What is 'church'?

Both the Anglican (Episcopal) Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America denominations have faced some internal strife in the past several months concerning openly homosexual clergy. Certain governing bodies within each of the denominations have voted to allow openly gay members to serve as pastors or even as bishops within their respective denominations. Obviously, this has caused an uproar among the more traditionally minded members. Some of those concerned Christians have begun seeking other denominational bodies with which to associate. Whole parishes or even whole dioceses are seeking to realign themselves with other factions within their own Protestant tradition.

This is really nothing new, of course. There are already a plethora of churches and denominations within Protestantism which have broken ties with one group and then merged with another, only to sometimes undo that association and move on to yet another body of Christians. Within Protestantism the lines that separate one sect from another are not always distinct nor are they solidly fixed. There is a constant splintering and realignment within Protestantism that begs the question: What is “church”?

Most Protestants (and I use that term loosely to include most non-Catholic Christians who would associate themselves with the teachings of the Protestant Reformers) describe “church” in very vague terms. The most common response I get when I ask non-Catholics this question goes something like this: “The ‘church’ is the invisible body of believers here on earth. It is all those who believe that Jesus Christ is Lord and died for our sins.” That’s a rather vague definition, but it does fit the rather vague delineations and constant shape-shifting that one sees among Protestants. I suppose it shows consistency.

I have also asked non-Catholics whether I might be included in that vague ‘church,’ since I as a Catholic believe in Jesus and in what He did for us. And the answers are mixed. Some say yes, because my belief in that simple formula of faith is enough. Others say no, because my other beliefs as a Catholic are superstitious and even idolatrous. Once again, ‘church’ is not clearly defined.

And again, I have asked Protestants why they find it necessary to associate with one another within denominations if all that is really required to be ‘church’ is a vague belief in Jesus. Why have a Lutheran Church Missouri Synod that is distinct from the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and why are these Lutheran sects then separate from Anglicans, Baptists and so on, who also have their divisions. If all we need is a belief in Jesus and THERE is the Church, then why are there so many churches?

“Well, these are the various ‘traditions’ within Protestantism,” I am told. “Different men and women have read Scripture and discovered different ways to live out the Gospel Truth.” ….Hmmm, sounds an awful lot like the “traditions of men.” Catholics get that one pounded over our heads quite frequently. (But Catholics only accept ONE Tradition; anyone who wants to read the Bible and come up with their own tradition can go join the Protestant fold.)

And so the questions continue: What about these differing methods of governing the churches – councils, synods, congregationalism? What about bishops – why do some have them and others do not? What about the role of the laity – why do some play an active role in determining doctrine and others do not? What about the sacraments – how many are there, what significance do they have, what do they do for us?

So then, finally I must ask my Protestant friends: why is it that Jesus did not clearly define the Church? What guide do we have from Jesus to show us what teachings are correct?

“Well, the BIBLE, of course. The New Testament gives us a description of the Church and what it should look like.”

So I search the pages of Scripture to see what it is that Jesus literally said on this matter. Strangely, He never said to the Apostles, “I will command some among you to write a New Testament, and this will teach you how to form a Church. From this you will form various denominations and associate with fellow Christians within these differing traditions.” No. He did not leave it up to us to go thumbing through the Bible to find out how to do this thing called “church.” He did not intend for us to form thousands of separate churches that squabble over doctrinal and moral issues and perpetually realign themselves as doctrines change.

Rather than allow such confusion and vagueness when it comes to the question of “church,” Jesus established, once and for all, a single Church, when He said, “…on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19)

A Church with this authority to “bind and loose” could never be questioned on matters of faith and morals. Such a Church, established by Jesus Himself, could never be viewed as an optional ‘tradition of men’ added on after the fact. A Church that can withstand the “gates of Hell” could never be a wishy-washy, vague denomination or an invisible, undefined throng, who disagree on doctrine and meet in separate houses of worship. A house divided against itself cannot stand…how could the Protestant vision of ‘church’ stand up to the very gates of Hell?

The head of the Anglican Communion has suggested a solution to the problem of ordained homosexual clergy. He suggests that two distinct bodies of Anglicans could co-exist within one larger denomination. One group can maintain the traditional view, that open homosexuality is a sin and objectively disordered and thus precludes one from ordination. The other group could accept homosexuality as a valid expression of Christian sexuality and so allow gays into the priesthood and episcopal office. It seems to me that this only temporarily puts off an inevitable schism. How can one church believe two opposing things regarding such a serious sin and ordination? How can anyone endorse the idea of a house divided against itself, and call it the Christian “Church”?

