The Holy Father

A SIGN OF DIVISION?

OR

A SIGN OF UNITY?

by

Rick Salbato was born on the feast of Demetrios Kydones, who in the fourteenth century worked for the unity of the Greek and Roman Churches. Kydones’ work resulted in the Council of Florence. Using him as a guide, Rick Salbato wants to bring the Greek and Romans together to dialogue the only real issue that divides the two factions,

"The Pope of Rome".

Rick, as a layman with 30 years of theological studies, has written many books on apologetics and mystical theology. He lectures on Church history, apologetics, science and discernment. He worked as a Director of Evangelization and has recorded over 40 audio tapes on religious subjects.

After twelve years of working with the Orthodox Churches, he feels that theology is not anything that the East even bothers to study. It is nationalism that keeps them divided from the West. Most Orthodox laymen do not know (or care) what Filioque means. They honor the saints and councils of the early Church but do not study them.

"How could (man) gain merit in the eyes of God if his false religious views, lead God to condemn him? How can he love God and await a reward from Him for his efforts if he possessed an altogether false concept of God?" Demetrios Kydones "Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism" Page 62, by James Likoudis

Since "demonic" means "to divide" we ask Blessed Maria Gabriella of Unity to pray for us that we will never give up the prayer of Christ and that we will not be guilty of Matt 5:23.

Two thousand years ago God entered into the womb of Mary. Thirty-three years later, on the night before He would suffer and die, He ordained twelve bishops. He instituted the Continual Sacrifice foretold in Daniel. He established his family, the Church, and then He stood to pray to the Father for all the grace needed to complete all that He had worked for.

In His prayer in John, Chapter 17, Christ shows concern over the unity of His Church; but unity only in truth: "Father, the hour has come ---(:11) Holy Father, keep them in your name who you have given to me; that they may be one (:17) Sanctify them in truth ---(:20) I pray for them also who through their work shall believe in me (:21) I pray that they all may be one, as you, Father, in me, and I in you; that they also may be one in us; so that the world may believe (:22) that they may be one (:23) that they may be made perfect in one, that the world may know that you have sent me, and have loved them, as you have also loved me

I speak from a Catholic's perspective; but I know from my Orthodox and Protestant friends that all Christians want the same thing that Christ prayed for, that we all be one Church on Earth as it is in Heaven. (John 17)

We all believe and know that Christ wants only one Church on earth and that He prayed for this at the last supper, but are we willing to pray together for this unity? Are we willing to work together for this unity? We all agree that we cannot compromise the truth for the sake of unity, for truth is Christ and Christ cannot be compromised. But are we willing to listen to other points of view and read each other’s writings? Are we willing to compromise on everything for the sake of unity except the true doctrine of Christ? Are we willing to admit our own faults and mistakes and the mistakes of our Church that brought about these divisions? Do we understand that in Matt 5:23 Christ is talking about us, and we must do something about it?

Ten years ago I realized that what divides Christians is not doctrine but nationalism, politics, prejudice and family tradition.

"Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the ancients?" Christ answered, "Why do you transgress the commandment of God for your tradition?"

Tradition and culture are wonderful things if they do not come before the truth of Christ. The truth is, that unity of all Christians does not require that one give up his culture and his way of doing things, only his way of seeing things.

If your culture, your family traditions, your habits are a cause of divisions between you and your brothers in Christ, how can you justify going to the altar of God and receiving the Body and Blood of Christ?

In Matt 5:23 Christ said, "If therefore you offer your gift at the altar, and there you remember that your brother has any thing against you; LEAVE THERE YOUR OFFERING BEFORE THE ALTAR, and go first to be reconciled to your brother."

This passage is for all Christians who profess to be brothers in Christ. Can any of us who are not working for the unity of all Christians say that we have love of Christ and our brothers. Read the rest of Matt 5:23. In the early Church there were disputes and disagreements, but all knew the law of Christ from Matt 18:17 who said that when there were disputes to take it to the Church. In Matt 18:18 He made the Church's decision on these disputes binding on earth and in Heaven.

Why, then, don't we simply look to the early Church for the answers? Because we do not look at the actual writings of the early Church, we do what the Jews did in their "Talmuds" or commentaries. We read what our Churches say about the writings instead of reading the writings themselves and letting them tell us the truth.

Truth is not afraid of information, but information is not necessarily the truth. I have thirty-eight volumes of Church history on just the first 700 years of Christianity. These volumes were not put together by Catholics, but by the Church of England. It is obvious that the documents of Polycarp, Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Antioch, Augustine, Jerome, Cyril, and the Councils say one thing, but the commentaries on these documents say another.

It is important, though, to read all sides. I subscribe to "The Center for Traditionalist Orthodox Studies", "The Eastern Catholic Life", and have read "Orthodoxy and Catholicism" by Father Theodire Pulcini, the Koran by Mohammed, The Book of Mormon by Joseph Smith, the writings of Martin Luther, Confucius, Krisnamurdi, The New Age, and many Protestant publications that are very anti-Catholic: "Pagan Festivals - Christian Worship" by Franke, "The Two Babylons or The Papal Worship" by Hislop, "A View of Rome" by Armstrong, "The Trail of Blood" by Carroll, "Faithful Dissent" by Curran, "The Fatal Flaw" by White, etc. What I found in all of these was that they engage in vituperation, using sophisms without presenting any real arguments because they fail to use the two things that separate us from animals, (logic and history).

"Ending the Byzantine Schism" by John Lukadious addresses the problem of mental book burning, which means to refuse to read or listen to another point of view simply because it is not "one of our views. The point being that we should not be afraid to read or listen to another’s ideas or traditions.

Unity will come from us laymen, and it is to laymen that I write this book. I invite dialogue and ask that apathy end. We can force unity on the bishops, but that is not to say that they have done nothing. In fact, they have done more than we have, except they are afraid of what the people, caught up in traditions of man, will do.

Those in the seats of power have done a great deal in the past 35 years towards unity of all Christians.

Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I met in Jerusalem 1964

Paul VI and Orthodox Patriarch of Jerusalem, Benedictos, met in 1964 seeking paths to unity

Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras of Jerusalem met at Istanbul 1967 and in Rome in 1967

Paul VI and His Holiness Shenouda III, the Coptic Orthodox Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria, met in 1971

Paul VI and His Beatitude Jacoub III, the Syrian Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch, met in 1971

Paul VI and His Beatitude Mar Ignatius Jacoub III, Patriarch of Antioch of the Syrians, met in 1979

John Paul II and Patriarch of Constantinople Dimitrios I in 1979 met at the Phanar and con-celebrated Mass at Ecumenical Patriarchate 1979

John Paul II and Syrian Patriarch of Antioch Mor Ignatius Zakka Iwas met in 1984

John Paul II met at Rome in 1987 with Patriarch Dimitrios I

Lutheran Archbishops and Primates sat down with Pope John Paul II in 1991

John Paul II and Venerable Patriarch of the Ethiopian Church, Abuna Paulos, met in Rome in 1993

John Paul II and Assyrian Patriarch of the East, His Holiness Mar Dinkha IV, talked in Rome in 1994

Venerable Brother Bartholomew, the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople, and John Paul II prayed together on Good Friday 1994

And in 1995 Pope John Paul II wrote two Encyclicals on Unity

He stated in these documents:

"I believe that one important way to grow in mutual understanding and unity consists precisely in improving our knowledge of one another."

And again he asked us:

"to encourage dialogue between Catholics and the Orthodox" and he added:

"In addition to knowledge, I feel that meeting one another regularly is very important."

Pope John Paul believes that unity will have to start in a place much like the United States because all religions are represented equally and people have the freedom to dialogue. In his own words:

"These places, where peaceful contact is easier within a pluralist society, could be an ideal environment for improving and intensifying cooperation between the Churches in training future priests and in pastoral and charitable projects, also for the benefit of the Orientals' countries of origin."

Regarding Christ's words in Jn 17 "that the world may know and be converted, the Holy Father said: "we have deprived the world of a joint witness. --- The words of the West need the words of the East, so that God's word may ever more clearly reveal its unfathomable riches."

This was written on May 2^nd, 1995

In his Encyclical Letter of May 25, 1995,

Commitment to Unity

Feast of the Ascension of Our Lord

Pope John Paul II remembers, and I quote,

"the courageous witness of so many martyrs of our century, including members of Churches and Ecclesial Communities not in full communion with the Catholic Church."

And then pleads with the Christian world:

"Every factor of division can be transcended and overcome in the total gift of self for the sake of the Gospel."

"Besides the doctrinal differences needing to be resolved, --- misunderstandings and prejudices. Complacency, indifference and insufficient knowledge of one another often make this situation worse."

There must be a "necessary purification of past memories --- by the power of the truth and by a sincere desire for mutual forgiveness and reconciliation, all are called to re-examine together their painful past and the hurt which that past regrettably continues to provoke even today. All together, they are invited by the ever fresh power of the Gospel to acknowledge with sincere and total objectivity the mistakes made and the contingent factors at work at the origins of their deplorable divisions."

He goes on to say:

"---the Catholic Church acknowledges and confesses the weaknesses of her members."

"At the same time, she acknowledges and exalts still more the power of the Lord."

"---the truth does not impose itself except 'by virtue of its own truth, as it makes its entrance into the mind at once quietly and with power."

Pope John Paul II promises: "I myself intend to promote every suitable initiative - to full communion."

Why? "The unity of all divided is the will of God --- that all those who believe in him, might be one. --- And yet almost everyone, though in different ways, longs that there may be one visible Church of God, a Church truly universal and sent forth to the whole world that the world may be converted to the Gospel and so be saved, to the glory of God."

