The history of baptism in the church is interesting and typically one of the most controversial teachings. Today there is a great deal of emphasis in many denominations on baptism, and over the centuries people have been baptized in many different ways.

The Bible actually has a lot to say about baptism. We see in Matthew, chapter three, the coming of John the Baptist, a fi rst cousin of Jesus, calling people to repentance and baptizing them in the River Jordan.

The word baptize is from the Greek word baptizo and means “to dip or immerse under water.” However, the word also can mean “to clean with water.” The Greek word was used, for example, in the way cloth was dyed: it would be immersed under water with pigment. Another example would be how a blacksmith would baptizo a piece of hot iron in water to cool it quickly and therefore make it stronger.

The Jewish followers of John the Baptist, who were called to repent of their sins, already knew a lot about baptism. In the Jewish culture, ritual washings, or baptisms, were also one of the fi nal steps for Gentile converts to Judaism. They would be baptized (called a mikvah) “into Moses” by symbolically recalling the crossing by the Israelites of the Red Sea.

In the early church people who were converted “into Christ” were baptized typically by being immersed in water. We know this because we have historical evidence from the time of the apostles, including excavations of baptismals that are deep enough for an adult to be immersed fully. We also know from fi rst-century writings that the bishops could grant permission for water to be poured only if there wasn’t sufficient or deep water available.

During the first few centuries, new Christian believers would receive special instruction for an entire year. These new believers were called Catechumens, and after their instruction the church would have a huge celebration, typically right around Palm Sunday, when these new believers were baptized, given white robes, and became full members of the church.

At that time baptism was a rite of initiation with great symbolic meaning, but it was not directly tied to the forgiveness of sins. Many Catechumens, for example, who were not yet baptized went to the Roman Colosseum and faced martyrdom confi dent of their salvation.

However, by the fourth century, Christians generally associated baptism with the forgiveness of all sins. As a result many people would delay their baptisms to gain maximum effect and wash away many years of sin. Emperor Constantine the Great, for example, delayed his baptism until his deathbed. The leaders of the church saw a great moral danger in delaying baptism, and fortunately for them another teaching—that baptism was necessary for salvation—became popular. St. Augustine (AD 354–430) had written, “How many rascals are saved by being baptized on their deathbeds? And how many sincere Catechumens die unbaptized, and are thus lost forever!”(15)

As a result of these dilemmas and Augustine’s teaching, two new Catholic doctrines—the doctrine of necessity (that baptism is necessary) and the doctrine of forgiveness (that baptism forgives original sin)—officially emerged. Since the mortality rate for infants was very high, soon babies were being baptized within a few days of birth. By the end of the fourth century, baptism, as an initial step of initiation into the church, split into two sacraments: baptism for infants and then a later confi rmation for adolescents and adults, replacing what was typically an adult baptism via immersion that accomplished both rites. In the Eastern or Orthodox Church, babies are still baptized by immersion rather than being sprinkled, or by having water poured over their foreheads.

By the sixteenth century, many of the reformers began to look at infant baptism in light of both early church history as well as the teachings in the Bible and encouraged each other to be baptized again. These Anabaptists, as they were called, restarted the practice in the church of what we know today as believers’ baptism, which is practiced in many of our Evangelical churches.

Not all Christians baptize the same way, nor do all Christian denominations recognize each other’s baptisms. However, many Evangelical Christians believe that water baptism identifies the believer with the Godhead—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—as we are commanded in Matthew 28:19 to “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

Further, water baptism identifies the believer with Christ in His death, burial, and resurrection.

Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life. (Rom. 6:3–4).

While some may believe baptism is only symbolic, we also need to remember it was one of the two commonly recognized sacraments of the church. Historically sacraments were viewed as “an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given to us, ordained by Christ himself.” (16) Baptism is the manner by which the church fulfills the commandment of Jesus to “make disciples…and baptize them” as well as for the believer to identify himself or herself with his or her new life in Christ.

The text above is from pages 44-46 in Baptism, Chapter 9 of "Roaming Catholics" 

Was Peter the first Pope? Should Christians pray the Rosary?  Should priests be married?  These are among the provocative topics addressed in Roaming Catholics: Ending the wandering to embrace the wond er" 

This thoroughly researched book presents the development of the Catholic Church in an engaging way to help Christians understand their common history shared by all.  The apostle Paul referred to the church as the "Body of Christ," not the "Body of Christians."   Rather than Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female he proclaimed we are to be one in Christ. 

Pastor and theologian Kenneth Behr shares his own religious evolution from a Catholic altar boy to an evangelical pastor and engages readers with a parallel story of the evolution of Catholicism. 

In many families, people believe they can’t attend events at churches
other than their own denominations. The Roman Catholic Church formalized
this idea a number of times over the years, including in the
St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism, which was first published in 1885.

