Follow
Last week we spent some time analyzing the Roman Catholic propensity for finding Roman and Papal primacy in the Early Church Fathers, focusing particularly on Bryan Cross’s article, “St. Ignatius of Antioch on the Church,” at Called to Communion. As we noted, Cross labors to find evidence of early Roman Primacy, and early evidence of submission to it, in Ignatius’ letter to the Romans, but can do so only by ignoring the broader collegiality that existed within the burgeoning Early Church.
Cross’s attempt is like that of Pedro Rodriguez at EWTN who believes that the Roman Pontiffs’ “contemporary methods for governing the universal Church” and “maintaining unity among the bishops” can be found in Clement’s letter to Corinth (Pedro Rodriguez, The Nature of Papal Primacy). Yes, it is true, Clement wrote to Corinth, and Ignatius wrote to Rome. But Polycarp wrote to Philippi, and Smyrna wrote to Philomelium, Ignatius wrote to Ephesus, Tralles, Magnesia, Rome, Philadelphia and Smyrna, and thought everyone should write to Antioch. Take any one of these letters in isolation, subject it to a clinical analysis intent on a preferred outcome, and one can “prove” the primacy of any bishopric in the Early Church. But such a skewed analysis requires that we ignore the plain ecclesiological expressions in those very letters. When read in context, the emergent ecclesiology of the Early Church does not have the churches deriving their authority from a chief shepherd presiding in Rome over all apostolic congregations.
What then was the source of the doctrinal and fraternal unity of the Early Church? Rome thinks such unity is not possible without an earthly kingdom, and an earthly kingdom requires an earthly king, and an earthly king requires an earthly throne. Surely, they say, that point is obvious. It should be taken axiomatically, they believe, that someone had to have the primacy, or the whole building collapses in ruins. Thus do they back-fill Early Church history with their “contemporary methods for governing the universal Church.” To no one’s surprise but Rome’s, the Early Church was completely unaware of those “contemporary methods.” Rather, the Early Church marveled at the mystery of communion that held it together with neither earthly king nor earthly throne to bind them.
This week we will examine the Shepherd of Hermas and Mathetes to demonstrate how the Early Church described its unity, a unity that was founded upon the apostolicity of a plurality of bishoprics—all of equal authority derived equally from the apostles—but was administered in unity, mysteriously, invisibly, from heaven, and from no earthly city.
The Shepherd of Hermas (2nd Century)
The Shepherd writes in high metaphorical style, with figures and “similtudes” that are conveyed in conversational style between “the Shepherd” and his student, and are recorded in the the first person of the student. The similtudes and figures are not always easily understood, but he defines his terms sufficiently for us to understand that he marveled that the Church was dispersed throughout the world, yet mysteriously remained one. In Book III, Similtude 9, the Shepherd describes the “twelve mountains” which are “twelve tribes” or “twelve nations” throughout the world that have heard the truth by the preaching of the twelve apostles. As diverse as the inhabitants of the “twelve nations” were, they were also, remarkably, of “one understanding and one mind; and their faith became one, and their love one,” when they believed upon the Son of God:
“Now, sir,” I continued, “explain to me, with respect to the mountains, why their forms are various and diverse.”
“Listen,” he said: “these mountains are the twelve tribes, which inhabit the whole world. The Son of God, accordingly, was preached unto them by the apostles.”
“But why are the mountains of various kinds, some having one form, and others another? Explain that to me, sir.”
“Listen,” he answered: “these twelve tribes that inhabit the whole world are twelve nations. And they vary in prudence and understanding. As numerous, then, as are the varieties of the mountains which you saw, are also the diversities of mind and understanding among these nations. And I will explain to you the actions of each one.”
“First, sir,” I said, “explain this: why, when the mountains are so diverse, their stones, when placed in the building, became one colour, shining like those also that had ascended out of the pit.”
“Because,” he said, “all the nations that dwell under heaven were called by hearing and believing upon the name of the Son of God. Having, therefore, received the seal, they had one understanding and one mind; and their faith became one, and their love one, and with the name they bore also the spirits of the virgins. On this account the building of the tower became of one colour, bright as the sun.” (The Shepherd of Hermas, Book III, Similtude 9, chapter 17)
The Shepherd by this time had also described a Willow Tree, under which all believers take shade. Branches are repeatedly cut off of the tree and planted and watered, and yet the Tree is never consumed or destroyed (The Shepherd of Hermas, Book III, Similtude 8, chapter 1). His student asks him to explain the meaning of the Tree, and the Shepherd obliges: the Tree is “the law of God that was given to the whole world” through the preaching of the Apostles:
I said to him, “Sir, explain to me what this tree means, for I am perplexed about it, because, after so many branches have been cut off, it continues sound, and nothing appears to have been cut away from it. By this, now, I am perplexed.”
“Listen,” he said: “This great tree that casts its shadow over plains, and mountains, and all the earth, is the law of God that was given to the whole world; and this law is the Son of God, proclaimed to the ends of the earth; and the people who are under its shadow are they who have heard the proclamation, and have believed upon Him.” (The Shepherd of Hermas, Book III, Similtude 8, chapter 3)
What then accounts for the unity of the Church? The twelve apostles preached the Word of God to the twelve mountains or tribes or nations that were diverse, one from another, yet their respective citizens became one by the ministry of apostolic preaching. Were they unified by the emergence of a chief bishopric in Rome? Was their unity of mind, understanding, faith and love superintended by Peter’s successor in Rome? No. It is Michael who has “authority,” and “governs” and “superintends” the flock from heaven:
“And the great and glorious angel Michael is he who has authority over this people, and governs them; for this is he who gave them the law into the hearts of believers: he accordingly superintends them to whom he gave it, to see if they have kept the same. And you see the branches of each one, for the branches are the law.” (The Shepherd of Hermas, Book III, Similtude 8, chapter 3)
Because Michael is described in Scripture as “the prince” of God’s people “which standeth for the children of thy people” (Daniel 10:21, 12:1, c.f., Revelation 12:7), he is often taken to refer to Christ (an opinion, by the way, that we do not share). It seems, therefore, that the Shepherd of Hermas may have identified Michael as Christ. What is clear in any case is that the Shepherd understood that the Church of Jesus Christ was visibly apostolic, but was governed and superintended invisibly from Heaven. “On this account,” not on account of an earthly king in Rome, “the building of the tower became of one colour.” According to “the Shepherd,” the unity of the Church was caused by an invisible administration of a Superintendent seated in the heavens, not seated in Rome.
Mathetes (2nd Century)
Mathetes literally means “disciple,” and the name derives from his one known epistle in which he claims to be “a disciple of the Apostles” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, chapter 11). The epistle was written to answer Diognetus, who was “exceedingly desirous to learn the mode of worshipping God prevalent among the Christians” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, chapter 1). And what a curious lot these Christians were.
Mathetes marvels at the peculiarity of the Christians, and at the peculiarity of the world’s response to them. Notably, they are citizens of no earthly kingdom, being “distinguished from other men neither by country, nor language, nor the customs which they observe.” Nor do they “inhabit cities of their own, nor employ a peculiar form of speech, nor lead a life which is marked out by any singularity.” But there is just something unique about them that is observable to all and, to the eye of unbelief, unexplainable:
“But inhabiting Greek as well as barbarian cities, according as the lot of each of them has determined, and following the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct, they display to us their wonderful and confessedly striking method of life. They dwell in their own countries, but simply as sojourners. As citizens, they share in all things with others, and yet endure all things as if foreigners. Every foreign land is to them as their native country, and every land of their birth as a land of strangers. They marry, as do all [others]; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed. They are in the flesh, but they do not live after the flesh. [2 Corinthians 10:3] They pass their days on earth, but they are citizens of heaven. [Philippians 3:20] They obey the prescribed laws, and at the same time surpass the laws by their lives.” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, chapter 5).
