Church History Companion Unit 2: The Early Church Before the Time of Constantine

To return to the Introduction and Table of Contents, click here.

This unit covers the period from about 64 AD until about 313 AD.

The unit corresponds to pp. 16-24 in our textbook.

A Time of Persecution

This period in Church history was often a time of persecution for the Church.  During the time period covered in our previous unit, the time period of the Book of Acts, the Romans considered Christianity to be a sub-sect of Judaism.  Although Judaism was a very odd religion from the Roman point of view--with its exclusive worship of one God and its refusal to compromise on religious matters, among other things--the Romans had gotten used to it.  As long as Christianity fell under that label, the Romans thought they basically understood it and knew how to categorize it.  But the Christians and the Jews grew further and further apart over the first century.  The Jews, on the whole, did not accept Jesus as the Messiah (although, of course, many individual Jews did).  The Christian Church grew rapidly and began to become full of Gentiles, who eventually far outnumbered the Jews.  As the Gentiles came in, the Church became less culturally Jewish.  The Jewish leaders persecuted the early Christians, which also contributed to an estrangement in their relationship.  So, as time went by, it became more and more clear that the Christians were a distinct and unique group.  Starting with the Emperor Nero, the Romans began to persecute the Christians, and this state of affairs continued on and off for the next two-and-a-half centuries.  Christians weren't always actively persecuted during this time, but they were never given full formal legal protection.

According to early historical accounts, both Peter and Paul were martyred in the area of Rome during Nero's persecution.  St. Paul was beheaded, while St. Peter was crucified upside-down.  (He had stated that he did not feel himself worthy to die in the same way his Lord had died.)  Both Peter and Paul were associated in the early Church with the founding of the church in Rome.  They both had a hand in governing and watching over that church from its early days, and Peter would come to be listed as its first bishop.

What is astonishing about this time period is that while it began with the persecution of Nero, it ended with Christianity being declared legal as a precursor to its being made the official religion of the Roman Empire in the year 380.  A remarkable turn of events!  Some have seen in this a fulfillment of the prophecies of the Book of Revelation which depict a time of horrible persecution for the Church followed by a time of Christ's reigning over the earth and the Church being at peace for "a thousand years."

Destruction of the Second Temple

In 70 AD, the Second Temple, which had been built by Jews returning from the Babylonian exile in the sixth century BC and which had been greatly expanded and renovated by Herod the Great not long before the birth of Christ, was destroyed by the Romans after a Jewish revolt.  Since this time, nearly two thousand years ago, the Jews have not been able to carry out the rituals and sacrifices outlined in the Law of Moses pertaining to the Temple.  Early church historians record that the Christians, being warned by the prophecies of Jesus, fled Jerusalem when the Romans began to surround it and, because of this, many of them were delivered from the traumas that were subsequently inflicted on the city in its siege and destruction.

Penance, Novatianism, and the Seed of Indulgences

In the early Church, there was often a very strict discipline for those who sinned and then repented of their sin.  Penances for serious sins were often public and could last for months and even years.  But there were those who believed they should be even stricter.  Novatian, a priest in the Church of Rome, decided that some sins were so bad they were beyond the purview of the Church to grant absolution to.  Only God could forgive such sins.  When Cornelius was elected Bishop of Rome in 251, Novatian had himself appointed as a rival claimant to the same see.  His followers made similar rival claims in other churches, advocating the same positions on penance.  For a while, the Novatianists constituted a rival sect to the Catholic Church, but the movement eventually died out entirely.

One of the great concerns of Novatian, and of many others, was what to do with people who had buckled under Roman persecution--denying Christ, worshipping the emperor or false gods, handing over Scriptures to be burned, etc.--but later repented and came back to the Church.  Novatian, of course, didn't want them to be accepted.  But even among the Catholics, they could have a long, drawn-out, severe time of penance before being received back.  At some point, it became customary, at least at some places, for those about to be martyred to write letters on behalf of those who had lapsed, asking that their own merits be accepted on behalf of the lapsed so that they might have a mitigation of the temporal consequences of their sins.  The Church could--and often did--accept these letters and decree a mitigation of penalties for the repentant lapsed.  This practice became the seed of the doctrine of indulgences that would later come to fuller flower in the Church, and it illustrates how, as St. Vincent of Lerins described it, flowers that bloom later on in the life of a plant have their buds much earlier, so that, as the organism grows towards greater maturity, there is an organic development from what came before, just as the doctrine and practice of the Church develops through the centuries under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11138a.htm - Catholic Encyclopedia article on Novatian and Novatianism.

http://lonelypilgrim.com/2013/07/20/indulgences-gift-of-the-martyrs/ - This article describes the history of indulgences, showing how they developed from practices in the early Church.

https://www.catholic.com/tract/primer-on-indulgences - This is a nice, basic overview of the theology of indulgences.

http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2016/01/a-fresh-look-at-catholic-doctrines-of.html - Here is my write-up on the theology of penance, purgatory, and indulgences.  I make use of a family analogy to help explain these concepts more clearly.

Apostolic Succession and the Authority of the Catholic Church

From her very beginning, the Church had to deal with heresies--false teachings which denied or perverted divinely-revealed doctrines taught by the Church.  During our time period, one of the great heresies the Church had to confront was Gnosticism.  The Gnostics were not so much a single group but were rather a number of groups which had certain things in common.  They were deviant offshoots of the mainstream Christian faith handed down from the apostles.  They fundamentally altered historic Christian teaching, usually by merging aspects of Christianity with highly mystical or esoteric Greek-inspired thought.  And they claimed to have a secret teaching handed down secretly from the apostles different from the public teaching known in the Catholic Church.  They claimed that the public Catholic teaching was, at best, intended as a sort of first-level teaching for the intellectually immature, while their secret teaching was the perfect, fully ripe teaching of the apostles intended for those who had attained sufficient maturity (they often called this latter group "the perfect").

The confrontation with Gnosticism had the effect of motivating the Catholic Church to articulate more explicitly the basis of her own authority as the lawful possessor and interpreter of the divine revelation and the teaching of Christ and his apostles.  The Church's defenders pointed out that the Catholic Church could trace herself historically back to the apostles in an organic line of authority that was publicly visible and verifiable.  The apostles had been taught by Christ, and they in turn had handed down authority to govern and teach the Church to bishops in various churches who succeeded them.  Those bishops, likewise, appointed other bishops to succeed them, and this had continued down through the years.  The Gnostic groups, on the other hand, could produce no verifiable evidence of their claims to have secret teaching coming from the apostles.  In contrast to the historic pedigree of the Catholics, the Gnostic groups arose out of nowhere, usually connected with some particular founder, and they arose after the Catholic Church had already been going on for some time.  They claimed secret revelations, but they couldn't verify them.  The Catholic apologists asked why, if the apostles had teaching they wished to hand on to the churches they founded, they would not have transmitted that teaching to the very people to whom they were entrusting the churches and appointing as their successors, instead choosing to give that teaching to unknowns who would later pop up without any proof of any previous connection to the apostles.

One of the greatest anti-Gnostic apologists among the Catholics during this time period was St. Irenaeus, the bishop of Lyon in Gaul.  Around the year 180, less than one hundred years after the period of the apostles, he wrote a massive work which is usually titled Against Heresies, in which he lays out the teachings of the Gnostics and then refutes them from the Scriptures and from the Tradition of the Catholic Church.  Here is a sample from the third book of Against Heresies:

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to "the perfect" apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity. 

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. 

The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. 

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,--a man who was of much greater weight, and a more stedfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles,--that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, "Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within." And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, "Dost thou know me?" "I do know thee, the first-born of Satan." Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, "A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself." There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.  (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Chapter 3, taken from the plain text version at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01) but also found on the New Advent website at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103.htm)

St. Irenaeus, here, articulates what would later be called the doctrine of "apostolic succession"--that the Church's authority is rooted in the organic succession of bishops from the apostles.  This is still the claim of the Catholic Church today.  It is a powerful claim.  Just as Irenaeus argued in response to the Gnostics, so ever since then it has continued to be true that any group which claims to represent the authentic teaching of Christianity but which wishes to establish this in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church has the burden of proof to show why we should abandon the very Church handed down from Christ and his apostles themselves in order to follow them.  We will see this issue come up again later in Church history.

Note also Irenaeus's appeal to the Church of Rome in particular, founded by Peter and Paul, as having "pre-eminent authority".  "It is a matter of necessity," he says, "that every Church should agree with this Church."  So our touchstone for unity and orthodoxy is the apostolic succession of the bishops in general, and this touchstone is made even more tangible by the special succession of the bishops of Rome, who, in a special way, function as guarantors of unity and orthodoxy for the entire Church.

Irenaeus makes mention in the passage quoted of Clement of Rome and Polycarp of Smyrna, two bishops of the early Church, both of whom were direct disciples of the apostles (Clement was a successor of Peter in Rome and Polycarp was a disciple of John). Irenaeus himself had learned from Polycarp when he was young. Irenaeus mentions letters the Church had preserved from Clement and Polycarp. We still have these letters today (see the accompanying links). Clement's letter was written around the year 96, possibly while the Apostle John was still alive.  Polycarp's letter to the Philippians was written sometime between 110 and 140.  There is also an early account of the martyrdom of Polycarp which we still possess.  We have other writings from these early times as well, such as the letters of Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, which were written sometime before the year 110 (at the link, look for "Ignatius of Antioch" to find his letters).  Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John as well.

Some non-Catholic groups have claimed that the Catholic Church arose after a "Great Apostasy".  After the apostles died, the Church became corrupt and, in some extreme versions, the very authority to lead the Church was lost.  But we can see that this idea is not born out by the actual history we possess.

Sometimes heretics would appeal to some alternative interpretation of the Scriptures in order to reject the teaching of the Catholic Church.  The Church Fathers, however, rejected this method as absurd, because, as they pointed out, the Scriptures themselves were entrusted to the Church.  They are the Church's book.  The same Tradition from which Catholic teaching in general is derived is also the source of the Scriptures, which therefore must be interpreted within that Tradition as their proper context.  Since Christ did not simply write a book and then throw it to the winds, to be interpreted by whomever should happen to pick it up, but instead he entrusted his teaching to his apostles, who entrusted it to the bishops of the Catholic Church, it is folly to try to wrest Scripture out of that context and to try to interpret it in opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church.  One of the great apologists of our time period, Tertullian (who unfortunately himself later fell into the heresy of Montanism but, at this point, was Catholic), articulates this clearly:

We are therefore come to (the gist of) our position; for at this point we were aiming, and for this we were preparing in the preamble of our address (which we have just completed),—so that we may now join issue on the contention to which our adversaries challenge us. They put forward the Scriptures, and by this insolence of theirs they at once influence some.  In the encounter itself, however, they weary the strong, they catch the weak, and dismiss waverers with a doubt. Accordingly, we oppose to them this step above all others, of not admitting them to any discussion of the Scriptures. If in these lie their resources, before they can use them, it ought to be clearly seen to whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures, that none may be admitted to the use thereof who has no title at all to the privilege. . . . 

Our appeal, therefore, must not be made to the Scriptures; nor must controversy be admitted on points in which victory will either be impossible, or uncertain, or not certain enough. But even if a discussion from the Scriptures should not turn out in such a way as to place both sides on a par, (yet) the natural order of things would require that this point should be first proposed, which is now the only one which we must discuss: “With whom lies that very faith to which the Scriptures belong. From what and through whom, and when, and to whom, has been handed down that rule, by which men become Christians?” For wherever it shall be manifest that the true Christian rule and faith shall be, there will likewise be the true Scriptures and expositions thereof, and all the Christian traditions. 

Christ Jesus our Lord (may He bear with me a moment in thus expressing myself!), whosoever He is, of what God soever He is the Son, of what substance soever He is man and God, of what faith soever He is the teacher, of what reward soever He is the Promiser, did, whilst He lived on earth, Himself declare what He was, what He had been, what the Father’s will was which He was administering, what the duty of man was which He was prescribing; (and this declaration He made,) either openly to the people, or privately to His disciples, of whom He had chosen the twelve chief ones to be at His side, and whom He destined to be the teachers of the nations. Accordingly, after one of these had been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the Father, to “go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father, and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.” Immediately, therefore, so did the apostles, whom this designation indicates as “the sent.” Having, on the authority of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judæa, and founding churches (there), they next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches.  Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring).  In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood, and bond of hospitality,—privileges which no other rule directs than the one tradition of the selfsame mystery. 

From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for “no man knoweth the Father save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach—that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was which they preached—in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to them—can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both vivâ voce, as the phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those moulds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God.  Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savours of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth. 

But inasmuch as the proof is so near at hand, that if it were at once produced there would be nothing left to be dealt with, let us give way for a while to the opposite side, if they think that they can find some means of invalidating this rule, just as if no proof were forthcoming from us. They usually tell us that the apostles did not know all things: (but herein) they are impelled by the same madness, whereby they turn round to the very opposite point, and declare that the apostles certainly knew all things, but did not deliver all things to all persons,—in either case exposing Christ to blame for having sent forth apostles who had either too much ignorance, or too little simplicity. What man, then, of sound mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable (from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom, “when they were alone, He used to expound” all things which were obscure, telling them that “to them it was given to know those mysteries,” which it was not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the church should be built,” who also obtained “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” with the power of “loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?” Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord’s most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead? Of what could He have meant those to be ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with Moses and Elias, and the Father’s voice moreover, from heaven Not as if He thus disapproved of all the rest, but because “by three witnesses must every word be established.” After the same fashion, too, (I suppose,) were they ignorant to whom, after His resurrection also, He vouchsafed, as they were journeying together, “to expound all the Scriptures.” No doubt He had once said, “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear them now;” but even then He added, “When He, the Spirit of truth, shall come, He will lead you into all truth.” He (thus) shows that there was nothing of which they were ignorant, to whom He had promised the future attainment of all truth by help of the Spirit of truth.  And assuredly He fulfilled His promise, since it is proved in the Acts of the Apostles that the Holy Ghost did come down. Now they who reject that Scripture can neither belong to the Holy Spirit, seeing that they cannot acknowledge that the Holy Ghost has been sent as yet to the disciples, nor can they presume to claim to be a church themselves who positively have no means of proving when, and with what swaddling-clothes this body was established. Of so much importance is it to them not to have any proofs for the things which they maintain, lest along with them there be introduced damaging exposures of those things which they mendaciously devise.  (Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 15-22, taken from the plain text version found on the website of the Christian Classics Ethereal Library, but also found here.)

