The Empire and the Great Persecution Part 4 of 11

The New Tetrarch and the Rise of Constantine

The tetrarch now consisted of Galerius and Maximinus in the east and Constantius and Severus in the west. Galerius had cleverly and forcefully tipped the scales in his ambitious plan to be the sovereign ruler of the Empire. The only thing standing in his way was the compassionate, and aging, Constantius. By virtue of his rank, Constantius was elevated from Caesar to Augustus when Maximinus was forced to abdicate, but declining health made ridding him of his title an all too alluring scheme for Galerius to resist.

A long-time friend of Galerius named Licinius, was also part of Galerius’ grand scheme. Galerius had forced his hand in making Severus and Maximinus Caesars, but Licinius he purposed to make a brother emperor in the place of Constantius. If the plan were to be fulfilled, Galerius would certainly possess the level of supreme authority he desired. But the hand of God, as the Christians under his relentless persecutions would attest, would deliver Galerius a blow that would end his devilish ambitions, but not before Galerius’ fury grew stronger. Lactantius provides a horrifying example of Galerius’ indiscriminate evil tortures, particularly towards Christians.

“Men of private station were condemned to be burnt alive; and he began this mode of execution by edicts against the Christians, commanding that, after torture and condemnation, they should be burnt at a slow fire. They were fixed to a stake, and first a moderate flame was applied to the soles of their feet, until the muscles, contracted by burning, were torn from the bones; then torches, lighted and put out again, were directed to all the members of their bodies, so that no part had any exemption. Meanwhile cold water was continually poured on their faces, and their mouths moistened, lest, by reason of their jaws being parched, they should expire. At length they did expire, when, after many hours, the violent heat had consumed their skin and penetrated into their intestines. The dead carcasses were laid on a funeral pile, and wholly burnt; their bones were gathered, ground to powder, and thrown into the river, or into the sea.”¹

The only ally with any influence the Christian’s had was helplessly clinging to life by a thread. When Galerius learned that Constantius’ health was worse than he realized, he decided to bide his time and wait for the inevitable, rather than force Constantius to abdicate. While upon his deathbed, as his final breath crept closer, Constantius wrote to Galerius requesting that his son Constantine be sent to him. With awareness of the request spreading, Galerius could not refuse Constantine without risking an uprising, so he granted the petition.

Galerius found himself in a precarious situation, though he must have known Constantius would grant his son the honor of emperor, especially since he had previously requested it from Galerius. If Galerius could not find a way to secretly keep Constantine from power, his plans would be severally hindered or perhaps all together destroyed.

As Constantine set out on his journey, Galerius laid snares in his path, but Constantine, being made aware of his plans, escaped the traps and returned to his father. When he arrived, he found his father at the brink of death. Constantius recommended his son to his army who happily proclaimed him emperor. Upon their acceptance, Constantius delivered his authority to Constantine and shortly after expired.

True to his character, Constantine made his first official proclamation as emperor a comforting declaration to the Christians, promising to reinstate the legality of the religion. With the strength of his father’s army now his own, Constantine sent news of his acquired status to Galerius by having his portrait delivered to him. Galerius, beside himself with rage, desired to burn the portrait and Constantine along with it. But his advisors warned him that if Constantine came with his army he may draw solders upset by Galerius’ instatement of Maximinus and Severus to him. So Galerius withheld his hand, but requested that Severus, by virtue of his age, by made Augustus in the second position, reducing Constantine to Caesar in the fourth position. All came to agreement with the request satisfying Galerius for the time being.

