A compelling non-Catholic argument

[OnlyAmbrose]

Hi all,

I’ve been exchanging emails and conversations with a nondenominational pastor who leads a “house church” in his garage. I really enjoy talking with him because he doesn’t make the typical touchy-feely arguments of fundamentalists, but rather, addresses things in a logical, rational, and ultimately reasonable manner.

Recently we’ve been having a discussion on authority. Now, I’ve read every article on the topic in the CA library, and in the past I’ve always been able to make a very effective argument for the authority of the Catholic Church. This guy take a novel approach, though, and he makes a very good case.

First he asked me to explain why I believe in the primacy of Rome. I explained in the typical manner - Christ built the Church on Peter, and Peter was martyred in Rome, where the apostles passed authority to the next bishop of Rome.

He then asked me how I knew that the apostles passed authority to Linus. I said that it’s stated in the writings of early Church fathers such as Irenaeus. Now here’s where he brought up a point I’ve never heard before - arguing from the texts of the early Church fathers is sort of begging the question. How do I know that authority lies is Rome? Because the early Church fathers say so. How do I know the early Church fathers were right? Because they were in communion with Rome.

He brings up the very good point that not all bishops at the time were supportive of Roman authority. So why don’t we accept THEIR account of authority? Because they weren’t in communion with Rome. But our basis for Roman authority comes largely from the writings from the early Church fathers who WERE in communion with Rome? I definitely see the circular logic in this.

So… that being said, how do we justify Roman authority?

 

[FCEGM]

Hi all,

I’ve been exchanging emails and conversations with a nondenominational pastor who leads a “house church” in his garage. I really enjoy talking with him because he doesn’t make the typical touchy-feely arguments of fundamentalists, but rather, addresses things in a logical, rational, and ultimately reasonable manner.

Recently we’ve been having a discussion on authority. Now, I’ve read every article on the topic in the CA library, and in the past I’ve always been able to make a very effective argument for the authority of the Catholic Church. This guy take a novel approach, though, and he makes a very good case.

First he asked me to explain why I believe in the primacy of Rome. I explained in the typical manner - Christ built the Church on Peter, and Peter was martyred in Rome, where the apostles passed authority to the next bishop of Rome.

He then asked me how I knew that the apostles passed authority to Linus. I said that it’s stated in the writings of early Church fathers such as Irenaeus. Now here’s where he brought up a point I’ve never heard before - arguing from the texts of the early Church fathers is sort of begging the question. How do I know that authority lies is Rome? Because the early Church fathers say so. How do I know the early Church fathers were right? Because they were in communion with Rome.

He brings up the very good point that not all bishops at the time were supportive of Roman authority. So why don’t we accept THEIR account of authority? Because they weren’t in communion with Rome. But our basis for Roman authority comes largely from the writings from the early Church fathers who WERE in communion with Rome? I definitely see the circular logic in this.

So… that being said, how do we justify Roman authority?

Our basis for “Roman is authority” comes from Scripture, i.e., who is in union with Peter, the Rock? Further, at what “time” were not all bishops supportive of union with Peter?

 

[RedSoxFan]

Hi all,

I’ve been exchanging emails and conversations with a nondenominational pastor who leads a “house church” in his garage. I really enjoy talking with him because he doesn’t make the typical touchy-feely arguments of fundamentalists, but rather, addresses things in a logical, rational, and ultimately reasonable manner.

Recently we’ve been having a discussion on authority. Now, I’ve read every article on the topic in the CA library, and in the past I’ve always been able to make a very effective argument for the authority of the Catholic Church. This guy take a novel approach, though, and he makes a very good case.

First he asked me to explain why I believe in the primacy of Rome. I explained in the typical manner - Christ built the Church on Peter, and Peter was martyred in Rome, where the apostles passed authority to the next bishop of Rome.

He then asked me how I knew that the apostles passed authority to Linus. I said that it’s stated in the writings of early Church fathers such as Irenaeus. Now here’s where he brought up a point I’ve never heard before - arguing from the texts of the early Church fathers is sort of begging the question. How do I know that authority lies is Rome? Because the early Church fathers say so. How do I know the early Church fathers were right? Because they were in communion with Rome.

He brings up the very good point that not all bishops at the time were supportive of Roman authority. So why don’t we accept THEIR account of authority? Because they weren’t in communion with Rome. But our basis for Roman authority comes largely from the writings from the early Church fathers who WERE in communion with Rome? I definitely see the circular logic in this.

