When I write about Roman Catholicism I never fail to make some Roman Catholics angry; sometimes very angry. I am accused regularly of being angry and bitter and of being on a vendetta against "the church."
I am neither angry nor bitter.
The point, however, is that when a Catholic writes to me, he or she is always—I can't think of a single exception—telling me either that church history and the Bible require me to acknowledge that the RCC is the one true church or that I am evil because I have written honest responses to this claim.
In other words, without exception, every time a Roman Catholic has written me, it has been as part of an attempt to claim every Christian needs to be under the authority of the bishop of Rome.
I think such a claim needs to be examined and, if false, refuted publicly and vehemently.
Don't get me wrong. Protestants are woefully ignorant of church history, and non-Catholics are every bit as likely to be clinging to unscriptural tradition as Catholics are.
Early Christian history could deliver us from a lot of these traditions and teach us much about the apostles' understanding of "the faith."
Few people, however, like having their traditions challenged.
Because we're ignorant of early Christian history—something that was not true of Martin Luther and John Calvin—we have been deceived into believing that Catholic claims about "the church fathers" are true.
The RCC does study and promote early Christian history. Non-Catholics, not knowing history themselves, believe Roman Catholic claims, such as that the "early" fathers worshipped liturgically, elevated the sacraments the way Roman Catholicism does, and had a hierarchy of priests, bishops, archbishops, and a pope.
These claims are not true, and contrary to the accusation of the Catholics who write me, I don't say that out of bitterness. The claims are just not true. For example ...
Perhaps the most quoted early father in defense of a pope in the early churches was Cyprian, the head pastor of the church in Carthage. Yet, when Stephen, bishop of Rome, made a claim that he was a bishop over other bishops, Cyprian called a council of 87 north African bishops specifically to deny his claim. RCC authors neglect to tell you that Cyprian believed all bishops were the successor of Peter together, representing one united "episcopal throne" (On the Unity of the Church 4-5). Instead, they quote his comments about Peter as though he meant the bishop of Rome.
Cyprian was overseer ["bishop" in Greek, episkopos, literally means overseer or supervisor] of Carthage from A.D. 249 to 258. He belongs to a period 200 years after the apostles, and he was one of the first to refer to elders as priests (which may have as much to do with his writing in Latin as with his theology). But to him, and to all the bishops of north Africa, there was no pope, not even 200 years after the apostles.
It's worse for the Roman Catholic case earlier in Christian history, but I'll leave that for pages devoted to that subject.
The Scriptures and earliest Christian history know of churches, not a church marked by an extra-local hierarchy and a worldwide organization. Those churches were united, cooperative and "catholic," but they did not have an organization over them. This is why in A.D. 210, 150 years after the apostles, Tertullian was able to say:
Tertullian could not have said this if a hierarchy existed that could dictate doctrine to all the churches. If such a hierarchy, or a pope, existed, then "so many" and "so great" churches could easily have gone astray into one and the same erroneous faith. Tertullian said that "so many" (and "so great") churches could not have gone into error. If all those churches got their doctrine from one church, the church in Rome, or from one man, the bishop of Rome, then they all would go into error if the one church or one man went into error.
It's important to distinguish between the centuries of the early church when it comes to Roman Catholicism. The authority of the most important bishops increased rapidly in the early churches. At the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 (the fourth century), the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were given authority over very large geographical areas, though the exact area is only specified in the case of the bishop of Alexandria (Council of Nicea, Canon 6). During that period, the emperor Constantine led a majority of the Roman population into the church. Large churches consisting of vast majorities of the citizenry meant that the importance of the clergy increased greatly. Government involvement in the church, as well as the battle over the Arian Controversy, led to increasing organization between the churches of the empire.
The second century shows no such organization. In the second century, head pastors objected to being told what to do by other head pastors. In fact, that complaint carries on into the third and somewhat into the fourth centuries. Metropolitans existed in the third century. Those were bishops of larger cities who had oversight over surrounding towns. However, every time a bishop of Rome, or Alexandria, or Nicomedia tried to force another bishop to submit, the attempt to rule was denied.
It is not until the sixth century, due to complicated political reasons, that a Roman bishop ever exercised what we know as papal power.
Amazingly, the best and clearest explanation of those politics and why there was no pope until the sixth century is given by a Roman Catholic Ph.D., Brendon McGuire, on a Roman Catholic web site, in a free, downloadable history lesson! He states quite clearly in the question and answer section that the eastern churches have never, not at any time in history, acknowledged the authority of the bishop of Rome. The doctrine of the papacy has always been a doctrine of the Roman bishop only!
We have looked at the claims of the Roman Catholics that the papacy goes back to the apostles, and it's covered much more thoroughly in the links below, but Jesus said to judge by fruit. A tree that produces good fruit is good, and a tree that produces bad fruit is a bad tree.
In the case of Roman Catholicism, we have centuries of fruit to examine. For centuries, virtually everyone in Europe embraced the claims of the RCC and the pope. What was the result?
The result was that a period of history that we know as "The Dark Ages." The corruption was so bad that Philip Schaff tells us that when Pope Leo IX tried to reform the priesthood in A.D. 1049, they found that enforcing their reforms "would well-nigh deprive the churches, especially those of Rome, of their shepherds" (History of the Christian Church, vol. V, p. 13).
Those reforms were directed against "simony," the purchase of the position of priest or bishop, and against priests keeping a "housekeeper," who was really a wife that the priest could not admit he had. Thus, Schaff is telling us that almost every priest in the eleventh century, especially those in Rome, had purchased his position with money and kept a concubine!
Such corruption is hardly unknown to the public. We all know it, the RCC does not deny it, and much more corruption is documented in the history found in the links below. Nonetheless, what I have written below is a tiny percentage of what really happened.
During the Middle Ages, the RCC kept the Scriptures away from commoners, claiming that they could not understand them and that the people should rely upon the Church to interpret the Scriptures for them. Worse, when education began to increase and the people stopped meekly submitting to the tyrrany of the pope, the RCC began putting to death those that dared to translate the Scriptures into the vernacular, the language of the people. William Tyndale is one such example, but John Wycliffe is a worse one. The rage of the "Church" was so great that they dug his body up long after he was dead and burned his bones!
Protestants, too, have been guilty of persecuting their enemies. John Calvin himself and Martin Luther's friend, Philip Melancthon, were directly involved in directing the secular government in torturing or killing their opponents.
But the Lutheran and Reformed (Calvinist) Churches don't claim to be the one true church, nor demand that every Christian submit to their "magisterium," the officers of their organization.
The Roman Catholic Church does.
There's a reason that Jesus said to judge by fruit. Follow a prophet if you want to be like him. Follow Jesus because you want to be like him. If you listen to a teacher or prophet, you will become like that teacher or prophet.
We have seen what happens when people listen to the demands of Roman Catholicism. The result is known to us as "The Dark Ages," and it involves gross ignorance, superstition, an orchestrated famine of the Word of God, extreme corruption among leaders, tyranny, and extreme punishment (reference and reference) for rebelling against the tyrants.
If that is what you consider good fruit, then make the tree good. Call Roman Catholicism good. If that is what you consider to be bad fruit, then make the tree bad. Call Roman Catholicism bad.
Roman Catholicism Historical Items
Various Subjects and Doctrines
My Arguments Against Roman Catholicism as the One True Church
Popes and Stories About Popes
Google Search Privacy Statement
Christian-history.org does not receive any personally identifiable information from the Google search bar below. Google does run ads on the result page, which are the only ads on our site. If you click on those ads, we get a small commission, but we do not get any identifiable information.