Mark Bonocore: Rebuttal
As predicted, Mr. Engwer has presented us with a great deal of irrelevant material intended to exploit Protestant preconceptions of what the Papacy is, and to attack the present claims of the Catholic Church. Yet, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the Papacy was created by Christ or recognized by 1st Century Christians. Thus, when my opponent cites the claims of Vatican Council I, he disproves nothing in regard to Christ’s creation of the Papacy. In this, I’m sure my opponent will admit that the Papacy existed before 1870 (when Vatican I took place). So, if he wishes me to defend the integrity of Vatican Council I and the truths which that Council proclaimed, I would be happy to do so in another debate. Yet, that is not what this debate is about. And so, we should not let Mr. Engwer distract us.
He also cites a number of Catholic scholars (some more Catholic than others), who he maintains contradict the teachings of Vatican I. Well, even if this were so (which it isn’t), it does not address the subject of our debate, since these are not primary sources, but merely “scholarly opinions.” And there exist “scholarly opinions” which even deny the Divinity of Christ!
Also, given Mr. Engwer’s history of distorting the Sacred Scriptures and the Church fathers, it is no great feat for him to wrench Raymond Brown or J. Michael Miller out of context as well. And, while Mr. Engwer only cites these scholars in order to distract us, let me briefly address his misuse of them.
For example, my opponent cites Brown and Miller asserting how the early Papacy displayed no “jurisdictional authority.” Now, at first glance, this may seem to deny the definition of the Papacy found in our debate proposition:
“The ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church.”
However, what my opponent is not telling us is that, in the context Brown and Miller are speaking, “jurisdictional authority” has a specific meaning --referring to the Pope’s “hands-on” administration of the universal Church. This would include things like appointing bishops, canonizing saints, and enforcing Church discipline in remote locations. Now, as I already pointed out in my opening statement, this is not how the Papacy operated in the early Church. Rather, the Papacy acted more as a “court of appeal,” exercising authority only in times of universal crisis. It was not a “hands-on administrator.” That would come later, when the style of Papacy adapted to meet the needs of the Church. Thus, when Brown or Miller speak of “jurisdictional authority,” they are not denying our definition above. Rather, they (like the Eastern Orthodox) contrast the Pope’s “jurisdictional authority” (e.g. appointing bishops) with the Pope’s “pastoral authority” (e.g. maintaining universal unity in the face of heresy or schism); and this “pastoral authority” operated in the "jurisdictional" terms of a “court of appeal”.
My opponent also uses Brown and Miller to assert that “the Papacy” developed gradually over time, being affected by many social and political factors. Well, of course! I myself illustrated this in my opening statement. Yet, I also pointed out how this does not address the Papacy itself (per our definition above), but merely the style in which the Papacy operated. And that’s exactly what Brown and Miller are saying (when understood in context).
My opponent also cites Miller claiming that the first generation of Christians understood little of how the ministry of Peter functioned, and how the passage of time was necessary before this would be fully realized. Well, once again, of course! The same was true for the early Christians’ comprehensive understanding of the Trinity, and the Hypostatic Union of Christ, and the canon of Scripture, etc. Yet, this doesn’t mean that no one in the early Church understood these things until they were solemnly defined. Rather, it merely means that they were not yet fully developed as dogmas of the Faith. So, we must understand Miller (and the other Catholic authors) in context.
Turning to Mr. Engwer’s Scriptural “evidence,” we are given numerous statements based on the faulty premise of sola Scriptura (which we know for certain was not the rule of faith for the early Church). Among these are: ‘the New Testament covers the first 100 years of Christian history’ and ‘after Acts 9, the Apostle Peter fades into the background, being replaced by Paul.’ Well, all this is nonsense. The NT was never meant to be a comprehensive history of early Christianity; nor does Peter “fade into the background” in reality, but merely within the narrative of Acts --a book about the development of the Gentile church; and thus its focus on Paul: the Apostle to the Gentiles (Romans 11:13).