The Catholics were not the first to put together a catechism. The lack
of religious instruction that both the clergy and laity had dismayed
Martin Luther, and he published Luther’s Large Catechism in 1529.

The Roman Catholic Church was slow to respond to Luther. After the
Council of Trent, however, there was a renewed emphasis on education,
particularly for the clergy. While early Catholic catechisms going back
to the seventeenth century were for the clergy to read, not the laity, the
Baltimore Catechism had an edition just for students.

My first Baltimore Catechism was probably a condensed version for
elementary students. I remember it was green, and I kept it in my desk at
school. It was likely an updated version of the original, but it still seemed
old even back in the 1960s. The Baltimore Catechism consisted of lessons,
a few prayers to memorize, and a number of questions.

The original catechism is now in the public domain, so I was able to
find a couple of the questions and answers that dealt with this issue of
visiting other churches, including joining a Cub Scout pack.

Q 205. How does a Catholic sin against faith?

A. A Catholic sins against faith by apostasy, heresy, indifferentism,
and by taking part in non-Catholic worship.

Q 206. Why does a Catholic sin against faith by taking
part in non-Catholic worship?

A. A Catholic sins against faith by taking part in non-
Catholic worship when he intends to identify himself
with a religion he knows is defective.

For hundreds of years, both Catholics and Protestants have taught
that it is sinful, harmful, and dangerous to get too close to each other.

This is so unfortunate, as there is so much we can learn from each other.
The Bible clearly tells us there is only one church, with Jesus as the head.
In the Gospel of John, Jesus prayed for unity. He was praying for His disciples,
but He included all of us:

Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which
shall believe on me through their word; That they all may
be one; as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they
also may be one in us: that the world may believe that you
have sent me. And the glory, which you gave me, I have
given them; that they may be one, even as we are one.
(John 17:20–21, NASB)

Many can relate to this struggle between Catholics and Protestants.
Religious persecution is no laughing matter, as the Thirty Years’ War
(1618–1648) devastated much of Europe, and Germany lost literally one
half of all of its young men in battles and the resulting pestilence and
disease. This was not a war against barbarian pagans but with Christians
drawing swords against other Christians. These were nations and kingdoms
and cities led by kings who believed in God, understood the Trinity,
embraced the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ for their sins as an
historical fact, yet found it appropriate to wage war against others who
believed the same.

The text above is from pages 2-4 in The Catholics and the Publics- Chapter 1 of "Roaming Catholics"  Picture at the top is Dominican nuns arriving at St. Joseph’s School in the early 1960s. Photograph in the public domain.

Was Peter the first Pope? Should Christians pray the Rosary?  Should priests be married?  These are among the provocative topics addressed in Roaming Catholics: Ending the wandering to embrace the wonder" 

This thoroughly researched book presents the development of the Catholic Church in an engaging way to help Christians understand their common history shared by all.  The apostle Paul referred to the church as the "Body of Christ," not the "Body of Christians."   Rather than Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female he proclaimed we are to be one in Christ. 

Pastor and theologian Kenneth Behr shares his own religious evolution from a Catholic altar boy to an evangelical pastor and engages readers with a parallel story of the evolution of Catholicism. 

It’s impossible to talk about the Catholic Church without considering the role of the pope, and for a Roman Catholic it’s impossible to talk about the pope without talking about Peter.

I’m a big fan of Peter. He was impulsive, often spoke first before he really thought through the question, and made some mistakes. I am a fan because I can relate. Peter was also the obvious leader of the apostles. He was an amazing man and a great leader, and, like most of the apostles, he was martyred because of his belief in Jesus Christ.

The Nicene Creed has an extraordinary history. It goes back to the time of Constantine, whom I mentioned in the previous chapter. Constantine was the emperor of Rome and a convert to Christianity. He wanted his empire unifi ed and was alarmed by a number of disputes, schisms, and even heresies that existed in the church at the time.

Constantine called the Council of Nicaea in AD 325 and assembled a group of bishops at what we now know was the First Ecumenical Council of the Church. Scholars estimate that from 220 to as many as 318 bishops attended. Constantine had invited many more, but we can excuse their absences, as travel back in the fourth century was diffi cult. In addition the persecution of the Christians had been very severe in parts of the empire and had only recently ended, so traveling was not a likely part of the bishops’ job description.

The eastern region of the empire was fully represented; three of the high-ranking patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were in attendance.14 The patriarch, or bishop, of Rome, Pope Sylvester, who ruled from AD 314 to AD 335, did not attend the Council of Nicaea; however, he did send some representatives.

At the time of the council, there were a number of competing doctrines in the church. These ranged from articles of the faith concerning the true divinity of Christ and the nature and validity of baptisms to the roles of the bishops and priests and the celebration of Easter.

Both Constantine and the bishops had a number of key objectives. The first was an end to schisms. The second was a decision on the controversial teachings of a priest named Arius. The third was ultimately to achieve peace and unity within both the church and the empire.