To Catholics he makes it a commandment:

"This sacred Synod exhorts all the Catholic faithful to recognize the signs of the times and to participate actively in the work of ecumenism.--- as the duty of the Christian"

Jesus himself, at the hour of his Passion, prayed "that they may all be one." Quoting from Jn. 17:21, "to desire unity means to desire the Church." Regarding sins against charity the Holy Father writes:

However, he is not asking anyone to compromise the truth: "The unity willed by God can be attained only by the adherence of all to the content of revealed faith in its entirety. In matters of faith, compromise is in contradiction with God who is truth. In the Body of Christ, the way, the truth, and the life." Jn 14-6 Who could consider legitimate a reconciliation brought about at the expense of the truth. --- Even so, doctrine needs to be presented in a way that makes it understandable to those for whom God himself intends it."

Remembering his home country he states:

"Cyril and Methodius (who brought Christ to Poland) wanted the one word of God to be made accessible in each civilization's own forms of expression. --- It is necessary to pass from antagonism and conflict to a situation where each party recognizes the other as a partner. When undertaking dialogue, each side must presuppose in the other a desire for reconciliation, for unity in truth."

Then the Holy Father lays down the solution to the problems: "Dialogue has not only been undertaken; it has become an outright necessity, one of the Church's priorities. --- the quest for Christian unity is not a matter of choice or expediency, but a duty which springs from the very nature of the Christian community."

"If such dialogue does not become an examination of conscience, a kind of "dialogue of consciences" can we count on the assurance which the First Letter of John gives us? (1 John 2-1)

Christian unity is possible, provided that we are humbly conscious of having sinned against unity and are convinced of our need for conversion."

Ecumenical dialogue becomes conversion dialogue and then salvation dialogue. Dialogue = comparing differing points of view = examining those disagreements that hinder full communion between Christians."

In some cases, "with regard to doctrinal formulations which differ from those normally in use in the community to which one belongs, it is certainly right to determine whether the words involved say the same thing."

"The Lord has made it possible for Christians in our day to reduce the number of matters traditionally in dispute.--- legitimate diversity is in no way opposed to the Church's unity."

He lays out the areas that need dialogue:

1: "the relationship between Sacred Scripture (as the highest authority in matters of faith) and Sacred Tradition (as indispensable to the interpretation of the Word of God."

2: "the Eucharist, as the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, an offering of praise to the Father, the sacrificial memorial and Real Presence of Christ and the sanctifying outpouring of the Holy Spirit."

3: "Ordination, as a Sacrament, to the threefold ministry of the episcopate, presbyterate and diaconate."

4: "the Magisterium of the Church, entrusted to the Pope, and the Bishops in communion with him, understood as a responsibility and an authority exercised in the name of Christ for teaching and safeguarding the faith."

5: "the Virgin Mary, as Mother of God and Icon of the Church, the spiritual Mother who intercedes for Christ's disciples and for all humanity.--- The obligation to respect the truth is absolute. Is this not the law of the Gospel?"

And finally, this most important of all reasons for divisions, the Holy Father states: "The Pope of Rome … constitutes a difficulty for most other Christians, whose memory is marked by certain painful recollection. To the extent that we are responsible for these, I join my Predecessor Paul VI in asking forgiveness.

"It is nonetheless significant and encouraging that the question of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome has now become a subject of study which is already under way or will be in the near future. In heeding the request made of me to find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation. For a whole millennium Christians were united in a brotherly fraternal communion of faith and sacramental life --- if disagreements in belief and discipline arose among them, the Roman See acted by common consent as moderator."

Then he speaks of the damage caused by these divisions: "It is obvious that the lack of unity among Christians contradicts the Truth which Christians have the mission to spread and, consequently, it gravely damages their witness. How indeed can we proclaim the Gospel of reconciliation without at the same time being committed to working for reconciliation between Christians? However true it is that the Church, by the prompting of the Holy Spirit and with the promise of indefectibility, has preached and still preaches the Gospel to all nations, it is also true that she must face the difficulties which derive from the lack of unity. When non-believers meet missionaries who do not agree among themselves, even though they all appeal to Christ, will they be in a position to receive the true message? Will they not think that the Gospel is a cause of divisions." Unquote.

When I read those words I think of Ghandi, who said of Christians, "If you Christians lived that faith you preach, I would have become a Christian." My God! Think about it. There are 700,000,000 people in India who worship every word Ghandi spoke. What if we had converted him by our example of unity and love?

St. Chrysostom in his homily on Ephesians said: "Nothing will so avail to divide the Church as love of power. Nothing so provokes God's anger as the division of the Church. Yea, though we have achieved ten thousand glorious acts, yet shall we, if we cut to pieces the fullness of the Church, suffer punishment to less sore than they who mangled His body."

And quoting St. Cyprian, St. Chrysostom said,

"not even the blood of martyrdom can wash out this sin. St. Cyprian said: 'God does not accept the sacrifice of a sewer of disunion, but commands that he depart from the altar so that he may first be reconciled with his brother.’"

St. Cyprian was not without some disagreements with the Roman Bishop, St. Stephen, but he knew well the passage in Matt. 5:23:

For me, (and I think this holds true for all Christians), as long as there are divisions between one Christian and another, and I don't do all I can to reconcile these divisions, I have no right to go to the Altar of My Lord and receive His Body and Blood within me.

As a Catholic, the minute Vatican II described Protestants, Orthodox, Evangelicals, and the rest as separated brethren, I was convicted of Matt. 5:23 and could no longer go to the Altar of Our Lord without making it my commitment for life to work for the reconciliation of all Christians. This is the commandment of God. It is not a suggestion, it is the law of Christ. It is His final prayer on earth, His Will, and therefore, His commandment.

All Christians have an obligation to reconcile these differences or at least try with all their hearts and souls. Maybe it will never happen, but we must at least try. It is the commandment of God.

What if, by our efforts and Our Lady in Heaven's prayers, we did unite all Christians? What a witness to the rest of the world that unity would be. What a witness to the Moslems, the Communists, the Atheists, the Hindus, the Heathens! What a light we would light for Our Lady and Her Son, Our Lord, Jesus Christ, and His Bride, the Church!

Come, light a candle with me. Light a little candle. Put your candle with mine, and maybe, when we have enough candles, we will light the world.

I have been praying together with my separated brothers. In a loving way we entered into public dialogue on the major issues at stake. We have promoted this dialogue on audio tape, video tape, public television, public radio, and in public newspapers.

I am a layman with no theological degree, but in order to get dialogue started I will offer myself as a debater for the Catholic side, with love and charity and an open mind to all points of view, knowing very well the problems and sins of the people of the Catholic Church. I know very well that many people have a dislike for my Church (some of their reasons are very justified and some of their reasons are because of a lack of knowledge).

In order to start a dialogue, I would like to begin with the main point of division between Christians which is not Purgatory, nor The Immaculate Conception, nor Filoque, nor The Millennium, nor Plurus Unum, nor even the concept of Church. The main point of division now and in the past 2000- year history of the Church is very concept "Pope".

1: The Pope & The Scriptures

2: The Pope & The 2nd & 3rd Century

3: The Pope & The 4th & 5th Century

4: The Pope & The First Councils

5: The Pope & The Case of "Constantinople"

6: The Pope & The Fruits of the Churches

7: What Way Could Unity Take Place?

Of course, I will assume everyone knows the commonly used passages from Scripture, so I will only list them, for this will not be my primary Scripture argument.

Lk 22:32 faith not fail

Mt 16:16-17 divine knowledge of divinity

John 10:1-3 Christ door to kingdom - Peter the gatekeeper

Mt 16:18 Peter - Rock - build my church

Mt 16:19 Keys - bind - loose

Mt 3:16, Mk 3:16, Lk 6:14, Mt 10:2, First Jn 21:15-17

Acts 4:1-13, 2:37-41, 5:15, Lk 24:12, Jn 20:6, Mk 16:7, Acts 1:15-22 First Apostle

Acts 5:2-11 First anathema,

Acts 15:7 Opens first Council

Acts 8:14 First to refute heresy

Gal 2:9 commissioned Paul to preach to Gentiles

1 Peter 5:1 shepherds other bishops

2 Peter 3:15 corrects interpretation of Paul's writings

I will center my position on 1 Cor. 10:11. Here Paul teaches "Now all these things happened to them in figure: and they are written for our correction, upon whom the ends of the world are come." What things is Paul talking about?

In 1 Cor.10:5 he quotes Numbers 26:64 and Numbers 14:2 and how the Jews murmured against Moses and Aaron and said, "Let us appoint a captain, and let us return to Egypt. As a result, they spent a generation in the wilderness until all died except those who trusted Moses.

In 1 Cor. 10:7 Paul quotes Exodus 32:6 where the people made a golden calf, and 23,000 were slain that day.

In 1 Cor. 10:8 Paul quotes Numbers 21:5-6 where they murmured against the manna from heaven, and God sent serpents among them and thousands died.

In 1 Cor. 10:10 Paul quotes from Numbers 11:1 again where the people murmured against Moses because of no food.

Paul goes on in Chapter 10 to show how the manna that the Jews murmured against was symbolic of the real thing, the Body and Blood of Christ. Then he teaches the Corinthians about the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Church, in the following chapter.

Finally in 1 Cor. 12:12 "For as the body is one, and has many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body, so also is Christ. For in one Spirit were we all baptized into one body, whether bond or free; and in one Spirit we have all been made to drink. For the body also is not one member, but many. If the foot should say, because I am not the hand, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? And if the ear should say, because I am not the eye, I am not of the body; is it therefore not of the body? If the whole body were the eye, where would be the hearing? If the whole body were the ear, where would be the smelling? But now God has set the members every one of them in the body as it has pleased Him."

What am I getting at here? This is not the only place in the Bible we find that the entire Old Testament, or Old Covenant, is symbolic or the shadow of the New Testament, or New Covenant. We also find it in Hebrews, the Gospels, and in Peter’s Second Epistle.