1 Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 21

Back to Part 1

The Empire and the Great Persecution: Part 3 of 11

Diocletian’s illness and Galerius’ Grab for Power

With the execution of his plan well underway, Diocletian set out to Rome to celebrate his twentieth anniversary as emperor. But Rome, a city whose people held little respect for supreme authority, was not enthused, so he abruptly left the city to celebrate in Ravenna. From there, he joined with Galerius and engaged in a campaign against Carpi. While in Carpi, Diocletian contracted an illness that steadily worsened eventually confining him to be carried in a litter. He traveled to his palace in Nicomedia and remained there three months. At the end of the three months, in December 304, he appeared in public to dedicate the opening of a circus in Nicomedia. Soon after the ceremonies ended, he collapsed and was resigned to his palace for the rest of the winter. Rumors spread quickly that Diocletian had died and that the news was being kept secret until Galerius arrived to assume power. When Diocletian remerged to the public in March 305, he was so deformed by his illness he was barley recognizable.

Within a few days, Galerius arrived at the palace prepared to force Diocletian to abdicate. He had just done the same to Maximian who under threat of civil war was forced to step down. Approaching him gently, Galerius strove to convince Diocletian that his physical condition was not best for the commonwealth. Diocletian feared stepping down from power because he believed he had certainly obtained many enemies over the years, so Galerius suggested that Diocletian fill his imperial office with compliant men. Feeling the relentless pressure, and learning previously from Maximian that Galerius was augmenting his army, he burst into tears and said, “Be it as you will.“¹

It was procedure that Caesars be chosen by common consent, so Diocletian called an assembly of representatives from various regions. Addressing them with tears, he informed the assembly that due to his physical health he was abdicating and passing his duty as emperor to someone more fit to enact the duties of that office. The obvious and expected choices were Maxentius and Constantine, the sons of emperors Maximian and Constantinus. Surprisingly, what was expected was not to be so.

Galerius protested the choice of Maxentius claiming that he does not deserve the office because he treated him with contumely, and worried what he might do if he received power as emperor. As far as Constantine, Galerius accused him of being amiable. He believed that Constantine would rule after the peoples will with mild virtues that would surpass his father’s. Neither of these situations proved comfortable for Galerius who wanted someone who shared his inclinations and judgment. When Diocletian asked “Whom then shall we appoint?” Galerius answered “Severus.” But Diocletian protested calling Severus a drunkard. Galerius defended him and informed Diocletian that he had already sent him to Maximian to receive the title. Diocletian could do little else but consent.

Diocletian asked Galerius whom he suggests to fill the last vacancy in the tetrarch and Galerius, looking out over the assembly pointed to Maximinus. Maximinus was the name Galerius gave to his sister’s son Daia whom he had adopted as his own son for this very purpose. Diocletian, having given up his challenges, rebuked Galerius saying, “Then you look to it, who are about to assume the administration of the empire: as for me, while I continued emperor, long and diligent have been my labors in providing for the security of the commonweal; and now, should anything disastrous ensue, the blame will not be mine.“²

Diocletian and Galerius went in procession to the place where twenty-one years earlier Diocletian received his title, three miles outside of Nicomedia where a statue of the Roman god Jupiter stood. There they prepared to announce their decision to the assembly. The crowd looked to Constantine, who was standing among the multitude, as the certain choice to receive the honor, but Diocletian proclaimed Severus and Maximinus as their selection. The crowd was stunned! Many wondered if perhaps Constantine had received the name Maximinus because no one knew who he was, but all doubt was put to rest when Galerius waved Constantine aside and motioned for Maximinus to come forward.

There can be no doubt as to Galerius’ motives. Maximinus was a herdsman not long before his uncle enlisted him as a common solder. Now, as a puppet at the end of Galerius’ string, Maximinus was prepared to enact Galerius’ evil persecutions on the Christians without hesitation.

1. Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 18
2. Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 18

Go to
Back to Part 1 Go to Part 4

The Empire and the Great Persecution: Part 2 of 11

Persecution Ensues

At daybreak on February 23, 303, Diocletian’s army busted in the doors of a large newly constructed church in Nicomedia in Asia Minor, and confiscated the sacred writings. Once found, the Scriptures were consumed by fire and the church was pillaged. The church was located on a hill and in full view from one of Diocletian’s palaces where he and Galerius stood watching the assault. Galerius insisted that the church be burned to the ground, but Diocletian argued that doing so might cause a greater fire consuming part of the city and possibly his palace. Diocletian won out and the church was destroyed without fire. The next day Diocletian published an edict which he had posted throughout the city for public viewing, denying Christians of their rights and subjecting them to various tortures. One Christian man, when he saw the edict, tore it into pieces¹ and was subsequently tortured and eventually burned alive.

“It was in the nineteenth year of the reign of Diocletian, in the month Dystrus, called March by the Romans, when the feast of the Savior’s passion was near at hand, that royal edicts were published everywhere, commanding that the churches be leveled to the ground and the Scriptures be destroyed by fire, and ordering that those who held places of honor be degraded, and that the household servants, if they persisted in the profession of Christianity, be deprived of freedom. Such was the first edict gainst us. But not long after, other decrees were issued, commanding that all the rulers of the churches in every place be first thrown into prison, and afterwards by every artifice be compelled to sacrifices.”
²

Soon after the edict was published a fire broke out in Diocletian’s palace. Eusebius states that he does not know how it happened, but Lactantius claims that Galerius, in an effort to urge Diocletian to enact crueler persecutions on the Christians, employed private emissaries to set the palace on fire and placed blame on the Christians. Two dignitaries were among the victims claimed by the fire. This infuriated Diocletian who upon hearing about it commanded that all his domestics be tortured to force a confession of the plot, but none was forthcoming. Word of the incident and the blame accompanying it spread far and wide, inciting more widespread hatred of Christians in the east.

Fear spread through the Christian communities enticing some to attempt a usurpation of the government in Syria and Melitina. In response, an imperial edict was issued commanding that all the heads of the Christian churches everywhere be bound and imprisoned. Once carried out, the prisons were bursting with bishops, presbyters and deacons, such that there was no room for real criminals. Soon after, a second edict was issued permitting the prisoners to gain back their liberty by sacrificing to the Roman gods. But if they refused to sacrifice they would be subject to unspeakable tortures. The decision facing these Christian leaders was a true test of their faith. If they were to choose to save their lives by sacrificing, they knew they were choosing eternal damnation. For in their minds, prepared to pierce their conscience, resides the words of Christ who said, “For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.“

Countless martyrs were thus created by torturous means. Christian leaders along with their families were burned alive. Others were committed to death by wild beasts in the arena as entertainment for the masses. Other martyrs throughout the Roman Empire met with death in various other ways such as scourging, drowning, torn apart on racks, starvation, and crucifixion.

1. Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Book 8 Chapter, 5;
2. Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 13
3. Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Book 8 Chapter, 2
4. Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 14
5. Holy Bible (KJV) Mathew 16:25

Go to
Part 1 Part 3

The Empire and The Great Persecution (Part 1 of 11)

In 284 AD, Caesarea Palestine was a predominantly pagan city of 100,000 with a large Jewish population rivaled by an almost equally large Samaritan community. But a smaller Christian community was growing fast. The Gospel of Jesus Christ was rapidly spreading through Caesarea largely due to a thriving Christian academy begun by the great theologian Origen some fifty years earlier. Origen journeyed to Caesarea from Alexandria in Egypt where he was a student of the great catechetical school of Alexandria and was instructed by respectable Christian philosopher, Clement of Alexandria. Origen would remain in Caesarea for the next twenty years during which time he built his academy and library attracting pupils from all over the east. Origen died a martyr in 254.

Sometime after Origen’s death, Pamphilus, a presbyter and scholar of Caesarea and great admirer of Origen, carried on Origen’s legacy and preserved much of his works. Pamphilus went on to become the mentor of Eusebius who in turn has preserved a great deal of Christian history that would have been lost if not for his dedicated effort to compile it. It is from this Eusebius that we learn the triumphs and tragedies of the Christian church during his own time – a time when peace and prosperity created the perfect recipe for disaster.