But then again…Isn’t that the foundation of Protestantism – Christianity torn by schism, first from Catholicism and then from one another? Haven’t Protestants always, on the one hand, defended their diversity of belief, yet on the other, ripped apart their houses of worship and shattered their unity because of the diversity they so loudly proclaim?

Is this God’s plan for His Church?

What's in a Name...?

I have always considered the naming of a child an important responsibility for parents. One ought to approach this task seriously and, dare I say, even religiously - with a mind toward one’s faith. God calls each of us by name…it is the parents’ duty to select the name that will be uttered by the Good Shepherd as “he calls his own sheep by name.” (John 10:3) As parents we are responsible for the development of new souls created by God as unique individuals and meant for eternal life. The name given each child is the first official act parents take in guiding that soul to heaven, where his or her name will be written in the Book of Life.

In Scripture names often describe a person’s vocation or personality or relationship to others, including a relationship to God. A change in a person’s status or a special call from God often included a change of names: Abram became Abraham, Jacob became Israel, Saul changed to Paul, and Simon was named Peter. God’s own name was so sacred that the ancient Jews were forbidden to utter it. So, in this ancient Judeo-Christian tradition, the name of a newborn child ought to bear with it great significance, marking the child for a special purpose, reminding him or her of God’s call to holiness.

Needless to say, my wife and I thought carefully and prayerfully about the names of our children. Our most recent addition to the family, Elizabeth Gianna, has been perhaps the most significant of these name selections, both in the way her name came about and hopefully in the way her name will shape our future and hers. Specifically the name “Gianna” carries with it a deep spiritual meaning for us.

While four months pregnant with Elizabeth my wife had a stroke. She awoke one night with one side of her body in paralyzed – her fist clenched tight, one side of her face drooping, and one leg heavy and difficult to move. I immediately called 911; the ambulance arrived and rushed her to the hospital. I stayed behind at our house with our two oldest children (both of whom had been sick and were sound asleep through the whole event). I reluctantly agreed, at my wife’s insistence, to stay home until the hospital called with more information. Obviously it was a sleepless night.

Our son awoke shortly after the ambulance drove away. He came to me and asked where Mom had gone. I explained everything and tried to prepare him for what might be a changed life – a mother who needs our help and care, a parent who once labored for her family but might now need her family to make sacrifices for her. I tried not to imagine the worst case scenarios, but these things have a way of creeping into your head when you lie awake not knowing what the morning will bring.

Our son asked, “What can we do for Mom now?”

“Pray.” I replied. And so I led him through some prayers. He prayed silently for awhile until he drifted off to sleep again.

I could not sleep…but worst of all, I could not pray. Oh, I mouthed the words and meditated on mysteries, but half of me wasn’t there. Half of me was in the hospital, and I didn’t know if she was going to be the same after that night.
As I lay awake, alone and in the dark, I remembered Saint Gianna Molla. She was an Italian doctor, wife, and mother who died in the 1960’s. While pregnant with her fourth child, she developed a tumor on her uterus. She was told that if she aborted her child the tumor could be removed and she would be cured. But if she continued with the pregnancy there would certainly be risks and she could very likely die. Gianna refused to kill her own child. She insisted that if the doctors had to choose which life to save they should save the life of her unborn baby. Eventually, after a difficult pregnancy she gave birth to a healthy baby girl. A short time later Gianna died from complications. She was declared a Saint in 2004 and is a model of self-sacrifice and motherhood.

My wife read about Saint Gianna more than a year ago - long before her most recent pregnancy and before her own medical scare. She was immediately drawn to this woman who lived so close to our own time and who dedicated her life so profoundly to her family, sacrificing her own life for the life of her child. When I heard the story of Gianna I was impressed, but not particularly dawn to the saint in the same way my wife had been. It was one of those things you store away in your mind but seldom revisit. I knew who Gianna was, but beyond that I had simply a vague admiration of her.

That changed the night of my wife’s stroke.