What kind of Old Testament, Old Covenant, Old Kingdom, Old Church did God set up to be the shadow of the things to come? Well! First of all, it was a kingdom of sojourners towards the promised land. Their (so-called) promised land was a kingdom within a kingdom of devils. Never did they ever completely remove the Cananites from Palestine. Second, it was a kingdom that was fed with manna from heaven and water from a moving rock. It was a kingdom with only one ruler, not a council, and when anyone murmured against this one ruler, God became very angry. It was a kingdom with priests, who were not selected by the people but were selected by Moses himself, and no one could offer sacrifices except the priests. Therefore, when Jerusalem and the last of the Levitical Priests were destroyed in 70 AD, all sacrifices ceased.

It was a kingdom with written law, The Torah, but it was Moses and, after him, Joshua, that led the people and explained the meaning of the Torah. Some of the Torah laws were written by Moses without a direct revelation from God. (Exodus 18: 23-24) Moses and Joshua did not do this with the power of an army but with the power of the Holy Spirit.

The next thing that may very well be a shadow of the things to come is in Exodus 4:14 where Aaron became the spokesman of Moses. After the Judges, Kings led the people, but always a single leader, and always a single high priest to offer the sacrifice in the Holy of Holies which made all other sacrifices throughout the land legitimate.

The question then becomes, if the new covenant in Christ's Blood, the Kingdom of God, is what the old Kingdom was only a shadow of, what kind of leadership did they have?

To understand what Christ meant when He said, "Upon this rock I will build My Church" is to understand everything about the entire Bible. The Church is the House of God, the Gate of Heaven, Jacob's ladder, (Genesis 28:12-17); the Church is God's Kingdom (Daniel 2:44) ; Christ's Church is universal or Catholic (Psalms 21:28, Micheas 5:4, Aggeus 2:8, Zach 2:4, Rev 5:10, Heb 12:22, Rev 7:9). Christ's Church is the Kingdom of Heaven on earth as shown by the parables in Matthew:13, 18, 19, and 20. Christ describes His Kingdom as a mystery in 13:11 and with good seed and bad seed in 13:24-30, and like a mustard seed that must grow in 13:31, and not without scandals in it in 13:41, but nonetheless like a great treasure worth everything you have to be a member of, and in 13:47 like a net full of good fish and bad fish. Christ describes His Kingdom as containing some things from the old law and some things new in Matt 13:52; and in Matt 20 He testifies that His Kingdom will not do away with the old law but complete it. In Matt 21:43 He calls the Jewish nation "a Kingdom" when he tells them that He will take their Kingdom away and give it to the Gentiles.

This Kingdom came into the world when Christ entered the womb of Mary because wherever the King is, there is the kingdom, and Christ said in Matt 12:28 that His miracles prove that the Kingdom is already here on earth and was being assaulted by the Jews in Matt 11:11. He was not talking about the Kingdom in the sky, for in John 3:13 he affirmed that no one had ever gone to Heaven. He said that the Kingdom was now. (Matt 3:2 and 4:17) and that it would last all days even to the end of the world. (Matt 28:20)

We (the Catholic Church) are that Kingdom of Christ because we have the King here with us in His Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in all the Tabernacles around the World, Rev. 21:3 "Behold the tabernacle of God with men" and in Zach 2:11, "I will dwell in the midst of thee."

This Church is the Way (Gen 3:24) to the Tree of Life [the Body and Blood of Christ] that will allow us to live forever. Gen. 3:22 and John 6:52 being the only two places in all of Scripture that we find the words "live forever". Christ's Church has Priests in it (Rev 1:6) "made us to be a kingdom, and priests to God His Father. Priests are those who offer a sacrifice on an altar. There is no other reason for priests. Christ's Kingdom is not in the future as some Protestants say. (Col. 4:11) "These only are my helpers in the kingdom of God." It is all days from that time until the end. It is God's family. (Acts 7:42, Heb. 3:2-6, 1 Peter 2:5) It is God's family because we have Christ's real blood running through our veins making us one body with Christ. (Rom. 12:5, Eph. 1:23), just as a husband and wife become one flesh, Christ refers to His People as His Body, (Acts 9:4 "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?") or as His Bride, (Eph 31-all, Rev 19:7, Eph 5:21, Eph 5:24, Eph 29-all).

It is not only a spiritual Kingdom but also a visible Kingdom (Luke 22:29), with deacons (Acts 6:6), and Priests (Titus 1:3, 1 Tim 5:17, Acts 14:22) and bishops (Acts 20:28, Titus 1:7). And last, but not least, we come to His kingdom having a cornerstone, Peter, to hold the faith together, (Matt 16:18-19) who will be the gatekeeper, (John 10:1-3) as Christ is the Gate and as Christ is the head of the cornerstone (1 Peter 2:7, Ps 117:22, Isa 8:14, Acts 4:11).

How then is it possible that Peter, the rock, (Matt 16:18) with the power to bind and loose and the power to forgive or not to forgive can sometimes be a very bad person, even a devil? Look at the passage right after that, in Matt 16:23, "Get behind me Satan." When Christ told Peter in Luke 22:32 "I have prayed for you, that your faith will not fail", something He did not say of any other person in all of Scripture, this did not guarantee that he would always be a good person, for again, as an example to our thinking, within two paragraphs Christ tells Peter that he will deny Him three times.

What then are we to say about bad Popes? We say that even bad Popes will not lose the True Faith. They might lose their souls into Hell for ever and ever, but they will not lose the true faith. That is hard for Protestants to understand because they think that all they have to do is have faith to get into heaven.

The two Bible quotes above show without any doubt that Christ gave to Peter the power of the keys and that his faith would not fail, but this was no guarantee that he, himself, would be saved. This is why the Church teaches that in matters of faith, Peter's faith cannot fail, but in other matters: Church rules and regulations, which we must also obey, the Pope is just as fallible as I am.

Matt 23:2-3 states that they have sat on the chair of Moses. "All things therefore whatsoever they say to you, observe and do, but according to their works do not, for they say and do not".

He does not speak with infallible words except in matters of faith, which includes morals. He is the spokesman for Christ on earth, and Christ's power cannot be limited to the sanctity of any individual man.

The best example of this is in the year 536 AD. Pope Agapetus went to Constantinople to ask the Emperor Justinian not to attack Italy. A priest named Vigilius went with the Pope. The Emperor's wife believed in the monophysite heretics of whom the Bishop Anthimius of Constantinople was one. Agapetus realized Anthimius, the bishop of Constantinople, was a heretic and excommunicated him immediately. Almost as instantly, Pope Agapetus mysteriously died.

Before returning to Rome, Vigilius met with Theodora, and received from her the promise of the papacy if he would help her. That Vigilius and Theodora were behind the death of Pope Agapetus is not argued by anyone. But instead, Silverius was elected Pope. Queen Theodora demanded of Silverius the restoration of Anthimius as the Bishop of Constantinople but Silverius refused.

Pope Silverius was sent into exile and Vigilius was declared Pope by the army and therefore became an anti-pope. By 538 Silverius died of starvation and Vigilius was recognized as Pope because the clergy of Rome feared that anyone else would die like Silverius.

However, the minute Vigilius (the man who helped in the death of a Pope and the man who helped exile the next Pope) had hands laid on him giving him Christ's power of faith, he too refused to approve the heresy. And in answer to Theodora's threats he said,

He spent ten years in prison and finally died without giving in to the Emperor.

I will agree that popes and bishops can and have done many bad things. Consider, though, what Christ said to his disciples,

"The Scribes and the Pharisees sat on the chair of Moses. All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do; but according to their works, do not do, for they say, and do not." Matt 23:1-3 And again "He who hears you, hears me." Luke 10:16 or "Obey your prelates, and be subject to them. For they watch, as being to render an account of your souls." Heb. 13:17

We, therefore, must be obedient to all in authority in all things except sin. It is not wrong for me to reprimand even a Pope if his actions are wrong, as Paul did to Peter, but then to test the truth of his preaching (his faith) he went to Peter to have it approved or rejected, "Lest I run in vain." (Gal. 2:2)

This idea of the power of the office and not the man is best shown in the dispute between St. Cyprian and St. Pope Stephen.

In the third century the holy martyr, St. Cyprian, contended (against the holy martyr, Pope Stephen of Rome) that schismatic and heretical bishops and priests could not give an authentic baptism. Pope Stephen held firm that even heretical bishops and priests gave authentic sacraments provided only that they maintained Apostolic Succession, since it is Christ and not the priest who administers the Sacraments. Saint Cyprian had seven councils and as many as 380 bishops agreeing with his position.

Pope Stephen had to excommunicate St. Cyprian and over 90 other bishops before they agreed with his conclusion and reconciled themselves with the Church.

Why was this so important that a Pope had to excommunicate a saint? What is Apostolic Succession? Does Pope St. Stephen's position come from the Bible?

Because the gifts of the Holy Spirit do not depend on the grace inside a man. The gifts of the Holy Spirit are listed in 1 Corinthians 12:29-31 and are not the fruits of the Holy Spirit as listed in Galatians 5:22-23. Gifts are gifts and do not depend on the cooperation from man. Solomon received the gift of wisdom and never lost it in his entire life, in spite of the fact that he became a very sinful man. Judas Iscariot received the power of the Holy Spirit to cast out demons ( Matt. 10:4 ) but he himself had a devil. Simon Magus (Acts 8:13) became a Christian but was a type of antichrist. Regarding the gift of prophesy, the Bible records an ass, demons, and the high priest Caiphas prophesying properly. ( John 18:14 )

The gifts of the Holy Spirit are the works of Christ. The gifts of the Sacraments - Baptism, Marriage, Holy Orders, Receiving of the Holy Spirit, Forgiveness of Sins, Anointing of the Sick, the Changing of Bread and Wine into the Real Body, Soul, and Divinity of Christ - are the works of Christ through the hands of the priest. See John 4:1, "Jesus made more disciples and baptized more than John (though Jesus himself did not baptize, but his disciples)." It was Jesus who baptized (John 1:33), not the disciples, but it was the disciples’ hands.

A priest is a priest if a bishop imposes his hands upon him. A bishop is a bishop if a bishop (who has a direct line back to the Apostles ) imposes his hands upon him. This is Apostolic Succession as shown in Acts 13:3 and 1 Tim 4:14.