A little later on, the great St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (who lived from 354 to 430), made the same point Tertullian made above in one of his writings against the Manicheans (another heresy in the early Church).  The argument goes basically like this:  "You claim that the books of the gospels support Manichaeus (the prophet of Manicheanism). But the Catholic Church rejects Manichaeus. If I accept that the gospels support Manichaeus, I will no longer have any basis to believe in the gospels, because my reason for believing those books to be divine is because the Catholic Church teaches me so. But that same Catholic Church teaches me that you are wrong. So if I believe the Catholic Church about the gospels, I will have to also believe that you are wrong. But if I believe you are right because the gospels support you, then I lose my reason for believing the gospels, for I can no longer trust the Catholic Church, which is the authority behind why I believe in the gospels."

What Augustine is saying is that the only way we know that the gospel books are from God is because this is taught by the Catholic Church.  If we trust the Catholic Church on that point, logically we have to trust them on all other points as well.  So if the Catholic Church tells us that the Manichean heresy is wrong, we have to believe that.  If the Manichean heresy is not wrong, then the Catholic Church is wrong, and so we would have no basis to believe the gospel books to be from God.  For Augustine, our trust in the gospels is part and parcel of our confidence that the Tradition of the Catholic Church in general is divinely guided and so authoritative and reliable.  It is therefore inconsistent to accept that Tradition regarding the status of the gospels but to reject other things that Tradition teaches.

Here is St. Augustine, addressing the Manicheans:

Let us see then what Manichæus teaches me; and particularly let us examine that treatise which he calls the Fundamental Epistle, in which almost all that you believe is contained. For in that unhappy time when we read it we were in your opinion enlightened. The epistle begins thus:--"Manichæus, an apostle of Jesus Christ, by the providence of God the Father. These are wholesome words from the perennial and living fountain." Now, if you please, patiently give heed to my inquiry. I do not believe Manichæus to be an apostle of Christ. Do not, I beg of you, be enraged and begin to curse. For you know that it is my rule to believe none of your statements without consideration. Therefore I ask, who is this Manichæus? You will reply, An apostle of Christ. I do not believe it. Now you are at a loss what to say or do; for you promised to give knowledge of the truth, and here you are forcing me to believe what I have no knowledge of. Perhaps you will read the gospel to me, and will attempt to find there a testimony to Manichæus. But should you meet with a person not yet believing the gospel, how would you reply to him were he to say, I do not believe? For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church. So when those on whose authority I have consented to believe in the gospel tell me not to believe in Manichæus, how can I but consent? Take your choice. If you say, Believe the Catholics: their advice to me is to put no faith in you; so that, believing them, I am precluded from believing you;--If you say, Do not believe the Catholics: you cannot fairly use the gospel in bringing me to faith in Manichæus; for it was at the command of the Catholics that I believed the gospel;--Again, if you say, You were right in believing the Catholics when they praised the gospel, but wrong in believing their vituperation of Manichæus: do you think me such a fool as to believe or not to believe as you like or dislike, without any reason? It is therefore fairer and safer by far for me, having in one instance put faith in the Catholics, not to go over to you, till, instead of bidding me believe, you make me understand something in the clearest and most open manner. To convince me, then, you must put aside the gospel. If you keep to the gospel, I will keep to those who commanded me to believe the gospel; and, in obedience to them, I will not believe you at all. But if haply you should succeed in finding in the gospel an incontrovertible testimony to the apostleship of Manichæus, you will weaken my regard for the authority of the Catholics who bid me not to believe you; and the effect of that will be, that I shall no longer be able to believe the gospel either, for it was through the Catholics that I got my faith in it; and so, whatever you bring from the gospel will no longer have any weight with me. Wherefore, if no clear proof of the apostleship of Manichæus is found in the gospel, I will believe the Catholics rather than you. But if you read thence some passage clearly in favor of Manichæus, I will believe neither them nor you: not them, for they lied to me about you; nor you, for you quote to me that Scripture which I had believed on the authority of those liars. But far be it that I should not believe the gospel; for believing it, I find no way of believing you too. For the names of the apostles, as there recorded, do not include the name of Manichæus. And who the successor of Christ's betrayer was we read in the Acts of the Apostles; which book I must needs believe if I believe the gospel, since both writings alike Catholic authority commends to me. The same book contains the well-known narrative of the calling and apostleship of Paul. Read me now, if you can, in the gospel where Manichæus is called an apostle, or in any other book in which I have professed to believe. Will you read the passage where the Lord promised the Holy Spirit as a Paraclete, to the apostles? Concerning which passage, behold how many and how great are the things that restrain and deter me from believing in Manichæus. (St. Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichæus Called Fundamental, Chapter 5, text from here)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes - Wikipedia has a helpful list of Popes from Peter down to the present day.  As St. Irenaeus pointed out, we can see the apostolic authority of the Catholic Church in the line of succession of her bishops from the apostles, and this is preeminently manifested in the succession of the bishops of Rome as the successors of St. Peter, chief of the apostles.

What's In a Name?

In the New Testament, in the Book of Acts in particular (Acts 11:26), we find that at some point people started calling the disciples of Christ "Christians".  Eventually, Christians themselves accepted and adopted this name to describe the true religion and to distinguish it from false religions (that is, from religions that were not, per se, revelations from God and which therefore contained error and/or incompleteness).

During our time period, something similar happened with the name "Catholic".  The word "catholic" means "universal" or "complete".  Very early on, Christians started using the name "Catholic" as a label for the true Church and the true version of Christianity, to distinguish it from false churches and false versions of Christianity (that is, churches that were not founded by Christ and which therefore did not have his authority behind them nor possessed the fullness of the faith).  We don't see this usage in the New Testament itself, but we see it very soon afterwards.  The first occurrence of the name "Catholic" applied to the Church that we have record of comes from St. Ignatius of Antioch writing around the year 110 (only a little more than a decade after the death of the Apostle John).

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.  (Ignatius of Antioch, "Letter to the Smyrnaeans." Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.] Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm>)

The fourth-century bishop of Jerusalem, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, commented on how God, inspiring the development of the Church's creed, gave the name “Catholic” to the Church in order to help the people of God distinguish the true Church from heretical churches:

But since the word Ecclesia is applied to different things (as also it is written of the multitude in the theatre of the Ephesians, And when he had thus spoken, he dismissed the Assembly), and since one might properly and truly say that there is a Church of evil doers, I mean the meetings of the heretics, the Marcionists and Manichees, and the rest, for this cause the Faith has securely delivered to thee now the Article, "And in one Holy Catholic Church;" that thou mayest avoid their wretched meetings, and ever abide with the Holy Church Catholic in which thou wast regenerated. And if ever thou art sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord's House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God (for it is written, As Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for it, and all the rest,) and is a figure and copy of Jerusalem which is above, which is free, and the mother of us all; which before was barren, but now has many children.  (St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 18:26, taken from the plain text version at the website of the Christian Classics Ethereal Library [https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf207], but also found on the New Advent website at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3101.htm)

The great Catholic teacher and bishop of the city of Hippo in North Africa, St. Augustine, whom we quoted from a little earlier, writing at the end of the fourth century, made the same point, writing to the heretical Manichaeans:

For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, indeed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)--not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.  (St. Augustine, Against the Epistle of Manichæus Called Fundamental 4:5, taken from the plain text version at the website of the Christian Classics Ethereal Library [https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf104], but also found on the New Advent website at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1405.htm)

Eusebius and the Canon of Scripture

The Church inherited the Old Testament from the Jews.  For the most part, the canon (that is, the list of books included) of the Old Testament was settled.  However, there are a few Old Testament books over which there was some dispute in the early Church.  These are the books we have come to call the "Deuterocanonical" books.  They include Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch, as well as some portions of Daniel and Esther.  The Jews eventually rejected these books from their own canon of Scripture, but the Church came to accept them.  But, during this time period, this was not yet entirely settled.

In addition to the Old Testament, the apostles and their companions had written a number of books containing the life and teachings of Jesus, a history of the early Church, and a number of letters containing apostolic teachings.  These books came to be known as the New Testament.  The canon of the New Testament was mostly settled by our time period, but there were a few disputed books.

One of our most important sources of information on this period of Church history is the writings of Eusebius of Caesaria, who wrote a thorough history of the Church from the time of Christ up to his own time (he published the book sometime around 313-324).  Eusebius discusses the canon of Scripture, and lists books that were universally accepted, those that were universally rejected, and those that were disputed.

1. Since we are dealing with this subject it is proper to sum up the writings of the New Testament which have been already mentioned. First then must be put the holy quaternion of the Gospels; following them the Acts of the Apostles.

2. After this must be reckoned the epistles of Paul; next in order the extant former epistle of John, and likewise the epistle of Peter, must be maintained. After them is to be placed, if it really seem proper, the Apocalypse of John, concerning which we shall give the different opinions at the proper time. These then belong among the accepted writings.

3. Among the disputed writings, which are nevertheless recognized by many, are extant the so-called epistle of James and that of Jude, also the second epistle of Peter, and those that  are called the second and third of John, whether they belong to the evangelist or to another person of the same name. 

4. Among the rejected writings must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the so-called Shepherd, and the Apocalypse of Peter, and in addition to these the extant epistle of Barnabas, and the so-called Teachings of the Apostles; and besides, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seem proper, which some, as I said, reject, but which others class with the accepted books.

5. And among these some have placed also the Gospel according to the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews that have accepted Christ are especially delighted. And all these may be reckoned among the disputed books.

6. But we have nevertheless felt compelled to give a catalogue of these also, distinguishing those works which according to ecclesiastical tradition are true and genuine and commonly accepted, from those others which, although not canonical but disputed, are yet at the same time known to most ecclesiastical writers--we have felt compelled to give this catalogue in order that we might be able to know both these works and those that are cited by the heretics under the name of the apostles, including, for instance, such books as the Gospels of Peter, of Thomas, of Matthias, or of any others besides them, and the Acts of Andrew  and John and the other apostles, which no one belonging to the succession of ecclesiastical writers has deemed worthy of mention in his writings.

7. And further, the character of the style is at variance with apostolic usage, and both the thoughts and the purpose of the things that are related in them are so completely out of accord with true orthodoxy that they clearly show themselves to be the fictions of heretics. Wherefore they are not to be placed even among the rejected writings, but are all of them to be cast aside as absurd and impious.  (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book III, Chapter 25, found here, text taken from here, footnotes removed)

Here we see the doctrinal development of the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, at work.  The Church Fathers used historical criteria to decide which books should be considered Scriptural and which should not be.  They looked to which books had a good historical pedigree and which didn't, and which books were recognized by churches that could trace themselves back to the apostles.  They looked to stylistic issues, theological issues, etc.  (The Gnostic writings, for example, are clearly and obviously very different from the writings of the New Testament.  They are obviously the product of a kind of Greek mysticism that is absent from anything in the New Testament.  They also have a terrible historical pedigree, since they arose out of nowhere long after the Catholic churches were already established and had already had the New Testament books for many years.)  But the historical analysis was not enough.  In the end, it was understood that the Church's Tradition and decisions in regard to the canon, as in regard to the interpretation and application of the Word of God, were guided and protected from error by the Holy Spirit.  It was confidence in God's guidance of the Tradition of the Church that ultimately grounded confidence in the Church's canon of Scripture.  We will see the canon continue to develop in our next unit.

https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201/npnf201. - Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History

Justin Martyr and the Liturgy of the Church

The Church's liturgy was also developing during this time.  The great second-century apologist St. Justin Martyr, writing c. 153-155 (only about half-a-century or so after the death of the Apostle John), describes various liturgical practices of Christians in his day.  Although he is writing to the Roman Emperor and so tries to describe everything in terms a non-Christian could understand, the practices he describes will be familiar to Catholics today.  This is from his First Apology, chapters 65-67 (plain text version found here):

CHAP. LXV

But we, after we have thus washed him who has been convinced and has assented to our teaching, bring him to the place where those who are called brethren are assembled, in order that we may offer hearty prayers in common for ourselves and for the baptized [illuminated] person, and for all others in every place, that we may be counted worthy, now that we have learned the truth, by our works also to be found good citizens and keepers of the commandments, so that we may be saved with an everlasting salvation. Having ended the prayers, we salute one another with a kiss. There is then brought to the president of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and he taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to ge'noito [so be it]. And when the president has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

CHAP. LXVI

And this food is called among us Eucharistia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

CHAP. LXVII

And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability, and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday); and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

Greek Philosophy and Doctrinal Development

Another important aspect of the doctrinal development of the Church is her growth through her dialogue with the philosophical methods and ideas of the surrounding culture.  In our time period, the intellectual world was dominated by Greek philosophy.  We might say, perhaps, that Greek philosophy (and Roman philosophy, which followed in its footsteps) had a role in the culture similar to the role played today by the natural sciences.  Today, we tend to look towards "what science says" and "what scientists say" as giving us the real scoop in our intellectual understanding of the world.  Greek philosophy was the intellectualism of the early centuries of the common era (history after the coming of Christ).

