The Early Church II-1: The Martyrs

(This is the extended, written version of a presentation I gave on 4/30/2013. 

This is II-1. If you haven't read "The Early Church I" yet, I would recommend it. All links are at the bottom of this article.)

Prologue

Last time we examined the message of Christianity and how it was presented to both Jew and Gentile. The message of Christ was a message of dignity, divine sonship and daughterhood, and a noble mission, namely the salvation of all in the name of Christ Jesus.

This, however, came with many difficulties. There were many who refused to hear the message. Others simply saw God as one among many appropriating what was profitable to them in the Christian message. Others reacted violently. Of these three, it may seem strange to hear that the second problem, corrupted teaching, was actually the most destructive to the Church. While there were those who were outside the Church who simply selected a few points and incorporated them into their pagan theology there were plenty of Christians who, because of culture, (both abundance and lack of) learning, and zeal, caused a great deal of trouble by their words.

In order to counteract these false teachings and bad influences the Church, beginning with the Apostles, established very quickly a structure of bishop, priest, and deacon in order to preserve and protect the content of the Apostolic faith. The bishop was a direct descendent of the Apostles, a relationship we'll explore later on. It was through the office of the bishop that we became known as “Catholic” and it was only around such a man that the Church was said to be. “Tradition,” likewise, properly understood was not only the words and actions of Christ but also the words and actions of the Apostles and their successors who were given a unique office (cf. Acts 1:20) by Christ (cf. Jn 20:19-23). Peter among the Twelve was given an important ministry and office. The title bishop means “overseer” and Peter was appointed overseer of his brothers. He exercised this authority clearly in Scripture yet, as Christ proclaimed, he did not lord over them (cf. Lk 22:25) but rather acted as a supreme example to his brothers and his flock (cf. 1 Pet 5:5).

Christians were likewise persecuted in waves of varying intensity from the Church's inception at Pentecost until 313 AD, after the persecutions of Diocletian. Christ, however, said it plainly: “If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me … whoever loses his life for my sake will save it” (Lk 9:23-24). Peter said his disciples, “Since Christ suffered in the flesh, arm yourselves with the same attitude” (1 Pet 4:1) and “Do not be surprised that a trial by fire is occurring among you, as if something strange were happening. Rather, rejoice to the extent that you share in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice exultantly” (1 Pet 4:13). Paul says it even more simply, “All who want to live religiously in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” (2 Tim 3:12).

This brings us to the opening of our discussion: the martyrs. In what manner did their witness to Christ shape the early Christians and the Church? Likewise, what problems did they cause for the Church moving forward?

II-1: The Martyrs

The word martyr literally means “witness” yet that witness is more than proclaiming Christ with our words or good deeds. This is the witness that testifies to Christ crucified in the most concrete way: by giving up one's life in the same manner Christ did. Christ died for love of us, the martyrs died for love of Christ and neighbor—even persecutor.

Death is something that was trivialized in the Roman Empire just as it is today. The delight in the fall of one's enemies, the desire to oppress those who fought but no longer can, to see those whom we hate suffer cruelly for their injustice are all forms of bloodlust. The Romans were desensitized to blood, perhaps more than we are, because their violence was very real and designed, at its worst, to humiliate and break their captives. 

Not to mention entertainment.

Imagine, now, a group of men and women who stood in the face of death proudly. Rather than cowering in fear and succumbing to cruelty they openly proclaimed Christ. They prayed for their enemies and would not let death itself keep them from the One they loved. They acted as if life itself was an obstacle to their ultimate goal and that the threat of death held no sway. To a people soaked in blood and self-centeredness this was a shock to their system. With such a sharp contrast to their way of life two responses resulted: (1) even greater and inflamed hatred or (2) a complete conversion of heart. Very few could stand by indifferent to the example of the martyrs.

Before we examine the martyrs we should keep in mind a few aspects: not every Roman leader hated Christians, nor did every governor or provincial enact laws of persecution—Christians were in many places model citizens, and in many cases Romans sought to dispel a sect or a cult by killing their leaders. There was little effect to killing scores of common men and women. Priests, bishops, deacons, and those admired by the community were sought above the laity (Courtesy of Sommer, We Look for a Kingdom, 222).

Let us examine in sort, then, how the Church viewed martyrdom. While we ourselves can say many nice things about the martyrs it is worthwhile to examine how our Church Fathers and Scripture regarded the power and significance of them. It will help us, in turn, understand how Christians of that period responded to and sought the martyrs.

Justin Martyr, an apologist and martyr of the Church was a well educated man with an extensive knowledge of philosophy. Justin cited one of the reasons for his conversion in his 2^nd Apology: “I was delighted in the teachings of Plato, and heard the Christians slandered, and saw them fearless of death, and of all other things which are counted fearful, [I] saw that it was impossible that they could be living in wickedness and pleasure. For what sensual or intemperate person, or whoever counts it good to feast on human flesh, could welcome death that he might be deprived of his enjoyments[?]” (2^nd Apology, sec. 12).

The common conception of Christians at this time (2^nd century) was that they were atheists and cannibals. All manner of slander and myths were circulated about Christians so that they seemed to be enemies to humanity and to the state. For example: Tacitus, the famous Roman historian, said that Christians were “a sect that hates the human race” (Annals 15:44). Yet in the face of hatred many men and women showed love. In the face of cruelty is was the Christians who showed themselves to be civilized. It remains an important lesson for us today; the world will see us as enemies and fools and in these instances our words and actions should be as blameless as they can. When our adversaries comment on our faults, sinfulness, and errors accept them as a blessing. When we can present His message without fault—as best we can—the the words of others against His message are destined to fall. Time will reveal their lack of wisdom.

Modern examples exist in abundance.

Scripture likewise conveys this to us. The first martyr, Stephen the deacon, stands before a hostile crowd speaking in the Spirit. It says “his face was like the face of an angel” (Acts 6:15) and yet his words of condemnation to the wicked were like a sword. “You stiff-necked people, uncircumcised in heart and ears, you always oppose the holy Spirit; you are just like your ancestors. … You received the law as transmitted by angels, but you did not observe it” (Acts 7:51, 53). As the crowd raged toward him he looked up to heaven, giving thanks that he should suffer for Jesus' name. He forgave those who killed him and, after his death, “devout men buried Stephen and made a loud lament over him” (Acts 8:3).

