TDB 5 — The Conversion of Taylor Marshall

The Conversion Testimony and Appeal to Rome

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.

Why the Program Focuses on Protestant Conversions to Rome

Welcome back to everyone. And we're glad to be back in this second episode of the New Year. For those of you who are new to the Diving Board podcast, it is one of many great podcasts available at Thorn Crown Ministries.

And this one in particular focuses on the conversion testimonies of Protestants who convert to Roman Catholicism. In particular, we focus on the arguments of Protestants who thought that they were so deep in history that they couldn't be Protestant anymore.

That catchphrase, deep in history, comes from a statement that Cardinal Newman once made about his own journey from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism. He is arguably one of the most famous converts to Roman Catholicism because of his high position prior to and after converting.

He was an Anglican priest until his conversion to Roman Catholicism in 1845. He was ultimately appointed to the Pope's College of Cardinals and wrote prolifically as an apologist for Roman Catholicism.

His famous saying was, to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. And it comes from his introduction to what is arguably his most famous work on the development of Christian doctrine. He wrote, whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism.

If ever there were a safe truth, it is this, to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant. That's from Newman on the development of Christian doctrine. That statement is the inspiration for the deep in history comment made by so many Protestants who convert to Rome, thinking that they too are deep in history.

It is an appeal to the pride of the intellect, but it is a surprisingly shallow claim in its substance because those who make it, including Cardinal Newman who was the first to say it, are notoriously and demonstrably shallow in history.

Our first three episodes deal with the comments of Father Ray Ryland, also a former Anglican who converted to Roman Catholicism, and we encourage our listeners to start there first. Our fourth episode was about the conversion stories of Jeff Cavins, a former non-denominational pastor, and Dr. Joseph Johnson, a former Presbyterian minister, both of whom converted to Rome after a mystical, historical, emotional, sensory experience with the Eucharist.

None of these returned to an ancient apostolic religion. In the shallowness of their history, they returned to a 4th century novelty, and in some cases, a 5th, 6th, 11th, or 15th century novelty. All of this was in the name of getting in touch with the early church.

But getting in touch with the early church is something a Roman Catholic cannot do because Roman Catholicism itself is a novelty 300 years removed from the apostolic church of Christ and his followers.

Taylor Marshall's Canterbury Trail and the Claim of Roman Authority

This week we are focusing on the conversion of Dr. Taylor Marshall. I met Taylor Marshall when we attended Christ the King Presbyterian Church together in Houston, Texas, and over the next few years he converted and became an Anglican priest, and finally converted to Rome in 2006.

Taylor Marshall is a very intelligent man. He has a beautiful wife and many beautiful children. He's just a really nice guy. We will not be able to discuss every single part of his conversion story in this episode, but we want to focus on a couple observations he made as he was converting from being an Anglican priest to being a Roman Catholic layman.

First, I want to cite from his conversion story from the summer of 2006. It is called, My Canterbury Trail to Rome, My Conversion from the Anglican Priesthood to Catholicism. He wrote, The argument for the authority of Rome is not sophisticated.

It is simply that Christ instituted St. Peter to bind and loose on earth, clearly earth denotes his universal jurisdiction, and that this office is protected by the Holy Spirit, so that the Catholic Church will never be led into error in the realm of faith, or doctrine, and morals, or ethics.

Again, that's Taylor Marshall in My Canterbury Trail to Rome from the summer of 2006. In addition to that, we will look at several of his arguments about the old Eucharistic liturgy of the ancient church, and how much he longs to see that implemented in all churches everywhere, and how he wants Roman Catholicism to return to it.

But first, let's take a look at his argument for Roman authority, and deal with that, and then we'll move on to the Eucharist. The argument for the authority of Rome, according to Taylor Marshall, may not be sophisticated, but the one that Marshall makes for it is pure sophistry.

After Peter correctly identified Jesus as the Son of God, Jesus said,. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. That's Matthew 16, verses 18 -19.

Well, we could go on and on with Roman Catholics about whether Peter alone had the authority to bind and loose, or whether all of Jesus' disciples have that authority. Matthew 18, verse 18 says that authority is given to all the disciples.

