by the story of Jesus--by his message of love, peace, and justice. A chill runs down his spine as he reads of the torture and death of the Nazarene; another, when he reads of his triumphant resurrection. So moved is Hambone, that he wants to believe that the story is true, that the account is inspired of God.
What does he do? He prays. He reflects. He consults believers--posing questions to them and, more importantly, to himself.
At certain stages in his reflection, his reasoning brings up objections, reasons why the gospel might not be true. Could the resurrection not have been staged by the apostles? Could Jesus, he asks himself, not have merely been unconscious when removed from the cross? Isn't it possible that the texts of the New Testament have been altered through the ages? These are not, mind you, the cynical scoffings of a hardened skeptic, but honest questions from a sincere man at the very dawn of his life of grace. They are honest questions deserving of an honest answer, and there is no sin in his asking them.
What does he do? He prays. He reflects. He consults believers--posing questions to them and, more importantly, to himself. Hambone finally comes to accept Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior, and the scriptures as his written word. Confessing his new-found faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, he is baptized in the thrice holy name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Though, tragically, for many, this can be the end of the journey, not so for noble Hambone. He's committed and zealous--he passionately desires to spiritually mature, so he continues to prayerfully read and reflect upon the treasures of the scripture.
It comes to pass that our hero starts to wonder about the nature of Jesus Christ. The Lord's question to the apostles echoes through the hall of his memory: "Who do you, Hambone, say that I am? That's right, I'm talkin' to you!" Now, good old Hambone's faith is solid--there's no doubt in his mind that Jesus is "the Christ, the Son of the living God." But Hambone wants more than a memory verse--he longs for a deeper understanding of what this means. Like a parched deer jonesing for a pure stream, his soul cries out to truly know his Lord. Yep, he's got the Jesus jones, and he need his fix!
In all this excitement, new questions arise for poor Hambone. If Jesus and the Father are one, could Christ then be a unified Yahweh appearing in different modes at different times? If the Father is greater than the Son, and if the Father alone is good and alone knows the hour of the Day of Wrath, could Jesus not be the merely greatest of all creatures? After all, doesn't a Son come after his Father? And isn't God's only begotten Son the firstborn of all creation? But then again, the Word was with God and was God--so Jesus must be God, then, mustn't he? Could that mean there are two Gods? Throw the Holy Spirit in for good measure, and Hambone's in quite a pickle! Our friend Hambone's no arch-heretic: he's a sincere believer trying to better know his beloved Master. Though at any given point in his reflection, he may lean toward adopting an untrue position, this is just the natural course of open, honest study. Poor ol' Hambone even gets frustrated a time or two, and finds himself briefly wondering if this Jesus business is worth all the effort. After all, if he can't ever know anything with any certainty, why bother? Hambone truly loves his Lord, though, and he snaps out of his momentary funk, more determined than ever to understand the truth. So, what does he do? You guessed it! He prays. He reflects. He consults believers--posing questions to them and, more importantly, to himself. Eventually, he becomes convinced that Jesus of Nazareth is God the Son, coequal and coeternal with the Father.
And so it goes with Hambone for the rest of his life. He practically lives and breathes sacred scripture, always plumbing it for new depths of wisdom. After awhile, he pretty much masters the basics, the first principles of Christianity, but every reading of scripture sheds new light into the glorious mysteries of Jesus Christ. From time to time, new questions arise. Every time, he studies, prays, reflects, and joins together with his fellow Christians to find the answers. Sometimes, he'll find himself questioning something he thought was true and, upon diligent study, determine that he had been mistaken. Other times, he'll start to consider a new idea for awhile, but in the end determine that his original belief was correct.
This lifelong process of reflection--this is how Hambone came to know the truth, and, with some variety depending mostly on one's upbringing, the same way all faithful Christians come to know the truth. But Hambone, like all faithful Christians, never stops thirsting after the grace that is knowledge of the Lord--never considers himself fully learned of the truth.
The lifelong process of learning, the constant reflection on God's Word, even the temporary dalliances with innocent heresy and frustration--this is the life of the Christian, and it is a gloriously abundant life indeed!
Electa's Journey
If you'll be so kind as to humor this weaver of tales, I'd like to continue our story hour just a little longer. Let's look at another journey of faith. This time it's a lady, "Electa." Electa's no ordinary lady, that's for sure. First of all, she's more than just a little long in the tooth--going on 2,000 pretty quick-like. All her knicks and bruises make it awfully obvious she's done some serious time in the school of hard knocks, but the old girl's as sharp as a tack, and still going strong with no sign of stopping. She's a pretty lucky girl, too. Back in her day, it was very important for a young girl to be married off to a good man, and boy did she hit the jackpot! Electa's husband is none other than Jesus Christ himself. She always felt a little unworthy to receive such an honor--she didn't do anything to deserve it after all--but her hubby constantly reminds her that he chose her and not the other way around. "You are black but beautiful," he wrote her in a poem once, plus a lot of other nice things that still kind of make her blush.
She's different from other ladies in another way, too. See, most folks are, well, just the one person. Not Electa, brother. No, sir. Why, this old lady's made up of millions upon millions of people, spread throughout time and space, above, on and under the earth. She's a veritable assembly of people, called out by Jesus for salvation. A lot of people like to call her "the Church," and she's just fine with that.
Her journey of faith has been very much like Hambone's. While the Church is greater than the sum of her parts, in a very real way the life and journey of faith of the individual Christian is a microcosm of the life and journey of the Church. This Lady Electa, the Bride of Christ who, together with the Spirit, says, "come," (Rev.22:17) learned in her infancy, when she numbered only twelve, the truths of the gospel at the feet of Jesus Christ. Like the individual Christian, the Church ruminates and reflects on that gospel. As the centuries passed, new questions arose for her to reflect on.
Difficult questions for the individual; such as which ancient writings are inspired, what is the nature of Jesus Christ, and what is the interrelation between Father, Son, and Spirit; can be answered by the individual precisely because the Church as a whole spent four centuries asking questions, studying, consulting with one another, and praying. At times, individuals arose within her, often sincerely, on occasion maliciously, proposing answers to these questions which proved inadequate. Yet the Church always got through these difficult times--and did so, just like the individual Christian, by asking questions, reflecting on God's word, consulting with one another, and praying.
The only apparent difference between the Church's method of obtaining truth and that of the individual is that precious gift of God, his Holy Spirit, which guides and leads Holy Mother Church into all truth; a Spirit that is with her always, even to the end of the world. Such was the promise of God to his Church, spoken by the Prophet Isaiah centuries before her foundation: “This is the Covenant with them which I have made, says the Lord: My Spirit which is upon you and my words that I have put into your mouth shall never leave your mouth, nor the mouths of your children, nor the mouths of your children’s children from now on and forever, says the Lord. Rise up in splendor! Your light has come, the glory of the Lord shines upon you.” (Isaiah 59:20-60:1) It's only an apparent difference, though, because the individual can align himself with the Church, and let the wisdom of the ages be his guide along the long journey home.
The macrocosm follows after the pattern of the microcosm. Like the individual Christian, the Church is constantly learning, constantly finding new and deeper meaning in the precious revelation that is Jesus Christ, God the Eternal Word, a Word "once and for all" handed down to her through the apostles. (Jude 3) While never turning her back on the foundation of her beliefs, she constantly builds on that foundation with new insights gained from twenty centuries of contemplation, as St. Vincent explained 1,570 years ago:
"But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress...Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning...
"But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view, - if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined to keep and guard it. Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practiced negligently should thenceforward be practiced with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils, - this, and nothing else, - she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.” (The Commonitorium)
If, then, the beliefs and practices of an elderly, life-long student of God's Word cannot be expected to be, and, indeed, should not be identical to those of his youth and immaturity sixty years prior, why should the modern Church, having matured 2,000 years, be identical in faith and practice to the Church of the New Testament? It seems to this storyteller that she should not.
Elders and Deacons: Two Views
Click For Welcome and Introduction
Jeff Childers
c. 1999
"I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed: Tend the flock of God in your midst."
1 Peter 5:1,2
Click For Welcome and Introduction
Jeff Childers
c. 1999
"I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and witness to the sufferings of Christ and one who has a share in the glory to be revealed: Tend the flock of God in your midst."
1 Peter 5:1,2
One of the many controversies which has led to division amongst Christians is the question of appropriate Church government. The two most prominent views are presbyterianism, rule by elders, and episcopalianism (2), rule by bishops. Churches which advocate presbyterianism include the Presbyterian Church, the Baptist Church, and the Disciples of Christ. Those advocating episcopalianism include the Episcopal Church, the Methodist Church, and the Orthodox Church. Most denominations consider Church government a relatively minor issue; while each Church would object to tampering with its own system of government, it does not necessarily condemn as heretics those who advocate alternate forms. The Church of Christ, a presbyterian Church, and the Catholic Church, an episcopal church, however, consider the question of appropriate Church governance among the fundamental issues of Christian truth. In this essay, we'll first briefly outline the two views, then discuss the unique conclusions to which the Church of Christ comes based on its view, and finally defend the Catholic view.
The Presbyterianism of the Church of Christ
The Church of Christ teaches that autonomous local churches are to be led by elders. These elders are to be men of the congregation who are married with children (known in certain circles as albundistic presbyterianism) and of reputable character. There are to be a minimum of two elders in each congregation, and there is, theoretically, no maximum number. Each elder is equal to the others, and there is no "presiding elder." The elders are assisted in their ministry by an order of deacons, who are also chosen from amongst the family men of good standing in the church. Churches of Christ do not reject episcopalianism outright, but argue that the terms "elder" and "bishop" (as well as "pastor") refer to the same office. (2) Many churches of Christ are without elders, in which case a variety exists in methods of church government, the most acceptable being the democratic rule of a parliament of all men in the congregation called the "business meeting." Amongst parliamentary churches, the business meeting is, at least on paper, a temporary situation, and the presbyterian ideal is exalted. In the Church of Christ, women are excluded from official ministry.
The Episcopalianism of the Catholic Church
The Catholic Church believes that Christ ordained his apostles as bishops, overseers of the Church. As they spread the gospel throughout the world, they chose men to be their successors as the shepherds of the People of God. This apostolic succession has continued to this day, and every region of the world is under a Catholic bishop. (3) Under the bishops are an order of elders. (4) The role of the elders is to assist the bishops in whatever capacity is necessary. Generally, each parish has a number of elders which has been assigned to it, to one of whom the bishop has delegated the authority of pastorate, which properly belongs only to the bishop. Catholics understand the bishops and elders to have received through ordination a sacrificial priesthood. Under the bishops and elders is an order of deacons who, while receiving a true sacramental ordination, do not share in the sacrificial priesthood. In the Patriarchate of Rome, bishops and elders are chosen from among men who have voluntarily embrace celibacy. Deacons of all rites are chosen from among both celibate and married men. The ordination of women is not allowed. (5)
The Assertion of the Church of Christ
The Church of Christ asserts that the differences between the two systems of Church government are severe enough to demonstrate that the Catholic Church is a false Church, having perverted the God-appointed structure of Christ's Church. When Christ established his Church through the apostles, he set up two orders of leadership in that Church-elders/bishops and deacons. Evidence for this can be found, the Church of Christ claims, in Acts 20:17 and 28, in which the same group of men is first referred to as "elders" and then again as "bishops." The same holds true in Titus 1:5 and 7, where St. Paul refers to the qualifications of "elders," and then refers to the same office as that of "bishop." In this passage the Church of Christ also sees evidence that there are to be a plurality of elders in each church, ruling out the Catholic monarchical episcopate.
The Assertion Taken At Face Value
Let us assume that everything asserted above by the Church of Christ is true. We will, for the moment, argue with nothing that they've stated, but grant them every point. Suppose that Christ through the apostles established a Church and placed over it only two orders, elders and deacons. Suppose that the development of a three-tiered hierarchy, with bishops, elders, and deacons, was a later development. Suppose that every time the Scriptures speak of elders or bishops, they refer to the same office. Granting the Church of Christ all of this, what is then proven about the structure of the Catholic Church? Answering this question requires us to look into the nature of divinely appointed authority.
Since the Church was founded by Jews within a Jewish culture as a fulfillment of the Jewish Covenant, it is practically impossible to properly understand Christianity without first understanding its foundation in Judaism. In Exodus 3, God chose Moses to lead the people of Israel out of Egyptian bondage. From that point forward, Moses served as a Pontiff-figure for the Israelites, ruling them as prophet, priest, and king. His authority was one specially ordained by God. In exodus 28 and 29, God established the priesthood, making Aaron his High Priest and other members of the Levitical tribe his priests. Both the Pontificate and the priesthood were authorities specifically ordained by God to rule his Chosen People. The Lord himself chose who would hold these offices, how they were to be ordained, and who would succeed them. Moses would be succeeded only once, by Joshua, while the line of succession from Aaron and the Levitical priests was to be perpetual. Here we see a principle of authority accepted under the New Covenant by both the Church of Christ and the Catholic Church-that we are bound to follow those who hold offices specifically set up by God.
The Pentateuch teaches us a second principle. As the people of Israel grew in the wilderness, Moses discovered that it was beyond the power of himself and the priests to lead them. Deuteronomy 1:9-15 tells how Moses handled this situation: "'At that time I (Moses) said to you, "Alone I am unable to carry you. The Lord, your God, has so multiplied you that you are now as numerous as the stars of the sky. May the Lord, the God of your fathers, increase you a thousand times over, and bless you as he promised! But how can I alone bear the crushing burden that you are, along with your bickering? Choose wise, intelligent and experienced men from each of your tribes that I may appoint them as your leaders." You answered me, "We agree to do as you proposed." So I took outstanding men of your tribes, wise and experienced, and made them your leaders as officials over thousands, over hundreds, over fifties, and over tens, and other tribal officers.'"
