St. Irenaeus Against Heresies and the warning against the Antichrist

St. Irenaeus Against Heresies and the warning against the Antichrist
click on picture



click on picture

Always pray for the deliverance of the little ones

Over Population Myth Genocide is from The devil a murderer from the beginning – liar, father of lies

La plus belle nuit du monde


















Doxology and Kyrie


Evening Hymn

O Christ Jesus, radiant light of the immortal glory of the Father of heaven! As the sun sinks to its setting we are face to face with the twilight of evening: we honour God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You are worthy ever to be hymned by voices that are pure, Son of God who gives us life. The universe proclaims your glory.

Athenegoras, Christian martyr, at the lighting of the lamps

Traditional Christian Catholic Orthodox Sites in the Great Battle

Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ said

Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ said
Matthew 11:28 Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy burdened, and I will give you rest. (click on picture)

Main Blog List

Parousia of Jesus Christ Our Lord

Parousia of Jesus Christ Our Lord


The Return of Christ

Parousia of Jesus Christ Our Lord

The Promise of His coming. His commands to prepare and be worthy.

Statement of what is happening in the world in connection with the Second Coming of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Nuzul i Isa - Qiyamah, the Parousia of Jesus Christ Our Lord.

Rv:22:7 Behold I come quickly. Blessed is he that keepeth the words of the prophecy of this book.

Wednesday, April 16, 2014

Réné-Francois Guettée - The Papacy - part twelve

Upon reaching Constantinople, the Crusaders showed the young Alexis to the people, but soon perceived that they would excite no sympathy in this manner. They then
determined to force him upon the city, which they took by assault. They sent news of this to the Pope by a letter in which they sought to excuse themselves for having, attacked the Greeks.*   The cruel usurper of the empire (Alexis Angelus) had harangued the people and had persuaded them that the Latins were coming to ruin their ancient liberty, and subjugate, the empire to their laws and to the authority of the Pope.  This so excited them against us and against the young Prince, that they would not listen to us."  They pretended to have been first attacked by the Greeks; they related what the old Emperor Isaac, together with his son
Alexis, was doing for them, and took good care to add, "He further promises to render you that obedience which the Catholic emperors, his predecessors have rendered to the Popes, and to do all in his power to lead back the Greek Church to that obedience.”
One of the chiefs of the Crusaders, the Count of St. Paul, wrote, on his part, to the Duke of Louvain: "We have so much advanced the cause of the Saviour that the Eastern Church, of which Constantinople was formerly the metropolis, being reunited to the Pope its head, with the Emperor and all his empire, as it was formerly, recognizes herself as the daughter of the Roman Church, and will humbly obey her for the future. The Patriarch himself is to go to Rome to receive his pallium, and has promised the Emperor on his oath to
do so.  The young Alexis wrote in the same strain to the Pope.  "We own," he said, "that the
chief cause which has brought the pilgrims to succor us is, that we have voluntarily promised, and upon oath, that we would humbly recognize theRoman Pontiff as the Ecclesiastical head of all Christendom, and as the successor of St. Peter, and that we would use all our power to lead the Eastern Church to that recognition, understanding well, that such reunion will be very useful to the empire and most glorious for us. We repeat to you the same promises by these presents, and we ask your advice how to woo back the Eastern Church."
It was, therefore, well understood that union meant nothing but submission to the Roman see. The Crusaders and their protegés knew that only such promises could lead Innocent III. to approve what he had at first censured. The experiment succeeded. Innocent replies to Alexis that he approves of his views as to the reunion of the Eastern Church. If he will remain faithful to his engagements, he promises him all manner of prosperity; if he should fail, he predicts that he will fall before his enemies.
Innocent then replied to the Crusaders.  He feared that they had only exacted from Alexis the promise to subject the Eastern to the Roman Church, in order to excuse their own fault. We will judge by these results," he said, “whether you have acted sincerely: if the Emperor sends us letters-patent that we may preserve as authentic proof of his oath; if the Patriarch sends us a solemn deputation to recognize the primacy of the Roman Church, and to promise obedience to us; and if he asks of us the pallium, without which he cannot legitimately exercise the Patriarchal functions.”

* See Villehardouin; see It. Godef. ad ann. 1203; Raynold. Annal.; Innocent III. Epist.

Could the Eastern Church recognize such a doctrine as being that of the first eight centuries?
The Crusaders soon quarreled with Alexis, who, when he was Emperor, at once forgot his promises. But this young prince had alienated the Greeks by ascending the throne by means of the Latins. He was dethroned, and Constantinople fell into the power of an adventurer. The Crusaders decided that this man had no right to the crown, and that the Greeks were to be treated without much consideration, since they had withdrawn from their obedience to the Pope.  They, therefore, took possession of the city, and placed one of their number, Baldwin, Count of Flanders, on the throne. Constantinople was sacked; all its churches polluted, pillaged, and laid waste.
The Latin Empire of Constantinople began in 1204 and ended in 1261.  During that period of about half a century, the hatred between the Greeks and Latins assumed fearful proportions. The Marquis of Monferrat, chief of the Crusaders, wrote to the Pope, that, if Constantinople had been taken, it was principally to do a service to the holy see, and bring the Greeks back to the obedience which was due to it. “After our miraculous conquest," he adds, “we have done nothing except for the sake of reuniting the Eastern Church to the holy see; and we await your counsel for that result."
In his reply, Innocent censures the excesses and sacrileges of which the Crusaders had been guilty. "The Greeks," he adds, "notwithstanding the bad treatment they suffer from
those who wish to force them to return to the obedience of the Roman Church, cannot make up their minds to do so, because they only see crimes and works of darkness in the Latins, and they hate them like dogs. . . . But the judgments of God," continues the Pope, “are impenetrable, and hence we would not judge lightly in this affair. It may be that the Greeks have been justly punished for their sins, although you acted unjustly in gratifying your own hatred against them; it is possible that God may justly reward you for having been the instruments of His own vengeance." It is evident that Innocent III. was calm enough to make subtle distinctions in the presence of a city of bloodshed and rains. The rest of his letter is worthy of the foregoing: "Let us leave," he says, "these doubtful questions. This is certain, that you may keep and defend the land which is conquered for you by the decision of God; upon this condition, however, that you will restore the possessions of the churches, and that you always remain faithful to the holy see and to us."
The Papal sovereignty was the great and single aim. Crimes became virtues, provided the authority of the holy see was propagated and sustained.
Not content with approving the taking of Constantinople, Innocent undertook to establish firmly the new empire. He accordingly wrote to the bishops of France a circular, of which this is the substance: "God, wishing to hallow His Church by the reunion of the schismatics, has transferred the empire of the proud, disobedient, and superstitious Greeks to the humble, pious, catholic, and submissive Latins. The new Emperor, Baldwin, invites all manner of people, clerical and lay, noble and villain, of all sexes and conditions, to come to his empire to receive wealth according to their merit and quality. The Pope, therefore, commands the bishops to persuade every one to come; and he promises the Indulgence of the Crusade to those who will go to uphold the new empire.”
Baldwin having begged the Pope to send him some Latin ecclesiastics to strengthen the Papal Church in the East, Innocent wrote a new circular to the bishops of France. "Send," says he, "to that country all the books you can spare, at least to have them copied, that the Church of the East may agree with that of the West in the praises of God!"  Thus the venerable liturgies of the East found no grace in the eyes of the Papacy. It was a new church it wished for in the new Latin-Greek Empire.