But we want to focus on something important in what Taylor Marshall said. Taylor Marshall said, The argument for the authority of Rome is not sophisticated, and it originates from Matthew 16. How did we get to Rome from Matthew 16?

Taylor Marshall is reading Matthew 16 as if Jesus says Peter's authority will be in Rome. As if he said,. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and thou shalt take up residence in Rome. And in Rome I will build my church, that will be based in Rome.

And the gates of hell shall not prevail against Rome. And I give unto thee the keys of Rome. But Matthew 16 does not say that, and Taylor Marshall knows it. His argument for Roman authority is actually based on his eschatology, that sees the Roman Catholic religion taking over for the Roman Empire in Daniel chapter 7.

We mentioned this briefly in episode 19 of the Danielic Imperative, and anyone who wants to explore that can listen to that episode. But since Roman Catholicism is allegedly built on Peter, and Daniel allegedly foresaw the church taking over for the Roman Empire, Taylor Marshall equates Peter's authority with Rome's authority.

Of course, Daniel did not foresee Christ's church taking over the Roman Empire, but that is an eschatological dispute, and we cover it in our podcast on the Danielic Imperative, and we won't get into it here.

But to support their view, Roman Catholics selectively quote various letters and other circumstantial evidence here and there that seem to support their position that Rome enjoyed ecclesiastical primacy from the earliest days of the church.

Clement of Rome in the 1st century helped with the dispute in Corinth, and Ignatius in the 2nd century appears to use a different tone in his letter to the church of Rome than he does in his letters to the churches of Asia.

And Irenaeus, in Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3, Paragraph 2, said it was the duty of all churches to agree with Rome. And he even included a list of bishops since the days of Peter and Paul. And Tertullian said that, from Rome, there even comes into our own hands the very authority of the apostles themselves.

That's from Tertullian, Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 36. And as we highlighted in our first few episodes, Dionysius of Alexandria apparently deferred to the Bishop of Rome on a doctrinal matter.

That's from his epistle to Dionysius, Bishop of Rome. And at Nicaea in 325 AD, in Canon 6, the council made a ruling on episcopal authority in Alexandria based on a custom, quote, with reference to the Bishop of Rome, unquote.

And in a letter in 341 AD, Bishop Julius of Rome wrote about the custom for, quote, word to be written to us first, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place, unquote. That's from Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians, Part 1, Chapter 2, the letter of Julius to the Eusebians at Antioch.

And at the Council of Sardica in 343 AD, in Canon 3, there is mention that in order to honor the memory of Peter the Apostle, let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the Bishop of Rome, before carrying out a sentence against the bishop.

In all of these cases, the evidence is circumstantial and easily contextualized with a little simple analysis and knowledge of history. It is true that Clement helped resolve a dispute in Corinth, but that hardly proves Roman primacy.

After all, Cyprian of Carthage, a couple centuries later, would help resolve a similar dispute in Rome. The bishops of the ancient world just helped each other out that way. And a letter from Clement, helping with the controversy in Corinth, doesn't prove Roman primacy at all.

And it is true that Ignatius' letter to the church at Rome has some stylistic differences, but that hardly proves that he submitted to Rome. His letters dealt largely with the Gnostic heresy that was spreading through Asia Minor, but had not yet reached Rome.

So his letters to the Asian churches would, of course, be substantively different than the one he sent to Rome. And it is true that the Latin version of Against Heresies by Irenaeus did say, it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church, that is, the church of Rome, on account of its preeminent authority.

But it is also true that Irenaeus wrote in Greek, and we do not have the original Greek of that particular paragraph. And the Latin translation is known to be of the most barbarous character, and it is not altogether faithful to the original Greek.

What is more, Irenaeus is known to have disagreed with the church at Rome, as we will show shortly. And in fact, Irenaeus wrote about Polycarp's disagreement with the bishop of Rome, saying that the fact that they disagreed on the matter of the Lord's Supper, but still got along, proved that the disagreement in regard to the manner of celebrating the Passover confirms the agreement in the faith.

That's from Eusebius' Church History, Book 5, Chapter 24, Paragraph 13. So not only did Irenaeus disagree with the church at Rome, but he described Polycarp's disagreement with the bishop of Rome, and said that their ability to disagree and still get along, confirmed the faith.

