| Returning to The Catholic
Church Rediscovering
the Way of the Apostles In the world
today there are thousands of different religions. They represent a great diversity in belief
and in practice. Even among
Christians, there are hundreds of different variations of belief, comprising
numerous denominations and sects. It
is my firm conviction that Jesus never intended His church to be split. Before Christ's passion and death, he prayed
to the Father that we "all might be one....brought together in
unity to let the world know that You have sent me". (John 17:22,23) Oh how he must be grieved today by the fact
that we have separated ourselves from our Christian brethren, and they
from us, by squabbling over insignificant points of doctrine. I believe that it is the duty of all Christians
to lay aside the divisive contentions of denominationalism and embrace
the church that Jesus established.
We are reminded in the Apostle's Creed that we believe in "one
holy and apostolic catholic church".
That statement doesn't mean that we believe in one Roman Catholic
Church, which is merely one denomination among many. What we confess is that there is ONE church that Christ established,
which is apostolic (based on the teaching received from the apostles) and it is catholic, which means "universal". It is interesting that
many Protestants who believe in the orthodoxy of the Apostle's Creed,
unabashedly admit that their denomination is based on the teaching not
of the Apostles, but on that of a man, such as Martin Luther (Lutheran),
John Calvin (Presbyterian), or John Wesley (Methodism).
We need to return to original apostolic teaching. We need to scrutinize the theology that was
not historically part of the apostolic church, and weed out the error
that has only served to split Christ's church, and prohibit Christians
from participating in the Body that Christ established.
Do we indeed care so much about the truth?
Is knowing the truth and following our conscience more important
to us than our association with a denomination?
Recently I was visited by some very anti-Catholic members of
a cult that had come to my door distributing their literature. I graciously
took their literature, and talked about how important it was that we
followed the truth, no matter what the price.
They agreed. Being familiar
with their organization, I continued to talk with them about the development
of the doctrine of the Trinity ( a belief that they reject as paganism). They insisted that they had thoroughly researched
it, and knew for sure that the early church did not believe that Jesus
was God in the flesh, and that the Trinity was false doctrine. In all gentleness, I offered them a booklet
that I had previously written on that very subject, which not only objectively
examined the belief in the historical church, but chronicled their organization's
own research regarding it. At
this, they balked. After just telling me that the "truth"
will always stand up to scrutiny, and claiming that they researched
the subject thoroughly, they would not even take a piece of literature
home with them that discussed the very subject.
They said that they wouldn't "read anything that might sow
seeds of doubt in our faith".
What type of truth is this?
If we suspect that intelligent dialogue on a subject will "sow
seeds of doubt in our faith", how much conviction can we really
put in our "truth"? How honest are we really about following Christ
and the apostolic church? We set a time one evening for them to return
which was convenient for them, yet they never came back or called. The fact is, many of us really don't want to
know the truth. It might interfere
with our lifestyle, or our social life, or prick our conscience. Give yourself this little test: Imagine that
you discovered that Jesus wasn't everything that He claimed to be, and
that he was historically much more the way he is described in the Koran
(the Islamic scriptures). What
if you also discovered that Mohammed was really a true prophet, and
Allah was the proper way to address God.
Would you leave your church and join a mosque?
Would you indeed become a Muslim and accept the difficult consequences
and repercussions that would come with making such a transition? No doubt your social and family life would
be drastically altered. You
would be paying a potentially difficult price for your obedience to
the "truth". Although
this example may seem unreasonable to most of us, this is the type of
commitment to the truth that Jesus Christ asks of us.
Jesus said that there may be such dissension in the home on account
of Him. He said regarding this
that "Anyone who loves his father or his mother
more than me is not worthy of me; anyone
who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me
(Matthew 10:37). We must have the moral fortitude to follow
the truth no matter what the cost.
Since this book is about the beginnings and the tradition of
the catholic church that Christ founded, I would ask the reader to ask
him or herself who they love more, their denomination that their parents
may have brought them up in, or the truth that Jesus brings? If our allegiance is to our denomination, then you need not read
any further. If, however, we
seriously want to investigate and pursue the truth, then we may proceed. What
it Means to be Catholic: It is important at this point that we define
exactly what being catholic is. To
many people, being catholic means that we identify with and are in submission
to the Papal See in Rome. They
would say that our participation in the tradition that has been preserved
by Peter's successors is the distinguishing mark of catholicism today. If we were to be true to this very tradition,
however, we would need to revise this definition. When the word "catholic" was first
used amongst the early church fathers, it was not a proper name identifying
their brand of Christianity. It
was an adjective which means "universal".