In 285 Diocletian, just one year into his reign as Roman Emperor, established the diarchy system of government. Diocletian appointed Maximian as his Augustus and co-emperor in the west while he ruled in the east. Under the emperors Christians held important offices in government including governing Roman providences. As a result of the esteem they received, the church experienced rapid growth. Christians, who once gathered in houses to worship, were now purchasing land and building churches to accommodate their growing numbers. Even Diocletian’s wife Prisca and his daughter Valeria had purportedly become Christians. However, rapid growth and prosperity in the hands of fallible man spelled trouble for the Christian faith. Organization and maintaining orthodoxy became extremely difficult as tranquility turned to chaos and compassion to greed. The malignant disease grew like a cancer from within as Eusebius recounts:

“No envy hindered the progress of these affairs which advanced gradually, and grew and increased day by day. Nor could any evil demon slander them or hinder them through human counsels, so long as the divine and heavenly hand watched over and guarded his own people as worthy. But when on account of the abundant freedom, we fell into laxity and sloth, and envied and reviled each other, and were almost, as it were, taking up arms against one another, rulers assailing rulers with words like spears, and people forming parties against people, and monstrous hypocrisy and dissimulation rising to the greatest height of wickedness, the divine judgment with forbearance, as is its pleasure, while the multitudes yet continued to assemble, gently and moderately harassed the episcopacy.”¹

In 293 Diocletian expanded power in the empire to include two lesser rulers called Caesars. The senior rulers Diocletian and Maximinus considered themselves brothers and each adopted a Caesar to assist in ruling their immense territories. Maximinus adopted Constantius, the father of Constantine the Great, to help rule in the west, while Diocletian adopted the iniquitous antichristian Galerius in the east.

In 299, in the city of Antioch, Diocletian’s primary residence at the time, he and Galerius took part in a Roman ritual where haruspices² predicted the future. Haruspices were a type of fortuneteller that ascertained whether the gods approved of some suggested coarse of action by reading the entrails of an animal that had been sacrificed. The ritual took place in Diocletian’s palace where some of his household servants were Christians. On this occasion the haruspices claimed not to be able to read the entrails and blamed the Christians in the imperial household saying, “There are profane persons here, who obstruct the rites.“³ It was later suspected by the Christians that Galerius, who desired to see the Christian faith meet its end, was behind the accusation.

In fear that his servants had angered the gods, Diocletian ordered all who resided in the palace to sacrifice in order to appease the gods or else face punishment by scourging. Once the emperor was convinced the palace was cleansed, he extended his order to the military, thereby threatening to discharge any who refused to comply. This action was clearly designed to target Christians for whom Diocletian believed angered the Roman gods for he knew the Christians would not offer sacrifice. Having purged the Christians from his military, Diocletian was satisfied, but Galerius, who harbored deep bitterness towards the faith, felt that the penalty failed to even scratch the surface. Thus, he focused all his efforts on attempting to convince Diocletian that he aught to continue his campaign.

Galerius’ odious attitude towards Christians was perhaps, as Lactantius suggests, the result of his upbringing. His mother was devoted to the Roman gods and highly superstitious. She offered sacrifice daily and fed her family and servants the sacrificial meat. But the Christians in her family refused to eat meat sacrificed to idols, as doing so, they would have surly exclaimed, would make them partakers of the devil’s table. This greatly angered Galerius’ mother to the point that she developed an absolute distain towards the faith and instituted the same malevolence in her son.⁴ But as much as Galerius from the depths of his ingrained hatred tried to convince Diocletian to raise a persecution against the Christians, Diocletian refused fearing that it would not be prudent to shed so much blood. But he did agree, however, to remove Christians from the court and thoroughly purge his army of any who was found to practice the faith. It is for this reason that Eusebius explains, “This persecution began with the brethren in the army.“⁵ Thus began the great persecution of the Christians.