While the bishops could have created a definitive document that clearly defined and embraced all of the various teachings, canons, sacraments, and doctrines of the church, they surprised most people at the time, and historians today, by carefully crafting a short creed that summarized what it meant to be a Christian.

The entire council declared and ratified these simple beliefs of the Christian faith in the Nicene Creed. Since that time, nearly
1,700 years later, the creed has been the simple litmus test for what we consider orthodox—not Orthodox as in the branch of Eastern Christianity, but orthodox from the Greek root orthos, meaning “right, true, or straight.”

Here, in its entirety, is the Nicene Creed:

We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he became incarnate from the Virgin Mary,
and was made man.
For our sake he was crucifi ed under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son].
With the Father and the Son
he is worshipped and glorifi ed.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

This simple creed is what we believe! Catholic, Orthodox, Presbyterian, Methodist, Pentecostal, Baptist, Lutheran—all Christian churches embrace the same creed. There are only thirty-five lines in the creed, just 226 words. Approximately 60 percent of it is about the nature of Jesus. In the creed we state our belief in His oneness with the Father, His virgin birth, His death for our sins, His resurrection, and His second coming.

There is no mention in the Nicene Creed of the bishops, the pastors, or the priests. There is not one word on the governing authority of the church, whether it is a pope, a bishop, or a deacon board. There are no words regarding the Mass, worship specifics, or special liturgies. There is only one line that refers to the church at all: “We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church.”

This is what Jesus prayed for as well:

I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will
believe in me through their word, that they may all be
one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they
also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you
have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have
given to them, that they may be one even as we are one,
I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly
one, so that the world may know that you sent me and
loved them even as you loved me. (John 17:20–23, ESV)

The word holy refers to the fact that the church is to be separated or holy unto God and is in fact the Body of Christ. The word catholic is from the Greek word katholikos, meaning “universal.” The word apostolic refers to the fact that the teachings of the apostles are the foundation of the church. Finally the word church, is from the Greek word ekklesia, which is a compound word meaning “to call” and “out from and to.” In other words, the church, or ekklesia, is those whom God calls out from the world and calls to Him.

The text above is from pages 38-44 in Gettysburg Address: The Nicene Creed Chapter 8 of "Roaming Catholics"

Was Peter the first Pope? Should Christians pray the Rosary?  Should priests be married?  These are among the provocative topics addressed in Roaming Catholics: Ending the wandering to embrace the wonder" 

This thoroughly researched book presents the development of the Catholic Church in an engaging way to help Christians understand their common history shared by all.  The apostle Paul referred to the church as the "Body of Christ," not the "Body of Christians."   Rather than Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female he proclaimed we are to be one in Christ. 

Pastor and theologian Kenneth Behr shares his own religious evolution from a Catholic altar boy to an evangelical pastor and engages readers with a parallel story of the evolution of Catholicism. 

Martyr to Saint

The Greek word that is translated as saint is hagios, and it is found more than two hundred times in the New Testament. It’s often translated as “holy,” including in “holy ones” and “holy places.” When it refers to people (i.e., saints) it is always in reference to living, breathing people who are called and closely following God. The only exception to the living and breathing saints is in the book of Revelation, which references saints who have died (been martyred) and those who are praying, either living or dead (i.e., prayers of the saints).

When persecution broke out against the church in the Roman Empire, many Christians were martyred. The original meaning of the word martyr was “witness,” as these men and women were witnesses of the faith.

In the early church, Paul referred often to the early Christians as saints, even calling himself the “least of all saints” (Eph. 3:8, NKJ). The early martyrs (dead saints) were certainly witnesses of the faith and were honored, just as Jewish tradition had honored the Old Testament patriarchs, prophets, and martyrs.

As the church grew, particularly when it became joined with the state, the tradition and use of the word saint obviously changed. Calling a living person a saint, particularly using the Greek hagios (meaning “separated” or “consecrated to God”), and using the same word for those who had given their lives either through martyrdom or by great example of their holiness, seemed inappropriate. As a result the word saint was reserved exclusively until the time of the Reformation for those who were already dead and had already proven their faithfulness and holiness, often through martyrdom.

During the first few centuries of the church, people began to remember, honor, and even venerate many saints. As time went on, there were a number of unexplained, miraculous, or, at least, fortunate events attributed to requests made or venerations of particular saints.

There was no official process of determining who was a saint until the twelfth century, when a papal bull confirmed the process of canonizing a saint to include the inquiries into their lives and whether miracles were attributed to them. The Roman Catholic Church has canonized more than ten thousand named saints, the vast majority of them within the past one hundred years.

Officially the Roman Catholic Church does not teach that people are to pray to the saints but that they are to ask the saints to pray for them.

