Was the Early Church Catholic Prior to the 4th Century?
The following is an exchange that took place on Instagram, based on an entry originally posted by Joe and Brad of the ROTK Team, which argued that the true Church would be known by her Four Marks: One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. An interlocutor put a response in the Comments thread claiming the Church was not thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice prior to the 4th century.
As far as online comment debates go, this is one of the better ones, due to the challenger having a bit of a better grasp on Church history than your average run-of-the-mill anti Catholic who thinks Catholics worship Mary and pray to dead people. This particular individual was a bit more seasoned than that, which made for a great little exchange.
The truth of Catholicism shines forth yet again, and it is demonstrated without any doubt that the primitive Church of the first four centuries was clearly Catholic. I will preface his comments with LT, and mine will be prefaced as ROTK.
LT: “Early Christian writings prove the first Christians were thoroughly Catholic in belief and practice...” Not before about the 4th century they don’t. Christianity in the first two centuries was far less organized and formal in its ecclesiastical structure (there wasn’t anything even remotely close to bishops until about the end of the second century, at the earliest, for example). And while there was some degree of organized liturgy, it was mostly local, and looked absolutely nothing like later Catholic practice. The Roman Catholic Church as it is today is largely a medieval institution.
ROTK: who have you read prior to the 4th century?
LT: Well, there’s the New Testament of course, but I’ve read most of the pre-Nicea Patristic writings over the years. Notable to my point, the New Testament, the Epistle of Clement, and the Didache all describe the ecclesiastical structure of the church in terms very similar to that of first century Jewish synagogues- a small, local community led by a group of respected elders. In fact, Clement uses two terms interchangeably for these church leaders- presbyteros (quite literally a term for an old man) and episkopos (a term for a servant that oversaw the duties of other servants in wealthy households). Later writers decided that these two terms had different meanings and formed a sort of hierarchy. But that is a later idea that medieval and modern readers impose onto the text, not one that can be drawn from the original text itself or historical context. And neither term carried any connotations to priesthood- the Greek word for priest, hiereus, isn’t used to describe these positions in early Christian writing.
Basically, later Catholic writers imposed anachronistic meanings onto earlier writings, and intentionally or unintentionally distanced Christianity greatly from its Jewish roots.
It’s not until well into the second century that the idea of having a single bishop over a geographic area emerged. Ignatius of Antioch argued for that- arguing against implicit objections to others whose writings have been lost. This shows that into the second century, this idea was controversial, and taken alongside older writings, it was the newer ecclesiastical structure.
So the church in its earliest days had very little formal organization, and no sort of consecrated priesthood. Therefore, early Christian writings don’t support the idea that the early church had similar structure or practice as the modern Roman Catholic Church.
ROTK: The Greek church of Corinth appealed to Clement for a doctrinal dispute, showing his preeminent role even in that era, while St. John was still alive and closer to Corinth. Clement and Linus were both made successors to Peter even while other Apostles were still living. The Greek presbyterōn is used in the capacity of an elder who holds a special place of authority in his position, and the term "elder" did not necessarily need to apply to an age, but rather to wisdom and seasoned judgment. It is the term the early Church decided to use for its priesthood, and presbyteroi of course also translates into the English as priest. The term episkipos carried the connotation of an overseer and guardian. It is used in Acts 1:20, which is also where the term Bishopric derived, and where we get the term Bishop.
I am aware of Schaff's argument concerning the plurality of elders, but it is a moot point because by the time of Ignatius, as you stated, within a decade of Clement, already there was a shift happening where they were seeking a single Bishop for different territories. This is completely fine for them to do, since the Holy Spirit was leading the infant Church. And either way, it was the template adopted authoritatively by the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth and had the power to bind and loose.
Prior to the 4th century, we see the early Church teaching baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, prayers for the dead, the Eucharist as the flesh of Jesus, Mary as the New Eve, apostolic succession. These are all Catholic concepts, not Protestant. As centuries move on, we see these teachings fleshed out even more with greater clarity. Irenaeus even traces back all the Bishops of Rome from 180 AD. Even with a plurality of elders, he still traces back a single line of individuals. You don't see Denominationalism in this era. Nor do you see Baptism as only a symbol. You don't see Sola Scriptura, as they hadn't even settled officially yet on the NT Canon. You see Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition both being addressed as authorities. You see the seeds planted for Catholic doctrine, not the Protestant model. All prior to Constantine.
LT: The fact that Clement was asked to settle a dispute shows that Clement was a respected early leader, but that in and of itself isn’t proof of any sort of early papacy. The idea that Clement and Linus were made successors to Peter is attested to fairly early in the few historical records we have, but always in the context of Rome- there’s no sort of “Roman primacy” until later (5th century, if memory serves me?). The claim that presbyteroi means priest is just not true- or rather, it’s not true in the first century. Later theologians trying to find the Catholic priesthood may have imposed that onto the text, but that’s not how a first century Christian would have understood them. I think that a similar argument an be made for several of the other theological points you made- the doctrine is there if you already think it’s there.