Engwer then contrasts Peter with Paul, claiming that the early Church fathers speak more of Paul than of Peter. Well, I should hope so! The early fathers were theologians, as was Paul. And, since the main reason they wrote was to counter the theological claims of heretics, it is not surprising that they would draw from Paul (the theologian) as opposed to Peter (the unifier). These heretics had already cut themselves off from the unity of the Church, so all that remained was to discredit their theology.
Engwer then makes a series of silly assertions regarding Paul so as to diminish the primacy of Peter. He claims that Paul is “uniquely called a chosen vessel” in Acts 9:15, and that Paul exercises “authority over all the churches.” Yet, if we look at these verses in context, we see that Paul is only a “chosen vessel” in the mission to the Gentiles; and his reference to “all the churches” in 1 Corinth 7:17 does not refer to “universal authority,” but merely to the churches Paul founded --that is, all the Gentile churches (Romans 16:4). Yet, in 1 Peter 1:1, we see Peter giving authoritative instruction --not only to churches founded by Paul in Asia and Galatia, but also to churches in provinces which Paul never evangelized (e.g. Bithynia, Pontus, & Cappadocia).
He then says how 1 Corinth 9:1 shows that Paul was equal to the other Apostles. Well, of course he was! ...As an Apostle! Yet, that doesn’t mean his ministry was equal to Peter’s. In my opening statement, I compared Peter to the captain of a basketball team. Thus, on this “Apostolic team,” both Peter and Paul are equal players. Yet, Peter (as team captain) also possesses the additional ministry to hold the team together, etc.
He then maintains that there was no early Papacy because Paul does not list a “Pope” among the Church ministries in 1 Corinth 12:28. Well, 1 Corinth 12:28 does not mention “presbyters” (Acts 15:6), or “bishops” (1 Tim 3:1), or “deacons” (1 Tim 3:8-10) either. Yet, these ministries existed in the Apostolic Church.
Engwer also says how Paul did not need approval from the other Apostles, but that he merely came for “coordination.” Not so, according to Gal 1:18, where Paul says that he came to “confer” with Peter. The Greek word here is “historesai,” which means to “inquire” or “ask of,” as from an oracle! So, while Paul’s Apostolic commission came directly from Christ, he also took instruction from Peter and the other Apostles (Galatians 2:2)
Engwer also implies that Gal 2:11-14 shows that Paul had no concept of Peter’s authority. Yet, far from denying Peter’s authority, this passage supports it! Indeed, why would Paul boast of standing up to Peter if Peter wasn’t the one in charge?
Engwer then states how Paul’s Epistle to the Romans does not speak of Peter presiding there. Well, of course not, since Peter was presiding in Antioch when Paul wrote to the Romans (c. A.D. 56). In A.D. 49 (according to the Roman historian Suetonius, who is backed up by Acts 18:2), all the Jews were expelled from Rome after a riot over someone named “Chrestus” [a mishearing of “Christ”]). Peter would have been among them; which explains his mysterious presence at the Jerusalem council that same year (Acts 15:7). After the council, Peter settled in Antioch (Gal 2:11), returning to Rome sometime after that.
Engwer asserts that Paul’s desire to preach the Gospel in Rome (Romans 1:15) implies that Peter did not found the Roman church. Well, this is complete nonsense. 1st Century Rome had a population of over 1 million people! This made it ten times as large as Corinth or Ephesus, where Paul spent 1 & 1/2 and 2 years, respectively (Acts 18:11, Acts 19:10). Yet, does Paul plan to spend equal time evangelizing the capital of the world Empire? Not at all. Rather, he writes:
“I hope to see you in passing as I go to Spain and to be sent on my way there by you, after I have enjoyed being with you for a time.” --Romans 15:24
So, Paul merely intended to pass through Rome on his way to Spain. And, he writes:
“Thus I aspire to proclaim the Gospel not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another man’s foundation.” --Romans 15:20
So, who was this “other man”? Think about it. This was Rome --the capital of the Empire --a city of 1 million people, which Paul had never visited (Romans 1:13, 15:22), yet which had a large Gentile population (Romans 11:13). So, which Apostle, aside from Paul, ministered to Gentiles as well as to Jews? Only Peter: Acts 15:7-10. Indeed, would Paul have passed up such “fertile territory” as the city of Rome if it was not in the care of a more prominent Apostle?