These priests and bishops have the power of Christ in their hands even if they have lost their faith.

The Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth because Christ prayed that his faith would not fail, which he did not do for any other Apostle. Peter, himself, set up the three "Unity" Ecumenical Sees, that all other bishops looked to: Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome. History has shown that the bishops of all these Sees except Rome have had heretical bishops at one time or another. Nevertheless, the reason they were Ecumenical Sees is that Peter founded them.

Let it be noted that Pope Honorius was condemned for holding one of the heretical views of Monothelitism, but this is not what happened at all. Honorius wrote a private letter in which he seemed to hold this view. He made no decision on this view. He cannot be held guilty for not making a decision. In fact, he wanted the issue left unsettled for the time being so that peace in the Church could be restored. Vigilius and Liberius are victums of the same circumstance, guilty for not making a decision.

If Peter's faith would not fail, how do we know that the bishops of Rome are the successors of Peter and that their faith will not fail either? Why did Peter go to Rome since he called it Babylon in 1st Peter? Why was Paul never a Bishop of Rome and yet he went there first and died with Peter? Why were the first 70 Bishops of Rome martyred for the faith and yet they still would not leave Rome?

The answer to these questions is that all of them knew the prophesy of Daniel 2:34 and that the fourth kingdom mentioned was Rome. The stone cut out of a mountain without hands was Christ. The stone would strike the fourth kingdom (Rome) and break it to pieces, and then Christ's kingdom would fill the entire earth (Daniel 2:35- Daniel 2:44) and last forever. They also knew that they would accomplish this by the conversion of the Emperor and not by force, because that is how God saved his people from the first three kingdoms; Babylonian, Persian, and Grecian. All of these Emperors were converted.

Understand that, when John wrote Apocalypse or Revelation, he had not yet written his Gospel. Four Christian heresies already existed: Nicolaites (mentioned in Revelation 2:6) claimed direct so-called knowledge from God, Valentinians claimed that God passed through Mary and did not take from her anything, Cerinthus claimed that the Kingdom of God would come in the future based on John's Revelation, and Marcion, the Gnostic, claimed all kinds of other gods.

John wrote his Gospel near the end of his life in order to refute these heresies, and (in fact) called Cerinthus a devil. Consider that he wrote this Gospel after he wrote Revelation and after the fall of Jerusalem, but wrote Revelation before the fall of Jerusalem.

We, in the Catholic Church, are in the Heavenly Kingdom now, not in the future, and we are now in the company of thousands of angels. "But you are come to Mount Sion, and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to the company of many thousands of angels." (Heb.12:22)

Anti-Catholics’ best attempt to attack the Bride of Christ is in Revelation 17 in which they interpret the seven mountains (Rev 17:9) as the seven hills of Rome. But inadvertently they are right about the beast being Rome, although the seven hills are the seven kings of Rome during the period that Chapter 17 is prophesying (4BC to 70 AD). To understand this chapter, you must understand that John saw and wrote Revelation in 67 AD, three years before the destruction of Jerusalem. The Jews used the Romans to persecute the Christians (Rev 17:6), therefore the harlot (Jerusalem) rides on the back of the beast (the Roman empire) to kill the saints and martyrs.

Then you will see that the beast will hate the harlot and turn on her. (Destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, Rev 17:16 and Ezechiel 4-5-6) The Christians will convert the beast. (Constantine the Great, Rev 17:14) Read 18:4 "Go out from her my people, that you may not share in her sins, and that you may not receive of her plagues." (Also in Ezechiel 9:4)

And thus the Christians were warned to leave Jerusalem before 70 AD, and they all fled to the coast's imperial city. Jerusalem was totally destroyed because "in her was found blood of the prophets and of saints." (Rev 18:24)

This is not to say that Revelation does not have a double meaning, for all the prophets say that the Antichrist will come and rebuild the Temple of Jerusalem and sit in it claiming to be the Christ. He will sit on the Dome of the Rock, the Holy of Holies where the Temple of Solomon was, on Latitude - Longitude 666, --- not in Rome.

The best Bible description of the Second Coming of Christ and the Antichrist is by St. Hippolytus in the second century, and he was taught by St. Irenaeus, who was taught by St. Polycarp, who was taught by St. John.

God gave us a Church, made us sons of God (Rom 9:26), and told us to obey the Church (Matt 18:17). The Church gave us the Bible to prove the teachings of the Church (Luke 1:4) "That you may know the certainty of the words which you have been instructed" by the Church.

If then the Church is the guardian of the truth, and not the individual who reads the Bible, as Martin Luther claimed, then the Church and only the Church has the right to say what the Bible means, and this interpretation of Scripture must be universal (Catholic) in time (2000 years) and space (worldwide).

It has been. Never in the two-thousand- year history of the Church has she ever changed any interpretation of Scripture, nor has she added or taken away anything. She has held fast to the prayer of Christ at the Last Supper (John 17:21) "That they all may be one." There is only one Church on earth with the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven because to get into Heaven in the sky you must enter the Gate (Christ) on Earth first, with Peter the Gatekeeper.

It is the Church who has the right to interpret because the Church is the universal faith of two thousand years of martyrs, saints, monks, virgins, priests, bishops and popes with only one faith that has never changed.

The Church is like a net cast into the sea of people - full of good fish and bad fish, but the fisherman is Peter who is guided by Christ. So do not blame the net for the actions of the fish. It is the Body of Christ. It is the Bride of Christ. It is the great treasure that is worth all that you own, even your life to belong to.

Before I appeal to tradition, let us look again at Sola Scriptoria. How do you know that Mark, Luke, Matthew, John, Peter, Jude, and James wrote their books? The Bible does not say they wrote them. Did Christ say, Matt 28:18 "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me, go therefore and write books and give them to all nations."

No! He did not say that. In fact, nowhere in Scripture did Christ write anything that could be read in the future and nowhere did He tell his followers to write. He told them to make disciples of all nations and these disciples wrote some of the books and these disciples decided to put together a Bible. Why is it that nine of the Apostles never put any of their writings in the Bible? Some of these disciples, however, who never saw Christ but knew the Apostles did write in the Bible: Luke, Mark; some who saw Christ and the Apostles wrote but it was not included in the Bible: Polycarp, Barnabas; some knew the Apostles and wrote but never saw Christ: Hermas, Justin Martyr, Philo, Clement of Rome, Papias, and Quadriatus.

Why were some of the disciples who never saw Christ placed in the Canonical Books, but others who saw Christ or who were even Apostles not placed in the Canonical Books? The Bible comes from the living Church, the Church does not come from the Bible, therefore even Protestants appeal to tradition.

In tradition we have what the followers of the Apostles believed and what they taught, especially what they taught regarding the interpretation of the Scriptures. This is especially important for they were taught by the Apostles themselves.

Who, then, do we have in the second century after the last Apostle died who left us anything in writing? First of all, we have Historical writings from St. Jerome, who lists all the writings that he personally had read in the Fifth Century to help him compose the First Complete Bibles. He first lists the nine writers of the New Testament and then lists Sts. Hermas, Philo Judaeus, Lucius Annaeus Seneca, Josephus, Justin of Tiberias, Clemens of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, Quadratus, Aristides the philosopher, and Agrippa Castor as writers that lived in at least part of the First Century and, in most cases, knew one or more of the Apostles.

In the Second Century he lists Sts. Hegesippus the historian, Justin the Philosopher, Melito the Bishop, Theophilus the Bishop, Apollinaris the Bishop, Dionysius the Bishop, Pinytus the Bishop, Tatian the Heresiarch, Phillip the Bishop, Musanus, Modestus, Bardesanes, Victor the Bishop, Irenaeus the Bishop, Pantaenus the Philosopher, Rhodo, Clemens the priest, Miltiades, Apollonius, Serapion, Apollonius the senator, Theophilus, Gaccylus, Polycrates, Heraclitur, Maximus, Candidus, Appion, Sextus, Araboamis, Judas and Tertullian the priest.

Now! Don't be frightened. I'm not going to quote from all these writers. Many of their writings do not exist anymore anyway, but this is a good reason to trust Sts. Jerome and Augustine (who we will talk about later) who did have access to all these writings.

We must reject some of the writings that existed at the time as being frauds, such as the Acts of Peter, the Gospel of Peter, Peter's Revelation, Peter's Judgment, etc.

Then we must consider what writings are appropriate to our subject, the Pope of Rome and the Catholic Church.

Many Eastern Catholics believed that the Book of Hermas called the "Pastor" should have been part of the Bible. In fact, a Bible recently found in a monastery at the foot of Mt. Sinai has it in it.

St. Philo may have written the most of the early writers but almost all is lost. He was an Alexandrian Jew who followed Mark, the Evangelist, and is often compared to Plato in logical genius.

Josephus was the son of Matthias, priest of Jerusalem and historian for the Emperors. His writings are invaluable to historians, since he was not a Christian, not a real Roman, and not a real Jew. He will be mostly known for his description of the destruction of Jerusalem.

Clement, the  Bishop of Rome, and companion of Peter for many years, wrote to the Church of the Corinthians which for many years was considered part of the Bible.

Ignatius of Antioch, third after Peter, wrote to the Ephesians, the Romans, the Smyrneans, and to Polycarp on his way to the wild beasts at Rome.

Polycarp, the disciple of the Apostle John and first Bishop of Smyrna, was the chief bishop of all Asia. He wrote to the Philippians on his march to the lions of Rome.

Papias, the student of John, the Apostle, wrote five volumes on the words of Christ.

Justin, the philosopher, wrote to two Emperors of Rome and the Senate. Martyred in 167 AD.

Victor, Bishop of Rome, in 190 wrote on the Paschal Controversy.

Irenaeus of Lyons, and disciple of Polycarp, wrote five books.

Clements of Alexandria, dean of the school of Alexandria and teacher of Origen, wrote volumes on Scripture.

