The Diving Board, Episode 7

And this is very significant. Not one, not even one of those Eastern bishops disputed or questioned the

Pope's authority. I mean, the

Eucharistic, let's just say this, the Eucharistic abuses are abuses to Jesus' DNA, his body and blood.

As I continued to study my early church father, older brothers and sisters, I started to realize that God had a plan for me that was bigger than any plan that I'd ever had for myself.

And before you know it, it turned to the Catholic Church. When I made that decision to become

Catholic, everything began to fit. It was like a puzzle with the four sides that I put together with the papacy and the

Blessed Mother and tradition in the Eucharist. Let's say there's a person watching this program right now from where you were.

Why should they make the same journey home that you make? I would say investigate the history for yourself because the famous line from Cardinal Newman is to be deep in history is to cease to be

Protestant. And that's pretty much what happened to me. So I would say take the Catholic Church's claims, investigate them.

And as my father always told me, go wherever Jesus leads you and maybe it would end up in the

Catholic Church. Okay, we are back with a new episode of The Diving Board where we dive deep into history.

The Diving Board podcast focuses on the conversion testimonies of Protestants who convert to Roman Catholicism.

In particular, we focus on the arguments of Protestants who fell for the famous dictum of erstwhile Protestant -turned -Roman

Catholic Cardinal Newman, who once wrote, to be deep in history is to cease to be a

Protestant. What we find in so many Protestant conversion stories is that they believe they had become so deep in history that they couldn't be

Protestant anymore. But as we have shown and will continue to show, so many Protestants who convert to Rome thinking that they too are deep in history are actually only ankle -deep and indeed so shallow in history that they do not even know that they're only ankle -deep.

In fact, for Roman Catholics, ankle -deep in the first four centuries is as far as they dare venture, because to go deeper than that is to discover the soft white underbelly of Roman Catholicism.

There is no evidence of its existence until the latter half of the fourth century. Getting deep in history is therefore something a

Roman Catholic cannot do, because Roman Catholicism itself is a grotesque aberration of the

Church of Christ, a novelty 300 years removed from the Church of the Apostles and their followers.

In our previous episode, after revisiting some of Roman Catholic apologist

Taylor Marshall's follow -up arguments on communion on the tongue in the early Church, we picked up on our latest

Protestant conversion testimony with Marcus Grodi, host of the Journey Home show on the Coming Home Network, a

Roman Catholic ministry that focuses on the return of errant Protestants to Roman Catholicism. Marcus Grodi provides citations from the early

Church Fathers that influenced his decision to return to Rome. He provided his citations in four main categories, the

Church hierarchy, the Eucharist, that is, the Lord's Supper and the Roman Catholic sacrifice of the

Mass, the primacy of Rome, and the unity of the Church. And we only had time to get started with the first category as we worked through his citation of Clement of Rome and his first century letter to the

Church at Corinth, in which Clement refers to the office of bishop. This week we will only have enough time to complete that first topic, as we pick up with Marcus Grodi's citations from Ignatius of Antioch and from Irenaeus of Lyons.

And next week we'll pick up with the topic of the Eucharist, in which Marcus Grodi explains that he converted to Roman Catholicism because the early

Church believed in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. We'll probably have to spend a whole episode on that, and we'll probably end up with four complete episodes on Marcus Grodi alone.

Okay, let's pick up where we left off last time, which is with Marcus Grodi's citation from Ignatius of Antioch early in the second century.

Let's go to another quote, St. Ignatius of Antioch. Read a little bio about St.

Ignatius. He was born in Syria around A .D. 50. In other words, he was born just about 20 years after or so after the death and resurrection of Jesus.

He died at Rome a martyr between 98 and 117. It's very likely that St. Ignatius may have bumped into Clement when he was possibly traveling to Rome to be martyred.

It is with great probability that with his friend St. Polycarp, St. Ignatius was a close acquaintance of the apostle

St. John. And if we include St. Peter, Ignatius was the third bishop of Antioch. The first quote we had was

St. Clement of Rome over in Italy, and then now we have St. Ignatius of Antioch way over by the

Promised Land north of Jerusalem. Read his quote, Letter to the

Smyrnians. He wrote a number of letters to churches on his way to his martyrdom. He said, Now, as far as we know, this is the earliest reference to the

Catholic Church, the universal church, that there is one church established by Christ, that has a hierarchy, as it referenced here, of bishops and presbyters.

The word presbyter would become priest. It's those that help the bishops. And it says the necessity of following the bishop, not your own interpretation, not some popular man you see on TV, but you follow those who have received this appointment from the apostles and their successors.

Okay, one of the points I made in the previous episode was that the apostles did not commend their sheep to the system of apostolic succession, but rather to the infallible guide of the scriptures.

The apostles knew very well that a system of apostolic succession was no guarantee of orthodoxy, for some of the very men they ordained became ungodly bishops, as demonstrated by Diotrephes in 3

John 9. And Paul warned the presbyters of Ephesus that even though they were the bishops

God had placed over the flock, according to Acts 20 .28, men of your own selves shall arise speaking perverse things.

That is Acts 20 verse 30. That is a pretty dire warning directed to the bishops themselves. And yet, here we are just one generation after the apostles, and it sounds like Ignatius is absolutely on fire for the hierarchy of the bishops, as if the bishops, presbyters, and deacons were the only infallible bulwark of truth.

Roman Catholic apologists like Marcus Grodi use Ignatius' words frequently to show the early origins of Roman Catholicism.

Here is another Roman Catholic apologist, Matthew Leonard, appealing to some of Ignatius' letters to make the same point.

Have you ever been kicked by someone? I mean punted like a football. I have. It wasn't physically.

