Cross Examination: Questions and Answers
For this cross examination period, Jason asks first, then Mark answers, and they alternate for a series of three questions each or a total of six questions and answers.
Question Number (1) by Jason Engwer
Jason Engwer>> You’ve said that you aren’t defending the First Vatican Council’s claims about the papacy, even though that council said that its view of the papacy was the one always believed by the Christian church. You’ve described the views of Catholic historians such as Raymond Brown and J. Michael Miller as “like Eastern Orthodox”, “liberal”, etc. Yet, their books, which I quoted, bear your denomination’s Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. You claim that the Roman church became Christianity’s “court of appeal” after Jerusalem and Antioch, and that this occurred at least a few decades before the last New Testament book was written. Since the New Testament documents never refer to the Roman church being a “court of appeal”, how do you know that Christ and the apostles established it as such, and why are we to assume that any “developments” in the doctrine of the papacy since then are also Divinely appointed? >>
Answer by Mark Bonocore
Jason Engwer writes:
<< You’ve said that you aren’t defending the First Vatican Council’s claims about the papacy, even though that council said that its view of the papacy was the one always believed by the Christian church.>>
Well, Mr. Engwer, ... As I’ve already illustrated ad nauseam, you have serious problems reading things in their intended context --something our audience should keep in mind when judging your credibility. Thus, you are wrenching Vatican I out of context as well. However, as I said, the integrity of Vatican I has nothing to do with this debate; and the only reason you cite it (out of context) is to exploit Protestant suspicions against the Catholic Church. Is this because you cannot rely on your historical arguments?
<< You’ve described the views of Catholic historians such as Raymond Brown and J. Michael Miller as “like Eastern Orthodox”, “liberal”, etc. Yet, their books, which I quoted, bear your denomination’s Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur. >>
Firstly, I do not belong to a “denomination,” but to the one true Church founded by Christ upon Peter. Secondly, you are once again illustrating your inability to read things in context. Go back and read what I actually said. I never called Brown or Miller “liberal,” nor did I characterize their views as “Eastern Orthodox.” I merely said that --like the Eastern Orthodox --they contrast the Pope’s “jurisdictional authority” with the Pope's “pastoral authority.” My point was that they use terminology common to Catholic-Eastern Orthodox dialogue. Yet, you are misapplying that terminology by adapting it to a Fundamentalist mind set.
As for the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, you seem to think that these equal some kind of universal, Papal approval. They do not. The Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are issued by individual bishops, and merely mean that a work has received the “rubber stamp” of some local episcopal bureaucracy. Thus, the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur are not part of the infallible charism of the Church. That’s why we have a Pope, who can define dogmas, as our final “court of appeal.”
<< You claim that the Roman church became Christianity’s “court of appeal” after Jerusalem and Antioch, and that this occurred at least a few decades before the last New Testament book was written. >>
That’s not exactly what I said. Rather, Peter himself was always the Church’s final arbiter (no matter where he resided); and the Roman church inherited that role after his death.
<< Since the New Testament documents never refer to the Roman church being a “court of appeal”, how do you know that Christ and the apostles established it as such, and why are we to assume that any “developments” in the doctrine of the papacy since then are also Divinely appointed? >>
Firstly, the NT documents never refer to lots of things. For example, where does the New Testament specifically teach that the Gospel of Matthew is Divinely-inspired and approved by the Apostles? Yet, you accept that it is because that’s the sacred oral Tradition of the Christian Church. Right? Thus, I know that the Roman church held “preeminent authority” because that is part of the same body of oral Tradition, as we see reflected in the patristic evidence.
As for the “development” of the Papacy (a term which refers, not to the Papacy as defined in our debate proposition, but merely to the style in which the Papacy operates), this again has nothing to do with our debate. We are debating whether or not Christ created the Papacy (as defined in our proposition), not whether or not the Papacy remains uncorrupted today. For example, the mere fact that the High Priest Caiaphas plotted to murder the Son of God in John 11:49-53 does not negate the fact that this same God created the High Priesthood in Exodus 29:5-7. Or would you disagree? And, indeed, this same passage (John 11:49-53) illustrates quite clearly how the Hand of God is always present in what He creates. Despite the corrupt intentions of Caiaphas, the Holy Spirit still spoke through him (v. 51) so as to advance the Almighty’s infallible plan. And that, right there, should answer your question about God’s approval of the Papacy’s “development.” Jesus Christ is still in control of His Church. The Pope of Rome is merely his vicarious steward. The Lord watches over him, helping him carry out his ministry, just like He watches over the rest of us and helps us to carry out ours.