Galerius relentlessly continued to ware down Diocletian with eventual success. In time Diocletian resolved to confer with some of his magistrates and military commanders on the matter of persecuting the Christians. His character was such that he would seek the advise of others whenever he believed that taking certain action might bring about ill results. This allowed him to impute the blame to someone else if for any reason the outcome reflected poorly on him. All his advisors, whether sincere or acting out of fear, consented to a campaign of persecution against the Christians. In spite of Galerius’ demands to immediately launch the persecution, Diocletian withheld his command until conferring with a soothsayer to inquire the advise of the Roman god Apollo. The soothsayer confirmed the expected answer and Diocletian was at last convinced to accept Galerius’ petition, but commanded that it be done without bloodshed.

1. Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Book 8 Chapter, 1


2. haruspices: A soothsayer specially trained to read the entails of sacrificial animals


3. Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 10


4. Lactantius, De Mortibus Persecutorum 11


5. Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History, Book 8 Chapter, 1

Go to Part 2

The Apostolic Tradition of Passover

Polycarp, a bishop of Smyrna was a man that knew the apostles personally and received the episcopate from them. This Polycarp affirmed what he had received from the apostles that the Passover should be kept in accordance with the ancient tradition of the Jews. We know this from Irenaeus (through Eusebius).

Polycarp journeyed to Rome in his old age and met with Anicetus to convince him to keep the ancient tradition as it was handed down from the apostles. Anicetus chose rather to keep the tradition of his fathers in Rome, which was to observe the Passover on the Sunday immediately following the Jewish observance. There is no record of Anicetus saying he believed his tradition to be apostolic. Nevertheless, Anicetus and Polycarp agreed to disagree. The universal church now had a firm point of separation, but kept mutual respect in brotherly love.

About 30 or 40 years later there was an attempt to unify the church regarding the Passover feast. Bishops gathered in synods all over the known world to discuss and ultimately draw up an ecclesiastical decree to keep the feast on the day of the Lord’s resurrection. The bishops in the west and Palestine, including Alexandria, all agreed to the decree because that was the tradition they held. But the churches of Asia Minor remained steadfast in their opposition holding to the ancient tradition and provided evidence of apostolic authenticity for doing so.

For their opposition, the bishop of Rome (Victor) attempted to excommunicate all the churches of Asia Minor and referred to them as heretics. He actually wrote letters to the churches in Asia informing them of this. But Irenaeus backed the other bishops in the west, rebuked Victor for his actions. Irenaeus reminded Victor that their ancestors did not agree on the tradition yet they lived in peace with one another.

When the church emerged out of the great persecution under Diocletian, Galerius, and Maximinus, and met in Nicea upon the Emperor Constantine’s request, it was a dissimilar entity. This time the majority ruled and the minority was forced to comply. Regard for what had clearly been handed down from apostolic origin was abandoned. And a new, never heard of before precedence was established. Constantine, whose purpose in calling the council was to establish strict unity, wrote a letter to the churches upon the council’s conclusion wherein he declared, “Receive, then, with all willingness this truly Divine injunction, and regard it as in truth the gift of God. For whatever is determined in the holy assemblies of the bishops is to be regarded as indicative of the Divine will.” (Life of Constantine 3:20)

This new precedence was carried forward into subsequent councils that regarded Nicea as the standard for all church councils. Some 40 years later Laodicea threatened anathema to anyone found to be a Judaizer by resting on Saturday rather than Sunday. By implication, it was against canon law, and thereby punishable by excommunication to observe the Passover (Easter) on any day but Sunday.

It is clear from history that Constantine and the council of Nicea overruled the will of God, which is peace, love, and liberty in Christ Jesus. The bishops of the Council of Nicea determined that they themselves would decide the will of God and that Christians aught to regard them as God’s holy mouthpiece. The church did not only reject the apostolic tradition proclaimed by Polycarp, but observing it became a sin against God…or so they teach.