The Deuteronomist makes no attempt to attribute the establishment of this lower order of Israelite leaders to God himself. Considering the fact that aspects of Israelite life as mundane as the price of goods is presented often in the Books of Moses as coming directly from God, one can safely assume that the establishment of this lower order was done on Moses' own initiative, and not resulting from any special divine revelation. Here a second principle of divinely appointed authority is established. When God places men over his people, these men have the right to do whatever it takes, within the bounds of the Law of God, to rightly shepherd them. This means that leaders must pay attention to the signs of the times, and make rules which are relevant to the people in the cultural milieu in which they live. Often, this includes the delegation of authority. If an authority placed over the people delegates his authority to a lesser order, even if it an order which he has created himself, the people are bound to follow and respect the new order. Centuries later, when the existence of a Pontificate had long since passed from the Israelites, the lesser orders established by Moses continued to shepherd the people alongside God's priesthood, and, in his day, the Lord Jesus said of them: "The scribes and Pharisees have taken their seat on the Chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you" (Matthew 23:2,3).
If we look to the New Covenant, we find that Jesus himself only established one order to oversee the Church--the apostles. (6) All orders below the apostles were created by the authority of the apostles, and not directly by God. In Acts 1, the ordination of St. Matthias as an apostle to replace Judas is presented as the decision of St. Peter along with the other apostles and the entire community. St. Peter, quoting the Psalms, declared on his own initiative: "Let another his bishopric take" (Acts 1:20). The apostles actually cast lots to determine who would succeed Judas as an overseer.
It was another seven years before the next order arose in the Church, that of the diaconate. Notice that the creation of this order is, once again, done upon human initiative: "At that time, as the number of disciples continued to grow, the Hellenists complained against the Hebrews because their widows were being neglected in the daily distribution. So the Twelve called together the community of the disciples and said, 'It is not right for us to neglect the Word of God to serve at table. Brothers, select from among you seven reputable men, filled with the Spirit and wisdom, whom we shall appoint to this task, whereas we shall devote ourselves to prayer and to the ministry of the Word. The proposal was acceptable to the whole community, so they chose Stephen, a man filled with faith and the Holy Spirit, also Philip, Prochorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicholas of Antioch, a convert to Judaism. They presented these men to the apostles who prayed and laid hands on them" (Acts 6:1-6).
Surely Divine Providence played a role in these instances, just as it must have played a role in the lesser Mosaic orders of old. Still, in a world where the most mundane of events are attributed directly to divine blessing or curse, the absence of any mention of God's hand in these events speaks volumes. Is God not involved in these events? Of course he is! But he is involved providentially, having given to the leaders of his people his own authority: "As the Father has sent me, so I send you" (Jn. 20:21). And again, "Whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven" (Mt. 18:18). That leadership includes the delegation of authority.
Suppose, then, that everything argued by the Church of Christ is true. Suppose that the Bible knows of only two orders, bishops and deacons. Suppose that, just as the Church of Christ asserts, the establishment of a third order in between the bishops and the deacons was a purely human invention on the part of the bishops without any command from heaven. Suppose all of this is true; what of it? The bishops having been placed over the Church by Christ as it's overseers have the right--even the obligation--to pay attention to the signs of the times and make pastoral provisions so that the People of God can be appropriately ministered to. Though 2 bishops may have been sufficient to lead a local church of 1,000 people, when that church grew to include 10,000 families, the bishops, so that they would not wrongfully "neglect the Word of God," delegated their authority to worthy men to help shepherd the local church. Nothing could be more appropriate. The arguments of the Church of Christ, even if accepted as entirely accurate, prove nothing. We shall now see that, since the arguments of the Church of Christ are not entirely accurate, they prove less than nothing.
Elders and Bishops in the Bible: The Same?
There can be no doubt that the Scriptures at times use the words "elder" and "bishop" interchangeably to speak of the same office. Does this mean that there were not three orders in the early Church? Such a conclusion is faulty. It presupposed as uniformity in both structure and terminology which is anachronistic.
When the Church was established in Jerusalem, it remained as one congregation for several years. The overseers of this congregation were the apostles. Some seven years later, the apostles established the diaconate. After one of the first deacons, St. Stephen, was martyred, a persecution began which forced the people of the Church to spread, establishing other congregations. Several years later, St. Peter received a vision instructing him to begin spreading the gospel to the Gentiles. It was after this that churches became a worldwide phenomenon. Modern biblical scholars and historians tell us that the government of these churches varied. While all were subject to the bishops of the Church, not all churches had their own clergy. Many were charismatic in structure, meaning that those with particular gifts--miraculous and nonmiraculous--played important parts in the Church, but none were pastors in the true sense of the word. Others were guided by prophets, both true and false.(7)Other churches did indeed have their own apostolically appointed bishops and deacons and, by the end of the biblical period, many had bishops, presbyters and deacons.
Beyond this variance in structure, the churches also had a variance in terminology. Even among the churches which had clearly adopted the three tiered hierarchy found in Catholicism today, terms such as "bishop," "presbyter," "pastor," "guide," "Levite," and priest were used without uniformity. Even as late as 160 AD, St. Justin refers to the church leader as the "president."
This variation amongst the churches of the world caused a number of problems. It was difficult for the bishops of the Church to guide and teach infallibly those people whose faith lives rarely included the ordained ministers. Churches without clergy were generally disorderly and, with every member having equal say, many arguments were quite divisive. Even during the biblical time, we see a desire on the part of the apostles for a greater uniformity. Every local Church was to be under a bishop (again, the terminology may vary, but the truth remains the same), who would be assisted in ministering to his Church, which in many areas had already been divided by necessity into several congregations, by presbyters, who were in turn assisted by deacons.
We find this in the letters of St. John. These letters are among those known as the Catholic or General Epistles, because they were addressed, not to an individual or a specific church, but to Christendom in general. These letters circulated among the churches and were later declared to be inspired Scriptures. In the second and third letters, St. John does not refer to himself by name (his authorship role being a matter of Sacred Tradition rather than book, chapter, and verse), but calls himself "the Presbyter" (cf. 2 Jn. 1:1, 3 Jn. 1). Recognizing again that terminology was not uniform, the lack of the name of a specific presbyter implies that the audience would automatically associate the letter with a man who was the presbyter. Tradition--the same Tradition that associates the Apostle John with the community that developed these Epistles--holds that St. John was the Bishop of Ephesus prior to his banishment to Patmos.
We find this also in the Pastorals, especially St. Paul's letter to St. Titus. Tradition holds that St. Titus was the Bishop of Crete. It is true that the Apostle never calls him bishop; in fact, in this letter, he uses "bishop" and "elder" interchangeably to refer to those subordinate to Titus. It is clear, however, that Titus has full authority over the Church of Crete--a Church consisting of several congregations--including authority to choose, ordain, and discipline presbyters and the authority to excommunicate.(8)
It is amazing how quickly the Church embraced the three-tiered hierarchy once it was advocated by the apostles. By the second century, the Church all over the world was led by bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and the Church in every land today continues to be led by bishops, presbyters, and deacons, in a continuous succession from the apostles.
Catholics do not claim that the Scriptures present a clearly demonstrated pattern of Church leadership which is identical to the leadership in Catholicism, nor do we claim that every biblical church was governed in a Catholic way. Such would be both an abuse of Scripture--attempting to make it do what it was never intended to do, that is, serve as a complete pattern and guidebook for every aspect of Christian life--and anachronistic. If one can accept that it took seven years for the apostles to create the office of deacon--without any explicit commandment of God--to serve but one congregation, why is it so difficult to accept that it took a few decades for the entire Church to adopt the three-tiered hierarchy?
The Clergy: Married or Celibate?
Members of the Church of Christ will object that the hierarchy of the Catholic Church cannot be legitimate because Catholic bishops and presbyters do not meet the biblical requirements for bishops and presbyters. The Bible teaches that a bishop or a presbyter is to be married with faithful children. The Catholic Church ordains celibates to these offices. These man cannot, therefore, be true bishops or presbyters.
St. Paul writes in his letter to Titus: "(A)ppoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, on condition that a man be blameless, the husband of one wife, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious" (Titus 1:5,6). (9) What does this passage mean?
It should first be pointed out that the Catholic Church does not teach as doctrine that celibacy is essential to ordained ministry. Such a position would be impossible to reconcile with Scripture as well as history and even current Church practice. Many of the first bishops and presbyters, including St. Peter, were married men, and in the Eastern rites of the Church, married men continue to be regularly ordained as presbyters. In the Latin Rite of the Church, ordinarily only celibate men are ordained, but under certain circumstances even Latin priests can be married, for instance Protestant ministers who convert and wish to become priests. It is an issue of discipline, not of doctrine.
Can the discipline of celibacy in the Latin Church be justified? It can, if St. Paul's words are not taken to be something they are not. From the very earliest days of the Church, Christians have understood that the Apostle was here and in his first letter to Timothy offering practical suggestions as to whom to ordain, not setting forth literal and unchangeable laws of God. His words should not be understood (and were not so understood for 1800 years) to be prohibiting celibates from being ordained. Rather, he was teaching the principle that reliable and trustworthy men alone are to be made bishops or presbyters--the type of men who could live up to a commitment made to a wife and could effectively lead a family. Many modern translations render the phrase "husband of one wife" as "married only once" to emphasize the true spirit of the passage, which speaks of the character of the men, not of their marital status.
It is biblically untenable that St. Paul intended his insistence that bishops be "married only once" to exclude celibates from the clergy. Consider St. Timothy. In both of his letters to Timothy, the Apostle refers to an instance where Timothy received a spiritual gift. (10) In his first letter, he states: "Do not neglect the gift you have, which was conferred on you through the prophetic word with the imposition of hands of the presbyterate" (1 Tm. 4:14). In his second letter, he states: "I remind you to fan into flame the gift of God that you have through the imposition of my hands" (2 Tm. 1:6). Timothy received this spiritual gift when the presbyterate or, as other translations have it, "the council of elders," laid their hands upon him. Among these elders was St. Paul. St. Paul was an elder. St. Paul was also celibate, and expressed his desire that as many as possible choose celibacy. (11) To assert that St. Paul, himself a celibate elder who recommended celibacy to everyone would insist that only non-celibates be ordained despite the fact that all Christians for 1500 years, including those who sat at the Apostle's feet understood otherwise, is quite faulty exegesis.
Those in the Church of Christ often argue that the Catholic Church is in sin for forbidding marriage which, according to 1 Timothy 4:3, is contrary to the will of God. (12) To use this passage against the Catholic Church is to wrest it from its cultural context and misrepresent Catholicism. The Church does not forbid marriage. Indeed, the Church considers marriage a sacrament and a means to holiness and salvation. Those who embrace celibacy do so voluntarily, choosing to follow more closely after the heart of Jesus, as both our Lord and St. Paul have recommended. (13) In context, St. Paul was here referring to the Gnostic sect, which taught that the world was created by an evil demon-god (hence, "doctrine of demons") and that, therefore, all matter was evil. Early Gnostics forbid all sexual contact and the eating of meat for this reason, while later Gnostics chose to embrace hedonism. This passage is irrelevant to the Catholic practice of celibacy.
Some argue against celibacy for a number of practical rather than ideological reasons. In recent times, these arguments have been raised even by faithful Latin Rite Catholics. Celibacy is, after all, not essential to priesthood. Many feel that mandatory celibacy is no longer an effective way to minister to the people of God, and, while still holding the discipline in high regard, would like to see both married and celibate clergy. Some of these people view the ordination of married converts from Protestant ministry as harbingers of great change to come. While such a view is permissible, one should take great care not to advocate changing what has become a time honored and well established tradition without profound consideration. There is a reason that Jesus and St. Paul were celibate, and there is a reason that for 1,000 years Latin priests have embraced celibacy. The day may come when married men are ordained or even when the ordained are allowed to marry. Regardless, it remains true that "it is better not to marry" (Mt. 19:10).
Are Elders Priests?
Those in the Church of Christ object to sacerdotalism amongst the presbyters and bishops of the Catholic Church. Catholics consider their bishops and presbyters to be priests in the full sense of the word, participating in the unique priesthood of Christ and offering sacrifice to God. The Church of Christ argues that there can be no separate ministerial priesthood because all Christians are priests of God. To support this claim, they often cite 1 Peter 2:9, in which St. Peter states: "But you are 'a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people of his own, so that you may announce the praises' of him who called you out of darkness and into light."
Members of the Church of Christ, along with many other non-Catholics, envision a Church which has an elite sacerdotal caste set apart from the many who alone can approach God, while the many can only hope to fall into their priestly favor. It's as if the priesthood is a secret society of true believers and the laity are cut off from any relationship to God. What a faith-draining cult that would be! Catholics fully recognize that every Christian becomes a priest of God Almighty by baptism. As a kingdom of priests, all Christians bring their needs and the needs of those around them to God and, likewise, bring God to the world. We are all given the Great Commission when the Lord adds us to his One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
This universal priesthood of the faithful does not necessarily exclude a separate ministerial priesthood. Those who cite the passage in 1 Peter against the priesthood seem to think that since we are all a kingdom of priests there cannot be a separate clerical priesthood. Notice, however, that when St. Peter calls us a kingdom of priests, he quotes from Exodus 19:6, which has God addressing Moses: "You shall be to me a kingdom of priests, a holy nation. That is what you must tell the Israelites." All Jews were priests, too, and yet that did not exclude a separate Levitical priesthood.
If we look to prophesies which spoke of the coming of the Messiah and the bringing of men from all nations back into one covenant community, the Church, we find foretold that such a ministerial Levitical-type priesthood would continue in the New Covenant. Isaiah 66:18ff is one such prophesy. Isaiah lists a number of Gentile nations which will become children of God, foretelling the opening of the Church to all people, and then, after listing Gentile people, says "some of these I will take as priests and Levites says the Lord." (v. 21) Imagine the scandal this caused to the Hebrews, so proud of their role as God's chosen people and so indignant toward the Goyim. "Gentiles as priests and Levites? May it never be!" Imagine the people rending their garments at such words, and yet, we find that in the fullness of time, Jesus Christ, our true priest, ordained his apostles to share in his priestly ministry, so that in the Catholic priests of today the words of Jeremiah are fulfilled: "Never...shall priests of Levi ever be lacking." (Jr. 33:18) Malachi spoke of the day in which, in every nation under the sun from the time of the Messiah to end of the ages, from the rising of the sun to it's setting, a pure sacrifice would be made to God. We find just such a sacrifice instituted by Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist--the Lord's Supper. Such a sacrifice requires a ministerial priesthood, which is why Jesus ordained his holy apostles to "do this in remembrance of me."