But I was basically drop -kicked by St. Ignatius of Antioch into the Catholic Church. Perhaps you've heard a famous quote by Blessed John Henry Newman, The fathers made me

Catholic. Well, in many ways I can say the same. But if I was going to point to one of them, it would be this guy.

Before becoming Catholic, I remember reading the famous letters that he wrote to Christians in different cities on the final journey of his life as he headed to Rome to be martyred.

He was so revered that his caravan actually became a pilgrimage destination for Christians who came to hear him preach.

But the letters themselves have led to a caravan of people becoming Catholic. What first stunned me when

I read them was the fact that this guy talked about a church, not different denominations. In fact, in his letter to the

Smyrnaeans, he actually calls it the Catholic Church. It's the earliest surviving record we have of the term.

Don't forget, we're not talking about hundreds of years after Christ. According to one of his earliest biographers, Ignatius of Antioch was a disciple of the

Apostle John. And for Ignatius, the Catholic Church was obviously a visible church with the successors of the

Apostles leading the faithful. Echoing the high priestly prayer of Christ in John 17, he declares that we should allow nothing whatever to exist among you that could give rise to divisions, in the same way as the

Lord was wholly one with the Father and never acted independently of him, either in person or through the

Apostles. So you yourselves must never act independently of your bishop and clergy.

Wow! Never, ever, ever act independently of your bishop or the clergy, folks.

It must be time to put on our swimming trunks and swim the Tiber. You heard Ignatius. Let's nail some theses to the front door of Westminster Abbey and kiss the ring of the first bishop we can come across.

Because Ignatius of Antioch says we should never act independently of the bishop or of the clergy.

Well, I'm being so facetious about this nonsense, not because I do not agree with what Ignatius said.

I actually do agree with Ignatius, but only in the context of Ignatius' words. Roman Catholic apologists have displayed their grotesque ignorance of history by citing

Ignatius as if it was evidence of an unwavering trust in the clergy in the early church.

We'll come back to that in a minute because the context is very simple and makes perfect sense. Lacking that context, however, many unfortunate souls have assumed that the early church trusted the hierarchy above the scriptures and trusted the clergy to preserve the gospel.

In any case, I am being so deliberately facetious here because there is not a soul in history who actually believes it the way

Roman Catholics preach it, not even Roman Catholics, and not even Ignatius of Antioch.

If we are to accept the Roman Catholic reading of Ignatius, we really have to reject Ignatius outright, because what he said does not make a lick of sense to anyone in history.

Even Roman Catholics don't believe Ignatius' words the way they are quoted to us. Ignatius' words are just a throwaway line that Roman Catholics use to browbeat

Protestants while they themselves discard Ignatius' admonitions the moment they disagree with their own bishops and clergy.

And that just means that apart from context, Ignatius' words have no meaning at all. Nobody in the early church believed

Ignatius' words the way Roman Catholic apologists quote them, not even Ignatius of Antioch.

What I am going to do now is show that the early church did not believe what Roman Catholics claim, and Roman Catholics don't even believe it.

Today we are going to find out what Ignatius really meant by his words, and to do that we are going to have to get on the diving board and get deep into history.

Let's start with the early church, and what better place to start than Ignatius of Antioch himself.

Let me cite from his letters so our listeners can get the sense of his words. In his letter to the

Ephesians, chapter 6, it is manifest, therefore, that we should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the

Lord himself. To the Magnesians, chapter 6, Your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ.

To the Trallians, chapter 3, In like manner let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the son of the

Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles.

Apart from these there is no church. To the Philadelphians, in the greeting, To the church which is at Philadelphia in Asia, which

I salute in the blood of Jesus Christ, especially if men are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters, and the deacons, who have been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ.

To the Philadelphians, chapter 7, For when I was among you I cried, I spoke with a loud voice,

Give heed to the bishop and to the presbytery and deacons. To the Smyrnaeans, chapter 8,

See that you all follow the bishop even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles, and reverence the deacons as being the institution of God.

Let no man do anything connected with the church without the bishop. And continuing,

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. And again in the letter to the Smyrnaeans, chapter 9, It is well to reverence both

God and the bishop. He who honors the bishop has been honored by God. He who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop does, in reality, serve the devil.

And finally, in his letter to Polycarp, paragraphs 5 and 6, If someone begins to boast, he is undone, and if he reckoned himself greater than the bishop, he is ruined.

Give heed to the bishop, that God may also give heed to you. My soul be for theirs that are submissive to the bishop, to the presbyters and to the deacons, and may my portion be along with them in God.

Okay, there's more than this, but I wanted to give the listeners the flavor of Ignatius. So let's all be submissive to the bishop, reverence the deacons as the institution of God, and the presbytery as the apostles.

Got it? We all better become Roman Catholics, because Ignatius says submit to the bishop as to Jesus Christ.

And Ignatius probably knew the apostles. Wow, this whole podcast is a complete waste, because Ignatius said we should be like Roman Catholics.

Again, I'm being facetious here, because Roman Catholics take Ignatius' words completely out of their context.

And the Roman Catholics who use them have no idea the context in which Ignatius actually stated them.

Now let's find out if anyone in church history actually believed what it sounds like Ignatius was saying.

And let's start with Ignatius himself. In his letter to the Romans, he acknowledges that he left the church in Antioch without a bishop.

Now citing from, to the Romans, chapter 9 from Ignatius of Antioch. Remember in your prayers the church in Syria, which now has

God for its shepherd instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love will also regard it.

That's Ignatius to the Romans, chapter 9. Now, listen to what he said.

He has left his church in Syria, and it has no shepherd except God, and Jesus Christ is now the bishop there.

Remember what Ignatius said? Let no man do anything connected with the church without the bishop?

And yet he left his own congregation without a bishop when he departed, leaving his congregation in the hands of Christ, without an earthly bishop.

