Monday, June 21, 2021

Protestantism Refuted


Protestantism
 is one of the three major divisions in Christendom that claims to be Christian; the others are Catholicism and the Eastern "Orthodox" churches.

Protestantism began in Europe with the Reformation of the 16th century. Early leaders were Martin Luther and John Calvin. King Henry VIII in England led the church in his country out of communion with the Church of Rome after the Pope refused to grant him a divorce with the right to remarriage. Although he opposed Protestant doctrines, his action in ending the Pope's role in England contributed to the advance of Protestantism under Henry's successors.

The exact origin of the term protestant is unsure, and may come either from French: protestant or German: protestant. However, it is certain that both languages derived their word from the Latin: protestantem, meaning "one who publicly declares/protests", which refers to the letter of protestation by Lutheran princes against the decision of the Diet of Speyer in 1529, which reaffirmed the edict of the Diet of Worms in 1521, banning Martin Luther's 95 theses of protest against some beliefs and practices of the early 16th century Catholic Church.

The term Protestant was not initially applied to the Reformers, but later was used to describe all groups protesting Roman Catholic orthodoxy. Since that time, the term Protestant has been used in many different senses, often as a general term merely to signify so-called Christians who belong to neither the Roman Catholic, Eastern or Oriental "Orthodoxy" churches.

Protestant Reformation

The Protestant Reformation was the 16th century movement which led to the separation of the Protestant churches from the Roman Catholic Church. It is usually said to have started when Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to the door of the cathedral in Wittenburg, Germany calling for a discussion of false doctrines and malpractices within the Catholic Church as he saw them. These included the sale of indulgences and the doctrine underlying them, as well as the powers of the Pope. He had not, however, intended to create a rival church.

The fundamental principles of the Protestant Reformation is known as the Five Solas. Luther was supported by several European leaders and religious provoking a religious revolution that began in Germany, and extending through Switzerland, France, Netherlands, England, Scandinavia and some parts of Eastern Europe, especially the Baltic countries and Hungary. The response of the Roman Catholic Church was the movement known as the Counter-Reformation or Catholic Reformation, that begun with the Council of Trent.

Background of the Protestant Reformation

Moral Corruption in the Leadership of the Church

The years leading up to the Protestant Reformation were plagued by moral corruption and abuse of position by some in the Roman Catholic Church. The priesthood was guilty of several abuses of privilege and responsibility, including simony (using one's wealth or influence to purchase an ecclesiastical office), the selling of relics and indulgences, pluralism (holding multiple offices simultaneously) and absenteeism (the failure to reside in the parish where they were supposed to minister). The practice of celibacy which was imposed by the church on the priesthood was often abused or ignored, leading to immoral conduct on the part of the clergy. Secular-minded, ignorant priests corrupted their position by neglect or abuse of power.

During the fifteenth century the worldliness and corruption by men in the church reached its worst. The problem of corruption reached all the way to the papacy. The Renaissance affected the popes of the period. Many of the Renaissance popes such as Julius II (1441-1513) were humanists who were more interested in classical culture and art than in spiritual concerns. Some, such as Alexander VI (1431-1503), lived notoriously wicked and scandalous lives. Leo X (1475-1521), the son of Lorenzo de' Medici and pope when Martin Luther posted the Ninety-five Theses, once said that God gave him the papacy, so he would "enjoy it."

Among those who spoke out for a reform of the church was the Dominican Giralamo Savonarola (1452-1498) of Florence, Italy. This fiery preacher spoke out against the corrupt morals of the city's leaders and the abuses of the papacy. The people were won over to Savonarola's cause in Florence, but because of religious rivalries and political circumstances, the movement was short-lived. Although innocent, Savonarola was hanged and burned for heresy in 1498.

Early Reforming Religious Movements

During the late middle ages several heretical movements arose that challenged some of the basic doctrines of Scripture and Roman Catholic Tradition. Many of these movements were officially condemned by the Church as heresy and were severely suppressed.

Albigensians

The Albigensians arose in southern France in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries. The Abigensians (also called Cathari) held to a strict dualism similar to the ancient gnostics. They believed that the world with all its misery and corruption was created by an evil God (that sometimes is associated with Satan) and that the spiritual and heavenly realm was created by the good and true God. Nonetheless, the Cathars also believed that there are particles of the lost kingdom of God in this world, and they need to be found. They practiced an exaggerated asceticism (they viewed self-starvation as an "assurance" of salvation), considering themselves the only pure and perfect. They also held the New Testament to be the sole standard of authority and completely rejected the Old Testament and the vengeful and angry God described within it. (Not that there ever was a difference between the God of the Old and New Testaments, of course. More weight was simply put on God's justice in the Old Law while in the New, with the coming of Christ, more weight was put on His mercy and love. His justice and mercy have always remained the same though). The sect became the object of a fierce campaign of just persecution when Pope Innocent III launched a crusade against them in 1204.

Waldensians

A movement known as the Waldensians was probably founded in the eleventh century by Peter Waldo. Traveling preachers known as the Poor Men of Lyons emphasized the study and preaching of the Bible. They translated the New Testament into the vernacular, rejected the Catholic doctrines of the priesthood and of purgatory, and of indulgences and prayers for the dead, and advocated a return to the Scriptures as the only authority in religion, seemingly ignoring the New Testament's endorsement of tradition as equal along with scripture (2 Thessalonians 2:15). They denounced all lying as a grievous sin, refused to take oaths and considered the shedding of human blood unlawful. They consequently condemned war and the infliction of the death penalty and even renounced self-defense. Others rejected infant baptism, transubstantiation, and tried to return to "simple apostolic Christianity". They allowed any "believer" to administer sacraments, rejected Catholic feast days with very few exceptions, and they ultimately disassociated themselves from physical paraphernalia including buildings, cemeteries, liturgies, and the like.

John Wycliffe

In England, John Wycliffe (1324-84), a well-known professor at Oxford, also challenged the authority of the papacy. During the Avignon Papacy, he argued that all legitimate dominion comes from God and is characterized by the authority exercised by Christ on earth – not to be served but to serve. During the Great Schism, Wycliffe taught that the true Church of Christ, rather than consisting of the pope and church hierarchy, is the invisible body of the elect. He promoted the study of Scripture over the Tradition of the Church. He taught that the Scriptures ought to be put into the hands of the elect, and in their own language. Wycliffe thus provided an English translation in about 1384.

Wycliffe denied the doctrine of transubstantiation, called the Pope anti-Christ, argued the priesthood of all believers, condemned the saint cult and the veneration of relics. He repudiated the sale of indulgences and masses for the dead. He believed that lordship held by humans is forfeited by mortal sin. He also believed that no monks or clergy, not even the righteous, could hold temporal possessions without sin, and further that it was lawful for kings and princes to deprive them of what they held unlawfully.

Wycliffe was eventually condemned for heresy, but his influence continued. His followers, called "Lollards," spread his teachings as an underground movement in England. They rejected the doctrine of transubstantiation, the veneration of images, clerical celibacy, and other Catholic doctrines as abominations. They were an important influence in England on the eve of the Protestant Reformation.

Like the heretics of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, Wycliffe started with an attack on clerical wealth; he then went on to dispute the authority of the Church and, finally, its sacramental system.

John Huss

Another early voice calling for reform was John Huss (1369-1415), a Bohemian preacher and scholar. Influenced by Wycliffe's writings, Huss argued that the true Church was not the institution as defined by Catholicism, but the body of the elect under the headship of Christ. He insisted the Bible is the final authority by which the pope or any Christian is to be judged. Huss was burned for heresy in 1415, about a century before Luther's stand in Wittenberg. The Hussite movement continued to grow after their leader's death, preparing the way for the Protestant Reformation.

Considerations

If the Bible is the only rule of faith for a Christian as the above and many other heretics claim, then logically the Church would not be a rule of faith for a Christian. However, the Bible clearly teaches that one must hear the Church and follow Tradition.

Matthew 18:17 "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

Luke 10:16 "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me."

This teaching of Jesus, that one must hear the Church under pain of being considered a heathen, refutes the entire idea of Scripture alone. This proves that the heretics that denies the Church denies Jesus Christ and the Bible.

Further, the bible teaches that the church, not the bible, is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

1 Timothy 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

As one former Protestant minister (who eventually saw the falsity of Protestantism) put it: "If I were writing that verse [1 Tim. 3:15] as a Protestant, I would have said that the Bible, not the Church, is the pillar and ground of the truth. But St. Paul says it's the Church. This means that the Church must be every bit as infallible as the Bible, and that it must present something unique by way of presenting the truth of Jesus Christ."