Priesthood as an institution is part of the natural order of civilization. The Scriptures place sacrificial priests at the earliest ages of humanity. Like marriage and government, priesthood has existed in every human culture that has ever existed. All priesthoods, ancient and modern, inherit their efficacy (to whatever degree they are efficacious) to the one great high priest, Jesus Christ, who, from the very foundation of the world, offered himself as a sacrifice to God.
The Invitation
Perhaps you've read this today after having been away from the Church for years. Or, perhaps you've never been a Catholic, and you've discovered that you've misunderstood the Catholic priesthood all along. Either way, in every part of the world, diligent and holy priests of the Lord of Hosts are waiting to serve you--to pray for you, to answer your questions, to forgive your sins, and to feed you with the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Don't hesitate to look one up and to share your needs with him. He is God's anointed, and he is there bring you to God and to bring God to you. Why wait?
Perhaps you're a Catholic who read this just to strengthen your own convictions. There's a reason that Providence has brought you to this place. Could it be that God is calling you to follow after the heart of Jesus as a priest? If you suspect (or fear) that this might be the case, know that there is a wealth of information available to you at www.vocations.com. It's all confidential, so be not afraid! And, above all else, bring it before the Throne of Grace! "Oh, what peace we often forfeit. Oh, what needless pain we bear. All because we do not carry everything to God in prayer."
Our Lady, Queen of Priests, pray for us.
Endnotes
(1)The words presbyterianism and episcopalianism, unless capitalized, refer to types of Church government and not particular denominations. It should also be pointed out that presbyterianism or episcopalianism as understood and practiced by one denomination might not be identical to the presbyterianism or episcopalianism of another. For instance, the government of the episcopal Methodist Church is quite dissimilar to the government of the episcopal Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia.
(2)It is for this reason that preachers in the Church of Christ, who actually rank as "laity," are not referred to as the pastors of the church. A Church of Christ pastor is an elder, not a preacher.
(3)When Catholics refer to a "local Church," they are referring to the Church in a particular area subject to one bishop. These local Church, or dioceses, can be and usually are divided into a number of congregations, or parishes. When members of the Church of Christ refer to a "local Church," they are referring to the parish. Within one local Catholic Church, there might be a number of local churches of Christ.
(4) Just as the terms "bishop" and "overseer," the terms "presbyter" and "elder" are always to be considered interchangeable. "Bishop" and "presbyter" are more or less Anglicized transliterations of the original Greek terms, while "overseer" and "elder" are actual English translations.
(5)Few can be unaware of the controversy which has surrounded the issue of women's ordination as of late. It has been particularly troublesome since the Episcopal Church began to ordain women to the orders of deacon, priest, and bishop. Some "progressivists" have portrayed those who hold the traditional point of view as being opposed to progress and unconcerned with the dignity of women. The progressivist position amongst people of faith has been gravely harmed by those progressivists who show less concern for the truth than for their own agenda. The principle issue is whether the prohibition of female ordination is a matter of discipline or of dogma-a Law of the Church or a Law of God. While acknowledging that there are important concerns expressed by those on both "sides," all people of faith would agree that the changing of a 2,000 year policy of the Church should not be taken lightly. There is strong Scriptural evidence in the letters of St. Paul for the prohibition of women's ordination, but at the same time there are serious questions raised as to whether these passages convey glimpses of the Divine Law or pastoral reflections geared toward and tempered by a particular culture which is not our own. The inspiration of the Scriptures-including the anti-women's ordination passages in St. Paul-should serve to prevent advocates of women's ordination from claiming that the prohibition is necessarily unjust and anti-woman, for that would amount to an indictment of an apostle and martyr of Jesus Christ. At the same time, the doctrine of biblical inspiration also tells us that both God and men authored the Scriptures and, as true authors, the sacred writers employed the literary genres of their own time, which necessarily includes statements influenced by contemporary culture. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states: " 'Only a baptized man (vir) validly receives sacred ordination.' The Lord Jesus chose men (viri) to form the college of the twelve apostles, and the apostles did the same when they chose collaborators to succeed them in their ministry. The college of bishops, with whom the priests are united in the priesthood, makes the college of the twelve an ever-present and ever-active reality until Christ's return. The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason the ordination of women is not possible." (1577) This sentiment has been reaffirmed by Pope John Paul II in his apostolic letter Ordinatio sacerdotalis, in which he states that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women against the directives of Christ. He stopped short of making a dogmatic declaration, though many feel that his uncharacteristically stern tone qualifies for infallibility under the guidelines of the First Vatican Council. At any rate, the Holy Father's letter does command an obedience of faith from all Catholics. The asking of questions is good, for the Church knows of no other way to learn. Those who advocate women's ordination as an answer to injustice to women should not be condemned as obstinate heretics by anyone who cannot propose a viable alternative solution. This questioning should be done, however, in a way that does not scandalize the faithful and in a way which shows a respectful adherence the Holy Father-and a humble willingness to submit to his final decision. The Church says there are to be no priestesses, and so there must be no priestesses. Roma locuta est, causa finita est. As controversial and emotional as the topic may be, the promises of Christ to lead his Church into all truth and preserve her from the very gates of Hell should give comfort to Catholics. The Church will not bind on us what has not been bound in heaven, as difficult as it may be for those not on the prevailing "side" to accept.
(6) Under the apostles were seventy others, but there is no conclusive evidence that these disciples were in a leadership capacity in the first days of the Church. Among the apostles, Jesus did establish the Petrine office of primacy, but this office has never been considered a separate order.
(7) There is no reason to hold that communities without clergy celebrated the Eucharist without the presence of a visiting cleric. Only when a priest was present did the Sunday common meal, the love feast, include Communion.
(8)"For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters ('ordain elders,' KJV, 'ordain priests,' Douay-Rheims) in every town, as I directed you" (Titus 1:5). "For there are also many rebels...It is imperative to silence them" (1:11). "After a first and second warning, break off contact with a heretic, realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self-condemned" (3:11). See also 2 Tm. 5:17-22.
(9) See also 1 Timothy 3:1-7.
(10) This gift is most likely Timothy's ordination, but whether this is the case is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
(11) See 1 Corinthians 7:1-7.
(12)1 Timothy 4:1-4: "Now the Spirit explicitly says that in the last times some will turn away from the faith by paying attention to deceitful spirits and demonic instructions through the hypocrisy of liars with branded consciences. They forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected when received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the invocation of God in prayer."
That the Man of God May Be Complete
Click For Welcome and Introduction
Jeff Childers
c. 1997
Every Good Work: Getting the Right Equipment
As Christians, regardless of denominational background, we trust that God has never abandoned his people. Because our salvation is conditional (1 Cor. 9:27), the Lord has provided us with the conditions. So much was sacrificed by God, in his infinite mercy, for our salvation, that to neglect to provide the means of learning his conditions would be incomprehensible. This is the common ground which unites Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, and even splinter groups like Muslims, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses. We all trust that God has given us the tools to achieve salvation. The title of this article is taken from the Revised Standard Version translation of 2 Timothy 3:16,17: "All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
St. Paul informs Timothy in this passage, above all else, that the man of God may indeed be complete in his service to the Most High. True Christian completion, as idealistic and unbelievable as it may sound, is not a distant dream or an unattainable goal. It is possible, and God has provided the means: "teaching, ...reproof...correction, and...training in righteousness." One tool which is profitable toward attaining this most honorable goal is scripture. On this, all Christians agree. Disagreement lies in the interpretation of this passage in relation to the purpose of Holy Writ. Some say that only scripture is profitable, and therefore, exclusively sufficient. This does more than teach the sole material sufficiency of scripture. In its most radical (but also most consistent) form, this "Bible alon" mentality" actually prohibits the Christian to adopt any doctrine or practice not found in the Holy Writ. Other Christians, most notably Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, acknowledge Scripture as a a divinely given tool, but do not accept it as the only such tool.
The first position is affirmed by Mr. Roy E. Cogdill:
"The sum total of what the scriptures teach is the pattern of the Lords will in any matter. When we go beyond what the scriptures teach in worship or in our efforts to serve Gods purpose, we depart from the pattern, disrespect Gods silence, and become guilty of the sin of presumption. This sin has always been condemned by God. We cannot bring into divine worship and service those things which men invent. They are profane and unholy in the service of God. We must determine whether a practice comes from God or man! (The Bible: A Complete and Perfect Guide. Guardian of Truth Publications.)
The second position is affirmed by the official doctrine of the Catholic Church:
84. The apostles entrusted the Sacred deposit of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers...
85. The task of giving an authentic interpretation ofthe Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. (Catechism of the Catholic Church. United States Catholic Conference, Inc.--Libreria Editrice Vaticana.)
This article is written under five assumptions:
Though far from self evident and well worth the time and effort to prove, the first two assumptions are not generally contested by Christians. Most if not all faithful Christians accept the first two assumptions. They will not be dealt with in this article. The purpose of this article is to examine the evidence supporting the latter three assumptions for the benefit of faithful Christians who wish to take an educated stand.
Extra Biblical Truths
Often when Jesus found himself in a dispute, whether with the Pharisees, the apostles, or Satan himself, the Lords response would be "Have you not read?" or "It is written." Satan's suggestions and Pharisaic practices were often contrary to the Scriptures. It is argued by Protestants that, since the religion of the Old Covenant is contained in its entirety in the written Word, so should the religion of the New Covenant. This is a sensible argument. It would be somewhat inconsistent for God to provide a complete religious handbook for the Jews, but not provide a similar manual for the Christians. If all of Jewish religious truth were not contained in the Scriptures, it would be equally inconsistent for God to deny Christians the same extra sources of truth. Some may grant this conclusion but find it irrelevant since it is so obvious that all Jewish truth is contained in the Scriptures.
Just How Obvious is It?
The scribes and Pharisees of Christ's time were often corrupt people. It was in part the Lord's consistent condemnation of their hypocrisy that inspired the conspiracy to kill him. (Cf. Wisdom 2) Despite their flaws, the scribes and Pharisees were not without redeeming qualities. Theologically, Jesus himself was a Pharisee. Before a gathered crowd, Jesus said, " The scribes and Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on peoples shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them." (Matthew 23:2-4) Catholics see a striking parallel between the seat of Moses in the Old Covenant Kingdom of God, the Hebrew nation, and the seat of Peter and the apostles in the New Covenant Kingdom of God, the Universal Church. Could the scribes and Pharisees have exercised the same type of religious authority that the Catholic Magesterium does? Were there unwritten truths entrusted to the scribes and Pharisees? Did God prevent those truths from being corrupted, despite the Caiaphas-esque nature of the leaders? The Catholic would affirm that the evidence supports the answer "yes" to each of those questions.
Jesus insists without qualification that they be obeyed. Why?
Some say that the scribes and Pharisees exercised only civil authority, since "church" and state were not separated. It has been argued that their authority was limited to the practical responsibilities of pastoral care, and had no divine element. That being the case, the command of Jesus to obey them would be similar to his " render unto Caesar." According to that thinking, even though it was the scribes and Pharisees that established the canon of Scripture, ruled over synagogues, regulated synagogue and temple worship, and made rules of Jewish conduct, their authority was only civil and they received no divine guidance in these matters.
Cited to support this view is Mark 7:7, " In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." Protestants opposed to the Catholic Magisterium believe that Jesus condemned here all extra Biblical traditions, thus relegating Pharisaical authority to the above described necessities of pastoral care. This view is inconsistent with the overall message of the Gospel. In the time of Jesus, the outward rituals of human traditions were being emphasized, at the expense of the true spirit of God's Law. That is how the Jews of the time could put to death the Messiah, but still remain ritually pure for the coming Sabbath. Certainly, if the traditions were of God rather than men, there would be no sin in binding them. Could there have been unwritten God given tradition? This verse does nothing to rule out the possibility, nor does it change the Lord's unqualified endorsement of Pharisaical authority. Jesus condemns the Pharisees not because they "tie up heavy burdens and lay them on peoples shoulder," but because they do not " lift a finger to help."
Here we come to a stalemate. One man says that the Seat of Moses is civil/pastoral authority with no right to bind traditions on the people. Another says that the Seat of Moses is religious authority responsible for the preservation of God given tradition, with required obedience. Which man is right? We could let them get into a shouting match or do some rasslin', but that would solve nothing. The fair solution is to examine the religious beliefs of the Jews and early Christians. If all Jewish truth comes from Scripture, then consistency requires the same for Christian truth. If there is unscriptural Jewish truth, preserved by the Seat of Moses, then we must identify the Seat of Moses in Christendom and obey those who hold it.
Show Me Book, Chapter, Verse...Anything!
The evidence of historical Judaism and Christianity does little to back up the sola scriptura view. A survey of the historical record shows much doctrine and many practices which fall into the "all things whatsoever they tell you," but are not explicitly taught in Scripture.
The wicked and jealous King Herod, upon learning of the Messiah's birth, ordered the murder of all Jewish male babies. An angel had warned Joseph of the Slaughter of the Innocents, and the holy family fled toEgypt. When Herod died, an angel instructed them to return to their homeland. Fearing the new ruler, Archelaus, Joseph did not return toBethlehem. Instead, they went to Galilee. "He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets mightbe fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazorean.'" (Matthew 2:23)
EXAMPLE ONE: By the dawn of the first century, Jews had become familiar with Messianic prophecy. They were tired of Roman control, and longed for their Savior to come and establish the Kingdom of God. Jewish readers of Matthew understood that a number of the Messiah's characteristics had been foretold. He would be a descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12), of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49), a great prophet (Deuteronomy 18), born of a virgin (Isaiah 7), God with us (Isaiah 8), ruler of an eternal kingdom (Daniel 2), sacrificed for the sins of the world (Isaiah 53), killed for offending hypocrites (Wisdom 2), and called a Nazorean, among many other things. Searching the Scriptures, however, one can not find the passage which says "He shall be called a Nazorean." Yet, Matthew's audience understood that it "had been spoken through the prophets." It was part of revealed Jewish truth, part of the depositum fidei, but it was not in the Scriptures. It's preservation is not due to Sacred Scripture, but to an oral tradition which had to have been divinely preserved.