Baldwin established a Latin clergy at Constantinople, and named the canons, whom he installed at Saint Sophia. These elected the Venetian, Thomas Morosini, for their Patriarch. Innocent found no irregularity except in his elective character; therefore, instead of confirming the election, he directly appointed Thomas to the Patriarchate. His letter deserves to be quoted: “As for the personal character of the Patriarch elect, he is sufficiently
known to us and to our Brethren the Cardinals, because of the long sojourn be has made with us.  We know he is of a noble race, and of proper life, prudent, circumspect, and sufficiently learned. But having examined the election, we have not found it canonical, because, laymen having no right to dispose of ecclesiastical affairs, the Patriarch of Constantinople should not have been elected by the authority of any secular prince. Besides, the Venetian clergymen, who call themselves canons of Saint Sophia, could not have the right of election, not having been established in their Church either by ourselves or our legates or deputies. For this reason we have cancelled the election in full Consistory.”
Then the Pope declares that, wishing to provide for that Church, the care of which is specially his, he appoints the same Thomas Patriarch in virtue of the fulness of his power.
Nothing can be legitimate in the Church, except by this full power; such was the claim of the Papacy.
Innocent defended the ecclesiastical possessions of which a part had been appropriated by the Crusaders.  “It is not expedient," he said, “for the holy see to authorize this act. Moreover, since their treaty was made with the Venetians--for the honour of the Roman Church, as they say in nearly every article--we cannot confirm an act which detracts from that honour."
Innocent conferred upon Thomas Morosini, who was only a sub-deacon, the diaconate, the priesthood, and the episcopacy; then he published a bull, in which he thus expresses himself: "The prerogative of grace which the holy see has given to the Byzantine Church proves clearly the fulness of power that this see has received from God, since the holy see has put that Church in the rank of Patriarchal Churches. It has drawn it, as it were,
from the dust; it has raised it to the point of preferring it to those of Alexandria, Antioch, and
Jerusalem; it has placed it next to the Roman Church, above all others."
Innocent recognized the fact that the Church of Constantinople had the second rank in the Church. But he ascribed this to the Roman see, although that see had protested against
the decrees of the œcumenical councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon, which had given that Church the second rank in spite of Rome. It was thus that the Papacy in the middle ages distorted history to find proofs in support of its pretensions.
The Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, John Camaterus, resigned and retired to Thrace. He was succeeded by Michael Autorian, who crowned Theodore Lascaris Emperor of the Greeks. They both fixed their residence at Nicea in Bithynia.
The French and Venetians quarreled about the new Latin Patriarch and the division of the ecclesiastical property. Thomas applied to the Pope, who replied in a long letter, from which we will quote an extract: “Of the four beasts which are about the throne Ezekiel put the eagle above the others, because, of the four Patriarchal Churches, represented by the four beasts, which surround the holy see as its servants, the Church of Constantinople has the preëminence."

Thus Rome was the throne. The imperial eagle, the type of Constantinople, was to be the first of the symbolic beasts that adored it. Such was Innocent's modest notion of his authority. He thus gives a divine origin to the preeminence of Constantinople, because it had come from the holy see--God's organ. After this preamble the Pope gives Thomas some instructions, among which we will notice the following: "You ask me how you should

arrange the bishoprics in those countries where there are only Greeks, and in those where they are mixed with Latins. In the first you must consecrate Greek bishops, if you find any, who will be faithful to you, and are willing to receive consecration from you.  In mixed bishoprics you will ordain Latins, and give them preference over the Greeks. . . . If you cannot bring the Greeks to the Latin ritual, you must suffer them to keep their own until the holy see otherwise orders."  Such was the policy constantly followed by the Papacy in respect to the united Greeks; to tolerate them until they could be made to submit.
From that epoch there were in the East, by Papal authority, two Catholic churches opposed to each other. Schism was thenceforth an accomplished fact, (1206.) As the Bishop of Thessalonica justly wrote to Pope Adrian IV., no schism really existed before that period. There had merely been a protest of the Eastern Church against the Roman innovations. This protest was anterior to Michael Cerularius and even to Photius. It took a more decided character under those Patriarchs, because Rome innovated more and more, and wished to impose her autocracy upon the whole Church; but in reality the schism had not taken shape. As Fleury judiciously remarks, respecting the intercourse between Manuel Comnenus and Alexander III., "It cannot be said that in his day the schism of the Greeks had yet taken shape."*   This cursory remark of the learned historian, who cannot be suspected of partiality for the Greek Church, has an importance which every one will understand. It necessarily follows from it that neither Photius nor Michael Cerularius created the schism. Who then was its author? It would be impossible to point one out among the Greeks.  To our minds it is the Papacy, which, after having called forth the protests of the Eastern Church, and strengthened them by its own autocratic pretensions, was really the founder of the schism. The true author of it is Pope Innocent III.   It had been commenced by the Latin Church of Jerusalem; it was consummated by that of Constantinople.
This is the testimony of authentic and impartial history. The Papacy, after having established the schism, strengthened it by establishing Latin bishoprics in cities where Greek
bishoprics had existed since the Apostolic times. When the Latin bishops could not reside
there, Rome gave them titles in partibus infidelium, as if the Apostolic Church of the East had none but infidels among its members.
Innocent III. died in 1216.  His successors continued his work.  But the Greek Emperors of Nicea, on the verge of being overcome by the Latin Emperors of Constantinople, bethought themselves to resume the policy of their predecessors toward the
Papacy. At the entreaty of the Emperor John Vataces, the Patriarch Germanus wrote to Pope Gregory IX. (1232.) His letter was filled with the best sentiments. He first calls upon Jesus Christ, the corner-stone which joins all nations in one and the same Church; he
acknowledges the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, and declares that he has no desire to contest it; and he adds: "Let us seek, with all possible care, who have been the authors of the division. If we ourselves, then point out to us the wrong we have committed and apply the remedy; if the Latins, then we cannot believe that it is your determination to remain outside of the Lord's heritage, through ignorance or criminal obstinacy. All acknowledge that the division has sprung from different beliefs, from abolishing canons and changing the ritual
that has come to us by tradition from our fathers. Now all are witness that we ask supplicatingly to be reunited in the truth, after a profound examination to be made thereof, so that we may no longer hear from either party the imputation of schism." After having drawn the picture of the woes which that imputation of schism had drawn upon them from the Crusaders, Germanus exclaims, "Is it this that St. Peter teaches when he recommends the