As I lay in bed, I prayed all the usual prayers that every Catholic learns from childhood, but my mind was elsewhere. I tried praying silently, without words, placing myself in God’s presence, but my focus was gone. I tried to find words of my own, but I found none. None of it felt like “real” prayer. My mind raced and anxiety crept in. This went on for more than an hour.

Then I remembered Gianna. I knew my wife had felt a connection to her even before this night. But now she faced an unknown illness as she bore within her our unborn daughter. Her relationship to Gianna seemed more intimate than before.

So I said, “Gianna, I can’t seem to pray right now. If you could just say some prayers for me, while I try to get some sleep, maybe I’ll be able to face whatever the morning brings.” Immediately I felt at peace and I drifted off to sleep.

I awoke only a couple of hours later. With very little sleep, I still felt refreshed and ready for whatever news I would receive from the doctors. I didn’t have to wait long. While feeding the kids their breakfast, I got a call from the hospital. My wife was ready to be discharged. There were no lasting signs of the stroke – the paralysis had gone away, her vital signs were normal, and most importantly, the baby was fine.

She had actually been ready for release a few hours before, but as my wife later recalled, she had heard the doctor say, “Don’t call her husband just yet. She has young ones at home – let them sleep.” And I had slept, thanks to Gianna. It was about the same time the doctor had said these words (some time in the middle of the night) that I had whispered my request to Saint Gianna and finally found peace. And I am sure it was thanks to Gianna that my wife had made a full recovery so quickly.

Months later (and after several more doctors visits that offered us no further explanation as to what had happened that night) we celebrated the birth of our daughter. The ob-gyn who delivered her asked us, “What are you naming her?”

Years before, we had settled on “Elizabeth” (my wife’s Confirmation name) as the name of our next daughter. Of course, Elizabeth was a woman who also bore a child (John the Baptist) under miraculous circumstances, and is a model for mothers. But we had not settled on a middle name until that night of worry and prayer when Gianna had come to our aide. It seemed fitting that Gianna should be honored as our child’s namesake. So we replied to the doctor’s question: “Elizabeth Gianna.”

The doctor raised his eyebrows, “Interesting. Where did you get Gianna?”

Of course, he already knew of my wife’s medical history, having been her physician. So we explained who Gianna Molla was, and all about my prayer that night. We told him that Gianna is an important patron saint of the pro-life cause and that we wanted to pass on to our daughter the same love of life and willingness to sacrifice for others. Prompted by this reply, we had a brief but engaging conversation with him and the attending nurse about life and parenthood, the significance of names and the sometimes profound meaning of names, and how the culture seems to have lost sight of these things.

Many times, when people are asked, “Where did you get your child’s name?” I hear the reply: “I just thought it sounded nice.” When my wife and I are asked about Elizabeth’s name we can respond: “Let me tell you a story about a woman who gave her life for her own child. And let me tell you why I value each human life, especially the unborn…” Our daughter’s name gives us the opportunity to witness to our faith and to speak out about the horror of abortion and the sanctity of human life. I don’t know how many people we may affect in this way. I don’t know how many people Elizabeth will encounter who will ask her the same question and give her the chance to offer her own testimony. But I do know that in choosing her name we have pointed her in the right direction for a strong relationship with God and a deep appreciation for her faith.

So many of today’s parents choose their child’s name to be “different,” to be “unique,” to set them apart from the crowd. I hope that my own children’s names teach them that they are a part of something bigger, that they are dependent on others, and that others depend on them. I hope that their names point to a larger Communion of Saints that reaches beyond earth, beyond the here and now, and draws them into one Body in Christ.

So many of today’s parents choose their child’s name for the beauty of the word. But the beauty of a name is not found only in the way it rolls off the tongue or melodically dances in the air when we call out to our child. Names carry stories, and symbols, and messages of faith, hope, and love. A name carries with it the richness of a person’s life. The beauty of the word should point to the beauty of the Word - our names should point us to Christ.

When I began this blog a year ago I had planned to post every week, or at least every other week, as time allowed. However, with the birth of our third child at the end of May, my wife and I have been understandably busy and I have been unable to blog. Now that things have settled down at home, I hope to get back into a more regular schedule of writing.

