Papal Supremacy Is Proven By The Bible And Early Church
Papal Supremacy Is Denied By Heretics And Schismatics
Papal supremacy is denied by Eastern Heterodox and Protestant-Heretics.
Regarding the Eastern Heterodox:
They believe that Christ didn’t give the keys only to Peter, but rather to all the Apostles equally.
Thus, they argue that all bishops, as successors of the Apostles, are equal to the other bishops in authority.
They acknowledge the Pope to be the “first amongst equals” of all bishops but deny his universal authority.
Therefore, they deny the Pope’s jurisdiction over them and rationalize the separation of being in communion with Rome.
Regarding the Protestant-Heretics:
The beliefs vary, depending on the “denomination” but the common theme is that they reject papal supremacy.
On the other hand, Catholics believe in Papal Supremacy, as dogmatically defined in the First Vatican Council.
Obviously, the Eastern Heterodox and Protestant-Heretics don’t assent to that council.
Then how else can we prove that us Catholics are correct and the Eastern Heterodox and Protestant-Heretics are not?
Both Sacred Scripture and the Early Church documents confirm our interpretation, as I will prove below.
The Bible Proves Papal Supremacy
Firstly, Scripture affirms that the Pope (sometimes referred to as “Peter”) has supremacy over the Church.
There are certainly several passages in the Bible that affirm St. Peter is the leader of the Church after Christ’s Ascension.
For instance, read the Book of Acts, which follows the 4 Gospels.
Certainly, it is quite obvious that St. Peter is the leader of the 12 Apostles.
Even St. Paul defers to St. Peter on matters of the Faith (even though rebuking him in Galatians 2).
And what was St. Peter when he died? St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome. He was the first Pope.
Moreover, St. Peter’s name generally comes before the rest of the Apostles when listed.
The Bible even mentions St. Peter more often than all the other disciples put together!
I will therefore focus on a select few passages of the Bible below.
Also, I will show that the great Eastern Doctor of the Church, St. John Chrysostom, affirms the Catholic understanding.
Christ says that He is giving St. Peter supreme authority over the Church:
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Matthew 16:18-19
According to St. John “Golden Mouth” Chrysostom, Eastern Church Father, this means:
When the Lord enquires concerning the opinion of the multitudes…Peter as the mouth and head of the Apostles answers for all… Christ then proceeds to show that many would hereafter believe what Peter had now confessed, whence He adds, “And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter,”. That is, On this faith and confession I will build my Church. Herein showing that many should believe what Peter had confessed, and raising his understanding, and making him His shepherd. Then He speaks of another honour of Peter, when He adds, “And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven;” as much as to say, As the Father hath given thee to know Me, I also will give something unto thee, namely, the keys of the kingdom of heaven. St. John Chrysostom on Matthew 16:19
Christ asks St. Peter to feed His sheep:
When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. John 21:15-17
According to St. John “Golden Mouth” Chrysostom, Eastern Church Father, this means:
Our Lord passing by the rest, addresses this command to Peter: he being the chief of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and head of the college. Our Lord remembers no more his sin in denying Him, or brings that as a charge against him, but commits to him at once the superintendence over his brethren. If you love Me, have rule over your brethren, show forth that love which you have evidenced throughout, and that life which you said you would lay down for Me, lay down for the sheep. A third time He asks the same question, and gives the same command; to show of what importance He esteems the superintendence of His own sheep, and how He regards it as the greatest proof of love to Him. St. John Chrysostom on John 21:15-17
St. Peter leads the Christians after the Ascension of Christ:
In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty:) Acts of Apostles 1:15
According to St. John “Golden Mouth” Chrysostom, Eastern Church Father, this means:
Peter, having been put in trust by Christ with the flock, and as having precedence in honor, he always begins the discourse. St. John Chrysostom on Acts of Apostles 1:15
And like I mentioned before, virtually all of the rest of the Book of Acts shows St. Peter in charge.
Again, St. Peter gave the speech to the disciples before Pentecost (Acts of Apostles 1:15-22).
He was also the one that gave the speech to the people of Jerusalem after Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41).
