The Apostasy according to Joseph Smith

[TOmNossor]

Ignatius (and a brief mention of Dionysius and the Martyrs of Lyons):
When I acknowledged in my lengthy introduction that Rome was a well respected church I had the words of Ignatius in mind. To this I would add Dionysius of Corinth and The Martyrs of Lyons. Now the words of Ignatius as rendered by Catholic Answers are more powerful than the words of Ignatius as rendered by everyone else who has translated Ignatius.

See one of these many places and note the differences.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/TOC.htm

http://www.sliderfamily.net/romanslonger.html

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_Religions/Christianity/Church_Fathers/ignatius_to_the_romans.htm

http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/christian-history.html#Ignatius (this link was not working today).

Here is a Catholic apologetic website that does not even translate as Catholic Answers does:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/primacy.htm

I do not have access to the originals, but only Catholic answers and one person who quotes Catholic Answers seem to render this this way on the entire net.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

darcee:

They most certainly do NOT trump them. Peter was always stuborn and sometimes a little hard headed.

The order is clear. Before Christ’s death his followers were not commisioned to preach to the world afterwards they were.
Peter confirmed this he did not create it.
-D

I think we can disagree on this. Although I will say that previously when I wrote a Catholic response to myself, I referenced Jesus’ “other sheep statement.” I think the two passages that you do not think are trumped are even better than the other sheep comments. No new from Peter is less strong.

What say you about this though:
We both agree that Peter was the first mortal head of the post resurrection Church of Christ. So when you say he was the first Pope you mean something different than I mean when I say Peter was first and prime. What I question is, “Is the Peterine authority the same authority that the Pope possesses today.” You would say, “yes it is, but with the following qualifications.” I however would say you are mistaken and your “following qualifications” are evidence of a different authority.

Charity, TOm

 

[Tyler_Smedley]

what qualifications are you talking about tom?

 

[boppysbud]

TOmNossor:

What evidence exists to support the above scenario?

• The first Bishops, Clement (the 4th Bishop of Rome) included, had no concept of the primacy of Rome.
• The primacy of Rome was put forward around 200AD and Tertulian left the church.
• The authority initially proposed in 200AD solidified into an authority fundamentally different than the authority possessed by the person pointed to as the source of the authority. Peter unequal to Pope.
• The early Christians who where truly close to the Apostles knew the church was to become less than what the Apostles established. They were taught that one could die as a devout Christian or one could wait around until the gospel was perverted and die as part of a lesser organization. (Martyrdom was not necessarily required, but it seems to have been important to some).

The above 4 things are apostasy as evidenced by history. There are also apostasy as evidenced by the restoration.

• There is evidence that a number of early church beliefs were restored by the CoJCoLDS.
• Authoritative Baptism
• Men may become gods
• Creation from eternal matter.
• Subordination within the Trinity.
• Anthropomorphic God
• And ….
• Non-doctrinal restoration miracles also lend to the thought that there was an apostasy.

I can elaborate upon some of the above it is interesting to you. I do not think that I will PROVE there was an apostasy, but BIASED as I am, I do see good reason to see an apostasy in history both ancient and recent.

Charity, TOm

 

[boppysbud]

Well I messed that one up good, I intended to respond to part of Nasser’s post and add my own comments.

Nasser insists on mormonism having “restored” certian Christian doctrines, however thay never existed prior to their invention by Joe Smith and other “prophets and priesthood authorities” so they could not have been “restored”.

“Authoritative baptism”

The Catholic Church has authoritative Baptism, while the mormons emphatically do not.

The Melchisidec and Aaronic “priesthoods” exist only in the mormon imagination.

“Men may become 'Gods”", which ties in with "anthropomorphic “God”.

Was a brand new invention of Joseph Smith at the “King Follet” discourse.

In Christian theology God is God, and human beings are human beings, never the twain shall meet. God has no body.

In mormon teaching, “God” or “heavenly Father” is a former human who worked his way up to “godhood” by observing the commandments of his “God”. Likewise according to mormon teaching, current mormons can also become “gods and godesses” themselves, by observing the “commandments” of their “heavenly father”. Mormons have thousands of “gods” and potential “gods”.

Creation from “eternally existing matter”.

There is no “eternally existing matter”.

Submission in the Trinity.

Mormons do not beleive in the Trinity, they believe in (at least) three seperate “gods”.

I posit that morons are not Christians at all. Many of the words and phrases that they use sound Christian, but they define them entirely differently than Christians, while not revealing that fact.