And remember, Ignatius knew why he was leaving and being arrested. He knew why he was going to Rome, and he enjoyed great liberty of conscience and communication as he traveled there.

And that means he could have appointed a bishop in his place, or the congregation could have elected one, but did not.

If we were to take Ignatius' words the way Roman Catholics use them, Ignatius never would have left

Antioch without ordaining a man in his place, or insisting that the congregation elect one. After all, it was

Ignatius who said, Let no man do anything connected with the church without the bishop. And yet he left

Antioch without a bishop. It was also Ignatius who said, He who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop does, in reality, serve the devil.

And yet he left Antioch without a bishop. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love feast.

And yet he left Antioch without a bishop. If you can't baptize, or celebrate an agape meal, or do anything connected with the church without the knowledge of the bishop, can we honestly say that the church at Antioch could even continue to exist when

Ignatius left? And yet Ignatius left Antioch without a bishop. The church at Antioch must have simply evaporated into thin air when the bishop left.

Of course, I'm being facetious, and we know that's not true, because Ignatius himself wrote to Polycarp while he was en route to Rome, informing him that the church which is at Antioch is at peace without its bishop, and implored other churches to visit

Antioch and encourage the saints there, even though they didn't have a bishop. Well, how about that?

The church at Antioch was doing just fine, even though its only bishop was

Jesus Christ. My point here is simply that we understand well enough what Ignatius said about the clergy.

The question is, did he mean it the way Roman Catholics quote him? Of course he did not, or he never would have left

Antioch without appointing a bishop in his place. And remember, having Jesus Christ as your bishop doesn't count in this case, because in Roman Catholicism, you're not allowed to have

Jesus Christ as your bishop. You have to have an earthly bishop. Otherwise Roman Catholics would be just fine with Protestants, assuming that Christ is the bishop of their church.

Okay, so let's turn the page in history and see if anyone else in history agreed that you have to submit to the bishop as if he was

Jesus Christ. And remember, Roman Catholics think that Ignatius' words mean that we can't do anything apart from the bishop of Rome.

So let's take a look. We're going to cover this in rapid succession, and anyone who wants to check a little bit deeper into history can go to episode 5 of The Diving Board, where we cover this in a lot more detail.

First, Polycarp, Ignatius' contemporary in the early 2nd century, clearly didn't believe we had to be in union with the bishop of Rome, since we are told that he disagreed with Bishop Anicetus of Rome on how to celebrate the

Lord's Supper. And Anicetus was unable to 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. That's from Eusebius, Church History, Book 5,

Chapter 24, Paragraphs 16 -17. Wow. Ignatius said,

Take heed then to have but one Eucharist, for there is one altar, as there is one bishop, in his letter to the

Philadelphians, Chapter 4. And yet here is Polycarp, only a few years later, refusing to celebrate the

Lord's Supper the way the bishop of Rome says so. I guess Polycarp did not believe that we have to do nothing without the knowledge of the bishop.

Or what about Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus? He had a similar disagreement with Victor, bishop of Rome, and said he was going to celebrate

Passover the way he had learned from Polycarp, and Pope Victor had no authority in Asia Minor.

That's from Eusebius, Church History, Book 5, Chapter 24, Paragraphs 10 -11. I guess

Polycrates did not believe that we have to do nothing without the knowledge of the bishop. And Hippolytus, a bishop in the

Roman suburbs, disagreed with and often had to correct the heresies being taught by Zephyrinus and Callistus, successive bishops of Rome.

That's from Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book 9, Chapter 2. I guess

Hippolytus did not believe that we have to do nothing without the knowledge of the bishop. And in the next century, we cannot forget

Familian of Caesarea, who wrote to Cyprian of Carthage to complain that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles.

That's Cyprian of Carthage, Letter 74, from Familian. I guess

Familian of Caesarea did not believe that we have to do nothing without the knowledge of the bishop. And speaking of Cyprian of Carthage, recall that he not only disagreed with Stephen, bishop of Rome, but also applauded the actions of a

Spanish congregation for refusing two bishops of whom Stephen had approved. That's Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 67,

Paragraph 9. And he also implored the congregation of Assure not to follow their bishop because he was in error.

That's Cyprian, Letter 63, Paragraph 4. I guess Cyprian did not believe you should do nothing apart from the bishop.

Right? And don't forget Cyprian's stinging condemnation of Stephen of Rome for his error on the matter of heretical baptisms.

Cyprian accused Stephen of maintaining the cause of heretics against Christians. That's Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73,

Paragraph 1. And that he had compromised the unity of the church, Paragraph 8. So much for wherever the bishop is, there is the

Catholic Church. Or what of Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria, who wrote that two successive bishops of Rome, Stephen and Sixtus, had taught erroneously about baptism, contrary to what we have received from the apostles.

That's from Dionysius' letters to those two bishops in the 3rd century. I guess Dionysius did not agree that you should do nothing without the knowledge of the bishop.

Or what about the congregation at Antioch, who had cast off their bishop, Paul of Samosata, after it was determined that he has departed from the rule of faith and has turned aside after base and spurious teachings.

That's Eusebius, Church History, Book 7, Chapter 30, Paragraphs 7 and 17.

Wow, I guess the congregation at Antioch did not agree that wherever the bishop is, there is the

Catholic Church. We could go on and on about how the early church felt about bishops, and show that bishops were occasionally dismissed by their own congregations, those congregations were applauded for their discernment, that Roman bishops were disregarded, corrected and even ridiculed, and their obstinacy and presumption was called out for what it was.

The fact is the early churches respected their bishops, but they did not treat their bishops as if they were

Jesus Christ himself, and certainly did not believe they were infallible guides on doctrine, or even that apostolic succession was a guarantee of orthodoxy.