A minor point that you made- I would argue that the idea of the NT canon was established to some degree much earlier than Catholics claim, given the Muratorian Fragment shows a near complete canon in the second century.
This is an interesting debate, because we have the same set of documents to work with, and we agree on what they say. We just fundamentally disagree on how to go about interpreting them.
ROTK: I think arguing that Clement was appealed to only because he was respected is just wishful thinking. It is ignoring the obvious. The fact that St. John was alive but they bypassed him and went to Rome for an authoritative response. In his response Clement says, "If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger," and also, "be obedient to the words written by us through the Holy Spirit." Lutheran historian Max Lackmann writes, "Clement, as the spokesman of the whole People of God... admonishes the Church of Corinth in serious, authoritative and brotherly tones." He also notes that the language adopted in the letter is similar to a Roman imperial command. This all makes much more sense from a Catholic worldview than a Protestant one.
Also, you mentioned there is no Roman primacy but then noted that the lists we have from this early era always go back to Rome, showing its preeminence and importance. Ignatius says the Roman Church "holds the presidency." Irenaeus calls it, "the greatest and most ancient church known to all," and says, "With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition." This is all pre 3rd century. Dionysis even says Clement's letter was still being read in churches 100 years after it was written.
Regarding the term presbyter, even Britannica notes, "from Greek presbyteros, an officer or minister in the early Christian Church intermediate between bishop and deacon. The word presbyter is etymologically the original form of priest.” This was the term preferred by the Patristic era, and adopted by the universal Church. We can only know what 1st century Christians thought by looking at what their successors thought on the 2nd, 3rd, 4th centuries, etc. Since the Holy Spirit was leading into truth as Our Lord promised. The further out we go, like 16th and 17th century "Reformers," the more removed we are from 1st century thought.
Regarding doctrine being there because we want it to be, I honestly think this is a cop out. Are you suggesting baptismal regeneration is not there? Infant baptism? Prayers for the dead? The Eucharist is the flesh of Jesus Christ? Mary as the New Eve? Can you find non denominational pastors today who speak about these things? There is a distinctly Catholic tone to this era. Can you find Calvin's five points in this era, or the idea of denominationalism? Do you see liturgies consisting of a sermon followed by praise and worship?
Regarding the Muratorian Fragment, "near complete" is not settled and complete. It is, as you wrote, near complete. While other lists of this era were more complete while others were less complete. The point is, it is not until the 4th century you have the differing lists cease and you find unanimity across the spectrum on the Canon. Thanks to Catholic Bishops. You don't see Sola Scriptura being practiced in this era, nor do you see a multiplicity of denominations with self appointed pastors. And yes, we do have the same documents, but if we start with the presupposition of Private Interpretation and a Protestant bias, we will see it one way and try to force ideas into this era. Meanwhile, individuals I know personally became Catholic specifically because they studied this era, even though they were "Bible believing" Protestants originally.
Our interpretive lens is key in discussions like this. Talk to Protestant converts from Catholicism. Chances are they rarely read Scripture and never knew the early Church. Then talk to Catholic converts, and in my experience, they studied Scripture and loved it, and were floored by discovering the early Church. They didn't approach it with a Catholic bias. They simply saw a more Catholic tone to this era than anything resembling Protestantism.
LT: I think dialogue is inherently valuable, so long as both parties understand each other. So I do try to understand anything I criticize. I also find it interesting that we’re fundamentally accusing each other of the same thing- imposing our own biases on to ancient texts. There’s a lesson in there somewhere but I don’t know what it is. I’ve said before that the ability to appeal to the authority of the Magisterium is both greatest strength and the greatest weakness of Catholicism. It’s a strength because it offers clarity when source texts don’t, but it’s a weakness because undermining that authority on one point undermines that authority on every point.
I see your recommendation to talk to Catholics that used to be Protestants, and I think that would be, again, valuable dialogue. I’ll admit that most of my delving into this topic is from the point of view of history, not theology. I would encourage you to read from church historians not affiliated with Catholicism- and I don’t just mean Protestants. I’ve read history books where the author was clearly antagonistic towards religion altogether, but simply engaging with their arguments was still a valuable exercise in learning more about the history itself.
That’s just general advice, really; I won’t presume to know how well read you are.
ROTK: Appealing to the Magisterium is always a strength, never a weakness, provided we know the limits and extent and proper understanding of the gift of infallibility which she possesses. A faithful Catholic would never undermine proper authority, but you may be confusing the Church in her official teaching capacity as opposed to the private opinions of men within the Church.
I have studied sources pro and anti Catholicism from a wide range, both secular and Protestant. History and theology are both fascinating topics that I love almost equally. But of course my bias will always lean towards theology as officially defined by the Church, because she is protected by the Holy Spirit in that regard.
