I have a new blog post up at Word on Fire, and an accompanying podcast at The Catholic Podcast, addressing the argument that Dr. Jerry Walls calls “the STRONGEST Argument Against Catholicism.” Here’s a taste from the article:
The crux of Walls’ claim goes something like this: Christ establishing the papacy upon Peter is the distinctive claim that Catholicism makes relative to all other forms of Christianity; but this claim is poorly-supported by the evidence of the early Church, where (he claims) there wasn’t even a Bishop of Rome until nearly 200 AD. Walls’ argument is half-right. I’ve actually written a book on this very subject, which is why Word on Fire asked me to respond to his claims. In my book Pope Peter, I argue that “quite simply, if the Catholic Church’s claims about the papacy are true, then everyone should be a Catholic. If they’re not true, then nobody should be a Catholic.” So if Walls has a clear proof that the papacy is false, that really would be the strongest argument against Catholicism. Conversely, if the Catholic claim stands up to scrutiny, Walls, Bertuzzi, and the rest of us should all be Catholic.
So how does Walls’ “STRONGEST argument against Catholicism” hold up?
Take a read, and / or a listen, and let me know what you think!
Hi Joe,
Thanks for writing this. I’m curious how you interpret the Didache in light of the evidence you cite. Specifically, there are instructions in it that seem to assume different things about church leadership than the rest of the Fathers and early church histories. For example, the author writes things like:
“Appoint therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, meek men, and not lovers of money, and truthful and approved, for they also minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers”
“Thou shalt, therefore, take the firstfruits of every produce of the wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and sheep, and shalt give it to the prophets, for they are your chief priests”
The first quote seems to indicate that individual churches chose their bishops, rather than being appointed by a bishop in line from the apostles (as seems to be the case in Paul’s letter to Titus, for example). The second quote seems to posit a whole other church position of ‘prophet’ that doesn’t exist today.
As for the first item, it seems like the best way to reconcile this with the rest of the tradition is something like Acts 6:3, where the apostles tell the people to pick out their own deacons, who the apostles then ratify and invest with authority. But I have no idea what to do with the second item.
Thanks again for all your hard work and thought on these.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Jordan,
Great questions! In the early Church, there were prophets and teachers. For instance, Acts 13:1 says, “Now in the church at Antioch there were prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Symeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyre′ne, Man′a-en a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.” That description seems to suggest that it’s not just a given, as if every local church will have prophets and teachers – that this was something remarkable, but not unheard of. I read this as certain people being given particular charismatic gifts, not as additional offices in the Church. (There’s no sense, for instance, that you can choose a prophet).
And yes, there have been times throughout the history of the Church in which the faithful chose their leadership, but it’s exactly like what you mentioned from Acts 6 – their selection is enough to put a man forward for ordination, but not enough to actually ordain him.
In Christ,
Joe
Hi Joe,
Thanks for the response. I sympathize with the approach you lay out here. The language of the Didache is much stronger than that though. It’s comparing these individuals to “chief priests” and instructing the people to tithe to them. That’s not something that the Catholic Church would instruct laypeople to do currently, for example, even to someone with the charismatic gift of prophecy.
This is probably getting a bit off topic for this post, though, which is focused on the papacy. Ultimately, it’s hard for me to believe that there’s an ecclesial office of “prophet” that Christ intended for his church to have, and that somehow disappeared after the first century or so.
Peaceful days,
Jordan
Fantastic! This post is jam-packed with information. I am going to have to read it and re-read it over and over again. Thank you, Joe. God bless!!
Here is a quote from the writings of the ancient historian Bede that points to only one bishop ruling the city of Rome in 156 A.D.
From “The History of the English Church and People” by Venerable Bede:
********************
“CHAPTER 4: Lucius, a British king, writes to Pope Eleuthernus and asks to be made a Christian
IN the year of our Lord’s Incarnation 156, Marcus Antoninus Verus, fourteenth after Augustus, became co-Emperor with his brother Aurelius Commodus. During their reign, and while the holy Eleutherius ruled the Roman Church, Lucius, a British king, sent him a letter, asking to be made a Christian. This pious request was quickly granted, and the Britons held the Faith which they received in all its purity and fullness until the time of the Emperor Diocletian.”
