TDB 11 The Conversion of Marcus Grodi part 6

The Eucharistic Abuses and Marcus Grodi’s Conversion Story

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 made?

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.

The Diving Board’s Mission and the Problem of Roman Catholic Novelty

Hello to everyone. This is your host, Timothy F. Kaufman, and you're listening to The Diving Board, a podcast that focuses on the conversion testimonies of Protestants who convert to Roman Catholicism, thinking that to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.

But getting deep in history is something a Roman Catholic cannot do, because Roman Catholicism itself is a novelty 300 years removed from the Church of the Apostles and their followers. Its roots do not go back any further than the end of the 4th century.

And as we continue to show in each episode, those Roman Catholics who think that they are getting deep in history are actually very shallow in it, embracing a late 4th century and medieval novelty as if it were the Church of Christ.

This is episode 11, the final episode we'll be doing on the conversion of Marcus Grodi, and next time we'll be analyzing another testimony of a convert to Roman Catholicism. Mr. Grodi is the host of the Journey Home show, a regular broadcast on the Coming Home Network, a Roman Catholic ministry that focuses on the return of wandering Protestants back to the fold of Roman Catholicism.

Marcus Grodi has provided citations from the early Church Fathers that influenced his decision to return to Rome, and we encourage our listeners to go back and listen to his entire testimony. He divided his citations into four main categories.

The Church Hierarchy, the Eucharist, which is to him the Lord's Supper and the Roman Sacrifice of the Mass, the Primacy of Rome, and the Unity of the Church. We have covered the Church Hierarchy and the Eucharist already, and today we will address his misperceptions on the Primacy of the City of Rome, or the Bishop of Rome, and the presumed unity of the Church that is based on unity under the Bishop of Rome.

Now, some of his material we have discussed in our analysis of the conversion testimony of Father Ray Ryland in the first three episodes of this podcast, and we will see a lot of this going forward. The Roman Catholic apologists tend to cite the same data and make the same arguments, and to refute them all repeatedly would be repetitive, so we will attempt merely to summarize the arguments here and then point to the episode that addresses the specific point in more detail.

So let's get started. On the matter of the Primacy of Rome, Mr. Grodi cites Clement of Rome from the 1st century and Ignatius of Antioch and Irenaeus of Lyons from the 2nd century, and Cyprian of Carthage from the 3rd century.

An interesting selection of Church Fathers representing three continents, Asia, Africa, and Europe, ostensibly in support of Rome. He also includes some citations from the late 4th century and the early 5th, but those are of very little concern to us since they arose in the latter part of the 4th century, as we have stated at various times.

In this podcast, we address citations from the first three centuries to show what a novelty Roman Catholicism really is. Okay, let's get started with Clement. Here is Marcus Grodi with his first citation on the Primacy of Rome, from the letter of Clement to the Corinthians in the 1st century.

Clement of Rome and Correspondence Between Churches

Now I'm going to another subject that was important to me. And this has to do with, all right, what about Rome? What about the importance of Rome? And I'm taking you back to St. Clement. Now he is the Bishop of Rome writing to the church at Corinth.

And the significance of that is, it isn't a church next door. He's writing from essentially Italy over to Greece. So what authority does he have to tell the church at Corinth to do anything? If there's no connection between the churches and the hierarchy, then is there any authority between the Bishop of Rome and the people over in Corinth?

Hear this quote from St. Clement. Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved.

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.

You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy. St. Clement, the Bishop of Rome, is speaking with authority to the people over in Greece.

And that church, the Church of Corinth, a very, an earlier church established by Paul, but he's calling them to obey his command, saying that they will give him great joy if they obey us. It's interesting that whenever the Pope writes an encyclical, he uses this phrase, us, meaning that he is speaking not just for his own authority, but as the man appointed by Christ as the head of the church.

Clement is doing that in this very early document. And you'll see lots of things in this that imply that there's an authority in the Bishop of Rome over the leaders in Corinth.