I have decided to not answer any questions or comments that were left in my absence. I came to that conclusion, not to be rude to any readers, but as a matter of simple practicality. Since I cannot be sure of who is still following this blog, or who might still have any interest in what I have to say after an absence of over two months, I thought it more prudent to ask that any questions or comments be re-posted and attached to this entry so that I can address them as fresh comments. That way, I can save time by not responding to people who may not even be reading, and also people’s comments will be bumped up to this more current date.

In short, I am starting fresh you might say. Sorry about the long absence. Hopefully I will be writing more regularly in the future…

Apology for having not posted

My wife recently gave birth to our third child. Both are doing great, but obviously I have been rather busy, which has caused me to neglect this blog. Hopefully I'll be posting again this week, and then getting back to a more routine schedule.
Sorry if I left any comments unanswered, but the birth was a couple of weeks sooner than expected, so we were not as prepared as we might have been.

Patristics: Polycarp of Smyrna, Part II

Having examined the life of Polycarp including his journey to Rome concerning the date of Easter, we now turn to the epistle written by this Apostolic Father. Although history suggests that Polycarp wrote many letters during his time as bishop, only one survives down to our present time. Polycarp wrote this letter to the church in Philippi, prompted by their request to send to them words of encouragement as well as copies of letters in his possession from his friend, Ignatius of Antioch:


“The Epistles of Ignatius written by him to us, and all the rest [of his Epistles] which we have by us, we have sent to you, as you requested. They are subjoined to this Epistle, and by them you may be greatly profited; for they treat of faith and patience, and all things that tend to edification in our Lord.”


Further Polycarp seems to indicate that he had not yet received confirmation of Ignatius’ martyrdom, and hoped to learn from the Philippians more news of Ignatius and his companions: “Any more certain information you may have obtained respecting both Ignatius himself, and those that were with him, have the goodness to make known to us.”


Thus this letter to the Philippians dates to around the same time period of Ignatius’ letters and subsequent death, or shortly after, which places it a decade or so after the turn of the Second Century.


Polycarp’s letter consists primarily of exhortations to live moral lives in obedience to the commands of God. While the text is shorter than most of Ignatius’ writings, it is filled throughout with quotes from Scripture, especially the writings that would later become known as the New Testament. Polycarp is a wonderful early witness to the Christian use of these books for instruction and discipline.


However, the above passage concerning the writings of Ignatius – “…by them you may be greatly profited; for they treat of faith and patience, and all things that tend to edification in our Lord” – testifies to the fact that there was not an established norm defining which writings ought to be used by Christians for the purpose of instruction and formation in the faith. Indeed while Polycarp bears strong witness to the writings that would later form the New Testament, he seldom mentions them specifically by name, but instead points to Ignatius’ letters as a source for Christian “edification.”


It must be understood that the Bible was not clearly defined by this time in the Second Century, and many of the writings of the Church Fathers (including Ignatius, and Clement of Rome) were read at Christian worship services then copied and passed along to other churches in the same way that we would expect the New Testament to be preserved and cherished. For this reason, Polycarp also includes Ignatius as one who is worthy of imitation, along with Paul and the other Apostles:


“I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as you have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. [This do] in the assurance that all these have not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered.”


The Bible was not compiled into one book during Polycarp’s lifetime; he therefore does not distinguish between these writings as we would today. Nor does he rely on the Bible "Alone” (as some Christian denominations insist on today) as a guide for Christian doctrine and morals. Rather than the “Bible Alone” as guarantor of Christian unity and fidelity to Apostolic teaching, Polycarp points to the hierarchy of the Church. He strongly encourages the Philippians to avoid evil and sin and then he tells them to obey the ordained clergy:


“Wherefore, it is needful to abstain from all these things, being subject to the presbyters and deacons, as unto God and Christ.”


Just as we saw with Ignatius, Polycarp insists that the priests (presbyters) and deacons derive their authority from “God and Christ,” and to them we owe our allegiance. The Church, through her ordained ministers, ensures sound teaching, moral guidance, and protects the unity of all believers.


However, Polycarp also tells us of a presbyter named Valens who fell from grace through disobedience and sin:


“I am greatly grieved for Valens, who was once a presbyter among you, because he so little understands the place that was given him [in the Church]. I exhort you, therefore, that you abstain from covetousness, and that you be chaste and truthful. Abstain from every form of evil. For if a man cannot govern himself in such matters, how shall he enjoin them on others?”