The unique role of the Church is that it sets forth the true meaning of Scripture and Tradition in precise terms and dogmas, something the Bible was not intended to do in all of its passages, which should be obvious to any honest person considering the issue. All the different heretical sects that has been created simply because they don't know how to interpret scripture correctly, undeniably proves this notion. Moreover, if the Church is infallible and the pillar of truth, there must obviously be a way of recognizing its infallible teaching by means of a continued succession of authority which would safeguard the truth and exercise its authority (see The Papacy in Scripture).

Some Interesting Facts About Martin Luther,

The Originator of Protestantism

The following sections contains content used from author: Brother Peter Dimond of Most Holy Family Monastery / mostholyfamilymonastery.com

Protestantism originated with Martin Luther (1483-1546), an ex-Catholic. Even though Protestants would contend that they follow “true biblical Christianity,” and not a man, they are inclined to defend Martin Luther. This is because Martin Luther was the first identifiable spokesman for their version of “Christianity.” Prior to his separation from the Catholic Church in 1520, there was no public defender of what we now know to be Protestantism, the core doctrines of which are justification by faith alone and Scripture alone.

Even though Luther is the central figure in the history of Protestantism, few Protestants know much about him, or about how he came upon his beliefs. I invite the reader to consider the following facts.

PLEASE CONSIDER MARTIN LUTHER’S TRULY MAN-MADE JOURNEY TO PROTESTANTISM

Martin Luther was born in 1483 and baptized as a Catholic the next day. He entered an Augustinian Catholic friary in 1505, and was ordained a Catholic priest in 1507. Therefore, as a young professing Catholic priest, Protestantism was unknown to Martin Luther and indeed to the rest of the Christian world.

On Oct. 31, 1517, Martin Luther tacked his famous 95 Theses on the church door in Wittenberg, Germany. Most Protestants today cite this date as the beginning of the Protestant “reformation.” They think this represented Luther’s public stand for the Protestant faith, for “true and biblical Christianity.” What they don’t know is that Martin Luther’s famous 95 Theses acknowledged the office of the pope more than 20 times. At the time of the posting of the Theses – and indeed before it and for some time afterwards – Luther claimed to be a Catholic priest and monk. In his 95 Theses, Luther clearly acknowledges the office of the Pope as instituted by Christ, although he detracts from its dignity and powers in the matter of Indulgences.

The formal title for his 95 Theses is the Disputation of Doctor Martin Luther on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences, Oct. 31, 1517. In addition to acknowledging the pope, numbers 25-29 of the Theses acknowledge Purgatory. Luther acknowledges the existence of Purgatory, although he departs from Catholic teaching in what he says about it. Luther also declares his belief in Indulgences, although he contradicts traditional Catholic doctrine on the issue. The following is typical of the contradictions exhibited by Luther.

#71 of Martin Luther’s 95 Theses, Oct. 31, 1517: “Let him be anathema and accursed who denies the apostolic character of the indulgences.”

The point here is that even on Oct. 31, 1517, the Protestant “faith” was still unknown to Martin Luther and indeed to the rest of the Christian world. There was no statement about justification by faith alone or Scripture alone; there was as yet no repudiation of the papal office or many other Catholic dogmas which Protestants today would reject. What you have, at this point, is a confused and convoluted priest who, while claiming to be Catholic, was clearly falling from the traditional Catholic faith into his own wild version of it (especially with regard to Indulgences). He was no Protestant. Even at this point, the so-called biblical “faith” was unknown to its eventual founder.

In 1518, Luther published a Sermon on Indulgences and Grace, in which he attacked the traditional way of dividing Penance into contrition, confession and satisfaction (Dr. Ludwig Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. 7, pp. 355-356). Luther claimed it was not found in Holy Scripture. This, along with Luther’s contradiction of traditional Catholic teaching on Indulgences, prompted the Church to summon him to Rome for an investigation. (It should be noted that there were indeed some abuses by Church men on Indulgences. Such abuses represented a departure from Catholic teaching on the matter. Indulgences cannot be bought. Occasional abuses in this area – which were committed by a few Church men of a world-wide Church – in no way justify repudiating the traditional teaching. This teaching on Indulgences is rooted in the treasury of the merits of Jesus Christ and the saints, and the power of the keys given to St. Peter. According to Catholic teaching, Indulgences are given for certain specified good works or pious actions (such as prayers, etc.). They remove only the temporal punishment of already forgiven sins. They are not, as Protestants would suggest, a means to buy one’s way into Heaven.)

At the beginning of July 1518, Luther is presented with an official summons to appear in Rome and give an accounting of his doctrines. While maintaining his new (and heretical) views on Indulgences and PenanceLuther claims “that the Roman Church has always maintained the true faith, and that it is necessary for all Christians to be in unity of faith with her.” (Dr. Ludwig Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. 7, p. 366) That means that, even after having been summoned to Rome to answer for his new ideas, Luther professes that the Roman Church (the Roman Catholic Church) has the true faith. At this point, Luther is undoubtedly drifting into his own personalized view of “Christianity”; but he is still no Protestant, as his statement about the Roman Church demonstrates. The so-called pure, simple and “biblical faith” was still unknown to its eventual founder in July of 1518.

As Luther’s influence spread, and his commitment to new ideas hardened, the actions against him increased. Pope Leo X dispatched the learned Cardinal Cajetan to handle the case. Cajetan was to examine the situation and, if possible, get through to Luther. This occurred in the fall of 1518, but Luther remained obstinate. Despite his commitment to his new ideas, Luther declared the following at one of these interviews: “The notary read out a declaration on behalf of Luther, that as far as he could remember he [Luther] had never taught anything against Holy Scripture, the doctrines of the Church, the Papal decretals [decrees of the popes], or sound reason. But as he was a man subject to error, he submitted himself to the decisions of the Holy Church and to all who knew better than he did.” (Dr. Ludwig Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. 7, p. 373.)

Once again, we see that Luther claims fidelity to papal teaching and to all of Catholic doctrine. He also appeals specifically to the pope, and expresses his willingness to retract if the pope decided against him (Ibid., pp. 375, 377). The so-called “biblical faith” (Protestantism) was still unknown to its eventual founder.

Not long after his meetings with Cajetan in November of 1518, Luther’s views underwent another significant development. He came to the conclusion that the pope, to whose decrees he had just claimed submission, is the antichrist. He writes: “I send you my trifling work that you may see whether I am not right in supposing that, according to Paul, the real Antichrist holds sway over the Roman court.” (De Wette, I., 192; Enders I., 317; Pastor, Vol. 7, pp. 378-379.) Numerous utterances from this time show that Luther had “fully formulated his proposition that the pope was antichrist.”

Yet, at this very time that he was calling the pope “the Antichrist,” Luther appealed to a general council from the pope (Luther’s works, Weimar ed., II., 36 seq.). In other words, Luther considered the decisions of general councils to be definitive and authoritative. This of course contradicts one of the pillars of Protestantism: Scripture alone.

Therefore, even at the point that Luther had firmly set his face against the Papacy as “the Antichrist,” he still hadn’t discovered Protestantism. The so-called “biblical faith” was still unknown to its eventual founder. One should consider this fact deeply; for it demonstrates that whenever Luther did come up with Protestantism, it was nothing more than the creation of a confused mind.

THESE FACTS DEMONSTRATE THAT ALL PROTESTANTS HAVE EMBRACED A PURELY MAN-CREATED RELIGION, WHICH LUTHER WAS INVENTING AND RE-INVENTING BY THE DAY

The true faith of Jesus Christ is a deposit. It does not fall out of the sky to a man who lives 15 centuries after Christ. It was revealed by Jesus Christ to His Apostles 2,000 years ago, and it was passed on by the Apostles to the Church.

Jude 1:3 “… it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”

The true faith thus has a historical link to the apostolic Church; and it can be shown to have been believed by those who came before in the Church. It is passed on from generation to generation. Martin Luther grew up with the Catholic faith. Protestantism was unknown to him as a child; it was unknown to him as a priest; it was unknown to him when he posted his 95 Theses, and even when he first called the pope the Antichrist and was appealing to a general council. At some point, indeed, Martin Luther came up with Protestantism, and his conclusions had no link with his predecessors or even with what he said or believed before. They were truly the inventions and “discoveries” of a man, Martin Luther.

Protestants have thus submitted themselves to a system which Martin Luther came up with among the rest of his contradictory and ever-changing views. These “discoveries” include the idea that man is justified by faith alone, which word for word contradicts the teaching of the Bible (James 2:24) – a contradiction so blatant that Luther felt compelled to criticize the book of James because it contradicted him. In fact, Luther wanted to throw James out of the Bible and into the stove (i.e., the fire), until his friends persuaded him that such a move would be too radical.

OUTRAGEOUS ACTIONS AND QUOTES OF MARTIN LUTHER –

HE CRITICIZES THE BOOK OF JAMES

Martin Luther, Preface to the New Testament, 1522: “Therefore St. James’ epistle is really an epistle of straw, compared to these others, for it has nothing of the nature of the gospel about it.”