Philosophy--of the highly abstract, Greek sort--played very little role in the earliest days of the Christian Church.  Jesus was not a philosopher (in the Greek sense), and neither were the apostles or the earliest bishops.  Christian doctrine followed the pattern we see in the Old and New Testaments--rooted in Scripture, mostly Jewish in context, not focusing much attention on abstract concepts.  As the second century rolled on, the Church saw an influx of Gentiles who were more on the intellectual side, and so the Church began to come into contact with Greek philosophy.  There were also critics of Christianity (such as Celsus) who made use of philosophy in their criticisms, and Christians saw that they needed to answer the objections of these critics.

Among the reactions of Christians to Greek philosophy, there were extremes.  There were those who considered philosophy to be useless and dangerous and rejected dialogue with it, and on the other side there were those who wanted to adapt Christianity to its ideas.  We see the latter response among people like the Gnostics, and we see a leaning in that direction in even some of the early Church's theologians, particularly Origen and some of his followers.  The former, negative response has often been represented by the famous comments of Tertullian from his book, Prescription Against Heretics:

What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church? what between heretics and Christians? Our instruction comes from "the porch of Solomon," who had himself taught that "the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart."

Tertullian was writing against heretics and had a bit of a flair for the extreme, so he probably wasn't intending here to reject categorically all ideas from philosophy whatsoever.  But he represents those who were more skeptical overall of how much philosophy could contribute.

The great second-century Christian philosopher, Clement of Alexandria, articulated the much more positive attitude of many towards philosophy:

And in general terms, we shall not err in alleging that all things necessary and profitable for life came to us from God, and that philosophy more especially was given to the Greeks, as a covenant peculiar to them — being, as it is, a stepping-stone to the philosophy which is according to Christ (The Stromata, Book VI, embedded links removed. Translated by William Wilson. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.] Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. <http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/02106.htm>)

The Church's encounter with Greek philosophy is instructive in terms of how the doctrinal development of the Church advances when the revelation given to the Church comes into contact with truths revealed by God to human reason as those ideas are encountered in dialogue.

For example, the Word of God speaks of there being one God, the supreme creator of all, one who created and who owns the universe and watches over it, leading all things to his own ends.  He is all-powerful, all-knowing, etc.  But God is evident to human reason as well, and many philosophers in many cultures throughout history have done as St. Paul talks about in Romans 1--they have understood God and his nature by means of reasoning from the things he has made.  So we find ideas among the Greeks and many others (I think of the Hindus of India, for example) of a Supreme First Cause, a Being at the back of all things, from whom all things are derived.  Christians (and Jews before them) could not fail to recognize that the Being these philosophers were talking about was the same Being they worshiped and knew by revelation.  Jewish and Christian philosophers recognized the validity of much of the reasoning of the philosophers about the Divine Being.  They recognized that the doctrine of God contained in his Word has certain logical implications in philosophy.  For example, the Being who is the ultimate Lord over all and the ultimate source of all reality must be a simple being.  I'm using simple here in its philosophical definition--something having no parts or pieces.  God must be simple because anything that has parts must be derived from a more ultimate source.  When we have an object that possesses multiple parts, none of those parts explain the unity of the whole.  That can only be explained by tracing the parts back to a unifying source.  (Think of a puzzle.  None of the puzzle's pieces explain the unity of the puzzle.  To explain that, you have to recognize the unifying origin of the puzzle in the plan of its creator.)  Therefore, while the Word of God itself contains no mention of God's "simplicity", once the question has been raised--"Is God simple or compound?"--it can be seen that the Word of God requires a certain answer to that question.  In this way, the Church's understanding of all the implications of the divine revelation entrusted to her can grow through her continued reflection on it.  Reason can inform the Church's understanding of revelation, and revelation can also inform our understanding of what reason teaches.

An example of the latter is the teaching of the Word of God on creation.  The Greeks generally held that matter is uncreated and eternal.  But if God is the ultimate lord and creator of all, as the revelation of God teaches, this can't be so.  If the world is made out of uncreated matter, then God is not truly the single and sufficient source and explanation of all things.  He would be one uncreated thing in the midst of others--ultimately one god among other gods.  So one of the philosophical implications of the Christian doctrine of God is the idea of "creation ex nihilo" or "creation out of nothing."  When God creates, he does not use preexistent material.  He is himself the source of not only the finished product but of any material he works with.  Christian theology had the effect of correcting and enlightening the philosophers on this point.

So it is during our time period that we can begin to see the Church's doctrine developing the implications of divine revelation in more philosophical directions--asking philosophical questions, giving philosophical answers, using philosophical methods of inquiry and language, etc.  The Holy Spirit guided the Church's doctrinal development by means of a fruitful engagement with the surrounding culture.  (We did see a first and early example of this in St. Paul's dialogue with the Athenian philosophers in Acts 17, but it really takes off during our current time period.)

The Easter Controversy

There were two controversies that rose up within the Church during our time period that particularly catch my attention.  One of them was over the proper time to celebrate Easter.  One thing that has amazed me in my study of Chuch history is how much time and energy was spent during the First Millennium of the Church arguing over the proper time to celebrate Easter.  This issue comes up again and again.  You would think it was a relatively minor point, but it was very important to many Church Fathers.  One of the reasons for this, I think, is that people's stance on the Easter question was often closely related to their response to decrees made by Popes, councils, and bishops, and therefore was a reflection of their practical attitude towards Church authority.

At any rate, the historian Eusebius, whom we were introduced to earlier, wrote about the Easter controversy that arose during the second century between some of the Eastern and the Western churches in his Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, chapters 23-25, found here):

Chapter XXIII

1. A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour.

2. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree, that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord's day, and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. There is still extant a writing of those who were then assembled in Palestine, over whom Theophilus, bishop of Caesaria, and Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, presided. And there is also another writing extant of those who were assembled at Rome to consider the same question, which bears the name of Bishop Victor; also of the bishops in Pontus over whom Palmas, as the oldest, presided; and of the parishes in Gaul of which Irenaeus was bishop, and of those in Osrhoëne and the cities there; and a personal letter of Bacchylus, bishop of the church at Corinth, and of a great many others, who uttered the same opinion and judgment, and cast the same vote.

3. And that which has been given above was their unanimous decision.

Chapter XXIV

1. But the bishops of Asia, led by Polycrates, decided to hold to the old custom handed down to them. He himself, in a letter which he addressed to Victor and the church of Rome, set forth in the following words the tradition which had come down to him:

2. "We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.

3. He fell asleep at Ephesus.

4. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna.

5. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead?

6. All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven.

7. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said We ought to obey God rather than man.'"

8. He then writes of all the bishops who were present with him and thought as he did. His words are as follows: "I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus."

9. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.

10. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.

11. Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom and after many other words he proceeds as follows:

12. "For the controversy is not only concerning the day, but also concerning the very manner of the fast. For some think that they should fast one day, others two, yet others more; some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours day and night.

13. And this variety in its observance has not originated in our time; but long before in that of our ancestors. It is likely that they did not hold to strict accuracy, and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode. Yet all of these lived none the less in peace, and we also live in peace with one another; and the disagreement in regard to the fast confirms the agreement in the faith."

14. He adds to this the following account, which I may properly insert: "Among these were the presbyters before Soter, who presided over the church which thou now rulest. We mean Anicetus, and Pius, and Hyginus, and Telesphorus, and Xystus. They neither observed it  themselves, nor did they permit those after them to do so. And yet though not observing it, they were none the less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed; although this observance was more opposed to those who did not observe it.

15. But none were ever cast out on account of this form; but the presbyters before thee who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those of other parishes who observed it.

16. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what he had always observed with John the disciple of our Lord, and the other apostles with whom he had associated; neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.

17. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together, and Anicetus conceded the administration of the eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed, and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church."

18. Thus Irenaeus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches. 

Chapter XXV

1. Those in Palestine whom we have recently mentioned, Narcissus and Theophilus, and with them Cassius, bishop of the church of Tyre, and Clarus of the church of Ptolemais, and those who met with them, having stated many things respecting the tradition concerning the passover which had come to them in succession from the apostles, at the close of their writing add these words:

2. "Endeavor to send copies of our letter to every church, that we may not furnish occasion to those who easily deceive their souls. We show you indeed that also in Alexandria they keep it on the same day that we do. For letters are carried from us to them and from them to us, so that in the same manner and at the same time we keep the sacred day."

We can see in this event several elements important to the early Church.  We see the importance of Tradition.  Scripture says nothing about the celebration of Easter.  The churches got their information regarding this important feast from the Church's Tradition, coming down from the apostles.  In this case, we have a genuine tradition and a fallacious one.  Eventually, all sides will come to agree on the true tradition, but at this time there was some dispute and difference of practice.

We see the authority of the Bishop of Rome.  Pope Victor takes it upon himself, unchallenged by anyone, to regulate the affairs of the universal Church.  He threatens to excommunicate the churches of Asia over their refusal to follow the decree of the rest of the Church and of the Church of Rome regarding the proper time to celebrate Easter.  Other bishops, such as St. Irenaeus, argue with him about the practical wisdom of this, but none of them disputes his authority to do it.

We also see, perhaps, that bishops of Rome do not always make the wisest practical decisions.  Many of the bishops considered Pope Victor's actions here to be overly harsh, and they remonstrated with him about it.  Catholics are required to submit to the teaching of Popes, but when it is a matter not of submission or lack of submission to binding teaching but rather their reaction to the Pope's practical decisions and personal choices, it can be appropriate for Catholics--especially other bishops, but even lay Catholics at times--to help point the Pope in a better direction.  We saw St. Paul do this with St. Peter in Galatians 2, we see it here, and we will see it later in Church history as well.

The Baptism Controversy

Another controversy that arose during our time period was over baptism--particularly, the question of whether heretical baptisms ought to be accepted as valid.  When people got baptized in heretical churches and then later came to the Catholic Church, should they be rebaptized, or did their baptism by heretics count?  Pope St. Stephen, the Bishop of Rome, decreed that heretical baptisms were valid.  So long as the baptism was done correctly, it was valid even if it was done by people not in full communion with the Catholic Church.

This greatly angered some people, among them St. Cyprian, bishop of the city of Carthage, and St. Firmilian, bishop of the city of Caesaria.  Both of them wrote furiously against Pope Stephen and his position.  Here is St. Cyprian (from Epistle 73, to Pompey):

1. Cyprian to his brother Pompeius, greeting. Although I have fully comprised what is to be said concerning the baptism of heretics in the letters of which I sent you copies, dearest brother, yet, since you have desired that what Stephen our brother replied to my letters should be brought to your knowledge, I have sent you a copy of his reply; on the reading of which, you will more and more observe his error in endeavouring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians, and against the Church of God. For among other matters, which were either haughtily assumed, or were not pertaining to the matter, or contradictory to his own view, which he unskilfully and without foresight wrote, he moreover added this saying: "If any one, therefore, come to you from any heresy whatever, let nothing be innovated (or done) which has not been handed down, to wit, that hands be imposed on him for repentance; since the heretics themselves, in their own proper character, do not baptize such as come to them from one another, but only admit them to communion." . . .

4. Certainly an excellent and lawful tradition is set before us by the teaching of our brother Stephen, which may afford us a suitable authority! For in the same place of his epistle he has added and continued: "Since those who are specially heretics do not baptize those who come to them from one another, but only receive them to communion." To this point of evil has the Church of God and spouse of Christ been developed, that she follows the examples of heretics; that for the purpose of celebrating the celestial sacraments, light should borrow her discipline from darkness, and Christians should do that which antichrists do. But what is that blindness of soul, what is that degradation of faith, to refuse to recognise the unity which comes from God the Father, and from the tradition of Jesus Christ the Lord and our God! For if the Church is not with heretics, therefore, because it is one, and cannot be divided; and if thus the Holy Spirit is not there, because He is one, and cannot be among profane persons, and those who are without; certainly also baptism, which consists in the same unity, cannot be among heretics, because it can neither be separated from the Church nor from the Holy Spirit. . . .

6. But what a thing it is, to assert and contend that they who are not born in the Church can be the sons of God! For the blessed apostle sets forth and proves that baptism is that wherein the old man dies and the new man is born, saying, "He saved us by the washing of regeneration." But if regeneration is in the washing, that is, in baptism, how can heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, generate sons to God by Christ? For it is the Church alone which, conjoined and united with Christ, spiritually bears sons; as the same apostle again says, "Christ loved the Church, and gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify it, cleansing it with the washing of water." If, then, she is the beloved and spouse who alone is sanctified by Christ, and alone is cleansed by His washing, it is manifest that heresy, which is not the spouse of Christ, nor can be cleansed nor sanctified by His washing, cannot bear sons to God. . . .