So when we hear in the Ignatius' letter to the Smyneans (Ignatius
was a disciple of the Apostle John) the first historical reference to
the "catholic" church, we know that he was not identifying
a hierarchy based in Rome, but instead, in context, the universal church
that was made up of all persons who believed the apostolic gospel.
How did the early church then define what was catholic? Right from the very beginning, the successors
of the apostles identified catholicism as that which was part of the
very first apostolic churches. According
to the testimony of the early church fathers, all tradition and doctrine
must be apostolic in origin, or it may be discarded as not being an
essential part of the catholic church.
We read in St. Vincent of Lerins (434 A.D.) his understanding
of the catholic church. "In the catholic church
itself, we take the greatest care to hold Tertullian, likewise, in the
third century, stated that he knew his church was the "true"
church because they held on to the same doctrine that the original apostolic
church believed. It is this often overlooked fact which might prove to provide the
greatest hope for unity in the Christian church today. You see, virtually every church claims that
their belief and tradition is essentially the same as the apostolic
church. Even the most radical
Protestants would agree that the early churches definition of "catholicism"
is an agreeable and noble ideal. Since we all also agree that unity is more
desirable than division (unity of the believers was one of Jesus' primary
concerns) then why can we not seek to find out what was the essence
of the "catholic" church, and have that become our basis for
a unified Christian church? The
only issue then would not be one of debating dogma and denominational
statements, but one of seeking together to find the common faith which
we all claim as our source. It
must be stated, however, that such a move towards an apostolic church
does not mean that we must all lose our diverse flavors and styles as
Christians. Unity does not necessarily mean complete conformity. There is certainly room in Christ's church
for diversity in gifts and rites, since these things are normally just
a variation in form, not in substance.
What we must seek is unity in the essentials, granting liberty
in the non-essential matters of faith.
If we discover a belief or doctrine that is substantially different
from the early catholic church, then we must have the integrity to acknowledge
that it is not part of Christ's church.
That may prove to be the most trying and difficult parts of our
quest.
What is our basis for investigating this matter? As all of us would surely agree, the most sound
basis would be investigating the writing of the apostles themselves
in the New Testament. The writings
of the apostles must be understood in their scriptural, cultural and
historical context, of course, since many churches are inclined to lift
solitary verses out of context to be a "proof" text for their
own denominational doctrine. Besides the scriptures, we must
not neglect the contributions of the early church fathers in understanding
the apostolic church. These
faithful men and women sacrificed their lives in order to transfer the
truths of Christianity on to the next generation. Some of them were actual disciples of the apostles themselves.
Others, were only one generation form the apostles.
Again it is important to recognize their words in their context
also. Their writing is not consider scripture.
Some their writing (those of Origen for example) was later declared
by church councils to be heretical, and cannot be considered trustworthy
as to testifying of the apostolic faith. What was this early church
like? What was this apostolic
church like? The very earliest
believers who lived in Jerusalem continued to observe the Jewish religious
practices of their heritage by going up to the temple to pray daily.
Even while the Apostle Paul was engaged in his missionary work
in Asia Minor and Europe, we are told that he went to the synagogue
on every Sabbath (Saturday). Although this is important to notice because we must recognize the
dependency of Christianity upon
Judaism, it would be premature to assume that therefore the true apostolic
church must conform to the Jewish tradition of worship. The fact is, the apostolic church has always
varied the details of it's external
appearance to be as understandable and coherent to as many people as
possible in whatever culture it was in.
It was only natural that, since it had it's roots in Judaism,
and Jews already knew about the prophecies of the coming Messiah, that
the early church would start it's evangelism in synagogues.
In such a case, the evangelists would have access to the synagogue
on account of his or her Jewish heritage, and there they would proclaim
that Jesus was the promised Messiah.
However, when Paul was in Athens before a non-Jewish audience,
and he stood on top of Mar's Hill (the place that philosophers would
deliver their discourses from) and preached the eternal message about
Jesus, he did not quote a single verse from the Jewish scriptures!
Instead, he supported his argument by quoting Greek philosophers
and poets. Paul recognized that his audience was familiar with Greek wisdom
( as was he) so he spoke with the language and terminology that was
suited to his audience! We can
deduce a very important principle: that is that the apostolic church
has always endeavored to make it's message understandable to the culture
it is in. When the Christian church was in it's infancy
and primarily Jewish, the preaching was in Hebrew or Aramaic. When large numbers of Greeks came into the
church, most of the correspondence was in Greek. Even more interesting is the fact that the dialect of Greek that
the New Testament is written in is not the formal Greek of the scholar,
but Koine Greek, the most simple and common dialect among the "layperson".