Religious Icons

Saints have also been a very important part of the history of the Eastern Orthodox Church, the origin of which is the same as the Eastern and Western parts of the Catholic Church, which were united until AD 1054. However, in the Eastern Orthodox (or just simply Orthodox) Catholic Church, saints were actually a more important part of the official liturgy and practices.

Images of the saints were a problem in the early church, primarily because of the Second Commandment:

You shall not make for yourself a graven image, nor a likeness of anything that is in heaven above or on earth below, nor of those things which are in the waters under the earth. You shall not adore them, nor shall you worship them. I am the Lord your God: strong, zealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the sons to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, and showing mercy to thousands of those who love me and keep my precepts. (Ex. 20:4–6, Catholic Public Domain Version)

Both the East and the West went through periods of time when they used religious images that were later destroyed by those who wanted to purify the church in their attempt to honor the Second Commandment. In the East very clever artists solved the problem by creating icons that were not carved, or graven, but flat, two-dimensional representations or likenesses of events (e.g., parables, the crucifixion), as well as Jesus Christ, the Virgin Mary, angels, and the saints. These two-dimensional images, often painted on wood, are called icons (from the Greek eikon, meaning “image”).

There were a few very tumultuous times in the church relating to these statues and icons. In the late seventh century, the Muslims who had started a very successful conquest of Christian lands in Africa and the Middle East moved against the Byzantium (Roman) Empire. Roman Emperor Leo III, who sat on his throne in Constantinople, began to listen to some of the religious leaders who said the Muslims were successful because they did not make images of God while the Christians had numerous icons. Many religious  leaders believed that icons were sacrilegious and that religious pictures, icons, and relics had no place in Christian worship services.

Around AD 730 Emperor Leo III ordered the removal of the icons of Christ that were prevalent over altars, to be replaced by a simple cross. The people who were in favor of removing and often destroying the icons were called iconoclasts (meaning “image breakers”). Many religious leaders and laypeople resisted the emperor’s orders, which ultimately led to mobs, riots, and bloodshed; both religious and Byzantine leaders dispatched soldiers and even armies.

More than 330 bishops attended the Seventh Ecumenical Council, convened by Emperor Constantine V in AD 754. The council ruled in favor of the iconoclasts and ultimately forbade the painting of the forms of saints and declared the use anathema, or condemned. However, this council was also called the Robber Council, as most of the patriarchs did not attend. The Second Council of Nicaea overturned its ruling in AD 787.

The use of graven images or painted pictures of saints as well as the veneration of the saints was a major issue again in the sixteenth century, during the Protestant Reformation. Praying to the saints and attributing to them qualities that God alone possesses was a great concern to the reformers of the time. Some of the Protestant reformers encouraged the removal of these images in order to return the church to what they considered a more appropriate understanding of prayer and intercession.They embraced a broader definition of idolatry that included the veneration, prayers, and worship of the saints.

Unfortunately some of these reformers who favored removal of statues and images of saints, like the iconoclasts centuries earlier, too often found it expedient to destroy centuries of art in painting, frescoes, and statues.

Text above from pages 66-69 in Saints, Burying St. Joseph Upside Down- Chapter 13 of "Roaming Catholics"

Was Peter the first Pope? Should Christians pray the Rosary?  Should priests be married?  These are among the provocative topics addressed in Roaming Catholics: Ending the wandering to embrace the wonder" 

This thoroughly researched book presents the development of the Catholic Church in an engaging way to help Christians understand their common history shared by all.  The apostle Paul referred to the church as the "Body of Christ," not the "Body of Christians."   Rather than Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female he proclaimed we are to be one in Christ. 

Pastor and theologian Kenneth Behr shares his own religious evolution from a Catholic altar boy to an evangelical pastor and engages readers with a parallel story of the evolution of Catholicism. 

The Seven Sacraments of the Catholic Church

History records that the early church practiced three sacraments: baptism, the Agape feast, and the Eucharist. When baptism became something administered to an infant, this rite of initiation split into distinct sacraments: baptism shortly after birth and then Confirmation.

Most theologians trace the Agape feast to weekly communal meals that originated during the time of the apostles. St. Paul addressed the problems with these communal meals, which included the Lord’s Supper, in his letter to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 11:17–34). St. Jude, one of the twelve apostles, also called Thaddeus, as well as the apostle Peter mentioned these feasts but always in the negative, not because of their intention but because of their attendees. Because of the issues related to these meals (think church potlucks with lots of wine), there is no further reference to Agape feasts by the fourth century.  Theologians and church historians can show that within the first few centuries, the general teaching of the church became rather severe, portraying God as being rather vengeful and those in the church as sinners deserving of hellfire. As a result most participants refused to take Communion, fearing they would do so in an unworthy manner. By the fourth century, the Lord’s Supper, or Communion, was taken by the celebrant (priest) only.