When understood in that context, and knowing that the Latin translation of Irenaeus is absolutely barbaric, there is only one thing we can conclude. Irenaeus did not say that it is a matter of necessity that everyone has to agree with the church of Rome.

And yes, it is true that Irenaeus listed the line of bishops since the days of Peter and Paul, in his work against Heresies, but it is also true that against Heresies was primarily directed against Valentinus, a Gnostic who had once been a candidate for bishop of Rome.

You can find that in Tertullian, against the Valentinians, Chapter 4. Once that is clear, it is evident that the list of bishops was to show that we know where we get our teachings, but nobody had come teaching Valentinian's Gnosticism until Valentinian, as Irenaeus wrote in the next chapter, for prior to Valentinus, those who follow Valentinus had no existence.

His point is obviously that Valentinus would not have been a very good bishop of Rome if he was teaching things we had not received from the apostles. And where are we to find such teachings? Irenaeus tells us.

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. Yes, Irenaeus listed a long line of bishops because he was countering a heretic who had once been a candidate to be bishop of Rome, but when he wanted to find documented evidence for the teachings of the apostles, he reverted to the scriptures.

And yes, it is true that Tertullian said that from Rome there comes, even into our own hands, the very authority of the apostles themselves. But that statement was written in the context of all churches in every place receiving their authority through the churches established by the apostles in every place.

And he mentions Corinth, Philippi, Thessalonica, and Ephesus. And in that same work, Tertullian says churches can only be considered apostolic if they are, quote, the offspring of apostolic churches, unquote.

As even the Catholic Encyclopedia suggests, Carthage appears to have been an offshoot of the Roman church in North Africa. So yes, Carthage's apostolic authority derived from Rome, because Rome appears to have planted the church at Carthage, which is precisely the point Tertullian was making in his prescription against heretics.

But Tertullian was not saying that every church on earth derives its apostolic authority from Rome. Some churches derived their apostolic authority from Corinth, from Philippi, from Thessalonica, and from Ephesus too.

Each church derived its authority by being the offspring of an apostolic church, and some, like Carthage, derived their apostolic authority from Rome. And yes, it is true that Dionysius of Alexandria apparently deferred to the bishop of Rome on a doctrinal matter, as you can see in his epistle to Dionysius, bishop of Rome.

But as Eusebius reported, Dionysius of Alexandria had been deferring to Dionysius of Rome, while Dionysius of Rome was but a presbyter, before he was ever elected bishop there. That's from Church History, Book 7, Chapter 7, Paragraph 6, and it shows that the Alexandrian Dionysius' deference was not due to the Roman Dionysius' office.

It was a fraternal respect, not a hierarchical one. And what is more, Dionysius of Alexandria is known to have written critically of Stephen and Sixtus, bishops of Rome, on matters of baptism, saying that they were not teaching the same things as the apostles, and were deviating from the historical faith.

You can find that in Dionysius of Alexandria in his letter to Stephen on the baptism of heretics, and a similar letter on the same topic to Sixtus. And, oh yes, Canon 6 of Nicaea in 325 absolutely does say that the bishop of Alexandria retains his ancient jurisdiction over parts of North Africa, based on a custom related to the bishop of Rome.

That is true. For this, we will invite the intention of our listeners to an article we wrote at the Trinity Foundation called Nicaea and the Roman Precedent. Once the context is understood, it is clear that the 318 bishops at Nicaea did not confer authority on the bishop of Alexandria based on the authority of the bishop of Rome, but rather, because Alexandria was the second-ranking metropolis in the diocese of Oriens, and Rome was the second-ranking metropolis in the diocese of Italy at the time, Alexandria was therefore allowed to rule over a few provinces in the diocese of Oriens, leaving the rest to Antioch, because, according to a recent custom, Rome was allowed to rule over a few provinces in Italy, leaving the rest to be administered from Milan.

The precedent having already been established for a lesser metropolis in Italy, such a custom was suitable for the episcopal boundary dispute in Alexandria that had been raised for the consideration of the council.