There was no sense that wherever the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church, at least not in the sense that modern

Roman Catholic apologists would have us believe about the words of Ignatius of Antioch. And certainly there was no sense that the

Roman bishop occupied a prominent or indispensable role in the church hierarchy. But there is at least one more example we want to give, and that is the congregation of Rome itself.

It is the middle of the 3rd century and the congregation at Rome is facing a controversy about what they are to do regarding the lapsed, that is, those who had succumbed under persecution and had sacrificed to idols, but now wanted to repent and stay in the church.

It was a significant controversy affecting not only the congregation in Rome, but congregations in Asia and Africa as well.

How were they to handle this issue? If they were too lenient, the lapsed might not truly repent.

But if they were too harsh, the truly repentant might not be reconciled. It was a difficult puzzle to solve and it took a lot of conscientious deliberation.

But there was one problem. The congregation at Rome had lost its bishop Fabian to martyrdom and still had not appointed his replacement.

That's from Cyprian of Carthage, epistle 30, Letter from the Roman Congregation, paragraph 5.

What should they do? If they really held to what Ignatius said about the bishop, they would have stopped everything and elected a bishop.

Instead, under the guidance of Cyprian of Carthage, and while the grant of a bishop is withheld from us by God, that is,

Cyprian of Carthage, epistle 30, paragraph 8, the congregation at Rome decided that they would continue dealing with the lapsed in accordance with Cyprian's advice and their own conviction that the recent controversy of the lapsed called for a moderate response.

The Roman congregation went for months without a bishop and having none, kept right on handling some of the most controversial matters and planning for a church council.

So much for, let no man do anything connected with the church without the bishop, as Ignatius wrote in his letter to the

Smyrnaeans, chapter 8. So let's think about this. Ignatius said, wherever the bishop is, there is the

Catholic Church. And yet we know that he did not really believe what that appears to mean, since he left his own congregation without a bishop, even though he knew very well that he was being arrested and taken to Rome to be executed.

The early church did not believe that wherever the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church, since several of the early congregations dismissed their bishops for error and sin.

The early church did not apply Ignatius' dictum to the bishop of Rome, since Polycarp, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Formilian, Cyprian, Dionysius, and Polycrates all ridiculed and even condemned or openly disagreed with the bishop of Rome at one point or another.

Even the Roman congregation itself did not agree with, wherever the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church, since they continued handling the controversy that elapsed, even while they still had no bishop appointed.

So let's just state the obvious. Ignatius wrote, wherever the bishop is, there is the Catholic Church, and do nothing apart from the bishop, and see that you all follow the bishop even as Jesus Christ does the

Father. And yet nobody, not even Ignatius, appears to have put that into practice.

And in fact, what is missing after Ignatius of Antioch is any plain affirmation of that teaching on bishops, deacons, and presbyters.

Roman Catholics cite that language from Ignatius of Antioch, but when you study the historical record, even

Ignatius himself does not appear to abide by it. So why would Ignatius of Antioch say it?

Well, we'll get to that in a minute, but let's first find out if Roman Catholics today actually believe it either.

As it turns out, even Roman Catholics don't believe it, and they certainly don't practice it. Here are a few examples of what

I'm talking about. First, this is Taylor Marshall, former Presbyterian, turned Anglican priest, turned

Roman Catholic apologist. This is from his March 6, 2019 podcast entitled, Does Amoris Laetitia by Pope Francis Contain Error?,

in which he said that the Pope's teaching in a controversial exhortation was erroneous.

Here is Taylor Marshall. This one here, 297, is just wrong. This is a papal document,

Amoris Laetitia. It contains theological error that contradicts the plain words of Jesus Christ multiple times in the gospel that people are condemned forever.

If you take a note, it's paragraph 297, Amoris Laetitia. The next paragraph has more problems in it, paragraph 298.

Wait a second, Taylor Marshall. Ignatius of Antioch says, Ignatius of Antioch said,

And Ignatius of Antioch said, And here you are, creating a faction against the bishop.

And what is more, you are objecting to the Pope based on your own private interpretation of the scriptures.

If you don't want to listen to me, at least listen to Matthew Leonard on Ignatius. Just listen to Marcus Grota again.

Here is Taylor Marshall again, complaining that Pope Francis changed the catechism of the Catholic Church regarding the teaching on the death penalty.

This is from Taylor Marshall's December 12, 2018 podcast, Why Did Pope Francis Change the

Doctrine on the Death Penalty? We're talking about the death penalty and the recent change made by Pope Francis in August of 2018 to the catechism of the

Catholic Church in paragraph 2267. So today we're going to talk about how the idea of the death penalty goes back to the

Old Testament, where it is explicitly commanded. Also we find it in the

New Testament, and we find it within Catholic tradition all the way up until a few months ago.

Hey, wait a second, Taylor Marshall. You need to be in unity with the bishop. Wherever the bishop is, there is the

Catholic Church. The bishop is the institution of God. Why are you rebelling out from under his authority?

He declares that we should allow nothing whatever to exist among you that could give rise to divisions.

Okay, let's move on to John Henry Weston, another Roman Catholic apologist. Here he is complaining about the inability of the clergy to correct the errors within the

Church. And now it is time for lay people to act apart from the clergy. This comes from Taylor Marshall's February 25, 2019 podcast entitled,

Is Pope Francis Driving the Agenda on the Errors Being Propagated by Pope Francis? And it's amazing that people haven't, that the bishops, the cardinals, haven't stood up in a way that the faithful can see, because the damage is so very real.

It's so very real on many, many levels, but I think as fathers we have a particular role in this, and the bishops have said so.

You know, speaking personally with Bishop Schneider and with many other bishops and cardinals, they said now is the time of the laity.