Okay, so his first argument is that because Rome was such a great distance from Corinth, and yet Corinth appealed to Rome for help, it must have some significance regarding Rome's authority. Yes, it is true.

The Church at Corinth wrote to the Church at Rome, which was across the Adriatic Sea. And Clement wrote back to the Church at Corinth and asked the Corinthians to write back and let him know how they were progressing.

That's from Clement to the Corinthians, paragraph 65. Ignatius, the Bishop of Antioch, wrote letters to Ephesus, Tralas, Magnesia, Rome, Philadelphia, and Smyrna, and asked them to write letters back to him.

For example, Ignatius of Antioch to the Smyrnaeans, paragraph 11. And also to send delegates who could journey to the Church at Antioch, as in his letter to Polycarp, chapter 7. The Church at Philippi, which was just a stone's throw from Thessalonica, wrote instead to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church at Smyrna, which was in fact across the Aegean Sea, to ask advice.

And Polycarp of Smyrna wrote back to Philippi to answer them. That's Polycarp to Philippi, paragraph 3. In their letter to Polycarp, the Church at Philippi requested that their letter to him be duplicated and forwarded to Antioch, and further requested that copies of Ignatius' letters be sent to Philippi.

And Ignatius wrote to Polycarp requesting that the letter from Philippi be forwarded to him. Polycarp agreed to all of these requests, as indicated in Polycarp to the Philippians, paragraph 13. And when Polycarp died, the Church at Smyrna wrote to Philomelium and requested that the letter be copied and sent to other churches that were even more remote.

That's paragraph 20 of the Martyrdom of Polycarp. The fact is, the early churches wrote to each other constantly, seeking advice, offering counsel, occasionally offering rebuke, and always eagerly receiving news from their sister churches throughout the world.

Corinth seeking advice from Rome across the Adriatic Sea, when they could have written to Ephesus, is no more evidence of Roman primacy. Then the Church at Philippi seeking advice from Smyrna across the Aegean Sea, when they could have written to Thessalonica, is evidence of Smyrnaean primacy.

The only way someone like Marcus Grodi could be persuaded of Roman primacy by Clement's letter to Corinth is if he himself was ignorant of the history of the early church, and he very clearly is. And that brings us to our second point.

It is important to know about this history because, just as Rome wrote to Corinth to correct the schismatic element there, sometimes other churches would write to Rome to admonish their erring presbyters and rebuke them for creating a schism, and then the bishop of Rome would write back to that bishop thanking him for correcting his erring flock.

Marcus Grodi does not mention those letters, and in fact may not even be aware of them. In any case, it is a common deception in which Roman apologists rely on your ignorance of history, or in fact displays his own ignorance of history, so that you will conclude that you too are deep in history, when in fact you are still in the very shallow end of the history pool with the Roman apologist.

You can hear more of our arguments on this point in our first episode, when Father Ray Ryland attempted to make this similar point, but for now let me remind the listener that there was a similar schism in Rome in the 3rd century, and Cyprian of Carthage wrote to the schismatics in Rome, commending that they acquiesce in these my letters, and demanding that they behave in a more orderly fashion, more in keeping with the truth of the gospel.

That's Cyprian to the Roman schismatics, epistle 43. Afterward, the Roman bishop wrote to Cyprian, letting him know that the schism had ended, that's epistle 45, and the schismatics wrote to Cyprian to notify him of their repentance and return to the unity of the church.

That's epistle 49. On another occasion, Christians imprisoned in Rome because of their confession of faith, wrote to Carthage to inform Cyprian that we have been lifted up by the receipt of your letter, and it was their chief consolation, and that in the duty of his episcopate he had frequently confirmed the confessors by your letters.

That's epistle 25 to Cyprian from the Roman confessors, paragraphs 1 and 6. And I know what you're thinking. Why would the Roman church seek advice and receive counsel and correction, comfort, and instruction from across the Mediterranean Sea in Carthage when the Roman church was so much closer to Rome?

