The Bishops of History and the Catholic Faith: a Reply to Brandon Addison Bryan Cross
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Bishops of History and the Catholic Faith: A Reply To Brandon Addison www.calledtocommunion.com Bryan Cross On March 24 of this year we posted a guest article by Brandon Addison titled “ The Quest for the Historical Church: A Protestant Assessment .” We had invited Brandon some months earlier to write an essay for Called To Communion on the topic of his choice, and we are very grateful for his generosity, trust, and yeoman work in putting together such a thorough essay. Brandon’s essay is one of the first posts we have published written from a Protestant perspective, and we hope it leads to further, ever-more fruitful exchanges of this sort. Why did we invite Brandon to contribute an essay? Brandon stood out to us among many other Protestant interlocutors for a number of reasons, the most important of which was his consistently gracious and respectful manner of dialogue, his sincere engagement in the effort to improve mutual understanding and overcome what still divides us, and his experience and training within the Reformed tradition. We believe strongly that a deep commitment to charity and respect is an absolutely essential precondition for authentic dialogue. And we recognized that Brandon shares that commitment. So even though we disagree with him on some major points, and he with us, nevertheless we believe that building on our shared commitment to charity, respect, and a recognition and appreciation of the significant common ground we share, with an open exchange of ideas, evidence, and argumentation can be a way forward to better mutual understanding and hopefully, eventually, a resolution of those obstacles that still divide us. Our response below is co-authored by Barrett Turner, Ray Stamper, and myself. 1 1 Apse mosaic, Santa Pudenziana, Rome Outline I. A Short Summary of Brandon’s Essay and Argument A. A Summary of the Nine Sections of the Essay B. A Summary of the Argument in the Essay II. Evaluation A. Evaluation of Brandon’s Argument 1. Evaluation of major premise 2. Evaluation of minor premise B. Examination of the Evidence 1. Preliminary Principles a. Inscrutable Likelihood Differential (ILD) b. Conditions for silence to carry evidential weight c. Positive evidence in relation to silence d. Proximate evidence informs underdetermined evidence 2. Canonical evidence a. Acts b. Pastorals c. Catholic Epistles 3. Extra-Canonical evidence 2 a. 1 Clement b. St. Ignatius of Antioch c. St. Polycarp of Smyrna d. Shepherd of Hermas e. St. Justin Martyr 4. Hegesippus and Irenaeus a. St. Hegesippus b. St. Irenaeus (1.) Brandon’s two mistakes (2.) Selective arguments from silence (3.) St. Irenaeus’s two ‘mistakes’ (4.) Differences in the successions lists of the bishops in Rome (5.) The testimony of St. Irenaeus’s arguments (6.) False dilemmas (7.) Evidence in St. Irenaeus’s account of the Gnostics (8.) Which: the Petrine pattern or massive rejection of the patristics? (9.) Evidence in St. Irenaeus’s own history 5. Fractionation a. Why fractionation is not evidence of the non-existence of the episcopacy b. Fractionation as diocesan parishes: an alternative perspective 6. Evaluative Summary a. Summary of evaluation of Brandon’s argument b. The Original Challenge c. Apostolic Succession Not Refuted III. Resolution: Continuity and Paradigms A. Documentary Witness of the Early Church Concerning the Episcopate 1. Brief introduction to the documentary witness 2. Presentation of the documentary witness a. Proximate Evidence for the Apostolic Origins of the Episcopate (1.) First Century (2.) Second Century (3.) Third and Fourth Centuries b. Proximate Evidence for the Existence and Authority of the Petrine Succession (1.) First Century (2.) Second Century (3.) Third Century (4.) Fourth Century (5.) Fifth Century (6.) Sixth Century 3. The Documentary Witness of the Early Church and the Principle of Proximate Evidence a. The Proximate Witness of the Early Church and the New Testament b. The Principle of Proximate Evidence and the Evaluation of Paradigms B. Two Paradigms 1. Deconstructing the Fathers 2. A Silent Ecclesial Revolution? 3. Where did the Church Christ Founded go for a Thousand Years? C. Three Objections IV. Conclusion 3 I. A Short Summary of Brandon’s Essay and Argument A. A Summary of the nine sections of his essay In his post titled “ The Quest for the Historical Church: A Protestant Assessment ,” Brandon sets out to refute the claim that Jesus founded the [Roman] Catholic Church. His post consists of nine sections. In his first section he presents his thesis and offers some thoughts about the burden of proof, methodology, what prompted him to write this article, the argument from silence, and why scholars cannot be dismissed on account of their beliefs about other matters. His second section discusses the Protestant and Catholic interpretive paradigms. Here