* Fleury Hist. Eccl. liv. ixxiii. § 32.
See this letter Labbe’s collection of Councils, vol. xi.; also in the Historian Matthew Parris.

pastors to govern their flocks without violence or domination? I know that each of us believes himself right, and thinks that he is not mistaken. Well then, let us appeal to Holy Scripture and the Fathers."
Germanus wrote in the same way to the Cardinals who constituted the Pope's council. “Permit us," he writes to them; "to speak the truth; division has come from the tyrannical oppression that you exercise, and from the exactions of the Roman Church, which is no mother, but a stepmother, and tramples upon the other churches just in proportion as they humiliate themselves before her. We are scandalized to see you exclusively attached to the things of this world, on all sides heaping up gold and silver, and making kingdoms pay you tribute." Germanus then demands a thorough examination of the questions that divide the Church; and to show the importance of such an examination, he calls attention to the fact that a large number of nations agree with him.
Gregory IX.* did not follow Germanus upon the ground which this Patriarch had taken. He accuses the Greek Church of too much submission to the temporal power,
whereby it had lost its liberty; but he does not say wherein the liberty of the Church lies. For every Christian that liberty consists in the right to preserve revealed doctrine and Apostolic laws in their integrity. From this point of view has not the Eastern Church been always more free than the Western? Whether a Church sacrifice the truth to an Emperor or to a Pope- King, it is equally servile in either case. Is it not wonderful to hear the Papacy talk thus of liberty to the Eastern Church while in the very act of attempting her subjugation, and after it has enslaved the Church of the West? Gregory IX., instead of accepting the discussion proposed by Germanus, promised to send him two Dominicans and two Franciscans to explain to him his intentions and those of the Cardinals. These monks actually set out for
Nicea in the following year, (A.D. 1233,) bearing a letter to the Patriarch Germanus, in which the Pope compared the Greek schism to that of Samaria. It will be granted that the comparison was not very exact.
In fact, Rome was neither Jerusalem, nor the universal temple, nor the guardian of the
law. These titles rather belonged to the Eastern Church than to the Roman, which had altered dogmas and Apostolic laws, while the other had piously preserved them. In the same letter Gregory IX. claims, as head of the Church, the twofold power, spiritual and temporal; he
even maintains that Jesus Christ gave that power to St. Peter when he said to him, “Put up thy sword into the sheath." This interpretation of the text is worthy of the opinion it was cited to sustain. Gregory IX. concludes by attacking the use of leavened bread for the Eucharist.
"That bread," be said, "typifies the corruptible body of Jesus Christ, while the unleavened bread represents his risen and glorious body."  The four Western monks were received at Nicea with great honours.  They conferred with the Greek clergy concerning the procession of the Holy Ghost; the report is still extant that was made in the West. In this report the monks claim to have had the advantage, as may well be imagined; but by their own showing, they confounded substance with personality in the Trinity--the essential procession, with the temporary sending of the Holy Spirit upon the Church; they misquoted Scripture and the Fathers; they could give no reason for the addition made to the creed; and they likened that addition, irregularly made, and involving a new dogma, to the development that the œcumenical Council of Constantinople had given to the creed of the first œcumenical
Council of Nicea.
As for the Eucharist, the discussion concerning it was quite insignificant. Before they retired, the monks declared to the Emperor that, if the Greeks wished to unite with the

*Greg. IX. Ep. in Labbe’s Collection of Councils, vol. xi.
Gospel acc. to St. John 18:11.
Ap. Raynald. ad Ann. 1233.

Roman Church, they must subscribe to her doctrine and submit to the Pope's authority. It appears, therefore, that they had not come to inquire what was the true doctrine, and whether or not the Papal authority was legitimate; union to them, as to the Pope, meant nothing but submission. The Patriarch Germanus did not understand it so; therefore he called a council to examine the points of difference existing between the Greeks and Latins.* That assembly was held at Nymphæum. According to the account of the Nuncios themselves, their only triumph was in asking the Greeks why they no longer submitted to the Pope, after having formerly recognized his authority? If we may believe them, the Greeks were very much embarrassed by this question, and kept silence. Such a remark is sufficient to show with how little
honesty their account was composed. Certainly the most ignorant of the Greeks knew that the Papal authority had never been recognized in the East. After long discussions upon the procession of the Holy Spirit, and upon unleavened bread, the Emperor summoned the Nuncios and said to them, "To arrive at peace, each side must make concessions; abandon your addition to the creed, and we will approve of your unleavened bread." The Nuncios refused. "How then shall we conclude peace?" asked the Emperor. "Thus," replied the Nuncios: "You shall believe and teach that the Eucharist can be consecrated only in unleavened bread; you shall burn all the books in which a different doctrine is taught; you shall believe and teach that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father, and shall burn all the books that teach the contrary. The Pope and the Roman Church will
not abate one iota of their belief; the only concession that can be made to you is, not to oblige you to chaunt the creed with the Latin addition. Such was the substance of the reply of the Nuncios.  The Emperor was much annoyed at it, and at the last session of the council the two parties separated, mutually anathematizing each other. No other result could have been anticipated.
About thirty years after this Council, (A.D. 1269,) Michael Palæologus reëntered
Constantinople, and destroyed the Latin empire, which had only lasted fifty-seven years. The Papacy now saw vanish its most cherished hopes. Urban IV., the reigning Pope, wrote to Louis IX., King of France, urging him to take up the defence of the Latin Emperor, “expelled by the schismatic Greeks, to the shame of the West." He endeavoured to arouse the whole of Europe, and caused a Crusade to be preached against Palæologus. The Emperor sought to move the Pope by embassies and presents, and promises to work efficiently for the union of the churches. This policy, first adopted by the Comneni, and now resumed by Palæologus, resulted in two solemn assemblies--the second Council of Lyons and that of Florence, in which it was sought to fix upon a basis of union. All endeavours to do this proved futile, because the Papacy had no notion of having its supreme and universal authority, nor its doctrines, called in question. Clement IV. formally declared this in a proposal for union
which he sent to Michael Palæologus by four Franciscans. According to the same Pope, Michael was guilty of the division existing between the churches, because if he chose to use his power, he could force all the Greek clergy to subscribe to the demands of the Pope.  To use that power, he said, in forcing the Greek clergy was the only mode of securing his empire against the enterprises of the Latins. Thus, according to Clement IV., interest, brute force, and threats were the true means of obtaining unity. Michael Palæologus was particularly in danger of an invasion on the part of Charles, King of Sicily. Remembering that Clement IV. had written to him that the only mode of protecting himself against the Latins was to unite
the churches, he wrote to Gregory X. to express to him his own good intentions in this respect.