The laity have to speak for this. Well, hold on a second there, John Henry Weston. Don't you know that Ignatius of Antioch said, see that you all follow the bishop even as Jesus Christ does the father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles, and reverence the deacons as being the institution of God.

Let no man do anything connected with the church without the bishop. And yet here you are, advocating that the laity act independently of the clergy, just because you personally have a different opinion than the clergy does.

If you don't want to listen to me, at least listen to Matthew Leonard on Ignatius. You yourselves must never act independently of your bishop and clergy.

You yourselves must never act independently of your bishop and clergy. Never act, never act, never act, never act independently of your bishop and clergy.

You're just not supposed to act independently of the clergy. Don't you believe in Ignatius of Antioch, John Henry Weston?

Okay, let's move on to Michael Voris, another Roman Catholic apologist who appeared on Taylor Marshall's podcast.

This time on his February 24, 2019 podcast, Should Pope Francis Resign? Here is

Michael Voris saying that Pope Francis is pathetic, and he should basically fire all of his cardinals and then resign himself.

And let me tell you, Michael Voris is really, really, really mad about those bishops. And ultimately this all goes back to Pope Francis.

His entire papacy is simply going down in flames. And it would be best for the church if he simply laicized all of those cardinals,

Tobin, Pharaoh, Wuerl, the whole lot of them, get rid of all of them and then resign yourself.

And that would be the only way to bring about reform to the church, as long as he's still there.

This is pathetic. It's absolutely pathetic. Whoa, hold on a second there,

Michael Voris. Ignatius of Antioch said he saluted those men who are in unity with the bishop, the presbyters and the deacons.

Man, I don't think Ignatius would be saluting you. He said the clergy had been appointed according to the mind of Jesus Christ, and he had established them in security after his own will and by his

Holy Spirit. Don't be against apostolic succession, Michael Voris. Don't be against the will of God just because you disagree with your bishops,

Michael Voris. Don't rebel against the clergy now, Michael Voris. You need to be in submission to the clergy, just like Ignatius said.

We should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord himself. You yourselves must never act independently of your bishop and clergy.

You yourselves must never act independently of your bishop and clergy. You yourselves, you yourselves, you yourselves must never act, never act, never act, never act independently of your bishop and clergy.

Okay, so I think we have sufficiently made our point. The point is this. Roman Catholics cite

Ignatius of Antioch on the role of the clergy and submission to and unity with the clergy. Especially his words, apart from the bishop, let nothing be done.

We should look upon the bishop even as we would upon the Lord himself, and take heed then to have but one Eucharist, for there is one altar, there is one bishop, and wherever the bishop is, there is the

Catholic Church. These sayings of Ignatius are taken by Roman Catholicism in two senses.

First, stay in submission to your local bishop and his administration of the Eucharist.

And second, stay in submission to the pope and his administration of the Eucharist. See, we all need to become

Roman Catholics. Ignatius says so. But the problem is, nobody has ever believed this.

Not Ignatius, not the early church, and not even modern Roman Catholic apologists.

Ignatius of Antioch left his congregation to be martyred in Rome and even wrote in his letters that he had left his church without a bishop.

Polycarp of Smyrna and Polycrates of Ephesus both rejected the Roman bishops' attempt to standardize the celebration of the

Lord's Supper. And Hippolytus, Irenaeus, Dionysius, Cyprian, Firmilian, and many others rejected the bishop of Rome for their doctrinal error.

And Cyprian not only applauded the actions of a Spanish congregation for getting rid of their bishops, but told the congregation that they were free to appoint other bishops, even though Bishop Stephen of Rome attempted to intervene and reinstate the old ones.

And even the congregation of Rome, while it was without a bishop, continued doing things without the bishop, like writing to other congregations, taking advice from other congregations, and planning church councils with other congregations.

Fast forward to the modern Roman Catholic crisis, and you have apologists paying lip service to the admonitions of Ignatius of Antioch, even as they rebel from under papal and clerical authority.

Taylor Marshall complains that Pope Francis is teaching things that don't agree with Marshall's personal interpretation of the

Scriptures. This is a papal document, it contains theological error that contradicts the plain words of Jesus Christ.

And complains that Pope Francis is changing the Catechism in ways that do not align with Taylor Marshall's personal interpretation of the historical teachings of the

Church. We're talking about the death penalty and the recent change made by Pope Francis in August of 2018.

John Henry Weston is leading the charge for the laity to act independently of the clergy, because he thinks the clergy is not doing what he thinks they should.

Now is the time of the laity. The laity have to speak for this. And Michael Voris says the pope should fire all the cardinals and then resign.

This is pathetic. It's absolutely pathetic. Dudes, never act independently of the bishop now.

Wherever the bishop is, there's the Catholic Church. Let there be one Eucharist because there's one altar and one bishop.

The bishops, presbyters and clergy are the institution of God. Don't these guys know about Marcus Grodi and his conversion testimony?

The whole reason he joined Roman Catholicism is because he wanted to be in union with the bishop, unlike all these

Protestants who are so divisive. Just listen to Marcus Grodi again. He said you must follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the

Father. And the presbytery as you would the apostles. Reverence the deacons as you would the command of God.

All you Roman Catholic apologists, Taylor Marshall, John Henry Weston, Michael Voris and the rest, listen to Marcus Grodi and get under submission to your bishop, because everyone knows that wherever the bishop is, there is the

Catholic Church, and never do anything without the knowledge of the bishop. Now my point here is not merely to show that nobody in the history of the

Church ever really believed what Ignatius of Antioch wrote, at least not in the way Roman Catholics interpret it, but to show that the

Roman Catholics who cite him simply do not know what Ignatius of Antioch was really saying. And the reason they do not know what he was actually saying is because they do not know their history.