Here we see the apostate priest, Martin Luther, denigrating the Book of James because it contradicts his new idea of justification by faith alone.

Martin Luther, The Licentiate Examination of Heinrich Schmedenstede, July 7, 1542: “That epistle of James gives us much trouble, for the papists embrace it alone and leave out all the rest. Up to this point I have been accustomed just to deal with and interpret it according to the sense of the rest of the Scriptures. For you will judge that none of it must be set forth contrary to manifest Holy Scripture. Accordingly, if they will not admit my interpretations, then I shall make rubble also of it. I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove, as the priest in Kalenberg did.”

Martin Luther even added the word “alone” to Romans 3:28 in his German translation of the Bible. He made it say “faith alone,” when that is not in the text or what it means.

MARTIN LUTHER SAID A MAN COULD COMMIT FORNICATION AND MURDER 1,000 TIMES A DAY AND NOT LOSE HIS JUSTIFICATION

Martin Luther also said that a man could commit fornication and murder 1,000 times a day and would not lose his justification. He said this to express his doctrine of justification by faith alone: that is, no matter how much a person sins, he is still saved as long as he believes (by faith alone). In the same context, he declared: “be a sinner and sin boldly.”

The authenticity of these quotes is not disputed, but openly admitted by Protestant defenders of Luther.

Martin Luther, Letter to Melanchthon, August 1, 1521: “If you are a preacher of grace, then preach a true and not a fictitious grace; if grace is true, you must bear a true and not a fictitious sin. God does not save people who are only fictitious sinners. Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly, for he is victorious over sin, death, and the world. As long as we are here [in this world] we have to sin. This life is not the dwelling place of righteousness, but, as Peter says, we look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. It is enough that by the riches of God’s glory we have come to know the Lamb that takes away the sin of the world. No sin will separate us from the Lamb, even though we commit fornication and murder a thousand times a day. Do you think that the purchase price that was paid for the redemption of our sins by so great a Lamb is too small? Pray boldly—you too are a mighty sinner.”

As mentioned previously, the true faith is a deposit. It doesn’t fall out of the sky for the first time to a man who lives 1,500 years after Christ, and it doesn’t come from the abyss below – as Martin Luther’s teachings on justification, fornication and murder do.

LUTHER’S PREOCCUPATION WITH THE DEVIL AND CRUDE SUBJECTS

Martin Luther also had a preoccupation with the Devil, with the bathroom, and with matters one can only call disgusting. Even Protestant scholars have noted that Luther’s fascination with crude subjects is disquieting. He admittedly had much interaction with the Devil. “These [demons] would haunt the imagination of Martin Luther who had visions, which he believed to be actual physical occurrences, of the devil hurling [excrement] at him and his hurling it back. Indeed, in one of his many anal combats with the devil – in which Luther would challenge the devil to ‘lick’ his posterior – Luther thought the best tactic might be to ‘throw him into my anus, where he belongs.’” (H.W. Crocker, Triumph, Roseville, CA: Prima Publishing, 2001, p. 237.) After he had come to his position against the Papacy, Luther called the “Papal decretals the Devil’s excretals.” He also said that the pope and cardinals should be killed, and that he and his supporters should wash their “hands in their blood.” (Pastor, History of the Popes, Vol. 7, p. 393.)

Luther claims that he came up with justification by faith alone while on the toilet. He claims that it came as “knowledge the Holy Spirit gave me on the privy in the tower.” (Quoted in William Manchester, A World Lit only By Fire: The Medieval Mind and the Renaissance, Little Brown & Co., 1993, p. 140.) In fact, Luther’s idea that people need to commit real and “honest” sins seems to have originated from a conversation with the Devil. This is from Luther’s Table Talk.

[Luther said:] When I awoke last night, the Devil came and wanted to debate with me; he rebuked and reproached me, arguing that I was a sinner. To this I replied: Tell me something new, Devil! I already know that perfectly well; I have committed many a solid and real sin. Indeed there must be good honest sins – not fabricated and invented ones – for God to forgive for God’s beloved Son’s sake, who took all of my sins upon Him so that now the sins I have committed are no longer mine but belong to Christ. This wonderful gift of God I am not prepared to deny, but want to acknowledge and confess.”

With these facts in mind, it should be quite clear how those who followed Luther’s eventual conclusions (the core of which are faith alone and Scripture aloneare simply following the machinations, inventions and discoveries of a man. They are following the inventions of a man who was guided and used by the Devil to create a false version of “Christianity” which would lead countless people astray.

Protestant Theology

However vague and indefinite the creed of individual Protestants may be, it always rests on a few standard rules, or principles, bearing on the Sources of faith, the means of justification, and the constitution of the church. An acknowledged Protestant authority, Philip Schaff (in "The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge", s.v. Reformation), sums up the principles of Protestantism in the following words:

"The Protestant goes directly to the Word of God for instruction, and to the throne of grace in his devotions; whilst the pious Roman Catholic consults the teaching of his church, and prefers to offer his prayers through the medium of the Virgin Mary and the saints.

"From this general principle of Evangelical freedom, and direct individual relationship of the believer to Christ, proceed the three fundamental doctrines of Protestantism — the absolute supremacy of (1) the Word, and of (2) the grace of Christ, and (3) the general priesthood of believers. . . . "

Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone)

The first objective or formal principle proclaims the canonical Scriptures, especially the New Testament, to be the only infallible source and rule of faith and practice, and asserts the right of private interpretation of the same, in distinction from the Roman Catholic view, which declares the Bible and tradition to be co-ordinate sources and rule of faith, and makes tradition, especially the decrees of popes and councils, the only legitimate and infallible interpreter of the Bible. In its extreme form Chillingworth expressed this principle of the Reformation in the well-known formula, "The Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is the religion of Protestants."

Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible, and believes in a progressive interpretation of the Bible through the "expanding" and "deepening" consciousness of Protestant "Christendom". Hence, besides having its own symbols or standards of public doctrine, it retained all the articles of the ancient creeds and a large amount of disciplinary and ritual tradition, and rejected only those doctrines and ceremonies for which, according to them, no clear warrant was found in the Bible and which seemed to contradict its letter or spirit. The Calvinistic branches of Protestantism went farther in their antagonism to the received traditions than the Lutheran and the Anglican; but all (or most) united in rejecting the authority of the pope, the meritoriousness of good works, indulgences, the worship of the Virgin, saints, and relics, the sacraments (other than baptism and the Eucharist), the dogma of transubstantiation and the Sacrifice of the Mass, purgatory, and prayers for the dead, priestly confession, celibacy of the clergy, the monastic system, and the use of the Latin tongue in public worship, for which the vernacular languages were substituted.

Sola Scriptura (Bible Alone): An Examination

According to Protestants, the Bible teaches that Scripture (the written word of God) is the only rule of faith for a Christian. Along with justification by faith alone (sola fide), Scripture alone (sola scriptura) was one of the central tenets of the Protestant reformation.

However, the truth is that the Bible does not teach that Scripture is the only rule of faith for a Christian. The Bible teaches that both Scripture and apostolic tradition are sources of Christ's revelation, and that one must accept both of them along with the Church. That's why the Catholic Church has always taught that there are two sources of divine revelation (Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition); and that the Church instituted by Jesus Christ was given authority to determine the authentic meaning of Scripture and Tradition.

If the Bible is the only rule of faith for a Christian, then logically the Church or tradition would not be a rule of faith for a Christian. However, the Bible clearly teaches that one must hear the Church and follow tradition.

Matthew 18:17 "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

2 Thessalonians 2:15 "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle."

Luke 10:16 "He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that despiseth me despiseth him that sent me."

This teaching of Jesus, that one must hear the Church under pain of being considered a heathen, refutes the entire idea of Scripture alone.

Jesus' condemnation of the "tradition of men" (Matthew 15:9, Mark 7:8, etc.) had nothing to do with the true apostolic tradition, which the Bible says we must accept. Jesus was condemning the man-made practices of the Pharisees.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us."

Further, the bible teaches that the church, not the bible, is the pillar and foundation of the truth.

1 Timothy 3:15 "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

As one former Protestant minister (who eventually saw the falsity of Protestantism) put it: "If I were writing that verse [1 Tim. 3:15] as a Protestant, I would have said that the Bible, not the Church, is the pillar and ground of the truth. But St. Paul says it's the Church. This means that the Church must be every bit as infallible as the Bible, and that it must present something unique by way of presenting the truth of Jesus Christ."

The unique role of the Church is that it sets forth the true meaning of Scripture and Tradition in precise terms and dogmas, something the Bible was not intended to do in all of its passages, which should be obvious to any honest person considering the issue. All the thousands of sects that has been created throughout the ages, and especially after the Protestant reformation, simply because they didn't knew how to interpret scripture correctly, undeniably proves this fact. Moreover, if the Church is infallible and the pillar of truth, there must obviously be a way of recognizing its infallible teaching by means of a continued succession of authority which would safeguard the truth and exercise its authority (see The Papacy in Scripture).