So… that being said, how do we justify Roman authority?

Hmmm… I’m not to mystified by this whole argument. I don’t really see the trouble with the logic here.
I would say that dissenters from Peter would never have been allowed to take over the church because Christ said that the forces of Hell would never defeat it.
Even if some bishops did not always agree with the Roman Patriarch they would still have seen him as legitimate and at the very least an equal. But the church was united until much later no matter how much they argued with each other. This doesnt seem to be an arguement that I have heard about from antiquity.
It reminds me of people who say Jesus had a wife and children. There is no proof that this happend. Similarily, where is the proof at this time period to suggest that Linus wasn’t the legitimate successor to Peter?

 

[VociMike]

Why do you find this a compelling argument? Can you posit the true Church (Catholic or not) to which his argument does not apply? No, his argument would apply to the true Church just as much as it would apply to any false church. Which makes it a useless argument.

 

[JimG]

Is there any other Church which can trace it’s authority and leaders back through history to the Apostles? I’m guessing his own church is of pretty recent vintage.

If Christ and the Holy Spirit got this wrong for centuries on end, then nothing of Christianity can be accepted.

 

[reggieM]

But our basis for Roman authority comes largely from the writings from the early Church fathers who WERE in communion with Rome?

I think one of the mistakes here is thinking that our basis comes mainly from “writings”. This is taking sola Scriptura to the tradition also.

Our foundation actually comes from the historical figures and more importantly the church communities that were founded by the apostles. Those communities acted in unison.

There were bishops who held heretical beliefs. They were deposed in Council.

So again, apostolic succession comes to us through the actual people (as Irenaeus listed the Popes) who lead churches.

If someone can show a parallel list of bishops tracing back to the apostles, then that would be a different bit of information to work with. But as it stands, the only opposition to the authority of the Church of Rome is from Christians who splintered off from the body of the Church.

Those Christians did not preserve the Scriptures for future generations (as the Catholic Church did). They did not preserve the teachings and they didn’t hand down valid orders.

Some Baptists will make the claim that they are descended from some of those schismatic Christians of the apostolic age, but history shows that Protestantism came into existence in the 16th century and there is no unbroken chain of succession there.

 

[RobbyS]

Hi all,

I’ve been exchanging emails and conversations with a nondenominational pastor who leads a “house church” in his garage. I really enjoy talking with him because he doesn’t make the typical touchy-feely arguments of fundamentalists, but rather, addresses things in a logical, rational, and ultimately reasonable manner.

Recently we’ve been having a discussion on authority. Now, I’ve read every article on the topic in the CA library, and in the past I’ve always been able to make a very effective argument for the authority of the Catholic Church. This guy take a novel approach, though, and he makes a very good case.

First he asked me to explain why I believe in the primacy of Rome. I explained in the typical manner - Christ built the Church on Peter, and Peter was martyred in Rome, where the apostles passed authority to the next bishop of Rome.

He then asked me how I knew that the apostles passed authority to Linus. I said that it’s stated in the writings of early Church fathers such as Irenaeus. Now here’s where he brought up a point I’ve never heard before - arguing from the texts of the early Church fathers is sort of begging the question. How do I know that authority lies is Rome? Because the early Church fathers say so. How do I know the early Church fathers were right? Because they were in communion with Rome.

He brings up the very good point that not all bishops at the time were supportive of Roman authority. So why don’t we accept THEIR account of authority? Because they weren’t in communion with Rome. But our basis for Roman authority comes largely from the writings from the early Church fathers who WERE in communion with Rome? I definitely see the circular logic in this.

So… that being said, how do we justify Roman authority?

His argument is basically anti-historical; the argument for church authority is in part scriptural and part historical (dependent on sources outside the New Testament). Basically it is up to him to disprove our theory.By using a Scriptural a passage that contradicts what we know from other sources. He can’t get any further than Matthew 16, to which he will try to offer a “correct” interpretation. IMHO, the notion of arguing that the role of a modern pope is different from that of Peter in the Bible is a bit like arguing that the role of George Bush is different from that of Gerogre Washington, and also a bit like saying that such and such a power of exercised by Bush cannot be found in Article II.

 

[OnlyAmbrose]

Our basis for “Roman is authority” comes from Scripture, i.e., who is in union with Peter, the Rock? Further, at what “time” were not all bishops supportive of union with Peter?