We’ll talk more about Communion and the Eucharist in later chapters. However, I can mention that for centuries it was rare for the common people to partake of Communion. It was so uncommon that church canon law written in Latin in the twelfth century required the people to partake of the Eucharist annually. This, combined with a Lent requirement to fast and pray, introduced what we know as the Easter duty. The people would prepare themselves during Lent and believed they became worthy enough to receive Communion typically around Easter.

The seven sacraments are:
• Baptism (as infants or adults)
• Eucharist (the Lord’s Supper, or Communion)
• Reconciliation (Penance or Confession)
• Confirmation
• Marriage
• Holy Orders
• Anointing of the Sick (Extreme Unction or Last Rites)

Penance (Confession) was introduced in the church over a number of centuries. We have writings from the early fourth century that show the bishop encouraged the penitent to wear sackcloth, sit in ashes, and shave his or her head. The Council of Toledo (AD 589) prescribed the sacrament of Penance to be unrepeatable. As a result penance was considered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity and typically not received until very late in life.

However, in the thirteenth century, the Fourth Lateran Council required that everyone receive the sacrament of Penance annually (referenced above, in connection with receiving the Eucharist; this was the beginning of what we now know as the Easter duty). Marriage, Holy Orders, and Extreme Unction (initially identified as Communion for those on their deathbeds) were listed as part of the seven sacraments at the Council of Verona in 1184.

The text above is from pages 93-95 in The Sacraments - Chapter 17 of "Roaming Catholics"

Was Peter the first Pope? Should Christians pray the Rosary?  Should priests be married?  These are among the provocative topics addressed in Roaming Catholics: Ending the wandering to embrace the wonder" 

This thoroughly researched book presents the development of the Catholic Church in an engaging way to help Christians understand their common history shared by all.  The apostle Paul referred to the church as the "Body of Christ," not the "Body of Christians."   Rather than Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female he proclaimed we are to be one in Christ. 

Pastor and theologian Kenneth Behr shares his own religious evolution from a Catholic altar boy to an evangelical pastor and engages readers with a parallel story of the evolution of Catholicism. 

Praying the Rosary

Millions of Catholics use the rosary, and its introduction is often attributed to St. Dominick, who, in 1214, according to many accounts, saw an apparition of the Virgin Mary. She was said to have spoken to him and told him the key to his success in ministry would be to teach the people how to say the rosary. The legend connected with the rosary recounts that St. Dominick took the Virgin Mary’s advice to heart and from that time forward preached the rosary—so much so that when he founded the Dominican order of preachers as well as the Dominican order of nuns, they too were dedicated to both the Virgin Mary as well as the rosary.

The typical rosary the Western Roman Catholic Church uses consists of five decades (five tens) that begin with the Our Father (also known as the Lord’s Prayer to non-Catholics) and then ten Hail Marys followed by a Glory Be. If you count the number of beads and the prayers, there are seven Our Fathers, six Glory Bes, and fifty-six Hail Marys on the modern rosary.

However, its history and development are interesting and can be controversial for those who have a strong devotion to both the Virgin Mary and the rosary.

Based on most of the historical research, the development of the practice of using beads in prayer has a very significant connection to the practice of the early monks in their Liturgy of the Hours, which began with the early Christian ascetics and hermits of the third and fourth centuries. These holy men desired to separate themselves completely from the vices and temptations of society as well as some of the corruption that was creeping into the church, and they developed strict disciplines to keep their minds and bodies focused on spiritual things. The Liturgy of the Hours (the equivalent of the Office, which is the required obligation of every Roman Catholic cleric to pray through daily) originally included reading through the 150 Psalms. These were broken into fifteen decades of ten psalms that would be recited or prayed at various prescribed times during the day. These daily readings were a condensed version of the entire Liturgy of the Hours and were often called the breviary (from the Latin brevis, meaning “short or concise”).

By the Middle Ages, or the medieval period, in Europe (roughly from the fall of Rome in the fifth century until the Renaissance, beginning in Italy in the fifteenth century), the spiritual lives of the monks and priests and many of those in the religious orders fully embraced the fifteen decades of prayers, which were often shortened to five, repeated three times during the day.

The common people thought very highly of the monks and other religious ascetics, and many of the people came to the monks to help them learn how to pray. Since most of the common people were illiterate, the monks taught them a few prayers they could easily memorize and then repeat often during the day. History records that some of these early prayers included the Our Father (Latin: Paternoster), which the people often chanted in Latin despite the fact that by that time most didn’t understand it.

Over a period of time, the custom even among the monks was to tie 150 knots on a cord and use them to keep track of their chants of the Paternoster. For those who could not read Latin, these 150 chants became known as the poor man’s Breviary and was most likely the Christian origin of the modern-day rosary. By the fourteenth century, groups of Christians who had a deep devotion to the Virgin Mary modified the poor man’s Breviary into five decades of Hail Marys rather than the Our Fathers.