EXAMPLE TWO: In Exodus 7, Moses and Aaron stood before Pharaoh pleading the case for the release of the Hebrew slaves. They worked wonders to prove the power of God. "Pharaoh, in turn, summoned wise men and sorcerers, and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did likewise by the BlackArts." (Exodus 7:11) Centuries later, St. Paul compares evil men in the world with these magicians who opposed Moses. "Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so they also oppose the truth--people of depraved mind, unqualified in the faith." (2 Timothy 3:8). Who opposed Moses? Jannes and Jambres. Who were they? The Egyptian sorcerers. How does St. Paul, some 1300 years later, know their names, which are given nowhere in the Scriptures? Jewish tradition had preserved that information. There was even a work called the Book of Jannes and Jambres. Did St. Paul, inspired by God, believe a fictitious legendary account? That does not fit well with the notion of Biblical inerrancy, which both Catholic and Protestant believe. Or, are Jannes and Jambres, though not in the Scriptures, part of the depositum fidei? This is the more likely conclusion.
EXAMPLE THREE: The Epistle to the Hebrews describes the tragic fate of some of God's people. "They were stoned, sawed in two, put to death at swords point." Sawed in two? Who in the Scriptures was ever sawed in two? Nobody. To whom is the inspired writer referring? According to Jewish tradition, this was the fate of the prophet Isaiah. The Hebrew writer quotes it as fact. Are we to believe that the inspired writer could not separate divine truth from legend, or, more likely (and far less blasphemously), could it be part of the unwritten depositum fidei as well?
EXAMPLE FOUR: Because of Moses' sin, he was not allowed to enter into the Promised Land. "After viewing the land, Moses, the servant of the LORD, died as the LORD had said; and he was buried in the ravine opposite Beth-peor in the land of Moab, but to this day no one knows the place of his burial." (Deuteronomy 34:5,6) Jewish tradition holds that that Moses was visibly assumed into heaven, and that Satan attempted to interfere with his burial, to be put in his place by St. Michael the Archangel. Does this sound ridiculous to you? It didn't to St. Jude. "Yet the Archangel Michael, when he argued with the devil in a dispute over the body of Moses, did not venture to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him but said, May the Lord rebuke you!" (Jude 9) The only recording of such an event is in a work called The Assumption of Moses, which was not written until the first century AD. The story existed only in verbal form until then (a 1200 year span), but is considered truth by the inspired writer. Not only is it considered truth, but so little details are given that it seems Judes audience knew the story well. Where is the dispute between Michael and Satan? Its not in the Scriptures, but it is in the depositum fidei.
EXAMPLE FIVE: In Jude 14, St. Jude writes, " Enoch, of the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied about them when he said, ‘Behold, the Lord has come with his countless holy ones to execute judgment on all and to convict everyone for all the godless deeds that they committed and for all the harsh words godless sinners have uttered against him.'" (Jude 14,15) Enoch is a very early figure in the Scriptures. According to Genesis 5, " When Enoch was sixty-five years old, he became the father of Methuselah, and he had other sons and daughters. The whole lifetime of Enoch was three hundred and sixty five years. Then Enoch walked with God, and hewas no longer here, for God took him." (Genesis 5:21-24) Aside from a brief retelling of his story in the Book of Sirach, this is the scriptural account of Enoch in its entirety. So where does Jude get his prophecy? It is a direct word for word quotation from a Jewish work called the First Book of Enoch, or the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 1:9.
EXAMPLE SIX: 1 Enoch holds a few other surprises. 2 Peter 3:19,20 mentions " the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah." Jude elaborates. "The angels, too, who did not keep their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day." (Jude 6) These angels are the ones who, in Genesis 6, are believed by many to have mated with women and produced a race of giants. It was this evil which provoked God to flood the world. What about the chains and imprisonment of the angels? Its all outlined in full detail in 1 Enoch.
EXAMPLE SEVEN: 1 Enoch is also the key to understanding some of the Book of Revelation. To cite one example, Revelation 8:2 reads And I saw that the seven angels who stood before God were given seven trumpets. Which seven angels? John doesn't just say seven angels, but he says " the seven angels." 1 Enoch states that there are seven Archangels: Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Saraquel, Gabriel, and Remiel. The Scriptures only mention three. With the New Testament relying so heavily on it, even going so far as to quote it directly, why isn't 1 Enoch canonical? Because its an obvious forgery. 1 Enoch was written in the second or third century BC, ages after the time of Enoch. Didn't the inspired writers know this? They certainly did. It is not the actual Book of First Enoch which is authoritative. It is the time honored tradition of the depositum fidei divinely preserved therein which is authoritative.
EXAMPLE EIGHT: Along with the oral traditions which were later verified by New Testament writers, a substantial amount of ancient Messianic prophecy exists which is never mentioned in the canonical Scriptures. Jewish apocalyptic literature is full ancient prophecies which must be attributed to divine revelation outside of Scripture. One example is the Testament of Judah, a first century work which preserves the traditional last message of the patriarch to his children. One would dismiss the words as fiction since they were put into his mouth some 1800 years after the fact, were it not for the striking accuracy of his prophecy. Judah declares that
" there shall be continual wars in Israel; and among men of another race shall my kingdom be brought to an end, until the salvation of Israel shall come. Until the appearing of the God of righteousness, that Jacob and all the Gentiles may rest in peace. And he shall guard the might of my kingdom forever; for the Lord sware to me with an oath that he would not destroy the kingdom from my seed forever...[T]he Lord shall bring upon you famine and pestilence, death and the sword...And after these things shall a star arise to you from Jacob in peace, and a man shall arise from my seed, like the sun of righteousness, walking with the sons of men in meekness and righteousness; and no sin shall be found in him. And the heavens shall be opened unto him, to pour out the Spirit, even the blessing of the Holy Father; and he shall pour out the Spirit of grace upon you; and ye shall be unto him sons in truth, and ye shall walk in his commandments first and last. Then shall the scepter of my kingdom shine forth; and from your root shall arise a stem; and from it shall grow a rod of righteousness to the Gentiles, to judge and to save all that call upon the Lord." (Testament of Judah 3:12-14,17,20-26)
EXAMPLE EIGHT: Even more remarkable than the prophecies in Jewish apocalyptic literature are those found in pagan classical literature.
" Perhaps the most dramatic and almost certainly the most familiar was the prophecy of the Roman poet Vergil in the fourth of his Eclogues . It predicted the breaking in of a new order of the ages; for now the virgin is returning [jam redit et virgo] and a new human race is descending from the heights of heaven. What would bring about this change would be the birth of a child [nascenti puero], with whom the iron age of humanity will end and the golden age begin. His birth would achieve a transformation of human nature; for Under your guidance, whatever vestiges remain of our ancient wickedness, once done away with, shall free the earth from its incessant fear.
There would even be changes in nature: For your sake, O child, the earth, without being tilled, will freely pour forth its gifts. Your very cradle shall pour forth for you caressing flowers. The serpent too shall die. " (Pelikan, Jaroslav. Jesus Through the Centuries. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. p. 35.)
Even the unbeliever must be taken aback by the striking similarities between this pagan prophecy of the child of the gods and Biblical Messianic prophecy. Compare Vergil's virgin birth with Isaiah 7:14. Vergil states that the iron age of humanity will end and the golden age begin. Daniel 2 says that " there shall be a ... kingdom, strong as iron...In the lifetime of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom." Vergil adds that, with the coming of the child, " the serpent too shall die." Compare that to the words of Genesis 3:15. Vergil possessed divine foreknowledge, completely apart from the Scriptures. According to Jaroslav Pelikan, Vergil was not alone among the enlightened pagans.
EXAMPLE NINE: "But Socrates and Plato could also serve the interpreters of Christ as the source of prophecy about Jesus--not only, as in the case of Vergil, about the birth of the Child, but even his death on the cross. In the course of listing various pagan prophecies about creation, the Sabbath, and other biblical themes, Clement came to one prophecy in which, he said, Plato all but predicts the history [oikonomia] of salvation. This remarkable passage is from the dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon in book 2 of Plato's Republic. Drawing a distinction between righteousness and unrighteousness, Glaucon postulates that, instead of beings who are both righteous and unrighteous, as most of us are most of the time, there would arise one unrighteous man who is entirely unrighteous and one righteous man who is entirely righeous.' Let this one righteous man, in his nobleness and simplicity, one who desires, in the words of Aeschylus, to be a good man, now be accused of being in fact the worst of men. Let him, moreover, remain steadfast to the hour of death, seeming to be unrighteous and yet being righteous.' What will be the outcome? The answer, for whose gruesomeness Glaucon apologizes in advance to Socrates, must be nothing other than the following: ‘He shall be scourged, tortured, bound, his eyes burnt out, and at last, after suffering every evil, shall be impaled or crucified.'" (Pelikan 44,45)
Other evidence could be presented, but this is enough to make the case. Divinely revelaed religious truth exists outside of the Scripture. Sola scriptura has been disproved. The depositum fidei contains truths entrusted not to the inspired writers, but to the teachers, scribes, and Pharisees: the Seat of Moses. The Catholic Church Magesterium claims to be in the Seat of Moses today, preserving the depositum fidei from now until the end of the world through successors to the apostles. Is the claim true? The Scriptures do not rule it out. The entire message of salvation history illustrates that the Catholic Church is the New Israel, inheriting the Old Israel's prerogatives as the chosen of God. It would seem more consistent to have the Seat of Moses occupied during the New Covenant as well as the Old. Consistency is the first argument in favor of the Catholic claim, and it should not be underestimated.
Apostolic Tradition
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thessalonians 2:15) According to Paul, there are truths to which a faithful Christian must stand firm and hold fast that are not recorded in the Scriptures, but only in oral form. Some argue that this was true only during a transition period. Before the Scriptures were finished, oral traditions did contain the truth, but once the Scriptures were complete, there was no more oral traditions. This is merely an assumption which can not be proven or disproved. Nowhere do the Scriptures indicate that a Bible is to be compiled to take the place of authoritative apostolic teaching preserved by Church leaders. Such an interpretation does render God inconsistent. It also ignores the truths about Enoch, Moses, Isaiah, and others which still had not been put into the Scriptures. Did those traditions, once part of the depositum fidei, cease to be true? Is this verse obsolete, now that oral tradition has been done away with? It is more plausible to count this verse as the second piece of evidence for the Catholic claim.
The Universally Recognized Apostolic Successors
No faithful Christian will deny that the depositum fidei was given to the apostles. Jesus said to his apostles, "But when he comes,the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all truth." (John 16:13) The apostles received the truth, and taught it with authority. Over this there is no controversy among Christians. Here is the point of difference: Did the apostles write all of the truth into the Scriptures or did they pass it down to successors? Certainly, whatever was written by the apostles would be authoritative. The apostles had authority to teach Gods truth, and their writings are to be revered as Scripture. Did they give their authority to successors? Many Christians deny that they did. They don't realize it, but even those who deny apostolic succession recognize four apostolic successors.
Jesus said to his apostles, " [T]he Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father will testify to me. And you also testify, because you have been with me from the beginning. On the grounds of this command, the apostles were given the authority to teach and, by extension, write, their writings being Scripture. Although only three of them did write anything that was later considered Scripture, Peter, John, and Matthew, plus, by extension, Paul, what little they left behind is, by virtue of apostolic authorship, authoritative Scripture. There are five other men whose writings are considered Scripture: Mark, Luke, Sosthenes, Timothy, and Silvanus. Apostolic writings are Scripture because they're apostolic, written on the authority of Christ's commandment. What about the gospels of Mark and Luke? Besides the evangelists, there are three other often forgotten inspired writers. Sosthenes co-wrote First Corinthians, Timothy, Bishop of Crete, co-wrote Second Corinthians, Phillipians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, and Philemon. Silvanus, also known as St. Silas, co-wrote both Epistles to the Thessalonians. These men were not apostles. They did not follow Jesus on the earth. They came later, or succeeded the apostles. What makes their writings Scripture? One must admit that apostolic succession took place in at least five instances. These five bishops were given authority to write Scripture which was just as binding as that of the apostles. Where is apostolic succession in the Scriptures? Mark, Luke, Sosthenes, Timothy, and Silvanus are scriptural examples of apostolic successors. Where is the end of apostolic succession in the Scriptures? Nowhere. This is the third piece of evidence.
Monarchical Bishoprics in the New Testament
The New Testament names three offices in Church government: bishop, presbyter, and deacon. Often there was no distinction between the titles of bishop and presbyter. Some Protestants use this fact to try to disprove the legitimacy of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox episcopate. They argue that the Catholic system is a corruption, resulting from the unlawful arroagation of authority by individual members of the councils of presbyters of each church. Using the lack of clearly designated titles as evidence is sophistry. The Scriptures and the early tstimony of the Church always shows that amidst the presbyters of the churches was oneleader, from whom the others inherited their authority. Before the three titles were clearly set apart, that leader was called bishop, overseer, presbyter, elder, pastor, guide, and even as late as 160 AD in the isolated case of St. Justin Martyr, he was called the president. The president was chosen from among the presbyters, so could be referred to as a fellow presbyter. Most historians, Catholic and Protestant, recognize St. James as the Bishop of Jerusalem, the first Christian community. In Acts 15, after St. Peter gives his opinion, St. James declares the matter settled and drafts the letter to the churches. It could be argued that St. James was simply writing on behalf of his fellow (equal) presbyters, but the text strongly implies that, as president, he had the prominent role. St. Paul describes the Jerusalem Council in Galatians 2, calling St. James a pillar along with Ss. Peter and John. The earliest Christian writers support that St. James was the Catholic Bishop of Jerusalem.