Interestingly in this story is that Scripture says “I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God” and “Lord Jesus, receive my Spirit” (7:56, 59). Would there be any doubt his spirit was received? Christ on the cross proclaimed to the repentant thief “Amen, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise” (Lk 23:43, cf. Mt 37:45-56). If Christ said this at the request of the penitent sinner do you think he would deny the request of the one who, filled with His Spirit and dying for His name, would be refused any request?

To this effect, and to answer this question, I present a story relayed to us by Eusebius, the earliest 'historian' of the Church. Writing in the 4^th century he was considered the “Father of Church History.” All histories written around this period and after him by other Christians begin at the end of his work as if to acknowledge his writing (cf. Penguin Classics version, xviii, 1989).

He writes many accounts of persecutions and martyrs, one which I think will be useful to consider in brief:

Potamiaena was a virgin and martyr who was condemned along with her mother for being Christian. She “and her mother Marcella found fulfillment in fire.” Her mother was killed and she was subject to a number of humiliations and tortures. A soldier in her midst, Basilides, seized her and led to her to place of execution. The crowd pressed around her seeking to strike her while insulting her but Basilides drove them back and showed this woman “the utmost pity and kindness.” Potamiaena, accepting his sympathy told him that “when she had gone away she would ask her Lord for him, and it would not be long before she repaid him for all he had done for her. … She face her end with noble courage—slowly, drop by drop, boiling pitch was poured [over her]. Such was the battle won by this splendid girl.”

Some days later Basilides was asked by his fellow soldiers to take again the military oath by which they all swore. He refused saying he was a Christian. They thought he was joking, but he asserted all the more of this fact. His comrades threw him in prison and those from the Church visited him there asking him the reason. He told them that “three days after her martyrdom Potamiaena stood before him in the night, put a wreath about his head, and said she had prayed for him to the Lord, had obtained her request, and before long would place him by her side.” At once those present baptised him and on the next day he was beheaded. It was said that in Alexandria, where all this took place, many other came to believe having seen this same girl in their dreams calling them to Jesus Christ. (see Eusebius, EH 6.5).

In this brief story that I've paraphrased we see a number of things: the courage of a martyr, her influence while living, and her power when she had life eternal. The martyrs were said to work miracles after their deaths and be catalysts to many conversions. Such interactions, that is saints speaking to others after their death, are not explicitly in Scripture, however, so how shall we consider this story?

We recall that in Revelations that there were those who “have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb. For this reason they stand before God's throne and worship him day and night” (Rev 7:14-15). But it says later on that “I saw thrones and those who sat on them were entrusted with judgment. I also saw the souls of those who had been beheaded for their witness to Jesus and for the word of God … They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years [that is, for this Age] … blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first Resurrection. … they will reign with him for [the] thousand years” (Rev 20:4-6).

Prayer to the saints is effective not because the saints have power on their own, but because in their total loss-of-self in martyrdom they were given a share of the throne of Christ in this Age. All of it is for our benefit.

The first thousand years is not a literal time but an expression of forever (or, for the duration of this Age). We remain in this period of the first “thousand years” whereas the new heavens and new earth is the Age-yet-to-come, the Resurrection of the Body. Indeed, while we remain as pilgrims here on earth there were those, as Scripture attests, who sit on thrones with Christ. The ones on thrones are the ones martyred in the name of Christ. That they sit on a throne means they have power, and their power is precisely their intercession with Christ on behalf of all souls on heaven and earth. For it was not Christ himself who converted Basilides, but rather Christ through a young girl who converted him. This story relates that the ever-living martyr did not desire power nor did she seek revenge on her persecutors. Like Christ who proclaims “Repent, and believe in the gospel” (Mk 1:15) she called others to do the same. All of us too are called to be witnesses to Christ—some will witness by our lives, others by our deaths.

Martyrs across the whole empire produced this effect. Perhaps one of the most famous martyrologies that has come down to us is the Martyrdom of Polycarp, bishop to the Church in Smyrna (which was a Greek city in Ionia at the time). He was an old man when he was martyred, perhaps 80 or 85 at his death.

This account, however, was written in the 4^th century (perhaps 310 AD) while he is believed to have been martyred in the 2^nd century around 155 AD). This account has been shown, over time, to not give us any real historical knowledge of Polycarp, but the story itself allows us to see a number of things: (1) the great character of the man written about, (2) the practices concerning such men and women by the faithful, (3) the pride communities took in such examples of their faith. Much of what we get about Polycarp can be gathered from the letter to the Philippians attributed to him, what Ignatius of Antioch says of him in his letter, of various fragments, most notably by his great admirer and fellow bishop Irenaeus of Lyons.

With this being said as an aside, I will select a few quotes that, while not strict history insofar as the exact events described are not historical, they are history insofar as they convey the attitudes of a Christian people. I think you'll see how it correlates with the story above.

Concerning Polycarp's martyrdom it says that the act was “certainly a mark of true and steadfast love, not only to desire one's salvation, but that of all the brethren as well” (Martyrdom, sec. 1).

Those who martyred Polycarp kept his body from those who sought it because “many … were eager to [lay hold of him] and have a share in his holy remains” (Martyrdom, sec. 17). This one indication of relics we have early on, but such an indication also comes from Scripture—that the articles of holy men and women, and that which touched them, had power associated with them. It says “So extraordinary were the might deeds God accomplished at the hands of Paul that when face clothes or aprons that touched his skin were applied to the sick, their diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them” (Acts 19:11-12).

The reverence given to and practices concerning the martyrs is encapsulated nicely here: “[We] took up his bones, more precious than costly stones and more excellent than gold, and interred them in a decent place. There the Lord will permit us, as far as possible, to assemble in rapturous joy and celebrate his martyrdom—his birthday—both to commemorate the heroes that have gone before, and to train and prepare the heroes yet to come” (Martyrdom, sec. 18).

Of Polycarp himself it was said “Of the elect the most wonderful Polycarp was certainly one—an apostolic and prophetic teacher in our times, and a bishop of the Catholic Church at Smyrna” (sec. 16).

"Your life among the Gentiles must be beyond reproach; thus by your good example you will win praise for yourselves, and the Lord will not be blasphemed on your account" (Letters to the Philippians, sec. 16).

Next, we shall see how even with such courageous witnesses the Church faced problems as a result of their impact. We'll examine how such difficulties arose and the response, in brief, of the Church.


===

Links to "The Early Church I: "History, Morality, Being Called Catholic, and the Papacy"

I-1: Prologue and History
I-2: Organization of the Early Church 
I-3: Why are we called "Catholic"?