St. Peter was also the one who clarified that the Apostles should baptize gentiles (Acts 11:5-17).
Moreover, St. Peter gave the final word condemning Judaizers in the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:7-11).
In conclusion, it is clear that Christ handed over the keys of His Church to St. Peter, who lead the Church after the Ascension.
The Church Fathers Prove Papal Supremacy
Secondly, the Church Fathers, even the eastern non-Roman ones (like St. John Chrysostom), accepted papal supremacy.
So the Eastern Heterodox and Protestant-Heretics should have enough humility to accept that there isn’t precedence for denying papal supremacy.
Moreover, all the Christians of the Early Church accepted papal supremacy, so the Protestant-Heretics have no basis for their claim against Roman Catholicism.
Below are the Early Church writings, in chronological order, regarding papal supremacy.
Note: Many of these writings existed before Emperor Constantine.
For whatever reason, some Protestant-Heretics believe that Constantine created the Catholic Church.
Constantine wasn’t even a Catholic – He was part of the heretical Arian sect, which denied Christ’s divinity.
(Although a clergy member did baptize Constantine on his deathbed, and he made Christianity a legal religion in the Roman Empire, leading many Christians to venerate him as a Saint).
And this heretical Arian sect was against Catholicism, which is why Constantine called the Council of Nicaea.
But there are several writings before Constantine called the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD
And since these writings mention papal supremacy, this refutes the weird anti-Catholic claim that Constantine created Catholicism.
Pope St. Clement I, d. 99 AD
Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy. Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]
St. Ignatius of Antioch, d. c. 108/140 AD
Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father. Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]
You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force. ibid., 3:1
St. Dionysius of Corinth, d. c. 199 AD
For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying. Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]
Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement. ibid., 4:23:11
St. Irenaeus, d. c. 202 AD
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition. Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]
Clement of Alexandria, d. c. 215 AD
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]. Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]
Tertullian, d. c. 220 AD
For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]. Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]
[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church. Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]
Origen, d. c. 253 AD
[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens. Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]
St. Cyprian, d. September 14, 258 AD
On [Peter] [Christ] builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]
Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church. Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]
Another way to prove Catholicism true is to show how both the Bible and early Christians show how Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church under a regent or temporal leader (since Christ is the Spiritual Leader), which we call the Pope.
I do so in this article here:
https://christtheking.info/papal-supremacy-is-proven-by-the-bible-and-early-church/
But since many won't click this link, let me reply to my own comment here with the text from that article that proves both the Bible and early Christians assented to St. Peter and his successors as the temporal leader of the Christian Church.
St. Paul echoes Christ in saying this:
For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread. And giving thanks, broke, and said: Take ye, and eat: this is my body, which shall be delivered for you: this do for the commemoration of me. In like manner also the chalice, after he had supped, saying: This chalice is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as often as you shall drink, for the commemoration of me. 1 Corinthians 11:23-25
Now a lot of Protestants will read that and say, “But they were speaking figuratively…”
Were they?
What did the early Christians believe about Communion?
St. Ignatius of Antioch, c. 50 – c. 98/117 AD
St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of St. John the Apostle, writes:
I desire the bread of God, the heavenly bread, the bread of life, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became afterwards of the seed of David and Abraham; and I desire the drink, namely His blood, which is incorruptible love and eternal life. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, Chapter VII
Obviously, he believed Communion was really the Body and Blood of Christ.
Moreover, regarding heretics, St. Ignatius says:
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes. The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter VII
So St. Ignatius basically said that anyone who denies the Real Presence are heretics 1400 years before Protestantism existed.
St. Justin Martyr, c. 100 – c. 165 AD
St. Justin Martyr said this:
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. The First Apology, Chapter 66
St. Irenaeus, c. 130 – c. 202 AD
St. Irenaeus also said:
He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies. Against Heresies, Book V, Chapter 2
So it’s rather obvious the Christian apologists in the first couple of centuries believed in the Real Presence.
This is what all orthodox Catholic Christians believed in the first 1500 years before the heresy of Protestantism.
