When did the alleged corruption begin?

[James_Least]

Revelation 2, The New American Bible, St. Jerome Press, 1991: "To the angel of the
church in Ephesus, write this: " 'The one who holds the seven stars in his right hand and walks in the midst of the seven gold lampstands says this: “I know your works, your labor, and your endurance, and that you cannot tolerate the wicked; you have tested those who call themselves apostles but are not, and discovered that they are imposters. Moreover, you have endurance and have suffered for my name, and you have not grown weary. Yet I hold this against you: you have lost the love you had at first. Realize how far you have fallen. Repent, and do the works you did at first. Otherwise, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. But you have this in your favor: you hate the works of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate…”

John wrote the “unveiling” circa 95 A.D. The mystery of iniquity was already at work. This is a profound ultimatum. When Jesus removes His lampstand(The Holy Spirit), you are spiritually dead, dead, dead.

Beware of the wolves dressed like sheep.
Peace,

James Least

 

[Arandur]

Well, perhaps I should have said universal jurisdiction seems to contradict Nicea (canon 6). But, without universal jurisdiction, infallibility ex cathedra seems a non-issue.
As to your first point , none of the other patriarchs accept Infallibility, while they all do Trinity. In that way, Trinity’s dogmatic declaration is ecumenical, while infallibility is not.

Indeed, as I’ve said, this is the most vexing issue for me when considering either east or Rome.

Jon

The definition of the Trinity was NOT that widely accepted when it was defined. It was defined because of the support for alternative positions. Indeed, if we presume with the Trinity you include the hypostatic union of the Son with the Father, then looking at history you will see that the Trinitarian view was in fact the minority view at various points, under heavy persecution, even nearly stamped out–for the Arians came as close as ever has happened to suppressing the truth of the Catholic Church.

In these cases, it was the determined, unwavering position of the Bishops of Rome that stood for and preserved the Christian belief in the Trinity. It took the recognized primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and the steadfastness of said See (a true evidence of the proof of infallibility as a gift of the Spirit), to see true Christianity (Trinitarian) preserved against the heresies. It is only by virtue of the See of Peter (via the work of the Holy Spirit fulfilling Christ’s promise) that nearly all professing Christians today profess faith in a Trinitarian God, and assume this as a matter of course with little to no debate.

The acceptance of the Trinity as a doctrine, then, was not always the majority position, not as broadly “ecumenical” as you would have it–either during the Council of Nicea or for many decades after.

A great book that investigates the history is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic by Mike Aquilina. I recommend it highly

 

[Bilbo_Baggins_1]

JonNC, you once told me that you trust/believe in Martin Luther, Is he your “pope”?

Do you truly believe that Jesus Christ would leave His Church without a leader/Pope to guide His Church and to guide the People of His Church? After Peter and the Apostles died, Jesus forgot all about us and left us without a leader/Pope?

Not sure if you meant to inflect the question this way or not, but Jesus did not/has not left His Church at all.

JonNC, when you attend your Lutheran church is there a pastor? Yes, there is a pastor right? Your Pastor is your “Primacy/leader” who offers communion to you am I not right?

The Catholic Church is an institution founded on Rock being so it has a leader/Pope. Yes, yes, Jesus Christ is above all our Leader/corner stone but He is in Heaven now over seeing all, however from the Old Testament, God always had leaders to guide His people am I not right? Abraham, Moses, etc… Moses being leader, Please say you would have listen to Moses? lol I know you would have listen to Moses and if indeed you would have listen to Moses you should also listen to the Pope.

I, don’t like this, I don’t like that, about the Catholic Church I, I, I, I, I! Who is I, to fight or disobey or argue with the Catholic Church?

Ufamtobie

Again, your way of phrasing, “Yes,…but He is in Heaven now”, seems to indicate a misunderstanding of Christ. He is present with us. It wasn’t just a “here on earth for a brief stay and now I’m gone” type thing. Maybe you weren’t intending that, but it definitely comes off the wrong way when read.