I-4: The Origins of the Pope in Rome, Lessons)

Links to "The Early Church II"

II-2: The Lapsed and the Problem of the Martyrs
II-3: Bishops and Succession
II-4: The Rule of Faith 

The Early Church I-1: History and Morality

(This is the first part of a presentation given on 4/23/2013. This is the extended version. The shorter, presentation version will be the last piece posted after some time for revision.)

See part I-2 here: Organization of the Early Church. 
See part I-3 here: Why "Catholic"?

See part I-4: The Origins of the Pope in Rome, Lessons

(Part II is now out! Since this is part I, I'll just link to II-1. If you're interested and enjoy this series, please see the next parts.)

Prologue

The early Church for many Christians is something that receives little attention. Many see the early Church as a people who were persecuted by the Roman empire and eventually rose to prominence after Christianity was legalized in 313 AD. While these persecutions were very real and Christianity really did triumph, the early Church has a rich history while at the same time a very human history. This is not a bad thing, however, for the mission of the Church is the interaction with sinful humanity in hopes of redeeming it. The Church, the Body of Christ, is both human and divine—a great mystery, and one worth entering. 

Throughout our Catholic history there are been great saints and great sinners, both sorts have been at the highest office in our Church. This should not give us reason to believe that the Church is purely man-made, however, but it rather speaks to the whole history and situation of Israel that came before us. God saw fit to use both good and wicked men to effect His designs, both enemies and anointed leaders (e.g., both good: 2 Kings 22:10-13, 18-20; Ruth 3: 13-17. And the bad: Isaiah 10:5-13; 1 Kings 11). Good men and women drew others to God by their example and obedience to both Jesus and Church. Wicked men and women served as an example that drove people away from vice and led to God by different paths. When power becomes addictive men will abuse power. As a result, those who love the Lord will strive to live heroic humility. Great sinners inspire saints to be even greater.

May we all grow to love the Church in a greater capacity for she is the bride of Christ. Christ's promise has been held since he proclaimed it: the powers of hell have not prevailed against the Church. Even in the midst of corruption and sin she has been protected and safeguarded. Pray that one day we might all be one.

Part I: History

I.A Jew and Gentile

The Catholic Church began in Jerusalem (cf. Acts 1:8, 12) which was a part of the Roman Empire. The Apostles, filled with the Spirit at Pentecost then proceeded to preach the name of Jesus to everyone. Their word spread very quickly and they put a fire in a great number of people from Jews to Gentiles. How Christianity spread was unique to both the Jews and the Gentiles.

For the Jews who came to believe, they followed the prophets and the law of Moses faithfully. They recognized that Jesus was the “suffering servant” as proclaimed by Isaiah nearly 700 years before (Is 42 – 43:12). Similarly, the words and actions of Christ were prefigured in many other utterances by the prophets. These Jews joined the Apostles as followers of Christ. The Jews had the benefit of a rich symbolism, culture, understanding of God, and history of their people to aid their understanding and faith. The Gospel of Matthew is the first precisely because it is meant to bridge the history of Israel with the advent of Christ who is a continuation of that history. This is why Paul said salvation came to all who believed, but “for Jew first, then Greek [i.e., Gentile]” (Rom 1:16). The Jews who accepted Christ could accept Him more fully at this time.

Simeon, a sage of Israel, receives the Messiah whom he has long waited for. Many of the greatest first-generation bishops were Jewish-born and expounded beautifully on Scripture when explaining Christ to both Jew and Gentile.

How the Gentiles (that is, everyone else) were converted was a different story. Many did not believe that the Hebrew Scriptures were inspired, nor were they aware of the history of Israel or salvation. This was not a disadvantage, however, because Christians were now to carry on the mission Israel had been given, to be “a light to the Gentiles” (Is 49:6b, Acts 14:47). In order to convince the Gentiles it must be done with deeds. In this manner, the early Christians could not rely on words, but rather the very life they led (or bled) would be the proof behind their words. It echoed James who said “I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works” (James 2:18). Likewise, Peter had told his followers to “always be ready to give an explanation who asks you for a reason for your hope” (1 Pet 3:15). This attitude, showing Christ to the world by our deeds, inspired Ignatius of Antioch when he said, “Whenever Christianity is hated by the world, what counts is not the power of persuasion, but greatness” (Letter to the Romans 3:3).

The Romans at this time had enjoyed a great period of peace and prosperity. As they gathered more gods to their pantheon, which was their practice when they conquered a people or territory, their religion became more convoluted.

The culture, likewise, was one of leisure and experimentation. Since a large portion of the manual labor in the Empire was done by slaves many Romans occupied their times with education and entertainment. Many opted for entertainment in the form of blood sports, drinking, and gambling. As time progressed many began to grow weary of the of local religious practices and sought out exotic practices and cults. For the Roman citizen, then, religion was either an exercise of bland mechanism or dangerous extremism. A large number of Roman men and women believed in gods out of tradition or compulsion. To others still it was just folklore.

Many of these Romans, however, were tired of the indulgent, apathetic, and impulsive culture that surrounded them. Educated and noble Romans sought out “schools” which were philosophical communities that proposed a particular way of life. Some such schools were the Stoics, the Epicureans, and the Neo-Platonists. While each had their merits and preached moderation, self-control, and intellectual contemplation none of them were particular concerned with the spiritual. The “spiritual” for them was intellectual and personal. If there were gods, they didn't care about humanity. The gods enjoyed higher things and if they truly were gods they would find pleasure in temporal, human affairs. Many of these schools of thought were concerned with ascending humanity or accepting the human condition with a sort of defeated-resignation.

I.B: Morality

When Christianity entered the scene it was something familiar yet entirely exotic. Christians proclaimed a man who was killed as a criminal-revolutionary as God. They claimed that there was one God, that He was a personal God who lowered Himself for the sake of His people. His son “took the form of a slave” (Phil 2:7) and gave his flesh to eat. While this sounded like the extremism that Romans were wary of many onlookers took note of the unusual moral strictness of these Christians. They fasted and denied their bodies overindulgence in pleasures, they prayed at regular intervals, they cared for those who were sick, they cared for widows, and they cared for all those who came to them. Justin Martyr, a 2^nd century saint, wrote that “Straightaway a flame was kindled in my soul; and a love of the prophets, and of those men who are friends of Christ, possessed me; and whilst revolving his words in my mind, I found this philosophy alone to be safe and profitable" (Dialogue with Trypho, sec. 8). What attracted Justin and men like him to Christianity was a Christian's perseverance in suffering and the joy they found, even in death.