I think we can all agree that Rome is in fact very close to Rome. Geographically speaking, of course, it's exactly zero miles away. And yet, a bishop from all the way across the sea, Cyprian of Carthage, intervened from a great distance to settle Rome's affairs and comfort its confessors.

So, we here at the Diving Board believe in second chances, and we're going to give Marcus Grodi another go at this. In epistle 25 of the library of Cyprian's epistles, the Roman confessors wrote to Cyprian to thank him, and in epistle 43, Cyprian intervenes in the affairs of the Roman church and demands that they acquiesce to his instructions.

And there's obviously only one possible reason in the world for a bishop in Africa to tell a congregation in Rome what to do. That's right. You guessed it. Carthaginian episcopal primacy, obviously. The bishop of Carthage obviously must have had universal powers in the early church.

Okay, ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Grodi is now in possession of the communications between Cyprian and the Roman church, and we have the rare opportunity to hear Mr. Grodi think through this live as he concludes the obvious that the church at Carthage had universal episcopal authority from the very earliest days of the church.

Let's listen in as Marcus Grodi asks, What about Carthage? What about the authority of Carthage?

Cyprian, Rome, and the Myth of Carthaginian Primacy

Now I'm going to another subject that was important to me, and this has to do with, all right, what about Carthage? What about the importance of Carthage down in Africa? I'm taking you back to St. Cyprian of Carthage writing to the church at Rome, and the significance of that is it isn't a church next door.

He's writing from essentially Africa over to Italy. So what authority does he have to tell the church at Rome to do anything? If there's no connection between the churches and the hierarchy, then is there any authority between the bishop of Carthage and the people over in Rome?

St. Cyprian of Carthage, the bishop of Carthage down in Africa, is speaking with authority to the people over in Italy. In that church, the church of Rome, a very, an earlier church established by Paul, but he's calling them to obey his command.

Cyprian of Carthage is doing that in this very early document, and you'll see lots of things in this that imply that there's an authority in the bishop of Carthage over the leaders in Rome.

Okay, okay, we are in fact being facetious, obviously, because Mr. Grodi did not say those things. At least, he did not say those things in that order. That is all Mr. Grodi edited to have him make the same argument about Carthage based on the letter from Cyprian as he made about Rome based on the letter from Clement.

Our point is simply that the Roman apologist's argument is foolish and empty to anyone who has read the correspondence of the early church, and you might ask why Marcus Grodi would not mention this incident.

The incident of Cyprian intervening when the schism at Rome or the Roman confessor is writing to Cyprian to tell him how appropriate it was for him to be writing to them to comfort them, or Philippi's request for help from Smyrna and Smyrna's response.

Why indeed would Marcus not mention these things? It's because for all of his arguments from the early church fathers, Marcus Grodi is still wading in the kiddie pool, still wearing his floaties. And frankly, not only does he prefer to remain in ignorance, but he also insists that you remain in ignorance with him, because if you got too deep in history, his whole house of cards would fall apart.

Okay, one more example just for fun. Bishops Bacillides and Martialis in Spain had stumbled in sin and were forced out of the ministry, and the Spanish congregation had since appointed other bishops in their place.

But Bacillides and Martialis had second thoughts and consulted with Bishop Stephen in Rome. Stephen took their side and ordered the church at Spain to reinstate them, but the Spanish congregation would have none of it, and wrote to Cyprian of Carthage for advice.

Cyprian responded that the Spanish congregation was exactly right to do what it did, and further, that they did not have to listen to Stephen, because Stephen was wrong to maintain communion with Bacillides and Martialis, and by doing so had become a partaker of their sins.

Besides, Stephen had been deceived by them and wasn't thinking clearly, having been surprised by fraud, in Cyprian's words. You can read the whole story in Cyprian, epistle 67, to the clergy and people abiding in Spain.

Now, why do you suppose the congregation in Spain did not obey Stephen? And why did they write to Cyprian for a second opinion? And why did Cyprian tell them they could ignore Stephen because he didn't know what he was talking about?