And finally, regarding the whole dispute about Athanasius in the 340s AD, we already covered this in episode 3, but simply put, once Athanasius decided to appeal his case to Rome, nobody was allowed to argue the case in front of the emperor until Julius of Rome completed his duties as an appellate judge and compiled the evidence from both sides and forwarded them to the emperor for review.

That's what Julius meant about the custom of writing to us first in Rome so that a just decision may proceed from this place. Athanasius' accusers kept arguing their case against Athanasius in front of the emperor, even after Athanasius had lodged his appeal in Rome.

And if you will recall from our brief synopsis on Nicaea, there were at the time two metropolitan cities in the Diocese of Oriens, the cities of Alexandria and Antioch, and there were also two metropolitan cities in the Diocese of Italy, the cities of Rome and Milan.

And since Constantine's reforms required appeals in each diocese to be advanced to the imperial court through the metropolis, the Council of Sardica ruled that thenceforth, all appeals had to go through the metropolis of each diocese.

Nicaea had already settled the problem in the Diocese of Oriens, but Italy also had two metropolitans as well, so the Council of Sardica settled the matter for the Diocese of Italy. Those appeals lodged in Rome had to be handled by the Bishop of Rome, and outside of Rome, but within Italy, appeals could be handled in Milan.

That's it. Nothing fancy, nothing complicated, and nothing about Roman papal, judicial, or episcopal primacy. So in the end, the fog of circumstantial evidence for Roman ecclesiastical, judicial, and doctrinal primacy is dispelled by the light of history.

There is just nothing there in the first three centuries of Christianity to support it. But as we are about to show, there is an awful lot of evidence to disprove it. But let's just assume for a moment that Taylor Marshall is right, and we'll assume for the sake of argument that Jesus established his church on Peter at Rome.

Surely the early church in the first generation after the apostles must have known this, because Jesus would have taught this to his apostles, and the apostles would have taught it to worthy men after them.

So let's go back in time and find out whether in the first few centuries the church understood Matthew 16 the way Taylor Marshall understands Matthew 16. And remember, the way Marshall understands Matthew 16 is that the argument for Roman authority is not sophisticated.

It is simply that Christ instituted St. Peter to bind and loose on earth. See? Matthew 16, and therefore Roman authority. That's Marshall's interpretation of Matthew 16. Now let's find out if the early church believed that.

Let's start with Polycarp. According to Irenaeus in Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3, Paragraph 4, Polycarp was not only instructed by the apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by the apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna.

Again, Against Heresies by Irenaeus, Book 3, Chapter 3, Paragraph 4. So I'm guessing that Polycarp, having been instructed by the apostles and ordained bishop of the church in Smyrna, must have shown abject submission to the bishop of Rome, and that we should all follow Polycarp's example, right?

Because, you know, Matthew 16, 18. Well, here's what church historian Eusebius wrote about Polycarp's encounter with Anicetus, bishop of Rome. This is quoting from Church History, Book 4, Chapter 14, Paragraph 1.

While Anicetus was at the head of the church of Rome, Polycarp, who was still alive, was at Rome, and he had a conference with Anicetus on a question concerning the day of the Paschal Feast. Yes, it seems that they disagreed on what day the Lord's Passover and resurrection should be celebrated.

So remember, according to Taylor Marshall's version of history, Polycarp has been instructed by the apostles, and the apostles taught Polycarp that Jesus built his church on Peter in Rome, and Peter's successor in Rome has the power to bind and loose and has ecclesiastical, judicial, and doctrinal primacy from the outset.

So, obviously, Polycarp raised the question of what day Passover should be celebrated and then accepted whatever the pope said, because that's what the apostles told him to do, right? Because, you know, Matthew 16, 18.

No, that is not what happened. Eusebius picks up the story of the dispute in the next book and explains what happened. This is citing from Eusebius, Church History, Book 5, Chapter 24, Paragraphs 16 -17.

Quoting from a letter written by Irenaeus. 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, bishop of Rome, persuade Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, 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 that he ought to follow the customs of the presbyters that preceded him. But though matters were in this shape, they communed together and Anicetus, bishop of Rome, conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect, and they parted from each other in peace, both those who observed and those who did not, maintaining the peace of the whole church.

