Radical– I made 4 assertions-- that the post-Apostolic Church called itself Catholic, that there exists an abundance of evidence that its organization & doctrines conformed as far as we can determine to modern Catholic organization & doctrines and not to Protestant ones, & that the 1st Century Bishop of Rome exercized supreme jurisdiction. I made it clear that I was making these assertions, not to convert you, but to illustrate for you why Catholics believe these things. That point seems to have gone completely over your head.
I note that you make no reply to my 1st assertion, possibly because it is irrefutable. The others are as well. I will therefore confine myself to the 4th & to the Apostolic Succession, since proof of the universal jurisdiction of Rome settles all of the others; & to a refutation of your closing statement concerning the BV. I do this, once again, not to convert you; but to illustrate for your benefit why Catholics believe these things.
You quote Sullivan to the effect that there is a “general agreement among scholars that the structure of ministry in the church of Rome at this time (had) a group of presbyters sharing leadership…with no one bishop in charge.”
It is an unfortunate fact that in the wake of the 2d Vatican Council a spirit of false ecumenism has swept the Church, with many alleged Catholic scholars making ridiculous statements such as you quote, which are designed more to cater to Protestant beliefs than to reflect the truth. I have previously quoted a few of the ancient authorities who maintain that St. Peter was physically present in Rome with St. Paul, that he founded the Church there, that he was the head of it, & many of those authorities list his successors. The facts of the matter are so well-established that any general reference almanac or encyclopedia will contain this information, & not a single ancient authority disputes it.
“There exists a broad consensus among scholars…that such churches…probably continued to be led for some time by a college of presbyters, and that only during the course of the second century did…a bishop…(preside) over each local church.”
You will have a hard time demonstrating that from the NT. On the contrary, St. Paul himself speaks in various places of appointing bishops, but not one of your “colleges of presbyters”. We have detailed lists of the 1st Century Bishops of Rome in Irenaeus (Against Heresies; 3:4) & Tertullian (Demurrer Against the Heretics; 32: 1-3), Eusebius, & elsewhere. Tertullian further says that Polycarp was appointed Bishop of Smyrna by St. John. St. Peter, St. Evodius, & St. Ignatius were the 1st three bishops of Antioch during the 1st Century. There is no reason whatsoever to believe that other cities had a different hierarchial structure. In addition to the above, Ignatius, St. Cyprian, & many others all write of an organized hierarchy of deacons, priests, & bishops. Not a single word about your “colleges of presbyters”. The “scholars” you quote get their information from a misguided zeal to accommodate ill-informed Protestant opinion, & not from the ancient authorities at all.
You quote Sullivan again to the effect that, “One conclusion seems obvious: Neither the New Testament nor early Christian history offers support for a notion of apostolic succession as ‘an unbroken line of episcopal ordination from Christ through the apostles down through the centuries to the bishops of today.’”
Against your Sullivan I’ll confine myself to quoting St. Hippolytus of Rome (the Order to ordain bishops, c. 215)-- "…grant to this your servant…to serve without blame as your high-priest…
in accord with the authority you gave the Apostles." [2,3] Hippolytus also referred specifically to Apostolic tradition-- what we today would call the Apostolic Succession. Clearly wasn’t establishing anything new. He was following a tradition that was already well-established.
Irenaeus, Tertullian, & many others wrote concerning the Apostolic Succession. Eusebius lists many of the 1st Century bishops of various churches.
“…(1st Clement) is generally recognized as the kind of exhortation one church could address to another without any claim to authority over it.”
On the contrary, Clement accuses himself of “tardiness” in addressing the problems at Corinth, as if he had a responsibility to intervene which he had been prevented from fulfilling. He further writes, “You, therefore, the prime movers of the schism…accept correction and change your minds. …But should any disobey what has been said by Him through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger. …As for our representatives…send them back to us…that they may without delay bring tidings of peace and concord.”
Clement definitely
commands the Corinthians. In a letter that is literally filled with gentle persuasion & concern for their welfare, in just 1 place he explicitly
threatens them-- as if he possessed authority of which both he & they were fully aware, but which he was reluctant to use. And he demands that they send back the men who brought the letter with proof of their submission.
These are not the words of 1 coequal church “exhorting” another, nor is it “an expression of confidence that the Holy Spirit has spoken through what they have written”-- no matter what post-Vatican 2 Catholic scholars may claim in the pursuit of their false outreach to Protestants.