Also, I believe if you look back through JonNC’s posts he has multiple times answered your initial questions in a well worded way, so I’ll leave him to answer them. However, in my opinion your questions are stemming from a misinformed view that a Lutheran must be setting up a “pope” in place of the absence of one. Also, as Jon’s statements indicate, it is more the issue of supremacy in question, not the position of faculty of the pope itself.

 

[JonNC]

Hi Jon,

I have been meaning to ask you. Have you ever considered the Orthodox church? What are some major doctrinal differences between the Lutheran church you attend and the EO church? Just curious.
Grace and peace be with you, brother.

And also with you.
Considered Orthodoxy? Probably not in the way I have considered Catholicism. As could be expected, my leanings are toward the western Church, as I am part of the western Church. I’m a bit uncomfortable with their view of Original Sin. While generally, regarding ecclesiology I think they hold a better position, I also hold the same doubts regarding their claim as the one true Church as I do Rome. My doubts revolve around the division.

Also, regarding Canon 6, have you ever read this?

I’ll check it out.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=ufamtobie;8385109]
JonNC, you once told me that you trust/believe in Martin Luther, Is he your “pope”?

Trust and believe how? There ismuch that Luther said that, yes, I agree with. There are other things I disagree with. There is only one pope, the Bishop of Rome.

Do you truly believe that Jesus Christ would leave His Church without a leader/Pope to guide His Church and to guide the People of His Church? After Peter and the Apostles died, Jesus forgot all about us and left us without a leader/Pope?
Christ entrusted His Church to all His apostles, and those who followed the apostles led and still lead His Church. The problem with your phrase is you “a leader/pope”, in the singular.

JonNC, when you attend your Lutheran church is there a pastor? Yes, there is a pastor right? Your Pastor is your “Primacy/leader” who offers communion to you am I not right?

Yes and no. My pastor has no primacy. He is ordained, and vows to uphold the teachings of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and its confessional documents in the Book of Concord. As he is properly called and ordained, it is his role in the ministerial priesthood to preach the word and administer the sacraments.

The Catholic Church is an institution founded on Rock being so it has a leader/Pope. Yes, yes, Jesus Christ is above all our Leader/corner stone but He is in Heaven now over seeing all, however from the Old Testament, God always had leaders to guide His people am I not right? Abraham, Moses, etc… Moses being leader, Please say you would have listen to Moses? lol I know you would have listen to Moses and if indeed you would have listen to Moses you should also listen to the Pope.

In many ways I do listen to the pope. In many ways we are in agreement. There are some ways that we do not. There are some ways where the other patriarchs do not agree with the pope. He may be first among equal Bishops, but Lutherans join our Orthodox brothers in disputing that he has a universal supremacy over the enitre Church, as that doesn’t seem to match the councils of the early Church.

I, don’t like this, I don’t like that, about the Catholic Church I, I, I, I, I! Who is I, to fight or disobey or argue with the Catholic Church?

I honor and give thanks for your faith.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Bilbo_Baggins;8386939]Not sure if you meant to inflect the question this way or not, but Jesus did not/has not left His Church at all.

Thanks, Bilbo. This is correct. He has not left His Church. I believe He remains present in the Catholic Church, and in Orthodoxy, and Lutheranism, and others, leading us to all truth. We may not understand all truth until we reach the Church Triumphant, or Parousia, but He is leading us.

Again, your way of phrasing, “Yes,…but He is in Heaven now”, seems to indicate a misunderstanding of Christ. He is present with us. It wasn’t just a “here on earth for a brief stay and now I’m gone” type thing. Maybe you weren’t intending that, but it definitely comes off the wrong way when read.

And of course, He is truly, really present in the Eucharist.

Also, I believe if you look back through JonNC’s posts he has multiple times answered your initial questions in a well worded way, so I’ll leave him to answer them. However, in my opinion your questions are stemming from a misinformed view that a Lutheran must be setting up a “pope” in place of the absence of one. Also, as Jon’s statements indicate, it is more the issue of supremacy in question, not the position of faculty of the pope itself.