Again, that's Eusebius' Church History, Book 5, Chapter 24, Paragraphs 16 -17. Man, that kind of happened the opposite of what we were expecting. Shouldn't Polycarp have deferred to Anicetus as a mark of respect?

Now keep in mind, in Roman Catholicism, there is nothing as important as the Eucharist, because the Eucharist is God, and God needs to be handled respectfully, and the Eucharist needs to be celebrated the way Jesus instituted it, and if there is a question about how to celebrate the Eucharist, there is nobody who ranks higher than the bishop of Rome in determining the right way to do it.

And still, Anicetus, bishop of Rome, could not persuade Polycarp to celebrate the Lord's Supper differently than how Polycarp had learned it from John and the other apostles. I wonder if Polycarp understood Matthew 16 differently than Taylor Marshall does.

And when the same controversy arose with Pope Victor just a little while later, a lot of the European and Asian bishops agreed with him on the date that the resurrection should be celebrated, but the bishops of Asia Minor disagreed, and Pope Victor excommunicated all of them.

So that settled it, right? Well, no, it did not. Even the bishops who agreed with Victor on the date of Passover sharply rebuked Victor for his actions, including Irenaeus. That's from Eusebius' Church History, Book 5, Chapter 24, Paragraphs 10 -11.

And when Eusebius summarizes the story, he concludes by saying that Irenaeus.

Quote,.

So we not only have Irenaeus and the Western bishops sternly rebuking Victor, and the bishops of Asia Minor saying that they're going to celebrate the way they want to, and they're not going to be terrified by Victor's threats, but you also have church historian Eusebius approving of the way that Irenaeus admonished the bishop of Rome for his behavior.

Man, that kind of turned out differently than we were expecting. Well, let's move on. Irenaeus said Polycarp traveled to Rome to help Pope Anicetus deal with the error prospering under his administration.

For Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus. That's against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 4, Paragraph 3. And remember, Valentinus was the Gnostic who was introducing the heresy in Rome.

But guess who comes riding to the rescue to save the city of Rome from the Gnosticism that is flourishing under the bishops there. Polycarp coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles, namely, which is handed down by the Church.

That's Irenaeus against Heresies Book 3, Chapter 3, Paragraph 4. Now, if the bishop of Rome is the rock upon which Christ built his church, why did Polycarp have to import the sole truth of the apostles from Smyrna in Asia Minor?

Why was heresy flourishing under Popes Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus? And later that century, Irenaeus is authorized by his presbytery in Gaul to travel to Rome to deliver a letter to Bishop Eleutherius of Rome, according to Eusebius' Church History, Book 5, Chapter 4, Paragraphs 1 -3.

And what does Irenaeus discover upon his arrival but that Eleutherius himself was writing letters approving of the Montanist heresy? That's from Tertullian against Praxeas. But let's move on to Irenaeus' disciple, Hippolytus.

I'm citing now from Refutation of All Heresies, Book 9, Chapter 2. And here, Hippolytus, who was already in Rome, is writing complaining about the many heresies being advanced by the bishops of Rome and how he had repeatedly had to rebuke them to get them to turn from their error.

Now citing from Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies. At that time, Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, imagines that he administers the affairs of the church, an uninformed and shamefully corrupt man, and he, being persuaded by proffered gain, was accustomed to connive with those who were present for the purpose of becoming disciples of Cleomenes.

But Zephyrinus himself, being in process of time, enticed away, hurried headlong into the same opinions, and he has Callistus as his advisor, and a fellow champion of these wicked tenets. But the life of this Callistus, and the heresy invented by him, I shall after a little explain.

The school of these heretics during the succession of such bishops continued to acquire strength and augmentation from the fact that Zephyrinus and Callistus helped them to prevail. Never at any time, however, have we been guilty of collusion with them, but we have frequently offered them opposition, and have refuted them, and have forced them reluctantly to acknowledge the truth.

And they, abashed and constrained by the truth, have confessed their errors for a short period, but after a little, wallow once again in the same mire. Again, that's Hippolytus, from Refutation of All Heresies, complaining that he constantly has to rebuke the succession of bishops in Rome because of their constant tendency to wallow and wander into heresy.