It's because Rome wasn't the chief episcopate of Grodi's imagination, that's why. And it is simply ridiculous for Grodi to try to establish Roman primacy from that letter from Rome to Corinth. To do so is evidence of his ignorance, not of his knowledge.

Okay, the next thing he said was that Clement claimed that the Holy Spirit was writing to the Corinthians through the letter from Rome, that is, by him through us. And here again is Marcus Grodi making that point.

If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy.

St. Clement, the bishop of Rome, is speaking with authority.

Okay, we actually covered this in our first episode, but the long and the short of it is that Clement is not asking them to submit to him, but to the Scriptures, and then goes on to cite a lot of Scriptures in which the Holy Spirit is mentioned.

Some English translations make it sound like Clement said the Holy Spirit had written the letter from Rome to Corinth, but as we pointed out in episode 1 on Fr. Ray Ryland, that makes Clement's letter inconsistent because Clement, in his original Greek, actually uses the plural Greek definite article to describe the Scriptures as the truths of the Holy Spirit.

To say that the Holy Spirit had written that very letter, as well, makes it appear that Clement thought his own letter, too, was Scripture. But there is more. There is a question of whether the letter is even translated correctly at that point.

For example, in James A. Kleist's 1949 translation of chapter 63, verse 2, Clement is asking the Corinthians to be obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit. And J .B. Lightfoot's 1890 translation rendered it similarly.

Render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit. But, as we pointed out in episode 1, Kleist was a Jesuit and Lightfoot was an Anglican who conceded early primacy to the bishop of Rome, and both of them saw Clement's words here as evidence that the bishop of Rome recognized his universal authority.

Both translators attached the phrase, through the Holy Spirit, to the things written by us, to make Clement appear to claim that his own letter is inspired by the Holy Spirit. But two other Protestant translators rendered it differently and attached the phrase, through the Holy Spirit, to the repentance that Clement seeks from the Corinthians.

Charles Houle's 1885 translation renders it, obedient to the things that have been written by us, you put an end by the suggestion of the Holy Spirit to the unlawful wrath of your discord. And John Keith's 1896 translation renders it, if you become obedient to the words written by us, and through the Holy Spirit, root out the lawlessness of your jealousy.

Houle's and Keith's translations are obviously more consistent with Clement's since throughout the letter he has invoked the Holy Spirit's movement in the believer toward an attitude of repentance, as you can see in paragraphs 7, 8, 13, 16, 56, and 57 of the same letter.

So, it is a very weak argument to say that Clement claimed his own letter was written to Corinth by the Holy Spirit through the Bishop of Rome. Like I said, you can go back to episode 1 on Father Ray Ryland and give that another listen.

Ignatius of Antioch, the Sanhedrin of God, and Unity with the Bishop

Okay, let's move on to Ignatius of Antioch from the early 2nd century. Marcus Grodi makes the tired old argument that Ignatius used very special, deferential language reserved only for Rome and addressed the Roman congregation in very reverent terms, terms that he did not use when he addressed other congregations.

Here is Marcus Grodi making the case.

Let's go to St. Ignatius of Antioch again. He's writing in 110 AD, Letter to the Romans. He wrote a lot of letters to churches on his way to Rome, but when he wrote the letter to Rome itself, listen to how he addresses that church.

He's the Bishop of Antioch, and he writes, Ignatius, to the church also which holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification.

And because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father. The Bishop of Antioch, traveling from the Middle East towards his martyrdom in Rome, he addresses the church in Rome as the church that's the presidency, the church that's of great significance amongst the other churches.

Wow, the congregation at Rome holds the presidency in love. Really? Well, pack your bags and bring your swimmin' trunks, boys, because we're swimmin' the Tiber tonight. Oh, goodness gracious, what are we to do with poor Marcus Grodi?