And its not even a view that there is an absence of one. We know who the pope is, who the Bishop of Rome is. The questions are, what is the role of the pope? How did the early Church define that role? Are post-schism councils authoritative on these and other issues without the other patriarchs?

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

Well, perhaps I should have said universal jurisdiction seems to contradict Nicea (canon 6). But, without universal jurisdiction, infallibility ex cathedra seems a non-issue.
As to your first point , none of the other patriarchs accept Infallibility, while they all do Trinity. In that way, Trinity’s dogmatic declaration is ecumenical, while infallibility is not.

Indeed, as I’ve said, this is the most vexing issue for me when considering either east or Rome.

Jon

Well if one is claiming it is a contradiction of canon 6,then one should also make the statement that the entire church as a whole (East & West) is in contradiction. And why? Because history says otherwise. It takes very minimal effort to acknowledge the Popes intervened more frequently in the East than they did in the West. Likewise, how many instances of Eastern bishops taking serious issues to Rome to be resolved? I have said this argument to those opposing universal jurisdiction:

If the Roman Bishop was limited to jurisdiction in specific regions,then why would any bishop from the East have any intention to let a bishop hundreds of miles away resolve internal matters for another patriarch? Why wouldn’t the bishop from hundreds of miles away simply resolve it in-house,if the Roman Bishop is mere an “equal” as others? Why not go to the next patriarch who is much closer?

 

[mark_a]

Many times when Protestant and other non-Catholic Christians are discussing Church history, it is their proposition that the Catholic Church cannot be the true Church that Christ founded. They claim that the Catholic Church, as an institution, developed at some later date. One of the big difficulties with this theory is that no one can quite agree on when the Catholic Church was established. Some Protestants who hold the first seven Ecumenical Councils to be valid argue that it was after that time (this leads to more problems, such as Protestant rejection of many of the Catholic doctrines expounded by those councils). Perhaps the most popular claim is that the Catholic Church was an invention of Constantine, and developed during his reign after the legalization of Christianity.
Dr. Carroll, author the Baptist church history entitled “The Trail of Blood,” makes the claim that Constantine called a council in 313 AD and this council first formed the hierarchy of the Catholic Church. This theory breaks down, though, when one begins to read the history books and discovers that no Church council was held in 313, the year that Constantine issued the Edict of Milan.
But the main problem with all of these theories is that, if they were true, one would expect to be able to find all of the doctrines that are specifically “Catholic” coming about only after the “invention” of the Catholic Church. Whatever year one proposes as the beginning of Catholicism, one should expect to see none of these Catholic doctrines before it. Even a cursory reading of the Church Fathers from the first, second, and third centuries shows that this is not the case.

As always:

 

[mark_a]

He may be first among equal Bishops

I have never understood and have never been given an answer as to how a “first among equals” would exercise his authority as such.

 

[Marie5890]

. Might have a handful of sinners now and again but the Church is incorruptible.

To be fair, it really is more than just “a handful now and then”. The Age of Iron, amongst other time periods, show that.

No need to white wash the Church’s history. We are promised by Christ that the gates of Hell would not prevail, they they sure have been pounding, and pounding hard, from the get go.

 

[JonNC]

=Nicea325;8387102]Well if one is claiming it is a contradiction of canon 6,then one should also make the statement that the entire church as a whole (East & West) is in contradiction. And why? Because history says otherwise. It takes very minimal effort to acknowledge the Popes intervened more frequently in the East than they did in the West. Likewise, how many instances of Eastern bishops taking serious issues to Rome to be resolved? I have said this argument to those opposing universal jurisdiction:

If the Roman Bishop was limited to jurisdiction in specific regions,then why would any bishop from the East have any intention to let a bishop hundreds of miles away resolve internal matters for another patriarch? Why wouldn’t the bishop from hundreds of miles away simply resolve it in-house,if the Roman Bishop is mere an “equal” as others? Why not go to the next patriarch who is much closer?