"Peter, James, and John, after the Ascension of the Savior, did not claim pre-eminence because the Savior had specially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem." (Clement, Outlines Book VI, via Eusebius)
"Control of the Church passed to the apostles, together with the Lord's brother James, whom everyone from the Lord's time till our own has called the Righteous, for there were many Jameses, but this one was holy from birth; he drank no wine or intoxicating liquor and ate no animal food; no razor came to his head; he did not smear himself with oil, and took no baths. He alone was permitted to enter the Holy Place, for his garments were not of wool, but of linen. He used to enter the Sanctuary alone, and was often found on his knees beseeching forgiveness for the people, so that his knees grew hard like a camels from his continually bending in worship of God and beseeching forgiveness for the people. Because of his unsurpassable righteousness he was called the Righteous and Oblias--in our own language Bulwark of the People, and Righteousness-fulfilling the declarations of the prophets regarding him.
Representatives of the seven popular sects...said toJames: ‘Be good enough to restrain the people, for they have gone astray after Jesus in the belief that he is the Christ'... He replied as loudly as he could: ‘ Why do you question me about the Son of Man? I tell you, he is sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Great Power, and he will come on the clouds of heaven'....[T]he scribes and Pharisees said to each other: ‘ ...We had better go up and throw him down.'" (Hegesippus, via Eusebius)
"After the martyrdom of James and the capture of Jerusalem which instantly followed, there is a firm tradition that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord who were still alive assembled from all parts together with those who, humanly speaking, were kinsmen of the Lord--for most of them were still living.Then they all discussed together whom they should choose as a fit person to succeed James, and voted unanimously that Symeon, son of the Clopas mentioned in the gospel narrative, was a fit person to occupy the throne of the Jerusalem see. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History)
There are at least two other examples in Scripture of what may be monarchical bishoprics. (I use the word "may" for diplomatic reasons only. There is no doubt that these men were Catholic Bishops when all evidence is examined. The "may" comes into the picture only when, without just cause, we limit the admissible evidence to Sacred Scripture, which never explicilty uses the term "monarchical bishopric." ) Tradition holds that St. John was the Bishop of Ephesus until his banishment to Patmos. St. John identifies himself in his second and third epistles as "the Presbyter." Does this exclude other presbyters at John's church? Not explicitly, but it strongly implies that he was the one and only presbyter. Since the Theologian is not writing only to his own congregation, but is writing a Catholic Epistle to the Church Universal, his designation as "the Presbyter" implies that he was Presbyter of a large area including many churches. If there were other equal presbyters ruling with him, wouldn't John have included his name in the epistles? Instead, he calls himself only "the Presbyter," expecting Christians around the world to know who he is.
It is held by tradition that Titus was Bishop of Crete. In St. Paul's Epistle to Titus, the Apostle encourages him to " set right what remains to be done, for this reason I left you in Crete." Titus seems to be solely in charge of Cretan operations, not just an evangelist subject to the presbyters in his town. In fact, Paul gives Titus the authority to "appoint presbyters in every town." (Titus 1:5) Titus is also granted the authority to excommunicate. "After a first and second warning, break off contact with a heretic, realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self-condemned." (Titus 3:10) Ordination and excommunication are rights which through the ages centuries were reserved only to bishops. These scriptural examples of what may be monarchical bishoprics, a fact supported by history, are a fourth piece of evidence for the Catholic view.
St. Ignatius of Antioch on Monarchical Bishoprics
St. Ignatius of Antioch has been accused by some who oppose monarchical bishoprics of inventing the idea in order to increase his own power. This refuted by his own writings. Rather than his own invention, monarchical bishoprics were the universal norm in his time, the dawn of the second century. He was far from a man with a hunger for power. His desire was solely to serve Christ, and died a martyr's death for it.
"For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is sent by the will of the Father; as the bishops, appointed to the utmost bounds of the earth, are by the will of Jesus Christ. Wherefore it will become you to run together according to the will of your bishop, as also ye do. For your famous presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop, as the strings are to the harp." (Ignatius to the Ephesians 1:12-14)
" Pray for the church which is in Syria, from whence I am carried bound to Rome [for execution]; being the least of all the faithful which are there, as I have been thought worthy to be found to the glory of God." (Ig. Ephesians 4:18)
"Seeing then I have been judged worthy to see you, by Damas your most excellent bishop; and by your very worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and by my fellow servant Sotio, the deacon; in whom I rejoice, for he is as much subject unto his bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ; I determined to write unto you. Wherefore it will become you also not to use your bishop too familiarly upon the account of his youth; but to yield all reverence to him according to the power of God the Father; as also I perceive that your holy presbyters do: not considering his age, which indeed to appearance is young; but as becomes those who are prudent in God, submitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all."(Magnesians 1:4-6)
" In like manner, let us reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ; and the bishop as the father; and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and college of the Apostles. Without these, there is no Church." (Trallians 1:8,9)
" Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength [in the face of execution], that I may not only say, but will; nor be only called a Christian, but be found one." (Ignatius to the Romans 1:10)
" Let fire, and the cross; let the companies of wild beasts; let breakings of bones and tearing of members; let the shattering of the whole body, and all the wicked torments of the devil come upon me; only let me enjoy Jesus Christ. All the ends of the world, and the kingdoms of it, will profit me nothing: I would rather die for Jesus Christ, than rule to the utmost ends of the earth. Him I seek who died for us; him I desire, that rose again for us. This is the gain that is laid up for me." (Ig. Romans 2:13,14)
" Be not deceived, brethren; if anyone follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. If anyone walks after any other opinion, he agrees not with the passion of Christ. Wherefore let it be your endeavor to partake all of the same holy Eucharist. For there is but one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ; and one cup in the unity of his blood; one altar; as also there is one bishop, together with his presbytery, and the deacons my fellow servants: that so whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to the will of God." (Philadelphians 1:9-12)
" Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people also be: as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Smyrneans 3:4)
St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, born in the first century AD, penned letters to numerous churches encouraging them to hold fast to their faith. Along with Polycarp, he was a personal disciple of St. John. He shows in his writings a willingness to die for his faith, and implies that the monarchical bishopric system was universally accepted as the norm in the early years of the second century. This is the fifth piece of evidencefor the Catholic position.
Early Testimony of Apostolic Succession
Evidence has been shown that within the depositum fidei are truths not recorded in Scripture. Paul says to hold fast to oral traditions, provided of course that they be part of the depositum. Scriptural and historical evidence has been shown for the early existence of monarchical bishoprics, the same Episcopal system which exists in the Catholic Church today. It has also been established that all Christians accept at least four authoritative apostolic successors: Mark, Luke, Sosthenes, Timothy, and Silvanus. Scripture nowhere limits the authoritative succession to those four. What about others? Did the early Christians believe that bishops were successors to the apostles?
St. Clement I, Bishop of Rome and fourth on the list of Popes is called by St. Paul a coworker, whose name [is] in the book of life. A controversy arose when the church at Corinth deposed properly ordained presbyters. In the first example of the Roman church executing authority in a foreign land, the Pontiff sent his first epistle to Corinth to fix the problem. The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, or 1 Clement, was considered Scripture and publicly read in churches as late as the fourth century. Says Clement:
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, [the apostles] appointed the first fruits of their conversion to be bishops and ministers over such as should afterwards believe, having first proved them by the Spirit...So likewise our Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there should contentions arise, upon account of the bishops office. And therefore having a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed persons, as we have before said, and then gave direction, how, when they should die, other chosen and approved men should succeed in their ministry...For it would be no small sin in us, should we cast off those from their ministry who holily and without blame fulfill the duties of it. Blessed are those priests, who having finished their course before these times have obtained a fruitful and perfect dissolution." (1 Clement 19:4,16,17,19,20)
In the Scriptures, Mark, Luke, Sosthenes, Timothy, and Silas are apostolic successors, or else their writings would not be authoritative. Titus and Barnabas appear to be successors also, especially in the light of Clement's writings. St. Clement, once a coworker of Paul "whose name [was] in the book of life," either rejected Paul's teaching and fell into the heresy of continued apostolic succession, dragging forthcoming centuries of Christians with him, or simply passed down from the Seat of Peter what was given to him: that apostolic succession is part of and entrusted with the depositum fidei. St. Ignatius also comments on apostolic succession. See the above quote from Trallians 1:8, in which Ignatius calls the presbyters the Sanhedrin of God, and college of the Apostles.
"Continue inseparable from Jesus Christ our God, and from your bishop, and from the commands of the Apostles. He that is within the altar is pure; but he that is without, that is, he that does anything without the bishop, the presbyters, and deacons, is not pure in conscience." (Trallians 2:4,5)
"See that you follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ, the Father; and the presbytery, as the Apostles. And reverence the deacons, as the command of God." (Smyrneans 3:1)
"I exhort you that ye study to do all things in a divine concord: Your bishop presiding in the place of God; your presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles; and your deacons most dear to me being entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ." (Magnesians 2:4,5)
St. Clement, of the first generation after Ss. Peter and Paul, and St. Ignatius, of the first generation after St. John, taught that those ordained bishops and presbyters were successors to the apostles. They were to be obeyed because they taught the truth. These were Paul's oral statements, the unwritten portion of the depositum fidei. Rejecters of apostolic succession, believing in sola scriptura, should take special notice of the words of St. Irenaeus regarding heretics who claimed to possess a secret apostolic tradition.
"When they are refuted out of the Scriptures they betake themselves to accusing the Scriptures themselves as if there were something amiss with them and they carried not authority, because the Scriptures, they say, contain diverse utterances, and because the truth cannot be found in them...
"Yet when we appeal again to that tradition which is derived from the apostles, and which is safeguarded in the churches through the succession of presbyters, they then are adversaries of tradition, claiming to be wiser not only than the presbyters but even the apostles, and to have discovered the truth undefiled...
"Those that wish to discern the truth may observe the apostolic tradition made manifest in every church throughout the world. We can enumerate those who were appointed bishops in the churches by the apostles, and their successors down to our own day, who never taught, and never knew, absurdities such as these men produce. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught the perfect in private and in secret, they would rather have committed them to those to whom they entrusted the churches. For they wished those men to be perfect and unblameable whom they left as their successors and to whom they handed over their own office of authority...This we do by pointing to the apostolic tradition and the faith that is preached to men, which has come down to us through the successions of bishops; the tradition and creed of the greatest, the most ancient church, the church known to all men, which was founded and set up at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul. For with this church, because of its position of leadership and authority, must needs agree every church, that is, the faithful everywhere; for in her the apostolic tradition has always been preserved by the faithful from all parts...
"And then Polycarp, besides being instructed by the apostles and aquatinted with many who had seen the Lord, was also appointed by the apostles for Asia as Bishop of the church in Smyrna. Even I saw him in my early youth; for he remained with us a long time, and at a great age suffered a martyrdom full of glory and renown and departed this life, having taught always the things which he had learnt from the apostles, which the Church hands down, which alone are true. (Adv. haereses 3:2:1,2;3:3:1,4)
Tertullian offers this challenge to any outside of the Catholic Church who attempt to identify themselves with the original Church:
"But if any of these are bold enough to insert themselves into the Apostolic age, in order to seem handed down from the apostles because they existed under the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the origins of their churches; let them unroll the list of their bishops, an unbroken succession from the beginning so that first bishop had as his precursor and the source of his authority one of the apostles or one of the apostolic men who, though not an apostle, continued with the apostles. This is how the apostolic churches report their origins; thus the church of the Smyrnaeans relates that Polycarp was appointed by John, the church of Rome that Clement was ordained by Peter..." (De praescriptione haereticorum 32)
The testimony of these early writers as to the general opinion of the early Church, without any record of disputation, are the sixth piece of evidence for the Catholic position.
The Eternal Kingdom of God
The following Scriptures offer, in order, a gradual revelation of God's plan to establish his Covenant family and kingdom in all nations of the earth, the Church. Notice that the kingdom is to remain strong forever, never being delivered up into another rulers hands. It is also interesting that the kingdom is to overcome the Roman empire, and that faithful members of the kingdom need not fear death. Why does the Catholic Church believe it has the protection of infallibility in preserving the depositum fidei? Consult these passages:
"The scepter will not depart from Judah nor the rulers staff from between his feet,until he comes to whom it belongs, and the obedience of the nations is his." (Genesis 49:10)
" For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on Davids throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this." (Isaiah 9:6,7)
Daniel foretold the futures of four world empires: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.
" In the lifetime of these [Roman] kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed or delivered up to another people; rather, it shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and put an end to them, and it shall stand forever...The great God has revealed to the king what shall be in the future; this is exactly what you dreamed, and its meaning is sure." (Daniel 2:44,45)
" Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power." (Mark 9:1)
"And so I say to you, you are the Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:18-20)
"And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." (Matthew 28:20)
"Striv[e] to preserve the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, as you were called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:3-6)
"You should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)
The testimony of the Scriptures regarding the permanence and authority of the Church is the seventh piece of evidence supporting the Catholic view.
The fourth of our five propositions was that gospel truths are contained in the apostolic traditions and kept pure by the apostolic successors. Here is a review of the six pieces of evidence:
-Evidence: There is religious truth which is part of the depositum fidei which is not part of the Scriptures.
-Evidence: 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Paul endorsed both oral andwritten traditions.
-Evidence: There are five universally recognized apostolic successors.
-Evidence: Scripture strongly suggests monarchical bishoprics for James, John, and Titus.
-Evidence: St. Ignatius accounts of widely accepted monarchical bishoprics.
-Evidence: Testimonies of St. Clement I, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, and Tertullian to the widely held doctrine of apostolic succession.
-Evidence: Scriptures guarantee that the Church will increase forever and never be delivered up to another people.
Why Do You Believe in the Bible?