8. In which place, dearest brother, we must consider, for the sake of the faith and the religion of the sacerdotal office which we discharge, whether the account can be satisfactory in the day of judgment for a priest of God, who maintains, and approves, and acquiesces in the baptism of blasphemers, when the Lord threatens, and says, "And now, O ye priests, this commandment is for you: if ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay it to heart to give glory unto my name, saith the Lord Almighty, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings." Does he give glory to God, who communicates with the baptism of Marcion? Does he give glory to God, who judges that remission of sins is granted among those who blaspheme against God? Does he give glory to God, who affirms that sons are born to God without, of an adulterer and a harlot? Does he give glory to God, who does not hold the unity and truth that arise from the divine law, but maintains heresies against the Church? Does he give glory to God, who, a friend of heretics and an enemy to Christians, thinks that the priests of God, who support the truth of Christ and the unity of the Church, are to be excommunicated? If glory is thus given to God, if the fear and the discipline of God is thus preserved by His worshippers and His priests, let us cast away our arms; let us give ourselves up to captivity; let us deliver to the devil the ordination of the Gospel, the appointment of Christ, the majesty of God; let the sacraments of the divine warfare be loosed; let the standards of the heavenly camp be betrayed; and let the Church succumb and yield to heretics, light to darkness, faith to perfidy, hope to despair, reason to error, immortality to death, love to hatred, truth to falsehood, Christ to Antichrist! Deservedly thus do heresies and schisms arise day by day, more frequently and more fruitfully grow up, and with serpents' locks shoot forth and cast out against the Church of God with greater force the poison of their venom; whilst, by the advocacy of some, both authority and support are afforded them; whilst their baptism is defended, whilst faith, whilst truth, is betrayed; whilst that which is done without against the Church is defended within in the very Church itself.

9. But if there be among us, most beloved brother, the fear of God, if the maintenance of the faith prevail, if we keep the precepts of Christ, if we guard the incorrupt and inviolate sanctity of His spouse, if the words of the Lord abide in our thoughts and hearts, when he says, "Thinkest thou, when the Son of man cometh, shall He find faith on the earth?" then, because we are God's faithful soldiers, who war for the faith and sincere religion of God, let us keep the camp entrusted to us by God with faithful valour. Nor ought custom, which had crept in among some, to prevent the truth from prevailing and conquering; for custom without truth is the antiquity of error. On which account, let us forsake the error and follow the truth, knowing that in Esdras also the truth conquers, as it is written: "Truth endureth and grows strong to eternity, and lives and prevails for ever and ever.  With her there is no accepting of persons or distinctions; but what is just she does: nor in her judgments is there unrighteousness, but the strength, and the kingdom, and the majesty, and the power of all ages. Blessed be the Lord God of truth!" This truth Christ showed to us in His Gospel, and said, "I am the truth." Wherefore, if we are in Christ, and have Christ in us, if we abide in the truth, and the truth abides in us, let us keep fast those things which are true.

10. But it happens, by a love of presumption and of obstinacy, that one would rather maintain his own evil and false position, than agree in the right and true which belongs to another. Looking forward to which, the blessed Apostle Paul writes to Timothy, and warns him that a bishop must not be "litigious, nor contentious, but gentle and teachable." Now he is teachable who is meek and gentle to the patience of learning.  For it behoves a bishop not only to teach, but also to learn; because he also teaches better who daily increases and advances by learning better; which very thing, moreover, the same Apostle Paul teaches, when he admonishes, "that if anything better be revealed to one sitting by, the first should hold his peace." But there is a brief way for religious and simple minds, both to put away error, and to find and to elicit truth. For if we return to the head and source of divine tradition, human error ceases; and having seen the reason of the heavenly sacraments, whatever lay hid in obscurity under the gloom and cloud of darkness, is opened into the light of the truth. If a channel supplying water, which formerly flowed plentifully and freely, suddenly fail, do we not go to the fountain, that there the reason of the failure may be ascertained, whether from the drying up of the springs the water has failed at the fountainhead, or whether, flowing thence free and full, it has failed in the midst of its course; that so, if it has been caused by the fault of an interrupted or leaky channel, that the constant stream does not flow uninterruptedly and continuously, then the channel being repaired and strengthened, the water collected may be supplied for the use and drink of the city, with the same fertility and plenty with which it issues from the spring? And this it behoves the priests of God to do now, if they would keep the divine precepts, that if in any respect the truth have wavered and vacillated, we should return to our original and Lord, and to the evangelical and apostolical tradition; and thence may arise the ground of our action, whence has taken rise both our order and our origin. (footnotes removed)

St. Cyprian accuses Pope St. Stephen of using his authority wrongly to aid and abet heresy by recognizing baptisms done by heretics.  He rejects Stephen's appeal to his authority, indicating that following the truth is of greater importance than following such authority.  He rejects Stephen's appeal to the previous tradition and custom of the churches on the grounds that "custom without truth is the antiquity of error."  That is, a long-standing custom that is not true is simply old error--not worthy of our regard.  Cyprian appeals instead to the earliest traditions of the apostles, which he thinks agree with him, to trump the tradition appealed to by Pope Stephen.

One might get the impression from this that St. Cyprian did not accept the authority of the papacy.  But this is not the case.  On the baptism issue, he does not like where Stephen goes and so he resists him, but, when there is no such conflict, he acknowledges the authority of the Bishop of Rome in very strong terms.  Here, for example, is a selection from a letter he wrote to Pope St. Cornelius, an earlier Pope, just a few years earlier (Epistle 54, to Cornelius), complaining about the actions of some heretics:

7. Nor ought it, my dearest brother, to disturb any one who is faithful and mindful of the Gospel, and retains the commands of the apostle who forewarns us; if in the last days certain persons, proud, contumacious, and enemies of God's priests, either depart from the Church or act against the Church, since both the Lord and His apostles have previously foretold that there should be such. Nor let any one wonder that the servant placed over them should be forsaken by some, when His own disciples forsook the Lord Himself, who performed such great and wonderful works, and illustrated the attributes of God the Father by the testimony of His doings. And yet He did not rebuke them when they went away, nor even severely threaten them; but rather, turning to His apostles, He said, "Will ye also go away?" manifestly observing the law whereby a man left to his own liberty, and established in his own choice, himself desires for himself either death or salvation. Nevertheless, Peter, upon whom by the same Lord the Church had been built, speaking one for all, and answering with the voice of the Church, says, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life; and we believe, and are sure that Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God:" signifying, doubtless, and showing that those who departed from Christ perished by their own fault, yet that the Church which believes on Christ, and holds that which it has once learned, never departs from Him at all, and that those are the Church who remain in the house of God; but that, on the other hand, they are not the plantation planted by God the Father, whom we see not to be established with the stability of wheat, but blown about like chaff by the breath of the enemy scattering them, of whom John also in his epistle says, "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, no doubt they would have continued with us." Paul also warns us, when evil men perish out of the Church, not to be disturbed, nor to let our faith be lessened by the departure of the faithless. "For what," he says, "if some of them have departed from the faith? Hath their unbelief made the faith of God of none effect? God forbid! For God is true, but every man a liar." . . .

14. To these also it was not sufficient that they had withdrawn from the Gospel, that they had taken away from the lapsed the hope of satisfaction and repentance, that they had taken away those involved in frauds or stained with adulteries, or polluted with the deadly contagion of sacrifices, lest they should entreat God, or make confession of their crimes in the Church, from all feeling and fruit of repentance; that they had set up outside for themselves--outside the Church, and opposed to the Church, a conventicle of their abandoned faction, when there had flowed together a band of creatures with evil consciences, and unwilling to entreat and to satisfy God. After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.

St. Firmilian, the bishop of Caesaria, wrote even more strongly to Pope St. Stephen aginst his ideas on heretical baptism, refusing to give way on this point even to the successor of St. Peter:

17. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity. The apostle acknowledges that the Jews, although blinded by ignorance, and bound by the grossest wickedness, have yet a zeal for God. Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate, but the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that, by the sacrament of baptism, the filth of the old man is washed away by them, that they pardon the former mortal sins, that they make sons of God by heavenly regeneration, and renew to eternal life by the sanctification of the divine laver. He who concedes and gives up to heretics in this way the great and heavenly gifts of the Church, what else does he do but communicate with them for whom he maintains and claims so much grace? And now he hesitates in vain to consent to them, and to be a partaker with them in other matters also, to meet together with them, and equally with them to mingle their prayers, and appoint a common altar and sacrifice. . . . 

23. What, then, is to be made of what is written, "Abstain from strange water, and drink not from a strange fountain," if, leaving the sealed fountain of the Church, you take up strange water for your own, and pollute the Church with unhallowed fountains? For when you communicate with the baptism of heretics, what else do you do than drink from their slough and mud; and while you yourself are purged with the Church's sanctification, you become befouled with the contact of the filth of others? And do you not fear the judgment of God when you are giving testimony to heretics in opposition to the Church, although it is written, "A false witness shall not be unpunished?" But indeed you are worse than all heretics. For when many, as soon as their error is known, come over to you from them that they may receive the true light of the Church, you assist the errors of those who come, and, obscuring the light of ecclesiastical truth, you heap up the darkness of the heretical night; and although they confess that they are in sins, and have no grace, and therefore come to the Church, you take away from them remission of sins, which is given in baptism, by saying that they are already baptized and have obtained the grace of the Church outside the Church, and you do not perceive that their souls will be required at your hands when the day of judgment shall come, for having denied to the thirsting the drink of the Church, and having been the occasion of death to those that were desirious of living. And, after all this, you are indignant! 

24. Consider with what want of judgment you dare to blame those who strive for the truth against falsehood.  For who ought more justly to be indignant against the other?--whether he who supports God's enemies, or he who, in opposition to him who supports God's enemies, unites with us on behalf of the truth of the Church?  (Firmilian, Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, to Cyprian, Against the Letter of Stephen, AD 256, text taken from the plain text version found here at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library.  Also found, more accessibly, here.)

Afterwards, the whole Church came to accept the position of St. Stephen.  Cyprian, Firmilian, and others who agreed with them on this point, were later regarded as good men who fell into error on this point at a time when the controversy was young and so ignorance and confusion were more understandable.  St. Vincent of Lerins, writing in the fifth century, in chapter seven of his Commonitory, uses this incident as an example of the danger of going against the Tradition of the Church to embrace novel ideas, relying on one's own opinions against the Holy-Spirit-guided Tradition of the Church.   He is gentle towards Cyprian and others who first put forward the baptism error, but very harsh towards the Donatists of his own day (we'll talk about them in our next unit) who tried to revive this error to support their own later position.  Here is St. Vincent of Lerins:

[15.] Great then is the example of these same blessed men, an example plainly divine, and worthy to be called to mind, and meditated upon continually by every true Catholic, who, like the seven-branched candlestick, shining with the sevenfold light of the Holy Spirit, showed to posterity how thenceforward the audaciousness of profane novelty, in all the several rantings of error, might be crushed by the authority of hallowed antiquity.

Nor is there anything new in this. For it has always been the case in the Church, that the more a man is under the influence of religion, so much the more prompt is he to oppose innovations. Examples there are without number: but to be brief, we will take one, and that, in preference to others, from the Apostolic See, so that it may be clearer than day to every one with how great energy, with how great zeal, with how great earnestness, the blessed successors of the blessed apostles have constantly defended the integrity of the religion which they have once received.

[16.] Once on a time then, Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, of venerable memory, held the doctrine--and he was the first who held it--that Baptism ought to be repeated, contrary to the divine canon, contrary to the rule of the universal Church, contrary to the customs and institutions of our ancestors. This innovation drew after it such an amount of evil, that it not only gave an example of sacrilege to heretics of all sorts, but proved an occasion of error to certain Catholics even.

When then all men protested against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his place, so he should also in the devotion of his faith. In fine, in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this rule: "Let there be no innovation--nothing but what has been handed down." For that holy and prudent man well knew that true piety admits no other rule than that whatsoever things have been faithfully received from our fathers the same are to be faithfully consigned to our children; and that it is our duty, not to lead religion whither we would, but rather to follow religion whither it leads; and that it is the part of Christian modesty and gravity not to hand down our own beliefs or observances to those who come after us, but to preserve and keep what we have received from those who went before us. What then was the issue of the whole matter? What but the usual and customary one? Antiquity was retained, novelty was rejected.

[17.] But it may be, the cause of innovation at that time lacked patronage. On the contrary, it had in its favor such powerful talent, such copious eloquence, such a number of partisans, so much resemblance to truth, such weighty support in Scripture (only interpreted in a novel and perverse sense), that it seems to me that that whole conspiracy could not possibly have been defeated, unless the sole cause of this extraordinary stir, the very novelty of what was so undertaken, so defended, so belauded, had proved wanting to it. In the end, what result, under God, had that same African Council or decree? None whatever. The whole affair, as though a dream, a fable, a thing of no possible account, was annulled, cancelled, and trodden underfoot.

[18.] And O marvellous revolution! The authors of this same doctrine are judged Catholics, the followers heretics; the teachers are absolved, the disciples condemned; the writers of the books will be children of the Kingdom, the defenders of them will have their portion in Hell. For who is so demented as to doubt that that blessed light among all holy bishops and martyrs, Cyprian, together with the rest of his colleagues, will reign with Christ; or, who on the other hand so sacrilegious as to deny that the Donatists and those other pests, who boast the authority of that council for their iteration of baptism, will be consigned to eternal fire with the devil?

In the Easter controversy we looked at previously, we were reminded that the Bishop of Rome is not perfect.  Sometimes his actions are not the wisest and best, and it can be appropriate to respectfully remonstrate with him to some degree, as St. Irenaeus remonstrated with Pope St. Victor.  In the baptism controversy, on the other hand, we are reminded of the importance of humbly allowing our judgments and opinions to be guided by the Church that Christ founded as she is guided by the Holy Spirit.  Even though St. Cyprian acknowledged that "faithlessness could have no access" to the Roman Church because of the promises of Christ to Peter, yet he allowed himself to become so committed to his own opinion in the baptism controversy that he refused to be corrected by Pope Stephen and the general Tradition of the Church.  Pope Stephen was trying to point out a nuance in Church teaching regarding baptism, but Cyprian (and Firmilian and the others who shared their view) had a hard time with this nuance, believing it compromised the Church's stand against heresy.  They believed that the only way the Church could adequately and consistently oppose heresy was by denying the validity of baptism performed by heretics.  But Pope Stephen was trying to teach them that reality is more complicated than that--that one's reaction to the heretics need not be "all or nothing."  There were some things the heretics had, while there were other things they did not have.  Commitment to truth requires acknowledging what they did have--valid baptism--while not granting to them what they did not have--the true, de jure Church and the fullness of the faith.  It should not be surprising to us to see those who recognized the authority of the Church and of the Pope react to that authority so inconsistently based on commitment to their own opinions.  We will see this happen again and again throughout Church history, as it happens in our own day as well.

https://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2019/03/pope-francis-scandalon.html - An article comparing recent resistance to some of the teachings of Pope Francis to the earlier resistance to Pope Stephen by Cyprian and Firmilian.