For a more in depth refutation of Scripture alone (sola scriptura), please consult the following article: The Bible does not teach Sola Scriptura (scripture alone).

Sola Fide (Faith Alone) and Sola Gratia (Grace Alone)

The subjective principle of the Reformation is justification by faith alone, or, rather, by free grace through faith operative in good works. It has reference to the personal appropriation of salvation, and aims to give all glory to Christ, by declaring that the sinner is justified before God (i.e. is acquitted of guilt, and declared righteous) solely on the ground of the all-sufficient merits of Christ as apprehended by a living faith, in opposition to the theory — then prevalent, and substantially sanctioned by the Council of Trent — which makes faith and good works co-ordinate sources of justification, laying the chief stress upon works. Protestantism does not depreciate good works; but it denies their value as sources or conditions of justification, and insists on them as the necessary fruits of faith, and evidence of justification.

Sola gratia is the teaching that salvation comes by divine grace. Protestant reformers believed that this emphasis was in contradistinction to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, though the Catholic Church had explicitly affirmed the doctrine of sola gratia in the year 529 in the Council of Orange, which condemned the Pelagian heresy (which taught salvation apart from grace). As a response to this misunderstanding, Catholic doctrine was further clarified in the Council of Trent—the Council explained that salvation is made possible only by grace; the faith and works of men are secondary means that have their origins in and are sustained by grace.

Sola Fide (or Faith Alone Through Grace Alone): An Examination

Catholics believe in sola gratia. But it is a faith that is not separated from works (per James). Faith inherently includes these works (even Luther and Calvin agree with that). But we're not saved by faith alone (that's where Protestantism errs); we're saved by grace alone. That is the Catholic teaching. Grace is primary in the whole process, so in that very real sense we can say "saved by grace alone" (i.e., without separating works of course) -- whereas we can never say "saved by faith alone" (i.e., with works playing no part at all) -- which is classic Protestant heresy, or "saved by works alone" (i.e., without grace) -- which is the Pelagian heresy. The true Catholic position will always include the works alongside grace and faith.

The majority of Protestants not only believe in faith alone, but also in eternal security, which means that according to them, a true believer cannot lose his salvation. These doctrines contradict both the natural law and reason which says that every man shall be rewarded or punished for his deeds. It also contradicts, word for word, the teaching of James 2 in scripture, which teach that faith without works is dead, and that man is not saved by faith alone. A person who believes in faith alone or eternal security is a heretic, because he rejects a truth he knows to be true from the natural law, that God is a rewarder and a punisher of our actions, and that faith alone does not justify a man only, but our deeds also.

Galatians 5:19-21 "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects, Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God."

How clear does it have to get? You can lose your salvation if you do certain things.

For a more in depth refutation of faith alone and eternal security, please consult the following article: Justification by faith alone and eternal security refuted by the Bible.

Solus Christus (Christ Alone) and Soli Deo Gloria (Glory to God Alone)

Solus Christus ("by Christ alone"), is one of the five solas that summarise the Protestant Reformers' basic belief that salvation is through Christ alone and that Christ is the only mediator between God and man.

The Protestants characterize the dogma concerning the Pope as Christ's representative head of the Church on earth, the concept of works made meritorious by Christ, and the Catholic idea of a treasury of the merits of Christ and his saints, as a denial that Christ is the only mediator between God and man.

Soli Deo gloria is a Latin term for "Glory to God alone". All glory is due to God alone, since salvation is accomplished solely through his will and action—not only the gift of the all-sufficient atonement of Jesus on the cross but also the gift of faith in that atonement, created in the heart of the believer by the Holy Spirit. The reformers believed that human beings—even saints canonized by the Catholic Church, the popes, and the ecclesiastical hierarchy—are not worthy of any glory, prayer, praise or veneration.

Solus Christus (Christ Alone) and Soli Deo Gloria (Glory to God Alone): An Examination

The Catholic Church teaches that there is one God, the Holy Trinity: Father, Son and Holy Ghost, three divine persons in one God. Jesus Christ is the second person of the Holy Trinity, true God and true man. God alone is adored and worshipped. This adoration or worship, which is given to God alone, is called latria.

Saints in Heaven are not adored, but are venerated as holy men and women of God in Heaven. The veneration which is given to saints, which is not adoration, is called dulia. The veneration which is given to the greatest of all the saints, the mother of God, is called hyperdulia. Hyperdulia is also veneration, not worship or adoration.

There are biblical reasons why the Catholic Church has always recognized the importance and the necessity of devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. She is the new Eve, the new Ark, the pure vessel, the sealed gate, and the Mother of God. To fail to have devotion to her is equivalent to a man in the Old Testament who would refuse to venerate the Ark of the Covenant or would refuse to march behind it to a battle. Such a man would fall prey to the enemies of God and would be separated from the camp of God's people (see The Biblical basis for praying to Mary and for Catholic teachings on Mary)

Jesus is the only mediator between God and men, protestant say, so you can't include saints or prayers to them. This objection is false for many reasons. Just because Jesus is the only mediator does not mean that others do not mediate as part of the one mediation of Christ. For example, in John 10:16 Jesus says that He is the one and only shepherd; but He appoints Peter to shepherd His sheep in John 21:15-17. Ephesians 4:11 also teaches that there are many pastors or shepherds. The point is that these other sub-shepherds all work under and by the institution of the one shepherd, Jesus.

Another example is that Jesus says He is the supreme judge. We read this in John 9:39 and in many other passages. Certain men of God, however, will also act on His behalf as judges in Heaven, even of angels. We read this in 1 Corinthians 6:2, Matthew 19:28, and elsewhere. Yes, Jesus is the unique mediator, because the mediator is the one who unites man to God. Jesus alone did this by His passion and death. We read this in 2 Corinthians 5:18. But that does not mean that within the one mediation of Christ there are not others who participate in His mediation. In fact, the Bible clearly teaches it.

If Jesus' unique mediation excluded prayers to saints, then it would also exclude asking a fellow man to pray for you. There is no way around the logic of this argument. For when you ask a fellow man to pray for you, instead of going to Jesus directly, you are asking another person to act as a mediator with Jesus for you. That's what Catholics do when they pray to saints. Therefore, if prayers to saints are excluded by the unique mediation of Jesus, then asking others for prayers is definitely excluded as well.

Not only do most Protestants accept the concept of asking others to pray for them – thus contradicting their rejection of prayers to saints – but, in the New Testament, St. Paul himself repeatedly asks others for prayers.

Romans 15:30 "Now I beseech you, brethren, for the Lord Jesus Christ's sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me in your prayers to God for me."

Paul also tells others that he is praying for them.

Colossians 1:3 "… praying always for you…"

Paul even says that the prayers of others bestow gifts upon him.

2 Corinthians 1:11 "Ye also helping together by prayer for us, that for the gift bestowed upon us by the means of many persons thanks may be given by many on our behalf."

The Book of Revelation or the Apocalypse also gives us a glimpse of how the saints and their prayers intercede for men.

Revelation 8:3-4 "And another angel came and stood at the altar, having a golden censer; and there was given unto him much incense, that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints upon the golden altar which was before the throne. And the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the saints, ascended up before God out of the angel's hand."

We see another example in Revelation chapter 5.

Revelation 5:8 "… elders fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of the saints."

For much more biblical proof on the intercession of the saints from the Bible, please consult the following file: The Bible on praying to and venerating Saints.

Regarding the Pope as Christ representative on earth. The Bible contains irrefutable evidence that Jesus made St. Peter the first pope. Among other things: the change of Peter's name; the keys of the kingdom – The striking similarity between Matthew 16 and Isaias 22; who is the Rock of Matthew 16? It's Peter; Peter's unfailing faith; Jesus entrusts all of His sheep to Peter; the prominence of Peter's name in Scripture; Peter takes the prime role in the replacement of Judas; Peter's primacy in the Acts of the Apostles and more. In addition, the early Church recognized the Bishop of Rome as the successor to St. Peter's authority (see The Bible teaches that Jesus made St. Peter the first Pope).

25,000 Different non-Catholic Denominations –

Doctrinal Chaos is the bad Fruit of Man-Made Religion

2 Peter 2:1 "But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers, who shall bring in sects of perdition, and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction."

Following Martin Luther's excommunication from the Catholic Church in 1520, which marked the beginning of the Protestant movement, over 20,000 different denominations have been created in about 500 years. In 1980, David A. Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia (Oxford University Press) gave the number of different denominations as 20,780. He projected that there would be 22,190 denominations by 1985.