If you still don’t believe in the Real Presence, then read about Eucharistic Miracles here or here:
http://www.miracolieucaristici.org/en/Liste/list.html
https://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/a3.html
*Note: Some Protestants (Lutherans, some Anglicans) believe in the Real Presence.
They still deny Transubstantiation, though, which is what all Christians believed for 1500 years.
Read more about Transubstantiation here:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05573a.htm
Protestantism Error # 4 – Belittling the Virgin Mary, Mother of God
The disrespect many Protestants give to the Blessed Mother of God cannot be understated.
It is true that after the wedding at Cana miracle she isn’t featured much in the Gospels.
However, this is not to diminish her importance but rather to put the spotlight on her Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ.
Mary, being the most humble of all women, would have supported the focus being on her Most High Son.
But since Mary is not featured, the Protestants will still say, “Why is she important then?”
Well let me throw it back at you, my dear Protestant reader…
Out of the billions of women that ever lived…
God the Father chose one holy woman to be His most Blessed Daughter to be the Mother of His Son.
God the Son chose one holy woman to be His most Blessed Mother to bear Him, raise Him, and love Him.
And God the Holy Ghost chose one holy woman to be His most Blessed Spouse to conceive of the Son of God.
So out of the billions of women that have ever lived didn’t God Himself think the Virgin Mary was important?
It appears so. Here’s what the Virgin Mary says in the Bible:
Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. Luke 1:48
If God exalted her to such a high position, then who are you to say she isn’t important?
When you die and are in front of Christ, what will your answer be when He asks:
“Why did you not find my Mother as important as My Father, the Spirit and Myself found her to be?”
What will your answer be to Our Most Glorious and High Lord Jesus Christ?
Will you just say, “Well Martin Luther didn’t think she was so great…”???
HOW DARE YOU!? For shame!
The arrogance of men to judge Our Lady as unimportant when God Himself has exalted her is frightening…
But was Mary really a perpetual virgin?
Christians have believed she was a perpetual virgin for most of Church history.
Again, heretics came along to challenge this idea, but orthodox Christians can explain this pretty simply.
When the Bible talks about Jesus’s “brothers” and “sisters” it was never meant literally.
It was meant in the same way as you call a close friend or family member “brother” or “sister.”
The term used could refer not only to blood-siblings, but also cousins, family friends and personal friends.
St. Jerome, the same person that wrote the Latin Vulgate, the first Holy Bible, actually defended Mary’s perpetual virginity in this work here:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
Read that, and you will see how the writer of the original New Testament canon read the Greek New Testament as not saying that Christ had siblings.
But should we pray to Mary and the other Saints?
Why not? Protestants will say that by praying to Mary and the Saints that we are worshipping them.
We aren’t. We worship the Trinitarian God alone.
St. James says this:
…pray one for another, that you may be saved. For the continual prayer of a just man availeth much. James 5:16
In other words, the more righteous a person is the more that God listens to their prayers.
And who is more righteous than those who have already attained Salvation and are perfected in God’s glory?
And of those, who is more revered than the one woman out of billions that the Trinitarian God chose to become the Mother of God?
This is why we pray to the Saints, and Mary especially.
It’s not because they are gods, but rather because we know that they are in the presence of God.
They are God’s friends for all Eternity.
And in addition to petitioning God with our prayers it makes sense to ask the greatest friends of God to pray with us as well.
Doesn’t this make sense? You would ask the holiest person you know to pray for you, correct?
Then why in the world won’t you ask the closest people to God to pray for you?
In addition to asking for Our Lady’s help, we should also acknowledge that her Son sends her as a messenger to us.
Click here to learn more about the many approved Marian Apparitions:
https://media.ascensionpress.com/2020/05/30/the-ultimate-guide-to-marian-apparitions/
*Note: Some “High Church” Protestants (Lutherans, some Anglicans) venerate Mary.
Give Up Protestantism, and Come Home!
In conclusion, Protestantism just doesn’t make sense.
Protestantism completely contradicts the Bible.
Protestantism also was non-existent in the first 1500 years of Christianity.