In the context in which Ignatius said these things, he was actually right, but it was in a very, very, very narrow context.

And Roman Catholics, ignorant of that, have attempted to expand the context wildly beyond what

Ignatius meant, in order to make his words into a hammer that they can use to beat down Protestants.

They attempt to beat us over the head with his words, even as they themselves protest the teachings of the Roman Catholic clergy, because the teaching does not conform to theirs, and demand that their clergy resign, even though Ignatius said we should be united with the clergy and join to the bishop.

But in reality, understanding Ignatius' writings on the clergy is easy if you spend a little more time studying that period in history, and a little less time listening to Roman Catholic apologists.

So what was the context in which Ignatius wrote these things? Well, it is actually very simple, if you don't mind getting up on the diving board and jumping into the deep end of the history pool.

Ignatius of Antioch was martyred in Rome around 107 or 108 AD, which means that he would have written his letters to the different churches about that time when he was on his journey from Antioch to Rome to be martyred.

At the time, the Docetist heresy was sweeping through Asia Minor, and Ignatius knew that.

The word docetist comes from a Greek word that means to seem, and the heresy is called by that name because its adherents claimed that Christ did not have a real or natural body, but only an apparent or phantom body.

That is, he only seemed to have a body, only seemed to die a death on the cross, and only seemed to rise from the dead.

They denied Christ's death, his resurrection, and his ascension into heaven. In short, the Docetists simply denied the gospel of our salvation, that God had become man to die in our place and save us, both body and soul, together.

About ten years before Ignatius' death, a Gnostic document called The Apocalypse of Peter was circulating.

It swept through Asia Minor and caught up a lot of people in its errors. The latest possible date for the writing of The Apocalypse of Peter would be about 100

AD, due to its mention in chapter 3 of the fourth book of Esdras, which was written that year.

Thus, we can place The Apocalypse of Peter about ten years prior to Ignatius' martyrdom.

In The Apocalypse of Peter, Peter is allegedly told that Jesus had an incorporeal body, that is, not a fleshly one, but a spiritual one.

Now, citing from the Gnostic document, The Apocalypse of Peter, Again, that's from The Apocalypse of Peter, supposedly quoting the words of Jesus, claiming that he did not have a fleshly body.

That is very interesting to us, because when Ignatius of Antioch writes to the Smyrnaeans, he corrects that very specific error, and he does it in a very unique way.

In chapter 3 of his letter to the people of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote, When, for instance, he came to those who were with Peter, he said to them,

Lay hold, handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit. And immediately they touched him, and believed, being convinced both by his flesh and spirit.

That's Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans, chapter 3. The verse to which Ignatius refers here was

Luke 24, 39, which says, Behold my hands and my feet, that it is

I myself. Handle me, and see, for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

Ignatius took that verse to mean that Jesus was not incorporeal at all, that he was not without a body.

He had a physical body before he died, and he arose with a physical body, and showed that physical body to the disciples.

That is how Ignatius relates the verse. That is, lay hold, handle me, and see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.

My point is simply that Ignatius was responding directly to something very specific in the Apocalypse of Peter.

And if you're familiar with the Apocalypse of Peter, you'll recognize it. The way he cites that verse is a direct response to the incorporeal language that was used in the

Apocalypse of Peter, in reference to Jesus' body. That matters to us because the

Apocalypse of Peter also said something about bishops and deacons. The Apocalypse of Peter said that bishops and deacons were not established as a divine institution, and that in fact the sheep would eventually need to cast off their clergy and rule over them.

That sort of attack on the church hierarchy would undermine the apostolic instructions to submit to the presbyters, as in 1

Timothy 5 .1 and 1 Peter 5 .5. And Ignatius of Antioch could not stand by without responding to it.

So, he insisted that indeed the offices of the church had been established as a divine institution, and the sheep should not be rejecting the clergy.

So let's start with the Apocalypse of Peter and then come back to Ignatius' response. Again, now citing from the

Apocalypse of Peter, which said, There shall be others of those who are outside our number who name themselves bishop and also deacons, as if they have received their authority from God.

They, the sheep, bend themselves under the judgment of the leaders. Those people, that is, the bishops and deacons, are dry canals.

For a time determined for them in proportion to their error, they will rule over the little ones. And after the completion of their error, and they, the little ones, shall rule over those who are their rulers.

Again, that's the Apocalypse of Peter from 100 A .D. Saying that men claiming to be bishops and deacons falsely claimed that their authority was from God and would come and oppress the sheep, but the sheep would eventually cast them off and rule over them.

Well, yes, that's kind of a problem because the offices of bishop, presbyter, and deacon were indeed established by God in the

Scriptures. And the Scriptures even insist that the sheep submit to them, as in 1 Peter 5 .5.

Likewise, ye younger, submit to your elders, that is, presbyters. And in 1

Timothy 5 .1, rebuke not an elder, but entreat him as a father, and the younger men as brethren.

So, yes, when Ignatius of Antioch realized that the Apocalypse of Peter was sweeping through Asia Minor, teaching that Jesus was incorporeal, encouraging the saints to deny that Jesus had come and died and risen in the flesh,

Ignatius showed from the Scriptures that Jesus denied being incorporeal. And when the Apocalypse of Peter claimed that the bishops and deacons were not established by divine authority and the sheep should not submit to them,

Ignatius responded in kind. Here is chapter 8 of Ignatius' letter to the Smyrnaeans. And keep in mind, the

Apocalypse of Peter was sweeping through Asia Minor at the time. Now citing from To the

Smyrnaeans, chapter 8. See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the

Father, and the presbytery, as you would the apostles, and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God.