Hierarchies of Bishops

During this time period, we begin to see a more pronounced hierarchy develop in the structure of the universal Church.  I mentioned in the previous unit that while the whole college of bishops is the successor of the whole college of the apostles, yet some sees--that is, some seats of authority of bishops--gain more prominence and authority than others due to their special connection with an apostle or their place in the overall geography of the Church.  For example, as Peter was the head of the apostles, so his connection to a particular see had the effect of greatly promoting that see to a place of high authority.  St. Mark (the author of the second gospel) was a disciple of St. Peter, and, according to the Church's tradition, he went to Egypt to preach the gospel, becoming listed as the founder of the Church of Alexandria.  The Church of Alexandria, therefore, came to have very high authority in the Church.  Peter himself was at Antioch ministering for a long time, and so the Church of Antioch likewise ended up being highly regarded.  I've already mentioned how Peter, dying at Rome, left his unique authority as head of the Church to the See of Rome, and so the Church of Rome became the highest and most authoritative church.  Later on, the Church of Jerusalem would gain high status as well.  And, after the capital of the Roman Empire was moved to Constantinople (which we'll see in our next unit), the Church of Constantinople, before of no great account, grew rapidly in importance.  The bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch come to receive the name of patriarchs--"heads or fathers of families"-- because of their high authority.  Later on, Jerusalem and Constantinople will be added to their number, so that, as the Church matures through the centuries, we will end up with five major patriarchates with highest authority in the Church, to whom all other bishops are subordinate.  And there is hierarchy apart from the major patriarchs as well.  Bishops of large cities in general receive more authority than rural bishops or bishops of smaller towns, and the latter end up subject to the former.  And so we get bishops under bishops, and various titles that come to be associated with higher bishops, such as archbishop, metropolitan, primate, eparch, etc.  The Church's structure, put into place in its essence by Christ and the apostles, yet has a degree of flexibility built into it and can adapt itself to function efficiently in the cultural and geographical and historical circumstances in which it finds itself.

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11549a.htm - A helpful article from the Catholic Encyclopedia on patriarchs and patriarchates.

Saints and Martyrs

Not surprisingly, this period is rich with saints and martyrs.  Our earliest post-biblical saints come from this period, which is one reason why saints from this period show up in the list of saints read out sometimes during the Mass.  There are a lot of martyr stories from this period, some more historically-grounded than others.  The Church does not vouch for all the details of all the martyr stories told about all of these saints, though she acknowledges the historical existence of these saints and their saintly lives which led to their being recognized as saints.

Some of these lives are well-attested, however.  One of these is St. Polycarp, disciple of St. John and Bishop of the city of Smyrna, who was martyred around the year 156.  We've mentioned him already in this unit.  We have an extant letter of his, as well as an early account of his martyrdom.  Another saint we have early evidence of is St. Agnes, who died around 304.  And then there is the fascinating story of Sts. Perpetua and Felicity, who were martyred in 203.  We have an actual autobiographical account from St. Perpetua herself, describing her experience as she was waiting to be martyred.  It is a fascinating first-hand window into the lives of Christian martyrs during this time period.

Tell the story and read selections in class - https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm - The account of the martyrdom of Polycarp.

Read in class - https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.vii.ii.ii.html - St. Ambrose of Milan's fourth-century account of the martyrdom of St. Agnes, who died in the early fourth century.

Tell story and read selections in class - https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/perpetua.asp - Accounts of the martyrdom of Sts. Perpetua and Felicity, including an autobiographical section from St. Perpetua herself.

Intercession of the Saints and Purgatory

Although the doctrinal development of the Chuch proceeded gradually over the centuries, many themes emerged very early.  Even in the case of doctrines (like indulgences) that only came to full flower in later periods of history, there is often an embryonic form of these doctrines or practices in earlier times--just as we can often see buds on a plant before the flowers bloom.

A couple of examples of doctrines/practices that are not explicitly or clearly discussed in Scripture but which we find budding very early in the Church's Tradition are the doctrine of purgatory and the doctrine of the intercession of the saints.  In the autobiographical account of St. Perpetua discussed and linked to above, St. Perpetua talks about her brother Dinocrates who had died.  She had a vision of him after death in pain and suffering, and then, after praying for him, she had a vision of him freed from his pains.  Here we have an example of someone in what would later be called purgatory being freed from purgatory partly through the prayers of a godly woman.

Another example is an account found in Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History describing a series of events that took place around the year 205 in which we see the effectiveness of the intercession of the saints in heaven.  The text is from Chapter V of Book VI of Eusebius's Ecclesiastical History, and I have taken it from the online plain text version at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (footnotes removed):

1. Basilides may be counted the seventh of these. He led to martyrdom the celebrated Potamiæna, who is still famous among the people of the country for the many things which she endured for the preservation of her chastity and virginity. For she was blooming in the perfection of her mind and her physical graces. Having suffered much for the faith of Christ, finally after tortures dreadful and terrible to speak of, she with her mother, Marcella, was put to death by fire.

2. They say that the judge, Aquila by name, having inflicted severe tortures upon her entire body, at last threatened to hand her over to the gladiators for bodily abuse. After a little consideration, being asked for her decision, she made a reply which was regarded as impious.

3. Thereupon she received sentence immediately, and Basilides, one of the officers of the army, led her to death. But as the people attempted to annoy and insult her with abusive words, he drove back her insulters, showing her much pity and kindness. And perceiving the man's sympathy for her, she exhorted him to be of good courage, for she would supplicate her Lord for him after her departure, and he would soon receive a reward for the kindness he had shown her.

4. Having said this, she nobly sustained the issue, burning pitch being poured little by little, over various parts of her body, from the sole of her feet to the crown of her head. Such was the conflict endured by this famous maiden.

5. Not long after this Basilides, being asked by his fellow-soldiers to swear for a certain reason, declared that it was not lawful for him to swear at all, for he was a Christian, and he confessed this openly. At first they thought that he was jesting, but when he continued to affirm it, he was led to the judge, and, acknowledging his conviction before him, he was imprisoned. But the brethren in God coming to him and inquiring the reason of this sudden and remarkable resolution, he is reported to have said that Potamiæna, for three days after her martyrdom, stood beside him by night and placed a crown on his head and said that she had besought the Lord for him and had obtained what she asked, and that soon she would take him with her.

6. Thereupon the brethren gave him the seal of the Lord [baptism]; and on the next day, after giving glorious testimony for the Lord, he was beheaded. And many others in Alexandria are recorded to have accepted speedily the word of Christ in those times.

7. For Potamiæna appeared to them in their dreams and exhorted them. But let this suffice in regard to this matter.

Accounts like these are among many which show the organic development, and budding and flowering, of Catholic doctrine and practice in the early Church.

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm - The Didache (or "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles"), a popular manual of Church order from our period which provides lots of insight into the early, pre-Constantinian Church.

Church History Companion Unit 1: Biblical Foundations

To return to the Introduction and Table of Contents, click here.

The Great Story

The story of history is the story of God's revelation of himself in his creation.  God is complete in himself, the Fullness of Being.  He exists eternally as one Being in three Persons--the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit--and within the relationships of love between these three Persons he is perfectly happy and blessed.  But God chose to create a universe, rooted in him and yet distinct from him, through which he could manifest his own perfections and glory, thus delighting in his own perfections displayed through his works in creation as well as sharing the blessedness of his divine joy with his creatures.

Our first parents were created by God in a state of blessedness, sustained in goodness and in a right relationship with God--and therefore with themselves, each other, and everything else--through God's grace--grace being God's sharing with his creatures his own divine life.  But, unlike God's own essential goodness, the goodness of his creatures was not immutable.  God gave our first parents free will and the ability to decide whether to continue in a right relationship with their Creator or to spurn that relationship, declaring independence from their Creator and attempting to establish their own lives by their own means.  Our first parents chose to rebel against God and declare independence.  The results of this were catastrophic.  God is the source of all life, goodness, and blessedness.  To cut oneself off from God, therefore, is to choose death, evil, and misery.  This is both the natural consequence and the punishment of those who would reject God.  By their rejection of God, therefore, our first parents plunged themselves into what the Catholic faith calls a condition of "original sin".  Cutting themselves off from God's grace and the divine life, they lost their original goodness.  They became estranged from God and were hardened into an attitude of enmity against him.  They also became estranged within themselves, as their reason lost control of their passions and they fell into many disordered desires, leading them to be drawn to foolish and wicked choices.  They became estranged from their physical environment, leading to the subjecting of their bodies to death.  They became estranged from each other and from the whole creation.  Their fallen nature was now a fount from which would spring enmity, wars, and selfish subjugation and destruction of the environment.  And, in themselves, they had no hope of ever being able to be freed from this "independence" they had wished on themselves.  Cut off from the divine life, they had no power in themselves, as mere creatures, to rekindle that life within themselves or to reestablish their connection with God.  Unless God should do something for them they could not do for themselves, the Fall of humanity entered our first parents--and all their descendants who inherited this condition from them--into a downward spiral of destruction that would culminate eventually in a state of complete death, wickedness, and misery--a state called "hell".  They would reap fully and permanently the independence from life, goodness, and happiness they had so foolishly chosen.

But God did do something for us we could not do for ourselves.  Throughout the history recounted in the Old Testament, we see God preparing the world for his ultimate plan of salvation.  When humans began to multiply on the earth and sin was rampant, God flooded the world and started over with a single family, that of Noah.  Would this solve the problem of sin?  No.  Noah and his family brought the problem with them.  God chose a man named Abraham and promised to bring salvation to the earth through him and his descendants.  He chose those descendants to be his own special people.  He gave them his moral law, and brought them into their own land.  But they continually slid back into sin, and their sin led to terrible consequences.  They were conquered by their enemies.  Famine came upon them.  Plagues came upon them.  Every time disaster struck, they cried out to God for help, and God saved them.  But then they backslid into sin yet again, and the whole cycle started all over again.  One could be forgiven for reading much of the Old Testament and wondering where any of this was going.  Rather than having a wise, sovereign plan to bring good out of evil, the history of humanity, including that recounted in the Old Testament, looks in some ways more like the story of a God who tries again and again to fix his fallen creation but is continually stymied.  But, of course, there is a method to the apparent madness.  Just like a series of cures that treat symptoms but leave the real cause of the disease untouched, the endless cycle of sin, disaster, crying out to God, deliverance from disaster, sin, disaster, crying out to God, deliverance from disaster, sin, etc., had the effect of helping God's people see what the real, root cause of their problems was.  The real problem was not famine, disease, physical enemies, even death, and so many other ills of human life.  These were but symptoms of the real problem--which was, of course, sin.  If God is going to save us, he must save us from our sins, for only then can we be reconciled to God and so have our connection restored to the blessedness of God's divine life.  Throughout the Old Testament, we see God gradually leading his people to realize this, and we see greater and greater hints of what God would eventually do to defeat sin.  We see the promise in the Garden of Eden that God would bring a descendant of the woman who would crush the serpent's head.  We find the sacrificial system in which we are pointed to the idea that only some kind of sacrifice of atonement, culminating in the shedding of blood, can take away sin.  A promise arises of a kingly line--stemming from David--which would culminate in a King who would be "God with us", who would save us from our enemies by suffering for our sins, who would save his people Israel but would also be a light to the Gentiles and bring peace to all the earth.

Finally, in the New Testament, we read the story of the coming of this King.  God himself became man, taking upon himself a human nature in addition to his divine nature--one Person with two natures.  As both fully human and fully divine, Jesus Christ could do something no one else could do.  He could unite himself to us, taking our weaknesses, our miseries, and our sins, upon himself, even to their logical end in death.  And yet, being God, he could overcome that sin, that weakness, that misery, with his own divine righteousness, strength, and joy.  He could overcome our death with his life.  By uniting humanity and divinity in his own person, and lifting up the former by the power of the latter, Jesus bridged the gap between God and humanity.  In him, we are reconnected to the divine life.  Our sins are washed away, and we are reconciled to God.

The Church and Her Authority

Jesus came to earth in order to live a life of righteousness, die for our sins, and rise from the dead for our salvation.  But he also came to found a community.  His salvation does not work on us only as individuals,  He unites his redeemed people to himself and therefore to each other.  As we are in him, the community of the saved are, in a sense, an extension of his incarnation.  Of course, he is the unique God-Man, but his influence in this world continues through the people who come to be called the Body of Christ, the called-out ones--the Ecclesia in Greek, "Church" in English.  This Church will have both a spiritual and a temporal/tangible component.  It will be both invisible and visible.  It will be an organic union held together by the grace of God, and also a tangible, formal community in the world.  Like Jesus himself, it will partake of both the human and the divine.  It will be the locus of salvation in the world, possessing grace and the gospel of grace.  But it will also be a hospital for sinners.  The Church on earth will be full of people recovering but not yet fully recovered from sin, and so, while partaking of the perfection of Christ, it will also carry within it the sinfulness of the human race.  It will therefore be a mix of good and bad, sin and grace, wheat and tares, failure and redemption.  But it is the goodness, the grace, the wheat, and the redemption, which will ultimately prevail.