When the center of church authority moved from the Greek speaking
East to the Latin speaking West, Jerome had the foresight to translate
the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures into Latin, the tongue of the common
man in Rome. What a tragedy
it was that the Roman Church insisted on keeping Latin as the "official"
sacred tongue for so long! Long after Latin had disappeared as a tongue of the people of the
church, the hierarchy maintained it as the language of it's services. The understanding of the Gospel became lost
to all but the most well educated.
Since the church forbade the Bible to be translated in to any
language other than Latin, the common person was robbed of the life
and inspiration which is found in God's Word!
It wasn't until the Protestant Reformation in the 16th century
that the Roman Church saw how desperate believers were to have a Bible
in their own tongue. The reformers published Bibles in German, English,
French and other languages and huge numbers of people swarmed out of
the Roman church because they perceived that Protestantism was a religion
for people, not just one for the theologian and priest. It was not until about thirty years ago that the Roman Catholic
magesterium authorized the Mass to be said in the vernacular, a decision
that was about 1300 years too late.
Many Protestant churches did not learn from the mistake of the
Roman Church, and have come to elevate the language and phraseology
of the King James Bible, published in 1611.
Written in Elizabethan English, it was the vernacular at the
time it was written. The language is almost incomprehensible to
many people today, although many Protestants will not use any other
translation, ascribing a sacredness to the Elizabethan terminology.
From all this, we can deduce that the apostolic church is rightly one
that makes the Gospel available and understandable to the common person. Both Roman Catholicism and Protestantism still
have not divested themselves of the high and lofty phraseology of the
theologian and the secretive, coded symbols of the "mystery"
religions. We need to purge
out the elements which are hindrances to making the Gospel known to
the average individual. God does not necessarily speak the language
of the theologian.
What would we see in a typical first century church? If we were to attend a service during the end
of the apostolic era, what would we witness? First of all, we may not be very impressed with the property that
the congregation met in. It
would be very inconspicuous; perhaps it would be a believer's house
or a small building. On Sunday
morning (the first day of the week) the believers would come together
before dawn to worship together. Until 311 A.D. it was a capital crime to be
a Christian, so the place of meeting was secretive, and meeting before
first light gave them the cover of darkness in which to congregate. As we walk in, we might see an elder presiding
among them opening up the service by reading a psalm of thanksgiving
to God. The congregation would
then sing a number of hymns and psalms, all exalting Jesus Christ as
Lord and God. We would notice
the sincerity and sense of genuine gratitude expressed.
All these people have suffered much to continue in the faith. They have undergone persecution, suffered hardship
and loss, and in many cases, mourned family and loved ones who had been
executed because of the faith. Yet
they all knew that their sufferings were inconsequential compared with
the eternal glory promised them. Jesus
Himself had suffered a terrible death for them, to purchase their salvation,
so they would respond with gratitude and praise.
They had put their faith in the Living God who had expressed
His unconditional Love on Calvary, and would soon return to demonstrate
His justice and vindication to the world.
The worship might be punctuated with spontaneous ejaculations
of praise to God. We know from Paul's letter to the Corinthians
that the whole congregation participated in worship God, in psalms,
revelations, doctrine (teaching) and speaking in other tongues (I Corinthians
14:26). There were prophets
in the church who spoke as the Spirit of God enabled them, revealing
God's intentions and Divine wisdom (I Corinthians 14:5).
Far from being a extraordinary event, or one limited to only
the apostle's ministry, we know from the second century document The
Didache that services filled with demonstrations of God's power were
still more the norm than the exception.
Besides the supernatural happenings, there would be a time set
apart for reading of the "memoirs of the apostles (New Testament)
or the prophets (selections from the Old Testament), as longs as time
permits" ( Justin Martyr 150 A.D.)
One of the elders would preach a message from these texts to
encourage the congregation to follow the apostolic example.
We are told by Pliny the Younger (ca. 100 A.D.) that the believers would
bind themselves with a mutual oath to not commit any crime, adultery
or a breach in the faith. In
other words, they would made their personal lives accountable to the
other believers. We have a picture of a church devoted to Jesus Christ,
holiness, and each other. At
the end of the service, they would participate in the Lord's Supper,
breaking bread with each other, and afterwards, take up a voluntary
collection to support their presiding minister and any poor among them.
The elders, bishop, deacons and deaconesses would preside over
the Lord's Supper, then the diaconate would distribute the "alms"
part of the collection to the poor.
The elder (sometimes referred to as president or bishop in early
Christian writing) would dismiss the congregation.
Eventually, when the service was performed in Latin, the presiding
elder would dismiss the service with the words "Ite, missa est",
denoting that it was over. Centuries
later, the believers referred to the whole service as the "missa",
which eventually comes to us as the word "mass".