It’s really nothing more than the ideology of people that want to be their own Pope.
Speaking of Popes, another criticism or Protestants is that there are bad Popes, Bishops and Priests.
There have also been many Saintly Popes, Bishops, and Priests.
Here is a list of canonized Popes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_canonised_popes
That’s a lot of Saints!
For the first few hundred years of Christianity almost ALL were Saints!
But back to the point of bad Catholics… Unfortunately, you are are correct.
There have been numerous bad Christians in the past 2000 years. That’s just par for the course.
It doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church is not the Church that Christ founded. It still is.
The majority of all Christians, including Catholics, are sinners. Many are great sinners.
Many Christians that die in unrepentant sin will go to Hell. It’s sad.
But the good news is that you don’t have to!
Become Catholic. Instead of just having Faith in Christ, have Faith and keep His Commandments.
Become a part of His Church, even though it is full of flawed sinners.
The Church is the Hospital for Sinners.
So come back and get the Sacraments, which are Medicine for the Soul!
Give up Protestantism. Become Catholic.
The Top 4 Errors of Protestantism
Protestantism, the Heresy that Won’t Go Away
Protestantism is a heretical cult that has been around for a little over 500 years.
It has corrupted many souls away from authentic Christianity.
Usually, when I encounter a Protestant, I try to gently help them see the errors of this false ideology.
I usually send them something like a link to this wonderful Fisheaters article here:
https://www.fisheaters.com/challenge.html
That Fisheaters challenge was pretty helpful in my own conversion to Catholicism.
I also like to link Protestants to the Didache, and the writing of the earliest Church Fathers:
St. Ignatius of Antioch, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus, and others.
The intent of this is to show that the Early Christians were all very Catholic.
But I still get pushback, mostly because people are unwilling to read.
So the intent of this article will be to summarize what I see to be the top 4 errors of Protestantism.
And then I shall refute these errors in a succinct manner, so that you do not have to read as much.
Still, I encourage you to read the primary sources I am linking, instead of just taking my word for it.
Protestantism Error # 1 – Sola Scriptura
Sola Scriptura is Latin for Scripture Alone or Bible Alone.
This is usually the defense Protestants give regarding not needing the authority of the Catholic Church.
But Protestantism started in the early 16th century.
There was literally almost 1500 years of Christianity before then.
Were all the Christians in those first 1500 years heretics because they followed the authority of Bishops?
Hopefully, nobody with any common sense would consider all of Christianity heretical until Martin Luther came along…
What Does the Bible Say About Sola Scriptura?
So the Bible doesn’t say that the Bible is the sole Christian authority.
Don’t believe me? Then look yourself. Find the passage and contact me here.
Ok, some of you say “Read 1 Corinthians 4:6 and Ephesians 3:4!”
The thing to understand here is context. You have to read the whole chapter to understand what is being said.
In 1 Corinthians 4 St. Paul is talking about certain priests being harshly judged by the Corinthians.
And in response St. Paul tell the Corinthians to not exalt one another above what is written.
By referring to “what is written” St. Paul is referring to practicing the virtue of humility written in Scripture.
See here for more info:
https://haydockcommentary.com/1-corinthians-4
Ephesians 3:4 (and 3:3) is just referring to reading Ephesians 2 and understanding it.
If you read it in context it doesn’t really go much deeper that that…
The point here is: context matters!
What about the Bible itself? Who canonized the Bible?
Pope Damasus I and the bishops of the Catholic Church canonized the Bible.
When did they canonize the Bible?
They canonized the Bible in 382 AD at the Council of Rome.
So yes, my dear Protestant, the Catholics canonized your New Testament.
Read here about the history of the process to canonize the Bible:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
This is where some readers would point out that the New Testament writings existed in the First Century.
This is true.
It is also true that from the First to Fourth Centuries false teachers wrote many other “Gospels” and “Epistles”.
Heretics, such as Judaizers, Gnostics and others used these other books.
If you reject Catholic authority, then why not count these other books as authoritative?
Because, even though you reject the Church, deep in your heart you know the Catholic canon is True.