And again, Eusebius confirms Hippolytus' observation. Saying that all the early teachers and the apostles received and taught what they now declare, and that the truth of the gospel was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter, but that from his successor, Zephyrinus, the truth had been corrupted.

That's Eusebius, Church History, Book 5, Chapter 28, Paragraph 3, talking about Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome, corrupting the truth. And let's not forget Vermilion of Caesarea, who wrote to Cyprian of Carthage to complain that Rome's apostolicity had been compromised by its bishop.

He wrote, 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 Vermilion of Caesarea.

And let's not forget the Roman congregation that wrote to Cyprian of Carthage confessing their own crimes and degeneracy, acknowledged that they had fallen far from the apostolic praise heaped upon them by Paul that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Instead, they confessed to Cyprian, It is a very great crime to have become degenerate. It is a smaller crime not to have been honored with a good testimony than to have lost the honor of good testimonies.

Again, that's Cyprian, Epistle 30, Paragraph 2, a confession from the Roman congregation on their crimes and degeneracy. And what of Cyprian's later response to Bishop Cornelius of Rome, telling him that he needs to read Cyprian's letters aloud to the Roman congregation so that, Any contagion may be all purged out of the ears and hearts of the brethren, and they may be cleansed anew from all the filth of heretical disparagement.

That's Cyprian, Epistle 54, Paragraph 20, in his letter to the Bishop of Rome, explaining that to purge the Romans of their heresy, they probably need to read some of Cyprian's letters, or have them read aloud to them by the bishop there.

Or what of the Spanish bishops who had resigned from the Episcopate and were reinstated by Stephen, the Bishop of Rome? The Spanish congregation wrote not to Rome to appeal the matter, but to Carthage, asking for a second opinion from Cyprian.

And Cyprian of Carthage said those two bishops had gone to Rome and deceived Stephen, our colleague. And Stephen of Rome was ignorant of what had been done, and lacking discernment, had been heedlessly surprised by fraud.

That's Cyprian, Epistle 67, Paragraph 9, responding to the Spanish congregation who had asked his opinion, after Stephen of Rome had attempted to reinstate two bishops who had stumbled into idolatry. So, let's review the papacy in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

Polycarp has to travel to Rome because heresy is flourishing there under three successive Roman bishops, Hyginus, Pius, and Anicetus. And Polycarp has to quench the flames of heresy, based on the truth he had received not from Peter, but from John, and he had to import it to Rome from Asia Minor.

While there, Polycarp refuses to take the Bishop of Rome's position on the celebration of the resurrection, because Anicetus, the Bishop of Rome, cannot persuade him to deviate from what he had received from the rest of the apostles.

And so Anicetus, Bishop of Rome, defers to Polycarp out of respect. And then the bishops of Gaul send Irenaeus to Rome to help fight heresy, and upon his arrival, Irenaeus discovers that Eleutherius, the Bishop of Rome himself, is actually writing letters supporting the heresy.

And then the Asia Minor bishops later refuse to submit to Victor, the Bishop of Rome, on the celebration of the resurrection, and when Victor excommunicates them, the rest of the Western bishops sternly rebuke Victor for his behavior, and Eusebius records that Irenaeus fittingly admonished the Bishop of Rome, and in fact was among those who sternly rebuked Victor.

And Irenaeus' disciple, Hippolytus, has to rebuke the bishops of Rome, Zephyrinus and Callistus, for their heresies, forcing them to acknowledge the truth reluctantly, and even after that they return to their error, while Eusebius records that under Zephyrinus, the Bishop of Rome, the truth began to be corrupted.

And Formilian of Caesarea writes to Cyprian of Carthage in 256, during the administration of Stephen of Rome, complaining that the bishops there vainly pretend the authority of the apostles. And the Roman congregation writes to Cyprian confessing their crimes and degeneracy on other matters, while Dionysius of Alexandria writes to two successive bishops of Rome, Stephen and Sixtus, complaining that they are teaching contrary to what we have received from the apostles, and do not comply with the customs of the ancients.