Justin, like many other educated men of his day, were not looking for an amusing philosophy but for a way of life that led to happiness and allowed one to face trial with courage.

Christianity did not see humanity as wicked, but it also saw humanity as lacking—something experience makes readily apparent to us. They held that “In the beginning He made the human race with the power of thought and choosing the truth and acting rightly, so that all people are without excuse before God; for they have been born capable of exercising reason and intelligence" (1st Apology, sec. 28). While Christians believed in many strange and mysterious things they also conducted themselves in the world with reason, moderation, and order—something that would pique the interest of someone looking for order and meaning in their life.

One such example of this strange belief was the virtue of loving one's enemy. Ignatius of Antioch, a bishop of the 2^nd century, instructs others to “pray unceasingly for the rest of men, for they offer ground for hoping that they may be converted and win their way to God. Give them an opportunity therefore, at least by your conduct, of becoming your disciples. Meet their angry outbursts with your own gentleness, their boastfulness with your humility, … [and] their error with your constancy in the faith; beware of trying to match their example" (Letter to the Ephesians, sec. 10). A Christian not only expressed common, everyday virtues that were accepted. They practiced exemplary virtue in the face of injustice, ridicule, and death. This sort of courage, a well-regarded virtue for a Roman, could not come from one who was deluded but from someone who really did possess a sort of divine inspiration.

We have records of what early Christians were taught in the form of handbooks and catechisms. One of the earliest “handbooks” was the Didache, or “The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles.” A short excerpt of its teaching will suffice: “You shall not murder, you shall not commit adultery; you shall not corrupt children; you shall not be sexually immoral; you shall not steal; you shall not practice magic; you shall not engage in sorcery; you shall not abort a child or commit infanticide … You shall not hate any one; instead you shall reprove some, and pray for some, and some you shall love more than your own life” (Didache 2:2, 7).

Strengthening this sentiment Christians were further distinguished by living in such a manner that did not destroy a culture but transformed it. This has been a hallmark of Catholic history: maintain what is good and sacred in another culture but order it to God. We may see the wisdom of the Didache echoed in The Epistle to Diognetus, written in the mid-to-late 2^nd century, which recounts that the Christians “[inhabit] Greek as well as barbarian cities … and [follow] the customs of the natives in respect to clothing, food, and the rest of their ordinary conduct … they marry, as do all others; they beget children; but they do not destroy their offspring. They have a common table, but not a common bed” (cf. Ep. Diognetus 5:1-6)

Socially, the Roman world respected women if they were noble or wealthy, but typically they were considered as property (at least if they were inconvenient). Children were not respected in either Jewish or Gentile communities. In most philosophical and cultural traditions men were the pure embodiment of humanity while women, children, and slaves were weak derivations of humanity. Christians, however, claimed that “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free person, there is not male and female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). With regard to husbands and wives St. Paul taught “Be subordinate to one another out of reverence for Christ. … So [also] husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself” (Eph 5:21, 28).

This attracted a large number of women, both noble and common, to the Church. Children also followed because they were instructed as ones with equal dignity to their elders. Many children of this period were exposed to the elements and beasts if the father of a household did not want them. Christians routinely sought out the places where families would abandon their children and rescue them, raising them as their own. Justin Martyr also recounts, “We have been taught that to expose newly born infants is the work of wicked people; firstly because we see that almost all those exposed, not only the girls but also the boys, are growing up in prostitution" (1st Apology, sec. 27). So on top of preserving the lives of children, they also sought to protect them from predators and those who raised these children as sex slaves and sub-human objects. Slaves were accepted as brothers and sisters, whether they were freed or not. That Christians considered man, no matter who, dignified was one of the primary causes of Christianity's favorable reception.

With this foundation in place, namely the word of God coming to many, we will not see what the Church looked like in these circumstances—how was it formed and governed? What is “Tradition” as Catholics describe it, and in what manner do we say we are “universal”? We shall pick up these topics in Part II: Organization of the Church.

======

This was a presentation given to a group of 40 parishioners as part of a adult-education series on the Early Church. The hope is to generate discussion but more so I hope to inspire others to learn about the zeal of our early faith, to be confident in the history of the Church, to proclaim her with intelligence and patience, and to teach our children and fellow adults the Truth of Christ by understanding the divinity and humanity of our Church.

The Body of Christ: Concerning Protestants, Christians, and Ideology

Author's Note:

I had worked a great deal on this but am humbled in the simple fact that this barely scratches the surface on a number of issues. By the time I had realized my efforts (up until now) this essay had gone past 3000 words.

Not willing to subject you the torture of reading me for too long I decided to end the piece somewhat abruptly. It would have taken me years to write this as I truly intentioned. For now I hoped to write this as partly historical, partly theological, and in part analysis, exhortation, correction, and more. Have I succeeded? I'm not sure. I'll see the discussion that comes from it--so I do hope you comment.

It is a bit long, but I hope to continue on this topic in a more concise manner. I have some comments on this already in my pieces "On the Priesthood," "On Hierarchy," "On Confession," and "On Forgiveness." If you are so inclined, please read (or reread) them.

[I have employed parenthetical citations. In them I list the primary text and cite by letter the book I used. This can be viewed at the end of the piece. -M]

 The Body of Christ

The weaknesses and failings on the Catholic Church are well focused on. Far be it from me to deny or cover up the faults of my Body. Rather I recognize them and yet, through it all, love it. Though I would like to reflect on this I would rather like my reader to consider two things: 1) that same Body which we call the Church, specifically what that means, and 2) the general view(s) of my Protestant brothers and sisters regarding this issue. If we, believers in Christ, are also called the Body of Christ, do you know what that Body looks like? Below I shall examine those communities known as Protestant and Christian as well as those people who call themselves followers of Christ. I ask my readers, Catholic and Protestant alike, to examine their own communities and ask themselves if it represents Christ and if it represents the 'body' and ‘people of God’ images that we are supposed to be.

The opposition that had begun in the form of schism and reform by the Protestant Reformation is one that should be read with sympathy by Catholics and a critical eye by Protestants. The former are often all too ready to deny their words of “faith alone” and “sola scriptura” without considering why the reformers felt they needed to say it. The latter are ready to applaud the evaluation that the Catholic Church as the “whore of Babylon” and the pope as “anti-Christ” and then fail to evaluate the reasons some reformers derived these notions. Let us all not rest in ignorance but truth. Though I wish I could focus on all things the topic is larger than my competence. Below I leave for your evaluation my analysis and interpretation of some Protestant ideologies and their implications in practice.