This would mean that there are approximately 25,000 (or possibly 30,000) different denominations today. Even if, for the sake of argument, one were to take a conservative estimate, and give the number as only 15,000 different denominations, this equates to more than one new sect having been created every two weeks.

When we consider the fact that the original founders of Protestantism didn't even agree with each other on major points of doctrine, such denominational chaos shouldn't be a surprise. Protestantism is man-made religion, in which each person ultimately determines for himself what he thinks the Bible teaches. Martin Luther (the initiator of Protestantism) condemned the doctrinal views of John Calvin and Huldrych Zwingli, two other leading Protestant figures. They all claimed to follow the Bible.

Basically all of these thousands of non-Catholics sects purport to be Christian and claim to follow the Bible, even though they disagree with each other on crucial doctrinal matters, such as: the precise nature of justification; whether human works and sins are a part of salvation; whether men have free will; predestination; whether infants need baptism for salvation; what Communion is; whether it's necessary to confess to the Lord; which books of the New Testament apply to us today; the structure of the Church's hierarchy; the role of bishops and ministers; the Sabbath; the role of women in church; etc. ad nauseam. Most of these groups even claim that the individual "Christian" will be led by the Holy Spirit when privately reading the Bible. The disunity of these sects constitutes an irrefutable proof that their doctrine is not of the Spirit of Truth; and that their principle of operation (i.e., Scripture alone apart from the Church and Tradition) is not the doctrine of the Bible and the Apostles.

Ephesians 4:4-5 "One body and one Spirit; as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism."

How Old Is Your Protestant Man-Made Church?

If you are a Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk of the Catholic Church, in approximately 1520.

If you belong to the Church of England, your religion was founded by King Henry VIII (an ex-Catholic) in the year 1534. Henry VIII decided to create his own church when Pope Clement VII would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Mennonite, Menno Simons (an ex-Catholic) created your religion in 1536.

If you are a Presbyterian, John Knox (an ex-Catholic) founded your sect in Scotland in the year 1560.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion began with Robert Brown in Holland in 1582.

If you are a Baptist, John Smyth created your sect in Amsterdam in 1605.

If you are of the Dutch Reformed church, your church began with Michaelis Jones in New York in 1628.

If you are a Quaker, your religion began with George Fox in 1652.

If you are a Protestant Episcopalian, Samuel Seabury created your sect in the American colonies in the 17th century, as an offshoot of the Church of England.

If you are Amish, Jacob Amman created your religion in 1693, as an offshoot of the Mennonites.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was launched by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are a Unitarian, Theophilus Lindley founded your sect in London in 1774.

If you are a Mormon ("Latter Day Saints"), your religion comes from Joseph Smith, who revealed it in Palmyra, N.Y. in 1829.

If you are a Seventh Day Adventist, your religion was created by Ellen White in 1860.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, William Booth started your sect in London in 1865.

If you are of the "Jehovah's Witnesses," your beliefs came from Charles Taze Russell in 1872.

If you are a "Christian Scientist," Mrs. Mary Baker Eddy devised your religion in 1879.

If you belong to one of the religious organizations known as "Church of the Nazarene," "Pentecostal Gospel," "Holiness Church," "Pilgrim Holiness Church," "Assemblies of God," "United Church of Christ," etc., your religion is one of the thousands of new sects founded by men in the last century.

If you are Catholic, you know that your religion was founded in the year 33 by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, true God and true man; and that this one Church, to which people must belong to be saved, will exist until the end of time.

Jesus promised, "I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from Him. His Church will survive until his return, it means that the Church will, until the end of time, remain essentially what she is. One must belong to the one true universal Church Jesus Christ established to be Saved, for he who refuses to hear the Church is like the heathen and publican (Matthew 18:17).

Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.

"Eastern Orthodoxy" Refuted

 

Matthew 16:18-19- "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Jesus Christ gave the keys to the Kingdom to St. Peter (Mt. 16), and gave him jurisdiction over his flock (John 21:15-17). St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome, and his followers (i.e., the members of the Church in Rome) elected his successor, or he appointed his own successor as the Bishop of Rome and head of the universal Church. This process continued through the ages, with the pope being able to change the process of election (such as by instituting a college of cardinals) if he so decided, since the pope has supreme authority in the Church from Christ (Mt. 16). All individuals not elected in this fashion (e.g., one who was elected after the Bishop of Rome had already been chosen in the tradition thus described, or one who was appointed by an outside source, such as an emperor, after the pope had already been chosen, or one who was elected as a non-member of the community, such as a manifest heretic) wouldn't be true popes, but (logically) antipopes. This logical framework holds true for all of history, and has allowed one to see which are the true popes and which are not – even if at some of the most difficult periods of Church history, such as the Great Western Schism, ascertaining the facts to correctly apply these principles was difficult enough that some mistakes were made by certain individuals.

I have thus described the consistent, logical framework of the succession of the authority given to St. Peter by Jesus Christ to the popes down through the ages. This shows that the Catholic Faith is consistent. (The authority given to St. Peter and his successors is the backing of the dogmatic councils; this is the authority which anathematizes those who deny the dogmatic councils' teaching.)

ILLOGIC AT THE HEART OF EASTERN "ORTHODOXY"

On the other hand, Eastern "Orthodoxy," since it rejects the supreme authority of the Bishop of Rome and considers all bishops equal, cannot even put forward a framework or criteria by which one could logically distinguish those councils which it says are dogmatic and binding, from those which it says are false and heretical. Ephesus II (the heretical monophysite council in 449) had almost exactly the same number of bishops as Constantinople I (150 bishops). "Eastern Orthodoxy" would say one must accept Constantinople I under pain of heresy, while one must reject Ephesus II! But if we apply the principles of Eastern "Orthodoxy," the two councils are on the same level, both being backed by the authority of equal bishops. Unless there is a supreme bishop to make one council binding, it's a farce to say that one council is definitely dogmatic while the other with the same number of bishops is definitely heretical! Equal vs. Equal results in a draw….

Furthermore, if Christ said He would be with His Church all days until the end of the world (Mt. 28), why did the Church suddenly stop having councils in 787? Doesn't it strike as a bit ridiculous that many other councils were held after 787, which the Eastern "Orthodox" arbitrarily reject as "not accepted by the Church," even though these councils which they reject had more bishops than those which they accept? What about the Council of Florence (1438-1442), which saw reunion of the East with the Catholic Church when Patriarch Joseph of Constantinople accepted Florence, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and Florence's teaching against all who would deny it? How on Earth could one logically say that Florence was not accepted "by the Church," while other councils were? What are the criteria? I've asked many Eastern "Orthodox" this very question and received no answer simply because they have none. Whatever criteria they pick to use as the justification for accepting a particular council as dogmatic, and rejecting another council as non-dogmatic, can be used against them to prove that, on that very basis, they would have to accept later Roman Catholic councils.

Yes, Eastern Orthodoxy cannot logically hold any council to be dogmatic and binding, as one will see if one honestly and deeply think about it. In Eastern Orthodoxy there is nothing which backs the anathemas of Ephesus or another council other than the word of bishops, who are equal to other bishops who many times taught the opposite. If the "Church" spoke at Constantinople I because 150 bishops came to it and pronounced authoritatively on faith, then the "Church" spoke at many other false councils in the early Church which had similar numbers of bishops! It is inescapable, therefore, that according to the Eastern "Orthodox" position the Church of Christ has defected (i.e., officially fallen into error) many times at the various false councils. This contradicts the promises of Christ that the gates of Hell cannot prevail and that God would be with His Church always (Mt. 16). Eastern "Orthodoxy" is an illogical farce, which rejects the clear teaching of Scripture and the fathers on the Papal Primacy, and which causes those who accept it to truly wind up believing in no dogma at all. That's why Pope Leo XIII says those who reject one dogma reject all Faith. Because of the fact that Eastern Orthodoxy does not – and cannot – really believe in any dogmatic councils (as shown above) is why it's so appealing to so many: it's provides the comfort of Protestantism, yet the appearance of ancient tradition, at the same time the feel of liturgical piety, with the illusion of hierarchical authority.

Matthew 16:17-18-"And I say to thee: That thou are Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Churchand the gates of hell shall not prevail against itAnd I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven."

Our Lord made St. Peter the first Pope, entrusted to him His entire flock, and gave him supreme authority in the Universal Church of Christ.

John 21:15-17-"Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him a third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep."