From all of these writings we find very little in the end of the first century and the second century that help us in our subject, the Pope of Rome. What we do find is in favor of the position that the Pope of Rome is the head of the entire Church of the World. We find nothing that contradicts this. What I want to address, though, is why so little is said.

First of all, if you read all these writings they are all in answer to questions and controversies. Since, in those days, all they knew were kings, emperors, and high priests, it was only the natural thing to have a single head of the Church. If there was no single head of the Church, would not someone ask, why not? If they did not ask, "why not?" It must be assumed that they knew who it was and accepted it without question or controversy.

Next, history tells us that the Jews and Romans were trying to exterminate all Christians, especially the leaders. It is known that the Romans would have done anything to capture Polycarp since he was the spiritual leader of all the world. All the Bishops of Rome were martyred in the first three centuries, even though those Christians kept it a top secret that they were the real leaders of the Universal Christian Church.

Now let’s take the writings in hand and look at them. First, let’s look at St. Clement of Rome's epistle to the Corinthians, since it is the oldest letter not in the Bible, and he knew Peter, Mark, Paul, Luke, and Barnabus.

The letter was written about the year 96 AD. John, the Apostle, was still living, since Jerome states that he died 67 years after Christ's ascension or 100 AD. The letter was written from Rome to the Christians at Corinth in Asia in response to a letter written by them asking for his help. "--- turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us." There was an insurrection against the bishop in Corinth. Why did the Christians appeal all the way to Rome for help, why not Ephesus or Antioch or to John, if in fact he was still living, for he founded the Church of Corinth. There is tradition in the Church that they did go to John and he replied, "Go to Rome for these matters."

Clement responds to their request with this warning, "Take care, beloved, that His blessings, numerous as they are, do not turn to our condemnation ---." If he is just a fellow bishop helping a fellow bishop, why should they fear his condemnation? Again Clement states, "But should any disobey what has been said by Him through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in transgression and no small danger."

"By Him, Christ, through Us"? Clement sent representatives - Claudius Ephebus and Valerius Bito and Fortunatur - with this letter to settle the dispute. It is clearly stating here that to disobey these spokesmen of the Pope is to disobey Christ, Himself.

Clement reminds the Corinthians of what happened to Aaron and Miriam for envying the authority of Moses, and goes on to say, "These things, beloved, we write to you, not merely to admonish you of your duty, but to remind ourselves (of our duty)."

And then chapter after chapter he speaks of obedience using the Old Testament saints as examples, and then paraphrases Paul. The head is nothing without the feet, and the feet are nothing without the head --- and are under one common rule for the preservation of the whole body.

Then he ends by saying, "You certainly will give us the keenest pleasure if you prove obedient to what we have written through the Holy Spirit."

Obedient to the Holy Spirit? What more can I say regarding this Letter, only that I have read the explanation of the theologians from the Oxford University and the theologians from the Orthodox regarding this Epistle. Read them all and judge for yourselves.

The next writing I would like to point out is that of Ignatius, written to the Church at Ephesus and their bishop, Onesimus, while he was bound from Syria to the beasts at Rome where he died on December 20, 107 AD. To the Ephesians he exhorted them to be subject to their bishop and those "who are joined to him as the Church is to Jesus Christ, and as Jesus Christ is to the Father, that so all things may agree in UNITY. LET NO MAN DECEIVE HIMSELF; IF ANY ONE BE NOT WITHIN THE ALTAR, HE IS DEPRIVED OF THE BREAD OF GOD. FOR IF THE PRAYER OF ONE OR TWO POSSESSES SUCH POWER, HOW MUCH MORE THAT OF THE BISHOP AND THE WHOLE CHURCH. - FOR HE THAT IS SUBJECT TO THESE IS OBEDIENT TO CHRIST, WHO HAS APPOINTED THEM; BUT HE THAT IS DISOBEDIENT TO THESE IS DISOBEDIENT TO CHRIST JESUS. And again, "We should look upon the bishop even as we would look upon the Lord Himself, standing, as he does, before the Lord." And finally on the same subject he states, "There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is over all, and through all, and in all."

And so, his dying words are for unity of the whole Church, through unity with the local bishop. Later I will show how this is in strict harmony with the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

But I cannot resist adding a statement by Ignatius regarding "Filoque".

"But the Holy Spirit does not speak His own things, but those of Christ, and that not from himself, but from the Lord; even as the Lord also announced to us the things that He received from the Father. For, says He, 'the word which ye hear is not Mine, but the Father's who sent Me.' And He says of Himself to the Father, 'I have glorified You upon the earth; I have finished the work which You gave Me; I have manifested Your name to men.' And of the Holy Spirit, 'He shall glorify me, for He receives of Mine.’"

On this same trip to Rome bound in chains he also writes to the Magnesians, using Soloman, Josiah, and Samuel as examples of those who were spokesmen for God: "They have not mocked you, (Samuel), but Me." And Moses declares, "For their murmuring is not against us, but against the Lord God." Then he uses Dathan, Abiram, Korah, Absalom, Uzziah, and even Saul as examples of what happens to people who did not reverence their superiors.

"Those who indeed talk of the bishop, but do all things without him, will He who is the true and first Bishop, and the only High Priest by nature, declare, 'Why call Me Lord, and do not the things which I say?' --- be subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Christ to the Father, that there may be a unity according to God among you."

Again on the same trip to the lions, he gives the same will and testament to the Trallians about obedience to the bishop, but gives an amazing testimony of himself. "I, though I am bound for Christ, and am able to understand heavenly things, the angelic orders, and the different sorts of angels and hosts, the distinctions between powers and dominions, and the diversities between thrones and authorities, the mightiness of the Eons, and the pre-eminence of the cherubim and seraphim, the sublimity of the spirit, the kingdom of the Lord, and above all, the incomparable majesty of Almighty God.

He then refutes the heresies of Simon Magus, Menager, Basilides, Nicolaitanes, Theodotus and Cleobulus mostly regarding the Body of Christ being truly God.

To the Philadelphians "The Spirit made an announcement to me, saying as follows: Do nothing without the bishop; keep your bodies as the temples of God; love unity; avoid division; be followers of Paul, and the rest of the apostles, even as they also were of Christ."

What Bishop? What Bishop did Paul and the rest of the Apostles do nothing without? What Bishop holds unity, prevents division? What Bishop does the Spirit say to never do anything without his leadership? Arius? Nestorius? Meletius?

To the Smyrnaeans, the Church of his friend, Polycarp, he writes, "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church." And "He who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does serve the devil." And "He who presumes to do anything without the bishop, thus both destroying the Church unity, and throwing its order into confusion."

Ignatius wrote to his friend Polycarp, "It is fitting, O Polycarp, most blessed in God, to assemble a very solemn council, and to elect one who you greatly love" to replace Ignatius at Antioch.

Now to the Church of Rome, which he is about to enter, what advice does he give to them as his last will and testament? None!

"You have never envied anyone; you have taught others, now I desire that those things may be confirmed which in your instructions you have ordered." Ignatius, friend of Polycarp and John, the Apostle, claims that his desire is that the instructions of the Bishop of Rome is confirmed.

"I am the wheat of God, and ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of God." And so he was martyred.

St. Papias, an ancient man, who was a hearer of John and a friend of Polycarp, wrote on the Perpetual Virginity of Mary and the authors of the Gospels.

Polycarp, (my favorite saint) also wrote on his way to the lions at Rome. But he gives no help to our subject since his concerns were false doctrine, especially of one of his priests, Valens.

Now we come to Justin Martyr, the founder of theological philosophy. He spent time learning in Ephesus and in Rome and probably knew many of the above saints. Before converting to Christ he was high up in the Roman Government and a disciple of Socrates and Plato. After his conversion he wrote to the Emperor Titus Augustus Caesar and to the Senate explaining Christianity and how demons have imitated it since Abraham.

In his dialogue with the Jew, Trypho, he shows why the Jews did not recognize Christ because they confused the First and Second Coming of Christ into one event, therefore preparing the way for the Antichrist. He also shows how they corrupted the Scriptures after the seventy elders translated the Scriptures into Greek for King Ptolemy of the Egyptians. He then tells the Jew how Malachi's prophecy is fulfilled in the Eucharist.

In his "First Book Against Heresies" he states: "The Church having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points of doctrine just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth: in Germany, Spain, Gaul, the East, Egypt, Libya, and in the central regions of the world, Palestine."

"BY INDICATING THAT TRADITION DERIVED FROM THE APOSTLES, OF THE VERY GREAT, THE VERY ANCIENT, AND UNIVERSALLY KNOWN CHURCH FOUNDED AND ORGANIZED AT ROME BY THE TWO MOST GLORIOUS APOSTLES, PETER AND PAUL; AS ALSO THE FAITH PREACHED TO MEN, WHICH COMES DOWN TO OUR TIME BY MEANS OF THE SUCCESSIONS OF THESE BISHOPS. FOR IT IS A MATTER OF NECESSITY THAT EVERY CHURCH SHOULD AGREE WITH THIS CHURCH, ON ACCOUNT OF ITS PREEMINENT AUTHORITY, THAT IS, THE FAITHFUL EVERYWHERE, INASMUCH AS THE APOSTOLIC TRADITION HAS BEEN PRESERVED CONTINUOUSLY BY THOSE WHO EXIST EVERYWHERE." Irenaeus then lists the Popes from Peter to his time.

Then he states, "By this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us."

"This is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth."

Lest anyone misunderstand Irenaeus, he gives an example that we should all listen to.

"Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?

"For where the Church is, there is the Spirit of God; and where the Spirit of God is; there is the Church, and every kind of grace; but the Spirit is truth." Which means there is no Holy Spirit outside the Church (which we will deal with in Section Six on "Fruits").

"Hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, looking upon them either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics … those who pull asunder, and separate the unity of the Church shall receive from God the same punishment Jeroboam did."

I believe that not only those who caused the divisions in the Church but even those who are complacent or content with them are in danger of punishment.

