A House Divided: The Scandal of Christendom

By Rudy Lopez

This book unabashedly explains and defends the doctrinal and dogmatic tenets of the Christian Catholic faith, and attempts to reveal, as well, the obvious corollary attached thereto, namely, the untenability of the various protesting and schismatic Christian bodies who find themselves outside the pale of the original and ancient Catholic Church of Christ.

• Language: English
• Publisher: iUniverse
• Release date: Sep 25, 2014
• ISBN: 9781491743331

Rudy Lopez

Rudy Lopez, currently retired Postal Clerk. Served almost 9 years in US Air Force during the Vietnam conflict. Rudy was born and raised in Colorado and his wife Carol was born in Oregon, but moved with her parents to Colorado as a small child. Rudy and Carol were stationed in New Mexico where all three of their children were born and raised and where Rudy and Carol continue to reside.

Book preview

Copyright © 2014 Rudy Lopez.

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be used or reproduced by any means, graphic, electronic, or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping or by any information storage retrieval system without the written permission of the publisher except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical articles and reviews.

iUniverse books may be ordered through booksellers or by contacting:

iUniverse LLC

1663 Liberty Drive

Bloomington, IN 47403

www.iuniverse.com

1-800-Authors (1-800-288-4677)

Because of the dynamic nature of the Internet, any web addresses or links contained in this book may have changed since publication and may no longer be valid. The views expressed in this work are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher, and the publisher hereby disclaims any responsibility for them.

Any people depicted in stock imagery provided by Thinkstock are models, and such images are being used for illustrative purposes only.

Certain stock imagery © Thinkstock.

ISBN: 978-1-4917-4332-4 (sc)

ISBN: 978-1-4917-4333-1 (e)

Library of Congress Control Number: 2014914025

iUniverse rev. date: 09/23/2014

CONTENTS

Dedication

Preface

Introduction

1. The Christian Church Must Be One

2. The Orthodox Matter

3. A Church In Crisis – A Prelude To Luther’s Apostasy And Insurrecton

4. Luther’s Apostasy And Insurrection

5. The Chair Of Peter

6. Blessed Mother Mary

7. Holy Eucharist The Sacrament Of Unity

Selected Bibliography

Endnotes

1. New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible

The Old Testament, Confraternity-DouayVersion and The New Testament Confraternity Version

A revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version edited by Catholic Scholars of the Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Catholic Book Publishing Company New York. New Edition - Copyright 1957

2. The Holy Bible

Douay Rheims Version

First reprinted by Tan Books and Publishers Inc., Rockford, Ill. 61105, 1971.

3. The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

Translated from the Latin Vulgate

A revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version, Edited by Catholic Scholars under the Patronage of the Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, St. Anthony Guild Press, Paterson, NJ, 1941.

4. Holy Bible

King James Version, Deluxe Division Edition

Omega Publishing House, Camden, NJ. 1971

5. Other bibles, which were used incidentally for cross-referencing purposes only were:

New American Bible for Catholics, American Bible Society, 1865 Broadway, NY, NY, 10023 (date unk); and The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English.

Zondervan Bible Publishers of the Zondervan Corporation, Grand Rapids, MI, 49506, 1982.

DEDICATION

Thanks to my wife Carol for her patience, encouragement, and unwavering support during the many years it took me to complete this book.

PREFACE

Witnessing the Body of Christ being torn and wounded by an ever-present and cancerous division was my motivation for this labor, along with an intense conviction that a divided Christian church, with its many and obvious pitfalls and contradictions, is inherently flawed and cannot therefore, accommodate the desire and prayer of our Lord that his followers be… perfected in unity (John 17: 23). This work was envisioned as a focused and objective examination of divided Christendom, undertaken for the express purpose of exposing and defining the numerous flaws that intrinsically accompany a torn asunder Christendom, and as an adjunct of that examination, to establish why today’s smorgasbord Christianity cannot possibly be attributed to its founder, nor can there be any sound logical or theological justification for the never ending and diverse truths that issue forth from the multiple thousands of denominations and cults that call themselves Christian. My efforts were directed at engaging and examining the Orthodox schism, which effectively split the body of Christ, and the Protestant Reformation that successively splintered the body of Christ. The undeniable result of this splintered, freewheeling, and chaotic Christianity – predicated upon existential freedom and/or autonomy – is a hybrid and fractured multi-denominational and cultic morass that directly challenges, flouts, and/or simply ignores, copious scriptural and historical evidence that points to and supports the contrary and apostolic view of a unified, single, and universal church, which was ordained, established, and perpetuated by its founder to teach and guide his church. The goal of this labor then, was to reasonably demonstrate the verity of this latter thesis, while simultaneously manifesting the obvious untenability of its antithesis, i.e. a divisive, divided, and dividing Christian Church.

INTRODUCTION

The primary and underlying thrust of this work is to steer the reader towards the inescapable conclusion of a Christian Church that must be, indeed cannot be, because of its Divine source, this birth from quintessential unity itself, anything less than one cohesive and unified whole. I tried to shield the work from less than fair and intellectually honest criticism and I ask the reader to exercise patience, be objective and open-minded, and finally, if Christian, to pray, sincerely pray for the reunification of the Christian Church – one faith, one baptism, and one unified and loving Christian body.

Chapter 1 will attempt to define the paradox of Christian division and then demonstrate why disunity is irreconcilable with Christian scriptures that are rife with verse extolling, and indeed compelling unity and harmony. The Orthodox problems with Roman primacy, along with minor theological disagreements, are dealt with fully and comprehensively in Chapter 2 of the work. Chapter 3 examines pre-reformation church history and Chapter 4 engages the actual Reformation that triggered separation from Rome causing division on a scale far more destructive and tragic than the preceding Orthodox schism, which in turn foreshadowed a correlative – and still unabated – splintering of the body that invariably led to the even more divisive pestilence of denominational fission. Chapter 5 deals extensively with the papacy and other doctrinal matters pertinent to that ministry; Chapter 6 examines and defends Catholic Mariology; and finally, Chapter 7 addresses and is devoted entirely to the Catholic teaching on the Holy Eucharist.