So, now that I’ve entertained your distractions, can we please stay on topic?
For example, I challenged you to produce one case in which the early Roman church received authoritative teaching and instruction from another church, as opposed to consistantly giving it. In response, you quoted Chapter 7 of Ignatius’ Epistle to the Romans. That’s a pathetic and unsatisfactory answer. Here, as in the bulk of his epistle, Ignatius is merely asking the Romans not to interfere with his martyrdom. That’s far from the kind of teaching authority which Ignatius displays in his 6 other epistles, where he instructs the churches of Asia on matters of faith, discipline, and morality. Indeed, as a close disciple of the Apostle John, Ignatius’ views would be highly sought by Christians everywhere. Yet, Ignatius gives absolutely no such instruction to the church of Rome. Thus, your response is unacceptable. And, that brings me to my first question.
Question Number (1) by Mark Bonocore
Mark Bonocore>> Addressing the Philadelphians, Ignatius of Antioch writes:
"Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: for there is one Flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one Cup in the union of His Blood; one altar, as there is one bishop ..." (Chap 3)
Indeed, Ignatius gives such teachings to all the churches he writes to --instructing them on matters of faith, discipline, and morality. Yet, to the Romans, he writes:
“You have never envied anyone, you have taught others. Now I desire that those things be confirmed which, in your instructions, you enjoin [on others].” (Chap 3)
So, why does Ignatius --a disciple of the Apostle John --offer no doctrinal teachings to the Roman church? Why is Rome alone excluded? Can you produce an example of anyone giving such authoritative doctrinal teaching to the early Roman church? >>
Answer by Jason Engwer
Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, gives doctrinal instruction to the Roman church. Cyprian not only instructed the bishop of Rome and the Roman church, but even condemned them for false doctrine and for departing from Christian unity during the dispute over heretical baptism.
I don’t know why my opponent would ask only about doctrinal instruction, though, since he asserted in his opening remarks that Ignatius “offers no teachings and no instruction at all” to the Roman church. Where was the qualifier “doctrinal” when he made that claim? After I documented Ignatius instructing the Roman church in chapter 7 of his letter, my opponent changed his argument to one of doctrinal instruction. But if doctrinal instruction is all that matters, then why has he cited First Clement as an exercise of papal authority? First Clement was written to address an issue of church government.
I’ve given some examples of the Roman church being instructed on doctrinal matters, but if we also include issues of church government, morals, etc., even more examples could be cited. When Anicetus, a bishop of Rome, tried to “instruct” Polycarp regarding the dispute over the celebration of Easter, Irenaeus tells us that Polycarp not only wasn’t persuaded by the Roman bishop’s arguments, but also disagreed with him on a number of other issues as well. Irenaeus and other church leaders wrote letters to Victor, bishop of Rome, “sharply rebuking” him and “admonishing” him (Eusebius, Church History, 5:24). (Eusebius tells us that Irenaeus and these other bishops also wrote to other church leaders, not just to Victor, so their writing to Victor doesn’t suggest that they were thereby recognizing any papal authority.)
My opponent cites chapter 3 of Ignatius’ letter to the Romans:
Ye have never envied anyone; ye have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed by your conduct, which in your instructions ye enjoin on others.
This, again, raises the question of why my opponent wants to address only doctrinal instruction. Obviously, Ignatius seems to be addressing behavior, not doctrine, in this passage. He commends the Roman church for virtues such as love and generosity, not for any papal authority. Saying that the Roman church is a teacher to other churches because of the example it sets with its love and generosity is far from advocating a papacy.
In his opening remarks, my opponent deceptively quoted Ignatius saying that the Roman church “presides in the chief place”. What he doesn’t mention is that Ignatius then says “in the country of the region of the Romans”. Those words put Ignatius’ comment in a far different light, one that’s contrary to what my opponent is arguing rather than supportive of his argument. The Roman church presided in the region of the Romans because it had regional authority, not universal authority. Though some Catholic apologists try to apply an awkward reading to this passage in order to avoid the implications I’ve just described, another comment Ignatius makes later in the letter confirms that he didn’t believe in a papacy. We read in chapter 9:
Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love will also regard it.
Obviously, Ignatius saying twice that God alone will be his church’s shepherd after he’s martyred is contrary to the concept that the bishop of Rome would also be his church’s bishop. In an attempt to avoid the implications of this, my opponent suggested that Ignatius’ last comment above (“your love will also regard it”) must be a reference to papal authority. But Ignatius doesn’t say anything about papal authority. He mentions prayers and love, and he excludes anybody but God from being his church’s bishop. Asking the Roman church to pray for and love his church, a request Ignatius also made to other churches, doesn’t prove that he believed in a papacy. Instead, chapter 9 of Ignatius’ letter to the Romans is a contradiction of the doctrine of the papacy.
The letters of Ignatius repeatedly address the subject of church government, yet none of them refer to a papal office. Ignatius repeatedly refers to God, not a bishop of Rome, as the Bishop who is above the bishop of the local church. Thus, in his letter to Polycarp, he addresses that bishop as “bishop of the church of the Smyrnaeans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ”.
Question Number (2) by Jason Engwer
Jason Engwer >> In your rebuttal, you claimed:
<< 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. >>
That’s a misrepresentation. I didn’t say that the Roman church’s influence came merely from the factors you’ve cited. I also mentioned the Roman church’s faithfulness to apostolic teaching, the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome, and other factors. I’m giving you the opportunity of this question and answer segment to respond to what I actually said rather than a misrepresentation of what I said. Why is it that the earliest writers commenting on the Roman church (Paul, Ignatius, Hermas, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus) commend it for its love and generosity, Paul and Peter having ministered there, etc.? Why do they not mention any Divinely appointed papacy, but instead commend the Roman church for practical reasons, not papal reasons? >>
Answer by Mark Bonocore
Engwer asks why the earliest Church fathers do not cite a Divinely-appointed Papacy, but instead commend the Roman church for “practical” rather than “papal” reasons.
Well, ... Aristotle once said that we must understand a thing by determining its nature. And, I already presented the nature of the early fathers’ writings, which were not to promote the primacy of Rome, but to refute the theological claims of heretics who had already cut themselves off from the unity of the Church. The fathers do not tell these heretics to submit to the authority of Rome, since that would be like expecting a pre-Christian Samaritan to submit to the authority of Jerusalem (John 4:20-22)! Thus, they resort to “practical” means, just as we are doing here.
For example, I asked Mr. Engwer to cite a case of Rome receiving authoritative teaching and instruction rather than consistently giving it. He has now side-stepped this question two times. First, he tried to use Ignatius of Antioch, whose so-called “instruction” to the Romans was merely to beg them not to save his life. Then, when I qualified my question as referring to doctrinal instruction, Mr. Engwer quibbled over the meaning of “doctrinal.” Yet, my meaning is clear: Did any outsider teach the early Roman church? And the answer is a resounding “no.”
Yet, Mr. Engwer says that Paul taught the Romans. However, this was while Peter was still alive, and before Rome inherited his ministry. He also cites Cyprian who, even during his conflict with Pope Stephen, never gave authoritative teaching to the Romans. Rather, he called Rome the “principal church, in which priestly unity has its source.”
Similarly, Polycarp merely defended the customs of his own church (which came from St. John). And in “sharply rebuking” Victor, St. Ireneaus appeals, not to his own episcopal authority or that of his mentor Polycarp, but to Victor’s own Roman predecessor, Pope Anicetus!
Thus, we are left with a Roman church that gives teaching but does not receive it. Why do you suppose that is?
Engwer also disputes Ignatius’ comment to the Romans:
“You have never envied anyone, you have taught others. Now I desire those things be confirmed which, in your instructions you enjoin on others.” (Chap III)
Engwer says this refers to “example” (in terms of “love & generosity”) as opposed to doctrine. Yet, Ignatius speaks of Rome’s “instructions.” Also, in the previous line, Ignatius refers to his own episcopal authority, writing:
“...God has deemed me, the bishop of Syria, worthy to be sent from east to west and to become a martyr ...that I may rise unto Him.”
Thus, read in context, Ignatius is comparing Rome’s episcopal authority (which includes Rome’s example: 1 Peter 5:3) to his own authority as bishop of Antioch; and he is saying that Rome’s is superior.
Engwer also disputes my interpretation of Ignatius’ introduction. He claims that the line: “which presides in the chief place in the region of the Romans” means that Rome merely possessed “regional authority”. Not so; and for several reasons:
First, Chapter X of the epistle reveals that Ignatius is writing from Smyrna in Asia Minor --1000 miles away. Thus, why refer to Rome’s “regional authority”? Secondly, what exactly is “the region of the Romans”? At this time, Rome ruled the entire known world. Perhaps if he wrote “which presides in the chief place of the Italian churches” (something Ignatius could easily have said), then that might refer to “regional authority.” Thirdly, if you read his introduction, especially in the Greek, you will discover that this line is the first time Ignatius names his audience. Thus, in context, Ignatius’ meaning is:
‘...the church ... which presides in the chief place, located in the region of the Romans.’
In other words, “in the region of the Romans” is not meant to identify where this church holds the “chief place,” but to actually identify the church he’s writing to: Rome. And any other interpretation is a corruption of the Greek.
Ignatius also speaks of: “the church of Syria, which now has God for its bishop instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love will also regard it.”
Engwer claims that this word “alone”negates Rome’s authority to watch over the church of Syria. That’s nonsense. Clearly, Ignatius is speaking about God’s direct and spiritual care for his church. And, to this, Ignatius adds: “and your love will also regard it.” That is, the “presiding love” of Rome, which he cites in his introduction.
Question Number (2) by Mark Bonocore
Mark Bonocore>> Scripture clearly teaches that Christ desires His Church to be one (John 17:20-21), and that all Christians must be united in terms of orthodoxy (1 Corinth 1:10, Ephesians 4:1-6, 1 Peter 3:8).
I maintain that Jesus commissioned Peter with a special ministry to preserve the Church’s universal unity and orthodoxy; and that this Petrine ministry was later inherited by the Bishop of Rome.
You, however, deny this. Therefore, what do you have to offer instead? What is your objective standard for determining Christian orthodoxy, and thus Christian unity?
It cannot be the Bible, since there are, at present, some 28,000 separate Protestant denominations --all with the same Bible, yet all interpreting it differently. For example, you reject Baptismal regeneration while other Protestants teach it. Thus, how do you judge what is orthodox and what isn’t? Who decides? Did the Lord overlook something? Or isn’t unity important to you? >>
Answer by Jason Engwer
The question I was asked, regarding unity, reflects the ignorance of the subject among Catholic apologists. The unity argument is one of the most popular arguments used by apologists for the Roman Catholic Church, yet every Catholic apologist I’ve encountered who has used the argument has relied on a series of erroneous assumptions. My opponent wrote:
<< What is your objective standard for determining Christian orthodoxy, and thus Christian unity?
It cannot be the Bible, since there are, at present, some 28,000 separate Protestant denominations --all with the same Bible, yet all interpreting it differently. >>
The Bible is an objective standard regardless of whether people disagree about what the Bible means. Catholics disagree with one another on a lot of issues, but would my opponent conclude, then, that the Roman Catholic rule of faith must not be an objective standard? Obviously, he wouldn’t. If he recognizes the flaws in his reasoning when it’s applied to Catholicism, why doesn’t he recognize those flaws in applying that reasoning to evangelicalism? My opponent may argue that when Catholics disagree with one another, they can examine the text and context of what the Catholic Church has taught in order to determine who’s right and who’s wrong. The same is true of the Bible. My opponent raised the issue of baptismal regeneration, and I have an article at my web site that explains why I reject the doctrine ( site since defunct ). If somebody disagrees with me, then compare our arguments, weigh the evidence, and decide which position you find more convincing. This process isn’t something unique to evangelicalism. Catholics do the same. The difference is that evangelicals admit that they’re relying on personal interpretation of evidence, while Catholics dishonestly claim that they aren’t. Just as evangelicals personally interpret their rule of faith, the Bible, Catholics also personally interpret their rule of faith. Personal interpretation, which involves misunderstandings and disagreements by fallible people, can’t be avoided. Do Catholics claim to be relying on an infallible Pope and infallible councils? Evangelicals are relying on an infallible Bible. Both Catholics and evangelicals must personally interpret the sources they consider to be infallible.