And why not go to him? Why not go to a Bishop who was, in fact, held in such high regard? The question remains how does this translate into universal jurisdiction, and especially infallibility ex cathedra?
The issue may not even be one of primacy, but supremacy.

Jon

 

[Augustine3]

Thanks again everyone for your posts they were quite stimulating

There seems to be no clear cut time when the Catholic Church drifted away with false doctrines. I see a table with no legs, Protestants cling to the bible but fail to respect the fact the Catholic Church faithfully preserved the bible and the assembly that decided which books to include in the bible also believed in the same doctrines…

God bless,

 

[JonNC]

Thanks again everyone for your posts they were quite stimulating

There seems to be no clear cut time when the Catholic Church drifted away with false doctrines. I see a table with no legs, **Protestants cling to the bible but fail to respect the fact the Catholic Church faithfully preserved the bible **and the assembly that decided which books to include in the bible also believed in the same doctrines…

God bless,

We cling to Christ. That said;

**“We concede – as we must – that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” ** - Luther

Sounds like a great deal of respect, that it is the Catholic Church that preserved scripture and the faith.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

And why not go to him? Why not go to a Bishop who was, in fact, held in such high regard? The question remains how does this translate into universal jurisdiction, and especially infallibility ex cathedra?
The issue may not even be one of primacy, but supremacy.

Jon

Okay,but does “high” regard imply universal jurisdiction? I do not see how “high” regard would give anyone universal jurisdiction,if it is merely “honor” and ‘high" regards ? And still does not answer the question why on earth would any bishop hundreds of miles away even take any serious issue to someone with mere “honor” or "high’ regards? Can’t the same be done within one’s own backyard? As for the first among equals? I have never understood such a position. How can one be first and yet be an equal? If there are 10 captains’ in one place who is first? If one is first,then he apparently he is first for many other reasons not just honor?

Peace brother!

 

[lyrikal]

And also with you.
Considered Orthodoxy? Probably not in the way I have considered Catholicism. As could be expected, my leanings are toward the western Church, as I am part of the western Church. I’m a bit uncomfortable with their view of Original Sin. While generally, regarding ecclesiology I think they hold a better position, I also hold the same doubts regarding their claim as the one true Church as I do Rome. My doubts revolve around the division.

That makes sense. Although I would disagree with the fact that they hold a better ecclesiology. When studying the Early Church, I do not see how the Bishop of Rome was first among equals. It seems that he had universal jurisdiction over the Eastern churches. There would be no need to go to Rome for faith matters if the Eastern Bishops were just as equal as the Bishop of Rome. Yet, we see Eastern Bishops go to the Bishop of Rome to settle matters.

For example, take a look at St. Athanasius who was an Eastern Bishop. In one of his letters, he includes an excerpt from Pope Julius and it says:

“Why was nothing said to us (Pope Julius and the Roman Church) conerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us (Rome), 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 (Rome); 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…Thus wrote the Council of Rome by Julius, Bishop of Rome.”
-Defense against the Arians 2, 35, NPNF2, 4:118-119

Also, Hilary of Poitiers wrote:

“And you (Pope Julius), most dearly loved brother, though absent from us in body, were present in mind concordant, and will…For this will be seen to be best, and by far the most befitting thing, if to the head, that is to the see of the Apostle Peter, the priests of the Lord report (or, refer) from every one of the provinces.”
-Epistle Sardic. Council. ad Julium

Also, Macarius of Egypt (300-390 AD) wrote:

“For of old Moses and Aaron, when this priesthood was theirs, suffered much; and Caiphas, when he had their chair, persecuted and condemned the Lord…Afterwards Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood.”
-Homily 26

Compare this with Exodus 18 where Moses sits in a chair and judges. He is clearly the leader of all. He appoints other men to lead the people so that he won’t have to do it alone; however, these men are to judge the small matters. The big matters are to be brought to Moses. He is clearly in authority over ALL while the others have authority over a certain amount of people.