What a strange and remarkable lot they were. Yet ironically, Mathetes explains, for their disarming congeniality and irreproachable behavior in the midst of the citizens of earth, and for their righteousness “they are insulted” and “are punished as evil-doers … , yet those who hate them are unable to assign any reason for their hatred” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, chapter 5).
Who, then, is in charge of such a peculiar people. Where is their ruler? Their kingdom? Their king and his throne? For such answers, Mathetes says, one must look not Rome-ward, but heavenward.
As visibly different as they were, the cause and source of their unity of mind and behavior was invisible to men. Mathetes goes on, explaining that as the world is “the body,” Christians are dispersed throughout the body as “the soul.” Thus, while their apostolicity is clearly visible to all, their “godliness,” which is to say, the cause of their godliness, remains invisible to us:
“To sum up all in one word— what the soul is in the body, Christians are in the world. The soul is dispersed through all the members of the body, and Christians are scattered through all the cities of the world. The soul dwells in the body, yet is not of the body; and Christians dwell in the world, yet are not of the world. The invisible soul is guarded by the visible body, and Christians are known indeed to be in the world, but their godliness remains invisible.” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, chapter 6)
What then, is the cause of their godliness, their unity of mind and behavior? Mathetes is only too happy to explain that this peculiar people was not ruled from Rome, but from heaven. God was pleased to establish a kingdom that is of heaven, and is of heaven administered, for He sent them neither ruler nor “any one of those who bear sway over earthly things”:
“[T]ruly God Himself, who is almighty, the Creator of all things, and invisible, has sent from heaven, and placed among men, [Him who is] the truth, and the holy and incomprehensible Word, and has firmly established Him in their hearts. He did not, as one might have imagined, send to men any servant, or angel, or ruler, or any one of those who bear sway over earthly things, or one of those to whom the government of things in the heavens has been entrusted, but the very Creator and Fashioner of all things.” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, chapter 7)
Absent from Mathetes’ description of the Church is any alignment with or allegiance to a particular city (Rome) or a particular form of speech (Latin) or any particular earthly ruler (Pope). God did not send them for a ruler “one of those who bear sway over earthly things.” In fact, Mathetes abjures any pretenses of an earthly kingdom established “for the purpose of exercising tyranny, or of inspiring fear and terror … for violence has no place in the character of God.” Jesus had been sent “as a Saviour … and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, chapter 7).
Compare that with the tyranny exercised by the papacy when it rose to power, when “conversions” were under compulsion, “evangelism” was by the sword, “unity” was maintained under force of arms, and “repentance” was secured under threat of bodily punishments. Mathetes was clearly unaware of such an earthly kingdom in his day, and denied that Christians either owed, or even entertained, any allegiance to such. The kingdom to which these peculiar people belonged was administered from heaven, by “the very Creator and Fashioner of all things.” Their lives and beliefs were visibly apostolic, but their Shepherd ruled them invisibly from heaven:
“For God has loved mankind, on whose account He made the world, to whom He rendered subject all the things that are in it, to whom He gave reason and understanding, to whom alone He imparted the privilege of looking upwards to Himself, whom He formed after His own image, to whom He sent His only-begotten Son, to whom He has promised a kingdom in heaven, and will give it to those who have loved Him.” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, chapter 10)
God had given to His Son a kingdom in heaven, and He promised that heavenly kingdom “to those who have loved Him” and to whom “He imparted the privilege of looking upwards” where Christ Himself administers His heavenly kingdom, from heaven. Thus, Mathetes goes on to rule out the Papacy in a single sentence:
“For it is not by ruling over his neighbours, or by seeking to hold the supremacy over those that are weaker, or by being rich, and showing violence towards those that are inferior, that happiness is found; nor can any one by these things become an imitator of God.” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, chapter 10)
So much for that “strong central episcopate.” Mathetes believed it was entirely inconsistent with the manner of Christians to act like a Pope over one’s brethren. Sayeth Mathetes, “[t]hese things do not at all constitute His majesty” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, chapter 10), for His majesty is not of earth, earthly. The Early Church did not look to Rome for its Shepherd, but to Heaven.