What
They Believed It would be naive to assume that the early church
automatically believed whatever our particular denomination teaches.
Many never question how historical the doctrine of their might
be church. This is important, however, because we are assured in scripture
that the faith was entrusted “once, for all, to the saints” (Jude 3). Novel or new doctrines are to be rejected.
One such example is the popular evangelical doctrine of the "pre-tribulational
rapture of the church". According
to this theory, some seven years before Christ returns in glory, he
will evacuate his church secretly, leaving the rest of the world to
suffer under the iron hand of the anti-christ and the wrath of God's
plagues until Christ wipes out the last bunch of rebels at the battle
of Armageddon. I, like many
Protestants and many Roman Catholics, assumed that this was the gospel
truth. When I discovered that
there is no explicit scriptural support, and no evidence that any of
the apostles taught it, I came out hard on the side opposing such error. I don't want to be believing some false theory
that was not part of Christ's teaching.
Such a discovery only made me more inquisitive into the history
and development of other doctrine in the church.
Let's look at some of the central points of the beliefs or convictions
of the apostolic church: Conviction #1:
Jesus Christ is God appearing in the Flesh.
The identity and nature of Jesus Christ was a pivotal part of the early church. Virtually all of the early councils and controversies swirled around the definitions of who Jesus was. Although it would be too involving to chronicle the debates over his Deity, his humanity, and the "hypostatic" union of his incarnation, I would like to point out the evidence that the apostolic church held firmly to the full Deity of Jesus Christ, before there was even any inspired writing that explicitly said so.
Before any council undertook the exhausting and confusing issue of formally
defining Christ's nature, the apostolic church had a very simple and
uncomplicated manner of expressing this point.
The apostolic church was not interested in creating a "water-tight"
formula for Christ's nature that would be consistent with all the speculations
of the Greek Platonists and Stoics. All they needed was a brief, easy to remember
statement that even the uneducated converts could recall and understand.
They did this by converting the core elements of the truths of
Christianity into lyrical poetry and short hymns that encapsulated the
essence of the truth. When the New Testament was written (most of it written some 25+
years after the church began), the apostles included some of these very
earlier statements of Christian theology in the epistles to the churches
in the New Testament. We can identify with reasonable accuracy, where
the primitive hymns and creeds are by examining the structure of the
stanzas in the epistles. It is fascinating that the most prominent deal
with the identity and nature of Christ.
One example is found in 1 Timot Great is the mystery of godliness: In
the original language, this stanza is set in poetic strophes. It sets in parallel fashion the truth that
Jesus was indeed God, and did appear in a true body of flesh. It took theologians and bishops hundreds of
years to hammer out definitive statements that echoed the simple truths
contained in these brief apostolic hymns.
Likewise, if we look at Philipians 2:6-11, we see the same subject
matter also described in primitive poetry.
The poetry from Philipians adds one other element, however, which
is the voluntary sacrificial death of Jesus, and his subsequent elevation
to God's right hand. This pattern is repeated in Colossians 1:15-20,
as well as Hebrews 1:3. The
apostolic message is always the same:
Jesus is Lord, God and King who, because of his great love and
mercy, has emptied himself temporarily,
to purchase us with His own blood.
This is the dominant and recurring theme throughout all of the
earliest pre-New Testament hymns and statements.
The only other widely used phrases that were in common usage
among Christians before the New Testament scriptures that defined their
beliefs were "Jesus is Lord" ( Romans 10:10, 1 Corinthians
12:3, Philipians 2:11) and "Maranatha" (1 Corinthians 16:22)
which means in Aramaic "come, Lord".
The latter phrase not demonstrates that the early church expected
Christ to return imminently, but also provides substantial proof that
Jesus was to be identified with the Lord God from the earliest days
of Christianity. As
the apostles began spreading the gospel truth around Palestine, Asia
Minor, and Europe, like any other new belief, they ran into opposition
from the varied religions dominant in those areas.
They were frequently persecuted by the Jews in each city, who
resented the apostle's constant insistence that the gospel was completely
consistent with the Law and Prophets of Judaism.
They encountered resistance from the pagans, who were concerned
that the spread of Christianity would detract from the prestige of each
city's patron deity. (see Acts
19:26,27) There was a very apparent difference, however,
between any of the pagan religions and philosophies and the new church
that Christ had established. That
was, the Christian church was not based on a mere foundation of "faith"
or "belief", but it was centered on the objective and historical
fact of the events surrounding the person Jesus Christ. For example, when the apostle Paul preaching the essence of Christianity
to Festus and King Agrippa, and he mentioned that Christ had been crucified
and risen from the dead, he added (Acts
26:26 ) This stands in stark
contrast to the bizarre and frequently grotesque mythology of the day,
which was not only too fantastic to be credible for any rational belief,
but could rarely produce a god that had a better disposition than the
lowest common denominator of it's adherents.