Let no man do anything connected with the church without the bishop. 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. Notice that Ignatius has responded directly to the claims of the

Apocalypse of Peter. The Apocalypse said, And Ignatius responded,

See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery, as you would the apostles, and reverence the deacons, as the institution of God.

This is not a claim that the church hierarchy is infallible. It is simply a claim that the Scriptures did not mislead us by establishing bishops and deacons, or presbyters and deacons.

Church officers had been established for our well -being, and we could not simply rebel from under their authority based on a new teaching that was circulating in Asia Minor.

And that helps us understand the context in which Ignatius was writing his letters. In fact, since most of Ignatius' letters were to churches in Asia Minor, where the

Apocalypse of Peter was circulating, most of his letters dealt with the need to reverence the clergy. Now take these citations out of their historical context, and you have a weapon that Roman Catholics can use to beat

Protestants into submission to the Roman Catholic clergy, a submission that Roman Catholics, as we have shown, do not even practice, and which historically, nobody really practiced.

Historically, the church has always been willing to dismiss bishops, presbyters, and deacons who did not conform to the teachings of the

Scriptures. But take all the quotes from Ignatius in their historical context, and you simply have

Ignatius warning the flock of Asia Minor not to listen to the unscriptural teachings of the Apocalypse of Peter.

That's it. Nothing more. And like I said, in that very narrow context, Ignatius was right.

But he was not teaching what Marcus Grodi thinks he was teaching, and Marcus Grodi would know that, if Marcus Grodi were truly deep in history.

Okay, let's continue with Marcus Grodi's next comment, which is from Irenaeus. This is his last citation on the church hierarchy, and we're going to conclude our episode here and pick up with the

Eucharist next week. Again, here is Marcus Grodi citing Irenaeus and the authority of tradition in the early church.

I'd like to go on now to a quote from St. Irenaeus. He lived at the end of the 2nd century.

Information as to his life is scarce and inexact. He was born in proconsular

Asia, probably between the years 115 and 142. So you can see we're moving a little closer to us, but still in the 2nd century.

It is certain that, while still very young, Irenaeus had seen and heard St. Polycarp, whom

I mentioned earlier, who himself was a disciple of St. John. He writes, The church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she has disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house.

She likewise believes these things, just as if she had been one soul, and one and the same heart.

And harmoniously she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth.

For while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same.

Now, my friends, I can tell you right now, that's not the Protestantism that I knew. When I look at the

Protestantism that I saw as a pastor, with all the different churches and all their different opinions, that there was not one voice, as if one soul, in the same heart, the same preaching all throughout the different languages.

What I saw as a pastor was confusion. But this is what I saw in the

Catholic Church. This is the description of the church, receiving the preaching and the faith.

Not just the written record of the apostles, but the oral tradition. The whole foundation.

In fact, this was written around the year 190. And the present canon that we have of the

Bible, the list of the books in our Bible, was not finalized until the end of the 4th century.

Another 200 years. So to recognize that all these churches that have spread throughout

Germany, and France, and Europe, and around the Mediterranean, yet believe one thing, through the connected churches of the bishops.

The authority of that tradition. Okay, Marcus Grodi is citing from Irenaeus against heresies, book 1, chapter 10.

He has cited him accurately. And Grodi is attempting to make two points here. First, that tradition was authoritative in the early church.

And second, that the church spoke with that one tradition, with one voice. Let me address the second point first.

Did the tradition of the early church speak with a singular voice? Well, not exactly.

We have already covered this in our earlier podcasts. But there was a time in the days of Irenaeus that Victor, bishop of Rome, declared that everyone had to celebrate the resurrection in the same way.

And Victor excommunicated everyone who disagreed with him. What did Irenaeus say to that?

Did Irenaeus tell everyone to obey the bishop of Rome because the church has always spoken with one mouth and one voice?

Not at all. Instead, Irenaeus rebuked Victor and reminded him that different congregations in different parts of the world had developed different traditions.

And that Victor needed to accept that and respect it. Now citing from Eusebius, Church History, book 3, chapter 24, paragraphs 10 -14, picking up with the other bishops of the world correcting bishop

Victor of Rome for his presumption. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him, that is

Victor, to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking

Victor. 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 observe the tradition of an ancient custom, and after many other words he proceeds as follows.

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, and yet others more. Some, moreover, count their day as consisting of forty hours, day and night.

And this variety in its observances has not originated in our time, but long before in that of our ancestors.

It is likely that they did not hold to a strict accuracy and thus formed a custom for their posterity according to their own simplicity and peculiar mode.

Yet all of these lived nonetheless 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.

Again, that's Eusebius' Church History, Book 3, Chapter 24, Paragraphs 10 -14, recounting the controversy that Victor caused when he excommunicated the

Asian bishops. Now think about Irenaeus and his insistence that there are many ways to celebrate the resurrection, and that some celebrate it for one day, others for two, others more, and there is a variety of observances, and different congregations formed customs according to their own simplicity.

Contrast that with Grodi's citation of Irenaeus, claiming that the whole world recognized only one single tradition, as by one voice and one mouth.

So they recognized that all these churches that have spread throughout Germany, and France, and Europe, and around the

Mediterranean, yet believe one thing through the connected churches of the bishops, and the authority of that tradition.

Well, that's a bit of a problem for Marcus Grodi. He took one section of Irenaeus, claiming that the whole church everywhere spoke with one voice, one mouth, one tradition, and yet we have evidence from church history, in fact from the very church father that Marcus Grodi cited, that Irenaeus recognized and accepted that different traditions had originated in different congregations, and that he was okay with it, and the bishop of Rome should have been okay with it too.

So what gives? Well, that brings us back to Grodi's first point regarding Irenaeus.

It all comes back to the scriptures. In the matter of the celebration of the resurrection, we are given no explicit instructions on how to celebrate it, and therefore

Irenaeus was right to chastise Victor for attempting to impose on the Asian congregations something that the scriptures do not address.