Another problem with my opponent’s argument is that it misdefines unity. Paul wrote that there is to be one faith, not one denomination (Ephesians 4:6). People can belong to different organizational structures, yet have the unity Jesus and the apostles advocated (Luke 9:49-50). And they can belong to the same organizational structure, yet not have that unity (1 Corinthians 11:18). The unity advocated by Jesus and the apostles is primarily a spiritual fellowship based on agreement in truth. There are Baptists, for example, who attend governmentally independent churches, yet have far more unity with one another than a liberal Catholic has with a conservative Catholic. Are we actually to believe that a Haitian Catholic who practices voodoo, a Catholic school teacher who believes in evolution, and a conservative Catholic who considers John Paul II an antipope all have the unity of Ephesians 4:6, because they belong to the same denomination? If organizational unity is what we want, then why not join the World Council of Churches? Or why don’t we all unite around the Mormon church? Or a Methodist denomination? Or an Eastern Orthodox church? If we’re seeking organizational unity, any organization will do. The Roman Catholic Church isn’t the only option.
My opponent made the false claim in his rebuttal that the view that the earliest churches were led by multiple bishops is a “modernist liberal” view. Since most Catholic historians, along with non-Catholic historians, including conservative ones, agree with me that the earliest churches were led by multiple bishops, then most Catholic historians must be liberals, by my opponent’s standards. In February of 1999, Roman Catholic apologist Gerry Matatics debated Eric Svendsen on the issue of the perpetual virginity of Mary. In the debate, Matatics attempted to explain why so many Catholic scholars agree with evangelical scholars that the Biblical evidence is against Mary having been a perpetual virgin. Matatics argued that Catholicism is in a stage of apostasy, thus explaining why so many Catholic historians have taken a position that he opposes. By the admission of Catholic apologists such as my opponent and Gerry Matatics, the Roman Catholic Church is composed of a lot of liberals and apostates. The difference between my opponent and I is that I prefer spiritual unity with those who obey God’s word to an organizational unity that includes liberals and apostates.
Question Number (3) by Jason Engwer
Jason Engwer >> In your last question, you focused on unity. In this question, I want to focus on orthodoxy. In his bull Unam Sanctam, Pope Boniface VIII taught (emphasis mine):
when the Greeks [Eastern Orthodox] and others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they must confess that they are not of Christ's sheep, even as the Lord says in John, "There is one fold and one shepherd."...
Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff [the Pope],- this we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation.
Similarly, the Council of Florence in the 15th century taught that nobody can be saved outside of the ecclesiastical Roman Catholic Church. The Second Vatican Council, however, supported by numerous Popes, taught that non-Roman-Catholics can be saved. How did the papacy maintain orthodoxy when Popes contradicted one another on this issue? >>
Answer by Mark Bonocore
Once again, Mr. Engwer illustrates his complete disregard for the topic we’re debating, as well as his total inability to appreciate historical context, by asserting that Unam Sanctam (1302) and Ferrara-Florence (1439) contradict Vatican Council II (1965). They do not. Need I point out that the first two occurred before the Protestant reformation, when all Christians (both Eastern and Western) were nominally Catholic. Vatican II, however, is speaking after 400 years of Christian heterodoxy, with whole generations born outside of the Catholic Tradition. Thus, Vatican II was able to address what the others could not: the phenomenon of “invincible ignorance.” That is, if someone is outside of the Catholic communion through no fault of their own, then they cannot be accused of schism. Catholic morality has always taught: “If there is no knowledge, then there is no responsibility; if there is no responsibility, then there can be no sin.” Thus, Unam Sanctam and Ferrara-Florence do not apply to someone who does not know any better. They never did. Yet, what, pray tell, does this have to do with whether or not Christ established the Papacy?