Basil the Great wrote a letter to the Pope saying:

“It is these that we implore your diligence to denounce publicly to all the Churches of the East…I am constrained to mention them by name, in order that you may yourselves recognize those who are stirring up disturbance here, and may make them known to our churches…You, however, have all the more credit with the people, in proportion to the distance that separates your home and theirs, besides the fact that you are gifted with God’s grace to help those who are distressed.”
-Letter 263:2

Also Pope Damascus I:

“Although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the primay by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior…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.”
-The Decree of Damascus 3

Ambrosiaster:

“Whereas the whole world is God’s, yet is the Church said to be His house, of which Pope Damasus is at this day the ruler.”
-Commentary on the Epistle of First Timothy

 

[lyrikal]

Regarding infallibility we can see a letter from an Eastern Father, Theodoret, who implies infallibility and explicitly talks about Rome having supremacy over all the Churches on earth:

“This most holy See has preserved the supremacy over all Churches on the earth, for one especial reason among many others; to wit, that it has remained intact from the defilement of heresy. No one has ever sat on that Chair, who has taught heretical doctrine; rather that See has ever preserved unstained the Apostolic Grace.”
-Episte 116 to Renatus

I’ll check it out.

Thanks, Jon. I do love how you desire unity among all the Churches. I also love how you regard the sacraments as more than just mere symbols. The Lutheran Church you attend and the Catholic Church share a lot of commonalities and we can rejoice over that.

Regarding Canon 6, see what Socrates Scholasticus (380-450 AD) says (he was an Eastern Historian at the time):

“Neither was Julius, Bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an ecclesiastical canon (Church laws) commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.”
-The Ecclesiastical History 2:8

Also regarding the Council of Nicea, we have Sozomen who was also an Eastern Historian who lived between 370-439 AD, who wrote:

“Athanasius, on leaving Alexandria, had fled to Rome. Paul, bishop of Constantinople, Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, and Asclepas, bishop of Gaza, repaired there at the same time. Asclepas, who was opposed to the Arians and had therefore been deposed, after having been accused by some of the heterodox of having thrown down an altar; Quintianus had been appointed in his stead over the Church of Gaza. Lucius also, bishop of Adrianople, who had been deposed from the church under his care on another charge, was dwelling at this period in Rome. The Roman bishop, on learning the accusation against each individual, and on finding that they held the same sentiments about the Nicæan dogmas, admitted them to communion as of like orthodoxy; and as the care for all was fitting to the dignity of his see, he restored them all to their own churches. He wrote to the bishops of the East, and rebuked them for having judged these bishops unjustly, and for harassing the Churches by abandoning the Nicæan doctrines. He summoned a few among them to appear before him on an appointed day, in order to account to him for the sentence they had passed, and threatened to bear with them no longer, unless they would cease to make innovations. This was the tenor of his letters. Athanasius and Paul were reinstated in their respective sees, and forwarded the letter of Julius to the bishops of the East.”
-The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen 3:8

Lastly, Sozomen also wrote:

“The bishops of Egypt, having sent a declaration in writing that these allegations were false, and Julius having been apprised that Athanasius was far from being in safety in Egypt, sent for him to his own city. He replied at the same time to the letter of the bishops who were convened at Antioch, for just then he happened to have received their epistle, and accused them of having clandestinely introduced innovations contrary to the dogmas of the Nicene council, and of having violated the laws of the Church, by neglecting to invite him to join their Synod; for he alleged that there is a sacerdotal canon which declares that whatever is enacted contrary to the judgment of the bishop of Rome is null.”
-ibid 3:10

When we take a look at the practice of the Early Church, the Eastern Historians, the Eastern Bishops, and the letters of the Popes, we can get a better understanding of what Canon 6 really means. We can also get a better understanding of the fact that the Bishop of Rome had universal jurisdiction and wasn’t just a “first among equal”.