He must think we haven't read Ignatius' letters. Or, what is more likely, perhaps Mr. Grodi has not read Ignatius' letters. If we read every other letter by Ignatius, the same way Mr. Grodi has read the letter to Rome, we'd have to readjust the Antinocene-Episcopal hierarchy with each letter.

Every Antinocene church would have a claim of Episcopal primacy. What, for example, are we to infer from Ignatius' use of the word Sanhedrin to describe the authority of the presbyters at the church at Tralas?

The Sanhedrin was the highest judicial body and council of elders in ancient Jerusalem. And yet Ignatius refers to the Trallian presbyters alone as the Sanhedrin of God. The Sanhedrin of God, people! Now, citing from Ignatius 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. Again, Ignatius of Antioch to the Trallians, chapter 3. Wow, apart from the leaders of Tralas, the very Sanhedrin of God, the very assembly of the apostles, there is no church?

Maybe Tralas was to be that strong central episcopate that emerged early in the church to guide the sheep into all truth. Their presbyters were as the Sanhedrin and the assembly of the apostles. There can be no higher ecclesiastical authority on earth than the Sanhedrin of God.

All hail Tralas, the strong central episcopate of the universal church, where Christ built his church upon Peter. Or what are we to infer from the fact that in Ignatius' six letters to the churches, he salutes every church except Ephesus.

He salutes Magnesia in the greeting and in chapter 15, and he salutes Tralas in the greeting and in chapters 12 and 13, and he salutes Rome in the greeting and in chapter 9, and he salutes Philadelphia in the greeting and in chapter 11, and he salutes Smyrna in chapters 11 and 12.

But in his letter to the church at Ephesus, he extends no formal salutation and instead calls Ephesus predestinated before the ages of time that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory.

That's from the greeting of Ignatius of Antioch's letter to the Ephesians. No other congregation in Ignatius' letters is addressed in this way. Maybe Ephesus was to be that strong central episcopate that emerged early in the church to guide the sheep into all truth.

To such a church as this, no salutation is necessary. None is warranted. The salutation of the whole Christian church is already implied by its very existence. All hail to Ephesus, the strong central episcopate of the universal church.

Honestly, what else could such a greeting possibly mean? That he should call them predestinated before the ages of time and not insult them with such a common salutation. Or what are we to infer from Ignatius' selective description of how established each church was?

He says the church of Ephesus is established in safety. That's chapter 12. He says the church in Smyrna is established in love. That's chapter 1. But for the church in Philadelphia, Ignatius reserves the highest honor.

It is doubly established in harmony and in security, as he indicates in his greeting to that church. But Magnesia, on the other hand, is not yet established and must still study to be established. That's from chapter 13.

What is worse, neither the church of Rome nor the church of Tralas are established at all. At least he does not use that word to describe them in his letters to them. What else can this possibly mean but that Philadelphia was doubly established in its primacy over all the churches?

Small wonder, therefore, that Ignatius believed himself to be greatly enlarged in loving the Philadelphians. That's from his letter to the Philadelphians, chapter 5. An epithet assigned to no other church in any of his letters.

Maybe Philadelphia was that strong central episcopate that emerged early in the church to guide the sheep into all truth. This is surely confirmed by the fact that Philadelphia alone is excluded from Ignatius' prayers for an abundance of happiness.

He wishes an abundance of happiness for Ephesus and Magnesia, Tralas, Rome, Smyrna, and Polycarp in his respective greetings to each. But he withholds such a wish for Philadelphia. Surely this is because he knows that the bishop there had already achieved the perfection of happiness and was already an example of infinite meekness, as he states in his letter to the Philadelphians, chapter 1.

This can hardly speak of anything else but the emergence of a Philadelphian primacy that would be so necessary to shepherd the fledgling church into all truth. All hail to Philadelphia, the strong central episcopate of the universal church.

Now we jest, of course. I hope that our facetious display has demonstrated just how desperate the Roman apologist is to find evidence of Roman primacy in the early church. Our point is simply that if someone looks long enough and hard enough, he will find something Ignatius describes to one church and to no other.