His argument is that there is no evidence that Peter’s office continued after his death (though his “ministry” did) and furthermore that there is no evidence that the apostles transferred Peter’s authority to that of the Roman See.

He is not saying that all the bishops weren’t supportive of union with Peter, simply that they were no supportive of union with Rome.

Our foundation actually comes from the historical figures and more importantly the church communities that were founded by the apostles. Those communities acted in unison.

What about Eastern and African churches who believed in the equal authority of bishops? More specifically, what about those who subscribed to heresies such as Arianism?

There were bishops who held heretical beliefs. They were deposed in Council.

I brought up that point, but he argued that it isn’t particularly relevant to the issue of whether or not the Roman church held higher authority than the rest of the churches. Certainly, the Roman church BELIEVED that it did, but did it? And if so, how do we know?

If someone can show a parallel list of bishops tracing back to the apostles, then that would be a different bit of information to work with. But as it stands, the only opposition to the authority of the Church of Rome is from Christians who splintered off from the body of the Church.

But in the pre-Constantine era, what really IS the church? Because a great deal of bishops didn’t see it as headquartered in Rome. They were legitimate bishops in their regions, but they simply didn’t buy into the notion that the Roman bishop was their superior.

Some Baptists will make the claim that they are descended from some of those schismatic Christians of the apostolic age, but history shows that Protestantism came into existence in the 16th century and there is no unbroken chain of succession there.

He’s not making any such claim, in fact he claims to be neither Protestant nor Catholic, but rather, simply Christian. I suppose this is because he’s not into the idea of apostolic succession to begin with. He argues that to fulfill the OFFICE of the apostles, one must have personally been a witness to Christ. Therefore, he says, the writings of the apostles are what we should look to for guidance, and nothing more.

His argument is basically anti-historical; the argument for church authority is in part scriptural and part historical (dependent on sources outside the New Testament). Basically it is up to him to disprove our theory.By using a Scriptural a passage that contradicts what we know from other sources. He can’t get any further than Matthew 16, to which he will try to offer a “correct” interpretation.

He disagrees that it’s up to him to disprove our historical take. And I see where he’s coming from. If something didn’t happen, the only way to disprove it is really to search all the evidence, and if there isn’t any, make the reasonable assumption that it didn’t. He says he’s done that, and asked me to look for evidence based on the writings of the apostles that authority was transferred to Rome. I’m at a loss there.

Thanks for the replies, all, hope to see some more

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

Quote:
If someone can show a parallel list of bishops tracing back to the apostles, then that would be a different bit of information to work with. But as it stands, the only opposition to the authority of the Church of Rome is from Christians who splintered off from the body of the Church.

But in the pre-Constantine era, what really IS the church? Because a great deal of bishops didn’t see it as headquartered in Rome. They were legitimate bishops in their regions, but they simply didn’t buy into the notion that the Roman bishop was their superior.

Who cares if some Bishops “bought into” the descendants of Peter in Rome as “headquarters”?

We were promised ONE VOICE through which to make decisions and that HELL itself would not prevail against it.

Your friend needs to show what DID happen in his opinion which is different from what did happen in reality (aka the Church’s position) to CLARIFY his position as opposed to simply un-clarifying his “opponent’s” position.

Since all he proposes is that you don’t KNOW things other than in an apparently circular way, have him propose what DID happen and supply the required support!

Even if he can show that he’s at least possibly AS CORRECT as you are, he’s only pitted his super-minority opinion (with how many adherents?) against the weight of the Church.

Which is more believable? A constantly attacked ancient powerhouse of wisdom who’s defended itself for millenia from the best that great minds can fling at it, or a lone wolf trying not so much to rustle up a self-sustaining pack with a novel concept of history but rather a guppy trying simply to survive by muddying his little puddle?

 

[Teflon93]

He is arguing from absence of evidence. The first century in particular being bereft of historical records of Christianity, your pastor friend is simply filling in the gaps with whatever he chooses.

He could claim the other bishops were really Scientologists on the same basis, and has no evidence whatsoever for this claim or any other.

 

[Daniel_Marsh]

start with Eph 2:20 and ask him for his model of church authority, succession, veriflying that the church teaches true doctrine. Would not his interpretation of the Bible be circular too?

 

[MarcoPolo]

He brings up the very good point that not all bishops at the time were supportive of Roman authority.