Inasmuch as polemical contentiousness is very much inevitable in a work of this sort and in an effort not to undermine or further hinder the ecumenical spirit, I tried to pen light without heat as the saying goes, without compromising the truth of the Catholic Church. My goal in this labor was to establish that Catholic tradition is rooted, deeply rooted, in the nascent Christian Church and that its apostolic pedigree is pure and definitive. Motivated by an ecumenical spirit and in order to keep contentious discourse on an intellectual high-bar, I chose to establish stability for this edifice called universal, by refraining, as best I could, from ad hominem attack, and chose instead to construct her self-supporting pillars of credence and logical underpinning on the firm foundation of church history and scripture.

Every effort, therefore, was made not to further expand the rift that already exists between brethren of various denominational and doctrinal persuasions, and accordingly, I gently, but firmly, tried to expose the false tenets and doctrinal errors that pervade their theology without the residual baggage of ill will and mudslinging that normally accompany apologetic works. I continue, as well, to nurture a sincere hope and optimism on behalf of those mired in Christian cults. These fringe offshoots of denominational Christianity are prime examples of the inherent dangers and pitfalls of an unrestrained Christian freedom and autonomy that begets and fosters theological and doctrinal innovations that corrupt, contradict, and/or otherwise transform – into an almost unrecognizable caricature – the original and apostolic deposit of faith. Chapter 4 engages their cultic revisions and innovations and then demonstrates, in part, how they are antithetical to, and far-removed from, the original Christian message and are therefore, a fortiori, untenable and false.

So why, some will ask, is another apologetic effort necessary and what, if anything sets it apart from others to date? Well, my intention was to wed sound historical data and scriptural evidence with syllogistic reasoning and good common sense, engendering in the process – if viewed objectively and without the poison of prejudicial bias and bigotry – a philosophical/theological marriage of sorts that could reasonably support its own conclusions; not only by fortifying the Catholic position, but also by enabling it to pass the muster of honest and fair scrutiny. Considering that papal primacy and Eucharistic ecclesiology are the very bedrock of Catholic orthodoxy, an exhaustive exegetical effort was undertaken to historically/scripturally verify their doctrinal propriety and veracity, and accordingly, I bored deeply into the core of early church and patristic theology on these matters, and then buttressed arrived at conclusions with scripture.

I sincerely implore the reader, especially if not Catholic, to be objective and open-minded in their assessment of the work, and to pray for the reunification of the Christian church, which in its present divided state is nothing less than scandalous and unacceptable; including, one could safely assume, to the founder, Himself.

CHAPTER 1

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH MUST BE ONE

Why must there be all this quarrelling and bad blood, these feuds and dissensions among you? Have we not all the same God, and the same Christ? Is not the same Spirit of grace shed upon us all? Have we not all the same calling in Christ? Then why are we rending and tearing asunder the limbs of Christ, and fomenting discord against our body? Why are we so lost to all sense and reason that we have forgotten our membership of one another? – Clement, Bishop of Rome (1st Century)¹

"It is by the Cross that through His Passion He calls you, who are parts of his own Body, to Himself. A Head cannot come into being alone, without any limbs; for the promise that we have from God is the promise of unity, which is the essence of Himself." – Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (2nd Century)²

The Christian Church, the body of Christ, by virtue of its divine ordination and institution, can only be, must only be, one undivided body, united in love—believing and proclaiming one faith. Today’s polarized and divided Christendom foregoes and rejects that ideal, and adheres instead to the existentially rooted ideals of autocephaly, autonomy, and eclectic denominational freedom – all of which compel, and indeed ensure Christian fragmentation. Inherent in these ideologies is a freedom, varying only in degree, which allows Christians to pick and choose – under the mantle of religious liberty and Spirit-led individual popery – only those tenets of the faith that they find intellectually or spiritually palatable; follow only those leaders they agree with or none at all;³ and the liberty and self-given license to interpret, manipulate, and/or add to the scriptures as they see fit in order to accommodate and suit their own doctrinal novelties.⁴ Addressing the obvious contradictions and pitfalls, theological and otherwise, that cohere to these democratic notions will be our objective in this labor, manifesting in the process, the fallacy of a religious liberty whose fruit is a divisive, divided, and still dividing Christianity that directly conflicts with our Christian scriptures, the teachings of the church fathers, and Jesus, himself, who prayed for unity and taught that there would be one shepherd and one fold.⁵ Divine origin requires and indeed mandates unity for Christ’s Church and these democratic notions are a recipe for discord and chaos that by their very nature eliminate Divine blessing or support, simply because the most Holy Trinity, quintessential unity, cannot realistically be party to or sanction the rending and tearing asunder of our Lord’s body caused by these notions; principally, because God cannot be the author of disorder, notwithstanding that divisions contradict and spurn our Lord’s own desire for unitary perfection and make a mockery of his prayer to the Father that his fold be "one, even as we are one . . . that they may be perfected in unity . . ."⁶ Unity, as Ignatius points out above, is the very essence of God, eliminating in essence, Divinity as the author or source of its antithesis. Our Lord’s observation on this antithesis speaks for itself: Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation, and every city or house divided against itself will not stand?7 Today’s fissiparous and dysfunctional Christian Church is clearly and unmistakably a house divided against itself and one that cannot possibly be His handiwork – or curry his favor. Would our Lord, Architect Supreme and Master Builder par excellence, construct his house on sand; could he be even remotely responsible for this blueprint for anarchy? Can this fractured and amorphous hydra of 30,000+ denominations and cults, all teaching multifarious and conflicting Christian truths, realistically or honestly be ascribed to Jesus? His house is described in Luke 6:48-49, built on Rock and impervious to the floods of dissension and error; because He is its founder and protector (Matthew 16:18 & 28:20). Additionally, we have his solemn assurance that this house (church) would be forever inspired and taught by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16, 14:26, 15:26 and 16:13-15), and because God’s teaching precludes error, that house must be, as Paul says  . . . the house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the pillar and mainstay of the truth.⁸ Strife and contention within the Church are nothing new, however, and this book’s opening extract from Pope Clement’s letter of remonstration to the 1st century Corinthian Church tells us that the problem plagued even the infant church, and indeed the Apostolic Church, as revealed in the Pauline epistles of our own New Testament scriptures that abound with the great apostle’s unitary exhortations, as well as his many reproaches on dissension and division. A litany of examples could be given, but for the sake of brevity, the following few verses should suffice:⁹