The final proposition is that the Bible Christians use today actually contains the Sacred Scriptures. No mention is made within the Sacred Scriptures as to the canon of the Bible. Perhaps the sola scriptura believer will claim that the overwhelming weight of evidence can lead each individual to make an objective determination of what is or is not Scripture. What evidence is that? It would have to be the testimony of the early Christians, specifically the ones before the Great Apostasy. There is no such testimony. The earliest attempt to list New Testament Scripture is by Origen in his commentary on Matthew in 210 AD. Origen was a firm believer in both apostolic succession and the supremacy of the successor to Peter, yet even his canon is still incomplete. As late as the fourth century, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were disputed, while 1 Clement was accepted. If the Scriptures are the only thing profitable for completion and the sole source of the depositum fidei, by what authority is the canon of Scripture put together? How does the Protestant know what is or is not Scripture? The Jews relied on the educated decisions of those on the Seat of Moses. What about Christians? They rely on the decisions of the Catholic Church at the fourth century councils of Rome and Hippo. Here is the Protestant dilemma: If the authority of the apostolic successors was valid on the day they established the canon, why not the day before or the day after?
The canon of Scripture is not the only question about which sola scriptura adherents must rely on Catholic Tradition. The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, 1,2, and 3 John are anonymous. Using just the Scripture, it cannot be determined who wrote these books. It is apostolic tradition which credits Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul with writing the anonymous Scriptures. I dare say that not just anyone can write Scripture: it has to be an apostle or a so-called New Testament prophet. If it cannot be trusted that the anonymous Scriptures are by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, they lose their credibility, and we lose our gospel.
A Challenge
In matters of faith, upon what do you stand? Do you stand on just the Scriptures? If you do, God bless you. You'll need it. Look at the confusion in todays religious world. Look at the fruits of sola scriptura: 20,000 competing denominations. Is God the Father of such chaos?
If you plan to reject the authority of the apostolic successors, then you must realize something. You are rejecting the authority of the men who put your Bible together. Without those apostolic successors, you would not know what Scripture is or isn't. Standing against apostolic succession is standing against a doctrine which was held by faithful Christians for three centuries before your Bible was put together. Sola scriptura is a doctrine which can not be proven from the Scriptures, and thus cancels itself out. Scripture claims for itself profitability, nothing more and nothing less. Rejecting the apostolic succession puts you in schism from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. If that's the position you choose, allow us to close with the challenge earlier quoted from Tertullian: " Let them then produce the origins of their churches; let them unroll the list of their bishops, an unbroken succession from the beginning."
That the Man of God May Be Complete
Why was Scripture given to us? So that the man of God may be complete. Why is the Magisterium here to guide us? So that the man of God may be complete. Thats God's purpose for mankind: true Christian completion. It's possible. It's attainable. It's available. Pray for it. God bless you.
Jeff Childers
c. 1997
As Christians, regardless of denominational background, we trust that God has never abandoned his people. Because our salvation is conditional (1 Cor. 9:27), the Lord has provided us with the conditions. So much was sacrificed by God, in his infinite mercy, for our salvation, that to neglect to provide the means of learning his conditions would be incomprehensible. This is the common ground which unites Catholics, Protestants, and Eastern Orthodox Christians, and even splinter groups like Muslims, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses. We all trust that God has given us the tools to achieve salvation. The title of this article is taken from the Revised Standard Version translation of 2 Timothy 3:16,17: "All scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work."
St. Paul informs Timothy in this passage, above all else, that the man of God may indeed be complete in his service to the Most High. True Christian completion, as idealistic and unbelievable as it may sound, is not a distant dream or an unattainable goal. It is possible, and God has provided the means: "teaching, ...reproof...correction, and...training in righteousness." One tool which is profitable toward attaining this most honorable goal is scripture. On this, all Christians agree. Disagreement lies in the interpretation of this passage in relation to the purpose of Holy Writ. Some say that only scripture is profitable, and therefore, exclusively sufficient. This does more than teach the sole material sufficiency of scripture. In its most radical (but also most consistent) form, this "Bible alon" mentality" actually prohibits the Christian to adopt any doctrine or practice not found in the Holy Writ. Other Christians, most notably Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics, acknowledge Scripture as a a divinely given tool, but do not accept it as the only such tool.
The first position is affirmed by Mr. Roy E. Cogdill:
"The sum total of what the scriptures teach is the pattern of the Lords will in any matter. When we go beyond what the scriptures teach in worship or in our efforts to serve Gods purpose, we depart from the pattern, disrespect Gods silence, and become guilty of the sin of presumption. This sin has always been condemned by God. We cannot bring into divine worship and service those things which men invent. They are profane and unholy in the service of God. We must determine whether a practice comes from God or man! (The Bible: A Complete and Perfect Guide. Guardian of Truth Publications.)
The second position is affirmed by the official doctrine of the Catholic Church:
84. The apostles entrusted the Sacred deposit of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers...
85. The task of giving an authentic interpretation ofthe Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. (Catechism of the Catholic Church. United States Catholic Conference, Inc.--Libreria Editrice Vaticana.)
This article is written under five assumptions:
- The man of God may indeed be complete.
- The inspired Scriptures are profitable toward reaching completion.
- There are truths found outside of Scripture that are profitable toward reaching completion.
- Those truths are contained in the Apostolic Tradition (depositum fidei-deposit of faith), and kept pure by the Apostolic Successors.
- The Bible that Christians today use contains the Sacred Scriptures.
Though far from self evident and well worth the time and effort to prove, the first two assumptions are not generally contested by Christians. Most if not all faithful Christians accept the first two assumptions. They will not be dealt with in this article. The purpose of this article is to examine the evidence supporting the latter three assumptions for the benefit of faithful Christians who wish to take an educated stand.
Often when Jesus found himself in a dispute, whether with the Pharisees, the apostles, or Satan himself, the Lords response would be "Have you not read?" or "It is written." Satan's suggestions and Pharisaic practices were often contrary to the Scriptures. It is argued by Protestants that, since the religion of the Old Covenant is contained in its entirety in the written Word, so should the religion of the New Covenant. This is a sensible argument. It would be somewhat inconsistent for God to provide a complete religious handbook for the Jews, but not provide a similar manual for the Christians. If all of Jewish religious truth were not contained in the Scriptures, it would be equally inconsistent for God to deny Christians the same extra sources of truth. Some may grant this conclusion but find it irrelevant since it is so obvious that all Jewish truth is contained in the Scriptures.
The scribes and Pharisees of Christ's time were often corrupt people. It was in part the Lord's consistent condemnation of their hypocrisy that inspired the conspiracy to kill him. (Cf. Wisdom 2) Despite their flaws, the scribes and Pharisees were not without redeeming qualities. Theologically, Jesus himself was a Pharisee. Before a gathered crowd, Jesus said, " The scribes and Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice. They tie up heavy burdens and lay them on peoples shoulders, but they will not lift a finger to move them." (Matthew 23:2-4) Catholics see a striking parallel between the seat of Moses in the Old Covenant Kingdom of God, the Hebrew nation, and the seat of Peter and the apostles in the New Covenant Kingdom of God, the Universal Church. Could the scribes and Pharisees have exercised the same type of religious authority that the Catholic Magesterium does? Were there unwritten truths entrusted to the scribes and Pharisees? Did God prevent those truths from being corrupted, despite the Caiaphas-esque nature of the leaders? The Catholic would affirm that the evidence supports the answer "yes" to each of those questions.
Jesus insists without qualification that they be obeyed. Why?
Some say that the scribes and Pharisees exercised only civil authority, since "church" and state were not separated. It has been argued that their authority was limited to the practical responsibilities of pastoral care, and had no divine element. That being the case, the command of Jesus to obey them would be similar to his " render unto Caesar." According to that thinking, even though it was the scribes and Pharisees that established the canon of Scripture, ruled over synagogues, regulated synagogue and temple worship, and made rules of Jewish conduct, their authority was only civil and they received no divine guidance in these matters.
Cited to support this view is Mark 7:7, " In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men." Protestants opposed to the Catholic Magisterium believe that Jesus condemned here all extra Biblical traditions, thus relegating Pharisaical authority to the above described necessities of pastoral care. This view is inconsistent with the overall message of the Gospel. In the time of Jesus, the outward rituals of human traditions were being emphasized, at the expense of the true spirit of God's Law. That is how the Jews of the time could put to death the Messiah, but still remain ritually pure for the coming Sabbath. Certainly, if the traditions were of God rather than men, there would be no sin in binding them. Could there have been unwritten God given tradition? This verse does nothing to rule out the possibility, nor does it change the Lord's unqualified endorsement of Pharisaical authority. Jesus condemns the Pharisees not because they "tie up heavy burdens and lay them on peoples shoulder," but because they do not " lift a finger to help."
Here we come to a stalemate. One man says that the Seat of Moses is civil/pastoral authority with no right to bind traditions on the people. Another says that the Seat of Moses is religious authority responsible for the preservation of God given tradition, with required obedience. Which man is right? We could let them get into a shouting match or do some rasslin', but that would solve nothing. The fair solution is to examine the religious beliefs of the Jews and early Christians. If all Jewish truth comes from Scripture, then consistency requires the same for Christian truth. If there is unscriptural Jewish truth, preserved by the Seat of Moses, then we must identify the Seat of Moses in Christendom and obey those who hold it.
The evidence of historical Judaism and Christianity does little to back up the sola scriptura view. A survey of the historical record shows much doctrine and many practices which fall into the "all things whatsoever they tell you," but are not explicitly taught in Scripture.
The wicked and jealous King Herod, upon learning of the Messiah's birth, ordered the murder of all Jewish male babies. An angel had warned Joseph of the Slaughter of the Innocents, and the holy family fled toEgypt. When Herod died, an angel instructed them to return to their homeland. Fearing the new ruler, Archelaus, Joseph did not return toBethlehem. Instead, they went to Galilee. "He went and dwelt in a town called Nazareth, so that what had been spoken through the prophets mightbe fulfilled, ‘He shall be called a Nazorean.'" (Matthew 2:23)
EXAMPLE ONE: By the dawn of the first century, Jews had become familiar with Messianic prophecy. They were tired of Roman control, and longed for their Savior to come and establish the Kingdom of God. Jewish readers of Matthew understood that a number of the Messiah's characteristics had been foretold. He would be a descendant of Abraham (Genesis 12), of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49), a great prophet (Deuteronomy 18), born of a virgin (Isaiah 7), God with us (Isaiah 8), ruler of an eternal kingdom (Daniel 2), sacrificed for the sins of the world (Isaiah 53), killed for offending hypocrites (Wisdom 2), and called a Nazorean, among many other things. Searching the Scriptures, however, one can not find the passage which says "He shall be called a Nazorean." Yet, Matthew's audience understood that it "had been spoken through the prophets." It was part of revealed Jewish truth, part of the depositum fidei, but it was not in the Scriptures. It's preservation is not due to Sacred Scripture, but to an oral tradition which had to have been divinely preserved.
EXAMPLE TWO: In Exodus 7, Moses and Aaron stood before Pharaoh pleading the case for the release of the Hebrew slaves. They worked wonders to prove the power of God. "Pharaoh, in turn, summoned wise men and sorcerers, and they also, the magicians of Egypt, did likewise by the BlackArts." (Exodus 7:11) Centuries later, St. Paul compares evil men in the world with these magicians who opposed Moses. "Just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so they also oppose the truth--people of depraved mind, unqualified in the faith." (2 Timothy 3:8). Who opposed Moses? Jannes and Jambres. Who were they? The Egyptian sorcerers. How does St. Paul, some 1300 years later, know their names, which are given nowhere in the Scriptures? Jewish tradition had preserved that information. There was even a work called the Book of Jannes and Jambres. Did St. Paul, inspired by God, believe a fictitious legendary account? That does not fit well with the notion of Biblical inerrancy, which both Catholic and Protestant believe. Or, are Jannes and Jambres, though not in the Scriptures, part of the depositum fidei? This is the more likely conclusion.
EXAMPLE THREE: The Epistle to the Hebrews describes the tragic fate of some of God's people. "They were stoned, sawed in two, put to death at swords point." Sawed in two? Who in the Scriptures was ever sawed in two? Nobody. To whom is the inspired writer referring? According to Jewish tradition, this was the fate of the prophet Isaiah. The Hebrew writer quotes it as fact. Are we to believe that the inspired writer could not separate divine truth from legend, or, more likely (and far less blasphemously), could it be part of the unwritten depositum fidei as well?
EXAMPLE FOUR: Because of Moses' sin, he was not allowed to enter into the Promised Land. "After viewing the land, Moses, the servant of the LORD, died as the LORD had said; and he was buried in the ravine opposite Beth-peor in the land of Moab, but to this day no one knows the place of his burial." (Deuteronomy 34:5,6) Jewish tradition holds that that Moses was visibly assumed into heaven, and that Satan attempted to interfere with his burial, to be put in his place by St. Michael the Archangel. Does this sound ridiculous to you? It didn't to St. Jude. "Yet the Archangel Michael, when he argued with the devil in a dispute over the body of Moses, did not venture to pronounce a reviling judgment upon him but said, May the Lord rebuke you!" (Jude 9) The only recording of such an event is in a work called The Assumption of Moses, which was not written until the first century AD. The story existed only in verbal form until then (a 1200 year span), but is considered truth by the inspired writer. Not only is it considered truth, but so little details are given that it seems Judes audience knew the story well. Where is the dispute between Michael and Satan? Its not in the Scriptures, but it is in the depositum fidei.
EXAMPLE FIVE: In Jude 14, St. Jude writes, " Enoch, of the seventh generation from Adam, prophesied about them when he said, ‘Behold, the Lord has come with his countless holy ones to execute judgment on all and to convict everyone for all the godless deeds that they committed and for all the harsh words godless sinners have uttered against him.'" (Jude 14,15) Enoch is a very early figure in the Scriptures. According to Genesis 5, " When Enoch was sixty-five years old, he became the father of Methuselah, and he had other sons and daughters. The whole lifetime of Enoch was three hundred and sixty five years. Then Enoch walked with God, and hewas no longer here, for God took him." (Genesis 5:21-24) Aside from a brief retelling of his story in the Book of Sirach, this is the scriptural account of Enoch in its entirety. So where does Jude get his prophecy? It is a direct word for word quotation from a Jewish work called the First Book of Enoch, or the Ethiopic Book of Enoch, 1:9.