The mythology of Greece and Rome was laden with gods who had
nothing better to do with their time than think of which mortal to seduce
or which god to plot against. By
the time Christianity appeared, the Hellenistic world was so worn out
with fables that the scholastic elite had abandoned any theology in
favor of the godless philosophies of Stoicism and Epicurianism.
Christianity was a belief system that not only was free from
the absurdities of paganism, but it revealed the truths about the nature
and purpose of God that struck a chord in the hearts of all men who
sought the truth. It was verifiable historically so it could not be easily explained
away. The undeniable facts of
it's foundation, coupled with the demonstration of the life-changing
power of God overwhelmed the skeptics and detractors of this fledging
religion. Today, we need to be no less
dedicated to establishing what is objectively true. Some well intentioned people have slowly changed the general opinion
about the importance of verifiable truth in religious matters. They might insist that the actual facts regarding
any religious system is not important, because all religion is valid.
They say that as long as we have faith in something, it's all the same. Nothing could be farther from the truth! Either Jesus lived, or he didn't. He either rose from the dead, or he didn't.
The apostle said that if Christ did not really rise from the
dead, than his preaching was foolish, he was to be pitied above all
men. and our faith was completely in vain ! (Cor 15:14) Peter said that he did not follow cleverly
devised fables when he told everyone about the gospel. He told exactly what he and the other apostles
had witnessed firsthand. (2 Peter 1:16) Today, there has been a blurring of the clear lines that distinguish
truth from error. There had
been a resurgence in the study of "myth" which has sought
to place all religious belief on the level of myth, making them all
equally true without distinction. Many Christians have therefore been
led to believe that the unique qualities of Christianity are merely
"beliefs" like any other beliefs, which consequently has sapped
the conviction from Christians that once provided the force behind the
church's growth. Conviction #3:
We are Reconciled to God by Jesus' Crucifixion and Resurrection. The
objective and verifiable basis for Christianity provided the assurance
that the promises of Jesus were true. All throughout the writings of the Apostles, we see the frequent
references to the fact that believers in Christ now have complete forgiveness
with God because of Jesus' sacrifice.
We have a restored righteousness or right-standing with God. Although sin had caused an impassable chasm
between God and man, Jesus Christ had now become the mediator that gave
us access as sons to God once again.
He had provided the satisfaction for God's justice by taking
our sin upon himself, so we now are "born-again" as children
of God.
Few people realize how central this is to the teaching of the apostolic
church. Most of the New Testament
documents revolve around the premise that we are perfectly reconciled
to God through Jesus Christ. Many
of the parables that Jesus told were expressly for the purpose of showing
that we have this righteousness just by humbly going to God and receiving
it (grace), rather than "earning" it through good works (observing
the "law"). The beauty
of the gospel is that we do not deserve the salvation that Jesus has
bought for us. Grace is God's unmerited and unearned favor.
One such parable that demonstrates this is that of the "Prodigal
Son". In this parable,
Jesus tells of a disobedient son who squanders his inheritance but eventually
"came to his senses" and decided to return to his home. The father, while "a long way off" sees him, and rushes
to him, showering him with affection, gifts, and assembles for him a
great party. This son had decided
to merely throw himself at his father's feet and beg for mercy, yet
he was bestowed with great love and affection.
We have all been told that this represents each one of us, who
is so wonderfully received by God when we repent and confess that we
need God's mercy. Most of us, however, do not ever consider the
older son the father had, who represents the "religious" people
of Jesus' day. He is indignant
by the fact that, although he has labored for his father his whole life,
was never shown such affection. Jesus
tells this parable to demonstrate that God desires that we would have
the attitude of humility and seek to receive forgiveness, rather than
hold to the notion that we are "a good person" who has earned
right standing with God. The older son, the one who is righteous in
his own eyes, can only be embittered and resentful of the mercy that
God shows to other individuals. In
the same way, it is evident that those who are "self-righteous",
can only respond to others with a judgmental and unforgiving spirit. The
New Testament sets forth this distinction between "observing the
Law" and "grace" as the cornerstone of the whole gospel.
Several of the epistles were written primarily to prove that
no one can be justified or made righteous by observing the commandments
of the law, and we all must seek the source of God's grace to be saved.