 

[Dredgemate]

Tom wrote:
"TOm’s Apostasy Paradigm:

At this point in time (last quarter of 2nd century or first few years of 3rd) the concept that the Bishop of Rome was the head of the church developed. It had been generally true that the Roman Church and its Bishop where strong faithful Christians. At times they were afforded great respect. But prior to this nobody pointed to the Primacy of Rome as a product of the Primacy of Peter, and that they had authority to decide in matters of faith. As a product of arguments focused on the Primacy of Peter (perhaps), probably obvious righteousness generally contained in the Roman Church, and likely some political maneuverings; over the next many years (even centuries) the Roman Pontiff emerged as the leader of all Christians."

Tom,

The first witness to the Primacy of Rome came from St. Clement, the 4th Successor of St. Peter. In his Epistle to the Corinthians in the year 95 or 96 he writes, urging them to recieve vack bishops who were expelled, “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger” He then bids them “render obedience unto the things written by us throught the Holy Spirit” (EP. 59)

Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men’s minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head. (I plaigerized this last paragraph from the New Advent website)

Love in Christ,

Ryan

 

[TOmNossor]

Tyler Smedley:

what qualifications are you talking about tom?

The qualifications that I think we must all agree exists is that Peter was able to received supernatural public revelation as the head of the Church to guide it through controversies. The Pope cannot do this. While the best explanation for this is that Peter was an Apostle in addition to being the head of the church, this caveat has never been explained when Catholic Apologists utilize Peter’s decision to show that the first Pope decided concerning faith and morals. Now that we have this before us we must recognize that Peter decided the Gentile issue in a manner unavailable to any future Pope because the Pope does not receive supernatural public revelation.

I add an additional qualification to this in that I see “new and different” in this change, but Darcee has put forth good reason to not see “new and different” so we do not have to agree here.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

“Authoritative baptism”

The Catholic Church has authoritative Baptism, while the mormons emphatically do not.

The Melchisidec and Aaronic “priesthoods” exist only in the mormon imagination.

“Men may become 'Gods”", which ties in with "anthropomorphic “God”.

Was a brand new invention of Joseph Smith at the “King Follet” discourse.

In Christian theology God is God, and human beings are human beings, never the twain shall meet. God has no body.

In mormon teaching, “God” or “heavenly Father” is a former human who worked his way up to “godhood” by observing the commandments of his “God”. Likewise according to mormon teaching, current mormons can also become “gods and godesses” themselves, by observing the “commandments” of their “heavenly father”. Mormons have thousands of “gods” and potential “gods”.

Creation from “eternally existing matter”.

There is no “eternally existing matter”.

Submission in the Trinity.

Mormons do not beleive in the Trinity, they believe in (at least) three seperate “gods”.

I posit that morons are not Christians at all. Many of the words and phrases that they use sound Christian, but they define them entirely differently than Christians, while not revealing that fact.

Next on my agenda is to make posts relative to #1. After this I will post associated with #5 which is what you speak of here. I assure you that I can provide evidence for all of what I posted, but I expect it will be a little while.

I of course reject a few things you said outright.

You should research the Catholic Churches position on Baptism by those without valid authority. You do not know your church’s position.

You might also read some of the past posts on the fact that while God’s anthropomorphic nature is binding LDS doctrine, that God was once a man is not. In fact I believe that God has always been God.

You might also read some of the past posts on the oneness of God, both as this applies to the Trinity and as it applies to deified humans. This may end up being discussed during the “subordination within the Trinity,” discussion, but perhaps not.

I will get into “eternal matter” and “SUBORDINATION within the Trinity” and the above in greater detail when I try to post on #5.

And lastly, I hope your omission of an “m” in your last paragraph was just a typo.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Dredgemate:

Tom,

The first witness to the Primacy of Rome came from St. Clement, the 4th Successor of St. Peter. In his Epistle to the Corinthians in the year 95 or 96 he writes, urging them to recieve vack bishops who were expelled, “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger” He then bids them “render obedience unto the things written by us throught the Holy Spirit” (EP. 59)

Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men’s minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head. (I plaigerized this last paragraph from the New Advent website)

Love in Christ,

Ryan

I will post on St. Clement of Rome’s letter to the Corinthians later today. I do not see him as intervening from authority.

Ignatius wrote council to more (that we have record of) churches than did Clement (including counseling the Church of Rome).

Charity, TOm

 

[Dredgemate]

TOmNossor:

I will post on St. Clement of Rome’s letter to the Corinthians later today. I do not see him as intervening from authority.

Ignatius wrote council to more (that we have record of) churches than did Clement (including counseling the Church of Rome).

Charity, TOm

I look forward to your comments on St. Clement’s Epistle.