While Cyprian of Carthage writes to the Spanish congregation, that the Bishop of Rome had been deceived and had been surprised by fraud, when he reinstated two Spanish bishops, and that Stephen's intervention could be ignored.

And by the time you get to the early 4th century, Rome is still a second-tier metropolis within the Diocese of Italy, analogous to Alexandria, which was a second-tier metropolis within the Diocese of the East, as recognized by the Council of Nicaea in 325.

And by the middle of the 4th century, the bishop is still just handling appellate court cases for the emperor, and forwarding them dutifully to him for his august consideration and final review under Constantine's judicial reforms, just like every other metropolitan in the empire.

Well, when you look at it that way, it seems that the rest of the church knew very well, for 300 years, that Rome was just a small fish in a big pond, and her bishops needed to be reminded frequently of that fact, when they presumed to think otherwise, as they often did.

And many times the rest of the church had to come to Rome's aid to fight heresy. So inept were the occupants of the Episcopal chair at resisting it. That's not what it looks like when people think the Bishop of Rome is in charge and is supernaturally protected from advancing error, and supernaturally enabled to keep the church at peace.

No, that is the opposite of what it looks like. The early church, for the first 300 years, would have had no idea what Taylor Marshall was talking about. We think we have made our point. The early church simply did not interpret Matthew 16 the way Taylor Marshall interprets Matthew 16.

In fact, many times the early church discovered that the Bishop of Rome was not the solution, but rather was the problem. And many of the Bishops of Rome were disturbing the peace of the church and introducing heresy to boot.

Now, having heard all the errors and disruptions of the Bishop of Rome and the early church, and not only that, but how often the Bishops of Rome were rebuked and corrected by the early church, let's go back and revisit Taylor Marshall's words from his conversion story.

The argument for the authority of Rome is not sophisticated. It is simply that Christ instituted St. Peter to bind and loose on earth, and that his office is protected by the Holy Spirit so that the Catholic Church will never be led into error in the realm of faith and morals.

Because, you know, Matthew 16. And that is why the early church, for the first three centuries, totally deferred to the Bishop of Rome, right? No, we don't think so, Taylor Marshall. And if you were deep in history, you never would have proposed such nonsense in the first place.

Taylor Marshall's Liturgical Complaint Against the Novus Ordo

The abject submission to the Bishop of Rome did not start until the latter part of the fourth century. Okay, so now I want to go on to Taylor Marshall's recent podcast in which he discusses a little more of his conversion from Anglicanism to Roman Catholicism.

And we want to focus especially on his realization that as an Anglican, he had been celebrating the Eucharist more properly than the liberal Roman Catholics were, and now that he has converted, he is trying to get Roman Catholics to celebrate the Lord's Supper the way it was originally celebrated.

We are taking our audio in this case from his January 9 podcast just a couple of weeks ago, but we'll also pull from some of his other online commentary. His January 9 podcast is called Liturgical Abuse in the Novus Ordo Mass, in which Taylor Marshall and his co-host, Timothy Gordon, lament the novelties that have been introduced to the Roman Catholic Mass since the new rite of the Mass, or the Novus Ordo, was introduced in 1965.

To be clear, they do not believe the Novus Ordo is heretical. And to be even more clear, some of their concerns are valid in that the Lord's Supper should be celebrated reverently. One of Taylor Marshall's complaints is that once in a church service, the person administering communion did so wearing a Grover t-shirt, that is, a t-shirt with the Sesame Street character on it.

And I agree with him. That is a ridiculous way to celebrate the Lord's Supper. But in any case, their main concern in the podcast is that the Novus Ordo is conducive to disrespect toward the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

In their eyes, the Novus Ordo came with many offensive novelties, including female altar servers, a position formerly available only to boys, versus populum, by which we mean the priest faces the people instead of facing ad orientem, or toward the east, when he offers the sacrifice of the Mass.

What is more, under the Novus Ordo, the people are allowed to receive the bread of the Lord's Supper in the hand instead of on the tongue, and to receive it standing instead of kneeling. And the last point we'll address is that Marshall is upset because receiving communion on the hand is conducive to the practice of reservation, something we discussed in episode 4 of The Diving Board, because some of the lay people may take some of the consecrated bread into their hand and then bring it home with them.