In the First chapter of the gospel of John, he states the distinction
as "the Law came through Moses, but grace and truth came through
Jesus Christ." With all of this clearly evident, it is amazing
how many Christians still hold to the opinion that a "good"
person earns salvation. That is completely foreign and contradictory
to the apostolic tradition. If
one were to read the whole New Testament and write down the major themes,
there is no doubt that the foremost theme would be the inability of
man to please God by his own works, and his dependency on the forgiveness
in Christ to be saved. When we leave behind the understanding of salvation
by grace through faith, we
slip into what is called "legalism", which is the primary
error which the apostle Paul opposed in his missionary endeavors. Conviction #4:
We Have a Special Calling on our Lives to Serve Each
Other, and Serve Christ as His Ministers. All
of the individuals in the apostolic church seemed to be aware that they
had a special calling on their lives.
When we hear the word "calling" in context of religious
discourse, we usually associate it with the vocation of the priesthood
or pastoral position. In the
apostolic church, this was not the case.
Many times the apostles Paul and Peter refer to the calling that
all believers have on their lives (Rom 1:6,7; 8:28,30;9:24; 1 Cor 1:2,9,26;7:17;
Gal 5:13; Eph 4:1; 2 Thess 1:11; 1 Peter 2:9,21,5:10 ).
There was never a distinction made between "clergy"
and "laity". In the
Bible, there is no such distinction.
Everyone who came to Christ realized that they had a role to
fulfill in service or ministry, and that God had given them the Holy
Spirit to help them fulfill that ministry.
It was an unfortunate thing that, over the centuries, Christians
began to believe that only certain individuals were picked to be in
a unique role of service for God. This idea turned being a Christian into a "spectator
sport" in which the role of ministry was reserved for only a few
select people. Whereas once,
the worship service revolved around the numerous ways God manifested
himself through the whole congregation, by the Dark Ages, it was now
a service where everyone stood and watched one individual perform a
ritual. The people came to expect that a special class
of people, the clergy, would do the right motions and say the right
words to keep the village in God's good graces.
The term "laity" or "layperson" comes from
the Latin root "Laic" which means "ignorant", which
clearly shows the contempt the "clergy" had for the average
individual. Even as early as the fourth century, there
is record that the clergy were prohibiting people from singing in church
(laity was not considered worthy to even sing hymns).
The clergy class became revered and exalted as quasi-magical
mediators who could determine the eternal destiny of the people of the
parish. Just to show how foreign the titles of pre-eminence were from
the early apostolic and patristic church, one could look to the title
“Pontifex Maximus” which is a current title of the Pope. If one
was to look through the early Christian writings, you can find the title.
The early church fathers called the “Pontifex Maximus” the “King
of Heathendom”. The title was held by the
pagan priest of the mystery religions in Rome up until the 4th
century! What
practices are not in the Apostolic Church: There
are a number of practices and beliefs that were not a part of the original
apostolic church. It would seem
to me that if there is no evidence that they existed in the original
church, then it would be questionable as to whether they indeed should
have anything to do with catholicism today.
Just to name some of the late developments in the church:
The papacy as an institution is completely missing in the early church. If we were to trace the apostolic pattern of
leadership, we would see that the first church established was that
of Jerusalem, where all of the apostles resided for a number of years
after Jesus' ascension. Many
have tried to put forth the idea that Peter was preeminent or "first
among equals" in relation to all the other apostles, but that is
just not the case. Even though we see Peter making the address
on the day of Pentecost, that does not mean that Peter somehow had authority
over the others. On the contrary,
when the apostle Paul came to Jerusalem to meet with those who were
apostles before him, he met with "James,
Cephas (Peter) and John who seemed to be pillars"(Galatians
2:9). It would appear that the three of them were
co-equal in authority, and James is mentioned first, which would imply
that he held the "first among equals" designation. This is confirmed by the fact that it was James who both dispatched
ministers throughout the churches (Galatians 2:12), and also was the
one who presided over the first Council, rendering the decisions, with
Peter present, clearly serving in a subservient capacity ( Acts 15:1-21). In the writings of the early church fathers,
the primacy of James is maintained universally up until the late 3rd
century. Even Eusibieus, the
first Church historian records that James was the leader of the first
church. So the "primacy of Peter" cannot be established
in the New Testament, nor in the earliest histories. Following the historical development of the church, we can see that
the Apostles Peter and Paul established many churches, and tradition
alleges that they both ministered in Rome together. The tradition that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome is an old
one, with many patristic writers attesting to it, although there is
no actual proof. Giving the
benefit of the doubt, and assuming that he actually was in Rome for
a time as the chief elder, can we build the doctrine that Rome was to
be preeminent and have authority over all the other churches the apostles
established? If we examine the
writing of the fathers, nothing could be farther from the truth.
The first extra-biblical writing that we have from the leadership
in Rome is a very early one, and it is one that many Popes have pointed
to support the idea that Rome is the seat of authority for the church.