All of this is a great story tracing the history of the rosary and may be completely factual. However, most historians, including Catholic historians, are not able to connect any reference by St. Dominick to the rosary. In fact the Nine Ways of Prayer of St. Dominick that were attributed to him, just after his death, mention neither the rosary nor the Virgin Mary.

The official encyclopedia of the Catholic Church, New Advent, comes to a similar conclusion:

[We] possess hundreds, even thousands, of manuscripts containing devotional treatises, sermons, chronicles, Saints’ lives, etc., written by the (Dominican) preachers between 1220 and 1450; but no single verifiable passage has yet been produced which speaks of the Rosary as instituted by St. Dominick or which even makes much of the devotion as one specially dear to his children. The charters and other deeds of the Dominican convents for men and women…are equally silent. Neither do we find any suggestion of a connection between St. Dominick and the Rosary in the paintings and sculptures of these two and a half centuries. Even the tomb of St. Dominick at Bologna and the numberless frescoes representing the brethren of his order ignore the Rosary completely. (24)

According to many Protestants and detractors of the rosary, the rosary encourages both vain repetitions in prayer as well as prayers directed to the Virgin Mary, a practice the reformers in the sixteenth century discouraged. Some claim the history of the rosary is closely related to the development of the Muslim Tisphi, or worry beads, that have been popular since the ascent of Islam in the seventh century. According to Islam the Tisphi contains thirty-three beads that are used three times for a total of ninety-nine, which equates to the “beautiful names of Allah.”

Male Christians in the Middle East adopted the same practice, using the thirty-three beads to represent the thirty-three years of the earthly ministry of Jesus Christ and repeated the beads three times, representing the three members of the Trinity.

However, my independent research indicates that many religious cultures, including Christian, Islam, and Hindu, used beads at various times to assist in their prayers and devotion. It would be natural that Christians under the rule of Islam would modify cultural patterns to fit their beliefs more closely.

Many adherents of the rosary claim a conclusion regarding the connection between St. Dominick and the Virgin Mary and the rosary cannot be dismissed because of the absence of literary evidence (in the study of logic, an inference referred to as an argument from ignorance). Many of the faithful devotees of the rosary claim that Marian apparitions, healings, and answers to prayers can be attributed to praying the rosary and encourage its use. As a closing comment, many of the Catholic popes, including most of the recent ones, have also championed the rosary.

The text above is from pages 81-84 in Rosary Beads - Chapter 15 of "Roaming Catholics"

Was Peter the first Pope? Should Christians pray the Rosary?  Should priests be married?  These are among the provocative topics addressed in Roaming Catholics: Ending the wandering to embrace the wonder" 

This thoroughly researched book presents the development of the Catholic Church in an engaging way to help Christians understand their common history shared by all.  The apostle Paul referred to the church as the "Body of Christ," not the "Body of Christians."   Rather than Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female he proclaimed we are to be one in Christ. 

Pastor and theologian Kenneth Behr shares his own religious evolution from a Catholic altar boy to an evangelical pastor and engages readers with a parallel story of the evolution of Catholicism. 

Thou Art Peter!

It’s impossible to talk about the Catholic Church without considering the role of the pope, and for a Roman Catholic it’s impossible to talk about the pope without talking about Peter.

I’m a big fan of Peter. He was impulsive, often spoke first before he really thought through the question, and made some mistakes. I am a fan because I can relate. Peter was also the obvious leader of the apostles. He was an amazing man and a great leader, and, like most of the apostles, he was martyred because of his belief in Jesus Christ.

The Catholic Church makes some unique claims regarding Peter, and one of their foundational beliefs is that the pope is a direct successor of Peter and, as a result, is the head of the church. Let’s begin this relatively delicate topic by first examining the Roman Catholic teachings regarding the pope. These would include:

• Christ made Peter the leader and the first pope.
• Christ made Peter the ultimate authority and leader of the church.
• Peter became the first bishop of Rome, making Rome and the bishop of Rome the head of the true church.
• This authority, leadership, and infallibility is passed on to Peter’s successors—the popes.

As we begin to discuss this cardinal doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, I want to be upfront that I have no problem with the pope or his role in leading the largest Christian denomination, the Roman Catholic Church. Churches still need someone or some group that is in charge, someone designated as the leader(s). In industry we have had presidents and chairmen in charge for years and started calling the top guy or gal in business the chief executive officer about twenty-five years ago. Almost all organizations have some formalized procedures to provide for succession (e.g., new CEOs), and large organizations typically have some accountability group (e.g., a board of directors, board of elders, or trustees) that provides oversight.

Many Bible scholars will argue that having accountability through a plurality of elders was the way the church was originally organized. However, we know from history that soon after the death of the original apostles, a single elder or bishop who would be the head of a geographical area and a group of churches replaced the plurality of elders in the church. 

Let’s take a look at the unique issues related to the role, the authority, and the position of the pope.