This man was not a fan of sola scriptura.

Lutherans and other groups say that Scripture is authoritative and binding. Yet the fragmentation of these movements, sects, and communities showed many of them that the Bible alone—however true it is—was not sufficient for the unity of the community. For example, the Missouri Synod of Lutherans is a group that is very reverent towards God. They are also quite faithful to the teachings of Luther. They, however, agree to abide by certain rules through a signed confession, such as rules found in ‘The Book of Concord’ (1580 AD). They also agree to a certain form of governance (e.g., ministers and councils) and, of course, rely on Scripture.

Martin Luther and Phillip Melanchthon. These two were the primary authors of The Book of Concord. Both, especially Phillip, wanted to rid the Christian faith of the Catholic Church. Luther moderately and Melanchton aggressively. As intellecectuals they aren't to be taken lightly--they were geniuses. But perhaps they both got swept up in a movement that was bigger than Luther anticipated.

This rule is not binding, though. It is merely a confession and agreement. They, the Episcopalians, and Baptists have learned that their unions cannot be held together by doctrine but by Scripture and faith. For Protestants in general the Holy Spirit speaks to each man. As a result, when conflict arises among them two problems emerge: 1) you are mistaken and the Spirit isn’t in you. 2) You’ve misread Scripture. This argument could go back and forth. Whereas these two statements can be used as a critique, the same two statements can be used as a support: ‘I read it correctly’ and ‘I know the Holy Spirit inspired me.’

Indeed, for Protestant Reformers the interpretation of Scripture comes through the Holy Spirit alone and “the Holy Spirit can only be possessed by pure hearts” (Luther, To the Christian Nobility of the German Nation, 1520; J.100). Yet who possesses this pure heart? Ulrich Zwingli, a Swiss reformer, said “I know for certain God teaches me, for I know this by experience” (On Clarity and Certainty, 1522; J.188) where before he defined faith as 'having nothing to do with reason.' Neither ideology can challenge itself here. One cannot say to Zwingli “you did not experience this” on the grounds that only Zwlingli could have experienced God in the manner he describes. For Luther, no one could say to him “you are not pure of heart” because purity is a gift of the Spirit and a total trust of that Spirit makes one pure. But let us leave this here for now. Let us consider only that the proposal of these two well-intentioned men was to emphasize Scripture as the Word of God and that faith, a gift, is the guarantee of salvation. We shall examine this again in a moment.

Ulrich Zwingli, a Swiss reformer, was very charismatic but just as temperamental. Before his split from Rome he had been a priest. As a priest he had been a suspected womanizer.

Luther and Zwingli (and later Calvin, to name a few) each formed their own communities based on their ideology—similar at their core and divergent in their expressions. These proposals, however, were the cause of much division. Whether it is through a true love and care for the truth or an apathy for the interpretations and witness of others, leaders who were at one time united formed their own separate congregations because of their conviction that God promised them, in faith, that they were correct. Today, the Missouri Lutherans, Episcopalians, and others came to rely on, ironically, promises and edicts outside of Scripture to maintain unity. These edicts were and are in no ways binding, but they are agreements by a people that proclaim how Scripture should be read and what is required of the faithful.

In their efforts to cast off the yoke of “institution” they were eventually confronted by the practicality and necessity of institutionalizing their faith so as to maintain unity. For example, a Missouri Synod Lutheran can only be called as such if he adheres to the agreement of this synod. A faith that is founded upon a personal faith and Scripture alone is now defined more clearly according to this code. The purpose of this is not wrong, I should say. But those who believe in a personal faith that saves (and that’s it), is it coherent?

These established Protestant groups advocated, and not unjustly, a personal faith. The problem then becomes what “orthodoxy” is for one who considers himself a ‘follower of Christ.’ One says there must be priests while others say that there is only one high priest. One says that Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper while another will say that it is only a symbol for our edification. Some meet for prayer regularly while others meet rarely.

Scripture itself became a battleground, perhaps as it always had been. But now Scripture was the only authority for the Christian and only those inspired could preach it (properly). Now, we say that it is true that those without faith will struggle with Scripture. They may not be able to pierce its depths at all for “the mystery of the kingdom of God has been granted to you [Jesus' disciples]. But to those outside everything comes in parables so that they may look and see but not perceive” (Mk 4:11-12a). Jesus also says that we should “beware false prophets … [since] by their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15) and yet the method by which we evaluate these fruits is difficult. Those from outside cannot effectively speak—some think not at all (which is false)—and even those within could lead people away.

A Christian who rejected the Catholic Church could no longer refer to any precedent in history or practice for support or clarification. This is true because the rejection of precedence and tradition gave way, eventually, to preference—both in determining one's spiritual fruits as well as orthodoxy. In reality it was the only option remaining. 

In the past, an ecclesial council (such as Nicea in 325 AD) was called because of some dispute in practice or some affront to dogma (and/or doctrine). A council met, typically, so as to resolve those topics which lacked clarity and not impose practices or beliefs that were arbitrarily new. These disputes arose either because of variant practices, clashing theologies, or a development of long-held doctrine in light of a new crisis. The most famous example was the divinity (Godhood) of Christ challenged by Arius. Councils of the past appealed to Scripture but also Tradition, for they looked to and “held fast to the traditions they were taught” (cf. 2 Thes 2:14). They used both of these to test the truth of new practices and beliefs would inevitably arise over the course of time, just as they had for the Apostles when the name of Christ Jesus gathered Gentile and Jew (see: Acts 15). From this council the Apostles dispersed once again to reaffirm the good practices and correct the errors of each community.

The Council of Trent (1545-1563) stands as perhaps one of the Church's greatest councils. It was a response to the Protestant Reformation but also a council by which the leaders of the whole Church met to enact reform, clarify doctrine, as well as extend a pastoral hand to those disenfranchised with the faith.

For the Christian reformers of the 15^th and 16^th centuries, however, the opinions of past ages were true if and only if they were in accord with the present age, in a manner of speaking. The councils did not speak authoritatively in that the declared this or that was proper or improper in regard to Scripture. Rather the purpose of ecclesial councils was so that “many may derive benefit from it.” Yet here in the Smalcald Articles, which were written in 1537 by Luther, he immediately follows by saying “[We ourselves do not] need such a council, for by God's grace our churches have now been so enlightened and supplied with the pure Word … that we do not ask for a council … [for we believe that] it would not improve our condition” (T.290). Those who are well do not need a doctor and those who are enlightened do not need council (or a council).