For example, I claimed that Jesus establish the Papacy as our universal, objective standard for determining Christian orthodoxy, and thus Christian unity. Yet, when I asked Engwer what his objective standard was, his response was nothing short of delusional! As expected, he cites the Bible; yet he does not specify whose interpretation of the Bible is to be the objective standard. Rather, Engwer himself contradicts the Bible (2 Peter 1:20-2:1-3, 3:15-16) by saying that “personal interpretation cannot be avoided”! Well, sure it can. It is a matter of authority. Not all Christians are teachers in the Church (1 Corinth 12:28-29).
Engwer says that Catholics disagree. Well, of course we do! That’s why Jesus gave us the Papacy. If one refuses to accept an authoritative decision of the Papacy, then one has placed oneself outside of the Catholic Church. Yet, Engwer makes no mention of authority. He says how Catholics and Protestants must both examine the text and context of our respective standards so as to determine who’s right or wrong. That’s simply not true. Rather, when serious disagreements arise, we Catholics are obliged by obedience to concede to our bishops, who are, in turn, obliged to adhere to the ultimate decisions of the Pope. So, we Catholics are under authority (Hebrews 13:17), whereas Mr. Engwer is Pope unto himself.
Indeed, Engwer side-steps his disregard for Christian unity, claiming that we Catholics misdefine unity, whereas Jesus defined unity as “a spiritual fellowship based on agreement in truth.” Well, if that’s the case, then Mr. Engwer proves my point. Protestants do not agree on truth. They have no objective standard for such agreement. In this, I cited Baptismal regeneration --something which Engwer has called a “heresy.” Yet, most of the Protestant reformers believed in it, as did all of the Church fathers. However, Mr. Engwer tells us to look at his website and ‘consider the evidence.’ Yet, what makes his interpretation any better than that of Martin Luther or some conservative Protestant pastor today? Once again, who has the Christ-given authority to decide??? That’s why the Lord gave us the Papacy.
Engwer quotes Ephesians 4:6 saying that “there is to be one faith but not one denomination,” and that Catholics confuse unity of Faith with “institutional unity.” Well, Ephesians 4 also says that there is to be “one Body” --that is, “one Church,” which is one “people,” one “nation” (1 Peter 2:9-10). This is not the case with heterodox Protestantism.
As for “institutional unity,” we Catholics demand no such thing. Rather, there are 24 separate rites of the Catholic Church (Roman, Byzantine, Maronite, etc.), all of which worship in their own way. Yet, we are all in agreement in terms of doctrine. Protestants, however, do not agree on doctrine. They are heterodox.
Engwer mentions liberals and apostates in the Catholic Church. Do we have them? Sure we do (especially in academia). And so do you Protestants. Jesus Himself predicted such troublemakers (Matt 13:24-30 & 36-43), so their existence doesn’t affect our integrity at all. Yet, we also possess the Catechism of the Catholic Church (available at any bookstore), which specifically presents what the Church believes and teaches and what it does not. Can Mr. Engwer produce an equivalent statement for universal Protestantism? If not, then he admits that Protestants are heterodox. After all, Engwer himself defines unity as “spiritual fellowship based on agreement in truth.”