The Trinity

Difficulty in understanding the Trinity was, and is today, commonplace, but its orthodoxy is unquestionably sound. It was an earlier theologian named Tertullian, who, at the turn of the third century, first coined the term Trinity. His description of the Godhead, tres Personae, una Substantia (three Persons, one Substance) is summarized in his work, Adversus Pracian (Against Praxeas). Tertullian did not invent the doctrine of the trinity, but rather had opportunity to present an explicit explanation in answering to Praxeas who believed that the Father and Son were one in the same person. Tertullian used the Scriptures to explain the Trinity and insisted that one portion of Scripture should not be interpreted contrary to another portion.

“But Scripture is not in such danger that you need to come to its help with your reasoning, lest it should seem inconsistent with itself. It is quite right both when it lays down that there is one God and when it shows that there are two, Father and Son, and it is self-sufficient”

Tertullian did not appear to make any grand theological oration, just simple logical explanations from Scripture. His predecessors presented the Trinity in terms that were mater-of-fact, indicating that Christians in the earliest years of church existence understood the concept. In simply stating what Christians believe, the second century apologist and bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus, plainly declared the Trinity in his works against heresy.

“The Church, though dispersed through our the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: She believes in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God.”

And earlier at the turn of the second century Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, clearly established in his salutations to the Ephesians that the will of the Father and the will of the Son were one in the same yet distinct persons. “…Elected through the true passion by the will of God the Father, and of our Lord Jesus Christ our Savior”

The Trinity concept survived to the time of Tertullian untainted. During Tertullian’s time, a Christian philosopher and theologian at the head of the catechetical school of Alexandria, Clement of Alexandria, also lectured quite clearly concerning the Trinity in his Exhortation to the Heathens:

“We the rational creatures of the Word of God, on whose account we date from the beginning; for “in the beginning was the Word.” Well, inasmuch as the Word was from the first, He was and is the divine source of all things; but inasmuch as He has now assumed the name Christ, consecrated of old, and worthy of power, he has been called by me the New Song. This Word, then, the Christ, the cause of both our being at first (for He was in God) and of our well-being, this very Word has now appeared as man, He alone being both, both God and man-the Author of all blessings to us; by whom we, being taught to live well, are sent on our way to life eternal.”

So even though the term “Trinity” originated with Tertullian, the concept of one God in three persons was evident from the earliest writings of the church fathers.

Tradition Vs Traditional

The Roman Catholic Church indelibly asserts that their “sacred tradition” was truly transmitted by the apostles and preserved through the ages by the “teaching Authority.” The assertion is clearly stated in the Catholic Encyclopedia under “Tradition and Living Magisterium.”

“The Council [of Trent], as is evident, held that there are Divine traditions not contained in Holy Scripture, revelations made to the Apostles either orally by Jesus Christ or by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and transmitted by the Apostles to the Church.“

Yet when put to the test, nothing from history can be found to prove it but sketchy obscure evidence. And that’s for just a few of the doctrines, for most, no evidence can be found at all. The Catholic Church, however, is not ignorant of this fact; in fact they justify the discrepancies by this statement from the same Catholic encyclopedia article.

“The designation of unwritten Divine traditions was not always given all the clearness desirable especially in early times… The living magisterium, therefore, makes extensive use of documents of the past, but it does so while judging and interpreting, gladly finding in them its present thought, but likewise, when needful, distinguishing its present thought from what is traditional only in appearance. It is revealed truth always living in the mind of the Church, or, if it is preferred, the present thought of the Church in continuity with her traditional thought, which is for it the final criterion, according to which the living magisterium adopts as true or rejects as false the often obscure and confused formulas which occur in the monuments of the past. Thus are explained both her respect for the writings of the Fathers of the Church and her supreme independence towards those writings–she judges them more than she is judged by them.“

In other words, the truth does not exist within the historical evidence, according the Catholic Church it resides in the mind, or present thought of the “teaching authority.” But it stands to reason that if the apostles passed on those doctrines, history must support it. It is not reasonable that present thought should contradict traditional thought and still be considered to be in continuity. Why would the Holy Spirit lead early church leaders to believe something contrary to what He leads current leaders to believe?