Everyone should read about the Tower in the Pastor of Hermas to understand how important belonging to the Universal Church is.

Of no small importance to the Second Century were two disputes over the observance of Easter. One was between Polycarp and the Bishop of Rome, Anicetus. Polycarp went to Rome and peace was made between them. The second dispute came between Polycrates of Asia and the Bishop of Rome, Victor. Victor wanted the same as Anicetus, that Easter be observed on the same day throughout the world. When Polycrates and the rest of the Asian Bishops would not listen, he excommunicated all of them. Irenaeus brought peace between the Asian bishops and Rome and peace was kept. However, it must not be forgotten that no one questioned Anicetus' or Victor's right and power to excommunicate bishops anywhere in the world.

After Victor's martyrdom came Pope Zephyrinus ( 210 AD), and in his letter to all the Bishops of Egypt he states:

"So great trust have we received from the Lord, the Founder of this holy seat and of the apostolic church, and from the blessed Peter, chief of the apostles, that we may labor with unwearied affection for the universal Church. --- It has been reported at the seat of the apostles by your delegates that certain of our brethren, bishops to wit, are being expelled from their churches ---"

Then he lays down the law on the rights of bishops. Of interest here is that he called his seat the seat of the Universal Church, and that bishops in Egypt sent letters and delegates to him to solve a problem in Egypt among bishops.

The next Pope is Callistus from 218 to 223 AD. He writes to Bishop Benedictus the following:

"By the love of the brotherhood we are bound, and by our apostolic rule we are constrained, to give answer to the inquiries of the brethren, according to what the Lord has given us, and to furnish them with the authority of the seal of the apostles. --- "

(He then decrees laws on fasting and adds) "For it is not meet for the members to be at variance with the head; but, according to the testimony of sacred Scripture, all the members should follow the head. It is matter of doubt, moreover, to no one, that the church of the apostles is the mother of all the churches, from whose ordinances it is not right that you should deviate to any extent. And as the Son of God came to do the Father's will, so shall ye fulfill the will of your mother, which is the Church, the head of which, as has been stated already, is the church of Rome. Wherefore, whatsoever may be done against the discipline of this church, without the decision of justice, cannot on any account be permitted to be held valid."

He reminds them that a decision under the fear or by the command of a prince cannot be valid. He then states:

"I am mindful that I preside over the Church under the name of him whose confession was honored by our Lord Jesus Christ, and whose faith ever destroys all errors. And I understand that I am not at liberty to act otherwise than to expend all my efforts on that cause in which the well-being of the universal Church is at stake. --- For all things cannot otherwise be safe, unless, as far as pertains to the service of the divine office, sacerdotal authority upholds them."

He then writes a letter to all the bishops of Gaul:

"Supported by our authority, check what is injurious, and prohibit what is unlawful. (He goes on to note that he has heard that people are conspiring against their bishops, and even bishops against bishops and so he lays down the law.) "Let no one, again, trespass upon the boundaries of another --- pass not the ancient landmarks which your fathers have set. Moreover, let no primate or metropolitan invade the church or parish of a diocesan, or presume to excommunicate or judge anyone belonging to his parish, or do anything without his counsel or judgment; but let him observe this law, which has been laid down by the apostles and fathers, and our predecessors, and has been ratified by us: to wit, that if any metropolitan bishop, except in that which pertains to his own proper parish alone, shall attempt to do anything without the counsel and good will of all the provincial bishops, he will do it at the risk of his position, and what he does in this manner shall be held null and void. --- No primate, no metropolitan, nor any of the other bishops, is at liberty to enter the seat of another --- But if he presume to do otherwise, he shall be condemned. --- For if a man has no power to appoint, how shall he judge. --- And those who hold this opinion are not only in error, but also seem to dispute and act in opposition to the power of the keys committed to the Church, whereof it is said: "Whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven."

Pope Callistus lays down the law that not even a Metropolitan Bishop can cross over into the geographical territory of another bishop, but that he, Callistus, and he alone has the power to judge, since he has the power to appoint the bishops.

The next Pope after Callistus in 224 AD was Pope Urban, and in his letter to all Christians all over the world, he lays down the law regarding the property of the Church and the authority of the bishops and the vow of poverty, and the laying on of hands.

By what right has the Bishop of Rome to lay down the law to all Christians all over the world without even a council? Why did not one bishop dispute this claim?

Well! I guess it was common for the Bishop of Rome to do just that because in 236 AD Pope Fabian again wrote to all the bishops "in all regions" of the whole world.

"Whence it follows that you ought to know what is being done in things sacred in the church of Rome, in order that, by following her example, you may be found to be true children of her who is called your mother." Then he tells them what Rome does regarding deacons, subdeacons and acolytes, tells them to do the same, and adds, "whatsoever things are written in truth in our times, are directed to the learning of future times." Fabian then writes regarding a heretic who came out of Africa condemning the teachings of bishops, and warns all the world about him. "Hence by apostolic authority, and in agreement with all the sons of the same apostolic and universal Church, we resolve that all who come under suspicion with respect to the Catholic faith cannot be admitted as accusers of those who hold the true creed."

"Whence also the blessed chief of the apostles, Peter, addressing the people at the ordination of Clement, says this among other things: 'If this Clement is hostile to any one on account of his deeds, wait not for his saying directly to you, be not on terms of friendship with his enemy. But mark carefully his will as you ought to, and second it without need of direct injunction; and separate yourselves from that man to whom you perceive him to be inimical, and speak not with those with whom he speaks not, in order that every one who may be in fault, as he desires to possess the friendship of all of you, may be zealous in effecting a reconciliation all the more quickly with him who presides over all, so that he may return to spiritual well-being hereby, when he begins to yield obedience to the charges of the president.

If, however, any one is not friendly (with Clement), and speaks with those with whom his chief speaks not, such a one belongs to those who seek to exterminate the Church of God; and though he seems to be with you in body, he is against you in mind and heart. And such a one is a much more dangerous enemy than those who are outside, and who are openly hostile. For this man under the guise of friendship acts the part of an enemy, and scatters and ruins the church. And therefore, dearly beloved, in these apostolic institutes we warn and teach you, that your charity, being instructed here, may hereafter study to act with greater care and prudence."

Let me repeat this. Pope Fabian, in the year 236 AD, the year of his ordination, quotes Peter at the ordination of St. Clement and in Peter's own words calls him the president who presides over all. But if you are continuous about this, since the list of Popes of Rome does not place Clement after Peter, listen to the words of Rufinus written in about 395 AD.

"There is a letter in which this same Clement writing to James, the Lord's brother, gives an account of the death of Peter, and says that he has left him as his successor, as ruler and teacher of the Church; and further incorporates a whole scheme of ecclesiastical government. This I have not prefixed to the work, both because it has been previously translated and published by me. Nevertheless, there is a point which would perhaps seem inconsistent with facts were I to place the translation of it in this work, but which I do not consider to involve an impossibility. It is this:

"Linus and Cletus were Bishops of the city of Rome before Clement. How, then, some men ask, can Clement in his letter to James say that Peter passed over to him his position as a church teacher? The explanation of this point, as I understand, is as follows.

"Linus and Cletus were, no doubt, Bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but this was in Peter's lifetime; that is, they took charge of the Episcopal work, while he discharged the duties of the apostolate. He is known to have done the same thing at Caesarea; for there, though he was himself on the spot, yet he had at his side Zacchaeus whom he had ordained as Bishop. Thus we may see how both things may be true; namely how they stand as predecessors of Clement in the list of Bishops, and yet how Clement after the death of Peter became his successor in the teacher's chair. But it is time that we should pay attention to the beginning of Clement's own narrative, which he addresses to James, the Lord's brother."

There are also those who believe that both Linus and Cletus died before Peter died and therefore Clement filled a vacant seat by direct order of Peter just before his martyrdom; and there are others who believe that Linus and Cletus were only coadjutors of the Apostle during his lifetime, and that Clement was the only and second Bishop of Rome. But let us get on with Pope Fabian in 236 AD.

"Fabian, bishop of the city of Rome, to all the bishops of the East, and to the whole body of the faithful --- Your love for the seat of the apostles requires counsels which we neither can nor ought to deny you." The bishops of the East wanted to know if it was allowed by the Church to adopt a different practice to prepare the chrism at the Lord's Supper every year, which some bishops were doing and Fabian said they were in error. The next question the bishops wanted a decision on was the method of accusing priests or bishops of wrong doings, and he answers:

"In like manner we decree and ordain by apostolic authority, that the flock should not dare to bring a charge against their pastor, to whose care they had been consigned, unless he falls into error in the faith. --- if a bishop should happen to err from the faith, he should in the first place be corrected privately by those placed under him. And if he show himself incorrigible (which may God forbid), then an accusation should be laid against him before his primates, or before the seat of the apostles."

In a third letter to Bishop Hilary he decrees, resolves, prohibits, and then adds that all bishops who are accused by other bishops shall have the right of appeal. Appeal to whom?

"It is determined, moreover, that, in the case of an accused bishop appealing to the seat of the apostles, that should be held to be settlement which is the decision of the pontiff of that seat."

In the third and fourth centuries so much happens that it should be a book in itself. Some peace came to the Christians at the turn of the Century. Origen began to teach at Alexandria. Narcissus became known throughout the world for his miracles. Philip, the Christian, became the Roman Emperor. Then Decius became Emperor and started the persecutions all over again.

A priest named Novatus started the heresy called Cathari and was excommunicated by Cornelius, Bishop of Rome.

Cyprian of Carthage held a council in 255 and by unanimous consent of almost 200 Bishops declared that heretics coming back to the Church must be re-baptized. Stephen became Bishop of Rome in 254, and receiving the report of the Council of Carthage, had his own Council in Rome and reported to Cyprian that the baptism of heretics was valid if done with water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Cyprian again had a council, in fact, three. All bishops in the East agreed with Cyprian. But Stephen would not budge and Cyprian would not budge. Finally Stephen excommunicated Cyprian and all the bishops with him.