The Shepherd of Hermas understood that the manifold congregations were of one mind, doctrine and “colour,” not through the ministrations of an earthly king, but by the authority and government of a heavenly superintendent. Mathetes understood that the peculiar adherants to this new religion had no “cities of their own,” and owed their unity not to an earthly ruler “as one might have imagined,” but to a heavenly one, for their mode of living was clearly visible to all, but its cause was “invisible.” The very idea of one of them rising to rule over his neighbors or “seeking to hold the supremacy” was altogether inconsistent with the Lord’s kingdom.
As we continue this survey of the Early Church we will see these themes consistently emerge as we have with the Shepherd of Hermas and Mathetes: the plurality and collegiality of apostolic churches that are together responsible for upholding and teaching apostolic truth, that are unified and governed mysteriously from heaven, and which unity and government does not emanate from an earthly metropolis or a “strong central episcopate.” In other words, Rome’s “contemporary methods for governing the universal Church” and “maintaining unity among the bishops” was completely foreign to the Early Church.
We will continue next week with Tertullian and Origen.
On a personal note today is my 25th birthday. I was born again on (or near) Resurrection Sunday, 1990. Since we have cited Mathetes this week, it seemed appropriate in closing to let him also share his thoughts on the glorious substitutionary atonement:
“By what other one was it possible that we, the wicked and ungodly, could be justified, than by the only Son of God? O sweet exchange! O unsearchable operation! O benefits surpassing all expectation! That the wickedness of many should be hid in a single righteous One, and that the righteousness of One should justify many transgressors!” (The Epistle of Mathetes to Diognetus, chapter 9)
O sweet exchange, indeed!
TIM–
You said: “As we continue this survey of the Early Church we will see these themes consistently emerge as we have with the Shepherd of Hermas and Mathetes: the plurality and collegiality of apostolic churches that are together responsible for upholding and teaching apostolic truth, that are unified and governed mysteriously from heaven, and which unity and government does not emanate from an earthly metropolis or a “strong central episcopate.” In other words, Rome’s “contemporary methods for governing the universal Church” and “maintaining unity among the bishops” was completely foreign to the Early Church.”
That very plurality was the fertile ground that gave rise to many early heresies that had to be dealt with by a “strong central episcopate”:
First century–Judaizers and Ebionites condemned by the Council of Jerusalem.
Gnosticism, the Ophites, Montanism (Montanus ,who proclaimed himself the Advocate sent by Christ; his followers were Millinarianists).
Second and Third centuries–Monarchianism: Adoptionism, Sabellianism and the Patripassians, Modalism. These were condemned by Pope Callistus (Tertullian ,by the way was a Montanist, and Hippolytus had his followers elect him as the anti-pope “bishop of Rome” when Callistus was elected Pope). Then came subordinationism which gave rise to the Arian heresy which competed with Photinianism–a reprise of Sabellianism.
The Arian heresy was condemned at Nicaea.
Fourth century
Semi-Arianism and the Macedonians, Donatism, Priscillianism, Palagianism, and semi-Pelagianism. These were put down by many councils especially the Council of Constantinople.
And on and on….
The point being that the Church recognized that there must be a strong central episcopate to condemn heresy and unite the church in doctrine. Plurality was not necessarily a good thing. A Church which unity and government does not emanate from an earthly metropolis or a “strong central episcopate” left the door open for error and factions who followed those errors. The Roman Church didn’t just “rise to power” without the consent of the Church, it rose by the necessity of orthodoxy. It could have happened in Jerusalem or Antioch or Alexandria, or Constantinople. But it happened in Rome which so happened to be the Apostolic See of Peter and Paul.
