Rome and Authority- In order rightly to understand the deep significance attached to the new translations one must consider the Ro man Catholic view of the importance of the patristic writings. Rome insists that the writings of the Apostolic Fathers “echo genuine Apostolic teachings." The writings of the other Fathers of the Church up to the eighth century are equally revered. According to one Cath olic source “the unanimous acceptance of a doctrine by the Fathers makes it an article of faith; the unanimous rejection brands it a heresy. The Church recog nizes the Fathers as her mouthpieces.”8 As early as the 2nd and 3rd centuries the office of the episcopate (bishop) was looked upon as the preserver of Apostolic truth. This truth included not only the sacred canon but also the unwritten teachings of the Apostles as handed down through the Fathers. Very soon the authority of the bishops was central ized in the Church Council. It was in cumbent upon all Christians to adhere strictly to the pronouncements of the Councils upon pain of excommunication! The basic doctrine of the authority of tradition was formulated by the Coun cil of Chalcedon (A. D. 451) which ruled that “the doctrine of Catholic teaching is, that the body of publicly revealed doctrine has received no objective in crease since the days of the Apostles,” and “It is no change of doctrine when that which has always been held im plicitly becomes the subject of an ex plicit declaration.”4 Durjng the Middle Ages, the author itarian trend moved in the direction of the Roman pope. From the seventh cen tury he was generally accepted in the West as the supreme earthly spokesman for God. In a papal bull published Nov ember 18, 1302, Pope Boniface VIII proclaimed: “We declare, say, define and pronounce that it is essential to salva tion that every human creature subject himself to the Roman pontiff.”5 Thus the authority of the Roman Catholic Church rests upon the tradi tions of the Church passed from the Apostles to the Apostolic Fathers, from the Apostolic Fathers to their successors and the councils, and hence to the pope! Roots of Romanism in the Fathers It is true that the Fathers of the Church concurred in many of the doc trines that are peculiarly Roman Cath olic. We cannot deal with every vestige of Roman doctrine, but rather we single out one representative development, namely, that of the papal theory. When the New Testament was com pleted with the writings of the Apostle John (ca. A. D. 95) three permanent offices were recognized, viz., the elder, the deacon and the deaconess. Some fifty years later, a new office had arisen in the form of the episcopate. The devel opment of the office of the bishop may
for the character of American. society. Until such unity appears, the answer to the question, Can Catholicism Win America? is— Yes.” The reasons are not obscure for the increasing numerical and cultural gains of Romanism. For one thing there, seems to be an emergence of a new apprecia tion of the ancient and the medieval. During the preceding century this move ment on the Continent and the British Isles led to an idealizing of the cor porate Church. This trend in turn pre cipitated the exodus of scores of Angli can clergy out of the Establishment into Romanism. The most famous of these “deserters” was John Henry Newman, leader of the movement, who was later made a Cardinal in the Roman Church. The contemporary development of the back-to-beginnings trend is not difficult to understand. In times of stress and strain, of change and decay, it is natural that thinking men should long for per manence. The Roman Catholic Church with its claim of historicity and un broken continuity through the ages seems to offer the only concrete evidence of such permanence. Again, this is a totalitarian age. That the totalitarian philosophy of life is gaining rapid momentum, no observant person will deny. In this environment Romanism is at home. The modern ex pression of the totalitarian view of Rome is found in the Ultramontanist move ment of the latter half of the nineteenth century. The chief end behind this move ment, sparked by the Society of Jesus, was the establishment of the supremacy of the pope in all religious and moral matters. The climax came in 1870 when the Vatican Council decreed the doctrine of papal infallibility. 4 This is also a confused age. Amidst the babel of confusing voices in the moral and religious world, the Roman Church speaks with a tone of authority and a voice of conviction. The situation is very much different in modern Prot estantism. The seeker for spiritual sta bility coming to present-day Protestant ism may hear almost as many dis cordant interpretations of the Bible and life as there are churches in which to hear them. He either has his embryonic faith shattered by the disbelief of some, or he has his mind confused by the vari ations of others. In modern Romanism, however, the seeker will hear the same message in e v e r y Catholic Church whether it be in Los Angeles, Denver, or New York City. Thus the present general situation seems readily to lend itself to a twenti eth century Ultramontanism. The new translations of The Fathers of the Church will play ho small part in such a move ment.
be traced in the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (martyred about A. D. 117), in his letter to the Church of Tralles, writes: “ For since ye are subject to the bishop as Jesus Christ, ye appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but ac cording to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order that by believing in His death ye may escape death. It is therefore necessary that just as ye indeed do, so without the bishop ye should do nothing, but should also be subject to the pres bytery, as to the Apostles of Jesus Christ . . . In like manner, let all rev erence the deacon as Jesus Christ, as also the bishop, who is the type of the Father, and the presbyters as the san hedrin of God and the assembly of the Apostles. Apart from these there is no Church.”6 (italics mine.) In another place Ignatius states: “ See that ye follow the bishop as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the pres byters as he would the Apostles; and reverence the deacons as a command ment of God. Without the bishop let no one do any of those things connected with the Church. Let that be deemed a proper eucharist which is administered either by the bishop or by him to whom he has intrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear there let also the multitude be, even as wherever Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to make an agape. But what soever he shall approve that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.”7 The “bishop” to whom Ignatius refers is the pastor of the local church. Thus the development of church organization by the first quarter of the second cen tury included the monarchical episcopate. The rule of the local church had passed from the New Testament type, viz., rule by a group of representative elders chosen by the congregation, to the spirit ual domination of a single bishop. During the Post-Nicene period (A. D. 325-590) the tendency toward hierarchy moved forward. The bishop of the larg est church in a metropolitan area as sumed the power of the local bishops in rural areas. By A.D. 325 the Metropoli tan Bishop exercised oversight in the ordination and placement of all bishops in his area. A further development took place by the middle of the fifth century with the recognition of the Patriarch who was the chief bishop in one of the five major ecclesiastical centers in the Empire, namely, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch (Syria), Constantinople and Rome. The tendency in the Church, especially in the West, had been to regard with special veneration the bishop at Rome. Before the close of the second century Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, taught that (Continued on Page 28) T H E K I N G ' S B U S I N E S S
Page Ten
Made with FlippingBook - Online catalogs