If you look at this situation as I do perhaps you see how much of a mess it could become. Even among Luther's friends there were stark divisions towards the end of his life. The Christian who had faith must follow the Holy Spirit more than the counsel of men and he must also prefer Scripture as higher than all other words. The organized reformers, in recognizing the weakness of human nature, also sought to establish communities, churches, and rules by which they would not be led astray. The goal of the reformers was to rely on God alone but many ended up with a local, often times a state institution—for “no one can [form a truly free council] so well as temporal authorities … [since] whenever it is profitable or necessary, they ought to exercise the office and work which they have received from God over everyone” (Letter to the German Nation, J.101). The intention was that the state [not the best term for this time-period] would facilitate a free council for religion. A problem arose, however, in that the Catholic Church at this time had in many senses true autonomy from the state. Of course there were clashes and corruption, but as a whole the Catholic Church under the guidance of the pope and bishops was concretely separate from the state in many respects. This relationship could only survive, in part, by an agreement from Church and State. The Protestant model, however, relied on the uniformity of State and church almost to the point where the authority wielded was the State's alone. Temporal authority was charged with protecting the freedom of the faith in that land. But in many cases the reformers became a member of the state themselves and concerned very much with temporal power (the same power they accused the Catholics of hoarding). In other cases, reformers and the faithful became indebted or even reliant on the state to support their faith. (It should be noted that Pope Boniface VIII, when he published “Unum Sanctam” in 1302, made the opposite error for Catholics by proclaiming the Church alone had all power, temporal and spiritual—but a proper examination of this is for another time).

However, there were those who recognized this weakness and absurdity—for if the pope and bishops were merely a human institution how did the state guarantee better governance? As such, they reduced the whole of faith into a personal venture. But as time progressed these ones entered into an even greater absurdity for they call those who have faith Christian but they appear to be far from a “people of God.” Many of them identify under the maxim “I believe in Jesus but not religion.” These people see faith as nothing more than a personal relationship with Christ. At the same time there is nothing in their lives that might explicitly direct them or warn them of deficiencies in their faith.

Spiritual and not Religious = not spiritual.

Certainly we can recognize deficiencies in our bodies and in our behavior, such as alcoholism or extreme arrogance. Their faith, however, is personal and no man could point a deficiency in it. For some, perhaps, they believe that their own faith is weak and that's how it's supposed to be. All the same they believe that just as a relationship grows so too does theirs with Christ develop.

As a thought on its own it isn't bad. In fact we are all called to grow closer to the God who loves us. Let us return, however, to the image of the Body of Christ. Those who claim to be non-denominational must make an account for themselves as to how they see this Body. For a body is not a patchwork of personal relationships of bones to the head, sinews to the head, blood to the head, and so forth. Rather every sinew, muscle, vein, and follicle is interconnected in some manner. Is the Church simply the number of those who believe or is it something greater? The blood is not the head yet does it not provide life to our limbs? The bones are not the head yet do they not support the whole? Likewise the hands are not the head but do they not labor and provide for the body?

Those who would isolate themselves from others insofar as they reject a visible and concrete community of believers would do well to heed Scripture: Peter and John “went back to their own people … [and] as they prayed, the place where they gathered shook[.] The community of believers was of one heart and mind” (Acts 4:23,31a,32a). More still, Scripture herself speaks not only of our weakness that is brought about by the struggle between flesh and spirit, but in the spirit itself. Paul says that “we pray beyond measure to see you in person and remedy the deficiencies of your faith” (1 Thes 3:10). Here we have men, acting in the Holy Spirit, gathering physically together and desiring a physical union so as to teach, preach, instruct, and safeguard against deficiencies in personal faiths. Stronger still, Paul relates to Timothy both the things he taught and what was given to him by the community of the faithful. He tells Timothy to “Command and teach these things … Attend to [your own faith] and to your teaching; persevere in both tasks, for by doing so you will save both yourself and those who listen to you” (1 Tim 4:11,16). 

Spiritual and Religious. They gathered in the upper room and received the Holy Spirit and immediately began preaching Jesus to the World.

I think I have spoken enough on this matter. Faith neither starts nor ends as a private or isolated venture. Rather faith in Christ Jesus joins us to His Body, the Church. That Church is likewise more than the number of believers but a community of believers that is visible. More still that visible community is one made up of laborers, teachers, parents, and priests where those “who are spiritual should correct [one who errs] in a gentle spirit” (Gal 6:1). All of us are in a community called to holiness, and that call to holiness is a perfection of charity for all people. Like a Body, however, some are charged with greater authority. “We ask you, brothers, to respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you, and to show esteem for them with special love on account of their work” (1 Thes 5:12-13).

I rise, now, towards my Protestant brothers and sisters who have acknowledged much of what I said above by gathering together in prayer, accepting admonishment from others in regard to faith, and in a greater sense of Christian unity. You must wrestle with what you place upon Scripture as well as the manifestation/expression of your image of 'Church.'

If indeed you hold that “All Scripture is inspired by God and ise useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness” (2 Tim 3:16) what was it that compelled Luther, a general among the milites contra catholicam, to say “St. James' epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these other [books of Scripture] for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it” (Preface to the New Testament, 1522, 1546; J.117)? Many deny, as a matter of belief, that we are justified by works and have ignored this holy author when he says “Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered his son upon the altar? You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by the works. … See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:21-22,24). What determines Scripture and its interpretation if this phrase could be ignored in favor of St. Paul? By what standard do you judge these matters?

I only put this here because I love this image.

I pose another question to you, friends: who spoke truly in this regard?

Two men read that Christ said “this is my body” at His Last Supper.

One claimed that Christ's Body and Blood were truly present in that sacrament. He claimed that Christ's “is” was true and real. That at the repeating on these words Christ Himself is present “in, around, under, and through” the bread and wine. He believes this is true because Christ Himself said so.

The other countered that just as Jesus had called Himself the “Way” and the “Vine,” and that both were not literal, that His words here also constituted a symbol by which we are edified in faith.

The issue was not resolved among them—how do you resolve it?

There is much more that I would like to speak on, but I will refrain from some of it here in favor of explaining a different aspect in a future piece concerning the holy ones, the saints. In it I hope to address human weakness, how we participate with God (and examples in Scripture), and other aspects. In this piece I regretfully omitted the wisdom of Augustine who can offer us a great deal of wisdom. I hope to introduce him when I am more comfortable and versed in the vast body of his work on this issue. Until then I heartily recommend “On Christian Teaching” as a good starting point. Lutherans owe much to Augustine's theology of which Luther was well versed.