Here Polycarp confronts an issue that many today would charge against the Catholic Church throughout the centuries. How can a church lead by sinners tell others not to sin? How can a church whose leaders are guilty of immorality be the same vehicle through which God exercises His own authority?


Polycarp’s letter demonstrates that even at this early date the Church grappled with this problem. Already they had encountered leaders who did not live up to their vocation. Polycarp realizes that if a man cannot “govern himself in such matters” it would be difficult for him to expect obedience from those under him. It seems that for this reason Valens was then removed from his office.


But Polycarp does not use this presbyter’s sin as an excuse to abandon the authoritative, hierarchical structure of the Church. To the contrary, he strongly insists on obedience to the clergy, even while in the same letter mentioning the disobedience of one of the presbyters. Polycarp recognized the sinfulness of some ranking members of the clergy, and yet continued to insist that God works through the Church leaders despite their sins. Polycarp calls for Valens to be reconciled with the Church:


“I am deeply grieved, therefore, brethren, for him (Valens) and his wife; to whom may the Lord grant true repentance! And be then moderate in regard to this matter, and do not count such as enemies, but call them back as suffering and straying members, that you may save your whole body. For by so acting you shall edify yourselves.”


There are many today who reject Catholicism based on the sins committed by members of the hierarchy. It must be admitted that these sins do occur and cause great scandal for the Church. In this matter we would do well to heed Polycarp. He sees here an opportunity for reconciliation and a healing of the Body of Christ. Some Christians down through the ages have called for rebellion and schism when faced with the sins of bishops, priests, and popes – but the early Church reacted with pity and an eye toward forgiveness, and always desirous to maintain unity among all believers. Because the Church is divinely instituted (established by Jesus and guided by the Spirit), the authority of the Church remains intact in spite of the sins of her members.

Patristics: Polycarp of Smyrna, Part I

The third Father of the Church we will examine in our study of Patristics is Polycarp of Smyrna. What we know of Polycarp comes from his own writing as well as that of Ignatius (whom we already examined) and from the writings of Irenaeus (a student of Polycarp) who became a bishop and a Father of the Church in his own right in the Second Century. We also learn about Polycarp from an account of his martyrdom written by members of his church in Smyrna shortly after his death, which we will examine in greater detail later.

Polycarp was an Apostolic Father - a man who knew and conversed with one or more of the Apostles. As with his friend and fellow bishop Ignatius, Polycarp was a pupil of the Apostle John and was converted to the faith after hearing the preaching of the Apostles. Polycarp led the church of Smyrna in Asia Minor through the first half of the Second Century, until his death around the year 155. He wrote many letters during his time as bishop, but only one survives – that which he wrote to the church in Philippi.

Polycarp was born sometime around the year A.D. 69 and was well over eighty years old when he was martyred by being burned at the stake. As with his friend Ignatius, the long life of this Christian bishop, together with his first-hand knowledge of Apostolic teaching, makes Polycarp an invaluable witness to the Church’s foundational roots. Those who were taught by Polycarp throughout his tenure as bishop received authentic doctrine which Polycarp had received straight from the mouths of the Apostles themselves. Polycarp and Ignatius bridge the gap between the Age of the Apostles and the following centuries of persecution and hardship faced by the fledgling Church.

Polycarp also bears witness to the internal struggles of the Church as cultural differences between the East and West began to come to the fore. Irenaeus tells us of the controversy surrounding the date for the celebration of Easter. Those in the East, including Polycarp and his church in Smyrna, celebrated Christ’s Resurrection annually on the fourteenth day of Nisan according to the Jewish calendar, thus following the traditional time for sacrificing the Paschal Lamb in preparation for Passover. This meant that Easter could fall on any day of the week, depending on the lunar cycle for that year. Churches in the West (including Rome) celebrated Easter every year on the following Sunday so that the precise calendar date was not fixed. They felt that it was important to recall the Resurrection on the same day of the week on which Jesus rose and the same day on which Christians observe the Eucharistic meal.

Irenaeus, recounts that Polycarp was called to Rome around the year 150 to confer with Anicetus, the bishop of Rome, concerning the date of the Easter celebration. The Roman pontiff hoped that Polycarp would change to the West’s observance of the Resurrection. But Polycarp resisted, insisting that he received his tradition from the Apostle John. In the end, neither bishop agreed to change the custom held by his respective church. Nonetheless, the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Smyrna parted on good terms and agreed to disagree on this matter. And so the East and West continued to keep differing dates for their celebration of Easter. (Interestingly, Irenaeus, although he was a student of Polycarp, abandoned the East’s practice, and embraced instead the Roman custom of Sunday Easter.)