* Raynald. ad Ann. 1233; Wading. Annal. Min. ad Ann. 1233.
Raynald Annal. Eccl.; Labbe’s Collection of Councils, vol. ix.; Wading. Annal. min.; Pachymeros, Hist. Orient. book v.

It is not our purpose to give a detailed account of the relations between Gregory and Michael. We need only say that the latter acted solely from political motives; that he abused his imperial power to persuade some of the bishops to favour his projects; that he persecuted those who resisted him; that some bishops, who were traitors from interested motives, made all the concessions that the Pope demanded; that their course was disavowed by the rest, notwithstanding the dreadful persecutions that this disavowal drew upon them; in fine, that reunion, instead of being established by those intrigues and acts of violence, only became more difficult than ever.
Such is, in substance, the history of what took place at the second Council of Lyons (1274) in regard to the reunion of the churches, and of what took place in the Greek Church after the Council. It is all political, and has no religious character. Gregory X. declared peace at Lyons upon the basis laid down by Clement IV. But this union was only made with Michael Palæologus and a few men without principles. The Church of the East had no share in it. Rome herself was so persuaded of this, that Martin IV. excommunicated Michael Palæologus for having, tricked the Pope under pretext of reunion, (1281.)  Andronicus, who succeeded Michael, (1283,) renounced a policy in which there was so little truth.
But it was resumed by John Palæologus for the Council of Florence.
In the interval between these two assemblies of Lyons and Florence, several parleys took place between the Popes and the Emperors, but they resulted in nothing, because the Eastern Church, instead of drawing nearer to the Church of Rome, was increasing the distance between them in proportion as the Papacy became more proud and exacting.
Still, John Palæologus; succeeded, by using all his authority, in persuading a few bishops to attend the Council of Florence.
There were two distinct periods in that assembly that of the doctrinal expositions, and that of the concessions.
By the doctrinal exposition it was made apparent that the Eastern Church differed from the Roman upon many fundamental points, and that she maintained her doctrine against Papal innovations, because that doctrine had been bequeathed to her by the Apostles and the ancient Fathers.
The concessions were inconsistent with the doctrinal exposition. Why? Because the Pope and the Emperor of the East used all the resources of their despotic power to overcome the resistance of the Greeks; because the Pope, in spite of his formal engagements, left to perish with hunger those Greeks who did not yield to his demands, while at the same time the Emperor of the East rendered their return to their country an impossibility; because the Papacy was able to gain over some ambitious men, whose treachery it rewarded with a cardinal's hat and other honours.  But the Papacy did not succeed, for all that, in obtaining from the Council of Florence any distinct recognition of its pretended sovereignty. For that assembly, even while it proclaimed that sovereignty of divine right, inserted in its decree one clause which annulled it, and declared it a sacrilegious usurpation.
In fact that sovereignty can only be an usurpation if we seek to determine its character by a reference to the œcumenical councils.
Thus was iniquity false to herself in that famous assembly, which was nothing more than a conspiracy against sound doctrine, which, under the name of a union, promulgated only a mendacious compromise, broken before it was concluded; the abettors of which were anathematized by the Eastern Church; of which the Church of the West, represented in a great majority by the Council of Basle, condemned the principal author, Pope Eugene, as a heretic, a schismatic, and a rebel to the church.
Since the sad drama of Florence the Papacy has not attempted to subjugate the
Eastern Church. It has preferred to endeavour to disorganize her, little by little, in order