Thanks, Bob. When did the Church recognize “that there must be a strong central episcopate to condemn heresy and unite the church in doctrine”? Was there a strong central episcopate at Nicæa? If so, which one was it? If not, how did the Church end up with a united profession of faith?
Thanks,
Tim
TIM–
You ask: “When did the Church recognize ‘that there must be a strong central episcopate to condemn heresy and unite the church in doctrine’? ”
It appears to be at the Council of Jerusalem about 50 AD.
You also asked: “Was there a strong central episcopate at Nicæa? If so, which one was it? If not, how did the Church end up with a united profession of faith?”
Before the council? Not really. That is why the council was called by the “strong central ruler of the known world” Constantine. It was recognized that the Church was greatly divided by the Arian heresy and it was causing great unrest especially in Alexandria. When Easter was to be celebrated was also at issue. (Sorry, Walt. Yes, the early Christians celebrated Easter. The controversy was not whether it was biblical to celebrate Easter. Rather it was what day on the calendar it should be celebrated. And by Tim’s calculation this was way before “the Rise of Roman Catholicism”.) This is why Nicaea is considered the First Ecuminical Council so that the entire Church could be united in doctrine and that the decisions made at that council were binding on all Christians everywhere.
Right there is the “binding and loosing” authority given the magisterium by Christ.
What would happen, Tim, if someone in your family decided that their reading of the Scriptures gives them reason to believe that they should be Catholic instead of reformed? Would you let it split your family? Or would you instead invoke your authority as head of the household and spiritual leader and promulgate your beliefs and condemn their error? What would you do if your brother was trying to sway your kids to become Catholic by teaching them from the bible?
Thanks, Bob. I’m not entirely sure that I understand. The fact that there was no strong central episcopate at the ecumenical council of Nicæa suggests that the mere calling of a council does not indicate the centrality of a strong episcopate. Thus, the calling of a council in Jerusalem does not indicate that Jerusalem was the strong central episcopate or that the Church recognized the need for one. So your statement that by Nicæa “the entire Church could be united in doctrine and that the decisions made at that council were binding on all Christians everywhere” without a strong central episcopate undermines your own argument that
The Church recognized that councils are necessary, but to say that a council is necessary is not the same thing as saying that a strong central episcopate is necessary. As we study the early church fathers’ responses to heresy, strong central episcopacy is never the solution until the late 4th century. Thus, strong central episcopacy is not an apostolic practice. It was introduced later.
To your questions,
I would do what I have done here: show from the Scriptures that the Roman Catholicism is the antichrist of which we were warned adamantly by the prophets and the apostles, that the Eucharist is the Image of the Beast, the Apparition of Mary is the False Prophet, and that Roman Catholicism is the Little Horn of Daniel 7, the Beast of Revelation 13, the Wicked One of 2 Thessalonians. I would show that the Eucharist comes to life and is able to speak and that people were put to death for not worshiping it during the Inquisitions. I would walk them through the history of the Church and demonstrate that Roman Catholicism is but a heretical sect that emerged at the latter part of the 4th century and is by no means an apostolic church but rather is the great falling away of which we were warned. I would show from the scriptures the error of bowing to images, bowing to relics, bowing to crosses, adoring the eucharist, and the error of assigning to Mary attributes that are nowhere contained in the Scriptures.
I suppose that depends on what you mean by “split”? If it was my wife, and she was willing to remain married to me, I would remain married to her. If it was one of my children, I would continue evangelizing him or her. If an adult child who no longer lived at home I would continue evangelizing him or her. But in order to prevent such an outcome, I teach my children during our family worship time that we are not bow to bread to worship it, as Roman Catholics do, and that there was a day when men were killed for not worshiping it, and they must be ready to die, as Daniel was, rather than worship an image, or bow to a statue, or venerate an icon, or kneel to a relic, or kiss a cross.
