The Catholic Witnesses of the Early Church (w/ Rod Bennett)

In this episode of The Cordial Catholic, I'm joined by the one-and-only Rod Bennett, author and Early Church historian extraordinaire, to talk about the earliest witnesses to the Christian Church - the Early Church Fathers - and how they describe the worship, faith, and beliefs of the very first Christians ... and who look very Catholic indeed!
We'll dig into evidence for belief in baptismal regeneration, the Eucharist and Real Presence of Christ, bishops and apostolic succession, and the primacy of Rome. We tackle the common idea that Constantine corrupted Christianity and "Romanized" the simple faith and we discuss why it matters that an Early Church Father wouldn't be accepted in most Protestant Churches.
It's a great discussion!
For more from Rod check out his books from Ignatius Press: Four Witnesses and Four More Witness as well as his publications from Catholic Answers: The Apostasy that Wasn't and Scripture Wars.
Send your feedback to [e-mail].
Sign up for our newsletter for my reflections on episodes, behind-the-scenes content, and exclusive contests at newsletter.thec...
To watch this and other episodes please visit (and subscribe to!) our KZbin channel.
Please consider financially supporting this show!
For more information visit the Patreon page. All patrons receive access to exclusive content and if you can give $5/mo or more you'll also be entered into monthly draws for fantastic books hand-picked by me at / cordialcatholic
If you'd like to give a one-time donation to The Cordial Catholic, you can visit the PayPal page at paypal.me/cordi...
Thank you to those already supporting the show!

[@MrPeach1]

Its nice to hear a Catholic who sounds like he lives near me.

[@masterchief8179]

Great podcast!! Keep on the good work (I listen to you on Apple podcast or Spotify), Keith. God bless you and yours!

[@TheCordialCatholic]

Thanks so much for listening!

[@simplydanny]

I own a copy of Scripture Wars, really helped me understand the debate about the law and why I had so many “trypho” like friends who hate the Septuagint.

[@halleylujah247]

I should probably order some of his books since I haven't read them😬. I am behind!

[@tonyl3762]

I hope you have at least read Four Witnesses by now. It really is a classic. Best intro to the early Church fathers EVER.

[@c.s.froggis9982]

But why wouldn't we use the church fathers as more than just witnesses, but true authorities, especially if they were legitimate successors to the apostles?

[@tonyl3762]

It's a good question, though not very many were popes. The Church has never put too much stock in one father just because they were a bishop. It's the Church councils that have infallibility and where the popes' authority comes out even better.

[@jdlee1972]

39:04 .. I dont see... maybe dr ortlund can do a podcast on how he does it. Cos he seems to do it so well.

[@kentemple7026]

Rod Bennett's chapter on Hermas is more about weaving Tertullian, Clement, Justin Martyr, Cyril of Jer., Cyprian, Ephraem, Origen into a few small parts of Hermas, rather than much of Shepherd of Hermas itself. In Rod Bennett's new book “Four more witnesses”, the chapter on Hermas is difficult to find the references and difficult to follow. And I agree with Rod that Hermas is "wonky" (p. 19), "shaky" and "useful to Arians" (p. 20), "odd" (p. 21) Shepherd of Hermas says there is only 1 repentance after sinning after baptism. (Mandate 4, 29, 8; 4, 31, 1; 31, 3, 6-7) It does not say "serious sin". Rod never quotes this, at least that I can find in his treatment; lacks clear references to Shepherd of Hermas. not organized On pages 39-40 of Rod Bennet's "Four More Witnesses", he does not give the references to Shepherd of Hermas clearly, & jumbles, going from Vision 3, 3, 11 to Parable 9, 16, 93 to Vision 3, 7, 15 & ellipses gives impression they are consecutive. Less careful than earlier work.

[@TheCordialCatholic]

Oh, hi, Ken.

[@TheOtherPaul]

An interesting interview, but one thing I immediately raised an eyebrow to is how Rod Bennett characterises 1st Clement as Clement "butting into the affairs of Corinth", ala papal supremacy. Is this a possible reading of the book? Sure, but it's a leap to immediately ascribe this interpretation to the text. It's just as possible that the ousted presbyters asked for help from Rome to condemn the schismatics, since the church at Rome (note; not the bishop himself) did hold very high esteem early on. I think this is implied by the letter's apology at the start for being slow to respond to the issue. It's not certain, but this interpretation is also possible, without implying papal supremacy or universal jurisdiction. Much more interpretive work needs to be done before one can imply papal supremacy/universal jurisdiction from the text. There is also the critical point that the letter is clearly of collective authorship, given how it always speaks in "we", rather than "I, Clement, the Pope". Tho later papal bulls/encyclicals do include "we" in representing the other bishops, they nonetheless identify the Pope that rubber stamps it, whilst the earliest witness to 1st Clement - Irenaeus - says that this letter was dispatched by the church of Rome, not Clement personally, tho it was at the time of Clement (Against Heresies III.3.3). We see the same in the letter itself, giving the author as the church at Rome, and the recipient as the church at Corinth. Given other references to Clement as the author, it's possible that he acted as the representative of Rome to the other churches, a role attested in the church of Rome in the Shepherd of Hermas (8:3), and coincidentally held at that time by another Clement. Regardless, these definitely raise questions on the nature of authority in the church at Rome at the start, whether one bishop reigned supreme or if that authority was shared. Overall, Clement deserves a much more careful treatment.

[@TheOtherPaul]

NOTE: I wrote this before the section on Clement of Rome. I can't see that the "Clement" in the Shepherd of Hermas is Clement of Rome, as the Muratorian Fragment attests that Hermas wrote this while his brother - Pius - was bishop of Rome, which is the mid-2nd century.

[@aGoyforJesus]

Also ignores that other letters from churches besides Rome. I have a few videos addressing Clement from Kauffman on my channel.

[@MrPeach1]

Irenaus in book 3 specifically mentions this episode when tracing the succession of "the episcopate" of the church that all other churches should agree with. He did this as a claim to the church authority and orthodoxy.

[@TheOtherPaul]

@@MrPeach1 as orthodoxy specifically, not authority per se. He said he did not have the space to account for all the churches and their succession, so he gave the most exemplary of them, Rome, on account of its "potiorem principalitatem" (greater pre-eminence). What exactly this means - like all other things - is defined by the context, and the context is Rome's "founding" by two Apostles (not Peter specifically) and the richness of their tradition. Nothing is mentioned about the seat of peter, papal supremacy, the keys of the kingdom, etc.

[@MrPeach1]

@@TheOtherPaul he was specifically trying to prove the church but your right he didn't have the space so he focused on the most important episcopate in the church. What made it so important? Well the office of Peter was handed off from there.