Peter as the Leader and in Rome

Peter was certainly one of the leaders of the apostles. He, James, and John are often the three included in the inner circle with Jesus. In every one of the lists of the apostles in the Gospels, Peter is named first. He was present on the Mount of Transfiguration with James and John. Jesus took him along with James and John into the Garden of Gethsemane.

While Peter denied Christ, as Jesus had predicted, Jesus restored him with the “do you love me…feed my sheep” dialogue recorded in John 21:17. 

The book of Acts identifies Peter as one of the leaders of the early church. As an apostle he had infl uence on and was honored by the early church. In the catacombs of Rome, there are inscriptions honoring both Peter and Paul. 

However, there are no indications in these inscriptions or in any other historical writings from the first century that Peter exercised any authority in the church in general or in Rome in particular.

We do have some clue regarding early church leadership in the scriptures. Luke, Peter, and Paul all discussed early church leadership. Luke is the author of both the Gospel attributed to him as well as the Acts of the Apostles; the apostle Peter wrote both 1 Peter and 2 Peter; and the apostle Paul wrote nearly one third of the New Testament. 

In particular Paul talked about the role of Peter in his letter to the Galatians: 

They recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the Gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. (Gal. 2:7–8)

Paul’s journey and arrival in Rome are documented in great detail in the book of Acts, chapter 28. Luke wrote about Paul’s welcome to Rome, his imprisonment, and his teachings. Paul was in Rome for two years, and, according to tradition, he was beheaded, which would have been the appropriate manner of capital punishment for a Roman citizen.

By tradition Peter made it to Rome and was crucified upside down. However, there is neither biblical record nor early church writings attesting to Peter’s arrival, ministry, or death in Rome. 

Peter is not referenced at all in the Acts of the Apostles after the Council of Jerusalem in Acts, chapter 15. In this council Paul and Barnabas traveled to Jerusalem to have the apostles settle the dispute regarding circumcision. After some discussion Peter addressed the issue, and then James, Jesus’s brother, provided the final decision.

It is interesting to note that we have extrabiblical evidence (historical writings regarding this time period) that state it was not Peter who was chosen to lead the early church, but James, the brother of the Lord. 

Eusebius Pamphilus (AD 263–340) was a bishop and a scholar in the early church. He is best known for his ecclesiastical history, including the history of the church to AD 324. His stated intention in writing the history was to connect the church of which he was part to the beginnings of Christianity.

Eusebius wrote: 

Then there was James who was known as the brother of the Lord. For he too was called Joseph’s son, and Joseph, Christ’s father, though in fact the Virgin was his betrothed, and before they came together she was found to be with child by the Holy Spirit, as the inspired Gospel narrative tells us. This James, whom the early Christians surnamed the Righteous because of his outstanding virtue, was the fi rst (as the recorders tell us) to be elected to the episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church. (19) 

Eusebius’s attribution of James rather than Peter as the first bishop is echoed by another historian of the early church, Clement of Alexandria (AD 150–215), who preceded Eusebius by fifty years. Clement was also a scholar, and both the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church considered him a church father. 

Clement wrote: 

Peter, James and John, after the Ascension of the Savior, did not claim preeminence because the Savior had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem…James the Righteous, John, and Peter were entrusted by the Lord after his resurrection with the higher knowledge. They imparted it to the other apostles, and the other apostles to the seventy. (20)

In addition, while we don’t typically try to prove something by its omission, despite the fact that Luke recorded that Paul was in Rome for the last years of Paul’s life, Luke did not mention Peter’s being in Rome. During the time Paul was in Rome, the same two years Luke recorded, Paul wrote to Timothy from Rome around AD 65 and talked about a number of Christians who had served with him, including Demas, Crescens, Luke, and Titus. However, Paul related that he had “fought the good fight” and that the “time of his death was near.” In his final words from Rome, he encouraged Timothy to come and visit if possible and that “only Luke is with me” (2 Tim. 4:11).

It’s a stretch to find early support of a claim that Peter founded the church in Rome or exercised any authority while there. However, by the fourth century, the tradition of Peter’s being the first bishop of Rome was well established, and Pope Leo I used it to request primacy among all of the other bishops.

The Pope’s Authority in the Church

For one thousand years, and actually to this day, as evidenced by the Second Vatican Council in 1965, the authority of the church was in the councils. We saw this earlier, when I referenced the Council of Jerusalem in Acts, chapter 15 (it is also recorded in Galatians, chapter 2). According to the account in the Bible, Judas and Silas delivered the apostles’ (plural) determination by letter to the churches—not the ruling of one individual. However, had it been one individual, he would most likely have been James, not Peter. 

Constantine called the Council of Nicaea in AD 325, later called the First Ecumenical Council because it included various known Christian churches and was presided over by Constantine and the Patriarch of Alexandria. The bishop of Rome (a.k.a. the pope) did not attend this council. 