Brandon argues from the acceptance by a number of Catholic scholars of the “fractionation” of early “Roman Christianity” to the conclusion that this interpretation of the historical data is not a result of the Protestant interpretive paradigm. In his third section Brandon examines the evidence from Scripture, and argues that the terms πρεσβύτεροι (elders/presbyters) and ἐπισκόποι (overseers/bishops) were used interchangeably, that the apostolic practice was to establish a plurality of presbyters in each particular church, that the Jerusalem council included presbyters, and that even if there was a difference between bishops and presbyters, leadership in each of the churches was under the direction of “multiple individuals,” including the Church in Rome, where even St. Peter referred to himself as a fellow presbyter. The fourth section of Brandon’s article examines some patristic data from the first and second centuries. Here Brandon argues that in St. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians the terms ‘bishop’ and ‘presbyter’ are used interchangeably, that St. Ignatius’s distinction between bishop and presbyter was not universal at that time, that St. Polycarp refers to presbyters present with himself in the leadership of the church at Smyrna, and does not mention a bishop in his letter, and that St. Ignatius, Hermas, and St. Justin Martyr do not mention a bishop at Rome. In the fifth section of his essay, Brandon examines the episcopal lists from Sts. Hegesippus and Irenaeus, and argues that their lists are not reliable. In his sixth section Brandon argues “that the city of Rome was fractionated in the first and second century,” and thus that “Roman Christianity was not centralized and the entire Roman Church was not ruled over by a monarchical bishop.” In his seventh section Brandon examines the argumentation of some scholars who dissent from the ‘fractionation’ thesis, and concludes that “modern scholarship … agrees that the existence of a monarchical episcopate developed in the second century” and that “churches, and the church in Rome in particular, were governed by presbyterial authority.” In his eighth section, Brandon considers some objections, and lays out some implications, particularly that “the failure to substantiate the claim that Jesus did found the Roman Catholic Church undermines the apologetic attempts at showing the Roman Catholic epistemological advantage over Protestants.” Finally, in his ninth section Brandon presents his conclusion. B. A Summary of the argument in his post The argument in Brandon’s essay is aimed ultimately at showing that Christ did not found the [Roman] Catholic Church, as Brandon states at the beginning of his first section where he points out that his goal is “refuting the claim that Jesus founded the RCC.” He reasons to that conclusion from two key premises, the first premise stating an alleged necessary condition for the Catholic Church to be the Church Christ founded, and the second premise stating that this necessary condition is not satisfied. In essence, Brandon’s argument looks like this: (1) In order for Jesus to have founded the [Roman] Catholic Church, the monepiscopate in Rome would have had to originate with the Apostle Peter, and thus would have had to be present in Rome when Peter died and in the years immediately after Peter’s death. (2) The monepiscopate in Rome gradually emerged in the middle to late second century, and did not originate with the Apostle Peter. 2 Therefore, 4 (3) Jesus did not found the [Roman] Catholic Church. Before evaluating the argument, it may be helpful to explain here at least what motivates the first premise of Brandon’s argument. In Comment #11 following his essay Brandon writes: The many Catholic authors I’ve cited remain committed to the Pope because they believe the Petrine office providentially developed even though it was not established by Jesus. Those who hold such a position are not the object of criticism in this essay. Brandon believes that it is possible to be a faithful Catholic and simultaneously to believe that the Petrine office was not established by Jesus, but only providentially came into existence at some later time, and to believe that the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ founded. Brandon’s first premise, then, is not aimed at opposing such a position, but instead is aimed at the position of those who claim that the Petrine office was established by Christ, and that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ founded. But these beliefs are not optional for Catholics. It is de fide that Christ appointed St. Peter to be the prince of all the apostles, and visible head of the whole Church militant, and that Christ gave to him primacy of jurisdiction. As the First Vatican Council declares: If anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole Church militant; or that it was a primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema.