The Selective Reception of Early Church Teachings by Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy

J. Neil Daniels 

For an Audio Overview, click here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H6rAUT0HZ-3fdAcEI0TeH0u64-n1986m/view?usp=drivesdk

Introduction 

The early Christian Church, spanning the first few centuries after Christ, produced a rich and varied corpus of writings and practices that profoundly influence contemporary Christian theology and ecclesiology. However, the relationship between these early teachings and the doctrines of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy reveals a complex and selective engagement. While Protestant traditions often align with early Church writings where they accord with Scripture, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy similarly exhibit selectivity, endorsing early teachings only when they harmonize with their established doctrines. This essay examines key early Church figures and texts—such as Papias, the Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, the Didascalia Apostolorum, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, John Chrysostom, Jerome, the Apostolic Constitutions, and Pope Gregory I—to demonstrate that both Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy diverge from certain early Church teachings, highlighting the tension between historical tradition and contemporary doctrine.

Eschatological Divergences: Papias and Premillennialism

Eschatology represents a significant point of divergence between the early Church and modern Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, particularly regarding the doctrine of Chiliasm or Premillennialism. Papias, an early second-century bishop, as cited by Eusebius, taught that “there will be a millennium after the resurrection from the dead, when the personal reign of Christ will be established on this earth” (Papias, Fragments, Chapter 6). This belief, known as Chiliasm, was prevalent among early Christians but was later deemed problematic by the Roman Catholic Church. In 1944, the Decree of the Holy Office declared that Premillennialism “cannot be safely taught,” aligning instead with Amillennialism, which interprets the millennium symbolically. Similarly, most Eastern Orthodox traditions favor Amillennialism, rejecting Papias’s literal millennial reign. This rejection illustrates that both traditions selectively distance themselves from early eschatological views that conflict with their later developed theological frameworks. Indeed, the dismissal of Papias’s Chiliasm underscores a broader pattern: early teachings are affirmed only when they reinforce denominational orthodoxy.

Ecclesiological Discrepancies: The Didache and Clerical Appointment

The Didache, a first- or second-century church order, provides critical insight into early Christian ecclesiology, particularly regarding clergy appointment. It instructs congregations to “appoint for yourselves bishops and deacons worthy of the Lord, men meek, and not lovers of money, and truthful and proven; for they also render to you the service of prophets and teachers” (Didache, Chapter 15). Notably, the text omits any reference to a centralized authority, such as a Roman papacy, or the need for papal confirmation. This silence is striking when contrasted with Roman Catholic ecclesiology, which, as Pope Pius XII articulated, holds that “the power of jurisdiction, which is conferred upon the Supreme Pontiff directly by divine rights, flows to the Bishops by the same right, but only through the Successor of St. Peter” (Ad Sinarum Gentem, 1954). The Code of Canon Law further mandates that “the Supreme Pontiff freely appoints bishops or confirms those legitimately elected” (Canon 377). The Didache’s congregational model challenges the Roman Catholic claim of an apostolic, Rome-centered authority, suggesting greater autonomy in early Christian communities.

Moreover, the Didache does not mention a distinct priesthood separate from bishops and deacons, aligning with the New Testament’s lack of such a distinction (Titus 1:5-7). This absence undermines the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox development of a sacerdotal priesthood, central to their sacramental systems. The Didache’s model of local appointment and its lack of a Roman-centric framework reveal a significant divergence from the centralized, hierarchical structures of both traditions, indicating selective adoption of early practices.

Soteriological Tensions: The Shepherd of Hermas and Repentance

The Shepherd of Hermas, a second-century text, presents a soteriological perspective that conflicts with Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox teachings on repentance. The text asserts that “there is but one repentance for the servants of God” after baptism, limiting forgiveness for major sins post-baptism (Shepherd of Hermas, 29:8). It further states that “he that hath received remission of sins ought no longer to sin, but to dwell in purity” (Shepherd of Hermas, 31:2). This restrictive view is rejected by Roman Catholicism, which allows multiple confessions of mortal sins through the sacrament of penance. Eastern Orthodoxy, while lacking an exact equivalent to mortal sin, similarly accepts repeated repentance, emphasizing God’s mercy.

The Shepherd’s rigorist stance reflects a disciplinary tendency in some early Christian communities, but its rejection by both traditions demonstrates their selective engagement with early soteriology. By prioritizing a lenient approach to repentance, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy align with their emphasis on divine mercy and sacramental grace, departing from the harsher frameworks of early texts.

Christological Errors: Irenaeus and the Age of Jesus

Irenaeus, a second-century theologian, provides a striking example of divergence in Christology. In Against Heresies, he argues that Jesus lived into his forties, nearing fifty, at his death, stating, “He did not then want much of being fifty years old; and, in accordance with that fact, they said to Him, ‘Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?’” (Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 22). Irenaeus claims this derives from apostolic tradition, noting that “all the elders testify; those who were conversant in Asia with John, the disciple of the Lord, [affirming] that John conveyed to them that information” (Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 22). This contradicts the biblical timeline in Luke 3:23, which indicates Jesus was around thirty at the start of his ministry, a view universally accepted by modern Christians.

The rejection of Irenaeus’s claim by Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy highlights the fallibility of early oral traditions, even those linked to apostles. While Irenaeus is revered for his Trinitarian theology, his Christological error is dismissed, demonstrating that both traditions ostensibly seek to prioritize doctrinal coherence over strict adherence to early authorities.

Iconography and Worship: Clement of Alexandria and Epiphanius

The use of images in worship, central to Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, diverges from early Church practices. Clement of Alexandria condemns images, stating, “to worship that which is immaterial by matter, is to dishonour it by sense” (Stromata, Book 7, Chapter 5). Epiphanius of Salamis recounts tearing down an image in a church, declaring it “contrary to the teaching of the Scriptures” (Letter to John, Bishop of Jerusalem). The Council of Elvira (306 AD) similarly prohibited images, stating, “there should not be pictures in the church, so that which is worshiped and adored should not be painted on the walls” (Canon 36).

In contrast, both traditions have made icon veneration integral, with the Second Council of Nicaea (787 AD) declaring refusal to venerate icons anathema. This shift represents a significant departure from early practices, as articulated by Clement, Epiphanius, and Elvira. The selective rejection of these teachings illustrates how both traditions prioritize their developed theological frameworks over historical practices.

Clerical Marriage and Discipline: Cyprian, Basil, and the Apostolic Constitutions

The early Church’s approach to clerical marriage and discipline further highlights selective reception. The Didascalia Apostolorum permits married bishops, requiring that a bishop be “a man that hath taken one wife, that hath governed his house well” (Didascalia Apostolorum, Chapter 4). Clement of Alexandria approves of married clergy, stating that God “entirely approves of the man who is husband of one wife, whether he be presbyter, deacon, or layman” (Stromata, Book 3, Chapter 12). John Chrysostom notes that 1 Timothy 3:2 prohibits bishops from having multiple wives but does not require celibacy (Homily 10 on First Timothy). However, Roman Catholicism mandates celibacy for bishops and priests, while Eastern Orthodoxy allows married priests but prohibits bishops from marrying and priests from marrying post-ordination, contradicting biblical allowances (1 Tim 3:2, Titus 1:6).

Cyprian’s writings and the councils of Carthage (255–256 AD) reveal further divergences. Cyprian argued that baptisms by heretics were invalid, opposing Pope Stephen I, who upheld their validity. He wrote, “you will more and more observe his error in endeavouring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians” (Epistle LXXIII, To Pompey). Cyprian’s assertion that “neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops” (Seventh Council of Carthage) challenges papal supremacy. Both traditions reject Cyprian’s view on re-baptism, with Roman Catholicism accepting external baptisms and Eastern Orthodoxy varying in practice.

Basil of Caesarea prescribes lengthy penances, such as fifteen years for adultery, noting they come from “our Fathers” (Letter 217). Similar penalties appear in the councils of Elvira, Ancyra, and Nicaea, but both traditions have adopted more lenient approaches, abandoning these earlier rigorous practices.

The Canon of Scripture: Athanasius, Jerome, and Gregory I

The canon of Scripture is another area of divergence. Athanasius lists a 22-book Old Testament (based on the Jewish reckoning, equivalent to the Protestant Old Testament canon of 39 books), explicitly excluding Judith, Tobit, and Maccabees, which he deems non-canonical but edifying (39th Festal Letter). Jerome similarly distinguishes between the canonical Old Testament and “Apocryphal writings” like Wisdom and Maccabees (Preface to the Books of the Kings). Pope Gregory I treats Maccabees as non-canonical, stating, “we are not acting irregularly, if from the books, though not Canonical, yet brought out for the edifying of the Church, we bring forward testimony” (Morals on the Book of Job, Book 19). Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, however, include these books, contradicting these early authorities.