Dionysius wrote letters to everyone of any importance and in the end peace was restored, and to this day converts do not have to be re-baptized. Both Stephen and Cyprian were martyred and are considered by all churches as saints.

The fact is that, in spite of all the bishops of the Eastern and African world wanting one thing and the Bishop of Rome holding firm, Rome not only prevailed but proved correct in the long run, since it is not the state of the soul of a man that makes a sacrament work, but the inward work of Christ in the outward signs of the sacrament.

In his defense, St. Cyprian had received a miraculous Baptism in which he went from a great lover of drink and money to a complete saint overnight. He also had defended the Bishop of Rome when a false bishop tried to take over. In his letter to Pope Cornelius he states in part:

"Our fellow-bishops, who were present at your ordination, in order that, when they came and reported the truth of the matter --- [Why would the Bishop of Carthage send bishops to the ordination of a Bishop of Rome?] --- be aware that it is impiety to forsake their Mother; and to acknowledge and understand that when a bishop is made and approved by the testimony and judgment of his colleagues and the people, another can by no means be appointed. Thus, if they consult their own interest peaceably and faithfully, if they confess themselves to be maintainers of the Gospel of Christ, they must return to the Church."

This letter by St. Cyprian will become important in our review of the first Councils.

St. Cyprian of Carthage loved and believed in the unity of the Church more than any single belief on his part, so he made peace and wrote:

"But if anyone considers those things carefully, he will need no long discourse or arguments. The proof is simple and convincing, being summed up in a matter of fact. The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you, that you art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not overcome it. I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And what you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.'

"It is on one man that He builds the Church, and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles after His resurrection, saying: 'As the Father sent Me, I also send you … Receive the Holy Spirit: if you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven him; but if you retain any man's sins, they shall be retained' yet, in order that the oneness might be unmistakable, He established by His own authority a source for that oneness having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the other Apostles were all that Peter was, endowed with equal dignity and power, but the start comes from him alone, in order to show that the Church of Christ is unique. Indeed this oneness of the Church is figured in the Canticle of Canticles when the Holy Spirit speaking in Our Lord's name, says: One is my dove, my perfect one: to her mother she is the only one, the darling of her womb.' If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of the Church, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the Church, has he still confidence that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul gives us this very teaching and points to the mystery of Oneness, saying: One body and one Spirit, one hope of you calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God?

"Now this oneness we must hold to firmly and insist on ---especially we who are bishops and exercise authority in the Church ---so as to demonstrate that the Episcopal power is one and undivided too. Let none mislead the brethren with a lie, let none corrupt the true content of the faith by a faithless perversion of the truth. The authority of the bishops forms a unity, of which each holds his part in its totality, and the Church forms a unity, however far she spreads and multiplies by the progeny of her fecundity; just as the sun's rays are many, yet the strength deriving from its sturdy root is one. So too, though many streams flow from a single spring, though its multiplicity seems scattered abroad by the copiousness of its welling waters, yet their oneness abides by reason of their starting point. Cut off one of the sun's rays --- the unity of that body permits no such division of its light; break off a branch from the tree, it can bud no more; dam off a stream from its source, it dries up below the cut. So too, Our Lord's Church is radiant with light and pours her rays over the whole world; but it is one and the same light which is spread everywhere, and the unity of her body suffers no division. --- The spouse of Christ cannot be defiled. She in inviolate and chaste; she knows one home alone; in all modesty she keeps faithfully to one only couch. It is she who rescues us for God, she who seals for the kingdom the sons whom she has borne. Whoever breaks with the Church and enters on an adulterous union cuts himself off from the promises made to the Church; and he who has turned his back on the Church of Christ shall not come to the rewards of Christ: he is an alien, a worlding, an enemy. YOU CANNOT HAVE GOD FOR YOUR FATHER IF YOU HAVE NOT THE CHURCH FOR YOUR MOTHER.

"If there was escape for anyone who was outside the ark of Noe, there is escape too for one who is found to be outside the Church. Our Lord warns us when He says: 'He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.' ---- That man cannot possess the garment of Christ who rends and divides the Church of Christ. ---- Let no one think that good men can leave the Church; it is not the grain that the wind carries away, not the solidly rooted tree that the storm blows down; it is the empty chaff that is swept away by the storm, the weakling trees that are overturned by the blast of the whirlwind. On these men fall the curse and the rod of John the Apostle when he says: 'They went out from us, but they were not of us. For if they had been of us, they would have stayed with us.’

"God is one, and Christ is one, and His Church is one; one is the faith, and one the people cemented together by harmony into the strong unity of a body. That unity cannot be split; that one body cannot be divided by any cleavage of its structure, nor cut up in fragments with its vitals torn apart. Nothing that is separated from the parent stock can ever live or breathe apart; all hope of its salvation is lost…"

St. Cyprian

Lactantius (260-330) wrote the Divine Institutes. In them he writes: "It is the Catholic Church alone which retains true worship. This is the fountain of truth, this is the abode of the faith, this is the temple of God; into which if any one shall not enter, or from which if any shall go out, he is estranged from the hope of life and eternal salvation."

The Fourth Century is the century of Councils, and in 325 we have the Council of Nicaea which we will hold until another talk.

St. Gregory the Great, writes: "For Our Lord's prayer must be carried out. It is Jesus Who prayed 'Grant that they may be one in us as I and You are one, Father.' For when God, Who is one, is in each, He makes all one; and number is lost in the indwelling of Unity."

To the Emperor Julian the Apostate, a type of antichrist, Gregory wrote: "I am living, O evil thinker, in the desert in which the Lord lived. Here is the oak of Mamre; here is the ladder going up to heaven, and the stronghold of the angels which Jacob saw; here is the wilderness in which the people purified received the law, and so came into the land of promise and saw God."

Writing to St. Athanasius of Alexandria during the rein of Julian, he complained about Pope Julius of Rome not condemning Marcellus who was just as much in heresy to the right as Arius was to the left.

"It has seemed to me to be desirable to send a letter to the bishop of Rome, begging him to examine our condition, and since there are difficulties in the way of representatives being sent from the West by a general synodical decree, to advise him to exercise his own personal authority in the matter by choosing suitable persons to sustain the labors of a journey, suitable, too, by gentleness and firmness of character, to correct the unruly among us here. --- A point also that is insisted upon by some of those in these parts."

Athanasius was Bishop of Alexandria, Basil was Bishop of Caesarea; then why would they need Rome to correct the unruly among them? Because the followers of Marcellus were saying that "Rome accepts us" and therefore we do not have to listen to bishops of a lower position.

Again to Pope Damascus, Athanasius writes: "What could be more delightful than to behold all, who are separated by distances so vast, bound together by the union effected by love into one harmony of members in Christ's body. Nearly all the East (I include under this name all the regions from Illyricum to Egypt) is being agitated, right honorable father, by a terrible storm and tempest. The old heresy, sown by Arius the enemy of the truth, has now boldly and unblushingly reappeared. Like some sour root, it is producing its deadly fruit and is prevailing. The reason of this is, that in every district the champions of right doctrine have been exiled from their Churches by calumny and outrage, and the control of affairs has been handed over to men who are leading captive the souls of the simpler brethren. I have looked upon the visit of your mercifulness as the only possible solution of our difficulties."

Athanasius goes on to ask Pope Gregory to at least send representatives to see who in the future he should hold communion with.

Now, make any other logic out of this if you can. Julian, the Apostate Emperor, in order to destroy the unity of the Church, was exiling Catholic Bishops and putting Arians in their place. Think about this! Athanasius was bishop of Alexandria and Basil was bishop of Caesarea, both were metropolitan cities, and Alexandria was a Patriarchal See. Why would St. Basil, the Great, need the Pope of Rome as the only possible solution, or if because of the danger involved he could not come, why was it important who he [the Pope] held communion with?

Because everyone knew one thing for sure: where the Pope of Rome is, there is the Catholic Church. It did not matter what the two greatest theologians in their day said, because all the people knew that what Rome said is all that really counted.

Extrapolate something else, but remember, if all bishops are equal, and these two are the greatest minds of their time, why Rome?

Go again to Basil's letter to Count Terentius, where he counts the dangers of the heresies from the right and the left, and then he warns:

"Nevertheless, there is one point which I should like to have pressed on your excellency, that you and all who like you care for the truth, and honor the combatant in the cause of true religion, ought to wait for the lead to be taken in bringing about this union and peace by the foremost authorities in the Church, whom I count as pillars and foundations of the truth and of the Church."

What authorities? What pillars of truth?

In Anthanasius' "Apologia Contra Arianos" he writes: "Eusebius and his fellows wrote also to Julius (Pope of Rome) and thinking to frighten me, requested him to call a council, and to be himself the judge, if he so pleased. When therefore I went to Rome, Julius wrote to Eusebius and his fellows as was suitable, and sent moreover two of his own presbyters, Elpidius and Philoxenus. But they, when they heard of me, were thrown into confusion, as not expecting my going up thither; and they declined the proposed Council, alleging unsatisfactory reasons for so doing, but in truth they were afraid lest the things should be proved against them which Valens and Ursacius afterwards confessed. However, more than fifty Bishops assembled, in the place where the Presbyter Vito held his congregation; and they acknowledged my defense, and gave me the confirmation both of their communion and their love."

If the Pope of Rome was not the last word in matters of who was in communion with, or not in communion with the Church, why would this frighten Anthanasius?