Turning to John 21:15-19, Engwer claims that Peter’s role as shepherd over the entire flock says nothing about succession. Well, John 21 was written 30 years after Peter’s death! Thus, if there was no succession, why record this at all? Remember, the Gospel of John was written at the same time as Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, where the Bishop of Rome was being consulted by other churches regarding unity and orthodoxy.
Engwer also claims that 2 Peter 1:13-15 & 3:1-2 show us that Peter intended only to leave “written documents” to remind the Church of what he taught. This is more silliness, since these verses are not about “written documents.” Rather, in 2 Peter 1:15, the Apostle says how he will make “every effort to enable [us] to always remember these things after [his] departure.” “Every effort” would imply a successor --that is, someone (a living person) to give reminders, just as he talks about in 1:12-14.
Lastly, Engwer attacks the idea that Peter alone was given the Keys of the Kingdom by asserting that the Apostles’ collective authority to “bind and loosen” (Matt 18:18) is part of the same imagery as “the Keys.” Indeed, Engwer asks, ‘How can they bind and loosen unless they hold the keys’? He then goes on to speak of the collective authority to “bind and loosen” exercised by the “key-holding” Jewish authorities in Luke 11:52 & Matt 23:1-3; and claims that Peter’s possession of the Keys does not make him the Pope. Well, here Engwer is blinded by his anti-Papal prejudices, which lead him to see the Pope as some dictatorial force set over the Church, rather than being an organic part of the Church itself. Yes. Like the Jewish authorities, the Church collectively holds the Keys, in that Peter is part of this Church and acts along with it. Yet, the Church does not possess the Keys independently of Peter. It cannot “bind and loosen” to the exclusion of him --just as the Jewish authorities could not “bind and loosen” to the exclusion of the High Priest, who was the final arbiter of their authority (John 11:49-51 & Acts 23:3-5).
Turning to his patristic evidence, I find it hilarious that Mr. Engwer gives his estimation of the early Roman church by quoting Tertullian --a Montanist heretic, who denied all episcopal authority! Indeed, Tertullian himself is a hostile witness to the authority of Rome, when he mocks a ruling of Pope Callistus I (c. 217 A.D.), saying ...
“I hear that there has even been an edict sent forth, and a peremptory one too. The ‘Pontifex Maximus,’ that is the ‘bishop of bishops,’ issues an edict: ‘I remit, to such as have discharged [the requirements of] repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.’ ...Far from Christ's betrothed be such a proclamation!” (On Modesty).
Here, Pope Callistus had relaxed the discipline of the Sacrament of Confession. Before this time, one could be absolved of post-Baptismal sins only once in one’s lifetime. Yet, Pope Callistus ruled on a more merciful approach; and thus the position of Catholics and Eastern Orthodox today.
Yet, the Montanist heretics rejected Callistus’ authority to adapt the discipline. And so, Tertullian writes:
"I now inquire into your opinions, to see whence you usurp the rights of the Church. Do you presume because the Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church ...[Matt 16-19]' that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed over to you, that is, to every church akin to that of Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally on Peter? 'On you,' He says, 'I will build my Church; and I give to you the Keys'...." (Ibid)
So, despite Tertullian’s Montanist views, one cannot deny that, here in 217 A.D., Pope Callistus is claiming authority based on his direct succession from Peter --an authority that was embraced by the orthodox Christian community.
