Refuting James White’s Fav Argument Against the Papacy

With Cameron Bertuzzi saying on social media that he’s closer to becoming Catholic than he ever was before, James White has gone into ultra-reformation mode and is throwing out all of his bad anti-Catholic arguments.  I want to deal with one of them.  He often throws this out but no one challenges him on it.  It’s the ridiculous pseudo-argument cooked up my 19th century Protestants that the Church of Rome didn’t have a monarchial bishop until the mid-second century.  Until then they had a plurality of elders.  Let’s shred this argument, shall we?

First of all, the greatest Church historian Eusebius disagrees.  In Book 3, chapter 5, he writes:

As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul; but Linus whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy(2 Timothy 4:21) as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown.

Don’t worry, I know the objection that White will muster.  Eusebius is fourth century and is so incredibly stupid(like the rest of the fathers) that he didn’t know that it was a later development that was shoehorned back into history.  Good thing we had 19th century Protestants come to the rescue.

White will point out that when Ignatius wrote to the Church of Rome, he didn’t address a bishop.  Very true.  He also didn’t address a plurality of elders, yet White still thinks the Church of Rome had a college of elders.  If this refutes a monarchial bishop, it refutes his revisionism as well.

Also, in his Epistle to the Ephesians, St. Ignatius writes:

Wherefore it is fitting that you should run together in accordance with the will of your bishop, which thing also you do.  For your justly renowned presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are the harp.

– Epistle to the Ephesians, Chapter 4

This is something repeated by St. Ignatius in many of his letters.  That as a Christian you have to be subject to the bishop.  A bishop for St. Ignatius is a monarchial bishop.  It is one of his core teachings to submit to the monarchial bishop and the presbytery.  Ephesians 20 is another example.

In his Epistle to the Magnesians, St. Ignatius writes:

I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ.

– Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 6

Also,

Be subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Jesus Christ to the Father, according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ, and to the Father, and to the Spirit; that so there may be a union both fleshly and spiritual.

– Epistle to the Magnesians, Chapter 13

Also,

In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sandedrim of God and assembly of the apostles.

– Epistles to the Trallians, Chapter 3

More coming,

Take heed, then, to have but one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup to the unity of His blood; one altar; as there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and deacons.

– Epistle to the Philadelphians, Chapter 4

Now for the epistle to the Smyrnaeans,

It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

– Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8

He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does serve the devil.

– Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 9

These are a collection of quotes from St. Ignatius and there is plenty more I could bring.  He firmly believes in monarchial bishops and only monarchial bishops.  There is one bishop just like there is one eucharist and unity of His blood.  Also, he stressed that you aren’t to do anything without the monarchial bishop and that this monarchial structure is worthy of God and fitted like strings on a harp.

Now, if the Church of Rome weren’t even following this structure, they’d be in total apostasy according to St. Ignatius.  You can’t do anything without the bishop, yet there is no bishop.  Remember, a bishop for St. Ignatius is a monarchial bishop.  St. Ignatius has a really high opinion of the Church of Rome.  He starts his epistle off with praise for the Roman Church.

The Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is name from Christ and from the Father.

– Epistle to the Romans, Introduction

Do you think he’d praise Rome to the skies if they were violating the very structure that he holds dear and expects other churches to hold?  No way!  Ignatius would condemn them as heretics but doesn’t.  Why?  Because Rome had a monarchial bishop, despite what James White wants to fantasize.

James White has no reason to believe this theory.  Anyone holding this theory doesn’t appreciate church history.  This is a conspiracy theory at best.  James White should chuck it and start reading Church history from primary sources and not 19th century Protestant pseudo-historians.  When he starts doing that, he’ll swim the Tiber.  That and when he learns that the reformation was nothing more than a state-sponsored looting operation.  See my article on that:

Dr. E. Michael Jones vs. Dr. James White on the Reformation