At least three important conclusions can be drawn from this event. First it can be noted that Sunday had become such a fixed point of reference for Christian worship that in the West, despite a strong tradition otherwise in the East, Sunday worship determined the date for the observance of Easter. Polycarp, a staunch supporter of Apostolic Teaching did not dispute the West’s claim to Sunday worship, nor did he condemn Rome for observing Easter on this day. The two parties went their separate ways amicably. Certainly Polycarp could have chastised Anicetus and the Western churches for rejecting the fourteenth of Nisan celebration if it had been a key component of Apostolic Teaching as he understood it from the Apostle John, but he did not. Obviously Polycarp respected the Sunday observance as Rome’s prerogative regaurdless of the Apostle John’s teaching. Polycarp did not insist that the fourteenth of Nissan teaching should overrule the Roman bishop’s decision. This gives strong support to the early tradition within Christianity of Sunday as the Lord’s Day. Sunday worship was accepted by Polycarp as justification for Rome to decide the date of Easter for churches in the West.

This transference of the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday and the West’s practice of a Sunday Easter both support the idea of an authoritative Church in the early centuries of Christianity. There is no specific Biblical mandate for Sunday worship except a few passing remarks that seem to suggest the beginnings of such a tradition. We do though have the words of Ignatius on the subject (which we examined earlier) in which he insists that Sunday worship was the norm in First Century Christianity. And now we see that Polycarp, another student of the Apostles, accepted Sunday as the day of Easter for the Western churches even though he had received a different tradition from John. Apparently the Church had the authority to establish and modify the days of worship and annual liturgical celebrations, and Polycarp did not dispute the Roman bishop’s authority to maintain this practice, as he left Rome on good terms.

The second lesson we can take away from this Easter dispute is the position of honor held by Rome among the churches in the mid-Second Century. Here we have Polycarp, a well respected bishop, a man who received his training in the faith from the Apostles; he was converted by John, and was the first successor to the Apostle in Smyrna. He had been a companion to Ignatius (also highly regarded as a bishop and martyr) and shared in his friend’s prestige and renown. At the time he confronted Anicetus in Rome, he was an old man - around eighty years old – and as such, he served as one of the last remaining voices in the Church who could personally attest to the Apostles’ own preaching. But despite his prominent status and despite the frailty that came with his age and in spite of the perils of travel in those days, Polycarp made the long journey to Rome…Anicetus did not go to Smyrna.

It would seem rather odd that an aged witness to Apostolic Preaching would be required to make such a long and arduous trip at a time when Christians risked life and limb for their faith. Furthermore, by going to the city of Rome itself, the capitol and center of the Empire, the risks were surely heightened. Why would Anicetus, who was further removed from the Apostles than Polycarp (being the tenth successor to Peter), not travel to Smyrna out of respect for Polycarp’s position and age? Why should an Apostolic Father be expected to travel so far to meet with what would seem to be his junior in episcopal rank?

If we call to mind Ignatius’ words of praise for Rome written a few decades prior to this event, an answer begins to suggest itself. Ignatius described the Roman church in the following terms: “…worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” And so too, we should recall the letter written by Clement of Rome (the third bishop after Peter) to the Corinthians, in which he intervened in a dispute among the Christians there - seeming to invoke an authority to do so. At this early date, Rome’s influence was far-reaching and her honor and prestige widely acknowledged. Polycarp’s visit to the Roman Bishop (younger in age, but influential in his office) does not then seem so out of place. We have here a picture emerging of a Roman primacy acknowledged by the First and Second Century Christians, including Polycarp of Smyrna.

Our third observation we can arrive at after carefully considering the implications of our previous two conclusions. We have seen that the early Church relied on the witness of men like Polycarp and his testimony to Apostolic Teaching to pass on the authentic faith. But we have also noted that such teachings may result in conflicts and must be weighed one against another among the various traditions (such as the two competing dates for the celebration of Easter). Thus we can see that the Church has the task of sorting out which traditions are essential to the faith and which can be safely compromised. Also we have shown that bishops play an essential role in conferring with one another (as in the case of Polycarp and Anicetus) to arrive at a conclusion on matters of faith. But among these bishops, the Roman church has a place of honor that surpasses that of the other churches.