EXAMPLE SIX: 1 Enoch holds a few other surprises. 2 Peter 3:19,20 mentions " the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient while God patiently waited in the days of Noah." Jude elaborates. "The angels, too, who did not keep their own domain but deserted their proper dwelling, he has kept in eternal chains, in gloom, for the judgment of the great day." (Jude 6) These angels are the ones who, in Genesis 6, are believed by many to have mated with women and produced a race of giants. It was this evil which provoked God to flood the world. What about the chains and imprisonment of the angels? Its all outlined in full detail in 1 Enoch.
EXAMPLE SEVEN: 1 Enoch is also the key to understanding some of the Book of Revelation. To cite one example, Revelation 8:2 reads And I saw that the seven angels who stood before God were given seven trumpets. Which seven angels? John doesn't just say seven angels, but he says " the seven angels." 1 Enoch states that there are seven Archangels: Uriel, Raphael, Raguel, Michael, Saraquel, Gabriel, and Remiel. The Scriptures only mention three. With the New Testament relying so heavily on it, even going so far as to quote it directly, why isn't 1 Enoch canonical? Because its an obvious forgery. 1 Enoch was written in the second or third century BC, ages after the time of Enoch. Didn't the inspired writers know this? They certainly did. It is not the actual Book of First Enoch which is authoritative. It is the time honored tradition of the depositum fidei divinely preserved therein which is authoritative.
EXAMPLE EIGHT: Along with the oral traditions which were later verified by New Testament writers, a substantial amount of ancient Messianic prophecy exists which is never mentioned in the canonical Scriptures. Jewish apocalyptic literature is full ancient prophecies which must be attributed to divine revelation outside of Scripture. One example is the Testament of Judah, a first century work which preserves the traditional last message of the patriarch to his children. One would dismiss the words as fiction since they were put into his mouth some 1800 years after the fact, were it not for the striking accuracy of his prophecy. Judah declares that
" there shall be continual wars in Israel; and among men of another race shall my kingdom be brought to an end, until the salvation of Israel shall come. Until the appearing of the God of righteousness, that Jacob and all the Gentiles may rest in peace. And he shall guard the might of my kingdom forever; for the Lord sware to me with an oath that he would not destroy the kingdom from my seed forever...[T]he Lord shall bring upon you famine and pestilence, death and the sword...And after these things shall a star arise to you from Jacob in peace, and a man shall arise from my seed, like the sun of righteousness, walking with the sons of men in meekness and righteousness; and no sin shall be found in him. And the heavens shall be opened unto him, to pour out the Spirit, even the blessing of the Holy Father; and he shall pour out the Spirit of grace upon you; and ye shall be unto him sons in truth, and ye shall walk in his commandments first and last. Then shall the scepter of my kingdom shine forth; and from your root shall arise a stem; and from it shall grow a rod of righteousness to the Gentiles, to judge and to save all that call upon the Lord." (Testament of Judah 3:12-14,17,20-26)
EXAMPLE EIGHT: Even more remarkable than the prophecies in Jewish apocalyptic literature are those found in pagan classical literature.
" Perhaps the most dramatic and almost certainly the most familiar was the prophecy of the Roman poet Vergil in the fourth of his Eclogues . It predicted the breaking in of a new order of the ages; for now the virgin is returning [jam redit et virgo] and a new human race is descending from the heights of heaven. What would bring about this change would be the birth of a child [nascenti puero], with whom the iron age of humanity will end and the golden age begin. His birth would achieve a transformation of human nature; for Under your guidance, whatever vestiges remain of our ancient wickedness, once done away with, shall free the earth from its incessant fear.
There would even be changes in nature: For your sake, O child, the earth, without being tilled, will freely pour forth its gifts. Your very cradle shall pour forth for you caressing flowers. The serpent too shall die. " (Pelikan, Jaroslav. Jesus Through the Centuries. New York: Harper & Row, 1987. p. 35.)
Even the unbeliever must be taken aback by the striking similarities between this pagan prophecy of the child of the gods and Biblical Messianic prophecy. Compare Vergil's virgin birth with Isaiah 7:14. Vergil states that the iron age of humanity will end and the golden age begin. Daniel 2 says that " there shall be a ... kingdom, strong as iron...In the lifetime of these kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom." Vergil adds that, with the coming of the child, " the serpent too shall die." Compare that to the words of Genesis 3:15. Vergil possessed divine foreknowledge, completely apart from the Scriptures. According to Jaroslav Pelikan, Vergil was not alone among the enlightened pagans.
EXAMPLE NINE: "But Socrates and Plato could also serve the interpreters of Christ as the source of prophecy about Jesus--not only, as in the case of Vergil, about the birth of the Child, but even his death on the cross. In the course of listing various pagan prophecies about creation, the Sabbath, and other biblical themes, Clement came to one prophecy in which, he said, Plato all but predicts the history [oikonomia] of salvation. This remarkable passage is from the dialogue between Socrates and Glaucon in book 2 of Plato's Republic. Drawing a distinction between righteousness and unrighteousness, Glaucon postulates that, instead of beings who are both righteous and unrighteous, as most of us are most of the time, there would arise one unrighteous man who is entirely unrighteous and one righteous man who is entirely righeous.' Let this one righteous man, in his nobleness and simplicity, one who desires, in the words of Aeschylus, to be a good man, now be accused of being in fact the worst of men. Let him, moreover, remain steadfast to the hour of death, seeming to be unrighteous and yet being righteous.' What will be the outcome? The answer, for whose gruesomeness Glaucon apologizes in advance to Socrates, must be nothing other than the following: ‘He shall be scourged, tortured, bound, his eyes burnt out, and at last, after suffering every evil, shall be impaled or crucified.'" (Pelikan 44,45)
Other evidence could be presented, but this is enough to make the case. Divinely revelaed religious truth exists outside of the Scripture. Sola scriptura has been disproved. The depositum fidei contains truths entrusted not to the inspired writers, but to the teachers, scribes, and Pharisees: the Seat of Moses. The Catholic Church Magesterium claims to be in the Seat of Moses today, preserving the depositum fidei from now until the end of the world through successors to the apostles. Is the claim true? The Scriptures do not rule it out. The entire message of salvation history illustrates that the Catholic Church is the New Israel, inheriting the Old Israel's prerogatives as the chosen of God. It would seem more consistent to have the Seat of Moses occupied during the New Covenant as well as the Old. Consistency is the first argument in favor of the Catholic claim, and it should not be underestimated.
"Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours." (2 Thessalonians 2:15) According to Paul, there are truths to which a faithful Christian must stand firm and hold fast that are not recorded in the Scriptures, but only in oral form. Some argue that this was true only during a transition period. Before the Scriptures were finished, oral traditions did contain the truth, but once the Scriptures were complete, there was no more oral traditions. This is merely an assumption which can not be proven or disproved. Nowhere do the Scriptures indicate that a Bible is to be compiled to take the place of authoritative apostolic teaching preserved by Church leaders. Such an interpretation does render God inconsistent. It also ignores the truths about Enoch, Moses, Isaiah, and others which still had not been put into the Scriptures. Did those traditions, once part of the depositum fidei, cease to be true? Is this verse obsolete, now that oral tradition has been done away with? It is more plausible to count this verse as the second piece of evidence for the Catholic claim.
No faithful Christian will deny that the depositum fidei was given to the apostles. Jesus said to his apostles, "But when he comes,the Spirit of truth, he will guide you into all truth." (John 16:13) The apostles received the truth, and taught it with authority. Over this there is no controversy among Christians. Here is the point of difference: Did the apostles write all of the truth into the Scriptures or did they pass it down to successors? Certainly, whatever was written by the apostles would be authoritative. The apostles had authority to teach Gods truth, and their writings are to be revered as Scripture. Did they give their authority to successors? Many Christians deny that they did. They don't realize it, but even those who deny apostolic succession recognize four apostolic successors.
Jesus said to his apostles, " [T]he Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father will testify to me. And you also testify, because you have been with me from the beginning. On the grounds of this command, the apostles were given the authority to teach and, by extension, write, their writings being Scripture. Although only three of them did write anything that was later considered Scripture, Peter, John, and Matthew, plus, by extension, Paul, what little they left behind is, by virtue of apostolic authorship, authoritative Scripture. There are five other men whose writings are considered Scripture: Mark, Luke, Sosthenes, Timothy, and Silvanus. Apostolic writings are Scripture because they're apostolic, written on the authority of Christ's commandment. What about the gospels of Mark and Luke? Besides the evangelists, there are three other often forgotten inspired writers. Sosthenes co-wrote First Corinthians, Timothy, Bishop of Crete, co-wrote Second Corinthians, Phillipians, Colossians, First Thessalonians, Second Thessalonians, and Philemon. Silvanus, also known as St. Silas, co-wrote both Epistles to the Thessalonians. These men were not apostles. They did not follow Jesus on the earth. They came later, or succeeded the apostles. What makes their writings Scripture? One must admit that apostolic succession took place in at least five instances. These five bishops were given authority to write Scripture which was just as binding as that of the apostles. Where is apostolic succession in the Scriptures? Mark, Luke, Sosthenes, Timothy, and Silvanus are scriptural examples of apostolic successors. Where is the end of apostolic succession in the Scriptures? Nowhere. This is the third piece of evidence.
The New Testament names three offices in Church government: bishop, presbyter, and deacon. Often there was no distinction between the titles of bishop and presbyter. Some Protestants use this fact to try to disprove the legitimacy of the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox episcopate. They argue that the Catholic system is a corruption, resulting from the unlawful arroagation of authority by individual members of the councils of presbyters of each church. Using the lack of clearly designated titles as evidence is sophistry. The Scriptures and the early tstimony of the Church always shows that amidst the presbyters of the churches was oneleader, from whom the others inherited their authority. Before the three titles were clearly set apart, that leader was called bishop, overseer, presbyter, elder, pastor, guide, and even as late as 160 AD in the isolated case of St. Justin Martyr, he was called the president. The president was chosen from among the presbyters, so could be referred to as a fellow presbyter. Most historians, Catholic and Protestant, recognize St. James as the Bishop of Jerusalem, the first Christian community. In Acts 15, after St. Peter gives his opinion, St. James declares the matter settled and drafts the letter to the churches. It could be argued that St. James was simply writing on behalf of his fellow (equal) presbyters, but the text strongly implies that, as president, he had the prominent role. St. Paul describes the Jerusalem Council in Galatians 2, calling St. James a pillar along with Ss. Peter and John. The earliest Christian writers support that St. James was the Catholic Bishop of Jerusalem.
"Peter, James, and John, after the Ascension of the Savior, did not claim pre-eminence because the Savior had specially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem." (Clement, Outlines Book VI, via Eusebius)
"Control of the Church passed to the apostles, together with the Lord's brother James, whom everyone from the Lord's time till our own has called the Righteous, for there were many Jameses, but this one was holy from birth; he drank no wine or intoxicating liquor and ate no animal food; no razor came to his head; he did not smear himself with oil, and took no baths. He alone was permitted to enter the Holy Place, for his garments were not of wool, but of linen. He used to enter the Sanctuary alone, and was often found on his knees beseeching forgiveness for the people, so that his knees grew hard like a camels from his continually bending in worship of God and beseeching forgiveness for the people. Because of his unsurpassable righteousness he was called the Righteous and Oblias--in our own language Bulwark of the People, and Righteousness-fulfilling the declarations of the prophets regarding him.
Representatives of the seven popular sects...said toJames: ‘Be good enough to restrain the people, for they have gone astray after Jesus in the belief that he is the Christ'... He replied as loudly as he could: ‘ Why do you question me about the Son of Man? I tell you, he is sitting in heaven at the right hand of the Great Power, and he will come on the clouds of heaven'....[T]he scribes and Pharisees said to each other: ‘ ...We had better go up and throw him down.'" (Hegesippus, via Eusebius)
"After the martyrdom of James and the capture of Jerusalem which instantly followed, there is a firm tradition that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord who were still alive assembled from all parts together with those who, humanly speaking, were kinsmen of the Lord--for most of them were still living.Then they all discussed together whom they should choose as a fit person to succeed James, and voted unanimously that Symeon, son of the Clopas mentioned in the gospel narrative, was a fit person to occupy the throne of the Jerusalem see. (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History)
There are at least two other examples in Scripture of what may be monarchical bishoprics. (I use the word "may" for diplomatic reasons only. There is no doubt that these men were Catholic Bishops when all evidence is examined. The "may" comes into the picture only when, without just cause, we limit the admissible evidence to Sacred Scripture, which never explicilty uses the term "monarchical bishopric." ) Tradition holds that St. John was the Bishop of Ephesus until his banishment to Patmos. St. John identifies himself in his second and third epistles as "the Presbyter." Does this exclude other presbyters at John's church? Not explicitly, but it strongly implies that he was the one and only presbyter. Since the Theologian is not writing only to his own congregation, but is writing a Catholic Epistle to the Church Universal, his designation as "the Presbyter" implies that he was Presbyter of a large area including many churches. If there were other equal presbyters ruling with him, wouldn't John have included his name in the epistles? Instead, he calls himself only "the Presbyter," expecting Christians around the world to know who he is.
It is held by tradition that Titus was Bishop of Crete. In St. Paul's Epistle to Titus, the Apostle encourages him to " set right what remains to be done, for this reason I left you in Crete." Titus seems to be solely in charge of Cretan operations, not just an evangelist subject to the presbyters in his town. In fact, Paul gives Titus the authority to "appoint presbyters in every town." (Titus 1:5) Titus is also granted the authority to excommunicate. "After a first and second warning, break off contact with a heretic, realizing that such a person is perverted and sinful and stands self-condemned." (Titus 3:10) Ordination and excommunication are rights which through the ages centuries were reserved only to bishops. These scriptural examples of what may be monarchical bishoprics, a fact supported by history, are a fourth piece of evidence for the Catholic view.