The only difference between Catholic canon and Protestant canon is that you reject seven books of the Old Testament.
Why? Because heresiarch Martin Luther decided to use the Masoretic canon instead of the Septuagint.
The Septuagint canon was the one that Christ Himself, St. Paul and the 12 Apostles used.
The Pharisees, the enemies of Christ, put together the Masoretic canon.
And the Pharisees changed some things in the Masoretic canon to be anti-Christian.
So as Protestants, you follow the Pharisee interpretation of the Old Testament over the Christian interpretation.
What did the Christians follow in the first 350-ish years of Christianity, if there was no New Testament canon?
They followed the oral and written teachings as taught by the Apostles and their successor bishops.
Us Catholics refer to the oral teachings as Sacred Tradition.
And we understand Tradition as being just as important as Scripture.
St. Paul talks about this himself:
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle. 2 Thessalonians 2:14
What did Christ leave us then?
He left us a Church. This is evident by reading the Bible.
Christ says it Himself:
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18
So Christ obviously left us the Church. And He made it clear that St. Peter was the leader.
Don’t believe me? Read the Book of Acts, which follows the 4 Gospels.
It is quite obvious that St. Peter is the leader of the 12 Apostles.
Even St. Paul defers to St. Peter on matters of the Faith (even though rebuking him in Galatians 2).
Read Acts 15 about the Council of Jerusalem. St. Peter makes the final decision because he leads the Church.
And what was St. Peter when he died? St. Peter was the Bishop of Rome. He was the first Pope.
Read more here:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm
When was the New Testament written?
The first Pauline Epistles started getting written around 50 AD, and the rest followed before the end of the First Century.
Christ died, Resurrected, and Ascended into Heaven in 33 AD.
That means there were about 17 years of Christendom with NO New Testament whatsoever!
What did the Christians follow then? They followed the authority of the 12 Apostles and St. Paul.
The 12 Apostles and St. Paul also created Churches, consecrated Bishops and ordained Priests and Deacons.
Again, this is all written in the Book of Acts, which exists in EVERY PROTESTANT BIBLE!!!
Why did they wait so long to write New Testament documents? For the same reason Christ Himself never wrote New Testament documents: Most people were illiterate.
The focus of Christ, and His Apostles after He ascended, was conversion by oral preaching.
Preaching orally was the best way to teach people and convert since most people couldn’t read.
The printing press wasn’t around yet, either.
So again, as I mentioned in previous sections, oral Tradition was just as important as written Scripture.
In conclusion, for the first 1500 years of Christianity there was no Protestantism.
Protestantism Error # 2 – Sola Fide
Sola Fide is Latin for Faith Alone. Protestants use it to mean Salvation by Faith Alone.
Luther, Calvin, and other heresiarchs were uncomfortable with the Christian understanding of Justification.
The orthodox Catholic view of Justification is that one can lose salvation if one dies in Mortal Sin.
See more here and here regarding the differences between the heretical and orthodox understanding of Justification:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm
What does the Bible say about Sola Fide?
So usually Protestants will cite Galatians 2:16, Romans 3:28, Romans 4, Romans 5:1, Philippians 3:9, Ephesians 2:8-9, and other passages.
Here is Romans 3:28, for example:
For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.
They will say, “See, Paul says that we are justified by Faith and not works of the law!”
But is it that simple? No. Protestants saying this aren’t considering the context of the passages.
in these passages St. Paul is criticizing the “works of the law.”
What are the “works of the law?”
The “works of the law” are referring to the old Law of Moses of the Old Testament.
The “works of the law” include things like circumcision.
Christ fulfilled the Old Law, as He said here:
Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17
So when St. Paul is saying that we are justified through Faith in Christ and not by the “works of the law” he is affirming the New Covenant has fulfilled the Old Covenant.
Therefore, the Mosiac Law of the Old Covenant is no longer binding on Christians.
If you still deny this, read Acts 15 again, where the Apostles decided that the Old Covenant is no longer binding.
They ended up condemning the Judaizers as heretics.