The bishop of Rome attended the Council of Constantinople in AD 381 and the Council of Ephesus in AD 431. The emperors and empresses of Rome called these councils and later councils together, and the decisions were made by majority vote of the bishops in attendance. The bishop of Rome did not have a major role in these councils until the First Lateran Council of 1123, after the Great Schism, when the bishop of Rome excommunicated the bishop of Constantinople, and the other patriarchs of Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch sided with the latter.

Good Popes, Bad Popes

Anyone who has seen the TV series The Borgias has seen some of the horrible accusations that have been leveled against the popes. As with most accusations against world leaders, there are both truth and exaggeration in the charges. History records that there have been some great popes and some really bad popes. We aren’t going to go through an exhaustive list, as it would be contrary to the overall theme of reconciliation and fairness. However, some examples would be helpful. 

Bad popes include Stephen VI (AD 896–897), who had his predecessor exhumed and put on trial. Pope Benedict IX was a highly immoral man who may have been made pontiff when he was in his early teens or possibly as old as twenty. He reportedly sold his papal throne, and later the church excommunicated him. Great popes outnumber these bad popes ten to one, and if I were listing them, there would be many, including the recent John Paul II (now a saint), St. Leo I, and St. Gregory I.

The Honor Versus the Authority of the Pope

As we look back to the early church, and even as late as the medieval Church, the bishop of Rome was definitely in a position of honor. This was recorded specifically in the Edict of Milan in AD 313. There was, however, a clear distinction between honor and authority in many historical documents from the same period. Historically bishops (and patriarchs in particular) had authority over geographical regions. A number of church councils referenced this authority, and clearly it was part of the Roman state governance. Bishops and patriarchs who overstepped their geographic boundaries were often criticized by the others.

Apostolic Succession

The Roman Catholic Church identifies the pope as the successor of St. Peter. Early church writings indicated that all of the bishops were the successors of the apostles, but if particular leadership was truly in the hands of the apostle Peter, there is neither biblical nor historical indication that this leadership was to be passed on to his particular successors. 

The actual record of successors in the Bible is not so honorable. After two hundred years of rule by judges, ancient Israel appealed to the prophet Samuel and demanded a king. The biblical account makes it very clear that both the prophet as well as Jehovah God were displeased with the request and predicted Israel would ultimately suffer by having one leader who had great authority and no accountability. 

Samuel appointed Saul as king and typically disappointed both God and man. Jonathan was his successor and heir, but God had a better plan and put young David on the throne as the king of Judah and later all of Israel. King David had a number of sons, and before wise King Solomon came to the throne, David’s sons Amnon and Daniel were likely successors. Amnon, however, was best known for the rape of his half sister, Tamar, and the Bible doesn’t mention Daniel, also called Chileab, other than telling us that his mother was Abigail. 

Man’s plans to name a successor of a successful or even a great man actually fail much more often than they succeed. I’ve seen this a number of times in business and industry, as I’ve had many good friends who were good business leaders, talented entrepreneurs, wise, and very successful. Their sons and daughters, however, were not as talented. Many businesses don’t survive when the second or third generation is in power. 

Interestingly (at least to me), the only instance of succession in the New Testament is recorded in the book of Acts. After Jesus’s ascension, the apostles traveled back to Jerusalem and returned to the upper room. There they decided to replace the traitor, Judas. Peter stood up and used an obscure scripture in the book of Psalms that stated, “May another take his place of leadership” (Ps.109:8).  

The apostles nominated two men to succeed Judas as one of the twelve apostles. The apostles prayed and decided to cast lots (equivalent to flipping a coin). Eventually they chose Matthias as the successor. 

This is not the place to discuss the role of the Holy Spirit (which had not yet indwelled the apostles), biblical inerrancy, and historical accuracy. However, it is clear that while it was the apostles’ intention to put Matthias in a particular role, the apostle Paul was the one the Lord picked.

In my church history class, I usually ask my students to name the books of the Bible written by the apostle Matthias, to wake them up to the obvious fact that succession, leadership, calling, and even apostleship are of the Lord’s doing and not something either man or process can guarantee.

Text above from pages 58-65 in Thou Art Peter- Chapter 12 of "Roaming Catholics"

Was Peter the first Pope? Should Christians pray the Rosary?  Should priests be married?  These are among the provocative topics addressed in Roaming Catholics: Ending the wandering to embrace the wonder" 

This thoroughly researched book presents the development of the Catholic Church in an engaging way to help Christians understand their common history shared by all.  The apostle Paul referred to the church as the "Body of Christ," not the "Body of Christians."   Rather than Jew and Greek, slave and free, male and female he proclaimed we are to be one in Christ. 

Pastor and theologian Kenneth Behr shares his own religious evolution from a Catholic altar boy to an evangelical pastor and engages readers with a parallel story of the evolution of Catholicism.