I’m not sure if the fact that St. Ignatius wrote more than St. Clement has much to do with the fact that Clement was still the successor to St. Peter. St. Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch, not Rome. The fact that he wrote to the Christians of Rome means even less, in fact it proves my point. In the opening of his letter to the Roman Church, he refers to its presiding over all other Churches.

 

[Dr_Paul]

TOmNossor:

To me that the Pope derives his authority from Peter and yet the authority is different and thus far I have never seen a Catholic in history (or even a modern apologist) identify this difference and explain it is a very real weakness.
Please make your comments on the Supernatural Public Aspect of this and we will move on to other things.

Thanks for sharing what you think. If you will allow me to, I will share what the Catholic Church (not just me) teaches about this. The pope derives his authority from Christ, not from Peter. Christ handed Peter the keys to the Church when he told Peter that he would be the foundation (rock) of Christ’s church. The authority was given to Peter to hold the OFFICE of pope, which included the authority to lead the Church. I will agree with you that in addition to holding the office of pope, Peter was also an apostle, and therefore he had additional authority beyond subsequent popes. However, this does not in any way lessen the authority of the pope who holds this office.

If you will allow an analogy(imperfect as it may be), it is like having a physician hold the office of president of the United States. As president, he has special authority to lead the country. As a physician, he has the ability to do many things that a non-physician can’t (like write prescriptions for narcotics). Once his term is ended, the office of president remains the same. There is no less authority for subsequent presidents because of the additional priviledges that the physician had.

Keep in mind, TOm, that Catholics believe that Christ is still in charge of His Chruch. We believe that the pope is guaranteed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit not to introduce false teachings on matters of faith and morals. He is the Vicar of Christ on Earth.

Peace in Christ…

 

[TOmNossor]

Dredgemate:

I look forward to your comments on St. Clement’s Epistle.

I’m not sure if the fact that St. Ignatius wrote more than St. Clement has much to do with the fact that Clement was still the successor to St. Peter. St. Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch, not Rome. The fact that he wrote to the Christians of Rome means even less, in fact it proves my point. In the opening of his letter to the Roman Church, he refers to its presiding over all other Churches.

That St. Ignatius wrote more is not the point necessarily. That St. Ignatius sent extortions to behave and believe like Christians to more Churches than the one Church St. Clement addressed, in my opinion mutes significantly the argument that because St. Clement told the Corinthians to shape up he is the Pope. This is my point.

Continued …

 

[TOmNossor]

Concerning Ignatius’ statements about the Church of Rome. I will provide a Protestant Scholars comment (oh boy!!!) and I will comment on some of these for myself when I introduce #1, but I would still like to understand were Catholic Answers got this wording, “Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father”

There is much controversy over which is the valid version of Ignatius. It seems to me that scholarly opinion leans toward the SHORT (GREEK) with the SYRIAC as a second most popular. In any case, I do not see “which holds the presidency” or “because you hold the presidency in love.” There most definitely are spurious versions of Ignatius’ letters (after all I will copy three here), but I am not sure where Catholic Answers got these quotes (and other Catholic apologist websites www.cin.org use the accepted wording not the Catholic Answers wording.

Here is the Protestant Scholar (not an internet scholar as I understand it, but I have not chased down the original book title and author) in his introduction to Ignatius letters he specifically mention the letter to the Romans.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-15.htm#P1054_191234

The Epistle to the Romans is utterly inconsistent with any conception on his part, that Rome was the see and residence of a bishop holding any other than fraternal relations with himself. It is very noteworthy that it is devoid of expressions, elsewhere made emphatic, which would have been much insisted upon had they been found herein. Think what use would have been made of it, had the words which he addresses to the Smyrnaeans (chap. viii.) to strengthen their fidelity to Polycarp, been found in this letter to the Romans, especially as in this letter we first find the use of the phrase “Catholic Church” in patristic writings. He defines it as to be found “where Jesus Christ is,” words which certainly do not limit it to communion with a professed successor of St. Peter.

Continued…

 

[TOmNossor]

The versions that do not seem to agree with the Catholic Answers quote.

SHORT VERSION (GREEK):

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that willeth all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the report of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy,1 and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.*

LONGER VERSION (GREEK):

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who formed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit,2 worthy of being deemed holy,3 and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, and is possessed of the Spirit, which I also salute in the name of Almighty God, and of Jesus Christ His Son: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments, who are filled inseparably with all the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in God, even the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.*

continued…

 

[TOmNossor]

The last version…

SYRIAC VERSION:
Ignatius, who is [also called] Theophorus, to the Church which has received grace through the greatness of the Father Most High; to her who presideth in the place of the region of the Romans, who is worthy of God, and worthy of life, and happiness, and praise, and remembrance, and is worthy of prosperity, and presideth in love, and is perfected in the law of Christ unblameable: [wishes] abundance of peace.