He actually brings up the reason why “authority” was established in the first place! Read Acts 15. Not everyone was in agreement that circumcision was necessary for salvation…yet this pastor would submit to the authority of that Council of Jerusalem, in which Peter was first to speak. Whenever someone points to dissenting opinions in early Christianity, I say, yeah, there has always been that! Read Acts 15!

Plus as others have noted, Peter can be seen in Scripture as the head of the earthly Church, and the same authority through Tradition has defined his chair more clearly.

 

[PC_Master]

I think you should probably read the chapter in question (and the surrounding chapters). In reality, Peter was neither first to speak at the “council of Jerusalem”, nor the last. That’s fact (at least if we trust scripture as reliable). Neither was he the one whose words were the model for the letter sent back to Antioch (that was James). Again, that’s fact. In fact, there’s nothing which explicitly shows he was in authority. There are many things that can be interpreted to imply that he did, but the same is true for James.

OnlyAmbrose> It is my hope that you will research thoroughly of your own accord, doing your best to set aside preconceptions and biases. We all have such biases (I was a baptist, and had, and even still do have, my own biases to overcome), and it’s important to realize that you cannot read into history your personal beliefs. It’s a hard thing to avoid, but I take it that you might be able to do so.

You will be in my prayers as you search for the truth. If you do happen to come across any explicit evidence supporting the primacy of Rome, I would ask that you share it with me. I’m still searching for the truth of such matters, and a smoking gun that says the authority continued on past Peter and into the Roman bishopric would help in my search. I’ve been searching, and cannot find such.

What I do find is that, as you’ve mentioned, people tend to discount as credible, bishops and other religious individuals as heretics because they were in disagreement with positions now held (or then held) by Rome. For instance, we’re supposed to reject the later works of Tertullian because he supposedly became a heretic. But how do we know that he wasn’t right? (I’m not saying that he actually was – I’m just saying we need more certainty than a list of evidence that is molded and shaped by current theological opinions.)

Oh, and there’s one more thing I’d mention to everyone – that someone cannot explain to you exactly what happened during the time in question does not automatically validate the RCC’s position on something. Whether the RCC is wrong or right is an independent issue, and should be approached accordingly.

 

[Orionthehunter]

From OnlyAmbrose: His argument is that there is no evidence that Peter’s office continued after his death (though his “ministry” did) and furthermore that there is no evidence that the apostles transferred Peter’s authority to that of the Roman See.

Actually there is substantial evidence in the writings of the Early Church Fathers. I think it is incumbent on him to give evidence of these othe Bishops which rejected the authority of Linus, Clement, etc. as successors to Peter.

From OnlyAmbrose: He is not saying that all the bishops weren’t supportive of union with Peter, simply that they were not supportive of union with Rome.

Of whom is he speaking and what evidence does he have of this?

From OnlyAmbrose: What about Eastern and African churches who believed in the equal authority of bishops? More specifically, what about those who subscribed to heresies such as Arianism?

Unless he believes Arianism is not a heresy but a truth, why would he give them any credence?

From OnlyAmbrose: I brought up that point, but he argued that it isn’t particularly relevant to the issue of whether or not the Roman church held higher authority than the rest of the churches.

It is wholly and significantly relevant. If it held higher authority, it proves the point about the primacy of the Pope.

From OnlyAmbrose: Certainly, the Roman church BELIEVED that it did, but did it? And if so, how do we know?

Well, the writing of the ECF’s said so. But, I guess to him, the question is mute since he won’t debate whether or not in fact Rome held higher authority. Hard to debate with one who makes the rules to make sure he wins.

From OnlyAmbrose: He’s not making any such claim, in fact he claims to be neither Protestant nor Catholic, but rather, simply Christian.

It is my experience that one who argues this rejects any authority which makes him a “Magisterium of One” in his own mind.

From OnlyAmbrose: He argues that to fulfill the OFFICE of the apostles, one must have personally been a witness to Christ.

I guess that means he believes that he can’t fulfill any of the duties either. But,

From OnlyAmbrose: Therefore, he says, the writings of the apostles are what we should look to for guidance, and nothing more.

As interpreted by this “Magisterium of One.”

From OnlyAmbrose: He disagrees that it’s up to him to disprove our historical take. And I see where he’s coming from. If something didn’t happen, the only way to disprove it is really to search all the evidence, and if there isn’t any, make the reasonable assumption that it didn’t. He says he’s done that, and asked me to look for evidence based on the writings of the apostles that authority was transferred to Rome. I’m at a loss there.