Baptismal Practices: Gregory of Nazianzus and the Apostolic Canons

Gregory of Nazianzus recommends delaying baptism until a child is around three, except in danger, so they may “know the outlines” of the sacrament (Oration 40). This contrasts with the immediate infant baptism practiced by both traditions. The Apostolic Canons require triple immersion, stating, “If any bishop or presbyter does not perform the one initiation with three immersions, let him be deposed” (Canon 50). Roman Catholicism’s allowance for pouring or sprinkling diverges from this norm.

Conclusion: The Selective Legacy of the Early Church

The study of early Church teachings reveals not a seamless continuity but a contested and often inconsistent inheritance, one that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy have appropriated with deliberate selectivity. From eschatology to ecclesiology, from iconography and clerical discipline to canon formation, both traditions have embraced certain patristic voices while disregarding others, frequently subordinating the historical record to the demands of later doctrinal systems. This pattern of selective reception not only undercuts the claim to an unbroken and unanimous tradition but also exposes the theological plasticity with which early Christian testimony is handled.

Such inconsistency should not be ignored or obscured beneath the language of “development” or “consensus.” While development of doctrine is inevitable in a living tradition, it must remain tethered to the authority of Scripture and accountable to the historical data. Yet both Rome and the East have often invoked the Church Fathers as monolithic witnesses when, in fact, their writings are multiform, occasionally contradictory, and, at times, manifestly errant. Appeals to the “unanimous consent of the fathers” collapse under scrutiny, for no such unanimity exists on numerous doctrinal, disciplinary, and liturgical matters.

This survey does not diminish the significance of the early Fathers; rather, it calls for their responsible use—valued as historical voices, not infallible oracles. It underscores the necessity of evaluating all traditions by the measure of Scripture, the norma normans non normata—the norm that is not normed. The Berean spirit (Acts 17:11) remains the model for the Church in every age: reverent, but discerning; appreciative, but anchored in the sure Word of God. In this way, we honor the best of the Fathers, not by canonizing their errors, but by imitating their pursuit of truth when it aligns with the apostolic faith once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3).

Bibliography and Further Study 

Ancient and Patristic Sources

Athanasius. Festal Letter 39. In A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Vol. 4, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892.

Basil of Caesarea. Letter 217. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 8, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1895.

Canon Law Society of America. Code of Canon Law: Latin-English Edition. Washington, DC: Canon Law Society of America, 1983.

Clement of Alexandria. The Stromata, or Miscellanies. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.

Council of Elvira. Canon 36. In Early Church Councils, various eds.

Epiphanius of Salamis. Letter to John, Bishop of Jerusalem. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 14, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890.

Gregory of Nazianzus. Oration 40. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 7, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1894.

Gregory the Great. Morals on the Book of Job. Translated by James Barmby. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 12. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1888.

Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Translated by Alexander Roberts and William H. Rambaut. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.

Jerome. Preface to the Books of the Kings. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 6, edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1892.

John Chrysostom. Homily 10 on First Timothy. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 13, edited by Philip Schaff. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889.

Papias. Fragments. In The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Vol. 1 of Ante-Nicene Fathers. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.

Pope Pius XII. Ad Sinarum Gentem. Encyclical Letter. October 7, 1954.

Second Council of Nicaea. Canons and Decrees. In The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, edited by Henry R. Percival. Vol. 14 of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1900.

Shepherd of Hermas. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2, translated by Charles H. Hoole, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.

Church Orders and Canons

Apostolic Canons. In The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7, edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.

Didascalia Apostolorum. Translated by R. Hugh Connolly. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1929.

Didache. Translated by J.B. Lightfoot. In The Apostolic Fathers. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1956.

Secondary Sources (for context, canon history, and conciliar interpretation)

Denzinger, Heinrich. The Sources of Catholic Dogma. Translated by Roy J. Deferrari. St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co., 1957.

Tanner, Norman P., ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, Vol. 1. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990.