I see two reasonable possibilities. Catholic Answers is using a translation not published on the web. Or Catholic Answers is using a version of Ignatius’ letters that are not among the three that are contenders for validity. I really have no idea which is correct, but I acknowledge that Ignatius had great respect for the Roman Church.

Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Dr Paul:

Thanks for sharing what you think. If you will allow me to, I will share what the Catholic Church (not just me) teaches about this. The pope derives his authority from Christ, not from Peter. Christ handed Peter the keys to the Church when he told Peter that he would be the foundation (rock) of Christ’s church. The authority was given to Peter to hold the OFFICE of pope, which included the authority to lead the Church. I will agree with you that in addition to holding the office of pope, Peter was also an apostle, and therefore he had additional authority beyond subsequent popes. However, this does not in any way lessen the authority of the pope who holds this office.

If you will allow an analogy(imperfect as it may be), it is like having a physician hold the office of president of the United States. As president, he has special authority to lead the country. As a physician, he has the ability to do many things that a non-physician can’t (like write prescriptions for narcotics). Once his term is ended, the office of president remains the same. There is no less authority for subsequent presidents because of the additional priviledges that the physician had.

Keep in mind, TOm, that Catholics believe that Christ is still in charge of His Chruch. We believe that the pope is guaranteed by the guidance of the Holy Spirit not to introduce false teachings on matters of faith and morals. He is the Vicar of Christ on Earth.

Peace in Christ…

Were I Catholic what you put forth is exactly what I would believe. As a Catholic apologist (I have put forth Catholic apologetic arguments even in disagreement with what I believe) though, I would not point to the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles as a Papal action because it resulted from a non-Papal supernatural vision.

Thank you.

Charity, TOm

 

[Dr_Paul]

TOmNossor:

Were I Catholic what you put forth is exactly what I would believe. As a Catholic apologist (I have put forth Catholic apologetic arguments even in disagreement with what I believe) though, I would not point to the extension of the gospel to the Gentiles as a Papal action because it resulted from a non-Papal supernatural vision.
Charity, TOm

I don’t really see the need to establish this one way or the other. Whether this was a papal or apostolic action, this has no bearing on the question of papal authority being passed down in a continual way from Peter to John Paul II. The central question is whether the office of pope, and thus the Chruch Christ established, continues to exist intact, or whether the church fell into apostosy after the death of the apostles. To address this issue, I feel it is most important to first establish what the office of pope, established by Christ, really was/is. You have already accepted that Christ did indeed give Peter primacy. As I see it, your concern is that this office was unique to Peter and did not apply to anyone but him. Yet this does not correctly explain what is meant by being handed the keys to the church. An office (again one can use the analogy of the president of the United States) does not cease to exist if the president dies, is assasinated, is impeached, or leaves the office for any other reason. For the USA, the power comes from our Constitution. It would only cease to exist if there was a revolution and the constitution were abolished. For the Catholic Church, the authority comes from Christ himself. Christ promised that he would remain with us forever and that nothing could destroy His church. The Church could only be abolished if Christ Himself was destroyed (or perhaps if He “changed His mind”). Since Christ is God, this cannot happen. God neither changes, nor is He mortal.

If you care to dispute any of these assumptions or logic, I think this is where the discussion should be focused. Only after this is established is it even necessary to look at the other arguments that you are proposing.

God bless…

 

[TOmNossor]

Dr Paul:

The central question is whether the office of pope, and thus the Chruch Christ established, continues to exist intact, or whether the church fell into apostosy after the death of the apostles. To address this issue, I feel it is most important to first establish what the office of pope, established by Christ, really was/is.

I do not totally like to use the term the office of pope. I do not think Peter was the first pope, I merely think he was the first earthly head of Christ’s Church post the resurrection and ascension. The term pope was never used by Jesus Christ. The term pope was originally applied indiscriminately to many Bishops not just the Bishop of Rome. I do not want to over burden myself by acknowledging that Peter held the office of pope.
Dr Paul:

You have already accepted that Christ did indeed give Peter primacy. As I see it, your concern is that this office was unique to Peter and did not apply to anyone but him

No, the question is was Linus, Cletus, Clement. the successor of the prime earthly headship or merely Bishops of Rome. And was Joseph Smith the successor of the prime earthly headship or merely deceived/deceitful.