The truth of history makes no difference to the Catholic hierarchy because they believe that they alone are the keepers of truth. They decide what is true or untrue regardless of the evidence. Since they alone are the true interpreters of the Bible, guided by divine assistance, according to them, they interpret Mathew 28:20 as applying to them. And in their ostentatious minds, they like to imagine that God has granted them infallibility. One might logically ask, as if logic has anything to do with it, why the Bible is not expanding with time. But I suppose that even the most pretentious have their limits. There is, however, a question we can answer; how do they reconcile the conflict between history and unbiblical doctrine that was supposedly transmitted by the apostles?

If you browse the Internet for Catholic saints you are likely to come across the name, St. Clement of Alexandria, for example, at Catholic.org. That is because most Catholics believe he actually is a saint in the Catholic Church, but he is not. Clement was venerated as a saint in the church up until the early 17th century. It was then that Pope Clement VIII revised the Roman Martyrology and was persuaded to drop him from the calendar by Cardinal Baronius. Later in the 18th century, during the reign of Benedict XIV, a protest against the act emerged. But Benedict agreed with the removal of Clement from the Martyrology on the grounds that Clement’s life was not well known and some of his doctrines were erroneous.

It was an odd thing to say about someone who, by all accounts, was quite well known in the early church and praised for his Scriptural knowledge. After Clement’s death, Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, said of him, “For we acknowledge as fathers those blessed saints who are gone before us, and to whom we shall go after a little time; the truly blest Pantaenus, I mean, and the holy Clemens, my teacher, who was to me so greatly useful and helpful.” Cyril of Alexandria referred to him as “a man admirably learned and skilful, and one that searched to the depths all the learning of the Greeks, with an exactness rarely attained before.” Jerome said he was the most learned of all the ancients. And Eusebius described him as an “incomparable master of Christian philosophy.” Such admiration and praise could not been uttered for a man that was anything but orthodox and well known.

So why did Catholic leaders have such a problem with Clement that they felt it necessary to defrock him? Whatever it was it had to be quite serious, as even today Clement has not been reinstated to his former status. So what could the answer be?

When we examine his writings and also comments by the Catholic Church, something significant emerges. For instance, in the Catholic Encyclopedia’s article on the “sacrifice of the mass,” it says this: “Passing over the teaching of the Alexandrine Clement and Origen, whose love of allegory, together with the restrictions of the Disciplina Arcani [Latin term meaning discipline of the secret], involved their writings in mystic obscurity…” And in their article on Clement they claim the he had “faulty interpretations.” To explain this, the Catholic Encyclopedia refers to the twentieth-century Catholic scholar, Tixeront, who said Clement “used allegory everywhere.”

The reasons for Clements discharge from sainthood really seem to come down to one thing, and it has everything to do with the Catholic mass and why that article dismisses him altogether. Book one, chapter six of his Paedagogus, Clement teaches on metaphors in the Scriptures. In this chapter, Clement states, in not so allegorical terms, that Jesus was speaking metaphorically about eating His flesh and drinking His blood in John’s account of the Bread of Life Discourse.

“… Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: ‘Eat ye my flesh, and drink my blood;’ describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise…“

This statement, which represents traditional thought guided by the Holy Spirit, could not possibly be misunderstood, but in the minds of “current thought,” said by them to be guided by the same Spirit, it is considered to be erroneous and heretical. No wonder the Catholic Encyclopedia likes to “pass over” traditional thought.

The metaphor of eating and drinking Christ is but one example of the many traditional doctrines that have been corrupted by Catholic tradition. This blog is dedicated to exposing the error of Catholic tradition and reacquainting the current thought with it’s long lost ancestor, traditional thought.