Jesus appointed men who would lead the Church under him, after he had risen from the dead and ascended to the Father.  He called these men "apostles"--"those who are sent."  He gave them authority to shepherd the people in his name--to teach, to rule, and to guide.

"Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves. . . .  He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me."  (Luke 10:3, 16) 

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."  (Matthew 28:18-20) 

Then said Jesus to them again, "Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you." And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained."  (John 20:21-23) 

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."  (Matthew 18:15-20) 

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" And they said, "Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets." He saith unto them, "But whom say ye that I am?" And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  (Matthew 16:13-19) 

Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers.  (Acts 2:41-42)

The apostles were not to let the Church die with them.  They were to form local churches in various places as the gospel spread and appoint elders or bishops to rule over those churches.

To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.  (Titus 1:4-9) 

The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.  (1 Peter 5:1-4) 

Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you.  (Hebrews 13:17) 

Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us. . . . And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.  (2 Thessalonians 3:6, 14-15) 

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.  (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

The Church, as the Body of Christ on the earth, was commissioned by Christ to be the means of the conveyance of God's grace and divine life to the people of the world, as well as to be the official guardian, interpreter, transmitter, and applier of God's revelation.  The Church was given the divine Word to proclaim the saving truth of Christ and the divine sacraments to administer the grace of God to the world and to his people.  She was given the authority and ability to do these things through the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit.  This power is exercised by all her people (the universal priesthood of all the faithful) and especially through the ordained ministers, the bishops and priests (the ministerial priesthood).  The latter are the successors of the apostles and carry on the authority to lead the Church transmitted to them by the apostles.

The Transmission of Divine Revelation

God had given revelation to his people from the beginning.  This revelation came down to the Church through the Jewish Scriptures--the Old Testament--and the Jewish Tradition which provided the context for those Scriptures.  The Scriptures had been revealed over hundreds of years to many different prophets and writers and had been preserved by the authoritative Tradition of the Jewish people.  The priests were the authoritative interpreters of the revelation of God.

If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, being matters of controversy within thy gates: then shalt thou arise, and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shall choose; and thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall shew thee the sentence of judgment: And thou shalt do according to the sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall shew thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee: According to the sentence of the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall shew thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously.  (Deuteronomy 17:8-13) 

And all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the street that was before the water gate; and they spake unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel. And Ezra the priest brought the law before the congregation both of men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month. And he read therein before the street that was before the water gate from the morning until midday, before the men and the women, and those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the law. And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Urijah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadana, Zechariah, and Meshullam. And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people; (for he was above all the people;) and when he opened it, all the people stood up: And Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God. And all the people answered, "Amen, Amen," with lifting up their hands: and they bowed their heads, and worshipped the Lord with their faces to the ground. Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place. So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.  (Nehemiah 8:1-8) 

Then spake Jesus to the multitude, and to his disciples, saying "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not."  (Matthew 23:1-3)

The culmination of revelation came in Jesus Christ, who revealed the fullness of the Word of God to humankind and gave it into the charge of the Church.

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high: being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.  (Hebrews 1:1-4) 

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."  (Matthew 28:18-20)

As we saw earlier, Jesus delegated this authority to his apostles, and they to their successors, the bishops, who were charged with faithfully carrying on the divine revelation entrusted to them, being led by the Spirit to convey and apply it accurately for all the Church and all the world.

I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you.  (John 16:12-15)

The revelation of God--the Word of God--was entrusted to the Church and has come to be passed down through history in two ways.  The Word of God was written in the Scriptures, starting with the Old Testament and eventually adding to it the New Testament.  It has also been passed down through the Church's teaching, preaching, liturgy and worship, actions, and in everything else the Church does and teaches.  This second way by which the Church conveys down through the centuries the divine revelation is called Tradition.  The word "tradition" simply means "something handed down."  We can use the word "tradition" to refer to the Word of God handed down by the Church in general, whether by Scripture or in other ways.  We can also use the word more specifically to refer to those other ways besides Scripture by which the Word of God is handed down.  The word "tradition" is used in both ways.

Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.  (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

So Scripture and Tradition function as two legs of a three-legged stool which grounds the authoritative transmission of revelation in the Church.  The third leg is what the Church calls the Magisterium.  This is the teaching authority of the Church.  The bishops of the Church, as the successors of the apostles, have authority, ability, and guidance from God to recognize, gather, preserve, understand, interpret, and apply the Word of God for the benefit of the Church and of the world.  All three legs of this three-legged stool are necessary for the preservation and transmission of divine revelation.  Scripture contains the fullness of the gospel, but it must be interpreted in the light of the Church's Tradition.  (For example, Scripture says that people must be baptized, but it never explicitly discusses whether and how baptism is to be applied to infants.  So in order to know how to apply Scripture's teaching in this case, we must look at the Church's practice, which tells us that infants are indeed to be baptized.  Tradition and Scripture are to be interpreted together and shed light on each other.)  And in order to know where to find the authentic Scriptures and the authentic traditions, and to know how to interpret and apply them, we must rely on the God-guided Magisterium.  This three-legged stool of divine revelation and its authoritative transmission and application has been taught by the Church from the very beginning, as two early Church Fathers, St. Basil of Caesaria (330-379) and St. Vincent of Lerins (died c. 445), testify to.

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in a mystery" by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay—no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in
writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching. Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which our fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation?  (St. Basil, On the Holy Spirit, section 66. Translated by Blomfield Jackson, from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 8, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1895], revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Retrieved from the New Advent website [embedded links removed] at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3203.htm at 2:46 PM on 2/19/18.) 

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.  (St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory, section 5. Translated by C.A. Heurtley, from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 11, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894], revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Retrieved from the New Advent website [embedded links removed] at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm at 2:53 PM on 2/19/18.)

We should also note that doctrine in the Church develops over time.  We will have lots of opportunities to observe this as we go through Church history.  In Christ, and through his teaching and the teaching of his apostles, the revelation of God has been brought to completion.  The Church has received from her beginning the fullness of the Word which God has desired to reveal.  However, we are creatures of time and space, and God's interaction with us takes the form of a story.  The Church possesses the fullness of the divine revelation, but her recognition, gathering, preserving, understanding, interpreting, and applying of divine revelation takes place, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit who "guides her into all truth," over her entire history.  Thus, the Tradition of the Church grows, not by things being added from without, but by an unpacking from within, as the Church grows in her understanding and application of divine revelation and all its implications over time in light of the new circumstances she faces in her experience--external events, new cultural situations, heresies, newly-encountered philosophical ideas, dialogue with the world, etc.  The Church's growth is analogous in many ways to the growth of individuals as we gain wisdom to understand the nuances of things through our experience gained as we go through life.  St. Vincent of Lerins, from whom I quoted just above, provides the classic description from the early Church of this process of doctrinal development.  Note (in the quotation below) the two things he emphasizes:  The Church's doctrine grows through time, analogous to the growth of an embryo into an adult, but that growth is a logical growth--not mere arbitrary mutation, like a cancer, but a flowering into maturity of what was there at least in seed form from the beginning.  There can be great growth in recognizing nuances, in seeing patterns and implications previously unnoticed, in articulating the specificities and depths of what God has revealed, and all of this can greatly alter in some ways the "shape and form" of the Church's doctrine, but there cannot be contradiction.  The Church's later doctrine will not turn around and attack what she had previously established, or the divine revelation that is at the foundation of all her teaching.

The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant's limbs are small, a young man's large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled. 

In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits. 

For example: Our forefathers in the old time sowed wheat in the Church's field. It would be most unmeet and iniquitous if we, their descendants, instead of the genuine truth of grain, should reap the counterfeit error of tares. This rather should be the result—there should be no discrepancy between the first and the last. From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in the increase, doctrine of the same kind— wheat also; so that when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in that spiritual paradise from plants of cinnamon and balsam, darnel and wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth.  (St. Vincent of Lerins, Ibid.)

We see everything we have been talking about portrayed profoundly for us very early on in Church history in the Jerusalem Council described in Acts 15.

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, "Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. 

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, "Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; and put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they."

Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. 

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, "Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, 'After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.' Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world. Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day."

Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner: "The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia. Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, "Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law": to whom we gave no such commandment: It seemed good unto us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, men that have hazarded their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who shall also tell you the same things by mouth. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well. Fare ye well." So when they were dismissed, they came to Antioch: and when they had gathered the multitude together, they delivered the epistle: Which when they had read, they rejoiced for the consolation. And Judas and Silas, being prophets also themselves, exhorted the brethren with many words, and confirmed them. And after they had tarried there a space, they were let go in peace from the brethren unto the apostles. Notwithstanding it pleased Silas to abide there still. Paul also and Barnabas continued in Antioch, teaching and preaching the word of the Lord, with many others also.  (Acts 15:1-35)

In the Old Testament, the "people of God" was for the most part synonymous with a particular ethnic group, the Jewish people.  But the coming of the gospel would change this, as the Messiah became, as prophecied, a light to the nations.  Gentiles began to come into the Church.  But was this acceptable?  Should not the Gentiles be circumcised first according to the Law of Moses so they could be properly integrated into the Christian community by becoming Jews?  This was a new issue the Church had not considered before.  The Old Testament never explicitly addresses the question of whether Gentiles, in the times of the New Covenant, would need to be circumcised and made Jews.  Jesus himself had never explicitly addressed that subject in his teaching.  The Church had no official, explicit teaching on this subject.  So what did she do?  She called a council of Church leaders, consisting of the apostles and the elders/bishops.  They looked to the Scriptures to find applicable principles.  They looked to what God was doing in their own day.  And, guided by the Holy Spirit, they came to a conclusion which was then binding on the churches.  The Tradition of the Church had grown, not by adding from without but by unpacking from within, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  We will see this kind of pattern repeated time and time again throughout Church history.

There is one more crucial component that needs to be mentioned with regard to how the Church is guided by God in her faithful transmission of divine revelation--the role of St. Peter and his successors in the bishops of Rome.  When Jesus gave authority to the apostles, he singled out Peter to give him a special authority.

When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, "Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" And they said, "Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets." He saith unto them, "But whom say ye that I am?" And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus answered and said unto him, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."  (Matthew 16:13-19)

All the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, but to Peter in a singular and special way the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given.  The authority that all the apostles would exercise would be exercised also by Peter in particular.  He would be the head of the college of apostles, the one who would strengthen, feed, and guide the apostolic band and the whole flock of Christ.

And the Lord said, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren."  (Luke 22:31-32) 

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?" He saith unto him, "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee." He saith unto him, "Feed my lambs." He saith to him again the second time, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?" He saith unto him, "Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee." He saith unto him, "Feed my sheep." He saith unto him the third time, "Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me?" Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, "Lovest thou me?" And he said unto him, "Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee." Jesus saith unto him, "Feed my sheep. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdest thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not." This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, "Follow me."  (John 21:15-19)

By being given the exercise of the keys of the kingdom in such a unique way, Peter became the guarantor of the unity and orthodoxy of the Church.  All the apostles could exercise authority in the Church, and they should all exercise it together.  But that authority could only be exercised in communion with and under the authority of Peter; for without him, there can be no legitimate exercise of the keys.  Thus, by sticking with Peter, the Church would be grounded in the true faith and in the fullness of unity.  The early Father St. Jerome (345-420) put it this way:

[T]he Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.  (St. Jerome, Against Jovinianus [Book I], section 26. Translated by W.H. Fremantle, G. Lewis and W.G. Martley, from Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 6, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace [Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893], revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight. Retrieved from the New Advent website at http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/30091.htm at 10:55 PM on 2/19/18.)

The whole college of bishops--all the bishops throughout the world--became the successors of the whole college of the apostles.  But some sees--that is, some seats of authority held by bishops--became, in the early Church, more prominent and gained more authority than others because of their more direct connection with an apostle who had founded them or because of their practical position in the geography of the Church.  Peter himself ended up dying in Rome during the persecution of the Emperor Nero (more on this below).  When he died, he left his unique authority with the See of Rome.  From that time on, as was pretty much universally acknowledged in the Church from the beginning, the Bishop of Rome took on the role of head bishop of the college of bishops.  Having a special role and thus a special guidance and authority from God, he functioned as the chief shepherd among the human shepherds of Christ's flock, and his teaching and authority became a beacon of the Holy Spirit, a guarantor of the unity and orthodoxy of the universal Church.  The great Eastern Church Father, St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 580-662), put it this way:

All the ends of the inhabited world, and those who anywhere on earth confess the Lord with a pure and orthodox faith, look directly to the most holy Church of the Romans and her confession and faith as to a sun of eternal light, receiving from her the radiant beam of the patristic and holy doctrines, just as the holy six synods, inspired and sacred, purely and with all devotion set them forth, uttering most clearly the symbol of faith. For, from the time of the descent to us of the incarnate Word of God, all the Churches of the Christians everywhere have held and possess this most great Church as the sole base and foundation, since, according to the very promise of the Saviour, it will never be overpowered by the gates of hell, but rather has the keys of the orthodox faith and confession in him, and to those who approach it with reverence it opens the genuine and unique piety, but shuts and stops every heretical mouth that speaks utter wickedness.  (Footnotes removed--the quotation is from "The Ecclesiology of St. Maximos the Confessor," by Andrew Louth, published in the International Journal for the Study of the Christian Church, Vol. 4, No. 2, July 2004, p. 116.)

https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html - Dei Verbum ("The Word of God"), a document from the Second Vatican Council outlining the Church's view of the Word of God and its transmission.

https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2013/11/13/the-most-catholic-quotes-of-the-early-church-fathers-on-correct-scriptural-interpretation-authority/ - A selection of evidence from the Church Fathers showing their commitment to the three-legged stool of Scripture, Tradition, and Church authority divinely guided by the Holy Spirit.

http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-church-fathers-sola-scriptura-or.html - A much more thorough collection of evidence for the same.