gradually to attain to her enslavement. Its policy has been to pay an outward respect to the Eastern ritual and doctrine; to profit by every circumstance particularly by all conflicts between nationalities, to insinuate itself and lend its authority as a support and a safeguard to national rights; to be contented, at first, with a vague and indeterminate recognition of that authority, and then, by all manner of hypocrisy and deceit, to strengthen that authority, in order to turn it afterward against the doctrines and ritual for which at first it feigned respect. This explains the contradictory bulls issued by the Popes on the subject of the united of all churches. The united Greeks of the East and of Russia, the united Armenians, the united Bulgarians, the united Maronites, etc., etc.
If, as we hope, we should ever publish a special work on the points of difference between the Eastern and Roman Churches, we shall exhibit in its details, and with proper references to authorities, the policy of the Papacy. We shall detect that policy at work in the assemblies of Lyons and of Florence; in all the relations between the Popes and the Emperors of Constantinople, since the establishment of the Latin kingdoms of the East; and in the contradictory bulls that have emanated from Rome from that time to our own.
Our object in the present work has been only to prove:
First. That the Papacy, from and after the ninth century, attempted to impose, in the name of God, upon the universal Church, a yoke unknown to the first eight centuries.
Secondly. That this ambition called forth a legitimate opposition on the part of the
Eastern Church.
Thirdly. That the Papacy was the first cause of the division.
Fourthly. That the Papacy strengthened and perpetuated this division by its innovations, and especially by maintaining as a dogma the unlawful sovereignty that it had assumed.
Fifthly. That by establishing a Papal Church in the very bosom of the Catholic Church of the East, it made a true schism of that division, by setting up one altar against another altar, and an illegitimate episcopacy against an Apostolic episcopacy.
We have proved all these points by unanswerable facts. It is therefore with justice that we turn back upon the Papacy itself that accusation of schism of which it is so lavish toward those who refuse to recognize its autocracy, and who stand up in the name of GOD and Catholic tradition against its usurpations and sacrilegious enterprises.
We say now to every honest man: On the one side you have heard Scripture interpreted according to the Catholic tradition; you have heard the Œcumenical Councils and the Fathers of the Church; you have heard the Bishops of Rome of the first eight centuries. On the other side you have heard the Popes subsequent to the eighth century. Can you say that the doctrines of the one and of the other are identical? Are you not compelled to acknowledge that there are concerning the Papacy two contradictory doctrines: the divine doctrine, preserved during eight centuries even in the bosom of the Roman Church--a doctrine which condemns every idea of autocracy or sovereignty in the Church of Jesus Christ; and the Papal doctrine, which makes of that autocracy an essential and fundamental dogma of the Church, a dogma without which the Church cannot exist?
Which is the doctrine that every Christian must prefer? That of GOD, or that of the
Pope? That of the Church, or that of the Court of Rome?
You must choose between the two.  Are you in favour of the divine doctrine, preserved by the Church ? Then you are a Catholic Christian. Are you in favour of the doctrine of the Papacy?  Then you are a Papist, but you are not a Catholic.  This name only belongs to those, who, in their faith, follow Catholic tradition,.  That tradition contradicts the Papal system; hence you cannot be a Catholic and accept this system. It is high time to cease playing upon words and to speak distinctly; be a Papist if you will, but do not then call yourself a Catholic.

Would you be a Catholic?  Be no longer a Papist.  There is no possible compromise;for
Catholic and Papist are words which mutually deny each other.


THE nature of the questions discussed in the following work would ordinarily lift them
above all personal considerations and require that the argument be left to take care of itself in the honest vindication of Catholic truth. There attaches to the present treatise, however, an interest quite separated from its merits as an argument, in its identification with the history of a man of whose remarkable career and labors it is one of the most valuable fruits. It is believed, therefore, that it can scarcely fail to derive additional force from the account which it is proper here to give of the author.
Réné-Francois Guettée was born at Blois, on the banks of the Loire, in the Department of the Loire et Cher, on the first of December, 1816, of worthy parentage, but with no other inheritance than a good name and fair opportunities for education. Self- devoted from the beginning to the Church, his studies were pursued regularly and entirely in his native city.  From a very early age his rnind seems to have revolted against the wearisome routine that ruled the system of instruction, under which the seminarist becomes a mere receptacle in quantity and quality of the knowledge judged by the Church of Rome to be the needful preparation for the instruments of her despotic rule. Guettée, without comprehending then the evil results of such a system, felt on its restraints and insufficiency. His mind, in its ardent desire for knowledge and its rapid acquisition, worked out of the prescribed limits
with an instinctive appropriation of the whole domain of truth, and read and studied in secret. He consecrated to study the time devoted by others to amusement, and thus stored his mind with knowledge both varied and accurate. But such predilections, never viewed with favor
by the Church of Rome, disquieted Guettée’s professors, and marked him as an independentt young man, a character always regarded with jealousy and suspicion. All possible obstacles were accordingly thrown in his way and had not his scrupulous regularity of conduct and unquestionable piety counterbalanced these unfavorable impressions, he might have found difficulty in obtaining orders.
At the age of twenty-one M. Guettée was admitted to the sub-diaconate; at twenty- two he was made deacon, and at twenty-three years he was advanced to the priesthood, receiving his ordination on the twenty-first day of December, 1839, at the hands of Mgr. de Sausin, Bishop of Blois. He began at once the faithful exercise of his ministry, first as vicar, then as curé. Mgr. de Sausin was succeeded in the see of Blois by Mgr. Fabre des Essarts, a man  of liberal mind and of strong Gallican predilections. He soon perceived in the young curé qualities that inspired him with warm interest in his welfare. M. Guettée studies, directed by a mind unshackled by prejudice, spurred by an ardent love of truth and insatiable thirst for knowledge, had led him, soon before his ordination to the priesthood, to conceive the idea of writing a History of the Church of France. To this work he gave himself with characteristic ardor immediately after his ordination. Having been appointed in 1841 to the cure of a small parish distant about twelve miles from Blois, where the duties left him the
larger portion of his time for study, he frequently rose at daybreak, and walked to the city for the purpose of studying in the public library, which is very rich in religious literature, and where be found all the great historical collections and monuments of learning in France.
After devoting six hours to close study, he returned on foot to the solitude of his own chamber, where a large part of the night was consumed in work upon the materials he had gathered. Absorbed thus between the cares of his ministry and his literary labors, he at
length attracted the notice of his bishops who remarked that he never presented himself at the episcopal palace, although coming frequently to the episcopal city. He accordingly sent to him a request to know the subject of his laborious study at the library; and having learned the