Read here, here, and here for more info:
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2098.htm
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2103.htm
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2107.htm
So why is Sola Fide wrong then?
The Bible itself condemns Sola Fide. The Bible says:
Do you see that by works a man is justified; and not by faith only? James 2:24
If you look at this passage and compare it to Romans 3:28 it would seem on the surface that there is a contradiction.
But there isn’t a contradiction. St. Paul was talking about the Mosaic Law, as we previously discussed.
St. James is referring to keeping God’s moral Commandments when he refers to “works.”
Read here to learn God’s Ten Commandments:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04153a.htm
Christ reaffirmed these Commandments in His 2 Great Commandments:
Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets. Matthew 22:37-40
Christ also said this:
If you love me, keep my commandments. John 14:15
So unlike the Mosaic Law, God still requires Christians to follow His moral Commandments.
So going back to James 2, St. James is telling us that we need to follow God’s Commandments to be saved.
It is not enough that we have Faith alone.
So does this mean that “Once Saved, Always Saved” isn’t true?
Yes, that is false. Christ Himself, again, repudiates this false teaching:
Not every one that saith to me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my Father who is in heaven, he shall enter into the kingdom of heaven. Many will say to me in that day: Lord, Lord, have not we prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils in thy name, and done many miracles in thy name? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, you that work iniquity. Matthew 7:21-23
That is very clear. Christ is saying that not everyone who professes His Name will go to Heaven.
Only the people that do the “will of His Father” – the Will of God – will go to Heaven.
So if you have Faith in God, but do not do His Will, then you will not go to Heaven.
So that means I can lose Salvation?
Yes, you can. In order to have the Grace bestowed upon you to go to Heaven, you must be Baptized.
Christ says that:
Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:5
And again, like I quoted in the previous section, Christ Himself says you can lose that Grace by not keeping the Commandments.
St. Paul mirrors what Christ says, by saying:
Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
St. Paul is referring to Mortal Sins here that will separate a person from Salvation.
For more on Mortal Sins read here:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm
The Catholic Church has taught for almost 2000 years that Baptism bestows Sanctifying Grace and that staying away from Mortal Sin keeps it.
This teaching is consistent with what the Bible says, as I have proven.
So can I get Sanctifying Grace back if I commit a Mortal Sin?
Yes! Thankfully, Christ gave His Apostles the power to forgive sins.
Christ says this to St. Peter and the other Apostles:
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Matthew 16:19
This means that the Apostles, and their successors, the bishops and priests, can bind and loose.
One way to do this is to forgive Sins. Read more here:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm
Moreover, on God’s Merciful Forgiveness, St. John states:
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity. 1 John 1:9
Protestantism Error # 3 – Denying the Body and Blood of Christ in Communion
Another huge error of Protestantism is denying the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
Again, Christ makes this clear:
And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins. Matthew 26:26-28
Also:
And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new testament in my blood, which shall be shed for you. Luke 22:19-20
The best way to prove Catholicism true is to attack the false positions of Protestantism, which only came over a millennia after Christianity had already been established in the Roman Catholic Church in the West.
I do so in this article here:
https://christtheking.info/the-top-4-errors-of-protestantism/
But since many won't click this link, let me reply to my own comment here with the text from that article that proves Protestantism wrong.
Well, the gauntlet was dropped. I did the gentlemanly thing, and challenged you to a debate on fair terms. You just want to keep acting like a child. I will go back to blocking you. You're not worth the time. I will pray for you. God bless!
Well, the gauntlet was dropped. I did the gentlemanly thing, and challenged you to a debate on fair terms. You just want to keep acting like a child. I will go back to blocking you. You're not worth the time. I will pray for you. God bless!
Well, the gauntlet was dropped. I did the gentlemanly thing, and challenged you to a debate on fair terms. You just want to keep acting like a child. I will go back to blocking you. You're not worth the time. I will pray for you. God bless!
You just spammed this in 4 different places lol. 1 in my inbox and 3 in this thread... Do you suffer from narcissism? Can you not see your own hypocrisy?
You just spammed this in 4 different places lol. 1 in my inbox and 3 in this thread... Do you suffer from narcissism? Can you not see your own hypocrisy?