************************
It seems significant that the British King Lucius, in the quote above, doesn’t seek permission to become a Christian from a nearby Bishop or diocese, for instance one in relatively nearby Spain or France, but rather appeals all the way to the Bishop of Rome in Italy. It therefore seems that as some of the ancient colonies of Rome were accustomed to consult with their natural political leadership in Rome…that this might have been continued with the Catholic Church also. In the Roman Empire it was Rome that was the primary place to seek answers to complex political questions and dilemma, and so when the Catholic Church expanded throughout the Roman Empire…. it seems easy to understand that ecclesiastical primacy in the Church also resided in Rome, even as it did on the political level. At least, this is how it appears in Bede’s quote, above.
A few weeks ago, Canon Michael Stein of St. Joseph Shrine in Detroit mentioned in a talk after Mass in the social hall about the use of the Roman Missal that pre-1962 versions might be found at John King Used & Rare Books, https://www.johnkingbooksdetroit.com/. My wife couldn’t wait to go there, and a short time later we did go. I bought several books, one of which was, “The Bones of St. Peter,” by John Evangelist Walsh. The cover explains its contents: “The First Full Account of the Search for the Apostle’s Body.” As I have been reading it, I came across this blog post. Perhaps, Joe, you have already read the book, but if not, an online search will produce a list of copies for sale.
I haven’t finished it yet, but on page 67 it says, “The old document known as the “Liber Pontificalis” (“Book of the Popes,” containing material as old as the sixth century) stated that it was Pope Anacletus, near the close of the first century, who had ‘built and set in order a memorial shrine to the blessed Peter where the bishops might be buried.'”
The “Liber Pontificalis” is not a book from the first through third centuries, but the existence of a memorial shrine to Peter gives weight to the statement that there was a first century Pope Anacletus.
Attempting to posit “all or nothing” positions is a well-known technique of propaganda and manipulation.
“…quite simply, if the Catholic Church’s claims about the papacy are true, then everyone should be a Catholic. If they’re not true, then nobody should be a Catholic.”
The Roman Catholic Church’s claims for the papacy are clearly not true, either historically or theologically. That has been known for many centuries.
Does that mean no one should be a member of that church? Nonsense, the Gospels are there for all to read and the apostles told us we should all do so. Christ told us that the Holy Spirit will “lead you into all truth”, not the Popes or some bureaucracy.
So, to know the truth, we must ask God for the gift of His Holy Spirit and since He knows EVERYTHING about us, He knows which of us and when we are worthy to receive some measure of His Spirit. If we want it enough to seek in humility and obedience, we will receive the measure that He ordains for us. I suspect that if we start out thinking we “know” all sorts of things or that we “know” what truth is, we won’t get very far with He who hates pride above every sin.
The innumerable worthy, righteous and saintly men, women and children who have lived and died since the Resurrection; are they not The Body of Christ? They are certainly not confined to any one church, any more than every member of any one church is one of them! The suggestion to the contrary is so puny, pathetic, legalistic and “human” that is unworthy of further comment.
James,
“Attempting to posit “all or nothing” positions is a well-known technique of propaganda and manipulation” = perhaps; similarly, well-known is that negating them is the staple of modern relativism.
“The Roman Catholic Church’s claims for the papacy are clearly not true, either historically or theologically. That has been known for many centuries” = interesting comments, and clearly groundless, historically and theologically (if I may keep on claiming in absolute terms, as you are).
“Does that mean no one should be a member of that church? Nonsense…” = actually, Joe’s argument makes perfect sense. If Matthew 16:18 is to be understood from the Catholic Church perspective, those outside of Her are not protected by Jesus’ promise that “the gates of Hades will not overcome it’, hence their teachings and conclusions are prone to errors. If the opposite is true, then Catholics are de facto following teachers that could be in error. Add centuries of compounding effect and, depending on the premise, one of the two groups is in jeopardy of losing their salvation (to say it mildly). There is no middle ground. One could say, with some foundation, that in terms of most distinctive doctrine Sola Scriptura is one step above the Papacy. Still, it must be one position or the other; both cannot coexist in truth.
“the Gospels are there for all to read and the apostles told us we should all do so…” = non sequitur. The point here is not to read Scriptures (whatever that means – without the Catholic Church, Scriptures would be extremely different that would we have now), but to correctly interpret them.