It is known as First Clement, and it is addressed to the church in Corinth,
from the church in Rome. The
occasion of the letter is that the Corinthians were once again departing
from sound biblical practices as they did in the days of Paul. The leadership
in Rome is taking the occasion to provide some correction for the church. It is interesting, however, that this letter
allegedly from Clement, the third bishop of Rome, never identifies it's
author as a bishop of that city. As
a matter of fact, the letter always uses the pronoun "we"
instead of "I" when expressing the author's opinion. Furthermore, there is no reference to the primacy of Peter among
the apostles, nor of Rome among the churches.
In such a situation, one would think that the church of Rome
would exercise it's authority by citing the fact that it had preeminence
over the church of Corinth. What
this letter does do is support the contention that all churches in the
first century, including the church of Rome, were overseen by multiple
presbyters/bishops, and each church was autonomous. This is confirmed
by Ignatius' letter to the Romans which was written at about the same
time. Ignatius was a disciple
of the Apostle John, and Bishop of the city of Antioch. As he was being led in chains to Rome to be martyred, he wrote to
the church in Rome expressing his thoughts on being fed to the lions. He does not address his letter to any pope
or bishop in the city of Rome, but to the church in general. He qualifies his address as being to "the
church which is charge of the local affairs in Rome." It would appear that Ignatius is definitively
stating that the church in Rome's authority extends only as far as Rome.
Each church was responsible for it's own territory, without any
one church having jurisdiction over it. Including Rome. This would
have undoubtedly bolstered the church of Rome's claim to superiority
during the middle ages. What
is rarely mentioned is that the copy of this letter that contains this
statement is of very late origin. There
exists Latin manuscripts of this letter that predate the one mentioning
the primacy of Peter. In the original manuscript, there is no mention
of Peter being preeminent. The
text says that "Certainly the other apostles were what Peter
was, endued with an equal fellowship of both honor and power." Scholars admit that
references to the primacy of Peter were a later addition, and can only
be considered a forgery. The
other document that brought tremendous power to the Roman church is
a document that was circulated in the ninth century. In 857 A.D., Pope Nicholas I began citing what are now called the
Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals to bolster the claims of the papacy. The Decretals were alleged to be documents
written between the second and fourth centuries, all recognizing the
Primacy of Peter, and one letter is purported to be from Constantine,
donating all of Italy and the entire Western empire to the papacy forever! For centuries the popes cited the Decretals
of proof of their right to rule much of Europe, as well as the other
churches. In the early Fourteenth
century, many scholars began to question the validity of the Decretals. After much research and investigation, it was
discovered that all of the documents were forgeries, the earliest being
from the eighth century. The
whole event is appropriately considered the greatest literary fraud
of all of history. Priesthood:
The existence of a priesthood is something which cannot be found in
the early apostolic church. Many
of us have just assumed that the church began with some men with clerical
collars, properly addressed as "father".
This is not the case. As
a matter of fact, the whole concept of a priesthood would be almost
impossible to justify in light of the New Testament writings and patristic
writers. To understand the significance, one must first
understand the Jewish culture that Christianity was birthed from. The Jewish people had a priesthood, whose existence
revolved around a sacrificial system detailed in Leviticus and Deuteronomy.
They were called to assist in the slaughter of the animals used
in the sacrifices, for the purposes of reconciling the people of Israel
to God. Priests offer sacrifices.
That's what they do. When
the temple was destroyed in 70 A.D., and sacrifices could no longer
be offered, the whole priesthood as a class was deprived of their primary
function, and essentially ceased to exist.
That is when "rabbis" became the dominant religious
figures in Judaism, since they did not rely on the existence of the
temple to discharge their duties. In Christianity, one of the primary
tenets is that Jesus came as our high-priest, and offered the "once-and-for-all"
sacrifice of himself for the sins of the world ( Hebrews 9:28, 10:10,
10:12, 18). That one sacrifice happened historically, and it is the one-time
event that procured our salvation.
With this fact in mind, we can see why none of the apostles ever
referred to themselves as "priests". Where there is no sacrifice, there can be no priesthood. The only
sacrifice that could be offered to remove sins was already offered.
Sacraments:
In the Roman Catholic church today there are seven recognized sacraments. Many are surprised to learn that it was not
until the early twelfth century that a Bishop named Peter Lombard helped
the Roman church settle on principle that there were seven and only
seven sacraments. It was not
until the Council of Florence in 1439 that the seven sacraments as we
know them today was finally declared orthodox.
How does the understanding of the sacraments today compare with that
of the apostolic church? The
difference is substantial. For
one example, there are only two ordinances that we have explicit biblical
support as to being apostolic practices.