truth, asked to see the manuscript of the first volume, then nearly completed. This he caused to be carefully examined by his Vicar-General, M. Guettée, the most learned the diocese, whose report was of the most flattering character. Mgr. des Essarts thereupon resolved to encourage the young writer and give him every facility for his work M. Guettée was accordingly transferred to another parish very near the episcopal city, and where the charge of the ministry upon his time was equally light. The episcopal library was placed at his service and the emoluments of his post enabled him to go from time to time to Paris for such researches in the great libraries as became necessary.
Thus M. Guettée passed several years in the successful prosecution of his great work. In 1847 Mgr. Fabre des-Essarts proposed to his own publisher to begin the publication of the History of the Church of France no sooner had the first volume appeared than the author received from a large number of the French bishops letters of the warmest commendation; while on the other hand there was formed against him in his own diocese a hostile party, composed of priests immediately surrounding the bishop, who were rendered jealous by the marks of episcopal favor lavished upon the new writer, and of the directors of the seminaries, who could not forgive one who had shown so little reverence for their narrow prescriptions, and who owed so little to them. The bitterness of this party could only acquire intensity in
the steady progress of our author in the path of distinction. In 1849 M. Guettée, with the approbation of the Bishop resigned his cure, and came to Blois to accept the editorial charge of a political journal which bad been offered to him by the authorities of the department. After the public excitement caused by the proclamation of the Republic in 1848 had somewhat subsided, the sincere democrats of the country who did not sever the cause of order from that of liberty, felt the necessity of creating such organs of a true democracy as should enlighten the people upon their duties as well as upon the question of their rights. With this aim was founded Le Republicain de Loire et Cher, and some surprise was caused at seeing the editorship of the journal confided to a priest by democrats, who had until then passed for enemies of the clergy and of the Church. The confidence of his friends was; fully
justified in the influence which M. Guettée obtained for this journal by his earnest defense of the principles to which it was devoted, founding and strengthening them upon the authority
of the Gospel, and showing them to be in harmony with the principles of revealed religion.
By this service be attached more firmly to him the regard of the Bishop of Blois, who then conceived the design of drawing the Abbé into closer relations with himself by giving him a residence in the episcopal palace; but before this plan could be executed the Bishop was prostrated by the disease that was destined to remove him from life in the following
year. M. l'Abbe Garapin, a vicar-general, an intelligent and learned man in the episcopal administration of Blois, who, like the Bishop, felt a strong regard for M. Guettée, informed him secretly of the Bishop's kind intentions, but counselled him to decline them and thereby escape the machinations of his enemies in the administration, who would be certain, as soon as the Bishop's approaching death should put the power into their hands, to signalize it by driving him from the palace. M. Guettée followed this friendly advice, and having, resigned the charge of the journal he had edited for eighteen months, because by this change of régime he could no longer edit it with independence, and seeing his friend the Bishop at the point of death, be resolved to quit the diocese of Blois, and demand permission to establish himself at Paris, where he might enjoy more facilities for the completion of his History of the Church of France.  Knowing that the first vicar-gencral would very joyfully seize the opportunity of ridding, the diocese of one for whom be cherished so cordial a dislike, he asked and readily obtained a full letter of credit certifying to his learning and piety.
Thus furnished, M. Guettée arrived in Paris, and made no other request of the archiepiscopal administration there than to be authorized to say mass within the diocese,

attaching himself at the same time to an ecclesiastical college as professor. Mgr.  Sibour, then Archbishop of Paris, having been apprised of the residence of M. Guettée in the capital, invited him to present himself at the episcopal palace, and offered him a chaplaincy with such warmth of manner that he did not feel at liberty to refuse so evident a desire to serve him. In 1851 six volumes of the History of the Church of France had already been
published, and the author had received for it the approbation of more than forty of the French bishops.  This success caused great uneasiness to the ultramontane party. M. Guettée, it appeared, while so treating his great subject as to win the high suffrages just referred to, manifested so sincere a love of truth that his work became dangerous to a party with whom this was no recommendation. The design was immediately formed of gaining over the author, and accordingly Mgr. Gousset, Archbishop of Rheims, who was at the head of the ultramontane party, made overtures to him, intimating that honors and ecclesiastical preferment would not be tardy in rewarding his unreserved devotion to the ultramontane doctrines. But this dignitary quickly saw that he, had to deal with one who could not be brought to traffic with his convictions, nor be intimidated by threats. From this moment began that war against him which issued in his present entire withdrawal from communion with the Church of Rome as a branch of the Catholic church schismatical in position and corrupted in doctrine. This alienation, however, was gradual, the fruit of his growing convictions and deeper insight into the principles of the complicated and powerful system with which now he had to grapple. The struggle called for all the resources of this
thoroughly balanced and severely disciplined mind, as well as of his extensive learning. He saw at first far less clearly than did the ultramontane party, the steady divergence of his views from the Papal doctrine. The Gallican tone that pervaded more and more his History of the Church of France proceeded not from a deliberate point of view from which he wrote,
but was the scrupulous and truthful rendering of history by his honest mind, the impartial and logical use of the materials out of which his history was to be made. To such a mind, therefore, the forced revelation of this divergence from the doctrines of a party who for that reason solely demanded his retractation and unquestioning submission, could only increase the dissidence, and so it proved. The first seven volumes of the History. approved by more than forty bishops, and six of them published under the direction and with the sanction of the Bishop of Blois, were placed in the Index of books prohibited by the court of Rome. Mgr. Sibour gave his approbation to the resistance made at once by M. Guettée to this decree.
The author was immediately attacked with great violence by the Univers and other Jesuit journals, and defended himself with great spirit and ability, all his replies being first submitted to Mgr.  Sibour and approved by him. During this struggle the eighth and ninth volumes of the History appeared. Mr. Sibour charged one of his vicars-general, M. l'Abbé Lequeux, with the mission of submitting them to the “Congregation of the Index," with the request that its objections might be made known to the author before they were censured. The author had furnished M. Lequeux with letters bearing a similar petition. This
ecclesiastic had himself suffered by the censure of the Congregation, passed upon his Manual of Cannon -Law, a classic of many years' standing in the seminaries. He had submitted, and was on his way to Rome for the purpose of learning the objections of the Congregation and correcting his work.  But he obtained no satisfaction either for himself or for M. Guettée, whose two new volumes were placed arbitrarily in the Index without a word of explanation
as to the grounds of censure. Thus M. Guettée was baffled in his many respectful and patient endeavors to obtain the desired communication with the Congregation at Rome. He
resolved, therefore, to pursue his work without concerning himself about censures so tyrannical and unreasonable. But matters were about to change their aspect at the archiepiscopal palace. In the course of the year 1854, the bishops were called to Rome to be

present at the promulgation of the new dogma of the Immaculate Conception.  Mgr.  Sibour was not invited. He had addressed to Rome a paper in which he proved that this dogma, or belief, was not definable, because it was not taught either in Holy Scripture, or by Catholic tradition. To punish him for this act he was not included among the bishops invited. Deeply mortified at this omission, he wrote to the Pope touching it, and in a manner so submissive that he was at once rewarded with an invitation couched in the most gracious terms. The character of Mgr. Sibour was well understood at Rome as that of a weak and ambitious man, full of vanity and without fixed convictions, who could be won by flatteries and bought with promises. He was, therefore, received with studied politeness and lodged in the Vatican. His namesake and friend, M. Sibour , curé of the church of St. Thomas Aquinas in Paris, was made Bishop of Tripoli in partibus, and his friend, M. L'Abbé Darboy, the present Archbishop of Paris, was appointed Prothonotaire Apostolique.  For himself he received the promise of a cardinal’s hat. In return for these kindnesses he was constrained to sacrifice his Gallican friends among the clergy of Paris, and the promise made to that effect was well
kept. M. L'Abbé Lequeux, his vicar-general, found himself dismissed to his old place among the Canons of Notre Dame; M. L'Abbé Laborde was persecuted and finally found no better refuge than the hospital, where he soon after died; M. L'Abbé Prompsault, who had been for nearly thirty years chaplain of the Hospice of les Quinze Vingt, was deprived of his position, left without resources, and subsequently died in the hospital not long after. Finally, forgetful or regardless of all the encouragement he had given to M. L’Abbé Guettée in his resistance to the action of the Congregation of the Index, and of his repeated proofs of regard and confidence, he withdrew his support, deprived him of his place, and reduced him, like the others, to poverty. Here, however, he found a less submissive spirit roused by the injustice and tyranny of this act. M. Guettée printed a letter to Mgr. Sibour which proved a home- thrust to this vacillating prelate. It recounted all the facts of his past relations with the Archbishop his patient endeavors to be at peace with the court of Rome, his offers of every reasonable submission, and earnest application directly to the Congregation of the Index, and afterward to Mgr.  Sibour himself, to have his obnoxious work examined by a commission; how this was refused when proceeding from himself as an overture of conciliation, but was subsequently suggested by the Archbishop himself in the form of a menace, to induce the Abbé Guettée to withdraw from Paris voluntarily, and save himself from the threatened censure and disability; that he declined the latter course and opened himself and his work
with every facility to the scrutiny of his judges. He set forth the action of the Council of Rochelle in 1853--the same which proposed to censure Bossuet--which attacked the eighth volume of the History of the Church of France, and did not spare even the Abbé's personal character; that when he had prepared his defense and asked permission of the Archbishop to publish it, lest it should be seized as the pretext for depriving him of his functions, he was answered that before such permission could be accorded he must resign those functions in the diocese of Paris; that he refused to do this, and that by agreement certain copies of his
defense were deposited with the Archbishop, and an agreement made that it should not be published that though this defense was not made the occasion of his premeditated removal,
the pretext for a measure so determined upon was soon after made out of a petty difference of a personal kind between himself and a confrére, without any regard to the importance or the justice of the case; that Mgr. Sibour finally deprived him of the poor office of hospital chaplain, with the evident design of withdrawing from him such means of subsistence as
alone prevented his quitting Paris.
This letter, addressed to Mgr.  Sibour, protesting against his action and fully exposing the motives that could alone have operated to these persecutions, was printed and a copy sent to the Archbishop before it was published. Under the impression, however, that it had been

published, the Archbishop immediately replied by depriving the Abbé of the permission to say mass in Paris, thus completing the disability cast upon him, But upon the Abbé's informing him that the letter had not been published, that it was designed as a defense of himself, not as an attack upon the administration of the diocese, and offering to deposit the edition of the letter at the archiepiscopal palace, to avoid the evils of publicity, Mgr. Sibour next day sent a very kind note to M. Guettée, expressing himself touched by the terms of his response, restoring to him the authority to celebrate mass, accepting the deposit of the copies of his printed letter, and desiring to see him to give him further proof of his satisfaction. At a personal interview the same evening, Mgr. Sibour promised him shortly new ecclesiastical functions.
It would seem, however, that the Archbishop's eyes were beginning to be opened toward Rome. His submission and absolute conversion had so satisfied that court that it was in no haste to confer the promised cardinal's hat; and Mgr. Sibour feeling that he had been amused with words, repented of his acts of injustice and was meditating some reparation, of which his gentler disposition toward M. Guettée was a sign, when these better intentions
were arrested by the tragic death he so suddenly met at the hand of the assassin Verger, in the church of St. Etienne du Mont.
His successor, Cardinal Morlot, was a man of political ideas and aspirations, astute and scheming, who never lost sight of the importance or neglected the means of maintaining the best relations with the powerful. He made every needful concession to the successive governments in France, and at the same time concilitated Rome, feeding its insatiable greed of riches by sending large sums of money for its necessities. Such a man could have no thoughts to bestow upon the trivial work of repairing the wrongs of his predecessor. On the contrary, he was not long in showing himself yet more severe against M. Guettée, and at the
close of the year 1855 finally refused to renew his permission to say mass in Paris.  From this moment began the war in earnest which ended in the separation of our author from the
Church of Rome. After having in vain endeavored to procure from the Archbishop in writing the refusal to sanction the continuance of his ministry in the diocese of Paris--a refusal that was prudently communicated to him verbally by the proper official--he published his appeal to the Pope against the decision as a gross violation of canon law, and another to the government, as an abuse of authority and an invasion of his civil-ecelesiastical rights. These appeals, firm in their language and unanswerable in their facts and arguments, were not published with any hope of answer or justice, but for the purpose of exposing clearly the outrageous violation by his adversary of the ancient liberties of the Gallican Church, and the arbitrary and despotic character of the whole proceeding. He did not imagine that the Pope would ever be permitted to hear of his wrongs, or if he were, that he would listen to them at the expense of his own friends and of the principles upon which the power of the Papacy is built. Nor was it to be expected that the State would embroil itself with an individual conflict with the Church upon a question of canon law. Thus M. l'Abbé Guettée, innocent of the smallest offense against good morals, and with a character free from all taint, without any ecclesiastical censure resting upon him, or any proceedings directed against him, was deprived of the exercise of his ministry, with the evident purpose of driving him from Paris, where his enlightened views caused too much inconvenience to the ultramontane party.
It is unnecessary to say that the scheme failed, or to follow the controversy that ensued upon this open rupture. It had the natural result of disclosing more clearly than ever to M. Guettée the principles of the Church of Rome and the despotic usurpation of the Papacy. The energy and industry with which he answered the attacks upon him developed his views, defined his objections and thoroughly awakened the latent protest of his
enlightened conscience against the pretensions of Rome. He became finally the watchful and