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/02/the-chair-of-st-peter/ - A selection of evidence from the Church Fathers showing their commitment to the divinely-appointed role of the Chair of St. Peter.

https://archive.org/details/DocumentsIllustratingPapalAuthorityAd96-454Giles/mode/2up - A much more thorough collection of evidence for the same (at least up to the time just after the Council of Chalcedon in the mid-400s).

The Infallibility of the Church

Since we have been talking about the authority of the Church and the guidance of her teaching by the Holy Spirit, it would be appropriate here to spell out a little more specifically how the Church has come to understand the forms of her own teaching and her own infallibility (that is, her protection from error in her teaching).  The Church's articulation of this has been honed down through the centuries, but it is helpful to have a clear idea of how the Church's teaching authority works so that we can recognize and understand better the exercises of that authority amidst the complexities of history.  In an article I wrote up a few years ago, I summarized the Church's infallibility and authority in this way:

The teaching authority of the Catholic Church resides in the "Magisterium," which is simply the body of bishops who govern the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome, the Pope.  God has given what I'll call the "gift of reliability" to the teachers of the Church, so that what they teach in terms of the doctrine of the church (whether of "faith" or "morals") is accurate and does not lead into error.  This gift is not given to individual bishops acting alone, but only to the body of bishops as a whole--so it is possible that individual bishops, or even bishops in groups smaller than the whole of the body of bishops, might teach error, but the body of bishops as a whole can never do so.  Also, the Pope, as the head of the church, has the gift of reliability given to him in his own unique office as well, so that he can never teach error when he is exercising his teaching office. 

Sometimes the Church teaches a doctrine definitively--that is, it teaches a doctrine as certainly and irrevocably the correct opinion.  This might happen when the bishops come together in an ecumenical council and make definitive decrees or statements, or it might happen as all the bishops in the ordinary exercise of their office agree in teaching a doctrine definitively throughout the world.  The Pope might teach a doctrine definitively either by formally defining a doctrine as a dogma (this is the famed ex cathedra declaration) or simply by affirming that a doctrine is the definitive teaching of the Church.  When the Church teaches something definitively, since it has the gift of reliability, Catholics are obligated to receive and accept it definitively.  Sometimes, however, the Church might teach a doctrine non-definitively--that is, it might teach a doctrine in such a way that it is claimed to be true, or accurate, or good to believe or hold or practice, etc., but not in such a way that it is claimed that the final, unchangeable word on the subject has been given.  The doctrine is not claimed as definitely certain or true or unchangeable in its current form.  For example, the bishops or the Pope might say, "X is the best way to think about this right now," or "We should think X right now," or "So far as we can see at this point, X appears to be true," or "We should do things in this way right now," etc.  There could be lots of ways such a non-definitive teaching could be given and a variety of degrees of certainty in such pronouncements--context would determine how to interpret any particular statement or teaching.  A non-definitive teaching must be accepted and adhered to by Catholics as well.  It must be accepted in the way and to the degree it was intended by the Church--again, interpreted by context.  (Mark Hausam, "The Infallibility of the Church")

In another article, I described the distinction between the Church's definitive teaching and her non-definitive teaching more specifically:

The teaching of the Catholic Church is that the Pope, and the bishops as a whole, can teach with various levels of definitiveness, but that Catholics are bound to submit with mind and will to all magisterial teaching according to the intention of the magisterial teacher.  So if the Pope teaches something and intends it to be a definitive pronouncement, Catholics are to submit to it as the final word on the subject and irreformably and forever true.  If the Pope teaches something which he intends the people to believe, but it is not intended as necessarily the final word on the subject, then Catholics are bound to accept that teaching, but not necessarily as the final word on the subject.  All magisterial teaching is to be regarded as inherently reliable, for it all comes with the authority of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.  We can never be led astray by following magisterial teaching, although non-definitive teaching can lead us to provisional conclusions that may later turn out to be augmented or even corrected.  The fact that non-definitive teaching is not necessarily irreformable is not contrary to its reliability, for the reformable nature of such teaching does not come from any unreliability in the teaching but in the non-definitiveness of the magisterial intention.  If the Pope teaches us that X is the best position to hold right now and that we ought to hold position X, but that this is not necessarily the final word on the subject, if later on we find that X is false we cannot be said to have been led astray by the Pope's teaching, for that teaching did not teach us that X would never be overturned.  But the reliability of the Pope's ordinary teaching obviously precludes that teaching from including heresy--that is, from including ideas that contradict what the Church has previously affirmed definitively to have been revealed by God.  For we already know that such teachings cannot be true and that we should not hold them.  It would be contrary to the justice and truth of God for legitimate authority appointed by him to legitimately bind us to teaching that it would be wrong to hold.  (Mark Hausam, "Some Thoughts on the Recent Open Letter against Pope Francis")

It is also worth mentioning that bishops and Popes are, of course, still human sinners and so subject to sin as well as to errors in judgment.  The official teaching of the Magisterium is reliable (in either a definitive or non-definitive way) and binding, but bishops and Popes are not protected from sin and error in their own private lives.  They can sin just like any other person, and they can have personal opinions--not part of what they teach officially--that can be erroneous and not to be followed (though we should always treat our shepherds with respect).  Also, bishops and Popes can make practical rulings and decisions that aren't doctrine but are simply rules and procedures to follow.  The divine guidance of the Magisterium does not guarantee that bishops and Popes will always make the wisest practical rulings or follow the wisest courses of action in all that they do and in all the rules they make.

http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-infallibility-of-church.html - This is my article quoted from above (the next-to-last quotation).  In addition to my summary of the Church's teaching on her own infallibility, it contains quotations from and links to Church documents showing how the Church herself articulates her infallibility.

http://freethoughtforchrist.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-infallibility-of-ordinary.html - And here is a much more detailed article on the same subject, with additional references as well.

The Roman World

The Church was born into a world that was a mix of many different cultures.  Of course, the Church grew immediately out of Judaism.  But the Jews at this time were not independent.  They had been conquered by the Greeks a few hundred years earlier during the time of Alexander the Great, and Greek culture (Hellenism) spread throughout the territories Alexander had conquered, even after his empire broke up and Greeks no longer ruled in those areas.  (This is reflected, for example, in the fact that the New Testament was written in Greek, which had become an international language in the Eastern Mediterranean world at that time.)  During the hundred years preceding the birth of Christ, the Romans had conquered the land of the Jews, and they had created a cosmopolitan empire that eventually spanned from Britain in the West to the edge of Persia in the East, as well as including much of Europe and North Africa.  The unity brought by the Roman Empire created an international, pluralistic society not unlike the world we inhabit today in many ways.  The Church would be influenced and challenged by all three of these cultures--Jewish, Greek, and Roman--and eventually by many others as well.

The Church's fundamental worldview grew out of Judaism, but her philosophy and ways of thinking, as well as her formal structure, would become heavily influenced by Greek and Roman ideas and culture over her first few hundred years of existence, as we will see.

The unity of the Roman Empire also created an opportunity for the spread of the gospel that was unique in the ancient world.  The sort of missionary journeys we read about in the Book of Acts would have been very different and much harder without the international infrastructure in place due to the Roman Empire.

watch in class - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qw3CjmoB3oY - Helpful, half-hour video on pagan life and worship in the Roman Empire.

http://www.centuryone.com/rmnwrd.html - Some maps of the Roman world around our time period (as well as a little afterwards).

show in class - https://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN092MAPS1.htm - Maps of St. Paul's missionary journeys around the Mediterranean world, along with some explanations.  Very nice visual for what we read in the Book of Acts and Paul's letters.

https://aleteia.org/2017/07/21/whatever-happened-to-the-twelve-apostles/ - Whatever happened to the Twelve Apostles?  Short, summary article on some of the traditions on how they ended up.

Church History Companion: Introduction and Table of Contents

Introduction

Church history, and history in general, can be challenging to teach.  Unlike a discipline like philosophy or systematic theology, where the focus is on key ideas that are analyzed and about which arguments are made, teaching history involves the communication of a great deal of factual information--details about what has happened in the past.  And so much stuff has happened in the past!  How does one communicate it all?  How does one organize all the data?  How does one make the presentation of these facts engaging and meaningful?  Church history is fascinating, and it is easy to be enthusiastic about it, but it can be difficult to figure out how to package and convey the facts of history without getting bogged down in detailed minutia or overwhelming one's students.

Much could be said about the challenge of teaching history, but I bring this up here simply as background for explaining this historical narrative I am now publishing in this blog.  I felt that it would help me to organize my own presentation of Church history if I produced a written narrative that I and my students could draw upon, a narrative that reflects my own understanding of that history and its basic structure.  So that is what this is.  This is Church history as I tend to think about it, and it forms the structure of what I want to teach people about it.

I am not a historian.  That is, while I enjoy reading and thinking about history (Church history in particular) and teaching it, I do not consider myself to have the kind of personality, interests, skills, calling, etc., that would draw a person into making history per se a central theme in their life's work.  The central themes of my life's work are theology, philosophy, and apologetics.  So this historical narrative is the work of a theologian, philosopher, and apologist, and it is good to keep that in mind.  Also, of course, I am an individual person with my own idiosyncracies and my own skills, knowledge, and interests.  I have written a narrative that reflects who I am.  I do not claim to have presented a complete history.  For one thing, this narrative, as it will be used in my classes, is intended to be accompanied by a class textbook.  The textbook we are currently using is The Compact History of the Catholic Church, by Alan Schreck, revised edition (Cincinnatti, OH: Servant Books, 2009).  That's one reason I have called this narrative a Church history companion instead of just a Church history.  I've divided up the history into eight units, corresponding to eight different periods of Church history.  (I also plan to add an additional section devoted to keeping up with new events and emerging trends as history continues.)  I've tried to give a basic account of the basic ethos and some of the central themes of each period--that is, what was going on in the world, how the Church developed in that period, how each period fits together with the others in the overall story, etc.  But, like I said, I don't claim that my history is complete.  I suppose no history can ever be complete.  But my history reflects my peculiar interests and knowledge.  So I talk a lot about theological trends and advances and changes in the philosophy of the surrounding culture.  I do a lot of theology, philosophy, and apologetics in these pages.  I take opportunities when I get them to discuss and try to explain theological and philosophical issues--like the Trinity, the nature of Christ, free will and grace, civil law and freedom of conscience, etc.  I analyze ideas and ways of thinking that I find in each period.  I have often had in mind criticisms that are made against Catholicism and tried to address them as the occasion has arisen.  So there is certainly a heavily intellectual cast to my history, though I do throw in matters of human interest when I am aware of them and have found them interesting.  But even when covering areas that are within more central circles of my own interests and knowledge, of course I have not tried to be complete.  This is a companion text for a high school Church history class, not an exhaustive treatise on any particular issue, so I've sometimes stuck to the basics when, in other contexts, I might have been interested in going further and providing more details and more nuance--whether in terms of history, theology, philosophy, or apologetics.

So this history reflects my own interests.  But I have tried to balance that a bit by including lots of references, some of which go in directions I myself was not interested to try to go in, did not have time/space to go in, or did not feel qualified to try to go in in the main body of the text.  And these references also function in general as supplements to my material.  One thing in particular I would encourage readers to do is to look up the lives of some of the saints I mention in each period.  Looking at these lives will very much help to balance out the intellectualism of my focus with the concrete, practical realities of these biographies.  Also, I don't want to give people the impression that Christianity and Catholic history has all been simply about intellectual ideas and theological developments.  These are important, but they are only one part of the picture.  They are the part of the picture that I am best at describing, and so they play a large role in my narrative.  But reading about the saints can help show how Christianity is about loving God and serving one's neighbor in sacrificial love and devotion.  Sometimes I've given specific links to particular saints (and, of course, I have described the stories of several saints in the text of the narrative).  When I haven't, you might start with the Wikipedia article for a particular saint.  Wikipedia is often a good place to start for such things.

I should also note what should already be evident from reading this introduction:  My approach in the narrative is informal.  Hopefully, the whole thing is reasonably well-written, I've cited my sources, etc., but my general tone is informal.

There are tons of references in this narrative.  I have used many sources, some I am aware of and many that I have absorbed information from and forgotten over the years.  I have tried to reference my sources.  Sometimes I have done so by mentioning them in the body of the text as I discuss a subject; other times I have mentioned them at the end of a section in the place where I put additional references.  For basic, uncontroversial factual information (dates, how to spell names, mundane historical details I was not previously aware of or couldn't remember off the top of my head, etc.), I have often made a great deal of use of Wikipedia.  I have not always cited every Wikipedia page I have looked at in any way or to any degree in the course of my reading up on things, but one can generally assume that whenever I don't give a specific reference for some detail, the information most likely either came from my own store of knowledge I already had going into my writing (which was substantial for some areas, since I have been studying some aspects of Church history for some time) or from Wikipedia.  It may also have come from the Catholic Encyclopedia, as I've made significant general use of it as well as I've written this narrative.