May then the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of one mind towards one another according to Jesus Christ; that, one in spirit, you may with one mouth glorify the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. (Romans 15: 5 – 6)

Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all say the same thing; and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be perfectly united in one mind and one judgment. (1st Corinthians 1: 10)

For since there are jealousy and strife among you, are you not carnal, and walking as mere men? For whenever one says, I am of Paul, but another, I am of Apollos, are you not mere men? (1st Corinthians 3: 3 – 4. See also Galatians 5: 13 – 26, which expands upon this verse by listing contentions, factions, and enmities as works of the flesh)

For as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, many as they are, form one body, so also is it with Christ. For in one spirit, we were all baptized into one body, whether slaves or free; and we were all given to drink of one spirit. (1st Corinthians 12: 12 – 14)

I therefore, a prisoner in the Lord, exhort you to walk in a manner worthy of your calling with which you were called, with all humility and meekness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, careful to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace: one body and one Spirit, even as you were called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, ONE FAITH, one Baptism, one God and Father of all who is above all and throughout all, and in us all. (Ephesians 4: 1 – 6)

If therefore, there is any comfort in Christ, any encouragement from charity, any fellowship in the Spirit, any feelings of mercy, fill up my joy by thinking alike, having the same charity, with one soul and one mind. Do nothing out of contentiousness or out of vainglory . . . (Philippians 2: 1 – 4)

And may the peace of Christ reign in your hearts; unto that peace, indeed, you were called in one body. (Colossians 3:15)

For there will come a time when they will not endure the sound doctrine; but having itching ears, will heap up to themselves teachers according to their own lusts, and they will turn away their hearing from the truth and turn aside rather to fables. (2nd Timothy 4: 3 – 4)

These verses represent but a few examples from Paul, and more could be cited from the Catholic Epistles and other scripture as well. What truth is the Spirit of Truth teaching us in these scriptural passages? Isn’t His message strikingly obvious and clear, namely, that unity and oneness are paramount and essential for the Body of Christ? And what of those patristic authors, some taught by the apostles themselves, most notably Ignatius, 1st century bishop of Antioch, who was taught by the apostle John, that same Ignatius who coined the term Catholic (universal) for the nascent Christian Church in about the year 107? This early martyr’s primary and consuming interest was Christian unity and his seven letters (excepting the Roman) to fellow bishops are a testament to this concern; and reveal, as well, the importance of obedience and Eucharist¹⁰—integral components of the faith that complement and sustain unity and are essential for its preservation. Ignatius wrote these letters, interestingly enough, while enroute to Rome and a date with death in the Roman arena, martyrdom for Christ that he anticipated fearlessly and with joy. The obvious historical value and relevance of these letters – in light of their author’s apostolic connection – cannot be overstated, and viewed in another light, could also be regarded as an Apostolic Father’s last will and testament, bequeathing to the Church, as it were, a veritable treasure trove of Christian antiquity. Following is a brief synopsis of his sentiments on Christian unity and its importance for the body of Christ:

Allow nothing whatever to exist among you that could give rise to any divisions; maintain absolute unity with your bishop and leaders, as an example to others and a lesson in the avoidance of corruption… . On no account persuade yourselves that it is right and proper to follow your own private judgment…¹¹

See that there is a godly unity among you, and a spirit that is above all division; for this is Jesus Christ.¹²

Nothing can better a state of peaceful accord, from which every trace of spiritual or earthly hostility has been banished.¹³

"I pray for their corporate as well as their spiritual unity – for both of these are the gifts of Jesus Christ, our never-failing Life. May they be one in their faith and one in love, which transcends all other virtues…"¹⁴

As for me, I did my part as one dedicated to the cause of unity; for where disunion and bad blood exist, God can never be dwelling.¹⁵

These extracts are just a small sampling of Ignatian sentiments on unity, and if we keep in mind that he was a listener of the Beloved Apostle – who was taught by Jesus Himself – then the import of what he proclaims becomes self-evident! Those who advocate and subscribe to Sola Scriptura, that Tower of Babel that has become nothing less than an interpretational free-for-all, should note well the above quoted Ignatian lesson (quote referenced by footnote 11 above) to the Magnesian church; and even though his letter is not scriptural, it should nonetheless, because of his standing as an Apostolic Father,¹⁶ be regarded as an admonition that requires serious reflection; recalling that scripture also, as relayed by 2nd Peter 1:20 and 3:15-16, obliquely gives us the same thumbs-down verdict on private judgment as Ignatius, especially, and most notably, freedom to interpret scripture. And even though Peter’s interpretational remonstrances are scriptural, those who subscribe to and are proponents of Sola Scriptura, nevertheless curiously ignore them. Private judgment, contrary to the teaching of the hierarchical church,¹⁷ was frowned upon and discouraged by the early church for reasons that should be manifest and obvious – it results in doctrinal and spiritual anarchy and chaos, a fact that is indisputably and regrettably prevalent as a result of this freedom, in the splintered church of our own time.