In that regard, congregations were free to develop their own customs, but those customs were not authoritative and could not be imposed on other congregations.

It's like one church today uses an overhead projector and another church prints music in the bulletin. Each congregation is free to develop their own practices.

As long as those practices do not violate the scriptures, each congregation is free to do as it will. But what was

Irenaeus talking about when he said the church speaks with one mouth and one voice? This is where Marcus Grodi needs to do a little more homework.

His limited citation takes a brief snippet and makes it sound like there is an authoritative tradition that exists apart from the scriptures and is superior to it, and that is what the church handed down.

But that is not what Irenaeus was saying at all. In fact, Irenaeus was appealing to the authority of the scriptures here.

Let's go back a couple chapters to Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 8, and Irenaeus is complaining that the heretics do great injury to the scriptures by adding to the teachings of the

Lord and the prophets and the apostles things that are not found in the scriptures. Now citing from Against Heresies, Book 1,

Chapter 8, Paragraph 1, Such then is their system, which neither the prophets announced, nor the

Lord taught, nor the apostles delivered, but of which they boast that beyond all others they have a perfect knowledge.

They gather their views from other sources than the scriptures, and, to use a common proverb, they strive to weave ropes of sand, while they endeavor to adapt with an air of probability to their own peculiar assertions, the parables of the

Lord, the sayings of the prophets, and the words of the apostles, in order that their scheme may not seem altogether without support.

In doing so, however, they disregard the order and the connection of the scriptures, and so far as in them lies, dismember and destroy the truth.

Again, that's Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 8, Paragraph 1, showing that Irenaeus was complaining that the heretics go outside the scriptures to get their views.

Okay, now let's go forward from Chapter 8 to Chapter 9 of the same book. And again, this is

Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 9, as Irenaeus complains that the Gnostics do great injury to the scriptures.

You see, my friend, the method which these men employ to deceive themselves while they abuse the scriptures by endeavoring to support their own system out of them.

And when this, that is, their error, is destroyed, their whole system sinks into ruin, a system which they falsely dream into existence, and thus inflict injury on the scriptures while they build up their own hypothesis.

Again, that's Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 9, Paragraphs 1 and 3. Here Irenaeus has shown the error of the

Gnostics, who gather their views from outside the scriptures, and in the process do great injury to the scriptures.

Now listen to what Irenaeus said in Chapter 10, picking up where Marcus Grota left off. And notice that Irenaeus' point is that the church would never do what the heretics have done, namely, gather views from outside the scriptures and do injury to the scriptures by abusing them.

Now citing Against Heresies, Book 1, Chapter 10, Paragraph 2, picking up where Marcus Grota left off.

For although the languages of the world are dissimilar, yet the import of the tradition is one and the same.

For the churches which have been planted in Germany do not believe or hand down anything different, nor do those in Spain, nor those in Gaul, nor those in the

East, nor those in Egypt, nor those in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world.

But as the sun, that creature of God, is one and the same throughout the whole world, so also the preaching of the truth shines everywhere and enlightens all men that are willing to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Nor will any one of the rulers in the churches, however highly gifted he may be in point of eloquence, teach doctrines different from these, for no one is greater than the master, nor, on the other hand, will he who is deficient in power of expression inflict injury on the tradition.

For the faith being ever one and the same, neither does one who is able at great length to discourse regarding it make any addition to it, nor does one who can say but little diminish it.

Again, against heresies, Book 1, Chapter 10, Paragraph 2. In context,

Irenaeus was criticizing the heretics for getting their doctrines outside of the scriptures and causing great injury to the scriptures and was showing that the church speaking with one voice would never inflict injury on the tradition by going outside the scriptures to find our traditions.

If you don't believe that was Irenaeus' point, just listen to Irenaeus' own words from Book 3, Chapter 5,

Paragraph 1 of Against Heresies. Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the church and is permanent among us, let us revert to the scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our

Lord Jesus Christ is the truth and that no lie is in Him. Again, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 3,

Chapter 5, Paragraph 1, indicating that the one voice of tradition that the church hands down is the voice of the apostles as recorded in the scriptures.

Understanding Irenaeus' view of tradition is as simple as paying attention to what Irenaeus was actually saying.

In Book 1, Chapters 8 and 9, Irenaeus was complaining that the heretics found their teachings outside of the scriptures and did much injury to the scriptures in the process.

In Book 1, Chapter 10, from which Marcus Grodi cited Irenaeus on tradition, Irenaeus is simply saying that the church, established in so many cities throughout the world, would never entertain doing such damage to the scriptures by going outside the scriptures to find our doctrines or do injury to the scriptures by diminishing them.

Are we really supposed to believe that when Irenaeus criticized the heretics for going outside the scriptures in order to support their beliefs, the answer is that the church goes outside the scriptures to support our beliefs?

When it came to defending the tradition of the church, Irenaeus insisted that the tradition of the church is recorded for us in the scriptures.

To Irenaeus, the tradition of the church was found in the words of the prophets, the words of our Lord, and the words of the apostles as recorded in the scriptures.

His main complaint about the heretics was that they boast that beyond all others, they have perfect knowledge and they gathered their views from other sources than the scriptures.

And that sounds pretty much like Roman Catholicism, not like Protestantism. So we will conclude

Episode 7 of the Diving Board on that note, and we will return in our next episode to pick up on Marcus Grodi's citation of the early church fathers on the

Eucharist and the primacy of the bishop in the city of Rome, and show once again that his reasons for converting to Roman Catholicism do not show that he was familiar with history, but rather that he was grossly ignorant of it.

This is your host, Timothy F. Kaufman, and you've been listening to the Diving Board. We'll see you next time.