(By the way, I know the current academic fad is to dis Wikipedia.  I don't agree with this.  The fear is that people will use Wikipedia uncritically.  No doubt many do.  But if they use Wikipedia uncritically, they'll use everything else uncritically too, which will be just as problematic.  The problem is with the uncritical use of any sources, not the use of Wikipedia.  Of course Wikipedia is not always right.  Of course it can be biased or imbalanced.  But so can everything else.  But Wikipedia has the advantage, with many of its subjects, of being constantly monitored by hoards of nerds who are determined to get every detail perfect.  For a lot of subjects, then, particularly when we are dealing with non-controversial, basically-agreed-upon information, Wikipedia is probably the most useful easily-accessible source out there.  So yes, I use it a lot--though not uncritically--just as everyone else does.  And I'm not afraid to admit it. 😊)

Of course, this history is told from a Catholic perspective.  After all, I am a Catholic writing this primarily as a Catholic high school theology teacher.  But I always strive to be fair and accurate, even if I sometimes draw conclusions on controversial issues that not everyone would agree with.  (But, again, the history is not complete.  There are areas where I've given a basic assessment or summary on some issue without necessarily going into all the nuances and details that would be necessary to truly, fully, do the theme justice.)

As I've said, the primary inspiration for writing this has been my own desire to create a narrative to help in my teaching of Church history at a Catholic high school.  However, since I'm publishing this on my blog, it's safe to assume I'm intending to make this available to the general public as well.  I hope many will find it helpful.

There are some resources I recommend you might keep on hand as you read through (or read parts of) this narrative, in addition to all the resources mentioned, referenced, and linked to throughout the text of the narrative.  The Bible, of course, is good to have on hand, since it's the Word of God and also of great historical value.  In terms of Church history, you've got the gospels which tell us about the life of Christ, and the Book of Acts is especially helpful for Unit 1 which focuses on the times of the apostles.  I've already mentioned the value of Wikipedia for basic information.  It would also be helpful to keep on hand a list of the Popes through history.  Since the Pope is the head on earth of the Catholic Church, the various pontificates of the Popes through history make for a nice standard to determine where we are in time (just as we help measure periods of English history by reference to the kings and queens of England, or American history by the presidents, etc.).  It's also helpful to keep track of the ecumenical councils going on in each period (see here and here), although I refer to them (in more or less detail) in the narrative as well.  This is a really nice world history map that allows you to put in any year (from 3000 BC to the present day) to see what the political map of the world looks like in that day.  You can scroll in further or move further away.  This is an interesting map that allows you to watch the political changes in the world through time (from 3000 BC, but only, unfortunately, up to 1000 AD).  This is a helpful collection of Church history lectures from Dr. Ryan Reeves of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary (he's a Protestant, but he does a good job laying out the facts in an interesting way).  You might also keep on hand the Catholic Encyclopedia, which has many wonderfully helpful articles.  It was written in the early twentieth century, so it's a little outdated in some areas, but it's still a wealth of helpful doctrinal and historical information, and widely respected as such.  You might also keep on hand the Catechism of the Catholic Church for a handy reference to understanding Catholic teaching in various areas.

This is not an apologetics work per se, but I intend it to have apologetic value, so I want to also mention my own background works in apologetics for reference.  I've written up a general apologetic for Christianity in Why Christianity is True.  I've written up an apologetic for Catholicism in particular in No Grounds for Divorce.  Both of these reflect my own approach to why I believe what I believe and how I would explain my own reasoning to others.  Catholic Answers is a good source for Catholic apologetics.  I would also recommend Bishop Robert Barron's work at Word on Fire Catholic Ministries.  And now I must stop myself from recommending a hundred other things that will begin coming to mind.  I think I've given you enough for now to get you going.

So, without further ado, here is the Table of Contents for the narrative.

Table of Contents

Church History Companion Unit 1: Biblical Foundations

Church History Companion Unit 2: The Early Church Before the Time of Constantine

Church History Companion Unit 3: The Church Post-Constantine and in the Early Middle Ages

Church History Companion Unit 4: The Church in the Later Middle Ages

Church History Companion Unit 5: Renaissance, Reformation, and Missions

Church History Companion Unit 6: Enlightenment, Modernity, and the Church’s Response

Church History Companion Unit 7: The Church in the First Half of the Twentieth Century

Church History Companion Unit 8: Vatican II to the Present Day

Published on the feast of St. Vitus.

Is There Really Any Point to Sanctification with the Protestant Doctrine of Justification?

The thing which makes sin hateful, is that by which it deserves punishment; which is but the expression of hatred. And that which renders virtue lovely, is the same with that on the account of which it is fit to receive praise and reward; which are but the expressions of esteem and love. But that which makes vice hateful, is its hateful nature; and that which renders virtue lovely, is its amiable nature. It is a certain beauty or deformity that are inherent in that good or evil will, which is the soul of virtue and vice (and not in the occasion of it), which is their worthiness of esteem or disesteem, praise, or dispraise, according to the common sense of mankind.

- Jonathan Edwards (Freedom of the Will, Part IV, Section 1)

This article will be discussing the Anti-Augustinian interpretation of the Protestant doctrine of justification.  I'll use the term "Protestant" to refer to people to hold this view.

It's difficult to figure out what the point of sanctification is in the Protestant viewpoint.  Protestants emphasize it as if it were very important, but it's hard to see why, considering that they believe that we are constituted entirely righteous before God and his moral law solely by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, without any input from God's work within us in our sanctification.

As Jonathan Edwards points out in our opening quotation, righteousness is nothing other than the beauty of a morally good will, a will that loves God and its neighbor (as love is the fulfillment of the law and thus the very essence of righteousness).  So when God imputes righteousness to us in justification, in the Protestant view, he is accounting us to have a morally beautiful will.  Protestants believe that this imputation makes us righteous, even apart from any consideration of God's work within us.  Our having a morally beautiful will by God's accounting, in their view, is held to be a completely different thing from having a morally beautiful will in our actual inward condition.  By means of this act of imputation, even without actually changing our will to make it morally beautiful, God credits moral beauty to it and comes to consider it morally beautiful.  This is justification.  He also does indeed change us inwardly, but this is held to have nothing to do with justification or the grounds by which we are accepted by God as having a morally beautiful will.  (And, according to the Protestant view, the moral beauty God works into us inwardly is not actually morally beautiful to God at all, on account that it is mixed with our remaining sinfulness and the sins from our past.  It is like pixie stick dust mixed within a pile of vomit--the whole thing is worthy only of being thrown out.)

Since we have a morally beautiful will by imputation, God is entirely pleased with us and accepts us as fully righteous.  We are therefore worthy of the reward of the righteous, for, as Edwards puts it, "that which renders virtue lovely, is the same with that on the account of which it is fit to receive praise and reward; which are but the expressions of esteem and love."  Thus, our righteousness by imputation gives us a right to be rewarded with eternal life, as God grants us the happiness that naturally follows righteousness (just as misery and punishment naturally follow sin).

So what could possibly be the point of sanctification in such a system?  What could it possibly contribute?  What is sanctification?  It is God's making us holy.  What is holiness in this context?  It is moral virtue, or righteousness.  Sanctification is God making us inwardly righteous.  But once we have imputation, sanctification seems redundant.  By imputation, we already have a complete righteousness.  We already have moral virtue, a morally beautiful heart, a heart that loves God and its neighbor.  Granted, we have it only by imputation and not actually inwardly; but, in the Protestant view, God finds that entirely acceptable.  His moral law--that is, his love of moral beauty and his hatred of moral ugliness--is entirely satisfied with our imputed righteousness.  So, if God is entirely satisfied and finds us totally morally pleasing because of the imputation alone, sanctification can add nothing, because sanctification would simply be a second helping of the same thing--moral beauty.  But justification gives us complete and perfect righteousness, so there is no room for any more.  God's attitude towards us cannot possibly improve from a state of complete satisfaction, pleasure, and acceptance.  So it would seem he would not care at all if we are sanctified or not.

Well, if God is completely satisfied and doesn't need our sanctification to find us completely morally acceptable, is there any other purpose sanctification might serve?  It's hard to see what it would be.  Again, all that sanctification does is give us righteousness.  But that's exactly what justification does as well.  So whatever sanctification could possibly do for us, justification must be able to do just as well at least.  If all I want is a bathtub full of water, and by some means I've already got that, then if you come along later and try to give me more water for my tub, I'm going to thank you kindly and decline your gift as unnecessary.

Well, someone might say, perhaps God doesn't care if we are sanctified or not, but perhaps sanctification is necessary to make us happy in heaven.  After all, without sanctification, we don't love God, and if we don't love God, we can't be happy enjoying God forever.  So perhaps the purpose of sanctification is to make us fit for heaven by giving us the ability to enjoy it.  The problem with this is that it forgets what we've already established--that sanctification has no more to give than justification does.  We need love to God to be happy in the enjoyment of God, that is true.  But justification gives us total love to God, because that's what righteousness is--love to God and neighbor.  Sure, justification gives us love to God only by imputation and not in our actual inward condition, but God fully accepts this as completely genuine and real.  He sees us as really having, by imputation, real love to God.  That's why he's totally morally pleased with the justified, without any input from any inward sanctification.  So if we need love to God to be happy, well, justification again gives us everything we need, and sanctification ends up having nothing new to offer.  Happiness is a necessary and intrinsic consequence and effect of love for God, just as misery is a necessary and intrinsic consequence and effect of rejection of God.  When it comes to God, there is no ultimate distinction between a "natural consequence" and a "moral consequence," for God is the source of all reality and the one from whom flows the whole plan of history.  And he does nothing without his will, for he is a simple being (that is, a non-compound being, a being without parts), and we cannot ultimately separate his will from any of his activity.  God does all he does willingly.  So misery is equally both a natural consequence of sin and a punishment for sin, and happiness is equally both a natural consequence of righteousness and a reward for righteousness.  There can be, then, no ultimate distinction between having a right to happiness and having a natural tendency to happiness.  Love to God--which, again, is what righteousness essentially is--has both a right and a natural tendency to happiness, for God finds it supremely good and beautiful and worthy of praise and reward.  So, on the Protestant view, if I am justified--if I have imputed righteousness, or imputed love to God, which God regards as completely real and completely mine, even though it is external to me rather than internal within me--I have everything I need to be fully and eternally happy, without any input at all from sanctification.  Indeed, if sanctification has any power to enable me to be happy, it would be because of the intrinsic connection between love to God, which sanctification would bring, and happiness.  But, again, justification has already given us this love to God, so there is nothing left for sanctification to contribute.

So it does indeed seem that sanctification is entirely pointless within the Protestant system.  Protestants insist on it as important, but there doesn't seem to be any logical reason why it would be.

Now, if this whole line of reasoning, and the conclusion it reaches, seems absurd, of course the problem is with the starting assumption of the whole argument--the assumption of the truth of the Protestant doctrine of justification, and particularly the idea that imputation alone, without any input from sanctification, gives us a real righteousness that God counts as fully real and fully ours.  But of course this is absurd, for if righteousness is nothing more nor less than a morally beautiful heart or will that loves God and its neighbor, well, this is not the sort of thing that can be possessed as merely an external commodity.  It is, by definition and in its very essence, an inward thing, something that can only exist inwardly.  I cannot have a morally beautiful heart by a merely external imputation; I can only have a morally beautiful heart by actually having a morally beautiful heart--and that is what sanctification gives me.  To say I can have moral beauty merely by external imputation is just as absurd as to say I can have physical beauty by merely external imputation.  "I'm beautiful!" I cry.  "Sure, my actual face is just as ugly as ever, but now I have a truly beautiful face, because God has imputed a physically beautiful face to me, with no input from any actual change in my face!"  This is, of course, ridiculous.  But it is just as ridiculous to talk of God making my heart morally beautiful--that is, making me righteous--merely by imputing to me a morally beautiful heart without actually making my actual heart morally beautiful.  If we define "justification" to refer to "that which actually makes me righteous in God's sight," then justification can be nothing other than sanctification.  They are one and the same thing.  Righteousness just is sanctification, and it cannot be anything else.  So the Protestant doctrine of justification is fundamentally wrong.

Before we close, it is worth noting that although this form of the Protestant doctrine of justification is illogical and absurd, there is another form it might take that avoids these problems.  I call this other version the "Pro-Augustinian" interpretation of the Protestant doctrine of justification.  In this view, the same Protestant language is used, distinguishing justification from sanctification, imputation from infusion, but the underlying meaning is quite different.  Pro-Augustinian Protestants will say, along with Anti-Augustinian Protestants, that we are justified entirely by the imputed righteousness of Christ, and that sanctification follows this as its fruit.  But, drawing from the rest of our discussion above, we can spell out the meaning of this in this way:  In justification, God imputes to us the righteousness of Christ.  That is, he counts the morally good heart of Christ to be ours.  In principle, this gives us all we need to be right with God, for all God wants from us is a morally good heart.  But, by itself, imputation is insufficient, because it is only a promise.  It takes sanctification to provide the fulfillment of the promise.  Imputation is God's declaration that Christ's morally beautiful heart belongs to us, but sanctification is God's actually delivering that morally beautiful heart to us.  Imputation is like purchasing a book on Amazon.  Sanctification is like actually getting the book in the mail.  The purchase, in principle, gives you what you want, but only because it implies that the book will actually be delivered.  The purchase by itself, without the delivery, is nothing but a promise of that which is not yet fulfilled.  The delivery is the fulfillment.  So we need both, just as we need both justification (imputation) and sanctification (inward change).  (The Anti-Augustinian view would be like purchasing a book on Amazon and receiving a statement saying "The book is now yours!" and being satisfied with that by itself without needing the book to ever be actually delivered.) 

The Pro-Augustinian interpretation of the Protestant doctrine agrees in substance with the Catholic view of justification.  They differ mostly in semantics.  Catholics include both the imputation component and the infusion component under the single heading of "justification" while Pro-Augustinian Protestants use the term "justification" to refer only to the imputation component and "sanctification" to refer to the infusion component.  The Anti-Augustinian view, on the other hand, is the view the Catholic Church condemned at the Council of Trent.

For more, see here, here, and here.

Published on Wednesday within the Octave of Easter.  Christ is risen!  Alleluia!