And in that uniqueness, he will find what he is looking for. The only primacy the Roman apologist can find in Ignatius is the Roman primacy the apologist carried with him into the text. But we know better.

A plain reading of Ignatius has him as just one bishop among many writing to the various congregations to encourage them and to ask them to encourage him. That's it. But there is one more thing that we want to mention about this.

Marcus Grodi has attempted to show that Ignatius deferred reverentially and submissively to the bishop of Rome, but that is just wishful thinking, as we have shown. In fact, Ignatius did not believe the bishop of Rome was the chief shepherd of all the churches.

He believed the chief shepherd of each congregation was Christ himself. For example, when he wrote to the congregation at Rome, he acknowledged that he had left the congregation of Antioch without a bishop, and therefore that God himself and Jesus Christ would have to be their shepherd.

He wrote, That's Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans, paragraph 9. And then when he wrote to Polycarp, he said that the church at Smyrna has Polycarp for a bishop, but Polycarp has his own bishop, God himself, or Jesus Christ himself.

Polycarp, bishop of the church of the Smyrnaeans, or rather, who has as his own bishop God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. That's from the greeting of Ignatius' letter to Polycarp. In other words, Ignatius did not believe that the bishop of Rome was the bishop of bishops.

Smyrna's bishop has God for a bishop. In his own absence, the church at Antioch has God for a bishop. That is, Ignatius thought God was the bishop of bishopss. There was no sense in which he thought that the bishop of Rome occupied that role.

So not only do we not find in Ignatius a unique reverential, deferential tone reserved only for the bishop of Rome, we also find that when Ignatius does explicitly refer to the bishop over the other bishops, it is Jesus Christ who is the bishop over the bishops, not the bishop of Rome.

Remember that. We'll be coming back to it later in this episode. Okay, let's move on to Marcus Grodi's next argument, this time from Irenaeus of Lyons.

Irenaeus, Roman Disputes, and the Limits of Apostolic Tradition

Well, let me read a long passage from St. Irenaeus. I would like to condense this, but this is a very important early witness to the authorities of the bishops in Rome, again from his book Against Heresies, writing about another 90 years later from the last quote, St. Irenaeus of Lyons.

It is possible then for every church who may wish to know the truth to contemplate the tradition of the apostles, which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishop by the apostles and their successors to our own times.

In other words, St. Irenaeus could go through the whole list of all the bishops of the different churches, but then he goes on. But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we should confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vain glory or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops in the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles.

For with this church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree. That is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.

You know, that quote from St. Irenaeus reads just as clear today as it did in 190 A .D. He was speaking for the fact that there was this connection of churches all over Europe, Asia, around the Mediterranean.

They were all in union together following Christ's installation of the church, recognizing that for them to know for sure that what they were believing and teaching was true, they had to recognize that how did they believe or teach in relationship to what the church at Rome taught.

And so Irenaeus is recognizing that authority of that church in Rome.

Okay, Marcus Grodi is citing from Irenaeus' five-volume work called Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3, Paragraph 2, in which he is alleged to say that all churches must agree with Rome. Well, the argument is full of problems for the Roman apologists for a lot of reasons, but there are four main reasons, and we have covered this in other episodes, but we'll summarize here.

The first problem is that it is known that Irenaeus himself disagreed with Rome, as we have discussed on many occasions. This is reported to us by Eusebius, who reminds us that Irenaeus strongly rebuked the bishop of Rome when Pope Victor tried to excommunicate the Asian churches because they refused to celebrate Easter on the date he preferred.

That was in the last decade of the second century. Second, not only did Irenaeus rebuke Victor for his presumption, but many other bishops joined Irenaeus in that rebuke. So here we have a situation in which the bishops of Asia Minor disagree with Rome, and Rome attempts to excommunicate them, and instead of appealing to the bishops of Asia Minor and insisting that they must agree with Rome, as Marcus Grodi would imagine, Irenaeus rebukes the bishop of Rome.