So our third and final conclusion must be that the function of the early Church closely resembles that of the Catholic understanding of ecclesiology, in its hierarchical structure as well as its reverence for Apostolic Tradition. It is the Church’s responsibility, specifically through the bishops in communion with Peter's successor, to preserve the faith handed on from the Apostles and ensure unity among all believers and soundness of doctrine. In this event from the life of Polycarp we see that the Church has the authority to govern the worship of the Christian faithful. Diversity can still be found within the Catholic fold, but wherever such divergent practices exist we must travel with Polycarp to Rome, we must seek the council of Peter, and preserve the fraternal bond. Unity finds its center in Rome.

Spirit of Truth: the Word of God as taught by the Magisterium of the Church

All Christians agree that the Bible is the Word of God. Its text is believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit; it is the written source of Revelation from which doctrines are formed, and moral and spiritual guidance is assimilated. Prophets and Apostles were guided by the Holy Spirit to write words of this ancient text, and these writings were compiled into what is called “Holy Scripture” or the “Bible.” This book has been preserved down through the centuries by faithful Christians. No Christian would dispute the importance of Scripture in the life of the believer in Jesus Christ.

The question then arises: Does the Bible ALONE guarantee the soundness of Christian doctrine? Did God give us ONLY the Bible for the preservation of His Word?

There are many thousands of Christian denominations and sects, which claim that “Scripture Alone” is in fact the sole source for Christian teaching. They reject the authority of any ecclesial (church) body or hierarchy to interpret Scripture and they reject any other source for Revealed Truth, and instead claim that the Bible Alone, in the hands of each individual Christian, is the means by which God preserves His Word. They say that the Spirit guides each individual to discover the Truth of Scripture, and that Scripture’s meaning is plain and literal in every word of every page, so that anyone can grasp its meaning.

And so the next question inevitably follows: Why is it that no two “Bible Only” churches agree on doctrine? How can it be that the Spirit has guided all of these individuals down separate paths to different Truths? Is there not ONE Truth? Why does the Bible Alone yield a plethora of churches with competing doctrines? As these “Bible churches” quarrel and disintegrate into break-away factions that spawn new churches every year, one might wonder what the Holy Spirit was thinking in leading so many astray. Is this really the way Christ established His Church?

Is this what Christ prayed for when He said: “I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word so that they may all be one, as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me. And I have given them the glory you gave me, so that they may be one, as we are one…” (John 17:20-22)

Jesus prayed for the unity of all believers, a unity that mirrors His own union with the Father – “so that they may be one, as we are one.” It is clear that the “Bible Alone” does not provide that kind of unity for the Church. Would the Father and the Son disagree on doctrine; would They quarrel, and then decide to go Their separate ways, and form Their own churches? Because that is what “Scripture Alone” has given us. Scripture Alone has given Christianity a shattered and broken Body. This cannot be what Christ intended. If Jesus prayed for unity (and who doubts that the Father would grant the prayer of His Son for His Church?), then Jesus’ prayer would surely be answered more effectively than the Bible Alone doctrine has done throughout history.

The Catholic Church counters the weakness of the “Bible Only” doctrine in two ways:

1) The Word of God is found not in Scripture Alone, but rather Scripture AND Tradition.

It must be emphasized that the Catholic Church’s position has always been that the Bible contains the Word of God. It is the sacred written record of God’s revelation to mankind. The Catholic Church shares this opinion with other Christian denominations. Make no mistake, Catholics love and respect the Bible.

However, the Catholic Church also recognizes that the Bible makes no claim for itself to be the ONLY source of God’s Word. If we are to accept the “Bible Alone” to be a sound doctrine to guide Christians, then the “Bible Alone” doctrine too must be found in Scripture. But it is not. Bible-Only Christians claim that all authentic Christian doctrine should come from the pages of Scripture. But if this is true then we must reject the Bible Alone doctrine since it disproves itself.