I conclude by urging a greater reflection on that powerful image the “Body of Christ” and all its implications. It is easy for us, if we have faith, to simply see ourselves as members. It is far more difficult for any of us to see ourselves as pained, maligned, festering, bleeding, crippled, maimed, or cancerous. The unity of any Body rests in both uniformity (for a body has many parts working towards the same purpose) as well as diversity (i.e., the aforementioned parts). Does that Body which you call 'Church' facilitate this? Is it accomplishing the call for one Church here on earth as it is in heaven? Is Scripture the only authority, and if so which is greater, faith or Scripture? Consequently, how is this question answered? There is much more to say but for now I will pause my argument and allow it to grow from here. My other pieces refer to Catholic perspectives on some of these matters, but as of now I hardly have the talent or the time to expound on these subjects as I would like.

Cited as [J]

Denis R, Janz. A Reformation Reader (2008).

Cited as [T]

Theodore G Tappert, editor. The Book of Concord (1580, trans.1959).

On Hierarchy and the Church

Do you fear or hate hierarchy, especially in a life of faith? If so, would you also reject a temple and a church because you see it only as gaudy ornamentation? But are not both built on a foundation and layer upon layer? In the same way the living Church is built upon Christ. Its pillars are the teaching of the Apostles, the martyrs are the windows by which the light of Christ enters, and the bishops and priests are the supports fastened to these pillars. But what of the laity? They are the rich ornaments that adorn the living Church. They rely on all of these others and yet their place is the expression of beauty and harmony. For any place of beauty is diverse, yet harmonious. Therefore, we should not treat the laity as superfluous (or consider ourselves superfluous) because it is their beauty and harmony which amplifies the temple to those who look outside curiously. Likewise they amplify, by that same harmony, the glorious mysteries within.

The beauty in here is possible by the firm foundations it was built upon. Who could deny that the living Church is different? Beauty lifts us up to God because it reflects the sacredness of that space.

However, can the ornate exist without its foundations? Those who wish to be a temple unto themselves—meaning that they do not need a Church but just a personal relationship—heed St. Paul half-heartedly. They read "your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor 6:19) but then, like children, listen to what they want to hear and ignore what else is told to them. Did they not recall that we are one Body (1 Cor 12:12)? And is this "Body" just of the spirit—that is to say a "spiritual Church"?

If so, who teaches you as a teacher? Who rebukes you? Are we all just equals before one another in all things by virtue of faith in Christ Jesus? What I mean is this: do you not see that if you reject the Church that you will inevitably make one of your own, either with others or of yourself. Was it vain that Paul said that some are prophets, administrators, and interpreters, while others should silent and speak at the appropriate time (cf. 1 Cor 12:26-40)? No. The structure of the living Church, then, lies in the Spirit and lies outside the spirit of mere belief. For did Paul intend that the living Church be a collection of those who merely believed—and that each would stand as equals in many matters just because of that faith?

More still, do you believe that our authority comes from Scripture alone or, rather, that the only authority to teach is Scripture? Indeed we must be obedient to the truth, but this sentiment is not obedience but pride. For by our own will we listen to Paul when he says "all Scripture is inspired by God [for many tasks]" (2 Tim 3:16) and take it to mean Scripture is the only source by which we have, by default, the gifts of teaching or interpretation. But "no prophecy came through human will but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit" (2 Pet 1:20). Are we so bold to claim that we are given all gifts by reading Scripture? Are we so bold to claim that the Spirit acts in those who only speak through Scripture? (Did not Satan also quote Scripture?)

The sentiments of this man, however good, are not Christianity but pride.

 Does not authority come from the Spirit? Yes, for Paul says that it is according to the will of the Spirit that each of us has particular gifts (cf. 1 Cor 12:4-11). They are distributed to many and individually so that we may heed one or another, not just by the utterance of Scripture but by the power of the Spirit in them.

We are ready, like trusting children, to imbibe quotes of Scripture as if it were milk. Yet when another rebukes us by virtue of reason, science, or his position of education we become more obstinate than the Jews in the desert. Is all they utter true? Of course not, but if the words are spoken by one who is gentle yet forceful, and is a man of proven character, why should we deny his rebukes? Below we shall explore this:

Since there is even more to write on this subject alone I will be brief. Read and contemplate these words which are connected to those above. Paul tells us plainly, "Let every person be subject to higher authorities for there is no authority except from God and those that exist have been established by God. Therefore; whoever resists authority opposes what God has appointed and those who oppose it bring judgment on themselves" (Rom 13:1-2). Obviously we should not consent to wicked rulers and wicked things, but how quick we are to call those whom we don't like wicked and against God! However, that God gave us leaders, rulers, and kings is not a lie. Furthermore, do you think that if God appointed kings and rulers to be judges in civil matters and instruments of His justice that He would not appoint men to be rulers and authorities in spiritual matters? "Respect those who are laboring among you and who are over you in the Lord and who admonish you, and … show esteem for them with special love on account of their work" (1 Thes 5:12-13).

And even if some are wicked, are they not still instruments?

They exist to serve you but also, by virtue of their leadership, see what is spiritually harmful for you. They stand atop a hill that is attacked from all sides, and are even attacked within.

King Josiah and the Apostles were praised for increasing the faith of countless people.

The Babylonians and Assyrians both prepared the hearts of the Jews for the Messiah by their bitter exile. By trial and tears the understanding of almighty God was purified from the pagan influence that has assailed those same Jews. Nero and the other Emperors, likewise, in their attempt to destroy the Church unwittingly caused it to flourish and spread to all corners of the earth.

Is every authority wicked? No, but even still we can judge who is a good or bad authority by the fruit of their labor. But remember that every authority is placed by God—all deserve their due (cf. Rom 13:7). Whether good or bad, that will be decided at the appointed time.

Subjecting ourselves to authority, then, takes humility. Deferring to your own reading of Scripture is easy, rejecting authority is even easier. Humility is a virtue we should work on and a grace which we should pray for unceasingly. Was it not humility that brought about conversion for Cornelius and his household? Was it not the humility of Peter who raised him up to equality and made him and his household coheirs to the Kingdom? (Acts 10:9-49)

And likewise Peter was warned, when he refused Christ's humility, that he would have no inheritance in Him?  But upon accepting it he was raised—no longer a servant but a friend, for Jesus revealed to him the model he should follow (cf. Jn 15:15).

Therefore, it is by humility of both those who have authority and those who are subject to authority that both are raised.