You just spammed this in 4 different places lol. 1 in my inbox and 3 in this thread... Do you suffer from narcissism? Can you not see your own hypocrisy?
You're quite the character... Are you trying to get me to debate you in c/Conspiracies? If you want to debate me, then here are my terms:
-
What do you actually want to debate me on? You usually just crap on my religion and/or spew Bible verses out of context on me. What it is specifically that you think I am "wrong" on? I will take you on, one on one, and then we have no reason to speak of each other again.
-
And if we debate, there will be none of that pushing those same stupid 3 videos on me... I don't really have the time to watch those, and I honestly wouldn't if I did. If you want to debate me, you will have to put everything in your own words. It's okay to quote Scripture, but you must put everything in your own words.
Those are my terms.
I woke up to 9 of your comments/messages today, too, dude. You are an amazing hypocrite!
u/Neo1 isn't interested in answering questions... He only cares about spewing vomit...
I haven't read them, but apparently these 2 Jew-authored books talk about Henry VIII's relationship with the Jews:
Not trying to gaslight at all here... Admittedly, the fact that all my posts across various boards get upvoted by around the same amount does seem weird, but it's organic (even though I doubt you or Neo believe me, it's true). All I can say is that I have a solid amount of fans here. Every time I post in communities.win I get a couple thousand views on my videos. So if I have posts that are upvoted like 30-40 times throughout a half a dozen boards, my guess is that I have about 30-40 or so really supportive fans on here, out of the couple thousand or so who watch my videos from communities.win. 30-40 out of 2k is a small fraction, but some people just REALLY like my content. Others, like you and Neo, don't like my content at all. But the numbers don't lie: I get thousands of views here, and dozens of those views are by REALLY SUPPORTIVE FANS. In general, I have more people that like my content than not in communities.win, which is why my posts are upvoted wayyy more than downvoted. And it's because of those people that I continue to post my content. And any of those reading this post: Again, I thank you for your support!
Not really annoyed... Just wanted to address this, since it has been brought to my attention. Again, as I have been saying about u/Neo1 and others... If you don't like what I post, then I am fine with that. My posts aren't everyone's cup of tea. That's why you have several options: ignore my posts, downvote my posts, and/or block me. I am fine with all of those. God bless!
Maybe people are sick of u/Neo1 kvetching in this community about me? That's all I can think of...
I know, I am such an awful person sharing my original content with you all... And it's not like you can just exercise self-control and not click it if you don't like it, you know? Exercising self-control and ignoring me if you don't like my stuff is just CRAZY TALK!!! :-O
Also, when King Henry VIII wanted to get his divorce from Catherine of Aragon, he consulted Jews to help him figure out how to use the OId Testament as a defense of divorce. And we all know what happened: He broke away from the Catholic Church and create the Anglican "Church" in order to get his divorce(s).
I agree with your first paragraph 100%.
Regarding the second paragraph, your "hunch" is correct. Dr. E. Michael Jones talks about how the Jews were heavily involved in the Reformation in his modern classic: The Jewish Revolutionary Spirit. 100% recommend. Here's a link:
https://www.fidelitypress.org/book-products/the-jewish-revolutionary-spirit
Oh, I will pray for him... I pray for everyone, especially my haters! He's probably not a bad person. He seems to be a bit mentally disturbed, obsessive, and probably on the lower-end IQ-wise. He needs someone to guide him on how to interpret the Bible because he cannot do so himself, but unfortunately, he has given into pride and thinks he is capable of sound exegesis. It's sad, really.
Good for you! Yeah, I am a full time dad and husband, with a full time day job, and I run this Catholic apostolate, along with co-running a local Catholic Action group, so I don't have time to respond to all of my online haters, unless they have a lot of influence. But this u/Neo1 guy just keeps attacking me out of nowhere and uses Biblical verses out of context to "pwn me bruh" and it's just not worth my already fleeting time.