APPENDIX

There are many examples of the popes exercising this primacy in the early centuries. There is the case of the sedition at the Church of Corinth in the first century (A.D. 90-100). The Church at Corinth asked for help from the Bishop of Rome, Pope St. Clement. They requested him to intercede, even though the apostle John was still alive and closer in Ephesus. This shows the Papal Primacy from the beginning. In response Pope Clement wrote his famous epistle to the Corinthians. In this epistle from the first century, the pope clearly uses authoritative language to command them to be subject to their local pastors. Here are some quotes from his famous epistle:

"Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have befallen us (i.e., the persecutions of Emperor Domitian), we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury." (First Clement, Chapter 1)

"Ye, therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue." (First Clement, Chapter 57)

"Your schism has subverted [the faith of] many, has discouraged many, has given rise to doubt in many, and has caused grief to us all. And still your sedition continueth." (First Clement, Chapter 46)

It's also worth mentioning the case of Pope Victor, around the year 190, ordering local synods to be held all over to settle the date of Easter. There are other examples, but they are covered in many books on the primacy of St. Peter, so I will not repeat them here. I will say that one of the reasons that the primacy of jurisdiction of the popes wasn't emphasized quite as much in the early Church as it was later on - even though it certainly existed - is because it was obviously more difficult at that time for popes to step into controversies in far off places. Due to the difficulties of travel and communication with far off places which existed prior to the invention of modern means of travel and communication, it was obviously not as easy for the Bishop of Rome to settle controversies in distant lands or dioceses. That's why examples of this type of intervention were less frequent, even though they existed. For the same reason, the role of the local bishops and patriarchs in the early Church was especially important at that period in putting down heresies and handling controversies that arose in their localities. However, here's a quote from St. Irenaeus (around the year 200) which expresses the authentic and original truth on this issue: that the Church of Rome had a primacy of jurisdiction (e.g., all must agree with it) from the beginning.

St. Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, A.D. 203: "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition." (Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical Press, Vol. 1: 210.)

Regarding the objection that papal infallibility wasn't established until the Council of Trent, that's not correct. It was defined as a dogma at Vatican I in 1870, but the truth of it was believed since the beginning. We find the promise of the unfailing faith for St. Peter and his successors referred to by Christ in Luke 22.

Luke 22:31-32- "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have all of you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."

Satan desired to sift all the Apostles (plural) like wheat, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter (singular), that his faith fail not. Jesus is saying that St. Peter and his successors (the popes of the Catholic Church) have an unfailing faith when authoritatively teaching a point of faith or morals to be held by the entire Church of Christ.

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra: "SO, THIS GIFT OF TRUTH AND A NEVER FAILING FAITH WAS DIVINELY CONFERRED UPON PETER AND HIS SUCCESSORS IN THIS CHAIR…"Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, ex cathedra: "… the See of St. Peter always remains unimpaired by any error, according to the divine promise of our Lord the Savior made to the chief of His disciples: 'I have prayed for thee [Peter], that thy faith fail not ...'"

And this truth has been held since the earliest times in the Catholic Church.

Pope St. Gelasius I, epistle 42, or Decretal de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris, 495: "Accordingly, the see of Peter the Apostle of the Church of Rome is first, having neither spot, nor wrinkle, nor anything of this kind (Eph. 5:27)."

The word "infallible" actually means "cannot fail" or "unfailing." Therefore, the very term Papal Infallibility comes directly from Christ's promise to St. Peter (and his successors) in Luke 22, that Peter has an unfailing Faith. And it was also believed in the early Church, as we see here. Though this truth was believed since the beginning of the Church, it was specifically defined as a dogma at the First Vatican Council in 1870.

The Early Church Fathers on the Primacy of the Roman Catholic Church

Aside from the Biblical origin of the papacy, we have also the testimony of the Early Christian Fathers. These earliest and most prominent writers of the Christian Church are called the Fathers of the Church and are recognized as such by Catholics, 'Orthodox' and Protestants alike. The very earliest of these Fathers of the Church are called the Apostolic Fathers because of their close connection to the Apostles. Among the Apostolic Fathers, St. Ignatius holds a prominent place. He lived from approximately AD 50-117. He was third bishop of Antioch and was taught by the Apostle St. John. He also died heroically as a martyr. The epistles of St. Ignatius of Antioch are a staple in every collection of the writings of the Apostolic Fathers. He repeatedly speaks of the authority and the role of bishops in the Church. This shows us that from the very earliest ages, that there is no doubt the Church of Christ had a hierarchy. St. Ignatius is also the first recorded writer to use the term "Catholic Church".

Letter to the Smyrneans, 8, 2 (AD 107): "Wherever the bishop appears, let the congregation be present, just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

In Greek the word Catholic (katholikos) means universal. The Catholic Church is the universal Christian, the one universal Church of Christ that was established upon St. Peter. It is interesting that the first recorded author to use the term Catholic Church was St. Ignatius of Antioch. Acts 11:26 Also tells us that the term Christians was also first used at Antioch. Catholics and Christians are one and the same thing because the Catholic Church is the Christian Church.

St. Ignatius also had something interesting to say about St. Peter and St. Paul in Rome. Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans written approximately AD 110:

"I do not order you as did Peter and Paul,"

We'll come back to St. Ignatius, but here are some other citations from the Fathers of the Church which show that St. Peter, the head of the Christian Church, died in Rome as its first bishop.

Tertullian, The Prescription against the heretics:

"Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's!"

Origen, Third Commentary on Genesis, (A.D. 232):

"Peter... at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way."

St. Cyprian, the famous bishop of Carthage wrote concerning the Bishop of Rome Fabian (Ep. Lv, 24):

"by the judgment of God and of Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the vote of the people then present, by the consent of aged priests and of good men, at a time when no one had been made before him, when the place of Fabian, that is the place of Peter, and the step of the sacerdotal chair were vacant".

St. Optatus, who was the chief opponent of the Donatist heresy in the fourth century and the Bishop of Milevis wrote in the schism of the Donatists 22, in AD 367:

"You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome upon Peter first the chair of the bishop was conferred, in which sat the head of all the Apostles, Peter, whence also he was called Cephas, in which one chair unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles should each stand up for his own chair, so that now he should be a schismatic and a sinner who should against this one chair set up another. Therefore in the one chair, which is the first of the dotes Peter first sat, to whom succeeded Linus."

Lactantius, early Church writer, The Deaths of the Persecutors, 2, 5 AD 320:

"And while Nero reigned, the Apostle Peter came to Rome, and, through the power of God committed unto him, wrought certain miracles, and, by turning many to the true religion, built up a faithful and stedfast temple unto the Lord."

The Early Church recognized the primacy of the Church of Rome and the bishop of Rome.

We must first look at the rebellion at the Church of Corinth in the first century. In approximately AD 90-100, The Church of Corinth consulted the bishop of Rome about serious disputes which were occurring in its Church. Pope Clement was the third bishop of Rome after St. Peter, he was the fourth Pope. The Church of Corinth wrote to Clement and asked him to intercede with their problem. Even though the Apostle St. John was still alive at the time and much closer to them in Ephesus.

The fact that the Church of Corinth went to far away Rome about their internal problem shows us that Papal primacy was recognized in the very first century. In response to their appeal, Pope Clement wrote his response to the Corinthians, the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians AD 90-100. This epistle is one of the most famous documents in the history of Christianity. In this epistles, which dates from AD 90-100, the Pope clearly uses authoritative language to command the Corinthian Christians to be subject to their local pastors.

Here are some quotes from his famous Epistle:

Clement I to the Corinthians, Chapter 1: "We feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning to the points respecting which you consulted us, especially to that shameful and detestable sedition."

Clement I to the Corinthians, Chapter 57: "Ye therefore who laid the foundations of this sedition, submit yourselves to the Presbyters and receive correction, so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts, learn to be subject aside the proud and arrogant self confidence of your tongue."

Clement I to the Corinthians, Chapter 47: "Your schism has subverted many, has discouraged many and has given rise to doubt in many."

Notice the authoritative language which Pope Clement uses in rebuking those who caused the internal rebellion at the Church of Corinth. This shows us that in the very earliest years, in the very first century, the Church of Rome was recognized as the one with superior authority. It was recognized in this way precisely because its bishop was the successor to St. Peter and his keys.

In the following very interesting quote, we will hear from Eastern Orthodox scholar Nicholas Afanasiev. He was a professor of Church history and Canon Law at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. As an Eastern Orthodox theologian, he was not a Catholic and did not accept Catholic teaching on the Papacy or the bishop of Rome. But in an essay found in the Primacy of Peter, edited by John Meyendorff pages 124-126, here is what this Eastern Orthodox scholar admitted about the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians:

"Let us turn to the facts, we know that the Church of Rome took over the position of Church with priority at the end of the first century. That was about the time at which her star ascended into the firmament of history in its brightest splendour. Even as early as the epistle to the Romans, Rome seems to have stood out among the Churches as very important. Paul bears witness that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom 1-8).