Humility brought Cornelius, a Roman, to Peter a Christian. By the love, patience, and humility of Peter he brought them to God. Peter a model of what broken humanity can achieve in Christ.

But for now, let us return to the first point but with another image:

Does not the fruit on a tree exist because of the branches? And the branches because of the trunk? And the trunk because of the roots and the soil? "The branch cannot bear fruit on its own unless it remains on the vine, so neither can you unless you remain in me" (Jn 15:4). Can we be fruit without the branches? A plant has many parts but it works to produce one fruit. The Church has many parts of varying importance but its one fruit is the salvation of souls—we are one Body, "give success to the work of our hands" (Ps 90:17).


And so I say again, do you hate hierarchy? Are you so quick to acknowledge the Master but not the laborers? Though the laborers are nothing without the Master the laborers do the work of the Master and share in His joy.

In this same way, did you build your own faith? "What do you posses that you have not received?  But if you received it, why are you boasting as if you did not receive it?" (1 Cor 4:7). Was it not given to you by others who were likewise convinced in the Power of God?

For we are not a Church of personal faiths, but a building being built upon in every generation—why else would Paul warn us to be careful as we build it? (cf. 1 Cor 3:10). What is your church built upon? Are they the Apostles, Tradition, the saints (wise men and women), the bishops in the line of the Apostles, and Scripture? If no, who leads you?

In reality, this is the pride that makes us accountable to no one but whom we choose. This has become its own false religion.

But truly, men are the ones who labor for God, building so as to support the faith of all. Like a master builder he needs to discern a solid foundation (Christ) and a solid design. Are we not the beneficiaries of such men? Do we give thanks to God for their labors? Ever worker deserves his wages. Deny the laborers in favor of the Master and you mock the laborers that the Master has picked.

Do these men—pillars, protectors, and laborers—not deserve honor for what they have given us? True, that those who ask for honor often deserve little, but the faithful servant who toiled to increase the Master's talents received an even greater honor by virtue of his work. Some more, others less.

In this respect do not neglect your leaders, your spiritual ones most of all. For neglecting them is to be as sheep who neglect their shepherd or plants that reject cultivation. Those neglectful ones produce little or nothing, become unruly, and lead themselves to ruin.

So think carefully and reflect deeply. Is Scripture or your personal relationship the only authority? Or does the Spirit select some to lead, others to interpret, some to teach, others with this or that virtue, and others to follow? Do you fear or hate authority? "Rulers are not a cause of fear to good conduct, but to evil … therefore it is necessary to be subject not only because of the wrath [against injustice] but also because of conscience [for the Lord has given you this authority]" (Rom 13:3, 5). And reflect, finally, that if your church does not acknowledge the Traditions we have been given by word of mouth and by script (cf. 2 Thes 2:15) nor does it have those who are above you in the Lord (1 Thes 5:12) then what church have you built? Can it stand?

For "the work of each will come to light, for the Day will disclose it. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each one's work. … if the work is burned up, that one will suffer loss; the person will be saved, but only as through fire" (1 Cor 3:13, 15). Much is lost in a fire, will your church stand against the true Church?

Early Christian Authors Worth Considering

Below is a brief list of some early Catholic authors that I believe are worth your attention. If you do wish to buy the books, I recommend the Ancient Christian Writers editions myself. Typically 17-28 dollars a book, I find their notes very helpful.

[A word of caution: ancient problems are not always our problems, so what they look at will not always address 1800 years of advancements]

1)Clement of Rome to the Corinthians--
A book almost accepted as Scripture by the early Church, it is one of the most produced non-biblical manuscripts dating to slightly after St. Paul in about 80-85AD. The head bishop of Rome, already in this book we see the trend of abuses and questions of conduct being sent to Rome or addressed by Rome. The abuse here in a phrase was that young members of the assembly ousted the older priests and instituted themselves as priests of that community.
Clement corrected the abuses in Corinth with this (and his 2nd) letter and strengthened the precedent of Rome being involved in other affairs. The history is not always clean, but it is also important to note that the "martyrology" played a big role in cities. If an Apostle or great saint was martyred in your city it was a sign of authority (because they taught there) and a belief that that saint was one who prayed and watched over that city. In this case Rome was where Peter and Paul were martyred, something respected widely in the early Church.

Pope St. Clement I, a "principal" figure who had to call the Corinthians to his office in one of the most famous non-canon letters of all time.

2) Ignatius of Antioch
Already an old man when he wrote (maybe 70) he wrote to various cities as he himself was instructed by St. John and a friend of his. John died around 100-105AD (aged, perhaps, 89-95). He defended the Church and, as you can see in my signature, was the first to utter the word "catholic" to describe the Church. Now I've attended the services of other denominations who have "one, holy, catholic (Christian), church." It may be worth reflecting on the man who used this word first and how it was used. As you can see from my quote it's different than you might expect. He was taken from his home where he presided in Antioch and was fed to lions in Rome at what was believed to be the Flavian Amphitheater.

“I am the wheat of God. Let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ.”

3) Origen
Prominent early theologian who shaped much of biblical interpretation and was also a brilliant scholar in many fields. He wanted to die of martyrdom (you read this in "Subtle Crosses"). He was not sainted because some of his theology became suspect. An early example of a great mind in the Church who was lauded and used, but whose own personal piety was particularly severe. Though not proven, it was rumored that he took the Scriptures "if it causes you to sin cut it off" and, as such, he castrated himself. Not sure if that's true, but he was a very severe ascetic who had a profound influence.

His expert learning was also an occasion for him to write elaborate commentaries on Scripture in an attempt to blend and synthesize Scripture in its literal (the truths being expressed), moral (how we apply it), and allegorical senses (truths derived from Scripture as they are found in events, history, and geography--but my explanation fails to capture it exactly).

Also worth noting is that Origen pioneered the posture many philosophy and theology students would adopt for centuries after.

4) Eusebius (I will probably write on him later)

2nd-3rd century father who was the first Church historian who made a comprehensive history of Jewish patriarchs to Christ, the Apostles, and the bishops they ordained.

Somewhat dry but somewhat like the James Monroe of the Church who wrote a sort of "Federalist Papers" in that he charted how the canon of Scripture was decided upon and why and many other early traditions and their origins in Scripture and the teachings of the Apostles.

Not the easiest read, but I'm slowly getting through him myself.

He's about as exciting as he looks in this picture, but it doesn't detract from his invaluable research, learning, or importance in understanding the early Church

I hope this inspired someone to pick one of these men (and there are plenty others) up.

M