Julius, Pope of Rome, then wrote to the Arians: "Now if you (the Arians) really believe that all Bishops have the same and equal authority and you do not, as you assert, account of them according to the magnitude of their cities; he that is entrusted with a small city ought to abide in the place committed to him, and not from disdain of his trust to remove to one that has never been put under him; despising that which God has given him, and making much of the vain applause of men. --- And all the Bishops of Egypt and Libya wrote and protested that his ordination (Athanasius) was strictly ecclesiastical --- (Athanasius) continued here a year and six months, expecting the arrival of yourselves and of whoever chose to come, and by his presence he put everyone to shame, for he would not have been here, had he not felt confident in his cause; and he came not of his own accord, but on an invitation by letter from us - what canon of the Church, or what Apostolical tradition warrants this, that when a Church was at peace, and so many Bishops were in unanimity with Athanasius as the Bishop of Alexandria, Gregory should be sent thither, a stranger to the city, not having been baptized there, nor known to the general body, and desired neither by priest, nor Bishops, nor Laity - that he should be appointed to Antioch, and sent to Alexandria, accompanied not by priests, nor by deacons of the city, nor by bishops of Egypt, but by soldiers?

"For not only the Bishops Athanasius and Marcellus and their fellows came here and complained of the injustice that had been done to them, but many other Bishops also, from Thrace, from Coele-Syria, from Phoinicia and Palestine, and Priests, not a few, and others from Alexandria and from other parts, were present at the Council here - lately came priests with letters from Egypt and Alexandria, who complained that many Bishops and priests who wished to come to the Council were prevented. - nearly all the Clergy of the Catholic Church with the people are the objects of plots and persecutions.

"And why was nothing said to us concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place.? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place; whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him.

"Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice.

"I beseech you, readily bear with me; what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us."

The Arians believed that all Bishops have the same and equal authority and, yet, not equal to Rome. All the bishops of Egypt and Libya wrote and protested that Athanasius' ordination was strictly ecclesiastical. Why would they write to Rome informing Rome of the proper ordination?

The bishops and priests went to Rome with the problems. Why? "the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place. If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place; For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men."

The custom has always been ,and it has always been manifest to all men, that on these matters the decision is left to Rome and to Rome only. Why should I go on with my argument? Only because there is so very, very much more.

Think about it! The Emperor of the world was on the side of the Arians, and yet they did all this to get the Pope of Rome to be on their side. Why? Why not just use the Emperor as their authority?

The fact is that eventually the Emperor jailed Pope Liberius and Bishop Hosius of Spain. The Arians said, "If we can persuade Liberius, we shall soon prevail over all." They sent an eunuch to Rome with gifts from the Emperor, "The Emperor wishes it, and commands you to do so - obey the Emperor, and receive these." When Liberius refused the gifts, he went to the tomb of Peter and placed the bribes, but Liberius cast out the gifts as an unlawful sacrifice. The Emperor then jailed Liberius.

While Liberius was in prison, a deacon, Felix, was appointed bishop by the Emperor, but no one would even walk into any Church where he was. Finally Liberius was brought back, and the Emperor wanted two bishops to rule the Church conjointly. But the people ridiculed the edict of the Emperor. They all exclaimed with one voice, "One God, one Christ, one bishop." Felix retired to another city.

In the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret written in the Fourth Century, in Chapter 17, we read regarding the Synod at Rome:

"First of the Signatories was Damasus, who obtained the presidency of the church of Rome after Liberius," and this Roman Synod wrote to the Bishops who assembled at Ariminum:

"No prejudice could arise from the number of bishops gathered at Ariminum, since it is well known that neither the bishop of the Romans, whose opinion ought before all others to have been waited for, - nor the rest, gave in their adhesion to such doctrine."

John Chrysostom, the man with the golden tongue, speaks of Rome: "I love Rome - it has as two glistening eyes, the bodies of these Saints. Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From there will Paul be caught up, from there Peter. Just think, and shudder at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul rises suddenly from that grave, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. - for these are the pillars of the Church."

St. John Chrysostom was also exiled by the Arians and appealed to Pope Innocent for help.

Innocent responded: "--- that no one had authority given him to ordain another to take the place of one who was still living. For a spurious ordination cannot deprive the priest of his rank: seeing that neither can he be a bishop who is wrongfully substituted for another. And as regards the observance of the canons we lay it down that we ought to follow those, which were defined at Nicaea, to which alone the Catholic Church is bound to pay obedience and recognition."

Cyril of Jerusalem (318-386) taught at the Church of the Resurrection in Jerusalem. He too was exiled by the Arians. In his lecture on the Church he writes:

"It is called Catholic because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.

"And it is rightly named (Ecclesia - Church) because it calls first and assembles together all men."

Then Cyril cites the only places in Scripture that use the word "Church".

Lev. 7:3, Deut. 4:10, Ps. 35:18, Ps. 68:26

and in Matt. 16:18 "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church."

"For this is the peculiar name of this Holy Church, the mother of us all, which is the spouse of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God (for it is written, as Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for it, and all the rest,) and is a figure and copy of Jerusalem which is above, which is free, and the mother of us all; which before was barren, but now has many children."

Regarding the coming of the Antichrist, Cyril quotes Paul (2 Thess 2:3) "For that day shall not come, except there come first the falling away."

This brings us to the end of the Fourth Century, and three men who lived at the same time and who all knew each other: St. Ambrose of Milan, St. Augustine of Hippo, and St. Jerome of Bethlehem.

St. Ambrose: "What fellowship, then, can they have with you, who receive not the keys of the kingdom of heaven, saying that they ought not to remit sins?

"And this confession is indeed rightly made by them, for they have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven."

St. Jerome (advisor to Popes, advisor in at least two councils, master of many languages, master translator of Scripture, the compiler of the Bible we now use, baptized by Pope Liberius) chose in the long run to go with a blind mystic into the ascetic life in the caves of Bethlehem. There the birth of Christ! There the birth of the Christian Bible!

Letter to Pope Damasus: "I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. - 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."

In a second letter to Pope Damasus: "He who clings to the chair of Peter is accepted by me."

In a not very friendly letter to the Bishop of Alexandria, he writes: "I thank you for your reminder concerning the canons of the Church - 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."

To the bishop of the other Metropolitan See, John of Jerusalem, he writes: "You were not so foolish as to openly defend a heresy which you knew was offensive to the whole world. You knew that if you had done this, you must have been immediately removed, and your heart was upon the pleasures of your Episcopal throne."

Consider that the Council of Nice set out three Metropolitan Sees: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, with Jerusalem as a See of Honor because it was the first. If all Metropolitans are equal, who could remove the Bishop of Jerusalem, and why would the Bishop of Alexandria have to follow the lead of Rome?

Now to St. Augustine, the greatest commentator of Scripture of all time, taught and baptized by St. Ambrose, friend of St. Jerome and member of the Council of Carthage. It is well known that Augustine holds that all bishops share in the power of the keys, and that in the Rock, Peter is the Rock of Christ, the head of the Church. We will show in the end that this is the same belief of the Roman Catholic Church of today, for even Augustine believed that the Bishop of Rome existed, and must always exist, as the mirror of Christ on earth, in order for all other bishops to have the power of the keys.

In a letter to Pope Boniface, Augustine writes:

"But since they [the heretics] do not cease to snarl at the entrances to the Lord's fold, and from every side to tear open approaches with a view to tear in pieces the sheep redeemed at such a price; and since the pastoral watch-tower is common to all of us who discharge the office of the episcopate (although you are prominent therein on a loftier height), I do what I can in respect of my small portion of the charge, as the Lord condescends by the aid of your prayers to grant me power - I have determined to address especially to your sanctity, not so much for your learning as for your examination, and, if perchance anything should displease you, for your correction."

Why would the most learned bishop of his time, and known throughout the world in his own day, ask the Bishop of Rome to correct anything he might be saying or doing that may be wrong? What reason? Lest he be running in vain.

In Augustine's Treatise on Original Sin, he reminds his reader of how the heretic, Pelagius, fooled the Council in Palestine, but could not fool the Pope of Rome. "For although he deceived the council in Palestine, seemingly clearing himself before it, he entirely failed in imposing on the church at Rome although he went so far as to make the attempt, as if somehow he might succeed. ---

"Now what was the solemn judgment which the holy Pope Innocent formed respecting the proceedings in the Synod of Palestine, by which Pelagius boasts of having been acquitted, you may indeed read in the letter which he addressed to me. --- But I would have you carefully observe the way in which Pelagius endeavored by deception to overreach even the judgment of the bishop of the Apostolic See."

Why would the Pope of Rome judge the proceedings of a Synod of bishops in Palestine, why not the Bishop of Alexandria or Antioch?

In another case where he had to appeal to Rome, Bishop Augustine ordained a bishop under his care and then that bishop was accused of crimes by the state. Augustine appealed to Pope Celestine:

"I beseech you to assist us in this laborious matter, blessed lord and holy father, venerated for your piety, and revered with due affection; --- in order that the privilege of communion might be restored to him." Augustine then reminds Pope Celestine of how Pope Boniface restored Bishop Antonius to his See.

Again I ask why? Why would a bishop of Africa ask for the help of a bishop in the West?

The first council, of course, was the council of Jerusalem (Acts Chapter 15), and these councils were taught by Christ, Himself, in Matt. 18:17-20. The first council is interesting in that Peter opened it with a statement of faith prefaced by "You know that in early days God made choice among us that through my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe."

Then it seems the council was turned over to James, the first bishop of Jerusalem, and he addresses the Apostles and priests, "My judgment is" Matt. 15:22. "Then the Apostles and the priests with the whole church decided" to send Paul and Barnabas (with Judas and Silas) and a letter, lest anyone not believe Paul or the letter.

So now we have the pattern for all councils: Peter opens with a statement of faith, the bishop of the city presides, all agree, and a signed document is taken out to the world with witnesses of its truth. Why the council and who called it? Acts 15:5 A statement was made by certain Christians (former Pharisees) that other Christians disagreed about and unity of faith had to be maintained. A decision had to be made. Who called the council? The Scriptures do not say.

There were not a few councils in the first 500 years of the Church, especially after the persecutions stopped. We have the African, Agde, Aix-la-Chapelle I, Aix-la-Chapelle II, Alexandrian, Alexandrian II, Aucyra, Antioch, Antioch II, Arles, Arles II, Braga, Calcuth, 17 councils at Carthage, Chalcedon, Chalons, Clovesho, at Cons