Engwer also cites St. Irenaeus of Lyon, who I covered in my opening statement, claiming that he doesn’t mention a Papacy. Yet, this is the same Irenaeus who speaks of Rome’s “preeminent authority,” calling it the “greatest church,” with which “every church must agree.” Here, let’s remember Irenaeus’ objective, which was not to promote the primacy of Rome, but to show how episcopal succession in all the churches undermines the claims of heretics. Yet, Irenaeus uses Rome as a “short cut” to illustrate this --something which would only work if the authority of Rome was recognized by all.
Yet, Engwer maintains that Rome’s primacy came merely from its wealth and cosmopolitan nature. Well, Alexandria, Carthage, Edessa, Ephesus, and Antioch were wealthy and cosmopolitan too. Yet, Irenaeus doesn’t claim “preeminent authority” for any of these.
Adopting a modernist liberal view, Engwer claims that the early Roman church was governed by a “body of presbyters” as opposed to a singular bishop. Here, Engwer completely ignores the fact that Irenaeus himself (in 180 A.D.) gives us a list of the earliest bishops of Rome. And Irenaeus wasn’t the only one to do so. For example, around 155 A.D., the Church father Hegesippus did the same, writing:
"And the church of the Corinthians remained in the true Word when Primus was bishop in Corinth .... And when I was in Rome, I made a [list of] succession up to Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherius [later Pope Eleutherius]. (Hegesippus in Euseb., IV, 22).
This is the same Anicetus who received Polycarp in 155 A.D.
Similarly, Engwer cites Dionysius of Corinth to promote his mythical “body of presbyters.” Yet, as I presented in my opener, Dionysius speaks of Soter as the Roman bishop, saying “...this custom your blessed bishop Soter has preserved ...”
Indeed, the argument for this “body of presbyters” rests merely on the fact that, in 107 A.D., St. Ignatius of Antioch does not address a bishop when he writes to the Roman church. Yet, there is a very good reason for this: He was protecting the Roman bishop from undo exposure. Remember, at this time, Ignatius himself, as the leading bishop of Asia, was an imperial prisoner being publicly exhibited as an example to the “dissident Christians.” An exposed Bishop of Rome would have shared the same fate.
Yet, if anyone doubts that there was a singular bishop of Rome at this time, we need look no further than Ignatius’ Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 3, where he writes:
“...as also bishops, settled everywhere to the utmost bounds [of the earth], are so by the will of Jesus Christ.” (Ignatius to the Ephesians Chap III).
I’d say that Rome was part of the “utmost bounds of the earth,” wouldn’t you? Indeed, for Ignatius, the term “bishop” always refers to the monarchical shepherd of a church, as is clear in all his writings (e.g. Ignatius to the Philadelphians, 3:2-4:1)
And, while I do not have time here to completely obliterate Mr. Engwer’s modernist assertion, I challenge him to ask me to defend the singular bishop of Rome as a consistent, historical reality in our Q&A section.
Lastly, Engwer says that St. Cyprian of Carthage asserted “the independence of all bishops.” Not so. Rather, he asserted the local sovereignty of all bishops; and there is nothing unCatholic about that. Indeed, I have dismantled Mr. Engwer’s distortions of Cyprian’s ecclesiology before, yet he is still presenting the same empty arguments. However, if Cyprian did not recognize a universal, unifying ministry for the church of Rome, how could he write to Pope Cornelius saying:
"With false bishops appointed for themselves, they (the Novatian heretics) dare set sail carrying letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the Principal Church, in which priestly unity has its source; nor do they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the Apostle." (Cyprian’s Epistle to Pope Cornelius c. 253 A.D.)
If Cyprian did not recognize Rome’s ministry to preserve universal unity and orthodoxy, how could he call it the “principal church”? And what was it about Rome that made it the universal “source” of “priestly unity”???? Mr. Engwer has never given me answers to these questions. Nor is he ever likely to.
Mark J. Bonocore
About | Apologetics | Philosophy | Spirituality | Books | Audio | Links