"We have a document which gives us our earliest reliable evidence that the Church of Rome stood in an exceptional position of authority in this period. This is the epistle of Clement of Rome. We know that Clement was president of the Roman Church. The epistle clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight in the Church of Corinth's eyes that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth so the Church of Rome at the of the first century exhibits a marked sense of its own priority. Note also that the Church of Rome did not feel obliged to make a case to justify its authoritative pronouncement on what we should now call the internal concerns of other Churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority. Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepts without argument."

So as we hear in this quote even the Eastern Orthodox admit that the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians clearly shows that Rome clearly held the place of priority in the first century. And this undeniable priority of the Church of Rome is nothing other than the primacy that belongs to it as a result of its bishop being the successor of St. Peter.

The next example we will look at brings us back to St. Ignatius of Antioch.

St. Ignatius of Antioch is acknowledged for the profound significance his letters hold among the most ancient Christian documents. In his famous epistle to the Romans number 1, dated AD 11, St. Ignatius of Antioch writes about the Church of Rome as enlightened by the will God.

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God."

St. Ignatius' letters are among the most ancient expressions of Christianity that we have outside of the Bible, and in them we just happen to see that the famous bishop of Antioch ascribes to the bishop (or Church) of Rome a supreme authority "enlightened by the will of Him [God]" (Luke 22:31-32), which is the presidency among the Churches, "to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandmentswho are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint". Is it just a coincidence that in AD 110 we find a primacy ascribed to the Church of Rome, where as we already saw the Fathers tell us St. Peter established a temple to God and was martyred.

Finally, St. Augustine, a luminary of the Early Church who is quoted frequently even by non-Catholics, wrote concerning the succession of of bishops of the Church of Rome:

Augustine's Letter to Generosis, AD 400: "For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!' [Matthew 16:18] The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these..."

MORE QUOTES ON THE SAME SUBJECT

Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431):

"Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, AND THAT TO HIM WAS GIVEN THE POWER OF LOOSING AND BINDING... Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place....Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present...."

St. Augustine (A.D. 400):

"To be unwilling to give the primacy to the Roman Church either stems from the utmost impiety or from rash arrogance." (Augustine. De Util. Cred. c.17). "The Roman Church, in which the primacy of the Apostolic See has always been in force" (Augustine. Epist. Xlii). "Peter...head of the Apostles, doorkeeper of heaven and foundation of the church." (Augustine. Ep 36). "This same Peter...bearing the figure of the Church...holding the chief place in the Apostleship..." (Augustine. Sermon XXVI)

Pope St. Gregory the Great (A.D. 540-604):

"...I swear, upon pain of the loss of my order, and under the bond of anathema, and promise to thee, and through thee to St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, and to his vicar, the most blessed Gregory or his successors, that I will never, through anyone's persuasion or in any other way, return to schism, from which I have been delivered through the mercy of the Redeemer, but shall always remain, through all things, in the unity of the Holy Catholic Church and the communion of the Roman Pontiff." (Register of Epistles, Book XII, Ep.7)

Valentinian III, Roman Emperor (A.D. 445):

"The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the Holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler."

Pope Hormisdas (A.D. 519):

"[T]he statement of Our Lord Jesus Christ who said, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,'...These (words) which were spoken, are proved by the effects of the deeds, because in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved without stain."

St. Prosper of Acquitaine (A.D. 450):

"Rome the See of Peter, which has been made to the whole world the head of the pastoral office."

Pope Leo The Great [A.D. 440-461]:

"Who does not cease to preside in his see, who will doubt that he rules in every part of the world."

Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451):

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church..."

Additional quotes from St. Augustine (A.D. 354-430):

"There are many other things which rightly keep me in the bosom of the Catholic Church. The consent of the people and nations keeps me, her authority keeps me, inaugurated by miracles, nourished in hope, enlarged by love, and established by age. The succession of priests keep me, from the very seat of the apostle Peter (to whom the Lord after his resurrection gave charge to feed his sheep) down to the present episcopate [of Pope Siricius]" (St. Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5, A.D. 397)

"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom. That is the rock against whom the gates of hell do not prevail." (Augustine. Psalmus contr. Partem Donati, str. 18)

"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (St. Augustine, Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118, A.D. 402)

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, "Upon this rock I will build my church . . . " [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters of Against 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]

Additional quotes from St. Jerome (A.D. 347-420):

"Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist." (Letter of Jerome to Pope Damasus, 2, A.D. 376)

"I thank you for your reminder concerning the canons of the Church. Truly, "whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth." Still I would assure you that nothing is more my aim than to maintain the rights of Christ, to keep to the lines laid down by the fathers, and always to remember the faith of Rome; that faith which is praised by the lips of an apostle, and of which the Alexandrian church boasts to be a sharer." (Letter of Jerome to Pope Theophilus, 2, A.D. 397)

"Heretics [and schismatics] bring sentence upon themselves since they by their own choice withdraw from the Church, a withdrawal which, since they are aware of it, constitutes damnation." (Commentaries on the Epistle to Titus, 3,10 J1371a, A.D. 376)

"The truth is that all we who hold the Catholic faith, wish and long that, while the heresy is condemned, the men may be reformed. At all events, if they will continue in error, the blame does not attach to us who have written, but to them, since they have preferred a lie to the truth." (Against the Pelagians, Book I-2, A.D. 417)

"He slays a heretic who allows him to be a heretic. But when we rebuke him we give him life; you may die to your heresy [and schism], and live to the Catholic faith." (Against the Pelagians, Book III-17, A.D. 417)

Concerning Mt. 16:18. Among the Fathers who teach that Peter is the Rock are:

Tertullian: " . . . Peter, who is called the rock on which the Church will be built . . ." Origen: "Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, . . ." Cyprian: " . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, . . ." Cyprian: "There is one God, one Christ, one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord." Ephraim: "[Jesus said:] "Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. . . ." Optatus: " . . . in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head - that is why he is called Cephas ["Rock"] . . ." Ambrose: "Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, . . . he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church?" Ambrose: "Where Peter is, there is the Church." Jerome: "I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built." Augustine: "If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, . . ." (The above are brief excerpts from James Akin's article in This Rock, dated October 1999)

Clearly the Early Church was subject to the bishops of the Roman Church. The Early Church Fathers were Catholic, because they knew that there is no salvation outside of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. To reject the unanimous ancient tradition of the Fathers and of the Church since the very beginning is equivalent to rejecting Jesus Christ and the Church itself. "Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle." (2 Thes. 2:15) And "He that heareth you [the Church and Tradition], heareth me [Jesus]; and he that despiseth you [the Church and Tradition], despiseth me [the Lord Jesus]; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me [God the Father]." (Luke 10:16)

If you are not Catholic, you must humble yourself, learn this Faith and convert to it, or you cannot attain salvation.

For the Biblical Basis for Catholic teachings on the Papacy, consult this file: The Bible Teaches That Jesus Made St. Peter the First Pope

Specific Catholic teaching against Protestant and Schismatic Sects

The Catholic Church teaches that those baptized persons who embrace heretical or schismatic sects will lose their souls. Jesus founded His Church upon St. Peter, and declared that whoever does not hear the Church be considered as the heathen and publican (Matthew 18:17). He also commanded His followers to observe "all things whatsoever" He has commanded (Matthew 28:20). The Eastern schismatic sects (such as the "Orthodox") and the Protestant sects are breakoff movements that have separated from the Catholic Church. By separating themselves from the one Church of Christ, they leave the path of salvation and enter the path of perdition.

These sects obstinately and pertinaciously reject one or more of the truths that Christ clearly instituted, such as the Papacy (Matthew 16; John 21; etc.), Confession (John 20:23), the Eucharist (John 6:54), and other dogmas of the Catholic Faith. In order to be saved one must assent to all the things which the Catholic Church, based on Scripture and Tradition, has infallibly defined as dogmas of the Faith.

Below are just a few of the infallible dogmas of the Catholic Faith which are rejected by Protestants and (in the case of the Papacy) by the Eastern "Orthodox." The Church "anathematizes" (a severe form of excommunication) all who obstinately assert the contrary to its dogmatic definitions.

"To understand the word anathema…we should first go back to the real meaning of herem of which it is the equivalent. Herem comes from the word haram, to cut off, to separate, to curse, and indicates that which is cursed and condemned to be cut off or exterminated, whether a person or a thing, and in consequence, that which man is forbidden to make use of. This is the sense of anathema in the following passage from Deut., vii, 26: 'Neither shalt thou bring anything of the idol into thy house, lest thou become an anathema like it. Thou shalt detest it as dung, and shalt utterly abhor it as uncleanness and filth, because it is an anathema.'" (The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 1, "Anathema" (1907))

Thus, a Protestant or an "Eastern Orthodox" who obstinately rejects these dogmatic teachings is anathematized and severed from the Church, outside of which there is no salvation. It's quite interesting that, in issuing these dogmatic canons, the Church says: "If anyone shall say…. let him be anathema [anathema sit]" as opposed to "If anyone shall say… he is anathema [anathema est]." This qualification of "let him be" allows room for those Catholics who may be unaware of a particular dogma and would conform to the teaching of the canon as soon as it were presented to him. The person who is obstinate, however, and willfully contradicts the dogmatic teaching of the Church receives the full force of the automatic condemnation.