Nowhere does Scripture say that the Bible is the ONLY source of God’s Word. To the contrary, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) states: “In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways: - orally 'by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit'; - in writing 'by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing'." (CCC 76)

And this teaching agrees with Scripture: “So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)

So we see that the Word of God can be passed on orally as well as in the written form: “And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and spoke the word of God boldly.” (Acts 4:31)

Paul tells us that his spoken words are truly the Word of God: “And we also thank God continually because, when you received the Word of God, which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men, but as it actually is, the Word of God, which is at work in you who believe.” (1Thessalonians 2:13)

So the Church teaches rightly that God’s Word comes to us in two forms: oral and written. Obviously the written form is called the Bible (as we have already established); and to this, other Christians agree. The oral form is referred to simply as Tradition. This is not to be confused with customs and practices adopted by the Church down through the ages. These are not equal to God’s Word, but are merely expressions of faith as the gospel has been lived out from generation to generation. As the Catechism puts it: “Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned…”CCC 83)

Thus a clear distinction ought to be maintained between Tradition (with a capital “T”) and traditions (lower case “t”) so that customs and practices common among Catholics are not to be confused with the Word of God. Much misunderstanding among non-Catholics stems from this unfortunate mistake in terminology. Sacred Tradition would include such things as the papacy (but not specific ceremonies surrounding the pope), the Mass (but not the precise arrangemnt of words or gestures used at the Mass); Tradition is unchanging (although our understanding of it may grow) – whereas customs and traditions can be altered.

With that in mind, the Catholic Church maintains that Scripture and Tradition are derived from the same source: "'Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.' Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own 'always, to the close of the age'." (CCC 80)

In fact, Scripture is itself nothing more than a written form of Tradition that grew out of the early Church: “The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus' teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. The first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.” (CCC 83)

Scripture and Tradition are thus inextricably linked. They grew out of the same source – the preaching and example given by the Apostles under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The two must be viewed and interpreted together to achieve sound doctrine and to appreciate the whole Word of God.

"As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, 'does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.'" (CCC 82)

2) The Church’s Magisterium authoritatively interprets that Word of God as found in Scripture and Tradition.

We know that "Scripture Alone" does not work. It brings us only division and a broken church. Tradition, as a collection of passed on wisdom may shed light on Scripture and clear up shades of meaning, but still, if it were left up to each individual to sort out doctrine on his own, we would be left with the same confusion that the Bible Alone doctrine has yielded. It cannot be that God has given us His Word in Scripture and Tradition, but then left us in the same mess from which Bible-Only churches suffer with individual interpretation and competing doctrines.

Christ did not leave his Church to such confusion and lack of guidance. He first called the Twelve Apostles to a role of leadership in His new Church and gave them an authority that is recognized both in Heaven and on Earth: "I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 18:18)

He promised this authority to the Twelve, but He spoke similar words to Peter (using the singular word for “you”) and also bestowed on him the "keys" to symbolize Peter’s unique position of authority: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)

Obviously the Apostles received a special authority as a group, and individually for Peter. This teaching authority was passed on to selected men who would continue as bishops of the Church, as the Catechism tells us: "'In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority.' Indeed, 'the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time.'" (CCC 77)

The early Christians (from the first few centuries A.D. bear witness to this line of succession:

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians" (Jerome, Letters 14:8 [A.D. 396]).

This teaching office that has been passed down from the Apostles is called the “Magisterium.” Rather than drawing our certainty about God’s Word from our own individual interpretation, we can instead turn to the Magisterium of the Church, the teaching office established by Christ and maintained down through the generations. This is not to say that the Magesterium has power over God’s Word, but rather the Magisterium is in the service of God’s Word and is bound by it… "[T]his Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith." (CCC86)

So the division and in-fighting that is so often found among the “Bible Only” churches is soundly answered within the Catholic Church, where there can be surety of doctrine and unity of belief just as Jesus prayed for his followers. Interpretation is not left up to each Christian, but rather, the Holy Spirit works through the teaching office of the Church as the Apostles appointed bishops for that very task. The “Bible Only” doctrine is a rebellion against God’s plan of unity within His Church. Holy Scripture must not be isolated from the Tradition from which it came. Nor should God’s Word be misused by those to whom no authority has been given to interpret authoritatively.

Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium work together to bring us the Truth of Revelation: "'The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.' This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome." (CCC 85)

"It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls." (CCC 95)

By this we can be certain that Christ’s promise is fulfilled: “…when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth.” (John 16:13)