Yes, I would invoke the authority of a head of household, as the Scriptures teach. But that is the question, isn’t it? A matter of biblical authority. I have the authority to instruct my household. Rome does not have the authority it claims to exercise.
As children, I would prohibit them from sitting under his teaching, but as adults, I would show them how to prove from the Scriptures that their uncle had bowed to the image of the beast, received the mark of the beast, listened to doctrines of demons introduced late in time—3 centuries after the apostolic era—and that they must not receive the teachings of his heretical sect unless they, too, desire to join him in the lake of fire where the beast, the false prophet, the Serpent and all those who worshiped the image, will end up.
But we’d still go to family picnics, of course.
Tim
TIM–
So in a nutshell, you would condemn what you thought was heresy, teach them what you thought was right and true, invoke the authority you believe you have to ban them from learning that heresy or even listening to the heretic even at the cost of a family split.
Hmmmmmmm………sounds exactly like what the Catholic Church did. Amazing that you all think alike!
Bob,
A most interesting analysis. What is lacking in it, however, is proof of actual biblical authority. I have the authority to teach my family, and a duty to protect them from error. That is what Fathers and husbands do (Deuteronomy 11:19, Ephesians 5:23). I am the spiritual head of my wife and of my children. The question before us is, “Does Rome have biblical authority to teach the whole church and protect the whole church from error?” and “is Rome the spiritual head of the Church?”
Your evidence for answering these questions in the affirmative is that Peter received the keys of the kingdom, but the Scripture says that all of Jesus’ disciples have the same power to bind and loose. After speaking to Peter (Matthew 17), Jesus addresses the disciples:
In the course of that conversation, Jesus instructs them,
Have you ever considered the fact that if it takes two to bind, then Peter cannot bind alone? And since “two of you” does not always include Peter, Peter is not necessary to bind? Since “the keys of the kingdom” is the power to bind and to loose (Matthew 16:19), then not only Peter, but all the apostles have this power. And thus, based on your answer to a previous question on this thread, “claiming the power of the Keys to the Kingdom” must include
Do you believe that to be true? That “all apostles and their successors” have the power to define irreformable doctrines from their respective chairs and “all apostles and their successors” have primacy and “supreme and universal power” over each other?
What is worse, though, is that you have repeatedly affirmed that a strong central episcopate is necessary in order to unite the church, and yet at the same time you now admit that the effect of Rome’s “strong central episcopacy” has been to invoke her authority “even at the cost of a family split,” which, as you say, is “exactly … what the Catholic Church did.” In other words, your solution to the divisions of the church—a strong central episcopate—results in the very divisions that a strong central episcopate was supposed to prevent.
Perhaps the unity for which Christ prayed (John 17:11,22) is realized without the fleshly trappings of a strong central episcopate administered from earth (and for which there is no apostolic authority), and is instead realized through the administration of a heavenly Shepherd Who guides His sheep by His invisible Representative (the Holy Spirit), instead of by a visible interloper in Rome.
Thanks,
Tim
In 1899, the General Assembly of the PCUS was overtured to give a “pronounced and explicit deliverance” against the recognition of “Christmas and Easter as religious days.” Even at this late date, the answer came back in a solid manner: “There is no warrant in Scripture for the observance of Christmas and Easter as holydays, rather the contrary (see Gal. 4:9-11; Col. 2:16-21), and such observance is contrary to the principles of the Reformed faith, conducive to will-worship, and not in harmony with the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” – Kevin Reed, Christmas: An Historical Survey Regarding Its Origins and Opposition to It (Free Online Book)”
We are the Easter people. – Pope John Paul II
“Are Easter, Christmas, Other Popish/Pagan Holy Days (Not Authorized In the Bible), Man-Made Hymns and Musical Instruments In Worship, Etc., Idols? An Exposition Of the Westminster Larger (Q&A 109) and Shorter (Q&A 51) Catechisms Concerning Sins Forbidden In The Second Commandment (Regulative Principle Of Worship) By Jim Dodson”
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=47141311132
“One of the best teaching MP3s about worship that we have ever heard, based solidly on the Scriptures as they are faithfully reflected in the two best Reformed catechisms ever produced — the Westminster Larger and Shorter catechisms. If you want to grow closer to God and be more faithful in your worship of the Most High, listening to this message is a splendid way (with God’s blessing) to take a big step in that direction.”