One is baptism. The other
is the Lord's Supper, commonly called the Eucharist.
Although it is not significant as to how many "sacraments"
there are (Augustine thought their was thirty), the understanding of
their function is very important. "What
is to prevent me from being baptized?" Philip answered It is interesting that the
critical part of verse 37, which clearly implies that one must fully
believe in Jesus before being baptized, is missing from contemporary
Roman Catholic Bibles, even though it is found in the majority of original
Greek manuscripts. Is there
any evidence that the original apostolic church baptized infants? As mentioned, there is no biblical inference. Examining the apostolic tradition that was
passed on, we see great detail about baptism mentioned in the Didache
(100 A.D.). In this early writing,
the author states that the candidates for baptism should have public
instruction on the ordinance, and that they should be told to fast for
two or three days before the ceremony (7:1-4).
Since it doesn't make any sense that one should be instructing
an infant about the service, and telling them to fast, we can rest assured
that infant baptism was not something that was even considered by the
author. The other patristic
authors also reflect this fact, that baptism was reserved for those
who had made a personal confession of Christ. Tertullian argued that baptism should be put off for as long as
possible, so that, in his reasoning, there would be less opportunity
for one to spiritually "soil" themselves after they had been
spiritually "washed." Although
we may personally disagree with Tertullian's opinion, it still demonstrates
that the infant baptism was not an accepted part of the church in the
third century. (Note: even in the Fourth century this mindset was prevalent,
witnessed by the fact that Constantine himself would not be baptized
until he was on his deathbed). The
earliest evidence we have that a child was baptized comes from an epitaph
on a young boys tomb in the Lateran.
The quote is from the fourth century and it reads: Florentius set up this inscription
for his well deserving son
Many who have pointed to this as evidence for infant baptism have missed
the point of the epitaph altogether.
It does not support the idea that infants were baptized. On the contrary. The boy was almost two, not yet baptized, and when it was apparent
that he was not going to survive to a mature age, the grandmother made
a special request (presumably to baptize him) before his death. This epitaph actually supports the view that
infants were not baptized as a normal procedure, and that putting off
the practice until later in life was still the most common opinion. Other
Doctrines New to the Church It would be too lengthy to
list all of the things that are common to some "traditional"
churches today that were not part of the apostolic tradition. Just to list a few practices and beliefs:
Beliefs about Mary: There
are two specific beliefs about Mary that are considered dogmatic in
Roman Catholicism today. One
is called the Immaculate Conception. Many Roman Catholics
believe that the Immaculate Conception refers to the conception of Jesus
who was without original sin. It
is not. The Immaculate Conception
is the belief that Mary was conceived without sin. This belief finds no place in the church until a man named John
Dun Scotus wrote of it in late 13th century.
The idea had been rejected by popes and theologians alike before
and after that time. It wasn't
until 1854 that it was finally declared as being a dogmatic and infallible
truth of the Roman Catholic church.
The truly unfortunate thing about all this is that both doctrines were
defined as infallible dogma. That
is, the papacy is resting it's credibility on these two beliefs being
fact. That would seem very unlikely since the bulk of church authorities
over the centuries contradict them.
Far from being an "unfolding" of doctrine that existed
in the church, many have rightly pointed out that these doctrines were
clearly decisive breaks with the Roman Catholic Church's tradition.
Despite all this, the Roman Catholic Church claims that one must
believe these two doctrines to be "Roman Catholic". When we take a careful look at the early catholic
church, we see a organization, founded by the Jesus and his apostles,
committed to the truth of the gospel as revealed by God.
Many churches claim to be the "true" church of Christianity,
but how many actually have the same convictions and live by the same
spirit of the apostolic church? The
only thing that is separating Christians today is our adherence to man-made
doctrines that have been created over the years, and are contrary to
the tradition of the early apostolic catholic church.
We must not be fooled by the claims of such organizations, who
have increased their power by fraud and deceit and still claim to be
the "mother church". It is the unwillingness
of the Roman Catholic Church to absolve itself of it's peculiar non-apostolic
doctrine that prohibits it from being truly a part of the "catholic"
church. Christians who love
the truth, and desire to see the unity that Jesus desired for the church,
recognize that they cannot agree with the Roman Catholic perspective
of Christianity. That is why
I am not Roman Catholic. I am
too catholic to be Roman Catholic.
If you believe in the essentials of the church that the apostles
founded, which is unadulterated by the deceptive teachings of men, then
you too are catholic. We may
not be able to point to a visible organization today, and say that it
is completely pure of any non-apostolic tradition, but we can strive
together to participate in a fellowship that is as close to the apostolic
model as possible.
|
|