Lest anyone think that the well of antiquity has gone dry, and at the risk of boring the readers with historical pedagogy, I am compelled, nonetheless, to draw further from that limited, yet overflowing source of our Christian heritage. Why are those apostolic fathers and fathers of the church, some walking in the very shadows of those taught by the Lord, so relevant to our inquiry? The answer becomes obvious when we consider their proximity to the Master’s teaching and the likelihood that theirs – and not the more recent proponents of novelty and division – is the true and authentic transmission of His message. The teaching of the early church on sacramental theology, i.e., baptismal regeneration, Eucharistic true presence, a clerical hierarchy, etc., is a legacy which only the Catholic Church can claim and it will be demonstrated throughout this work (and detailed in later chapters) that she alone has the fullness of that heritage. Common sense and reason dictate that our allegiance be given to those early heirs and guardians of theological and doctrinal purity, rather than to far removed 16th century (and beyond) advocates of novelty and disorder; not to mention the utter impossibility of the Holy Spirit teaching error for the first 1500 years of the church! That indeed would have to be the case if the Protestant position were tenable. Can anyone reading these pages seriously entertain the notion that our Advocate and Sanctifier – who, according to Jesus¹⁸ would teach us all truth – taught lies and error to his church for 1500 years before revealing the truth to Luther? Indeed, would not a reasonable and required corollary of that premise be that the truth revealed to Luther was also lies and error, because those that followed him also changed his truth when the many and varied denominational and cultic truths emerged from those that proclaimed that theirs was the real truth, i.e. Zwingli, Henry VIII, Calvin and Knox, John and Charles Wesley, Joseph Smith, Ellen G. White, Charles Taze Russell, Mary Baker Eddy etc. etc. ad nauseum? This cannot be, the Paraclete has revealed and taught pure and abiding truth since day one, His descent at Pentecost, to His Church, or our Lord’s promise that His Church would not be overcome¹⁹ has been at best seriously compromised, or at worst invalidated! Jesus did not say that the Advocate would teach all truth beginning in the 16th century; but, I will send him to you ²⁰(the apostles) and But when he, the Spirit of Truth has come, he will teach you all truth.²¹ Honestly assessed, this can only mean truth in perpetuity – verity of divine teaching is not, after all, affected by time – and can only be realistically understood as the ONE Spirit of Truth continuously teaching the ONE true Church ONE truth; otherwise the Christianity of multiple churches, with multiple and conflicting truths, cannot be true at all! It most certainly cannot be that church prayed for by the Lord in John 17: 21 – 23, ‘that they may be one, even as thou, Father, in me and I in thee; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory that thou has given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them and thou in me; that they may be perfected in unity, and that the world may know that thou hast sent me . . ." Please note, and note well, how our Lord melds unity and belief and then stresses, indeed stipulates the crucial importance of unity to Christian witness and faith when he points out that belief is a corollary of and hinges upon unity. For those Christians still teetering on the precipice of doubt and indecision, bolstering the importance that the Lord, Himself placed on unity should encourage and spur at least these to ken and then reject the vagaries of that multi-denominational morass that Luther, amongst others, authored; and to embrace that one unified church that the fathers loved, many to the extent of willing martyrdom. It is, after all, the same church that Augustine, the great 4th century saint and doctor of the church, described in his letter Against the letter of Mani called The Foundation.²² Here is the letter as quoted in referenced work:

"In the Catholic Church, not to speak of that purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual men attain in this life… not to speak, I say, of that wisdom which you do not believe is present in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which, most properly, can keep me in her bosom. The unanimity of the peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see²³ of the Apostle Peter, to whom our Lord, after His resurrection, gave the charge of feeding His sheep, up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And at last, the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called Catholic, when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house. If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the Gospel, what would you answer him when he says: I do not believe? Indeed, I would not believe in the Gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not influence me to do so."

Other works discouraging schism and disunity are the Didache and The Letter of Barnabas, very early 1st and 2nd century documents that discourage and reproach schism, and give us as well, an understanding of the importance of unity in the infant church.

You shall not make a schism. Rather, you shall make peace among those who are contending. (Didache)²⁴

You shall not make a schism; but you shall pacify and bring together those who are quarreling. (Letter of Barnabas)²⁵

Likewise, note the description of division as wicked by the writer Hermas [fl. ca. A.D. 140/155], in his The Shepherd:

Be of one spirit and put away these wicked divisions. Remove them from your midst, so that the Master of the flock may rejoice in his sheep. He will rejoice if all be found whole.²⁶

Now to St. Irenaeus, 2nd century Bishop of Lyons and a pupil of Polycarp, that same Polycarp who was himself instructed by the Apostles, and had had familiar intercourse with many who had seen Christ.²⁷ Irenaeus’ familiarity with an Apostolic Father, along with his keen theological insights, renders his testimony overwhelmingly invaluable to our undertaking and I will rely extensively on his writings, not only in the present chapter on unity, but in later chapters as well. His insistence on strict adherence to apostolic and sub-apostolic teaching is manifest and the reader should readily glean that lesson from the following quotes:

"As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same. Neither do the Churches among the Germans believe otherwise or have another tradition, nor do those among the Iberians, nor among the Celts, nor away in the East, nor in Egypt, nor in Libya, nor those which have been established in the central regions of the world… Nor will any of the rulers in the Churches, whatever his power of eloquence, teach otherwise, for no one is above the teacher; nor will he who is weak in speaking detract from the tradition. For the faith is one and the same, and cannot be amplified by one who is able to say much about it, nor can it be diminished by one who can say but little."²⁸

"When, therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others the truth which is easily obtained from the Church. For the Apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her most copiously everything which pertains to the truth; and everyone whosoever wishes draws from her the drink of life. For she is the entrance to life, while all the rest are thieves and robbers. That is why it is surely necessary to avoid them, while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and lay hold of the tradition of truth. What then? If there should be a dispute over some kind of question, ought we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches in which the Apostles were familiar, and draw from them what is clear and certain in regard to that question? What if the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition, which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted the Churches?"29(Note: Catholicism to this day maintains that the twin pillars of scripture AND tradition are necessary to support that edifice of doctrinal purity and dogmatic truth called Church, and – as a balancing third pillar – the Magesterium, that utility deigned and used by God to teach and guide his church).