TIM–
You said: “The Church recognized that councils are necessary, but to say that a council is necessary is not the same thing as saying that a strong central episcopate is necessary.”
Yes it pretty much is. The Church was small back then and not very spread out. The bishops could be considered patriarchs and all them came together as “one central episcopate”. They were all pretty much apostolic acting as one Church.
You also said: “As we study the early church fathers’ responses to heresy, strong central episcopacy is never the solution until the late 4th century. Thus, strong central episcopacy is not an apostolic practice. It was introduced later.”
And that is the very thing. As the Church became spread out and farther away from apostolic, differences started to become apparent and there became a need to unify doctrine. Local councils were not good enough to maintain a unity in doctrine “churchwide”. Something had to be done to bring the patriarchs back into one accord. Thus, the ecumenical council was adopted to bind all Christians to the same unified doctrine. All Christians holding the same doctrine was important because heresy was looked at as soul threatening and lead to nasty schism and unrest.
The Protestant Church today seems to think differences in doctrine are not that big of a deal as long as we believe the same gospel. When is the last time the Protestant/Reformed Churches have held an ecumenical council to unify doctrine?
TIM–
You asked: “Do you believe that to be true? That “all apostles and their successors” have the power to define irreformable doctrines from their respective chairs and “all apostles and their successors” have primacy and “supreme and universal power” over each other?”
No I don’t. If it was true, then the Church would have turned out that way. It did not. If the Church is the pillar and the bulwark of truth, why , then did it raise up a strong central episcopate in the 4th century? Your explanation makes the Church anything but the pillar and bulwark of the truth for centuries.
No. I don’t buy into your theory of the “Rise of Roman Catholicism” being the rise of the anti-christ. It has too many holes in it. Tim, you were baptized by the very organization that you claim is of Satan. If that is the case, then you cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
Tim, thank you for sharing this blessing of things old on your important day!
Matthew 13:52 Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.
TIM–
You said: “What is worse, though, is that you have repeatedly affirmed that a strong central episcopate is necessary in order to unite the church, and yet at the same time you now admit that the effect of Rome’s “strong central episcopacy” has been to invoke her authority “even at the cost of a family split,” which, as you say, is “exactly … what the Catholic Church did.” In other words, your solution to the divisions of the church—a strong central episcopate—results in the very divisions that a strong central episcopate was supposed to prevent.”
<strong.a-nath-e-ma
[uh-nath-uh-muh] / noun, plural anathemas.
1. a person or thing detested or loathed: “That subject is anathema to him.”
2. a person or thing accursed or consigned to damnation or destruction.
3. a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.
4. any imprecation of divine punishment.
5. a curse; execration.
Why do you suppose this is when error is found in the Church?
Those who have been found in error can be removed from the Church so that the rest can remain pure in unity of doctrine until such time that the person found in error will repent and be re-united with those who are pure in doctrine.
In practice, a person found in error and banned from communion would feel it necessary to repent of his ways and work to rejoin the “family” of the Church. If he does not, then the he would be shunned as an outsider as an incentive to repent. That only works when there is no place else to go–no other “church” to run to for comfort.
Alas, today anathema only chases one to another church and then to another church and then to another church until he finds a church that is more agreeable to his own beliefs. And if he can’t find one, then he starts his own. That is, sorry to say, the Reformist/Protestant way. There is no pressure to do otherwise. You have done it and you are asking others to do the same.
Personally, I think that is sad. Man’s own pride is his undoing. Given enough time, he will figure out a way to beat the system. If you ask me, that is the spirit of the Anti-Christ.