“I suspect that if we start out thinking we “know” all sorts of things or that we “know” what truth is, we won’t get very far with He who hates pride above every sin” = and, you know this for a fact, right? ;>)
Have a blessed weekend, brother.
Groundless? Even I, by no means a student of the history of Christianity, know that the Roman church is not the first, nor even the first founded by St. Peter!
The claimed “inheritance” of the keys is just a typical bureaucratic power-grab. Christ made no such provision and indeed gave the same authority to the other apostles, without any reference to such authority being inherited by anyone!
The very idea of the inheritance of such authority is a denial of the inhertently individual nature of salvation and a return to the “traditions”, legalism and tribalism of those Christ called “a generation of vipers”.
“The time is coming and now is, when neither at this place nor in Jerusalem shall men worship the Father, for God is spirit and He seeks those who will worship Him in spirit and in truth.” Rome exchanged for Jerusalem? Not much of a trade.
Remember those who were exorcising in Christ’s name and were forbidden by the Apostles? Christ in turn forbade them to forbid though “they followeth not after us” – your first “schism” right there, with divine approval too.
And since then what a monumental heap of traditions you have built; several flatly contradicting Christ’s injunctions. But no matter! The keys unlock everything in our favour. Supreme pontiff of heaven, the world and hades. etc. etc.!
“The church” is the body of Christ, the body of Christ is the body of believers. Who exactly is a believer is spelled out for us in Mark 16:17, isn’t it?
Neither the Popes nor Roman Catholicism own Christ, His Body, or the Holy Spirit, nor do they hold “the keys” to the Kingdom of Heaven. This is proven by the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit in countless non-Roman Catholics to this very day. If such believers are acceptable to Christ then who is a pope to deny they are part of the Body of Christ?
But such pretensions are like a drug to which men become addicted.
“There is but one mediator between God and man, the Man Christ Jesus”. Not the Pope, not RC priests, not the Virgin Mary, not the saints….but wait says Francis: “it is dangerous to think you can have a personal relationship with God…. Indeed, very dangerous to his position and all it is built on!
Oh, but we can change what the Apostles said, we can change what Christ said…we have our traditions… Keep them then, hang them around your necks, though I pray you do not.
“If Matthew 16:18 is to be understood from the Catholic Church perspective, those outside of Her are not protected by Jesus’ promise that “the gates of Hades will not overcome it’, hence their teachings and conclusions are prone to errors.”
Of course that has been the Roman Catholic view ever since pope whichever ordained it so to be etc. However, as the teachings of the Roman Church have for so long and in so many signal points, flatly contradicted Christ’s unmistakable scriptural injunctions, an impartial observer would rightly conclude either that the phrase “the gates of hell shall not overcome it” does not refer to the Roman Church, or to doctrinal error.
“I suspect that if we start out thinking we “know” all sorts of things or that we “know” what truth is, we won’t get very far with He who hates pride above every sin” = and, you know this for a fact, right? ;>)
“I suspect” should indicate to you that I am suggesting what I believe to be likely a fact, but as no man knows the mind of God, not even popes, I only assert what I believe to be likely true based on what can be clearly read in Scripture.
No one is being asked to pluck out and eye or cut of a member, though it worth thinking about that Christ, the Son of God said it would be preferable to do so than to be damned.
How much more ought a man to cut himself off from a mere body of men if they also threaten to drag him down to hell?
James, I think you need a copy of Joe’s book Pope Peter. It is a wonderfully researched book, and I think it would give you a better grasp of this ancient Christian teaching.
God bless you, brother
I just realized that I have met Dr. Jerry Walls back when he was teaching at Asbury Seminary. He is a very nice fellow. My wife worked with him to speak at several symposium for her campus ministry group in college.
All that aside, I am not a fan of ultimatums in relationships and zero-sum games because they induce us into an either/or logical fallacy. I prefer nuance and beautiful paradox. I appreciate your work in making a thoughtful argument for Pope Peter. (confession, I still need to read your book. Sorry!) Grace and Peace to you all!
Great site. Ordered your book, still waiting for it
Is this podcast still available ? The domain name seems to have disappeared.