"It is necessary to obey those who are presbyters in the Church, those who, as we have shown, have succession from the Apostles; those who have received, with the succession of the episcopate, the sure charism of truth according to the good pleasure of the Father. But the rest, who have no part in the primitive succession and assemble wheresoever they will, must be held in suspicion."³⁰

"[A truly spiritual disciple] shall judge those who make schism and are destitute of the love of God, who look to their own advantage rather than to the unity of the Church, who for any kind of trifling reason cut apart and divide the great and glorious body of Christ . . . ³¹

"For all these [heretics] are of much later date than are the bishops to whom the Apostles handed over the Churches; and this fact I pointed out most carefully in the third book. It is of necessity, then, that these aforementioned heretics, because they are blind to the truth, walk in various and devious paths; and on this account the vestiges of their doctrine are scattered about without agreement or connection.³² The path of those, however, who belong to the Church, goes around the whole world; for it has the firm tradition of the Apostles, enabling us to see that the faith of all is one and the same."³³

Unity for Irenaeus and the infant church was a matter of extreme and grave importance and his portrayal of that early church landscape, painted with colorful eloquence and uncompromising clarity, is one of a united, universal, and apostolic church,³⁴ adhering to and bound by the all important and vital aspect of apostolic succession and tradition. We cannot leave Irenaeus; however, without anecdotally noting that he not only talked the talk as they say, but walked the walk as well. When Bishop Victor of Rome (whom we shall examine at greater length in Chapter 2), because of the Quartodeciman controversy; i.e., the uniform celebration of Easter, attempted to excommunicate Polycrates and at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian dioceses, together with the neighboring churches, on the ground of heterodoxy, and pilloried them in letters in which he announced the total excommunication of all his fellow Christians there,³⁵ it was Irenaeus, along with fellow Bishops, who persuaded Victor to relent, assuring thereby, harmonious unity for the Church. Irenaeus, whose name means ‘peaceable’ and who by temperament was a peacemaker, pleaded and negotiated thus for the peace of the churches. He corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but with very many other heads of churches setting out both sides of the question under discussion.³⁶ The debt of gratitude that we owe to this early church father is immeasurable and as stated earlier we will see more of him throughout the book.

A momentary pause is warranted at this juncture to point out and emphasize that my desire is not to wield and use the early fathers as a cudgel to drive home the truth of the Catholic faith or viewpoint, but in reality, and with noble purpose only, to light a lamp of curiosity for those separated Christian brethren who love the Lord and are not so hardened of heart and obstinate that they refuse to seek, find, and serve truth. Hopefully these, after objective inquiry and reflection, will wish to moor and anchor their ships safely in that harbor of Apostolic succession; the one holy, Catholic and apostolic church, that beautiful mother who not only determined, under the direction and guidance of the Holy Spirit, which of the early writings were divinely inspired and therefore the word of God,³⁷ but also gives us the very Word Himself – Jesus in Eucharist. Praise God!

With that in mind, let us now proceed to Cyprian, Lactantius, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Hilary of Poitiers, Jerome, Augustine, and finally, Vincent of Lerins, one and all (except Lactantius) proclaimed and canonized saints of the church; one and all of like mind in their dislike and condemnation of disunity. I have made no attempt – as the reader has probably gathered – at maintaining a precise chronology when referring to the many and different fathers and when they wrote; and have chosen instead, to utilize whomever fits best at the time, within the appropriate context of material formation and train of thought. And although the patristic age runs well into the 8th century and does not end until the death of St. John Damascene in A.D. 749, our inquiry will not extend beyond the 5th century and will involve only those fathers that coincidently happened to be within that time frame and who were, as well, the most vitriolic in their detestation of disunity, i.e., schism and heresy. The absence of the later fathers in this portion of the work is merely incidental and is not meant to imply that their writings, because they are part of the latter patristic age, are to be regarded as any less valuable or cherished. Writings of the fathers cited will be apportioned individually, but commented upon collectively, with each of the quoted passages taken from the multi-volume The Faith of the Early Fathers authored by William A Jurgens—a much needed, much appreciated, and highly recommended translation of the early fathers. I’ve chosen this method of crediting referenced material only in this portion of the book in order to facilitate completion of the work and for the convenience of the readers, attempting by such method to simplify and encourage research of referenced credits.

ST. CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE

(Letter of Cyprian to Antonianus, A bishop in Numidia. A.D. 251/252)

You wrote also, that I should forward to [Pope] Cornelius, our colleague, a copy of your letter, so that he might put aside any anxiety and know immediately that you are in communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church. (Vol. I, p. 230)

(Letter of Cyprian to Cornelius of Rome. A.D. 252)

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have an entrance. (Note: Was it the implicit teaching of the church at this early stage that the Roman Bishop taught infallibly and that it was already an accepted precept of the time?) (Vol. I, p. 232)

(Letter of Cyprian to Florentius Pupianus. A.D. 254)

For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another. (Vol. I, p. 234)

(Letter of Cyprian to all his people. A.D. 251)

They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the Word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering. (Note: See Matthew 12: 30) (Vol. I, p. 229)

LACTANTIUS

(The Divine Institutions. A.D. 304-310)

But since many heresies have come about, and because the people of God have been cut apart at the instigation of demons, the truth must be briefly marked out by us, and must be placed within its own proper domicile… Whether they be called Phrygians, or Novatians, or Valentinians, or Marcionites, or Anthropians, or whatever else, having lost the name of Christ, they have ceased to be Christians, and have put on human and foreign names. It is therefore, the Catholic Church, alone which retains true worship… (Vol. I, p. 267)

ST. ATHANASIUS

(Letter concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea. A.D. 350/351)

But you, you modern Jews and disciples of Caiphas, how many fathers can you cite for your phrases? Indeed, you can quote not even one who was intelligent and wise. All abhor you, except the devil alone; for he alone is your father in such an apostasy. In the beginning he sowed you with the seeds of this impiety, and now he persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council, because it committed to writing not your doctrines, but those, which from the beginning were handed down by those [apostles] who were eyewitnesses and ministers of the Word. For the faith which the Council confessed in writing is the faith of the Catholic Church. (Vol. I, p. 325)

ST. CYRIIL OF JERUSALEM

(Catechetical Lectures [ca. A.D. 350])

[The Church] is called Catholic then, because it extends over the whole world, from end to end of the earth; and because it teaches universally and infallibly each and every doctrine which must come to the knowledge of men, concerning things visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings every race of men into subjection to godliness, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals every class of sins, those committed with the soul and those with the body; and it possesses within itself every conceivable form of virtue, in deeds and in words and in spiritual gifts of every description.

And if ever you are visiting in cities, do not inquire simply where the House of the Lord is,—for the others, sects of the impious, attempt to call their dens the Houses of the Lord,—nor ask merely where the Church is, but where is the Catholic Church. For this is the name peculiar to this holy Church, the Mother of us all, which is the Spouse of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God. (Vol. I, p. 359)

ST. HILARY OF POITIERS

(The Trinity [inter A.D. 356-359])

The Church, instituted by the Lord and confirmed by the Apostles, is one for all men; but the frantic folly of the diverse impious sects has cut them off from her. It cannot be denied that this tearing asunder of the faith has arisen from the defect of poor intelligence, which twists what is read to conform to its own opinion, instead of adjusting its opinion to the meaning of what is read. However, while individual parties fight among themselves, the Church stands revealed not only by her own doctrines, but by those also of her adversaries. And although they are all ranged against her, she confutes the most wicked error which they all share, by the very fact that she is alone and one.

All the heretics, therefore, come against the Church³⁸; but while all the heretics can conquer each other, they can win nothing for themselves. For their victory is the triumph of the Church over all of them. One heresy struggles against that teaching of another, which the faith of the Church has already condemned in the other heresy,—for there is nothing which the heretics hold in common,—and the result is that they affirm our faith while fighting among themselves. (Vol. I, p. 376)

ST. JEROME

(Letter of Jerome to Pope Damasus. [Inter A.D. 374/379])

I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails… (Vol. II, p. 183)

ST. AUGUSTINE

(Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed [forte ca. A.D. 395])

The Church is holy, the one Church, the true Church, the Catholic Church, fighting as she does against all heresies. She can fight, but she cannot be beaten. All heresies are expelled from her, like useless loppings pruned from a vine. She remains fixed in her root, in her vine, in her love. The gates of hell shall not conquer her.³⁹ (Vol. III, pp. 34-35)

ST. VINCENT OF LERINS (The Notebooks [ca. A. D. 434])

With great zeal and closest attention, therefore, I frequently inquired of many men, eminent for their holiness and doctrine, how I might, in a concise and, so to speak, general and ordinary way, distinguish the truth of the Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical depravity. I received almost always the same answer from all of them, that if I or anyone else wanted to expose the frauds and escape the snares of the heretics who rise up, and to remain intact and sound in a sound faith, it would be necessary, with the help of the Lord, to fortify that faith in a twofold manner: first, of course, by the authority of the divine law; and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church. Here, perhaps, someone may ask: If the canon of the Scriptures be perfect, and in itself more than suffices for everything, why is it necessary that the authority of ecclesiastical interpretation be joined to it?⁴⁰ Because, quite plainly, sacred Scripture, by reason of its own depth, is not accepted by everyone as having one and the same meaning.⁴¹ The same passage is interpreted in one way by some, in another by others, so that it can appear as if there are as many opinions as there are men. (Vol. III, p. 262)

He is a true and genuine Catholic who loves the truth of God, the Church, and the Body of Christ; who puts nothing else before divine religion and the Catholic Faith, neither the authority nor the love nor the genius nor the eloquence nor the philosophy of any man whatsoever, but, despising all that and being fixed, stable, and persevering in his faith, is determined in himself to hold and believe that only which he knows the Catholic Church has held universally and from ancient times. (Vol. III, p. 264)

Guard, he says, what has been committed.⁴² What does it mean, what has been committed? It is what has been faithfully entrusted to you, not what has been discovered by you; what you have received, not what you have thought up; a matter not of ingenuity, but of doctrine; not of private acquisition, but of public Tradition; a matter brought to you, not put forth by you, in which you must be not the author but the guardian, not the founder but the sharer, not the leader, but the follower. Guard, he says, what has been committed. Keep the talent of the Catholic Faith inviolate and unimpaired. What has been faithfully entrusted, let it remain in your possession, let it be handed on by you. You have received gold, so give gold. (Vol. III, p. 264)

This brief compendium of selected fathers should serve to further illustrate the critical importance that the early church placed on oneness of faith and unity. Could we not say in paraphrase of Cyprian, above, that unity is the cement that holds not only the priests of the church together, but all religious and laity as well? Can we posit, therefore, that God, the very quintessence of unity, is the author or source of disunity, that he promotes or condones the discord, chaos, and spiritual anarchy prevalent in today’s Christian Church? Note above how Vincent describes heresy as depraved and how Lactantius and Athanasius describe it as demonic and lay it at the feet, in effect, of evil where it belongs. Christians, regardless of denominational persuasion, are brothers and sisters in Christ, and I, unlike Lactantius above, will not deny the Christian appellation to my separated brethren. The intent of this labor is assuredly not to denigrate or imply that denominational Christianity is intrinsically evil, it is not; but it must be noted in all honesty that the disunity of Christ’s Church is at least extrinsically such, inasmuch as it dismisses and/or rejects our Lord’s explicit and obviously heartfelt desire for unity and concomitantly forces God, because each part of the divided whole claims to have the truth of Christian revelation, to be the author of an enormity of conflicting truths, which cannot possibly be true – period! I, along with the author of the much referenced The Faith of the Early Fathers, William A. Jurgens, share an opinion about heresy that I’ve held for many years—here is his direct quote: Heresies never die; they just change their names. I cannot recall any modern heresy that is really new; nor do I know of any ancient heresy that has been slain outright. Catholic doctrine is so entirely cohesive that if only one thread of it is cut the whole unravels. Heresy, at least within a limited number of theological categories, seems to bear a similar stamp of cohesion, so that if a man fall into one, he is soon forced to all, even the seemingly diametrically opposed.⁴³ It seems to me also, that with little effort at all, one could find the ancestral root of many modern heresies in ancient heresies, i.e., trace the progeny of ancient heresies, even those now considered cults. For example:

Many of these and various other heretical notions, or extracted portions thereof, seem to be interspersed throughout multitudinous protesting bodies of Christendom, all believing they have the truth; unaware it seems, that the Church in various councils and pronouncements – and under the tutelage of the Holy Spirit⁴⁴—has already declared such beliefs as heretical.

Finally, we will close this chapter with some food for thought by posing the following question: Can anything that the Lord ordains fail? An unqualified "no" must be the answer and Christian consensus on that answer, hopefully, may be presumed. Ergo, if the Lord ordained a church in his name, which the historical record – secular and otherwise – reveals as Catholic, would not that Church, be indestructible and still with us today? Yes and yes, otherwise the promises of our Lord are empty and void, which, of course, would mean that He is not divine and therefore, that those promises are not divinely secured and safeguarded. Those promises are (a) that he would be with us until the consummation of time – and unless he is powerless to protect his Church, it would endure until the consummation of time,⁴⁵ (b) his unconditional and unequivocal assurance that Satan would not prevail against it,⁴⁶ and finally, (c) that this same Church would be inspired and taught all truth by the Holy Spirit.⁴⁷ If the Catholic Church is not heir, properly speaking, to these promises by extension and thru apostolic succession, then assuredly this Church should have crumbled eons ago, becoming as it were, little more than a footnote on the pages of religious history. Jesus, then, who decried the wisdom of the builder constructing his house on sand instead of rock,⁴⁸ would have been guilty of the same folly, because a house (church) constructed on sand, proverbially speaking, would have already crumbled and been washed away, not only by the flood of heretical onslaught, but by those who persecuted, excoriated, and reviled her, from within and without, from day one and forward. But the Catholic Church was built on Rock and is still with us today, over a billion strong, still adhering to and proclaiming, as we will show throughout this work, the original and unchangeable deposit of faith taught by her founder and his apostles and then relayed in perpetuity and unbroken continuity via their successors, the Church’s magisterial hierarchy.

The historically unsupportable and untenable fiction that Christ’s Church went awry soon after the Apostolic Age (or anytime thereafter, for that matter) necessarily imputes, by inherency and concomitance, a weak, unwise, promise-breaking, less than loving, less than truthful, and therefore less than omniscient and omnipotent God. Moreover, Divine ordination and institution would seem to mandate, from any exegetical angle of approach reasonably and objectively applied, the absolute and unequivocal indefectibility of that Church’s teaching, i.e., she has not, would not, and indeed, cannot teach error in matters of faith, morals, and/or doctrine or dogma.⁴⁹ The alternative, as pointed out above, would correspondingly impugn our Lord as a liar and a fraud and accordingly, render him less than divine. Our Lord did not promise that members of His body (church) would be sinless, only that the Holy Spirit would teach them all truth. His chosen utility for that endeavor was and continues to be that pillar and ground of truth, the Church itself, which is supported by and rests upon the balancing pillars of scripture, tradition, and the Church’s governing Magesterium i.e., her divinely vested and Spirit-led teaching authority.⁵⁰ Otherwise, the flip side can only be, and is, a rudderless protesting Christian church saddled with the stigma of a house divided against itself and the problematic and inescapable dilemma of Divinity (Truth Himself) teaching conflicting and multifarious doctrinal and theological "truths" to different individuals, or sundry churches, multiple times in history; which in and of itself invalidates, or at the very least, radically undermines it’s own tenability.

In any case, the Catholic Church acknowledges the immorality of her children at various stages in her history, up to and including immoral popes, but that is not in question here – and neither are those historical facts denied. This same Church also confesses and corroborates the fact that inexcusable corruption permeated the body and was rampant at various times in her history. We must understand; however, that the central issue being addressed by this work is the evil of a divided and dividing Christendom and the inevitable conclusion that must be drawn from that division; namely, that the driving force precipitating that division, in addition to corruption, was that the Catholic Church taught doctrinal/dogmatic error (enunciated, in fact, by Protestantism’s founding father, Luther)⁵¹ and that is the accusation that becomes a stumbling block for protesting Christendom, because it requires a correlative and concomitant mandate of Divine failure⁵² and – after His promise that he would not leave us orphans – abandonment.⁵³ Moreover, that accusation also demands a hard-to-swallow concession for Christians of that persuasion, because they must then acknowledge and conclude – by the process of simple deduction – that (l) He who called himself Truth⁵⁴ was less than truthful in his promises that we would be taught all truth – which cannot and does not change – by the Advocate that He would send;⁵⁵ (2) that the Holy Ghost, our Advocate and teacher, taught lies and error to His Church for 1500 years before Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, et al., and that thereafter, and to this day, taught variant and conflicting truths to their various and ever-multiplying denominational and cultic progeny; (3) that our Lord as a consequence and by implication is less than divine and a liar; (4) that despite His assurance to the contrary,⁵⁶evil prevailed and evil himself was and is victorious; and, if such is the case, (5) that the Christian message and faith are not viable and trustworthy and should, therefore, be rejected. For those of the Christian faith, Catholic or otherwise, considering that coda as an option is, to say the least, emphatically unacceptable! The only alternative to this dilemma is to accept the overwhelmingly simple reality of the only other option available, which is, that Christ’s Church, "the pillar and mainstay of truth",57 must be one, universal, loving,⁵⁸ and undivided body, professing and subscribing to one (the) Truth.