See also my long article The Unam Sanctam "Problem" Resolved
Question Number (3) by Mark Bonocore
Mark Bonocore>> You claim there was no early Bishop of Rome, but that Rome was governed by a “body of presbyters” in the time of Clement and Ignatius. I’ve already given you Ignatius’ quote (107 A.D.), where he says there are “bishops settled everywhere, to the utmost bounds of the earth”; as well as the testimonies of Hegesippus (130-150 A.D.) and Ireneaus (180 A.D.), both listing a succession of Roman bishops, with Clement named among them. So, were Hegesippus and Ireneaus making it up? Indeed, since 1) Hegesippus, 2) Ireneaus, 3) Hippolytus, 4) Tertullian, 5) Jerome, 6) the Africanus ap. Eusebium, 7) Augustine, 8) the ap. Epiphanium, 9) Optatus, and 10) the Roman canon all identify Clement as the monarchial Bishop of Rome, can you cite any ancient source which disputes that Clement was the Bishop of Rome or identifies him as something else; or which mentions your mythical “body of presbyters”? >>
Answer by Jason Engwer
My opponent claimed in his rebuttal that the view that the early Roman churches were led by multiple bishops is “a modernist liberal view”. One doesn’t have to be a liberal to acknowledge that Acts 20 refers to multiple bishops in the Ephesian church, that Paul greets multiple bishops in Philippians 1:1, that the terms “bishop” and “presbyter” are interchanged in the earliest documents, etc. The church father Jerome acknowledges in his Epistle 146 that the earliest churches were governed by multiple bishops. Does my opponent want to dismiss Jerome as a “modernist liberal”?
Catholic historian Robert Eno writes the following about The Shepherd of Hermas, a document written in the late first or early second century by a member of the Roman church (emphasis in bold mine):
Hermas was a farmer, an ex-slave who was a member of the Roman community who received what we would call visions and private revelations, most of which concern the problem of sin in the Church and the issue of public penance. What is of interest here are the incidental remarks which mention the leaders of the Christian community in Rome. These leaders are usually referred to by such vague titles as "the leaders" (e.g., Vision II.2.6; III.9.7). Sometimes they are called elders as "the elders who are in charge of the Church" (Vis. II.4.3). It is significant to note that these references are all in the plural. In other places, bishops are mentioned (again in the plural); they are usually linked with others, e.g., bishops, teachers and deacons (Vis. III.5.1)...
This evidence (Clement, Hermas, Ignatius) points us in the direction of assuming that in the first century and into the second, there was no bishop of Rome in the usual sense given to that title. The office of the single mon-episkopos was slowly emerging in the local Christian communities around the Mediterranean world. Men like Ignatius were strongly urging this development. But the evidence seems to indicate that in the earliest decades, this evolution had not yet been accomplished in Rome. This then is that missing link referred to by Rudolf Pesch. If there were no bishop of Rome, in what sense can one speak of a Petrine succession? (The Rise of the Papacy, pp. 27-29)
My opponent cited a comment from Ignatius, to the effect that bishops existed throughout the world. But the issue isn’t whether there were bishops throughout the world. The issue is whether there was in every church one bishop who had authority over all other leaders within that church. Even if Ignatius had said what my opponent claimed he was saying, what about the Roman churches before the time of Ignatius? My opponent cited the lists of bishops that appeared from the second half of the second century onward as evidence that the churches had always been led by one bishop, but there are problems with those lists. The Protestant historian Philip Schaff writes in his History of the Christian Church (Saginaw, Michigan: Historical Exegetical ‘Lectronic Publishing, 1996):
The oldest links in the chain of Roman bishops are veiled in impenetrable darkness. Tertullian and most of the Latins (and the pseudo-Clementina), make Clement (Phil. 4:3), the first successor of Peter; but Irenaeus, Eusebius, and other Greeks, also Jerome and the Roman Catalogue, give him the third place, and put Linus (2 Tim. 4:21), and Anacletus (or Anincletus), between him and Peter. In some lists Cletus is substituted for Anacletus, in others the two are distinguished….Furthermore, the earliest fathers, with a true sense of the distinction between the apostolic and episcopal offices, do not reckon Peter among the bishops of Rome at all; and the [later] Roman Catalogue in placing Peter in the line of bishops, is strangely regardless of Paul, whose independent labors in Rome are attested not only by tradition, but by the clear witness of his own epistles and the book of Acts.
Lists of monarchical bishops became popular from the second half of the second century onward, but the evidence suggests that the lists were anachronistic, reading the monarchical episcopate back into an era when it didn’t exist. The lists were used in opposition to the Gnostics and other heretics, and their primary concern was in showing that the churches had a lineage from the apostles. Regardless of whether one finds that line of argumentation convincing, the lists used to support the argument are outweighed by the evidence within the earliest documents, which points to multiple bishops leading each church.
End of Cross Examination
About | Apologetics | Philosophy | Spirituality | Books | Audio | Links