St. Ignatius of Antioch has been accused by some who oppose monarchical bishoprics of inventing the idea in order to increase his own power. This refuted by his own writings. Rather than his own invention, monarchical bishoprics were the universal norm in his time, the dawn of the second century. He was far from a man with a hunger for power. His desire was solely to serve Christ, and died a martyr's death for it.
"For even Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is sent by the will of the Father; as the bishops, appointed to the utmost bounds of the earth, are by the will of Jesus Christ. Wherefore it will become you to run together according to the will of your bishop, as also ye do. For your famous presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop, as the strings are to the harp." (Ignatius to the Ephesians 1:12-14)
" Pray for the church which is in Syria, from whence I am carried bound to Rome [for execution]; being the least of all the faithful which are there, as I have been thought worthy to be found to the glory of God." (Ig. Ephesians 4:18)
"Seeing then I have been judged worthy to see you, by Damas your most excellent bishop; and by your very worthy presbyters, Bassus and Apollonius; and by my fellow servant Sotio, the deacon; in whom I rejoice, for he is as much subject unto his bishop as to the grace of God, and to the presbytery as to the law of Jesus Christ; I determined to write unto you. Wherefore it will become you also not to use your bishop too familiarly upon the account of his youth; but to yield all reverence to him according to the power of God the Father; as also I perceive that your holy presbyters do: not considering his age, which indeed to appearance is young; but as becomes those who are prudent in God, submitting to him, or rather not to him, but to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the bishop of us all."(Magnesians 1:4-6)
" In like manner, let us reverence the deacons as Jesus Christ; and the bishop as the father; and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and college of the Apostles. Without these, there is no Church." (Trallians 1:8,9)
" Only pray for me, that God would give me both inward and outward strength [in the face of execution], that I may not only say, but will; nor be only called a Christian, but be found one." (Ignatius to the Romans 1:10)
" Let fire, and the cross; let the companies of wild beasts; let breakings of bones and tearing of members; let the shattering of the whole body, and all the wicked torments of the devil come upon me; only let me enjoy Jesus Christ. All the ends of the world, and the kingdoms of it, will profit me nothing: I would rather die for Jesus Christ, than rule to the utmost ends of the earth. Him I seek who died for us; him I desire, that rose again for us. This is the gain that is laid up for me." (Ig. Romans 2:13,14)
" Be not deceived, brethren; if anyone follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the Kingdom of God. If anyone walks after any other opinion, he agrees not with the passion of Christ. Wherefore let it be your endeavor to partake all of the same holy Eucharist. For there is but one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ; and one cup in the unity of his blood; one altar; as also there is one bishop, together with his presbytery, and the deacons my fellow servants: that so whatsoever ye do, ye may do it according to the will of God." (Philadelphians 1:9-12)
" Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people also be: as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." (Smyrneans 3:4)
St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, born in the first century AD, penned letters to numerous churches encouraging them to hold fast to their faith. Along with Polycarp, he was a personal disciple of St. John. He shows in his writings a willingness to die for his faith, and implies that the monarchical bishopric system was universally accepted as the norm in the early years of the second century. This is the fifth piece of evidencefor the Catholic position.
Evidence has been shown that within the depositum fidei are truths not recorded in Scripture. Paul says to hold fast to oral traditions, provided of course that they be part of the depositum. Scriptural and historical evidence has been shown for the early existence of monarchical bishoprics, the same Episcopal system which exists in the Catholic Church today. It has also been established that all Christians accept at least four authoritative apostolic successors: Mark, Luke, Sosthenes, Timothy, and Silvanus. Scripture nowhere limits the authoritative succession to those four. What about others? Did the early Christians believe that bishops were successors to the apostles?
St. Clement I, Bishop of Rome and fourth on the list of Popes is called by St. Paul a coworker, whose name [is] in the book of life. A controversy arose when the church at Corinth deposed properly ordained presbyters. In the first example of the Roman church executing authority in a foreign land, the Pontiff sent his first epistle to Corinth to fix the problem. The Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, or 1 Clement, was considered Scripture and publicly read in churches as late as the fourth century. Says Clement:
"And thus preaching through countries and cities, [the apostles] appointed the first fruits of their conversion to be bishops and ministers over such as should afterwards believe, having first proved them by the Spirit...So likewise our Apostles knew by our Lord Jesus Christ, that there should contentions arise, upon account of the bishops office. And therefore having a perfect foreknowledge of this, they appointed persons, as we have before said, and then gave direction, how, when they should die, other chosen and approved men should succeed in their ministry...For it would be no small sin in us, should we cast off those from their ministry who holily and without blame fulfill the duties of it. Blessed are those priests, who having finished their course before these times have obtained a fruitful and perfect dissolution." (1 Clement 19:4,16,17,19,20)
In the Scriptures, Mark, Luke, Sosthenes, Timothy, and Silas are apostolic successors, or else their writings would not be authoritative. Titus and Barnabas appear to be successors also, especially in the light of Clement's writings. St. Clement, once a coworker of Paul "whose name [was] in the book of life," either rejected Paul's teaching and fell into the heresy of continued apostolic succession, dragging forthcoming centuries of Christians with him, or simply passed down from the Seat of Peter what was given to him: that apostolic succession is part of and entrusted with the depositum fidei. St. Ignatius also comments on apostolic succession. See the above quote from Trallians 1:8, in which Ignatius calls the presbyters the Sanhedrin of God, and college of the Apostles.
"Continue inseparable from Jesus Christ our God, and from your bishop, and from the commands of the Apostles. He that is within the altar is pure; but he that is without, that is, he that does anything without the bishop, the presbyters, and deacons, is not pure in conscience." (Trallians 2:4,5)
"See that you follow your bishop, as Jesus Christ, the Father; and the presbytery, as the Apostles. And reverence the deacons, as the command of God." (Smyrneans 3:1)
"I exhort you that ye study to do all things in a divine concord: Your bishop presiding in the place of God; your presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles; and your deacons most dear to me being entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ." (Magnesians 2:4,5)
St. Clement, of the first generation after Ss. Peter and Paul, and St. Ignatius, of the first generation after St. John, taught that those ordained bishops and presbyters were successors to the apostles. They were to be obeyed because they taught the truth. These were Paul's oral statements, the unwritten portion of the depositum fidei. Rejecters of apostolic succession, believing in sola scriptura, should take special notice of the words of St. Irenaeus regarding heretics who claimed to possess a secret apostolic tradition.
"When they are refuted out of the Scriptures they betake themselves to accusing the Scriptures themselves as if there were something amiss with them and they carried not authority, because the Scriptures, they say, contain diverse utterances, and because the truth cannot be found in them...
"Yet when we appeal again to that tradition which is derived from the apostles, and which is safeguarded in the churches through the succession of presbyters, they then are adversaries of tradition, claiming to be wiser not only than the presbyters but even the apostles, and to have discovered the truth undefiled...
"Those that wish to discern the truth may observe the apostolic tradition made manifest in every church throughout the world. We can enumerate those who were appointed bishops in the churches by the apostles, and their successors down to our own day, who never taught, and never knew, absurdities such as these men produce. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught the perfect in private and in secret, they would rather have committed them to those to whom they entrusted the churches. For they wished those men to be perfect and unblameable whom they left as their successors and to whom they handed over their own office of authority...This we do by pointing to the apostolic tradition and the faith that is preached to men, which has come down to us through the successions of bishops; the tradition and creed of the greatest, the most ancient church, the church known to all men, which was founded and set up at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul. For with this church, because of its position of leadership and authority, must needs agree every church, that is, the faithful everywhere; for in her the apostolic tradition has always been preserved by the faithful from all parts...
"And then Polycarp, besides being instructed by the apostles and aquatinted with many who had seen the Lord, was also appointed by the apostles for Asia as Bishop of the church in Smyrna. Even I saw him in my early youth; for he remained with us a long time, and at a great age suffered a martyrdom full of glory and renown and departed this life, having taught always the things which he had learnt from the apostles, which the Church hands down, which alone are true. (Adv. haereses 3:2:1,2;3:3:1,4)
Tertullian offers this challenge to any outside of the Catholic Church who attempt to identify themselves with the original Church:
"But if any of these are bold enough to insert themselves into the Apostolic age, in order to seem handed down from the apostles because they existed under the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the origins of their churches; let them unroll the list of their bishops, an unbroken succession from the beginning so that first bishop had as his precursor and the source of his authority one of the apostles or one of the apostolic men who, though not an apostle, continued with the apostles. This is how the apostolic churches report their origins; thus the church of the Smyrnaeans relates that Polycarp was appointed by John, the church of Rome that Clement was ordained by Peter..." (De praescriptione haereticorum 32)
The testimony of these early writers as to the general opinion of the early Church, without any record of disputation, are the sixth piece of evidence for the Catholic position.
The following Scriptures offer, in order, a gradual revelation of God's plan to establish his Covenant family and kingdom in all nations of the earth, the Church. Notice that the kingdom is to remain strong forever, never being delivered up into another rulers hands. It is also interesting that the kingdom is to overcome the Roman empire, and that faithful members of the kingdom need not fear death. Why does the Catholic Church believe it has the protection of infallibility in preserving the depositum fidei? Consult these passages:
"The scepter will not depart from Judah nor the rulers staff from between his feet,until he comes to whom it belongs, and the obedience of the nations is his." (Genesis 49:10)
" For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end. He will reign on Davids throne and over his kingdom, establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever. The zeal of the LORD Almighty will accomplish this." (Isaiah 9:6,7)
Daniel foretold the futures of four world empires: Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece, and Rome.
" In the lifetime of these [Roman] kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed or delivered up to another people; rather, it shall break in pieces all these kingdoms and put an end to them, and it shall stand forever...The great God has revealed to the king what shall be in the future; this is exactly what you dreamed, and its meaning is sure." (Daniel 2:44,45)
" Amen, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the Kingdom of God has come in power." (Mark 9:1)
"And so I say to you, you are the Rock, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:18-20)
"And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." (Matthew 28:20)
"Striv[e] to preserve the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, as you were called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Ephesians 4:3-6)
"You should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth." (1 Timothy 3:15)
The testimony of the Scriptures regarding the permanence and authority of the Church is the seventh piece of evidence supporting the Catholic view.
The fourth of our five propositions was that gospel truths are contained in the apostolic traditions and kept pure by the apostolic successors. Here is a review of the six pieces of evidence:
-Evidence: There is religious truth which is part of the depositum fidei which is not part of the Scriptures.
-Evidence: 2 Thessalonians 2:15. Paul endorsed both oral andwritten traditions.
-Evidence: There are five universally recognized apostolic successors.
-Evidence: Scripture strongly suggests monarchical bishoprics for James, John, and Titus.
-Evidence: St. Ignatius accounts of widely accepted monarchical bishoprics.
-Evidence: Testimonies of St. Clement I, St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Irenaeus, and Tertullian to the widely held doctrine of apostolic succession.
-Evidence: Scriptures guarantee that the Church will increase forever and never be delivered up to another people.
The final proposition is that the Bible Christians use today actually contains the Sacred Scriptures. No mention is made within the Sacred Scriptures as to the canon of the Bible. Perhaps the sola scriptura believer will claim that the overwhelming weight of evidence can lead each individual to make an objective determination of what is or is not Scripture. What evidence is that? It would have to be the testimony of the early Christians, specifically the ones before the Great Apostasy. There is no such testimony. The earliest attempt to list New Testament Scripture is by Origen in his commentary on Matthew in 210 AD. Origen was a firm believer in both apostolic succession and the supremacy of the successor to Peter, yet even his canon is still incomplete. As late as the fourth century, Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation were disputed, while 1 Clement was accepted. If the Scriptures are the only thing profitable for completion and the sole source of the depositum fidei, by what authority is the canon of Scripture put together? How does the Protestant know what is or is not Scripture? The Jews relied on the educated decisions of those on the Seat of Moses. What about Christians? They rely on the decisions of the Catholic Church at the fourth century councils of Rome and Hippo. Here is the Protestant dilemma: If the authority of the apostolic successors was valid on the day they established the canon, why not the day before or the day after?
The canon of Scripture is not the only question about which sola scriptura adherents must rely on Catholic Tradition. The books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Acts, Hebrews, 1,2, and 3 John are anonymous. Using just the Scripture, it cannot be determined who wrote these books. It is apostolic tradition which credits Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul with writing the anonymous Scriptures. I dare say that not just anyone can write Scripture: it has to be an apostle or a so-called New Testament prophet. If it cannot be trusted that the anonymous Scriptures are by Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul, they lose their credibility, and we lose our gospel.
In matters of faith, upon what do you stand? Do you stand on just the Scriptures? If you do, God bless you. You'll need it. Look at the confusion in todays religious world. Look at the fruits of sola scriptura: 20,000 competing denominations. Is God the Father of such chaos?
If you plan to reject the authority of the apostolic successors, then you must realize something. You are rejecting the authority of the men who put your Bible together. Without those apostolic successors, you would not know what Scripture is or isn't. Standing against apostolic succession is standing against a doctrine which was held by faithful Christians for three centuries before your Bible was put together. Sola scriptura is a doctrine which can not be proven from the Scriptures, and thus cancels itself out. Scripture claims for itself profitability, nothing more and nothing less. Rejecting the apostolic succession puts you in schism from the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. If that's the position you choose, allow us to close with the challenge earlier quoted from Tertullian: " Let them then produce the origins of their churches; let them unroll the list of their bishops, an unbroken succession from the beginning."
Why was Scripture given to us? So that the man of God may be complete. Why is the Magisterium here to guide us? So that the man of God may be complete. Thats God's purpose for mankind: true Christian completion. It's possible. It's attainable. It's available. Pray for it. God bless you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)