Remember LDS claim that Peter, James, and John conferred the keys upon Joseph Smith and he conferred them upon the 12 such that among the twelve one would be given the authority to exercise the keys (just as the Council of Cardinals chooses the next Pope who then holds the keys).
Dr Paul:

Yet this does not correctly explain what is meant by being handed the keys to the church. An office (again one can use the analogy of the president of the

United States) does not cease to exist if the president dies, is assasinated, is impeached, or leaves the office for any other reason. For the USA, the power comes from our Constitution. It would only cease to exist if there was a revolution and the constitution were abolished. For the Catholic Church, the authority comes from Christ himself.

I explained above that the office of head Apostle was passed on to Joseph Smith along with the keys associated with this office. Of lesser importance, it is also true that Ciaphus had some authority, continued to pass on his supposed continued authority, but was not in possession of true authority beside the head apostleship of Peter (which Ciaphus did not recognize).

Continued …

 

[TOmNossor]

Dr Paul:

Christ promised that he would remain with us forever and that nothing could destroy His church. The Church could only be abolished if Christ Himself was destroyed (or perhaps if He “changed His mind”). Since Christ is God, this cannot happen. God neither changes, nor is He mortal.

This would be of course the most critical aspect of our disagreements in your post. MOST Catholics have pointed to Matthew 16:18 to show Peter’s primacy AND the continuation of the church/Peterine authority on the earth. Catholics take all LDS apostasy predicting scriptures and state that they speak of a partial apostasy (I could quote these and argue that they do not speak of limited apostasy at least for the full organization as opposed to the “lesser organization,” but I will not). Why I mention this is that you have an interpretation of Matthew 16:18, but I do not think it is better than mine in fact, I think it is less solid than mine.

Did the “gates of Hades” “prevail” against the God-man Jesus Christ? I really think that we would without reservation say, no they did not “prevail.” But we would also say without reservation say that the God-man Jesus Christ surely died.

I say that Peter was the Rock. The “gates of Hades” did not “prevail” against the keys of the kingdom. But that the keys (for the headship of the church which you call papacy and I call head apostleship) were not passed on to Linus, Cletus, Clement. But instead the “prevailing” occurred when Peter passed Christ’s keys to Joseph Smith. This I believe is a very solid interpretation of Matthew 16:18. I will site two Catholics who say identical and very similar things.

Michael M. Winter, former lecturer in Fundamental Theology at St. John’s Seminary (Roman Catholic), in Saint Peter and the Popes, p. 17. states concerning Matthew 16:18

“although some writers have applied the idea of immortality to the survival of the church, it seems preferable to see it as a promise of triumph over evil.”

In this light I would suggest that Matthew 16:18 is a promise that the apostasy would merely be a set back, but the restoration would shine through ultimately.

Continued…

 

[TOmNossor]

On to something new. Cardinal Newman links Mt 16:18 as promising the continuation of the Church. But he also believes that the concept of the papacy developed. He would say from a seed or a shadow and as a result of need. Cardinal Newman likens these scriptural statements to prophesies and promises that Him who gave them would surely cause to come to pass. I embrace this, but I say that Him who gave them caused them to come to pass at the restoration not as the papacy developed.

Dev of Christian Doc:

Such are the words,“Thou art Peter,and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,and I will give unto Thee the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.” Again:“Feed My lambs,feed My sheep.” And "Satan hath desired to have you;I have prayed for thee,and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."Such,too,are various other indications of the Divine purpose as regards St. Peter,too weak in themselves to be insisted on separately,but not without a confirmatory power; such as his new name,his walking on the sea, his miraculous draught of fishes on two occasions,our Lord’s preaching out of his boat,and His appearing first to him after His resurrection

It should be observed,moreover,that a similar promise was made by the patriarch Jacob to Judah:“Thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise:the sceptre shall not depart from Judah till Shiloh come;” yet this promise was not fulfilled for perhaps eight hundred years, during which long period we hear little or nothing of the tribe descended from him. In like manner,“On this rock I will build My Church,” “I give unto thee the Keys,” “Feed My sheep,” are not precepts merely, but prophecies and promises, promises to be accomplished by Him who made them, prophecies to be fulfilled according to the need, and to be interpreted by the event,-by the history, that is, of the fourth and fifth centuries, though they had a partial fulfilment even in the preceding period, and a still more noble development in the middle ages

TOm:

So were I Catholic I would read this as Newman does. I would see partial fulfillment beginning with the tremendous respect afforded (and surely deserved) the Church of Rome by all Christians from its inception. I would see partial fulfillment in the words of Irenaeus that a few years later were called “usurpations” by the soon to be apostate Tertullian. I would see more complete fulfillment as Newman does in the 4th-6th Centuries. I would see continual development culminating (at least to this time) in the defining of infallibility by Vatican I.

…