The New Catholicism

by Kenny Chumbley
via Sentry Magazine, Vol. 22 No. 3, September 1996

In The Torch of the Testimony, John W. Kennedy offers a revealing critique of the apostasy that swept through churches like prairie fire in the second and third centuries AD.

"As early as New Testament times, the life of the churches was disturbed by various forms of erroneous teaching. It is necessary that we should know a little about some of these heresies, not because they themselves were successful in modifying the character of the church, but because of the means adopted by the church to counter their influence. The countermeasures, much more than the heresies themselves, were responsible for the changes which were eventually to lead the assemblies so far away from the simplicity of church life as it was in New Testament times" (p. 60, emp. mine).

Scripture and history both chronicle a variety of heresies that appeared early to threaten believers—e.g., Gnosticism, Marcionism, Manichaeism, etc. (cf. II Timothy 3.:7-18; I John 2:18-23; etc.). But as Kennedy correctly argues, neither a single heresy nor an alliance of heresies produced the greatest apostasy from New Testament Christianity. What most corrupted Christianity was the ״orthodox״ response to the heresies -- a response that evolved into the error known as Roman Catholicism.

At the risk of oversimplification, the rise of Catholicism can be summarized under three considerations.

First, the appearance of heresies occasioned intense, intellectual activity on the part of certain individuals, who studied their Bibles for answers to refute the heretics. ״One of the good effects of Gnosticism was that it stimulated Christian leaders into a greater effort to understand their faith, and to set down in writing reasoned accounts of what they believed" (op.cit., p. 71).

Second, those, however, who thus devoted themselves to the study and defense of the faith (e.g., Tertullian in Carthage, Hippolytus in Rome) eventually came to be thought of "above that which is written" (I Corinthians 4.6).

"At a very early stage in the church’s history, the primitive, scriptural pattern gave increasing place to the domination of a clerical order. Once this departure from the divine plan had been established, the new, spiritual hierarchy became the protectors of the faith and the custodians of the Word. So what had been gained in the church’s defense of its spiritual life against falsehood was now to be constricted within an exclusive, ecumenical circle which, on the one hand, gained in authority and prestige by being the supposed guardian of the faith and the Word and, on the other, began to arrogate to itself the exclusive right to define the faith and interpret the Word, excommunicating from its fellowship all who did not own unquestioning loyalty to its findings" (op.cit., p. 72).

The self-appointed "guardians of the faith" gradually assumed the exclusive right to define the faith for all. They came to be regarded as ״the clergy," ecclesiastical ״super-Christians״ whose opinions on Scripture were more binding and authoritative than those of common Christians (the laity). Eventually, for a Christian to second-guess or question a clerical pronouncement raised a "red flag"; as the clergy increased in strength, "those who remained outside this organized development were viewed with increasing distrust as heretics, however loyal they might be to the faith and however exemplary their lives. It was not unusual to accuse such people of Manichaeism" (op. cit., p. 73).

Third, the clergy-claiming the right to speak for the entire church-convened councils (the first was at Nicaea in Asia Minor in 325 AD) for the purpose of writing a ״precise statement of certain facets of Christian truth which would exclude the prevailing heresies of the day״ (op.cit., p. 74). The pronouncements of these councils were regarded as equal to divine doctrine (Mark 7:7). The clergy, under the pseudonym of "the Church״ had become "a faithful and ever watchful guardian of the dogmas which have been committed to her charge״ (Vincent of Lerins, quoted by William Manchester, A World Lit Only By Fire, p. 20), and the creeds formulated in the councils finally became the de facto Bible of Catholicism. For any believer to "appeal from the living voice of the Church ’was a treason’ because that living voice is supreme; and to appeal from that supreme voice is also a heresy" (ibid., p. 21).

To summarize: incipient Catholicism arose in the second and third centuries when "defenders of the faith" departed from the faith (by arrogating to themselves power, authority, and influence) to oppose those who had departed from the faith. The Catholic apostasy was not launched by rank heretics or the avowedly heterodox, but by those who appeared the staunchest in their stand for the truth.

Is a new Catholicism possible? Is it possible for men today to depart from the faith while attempting to guard the faith? Can outside influences exercise control over a local congregation and its eldership? The answer, clearly, is "Yes!" Repeatedly, Scripture cautions those seeking to correct the erring to "consider thyself, lest thou also be tempted" (Galatians 6:1; also, Luke 17:3; II Timothy 2:24-25; etc.). Christians can adopt a Catholic mentality in fighting error.

Let me offer some instances (of which I have personal knowledge) of what I consider to be trends toward Catholicism:

• The decision of some Christians to allow a preacher or "brotherhood paper" to do their thinking for them (the attitude that expects a preacher or editor to "Tell me what I believe" is every bit as heretical as the attitude that says, "It doesn’t matter what you believe" [denominationalism]).
• The preacheritis that glories in men (I Corinthians 3:21) and cites some man to identify its position on a controversial topic (such as marriage-divorce-remarriage, Romans 14, the nature of Christ, etc.).
• The use of a humanly devised questionnaire (i.e., a creed) to determine whether a brother is walking in the old paths of divine revelation.
• Using the traditions and past practices of brethren or churches (rather than the New Testament) as the criteria for evaluating brethren and churches in the present.
• Smearing those who refuse to kowtow to the hierarchy’s opinions, conclusions, or interpretations as being doctrinally "loose" (see Kennedy’s above reference to Manichaeism).
• Seeing, in place of local, autonomous churches, a "Brotherhood church of Christ," having brotherhood leaders and watchdogs ("The greater awareness [of heresy] lent encouragement to the practice of witchhunting. Heresy hunting is an extremely dangerous pursuit, not simply for the heretics, but particularly for those who engage in it," Kennedy, p. 73).
• Fearing a brother will be "ruined" for resisting the beliefs and practices of the "brotherhood leaders and watchdogs."
• Believing that all that matters as a Christian is that you believe right and confess the truth when challenged by error ("Christianity more and more came to be a matter of understanding, of assent to certain truths, rather than of dedication and love to the Lord," ibid., p. 71; cf. Revelation 2.2-4).

All these examples, wholly or in some particular parallel elements, mark the rise of Catholicism.

While the new Catholicism, like the old, parades under the banner of conservatism and loyalty to the old paths, it is neither. In truth, it is built on a small circle of men who hold an elitist view of themselves; who excuse or gloss over sins within their group that they vehemently condemn in others; who believe in a "brotherhood church" for which they are responsible; and who threaten with "Anathema" any who dare oppose them. Catholicism arose once; it can rise again. Embracing error to defend the truth was its original premise, but rendering evil for evil can never be an option for the Christian. In the kingdom of heaven, "extremism in the defense of liberty" is a vice. Those who love the Lord must oppose every departure from the truth-even when those departing claim such is necessary to guard the truth.