So not only did the bishops of Asia Minor disagree with Rome, and not only did many other bishops in Europe disagree with Rome, but they were joining Irenaeus, who issued a strong rebuke of bishop Victor of Rome.

That's recorded for us in Eusebius' Church History, Book 5, Chapter 24, Paragraphs 10 -11. That doesn't sound like Irenaeus thought every church must agree with Rome. The third point is that Irenaeus reported favorably of the incident in which Polycarp himself came to Rome and disagreed with a bishop there three decades earlier, in the 160s A .D.

This is from Irenaeus' own written account of it, as recorded for us by Eusebius. And when the blessed Polycarp was at Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they disagreed a little about certain other things, they immediately made peace with one another, not caring to quarrel over this matter.

For neither could Anicetus 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, neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it as he said he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that had preceded him.

But though matters were in this shape, they communed together and Anicetus conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. That's Eusebius' Church History, Book 5, Chapter 24, Paragraphs 16 -17.

And remember, this comes to us by the hand of Eusebius, but it is a quote of Irenaeus' own written account of it. So not only did Irenaeus disagree with Rome, but other bishops joined with him in disagreeing with Rome, and Irenaeus also reported favorably, not only of the fact that Polycarp disagreed with Rome, but also that the churches continued in fellowship even though they could not come to an agreement with Rome.

Fourth, Marcus Grodi is citing from the Latin version of Irenaeus' work, which is hardly his fault because that's the only version that currently exists for that particular section of Against Heresies.

But Irenaeus wrote in Greek, and Against Heresies only exists in fragments in the original language. The only complete copy of it is in Latin, and that's why Marcus Grodi is citing that particular portion.

But scholars know that the Latin version of it is barbaric. That's the word the scholars actually use for it. Whoever translated Irenaeus from Greek into Latin was not very good at it, and he absolutely butchered Irenaeus' work in the process, as is evident wherever fragments of the original Greek exist to make the comparison.

Unfortunately, for this particular section of Irenaeus, we do not have the original Greek. But obviously, since there is so much evidence against the proposition that Irenaeus believed that all churches must agree with Rome, it is clear that this is just one more case of the Latin translator butchering Irenaeus' original work.

Now, those four points should be enough to tell us that Irenaeus did not really believe that every church must agree with Rome. In fact, it's enough evidence to show that he would never advance such an opinion in the first place.

There is simply too much evidence to the contrary for all of us to fall for a barbaric Latin translation of a missing Greek original. We are certainly not as eager to be fooled by the barbaric Latin as Marcus Grodi is, but he swallows the gross historical inconsistency hook, line, and sinker.

But he goes even further than that and concludes that not only must all churches agree with Rome, but that all churches must compare their own teachings against what Rome is teaching in order to be sure that they are in line with the truth.

Here is Marcus Grodi again explaining that the early churches all must have measured their own teachings against a Roman standard.

This connection of churches all over Europe, Asia, around the Mediterranean, they were all in union together following Christ's installation of the church, recognizing that for them to know for sure that what they were believing and teaching was true, they had to recognize that how did they believe or teach in relationship to what the church at Rome taught.

Oh goodness, you almost have to laugh to keep yourself from crying. Marcus Grodi's naivete knows no bounds. There is simply no way you can possibly conclude such a thing from Irenaeus unless you are chronically ignorant.

To demonstrate just how silly Grodi's conclusion is, I want to walk through a few centuries of Roman error, heresy, obstinacy, presumption, and impudence, and you decide if all other churches in the ancient world were measuring themselves against the standard of Rome.

It was in fact Rome that was teaching error, and the other churches had to go to Rome to correct her erring popes and restore the Roman church to apostolic orthodoxy. And it was in fact Rome that had to compare herself to other churches to determine if she herself was actually the one holding the apostolic truths of scriptures.

Let us first remember why Irenaeus had visited Rome in the first place. Irenaeus was a bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, or modern-day Lyons in France, when he received word that the errors of Marcian and Valentinus were taking root in Rome.