Well, if he gets to write the rules of the debate, reject interpretations of Scripture which point to it, reject writings of ECF’s, and reject all documented practice of Christianity through the Canonization of Scripture in the 3rd Century up through the Reformation, I can see why you have trouble debating with him. One can’t win against a stacked deck.

OnlyAmbrose, I know well where you are and what you are dealing with. I have a very close childhood friend who sounds just like your friend. He too planted a “home church” in his mind like the ECF’s (I guess this is an Apostolic act he can perform). He prays for me that I might find Christ and be saved as he fears I’m destined for Hell. And everything he says sounds like my friend. Unfortunately, he will not entertain a single thought or fact which threatens his world view. While all of his intentions are good, my friend has elevated his beliefs to a level that they transcend everything, even the idea that he might be wrong. We are not to find the Truth inside our own mind but from God. Your friend treads on very dangerous ground. Pray for him, continue to minister to him by giving him the facts but do not entertain his poison. He wants you to become a follower of his “magisterium of One”. It is no fun to be the Magisterium and have nobody listening.

 

[shaka_maka]

If he dosen’t believe in the passing on of authority from bishop to bishop then he can’t believe in the bible. It’s that authority that gave him the bible.

 

[EB4304]

No orthodox Christian Father ever questioned the RIGHT of the Roman Church to make authoritative decisions. There were plenty of heretics that dissented, and also plenty of orthodox bishops who disagreed with Rome on issues they believed were non-doctrinal (like St. Cyprian). But to say that there were all these bishops out there who rejected Roman authority is untrue. Even Irenaeus, when he begs Pope Victor not to break communion with the East, does not question the Pope’s authority - he just questions his prudential judgment.

Also, you’re not begging the question or arguing circularly. You can trust the Fathers because they are orthodox - they are in communion with the head of all orthodox apostolic teaching (Tertullian and Ignatius of Antioch among many others say that about Rome - that it’s the center of orthodoxy because of its foundation by the Apostles Peter and Paul). And because you can trust their orthodoxy and apostolic doctrine, you can trust them when they speak of the authority of Rome. You go from apostolic authority to ecclesiastical authority, which are different things.

Finally, one good philosophical argument for the authority and infallibility of the Church. Now, an effect can never be greater than its cause; this is a universally held truth of both logic and science. And all orthodox Christians admit that Scripture is infallible. But the Church wrote the New Testament (with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit). How can a fallible Church produce infallible Scripture? How can an effect be greater than its cause? It would be like God creating something more powerful than Himself - it’s a contradiction.

 

[EB4304]

Not only did the Church write the New Testament - it SELECTED it. They determined which books were orthodox and which ones weren’t. I would be a little suspicious if a fallible Church got together and decided to formulate a Christian canon. How could we really know that they got it right?

 

[rpp]

It takes some real mental gymnastics in order to claim that Peter did not pass on apostolic authority. If he did not, then what authority assembled the Bible 300 years later? Can the Bible be trusted?

That would be an interesting question.

Another interesting question is why would God want a chaotic, disorganized, inconsistent Church? We can see the multitude of disparate and contradictory teachings just between “bible-believing” Christians. God does not want Chaos. The Church, with her teaching authority, is the cure for that chaos.

 

[reggieM]

There is the archeological (irrefutable) evidence that St. Peter ministered and died in Rome. His tomb shows evidence from the earliest Christian era that he was honored as prince of the Church.

So, it’s not the “Roman Church” who claims this perogative centuries afterwards. It is the Christian community in Rome that recognizes Peter – and the fact that his tomb is marked to indicate his prestige simply confirms the Gospel teaching on Peter as head of the Church.

This has nothing to do with Arianism which came centuries after.

As for Constantine, one of his first actions was to build a church in Rome on the grave of St. Peter – right where the Basilica of St. Peter stands today.

I would like to know how this historical evidence is denied.

We have the Gospel pointing to Peter in unambiguous terms. Rock, keys and binding/loosing.

We have Irenaeus’ listing of Popes tracing back to Peter. No one else did this.

There is little or no teaching from bishops of the early church that would support the horizontal-church non-denominationalism that I think you’re talking about.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Clement

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (*Letter to the Corinthians *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Hegesippus

“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History *4:22 [A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus

“It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (*Against Heresies *3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul—that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (ibid., 3:3:2).

“Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time” (ibid., 3:3:4).