CHAPTER 2

THE ORTHODOX MATTER

I am often grieved and dismayed that the weak are so much disturbed by the obstinate aggressiveness or superstitious fears of certain of the brethren who stir up controversial questions and will accept nothing as proper except that which is their own custom. These are things of a kind that are not prescribed by the authority of Scripture nor by the Tradition of the universal Church, and they serve no good purpose for the amending of one’s life, but are insisted upon simply because someone thinks up a reason for them or because someone was accustomed to such in his own country. – Letter of Augustine to Generosus (ca. A. D. 400)⁵⁹

The Byzantine Greek confederacy of autocephalous churches must also recognize that just as there cannot be 30,000+ denominational Christian bodies, neither, by the same token can there be 2. Christianity, by virtue of its divine origin, can only profess one (the) truth and therefore – by necessary and axiomatic consequence – one faith! The Universal Church is founded on truth affirmed by faith. Truth being one, true faith must be one also.⁶⁰ Christianity, if it is to regain and retain that pristine richness that attracts and does not repel, that exemplifies and manifests that Divine order which ordains unity and love and therefore enhances and enriches evangelization, must be faithful to its Divine Founder’s desire for unity. Again, it can only, must only be, one body – proclaiming, teaching, and believing the same message, the same gospel. Regrettably, and to our shame, such is not the case. This chapter begins with the letter of Augustine to Generosus for the express purpose of exposing the danger of churches adhering to provincial or other ancillary customs at the expense of unity. The 2nd century Asian Churches, under the leadership of Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus, and the more contemporary Archbishop Lefebvre, are cases in point. The former, because of his refusal, along with a small number of Asian bishops, to conform to a uniform (Sunday) celebration of Easter as formulated by Pope Victor and the vast majority of Catholic Bishops worldwide, including the renowned Bishop of Lyons, Irenaeus; and the latter, because of his opposition to Vatican II and it’s liturgical reforms; both in effect sacrificing unity of the Lord’s body for the sake of custom and both in effect rejecting the work of the Holy Spirit through His chosen vessel, the solemn Magesterium of the Church. Because Victor relented in his threat to excommunicate the nonconforming Asian churches, the Quartodeciman controversy did not result in schism; in the case of Archbishop Lefebvre, however, the results were not quite as unsullied and favorable.

The insinuation or suggestion is not here being made that the Catholoc-0rthodox split was caused solely because of Eastern adherence to custom, or provincialism, but merely to point out that these factors, to a degree at least, were and are part of the problem; realizing of course, that the problem goes deeper, i.e. historically, as related to socio/geopolitical events, and to a lesser degree, theologically. And although these two factors appear at times to be inextricably intertwined and indivisible, they are in fact, binary, and it will better suit our purposes if we consider them individually, where possible; and then conjoin them, if necessary, for order and clarification. The theological side of the spectrum is relatively minor and nitpicking in nature⁶¹ and it is that consideration, therefore, that prompts us to the more difficult task of trying to dissect and analyze the historical aspect of the rupture, before proceeding to the more sublime theological analysis.

The Christian Church (one and Catholic) managed to retain – however precarious and sporadic – her unity for most of the first millennium. This unity was tenuous, however, and was at times threatened by internal bickering between various groups and Bishops (the issue of re-baptism of heretics comes to mind); persistent imperial interference and influence; and, of course, the relentless and ever present schismatic and heretical factions assailing the Eastern Church during the 4th thru 8th⁶² centuries. Photius’⁶³ 9th century quarrels with the Latin Church over the addition of the filioque⁶⁴ to the creed were of less consequence than the political machinations and intrigues that transpired prior to, during, and after this event, and resulted more in estrangement than actual schism. His dispute with Pope Nicolas I (858-67) was centered on the exile of Constantinople’s Patriarch, St Ignatius by the Emperor and his own subsequent appointment to that Patriarchate. Those who supported Ignatius regarded this appointment as an intrusion and the ensuing controversy soon involved the Pope, himself. Subsequent events, if the outcome were not so tragic, could almost be described as surreal comedy; but because this particular dispute sparked the estrangement, which is historically imputed⁶⁵ to have begun that which would become the Orthodox schism and, because of its relative significance to this subject matter, we will explore it in greater detail later in the chapter.

In an effort, therefore, to construct chronological sequence for events considered pertinent to our endeavor, I will for the moment leave the Photian affair and regress somewhat in time to glimpse and mull over prior historical dramas as they unfolded and played out on history’s grand stage, insofar as relationships of the one church evolved from unity, to estrangement, to separation. I might again emphasize that the root of this division was more geopolitical than religious in nature, and more (but not altogether, as noted above) the product, therefore, of royal prerogative and political intrigue, jealously, provincialism, pride, and, as we shall see, the ever-present and continuing heresies that the Eastern Church fell prey to.

The first known and serious breach effecting unity was, I suppose, the one already alluded to above, as well as in the preceding chapter, which involved the Bishop of Rome and the majority of Bishops worldwide, east and west – versus Polycrates, who along with a small number of Asian Bishops refused to assent to a uniform (Sunday) celebration of Easter. Eusebius, in his History of the Church, [inter A.D. 300-325] after listing the notable bishops of the period (A.D. 189) describes the controversy as follows:

It was at that stage that a controversy of great significance took place, because all the Asian dioceses thought that in accordance with ancient tradition they ought to observe the fourteenth day of the lunar month as the beginning of the Paschal festival – the day on which the Jews had been commanded to sacrifice the lamb; on that day, no matter which day of the week