The point here is that if one is able to reject these dogmas and still be saved, then these infallible definitions and their accompanying anathemas have no meaning, value or force. But they do have meaning, value and force – they are infallible teachings protected by Jesus Christ. Thus, all who reject these dogmas are anathematized and on the road to damnation.

Pope Pius XI, Rerum omnium perturbationem (#4), Jan. 26, 1923: "The saint was no less a person that Francis de Sales… he seemed to have been sent especially by God to contend against the heresies begotten by the [Protestant] Reformation. It is in these heresies that we discover the beginnings of that apostasy of mankind from the Church, the sad and disastrous effects of which are deplored, even to the present hour, by every fair mind."

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Session 13, Can. 1 on the Eucharist, ex cathedra:"If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the Body and Blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but shall say that He is in it as by sign or figure, or force, let him be anathema."

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Session 14, Canon 3 on the Sacrament of Penance: "If anyone says that the words of the Lord Savior: 'Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained' [John 20:22 f.], are not to be understood of the power remitting and retaining sins in the sacrament of penance… let him be anathema."

Pope Julius III, Council of Trent, Session 14, on Extreme Unction and Penance: "These are the things which this sacred ecumenical synod professes and teaches concerning the sacraments of penance and extreme unction, and it sets them forth to be believed and held by all the faithful of Christ. Moreover, the following canons, it says, must be inviolately observed, and it condemns and anathematizes forever those who assert the contrary."

Pope Paul III, Council of Trent, Session 6, Chap. 16, ex cathedra:"After this Catholic doctrine of justification - which, unless he faithfully and firmly accepts, no one can be justified - it seemed good to the holy Synod to add these canons, so that all may know, not only what they must hold and follow, but also what they ought to shun and avoid."

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: "… all the faithful of Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church... Furthermore We teach and declare that the Roman Church, by the disposition of the Lord, holds the sovereignty of ordinary power over all others… This is the doctrine of Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his faith and salvation."

Orthodox and Orthodoxy - History and Meaning

Orthodoxy (orthodoxeia) signifies right belief or purity of faith. Right belief is not merely subjective, as resting on personal knowledge and convictions, but is in accordance with the teaching and direction of an absolute extrinsic authority. This authority is the Church founded by Christ, and guided by the Holy Ghost. He, therefore, is orthodox, whose faith coincides with the teachings of the Church founded on St. Peter. As divine revelation forms the deposit of faith entrusted to the Church for man's salvation, it also, with the truths clearly deduced from it, forms the object and content of orthodoxy.

Although the term orthodox or orthodoxy does not occur in the Scriptures, its meaning is repeatedly insisted on. Thus Christ proclaims the necessity of faith unto salvation (Mark 16:16). St. Paul, emphasizing the same injunction in terms more specific, teaches "one Lord, one faith, one baptism" (Ephesians 4:5, 6). Again, when directing Titus in his ministerial labours, he admonishes him to speak in accord with "sound doctrine" (Titus 2:1). And not only does St. Paul lay stress on the soundness of the doctrine to be preached, but he also directs attention to the form in which it must be delivered: "Hold the form of sound words which thou hast heard of me in faith" (2 Timothy 1:13).

Consistent with the teachings and method of Christ and the Apostles, the Fathers point out the necessity of preserving pure and undefiled the deposit of revelation. "Neither in the confusion of paganism", says St. Augustine, "nor in the defilement of heresy, nor in the lethargy of schism, nor yet in blindness of Judaism is religion to be sought; but among those alone who are called Catholic Christians, or the orthodox, that is, the custodians of sound doctrine and followers of right teaching" (De Vera Relig., cap. v). Fulgentius writes: "I rejoice that with no taint of perfidy you are solicitous for the true faith, without which no conversion is of any avail, nor can at all exist" (De Vera Fide ad Petrum, Proleg).

The Church, likewise, in its zeal for purity of faith and teaching, has rigorously adhered to the example set by the Apostles and Early Fathers. This is manifest in its whole history, but especially in such champions of the faith as Athansius, in councils, condemnations of heresy, and its definitions of revealed truth. That orthodox faith is requisite for salvation is a defined doctrine of the Church. "Whosoever wishes to be saved", declares the Athanasian Creed, "must first of all hold integral and inviolate the Catholic faith, without which he shall surely be eternally lost". Numerous councils and papal decisions have reiterated this dogma (cf. Council of Florence, Denz., 714; Prof. of Faith of Pius IV, Denz., 1000; condemnation of Indifferentism and Latitudinarianism in the Syll. of Pius IX, Denz., 1715, 1718; Council of the Vatican, "De Fide". can. vi, Denz., 1815, condemnation of the Modernistic position regarding the nature and origin of dogma, Encyc. "Pascendi Dominici Gregis", 1907, Denz., 2079). While truth must be intolerant of error (2 Corinthians 6:14, 15), the Church does not deny the possibility of salvation of those earnest and sincere persons outside her fold, because if there were truly any people of sincere and of good will among them who had not yet attained the faith, and if they cooperate with the natural law, then God would send a preacher (even miraculously, if necessary) to bring the Catholic Faith and baptism to him.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Sent. III, 25, Q. 2, A. 2, solute. 2: "If a man should have no one to instruct him, God will show him, unless he culpably wishes to remain where he is."

2 Corinthians 4:3: "And if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost, in whom the god of this world [Satan] hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them."

St. Augustine, Tractate 89, on John 15:22-23: "What, then, does He [Jesus] mean by the words, If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin? [John 15:22] Was it that the Jews were without sin before Christ came to them in the flesh? Who, though he were the greatest fool, would say so?...To these inquiries, with the Lord's help and to the best of my capacity, I reply, that such have an excuse, not for every one of their sins, but for this sin of not believing on Christ, inasmuch as He came not and spoke not to them."

Orthodox Church

The Orthodox Church is the technical name for the body of so-called Christians who use the Byzantine Rite in various languages and are in union with the Patriarch of Constantinople but in schism with the Pope of Rome. The epithet Orthodox (orthodoxos), meaning "right believer", is, naturally, claimed by people of every religion. It is almost exactly a Greek form of the official title of the chief enemies of the Greeks, i.e. the Moslems (mu'min, fidelis). The Monophysite Armenians called themselves ughapar, meaning exactly the same thing.

How "Orthodox" became the proper name of the Eastern Church it is difficult to say. It was used at first, long before the schism of Photius, especially in the East, not with any idea of opposition against the West, but rather as the antithesis to the Eastern heretics — Nestorians and Monophysites. Gradually, although of course, both East and West always claimed both names, "Catholic" became the most common name for the original Church in the West, "Orthodox" in the East.

It would be very difficult to find the right name for this so-called Church. Heretic and schismatic "Church" is highly fitting, however. "Eastern" is too vague, the Nestorians and Monophysites are Eastern Churches; "Schismatic" has the same disadvantage. "Greek" is really the least expressive of all. The Greek Church is only one, and a very small one, of the sixteen Churches that make up this vast communion. The millions of Russians, Bulgars, Rumanians, Arabs, and so on who belong to it are Greek in no sense at all. According to their common custom one may add the word "Eastern" to the title and speak of the Orthodox Eastern Church (he orthodoxos anatolike ekklesia).

The Orthodox, then, are the schismatic "Christians" in the East of Europe, in Egypt and Asia, who accept the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon (are therefore neither Nestorians nor Monophysites), but who, as the result of the schisms of Photius (ninth cent.) and Cerularius (eleventh cent.), are not in communion with the Catholic Church. There is no common authority obeyed by all, or rather it is only the authority of "Christ and the seven Ecumenical Synods" (from Nicæa I in 325, to Nicæa II in 787).

These sixteen so-called Churches are: (1) The four Eastern patriarchates — Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem — and the Church of Cyprus, independent since the Council of Ephesus. (2) Since the great schism eleven new Churches have been added, all but one formed at the expense of the one vast Patriarchate of Constantinople. They are the six national churches of Russia, Greece, Servia, Montenegro, Rumania, and Bulgaria, four independent Churches in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, namely Carlovitz, Hermannstadt, Czernovitz, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and lastly the Church of Mount Sinai, consisting of one monastery separated from Jerusalem. One of these Churches, that of Bulgaria, is in schism with Constantinople since 1872. The total number of Orthodox so-called Christians in the world is estimated variously as 225 to 300 millions.

Sedevacantism

  What is Sedevacantism? Sedevacantism comes from the Latin  sede vacante , which means “seat vacant.” It is the position held by traditiona...