Maybe? People bug me about "not answering him"... So I unblocked him temporarily yesterday to see if he had anything worth answering... Not really... I answered some of his posts, but it was mostly just him hypocritically calling me a "spammer" while he was unironically spamming this community with posts against me lol.
Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church. ibid., 55[52]:1
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source. ibid., 59:14
Firmilian, d. c. 269 AD
[Pope] Stephen … boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. … Stephen … announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter. collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]
Eusebius of Caesarea, d. 30 May 339 AD
And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches. Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312]
And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’. ibid., 5:4:1–2
[Regarding the Pascha (Easter) controversy of 190 AD] Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom. ibid., 5:23:1–24:11
Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches. ibid., 24:18
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, d. 386 AD
The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]
[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]. ibid., 6:14
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]. ibid., 17:27
St. Ephrem the Syrian, d. 373 AD
[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures. Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]
St. Athanasius of Alexandria, d. 2 May 373 AD
If any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew…let us honor the memory of the Apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province. Council of Sardica, Canon 3, [A.D.342]
When I left Alexandria, I did not go to your brother’s headquarters, or to any other persons, but only to Rome; and having laid my case before the Church (for this was my only concern), I spent my time in public worship. Defence before Constantius 4, NPNF 2, Vol. IV, 239 [A.D. 356]
Rome is called “the Apostolic throne.” Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35 [A.D. 362]
Pope St. Damasus I, d. 11 December 384 AD
Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]
St. Jerome, d. 30 September 420 AD
‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division. Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]
Pope St. Innocent I, d. 12 March 417 AD
In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged. Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]
St. Augustine. d. 28 August 430 AD
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’. Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]
Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]
Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]
Council of Ephesus, 431 AD
Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’. Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]
Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’. ibid., session 3
Pope St. Leo the Great, d. 10 November 461 AD
Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]
Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery. ibid., 10:2–3
Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head. ibid., 14:11
Pope St. Hormisdas, d. 6 August 523 AD
The Formula of Hormisdas settled the first schism between East and West in 519 AD, and was signed by the Patriarch of Constantinople:
The first condition of salvation is to keep the norm of the true faith and in no way to deviate from the established doctrine of the Fathers.
For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied.
…[Condemns heretics]…
Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides.
I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries. But if I attempt even the least deviation from my profession, I admit that, according to my own declaration, I am an accomplice to those whom I have condemned. I have signed this, my profession, with my own hand, and I have directed it to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable pope of Rome. Formula of Hormisdas
Pope St. Agatho, d. January 681 AD
Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine…
This is the living tradition of the Apostles of Christ, which his Church holds everywhere…
For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end…
Consequently, therefore, according to the rule of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ, she [Rome] also confesses and preaches that there are in him two natural wills and two natural operations. Epistle of St. Agatho to the Council of Constantinople III
Pope Adrian I, d. 25 December 795
If you persevere in that orthodox Faith in which you have begun…and [exalt] the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church your spiritual mother, and with the other orthodox Emperors venerated it as the head of all Churches, so will your Clemency, that is protected of God, receive the name of another Constantine…
But the more, if following the traditions of the orthodox Faith, you embrace the judgment of the Church of blessed Peter, chief of the Apostles, and, as of old your predecessors the holy Emperors acted, so you, too, venerating it with honour, love with all your heart his Vicar, and if your sacred majesty follow by preference their orthodox Faith, according to our holy Roman Church. May the chief of the Apostles himself, to whom the power was given by our Lord God to bind and remit sins in heaven and earth…
For let sacred authority lay open the marks of his dignity, and how great veneration ought to be shown to his, the highest See, by all the faithful in the world. For the Lord set him who bears the keys of the kingdom of heaven as chief over all, and by Him is he honoured with this privilege, by which the keys of the kingdom of heaven are entrusted to him…
For the blessed Peter himself, the chief of the Apostles, who first sat in the Apostolic See, left the chiefship of his Apostolate, and pastoral care, to his successors, who are to sit in his most holy seat forever. And that power of authority, which he received from the Lord God our Saviour, he too bestowed and delivered by divine command to the Pontiffs, his successors. Epistle of Pope Hadrian to The Council of Nicaea II