I love your open mindedness, Jon and hope you read all of those with an open mind. Please note that there are so many other passages that I can produce but I hope those are sufficient to see that the Bishop of Rome was not just a first among equal.

Grace and peace, brother!

 

[lyrikal]

“Although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other Churches, but has received the **primay **by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior…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.”
-The Decree of Damascus 3

That should read Primacy not primay. Sorry.

 

[Lisa44]

The definition of the Trinity was NOT that widely accepted when it was defined. It was defined because of the support for alternative positions. Indeed, if we presume with the Trinity you include the hypostatic union of the Son with the Father, then looking at history you will see that the Trinitarian view was in fact the minority view at various points, under heavy persecution, even nearly stamped out–for the Arians came as close as ever has happened to suppressing the truth of the Catholic Church.

In these cases, it was the determined, unwavering position of the Bishops of Rome that stood for and preserved the Christian belief in the Trinity. It took the recognized primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and the steadfastness of said See (a true evidence of the proof of infallibility as a gift of the Spirit), to see true Christianity (Trinitarian) preserved against the heresies. It is only by virtue of the See of Peter (via the work of the Holy Spirit fulfilling Christ’s promise) that nearly all professing Christians today profess faith in a Trinitarian God, and assume this as a matter of course with little to no debate.

The acceptance of the Trinity as a doctrine, then, was not always the majority position, not as broadly “ecumenical” as you would have it–either during the Council of Nicea or for many decades after.

A great book that investigates the history is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic by Mike Aquilina. I recommend it highly

Theology developed over time, that is true. And eventually the doctrine of the trinity was made official. However, what I want to point out is that it wasn’t settled quite as innocently as you make it out. You seem to be unaware of the strongarm tactics that were used by the church.

Lets not forget that the church had the power to make and break a bishops career. And if they didn’t like what you were preaching or writing about they burned your books and excommunicated you. Even, before the subject was declared heretical. In effect, silencing you.

Not only that, but they had ways of making sure some bishops didn’t make it to the council to vote. And the ones that were there to vote were also often intimidated into a voting position. Or they were influenced with bribes.

 

[Augustine3]

We cling to Christ. That said;

**“We concede – as we must – that so much of what they [the Catholic Church] say is true: that the papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?” ** - Luther

Sounds like a great deal of respect, that it is the Catholic Church that preserved scripture and the faith.

Jon

That’s fantastic common ground!

Why not believe all the Catholic Church teaches rather than just part?

God bless,

 

[Arandur]

Theology developed over time, that is true. And eventually the doctrine of the trinity was made official. However, what I want to point out is that it wasn’t settled quite as innocently as you make it out. You seem to be unaware of the strongarm tactics that were used by the church.

Lets not forget that the church had the power to make and break a bishops career. And if they didn’t like what you were preaching or writing about they burned your books and excommunicated you. Even, before the subject was declared heretical. In effect, silencing you.

Not only that, but they had ways of making sure some bishops didn’t make it to the council to vote. And the ones that were there to vote were also often intimidated into a voting position. Or they were influenced with bribes.

I’d be interested in your sources. I’m no true historian, more a hobbyist, but from what I’ve read, it seems the tactics you’re referring to, when we see them in the early centuries of the Church, were used predominately by the various heretical branches, and much less often by the orthodox bishops, who were more likely the victims. Indeed, the Arians were infamous for persecutions, backed by emperors and aristocrats, driving many into exile.

Before that, though, before the 4th century, when the Church was still essentially illegal in Rome, there was little opportunity for the systematic persecution of opponents that you suggest, particularly anything in an official capacity. It is also difficult for a minority to persecute a majority, particularly when the majority holds the political power–as in the case of the Arians. Which is why it is all the more miraculous that the true doctrine of the Church was preserved (in the See of Rome) against such hostilities, eventually overcoming them.