open antagonist of the Papacy, and shortly after found himself the editor of the Review called l'Observateur Catholique, which had, and still has, for its object the resistance of Papal usurpations and corruptions in the Church by the principles of primitive truth and a pure Catholicity. He has published successively a History of the Jesuits, in three volumes; the Memoirs et Journal de l'Abbé Le Dieu sur la Vie et les Ouvraqes de Bossuet, in four
volumes; also a refutation of Renan's Vie de Jesus.  His latest and most important work is the Papauté Schismatique, now presented in English. Six years ago he founded, in conjunction with the Rev. Archpriest Wassilieff, titular head of the Russo-Greek Church in France, and especially attached to the Russian Church in Paris, l'Union Chrétienne, a weekly publication in quarto form, having for its specific object the diffusion of information upon the principles of the primitive Church as those of a true Catholicity, upon which the non-Roman branches of the Church should be recalled to a renewal of their outward unity, and thus a resistless influence be opposed to the invasions of the Papal principle and the corruptions it has
introduced into the primitive faith. It is natural that such a consecration of his labor and such associations, should have led M. Guettée into close and increasingly devoted relations with the Oriental Church, and especially with the Orthodox Church of Russia. His views ceasing to be Roman and Papal only because more intensely Catholic, he sought a home in the East, where the Papal power could never seat itself, and especially in the Orthodox Russian Church, where its pretensions are held in abhorrence. All that is venerable, pure, and
Catholic in the faith and form of the Church of Christ, our author believes he has found in the Russo-Greek branch, and he has therefore attached himself warmly to it, making it the platform for his earnest and pure-minded labors for the restoration of visible unity. He is in turn held in high esteem by the authorities and learned men of the Russian Church, and has recently received from it the high and rare honor of a doctorate in theology. His labors for union are warmly appreciated and encouraged there as they are everywhere by all who understand them. M. Guettée is no enthusiast; he is fully aware of the difficulties and magnitude of the work to which his life is consecrated, and looks for no marked progress or flattering results to show themselves in his lifetime, but is content to sow wide and deep the seeds of truth, leaving them to germinate and become fruitful in God's good time. He has a warm and intelligent appreciation of our American branch of the Church, and looks to its activity in the great endeavor as of the highest importance, believing that her catholic character and free and mobile structure peculiarly mark her as a powerful instrument to promote the interests of the Catholic faith. M. Guettée has in preparation a work of much interest and importance, designed to bring into a single view the harmonies and differences
of the various branches of the Catholic Church. It forms a careful survey of the ground, and is likely to become a valuable help to an enlightened view of the work of unity, to which the providence of God seems to be directing all Christian minds. This new production of M. Guettée will be translated without delay, and published simultaneously in French, Russian, and English.



Acacius, his contest with Rome, 84-86. Adrian I., the first Pope, 114-117.
——  The False Decretals, published during the reign of, 115, et seq., note.
Adrian II. claims to be Autocrat of the Church, 138-142. Agapitus at Constantinople, 88.
Alcuin opposes the addition Filioque, 149.
Ambrose of Milan, his doctrine unfavourable to the Papal authority, 74-75. Appeals to Rome, nature of, 32.
Athanasius of Alexandria, affair of, unfavoumble to Papal authority, 50-53. Augustine of Hippo, his doctrine opposed to Papal authority, 9, 75-78. Aurelian, Emperor, decision of, alleged in proof of Papal authority, 34. Authority, Papal, condemned by the Word of GOD, 7-16.
Avitus of Vienne, his doctrine opposed to Papal authority, 30, 40. B
Baptism of heretics, discussion upon the, 25.
Basil of Cæsarea, his doctrine opposed to the Papacy, 73.
——  of Thessalonica, letter of, to the Pope upon the means of ending the division between the churches, 161.
Bulgarians converted by Photius, 302.
——  Ignatius endeavours to preserve his jurisdiction over the, 142, et seq.
——  Why they applied to Rome, 302, 303.
——  Answer of Pope Nicholas to the, 136-137, et seq. C
Centre of authority in the Church, 37.
Chief, Christ the, of the Church, 7, et seq. (See Head.) Chrysostom, affair of John, unfavourable to the Papacy, 56-59.
——  Doctrine of John, opposed to the Papacy, 66-71. Clement of Rome, letter of, 17-19.
Council of Antioch, Canon of, explaining a text of St. Irenæus, 25.
——  of Constantinople deposes Ignatius and recognizes Photius, 129-129.
——  falsely called by the Romans the eighth œcumenical, 139, et seq.
——  acts of, not authentic, 141, note.
——  opposed to the so-called eighth œcumenical, 144, et seq.
——  Acts of, authentic, 146, note.
——  of Jerusalem, 11.
Council of Nicea, (first œcumenical,) contrary to papal authority, 36-38.
——  of Constantinople, (second œcumenical,) contrary to Papal authority, 38.
——  of Ephesus, (third œcumenical,) contrary to Papal authority, 40.

——  of Chalcedon, (fourth œcumenical,) contrary to Papal authority, 38-40.
——  œcumenical, (fifth,) opposed to Papal authority, 89-90.
————   (sixth,) opposed to Papal authority, 109-111.
————   (seventh,) opposed to Papal authority, 114, 117-118.
——  of Sardica, opposed to Papal authority, 51-53.
——  in Trullo, opposed to Papal authority, 111.
Councils, the œcumenical, were neither convoked nor presided over, nor confirmed by the
Bishops of Rome, 40, 49, 90, 108, et seq., 117-118. Crusades, the, ill-planned by the Papacy, 155.
Cyprian, controversy of, upon the baptism of heretics, 25-26.
——  doctrine of, contrary to Papal authority, 24, 28-31, 35, 61, et seq.
Cyril of Alexandria, doctrine of, contrary to the Papacy, 72-73. Church of Africa, opposed to the Papal sovereignty, 76.


Decretals, (see False Decretals.)
Dispensation, what is a, according to the Church of Constantinople and according to the court of Rome, 157.
Division, character of the, between the Eastern and Western Churches, 5, et seq.
Donatists, the affair of the, unfavourable to Papal authority, 53-56.
Dionysius of Alexandria, his doctrine concerning the Roman primacy, 26, 28.
——  his alleged appeal to Rome, 33. E
Easter, discussion concerning, 19-21.
Empire, (Latin,) foundation of, at Constantinople, 163-164.
——  Fall of, 168.
Epiphanius, his doctrine contrary to the Papacy, 65.
Eusebius of Cæsarea, testimony of, against Papal authority, 60-61.
——  upon the first œcumenical councils, 41.
——  upon the discussion concerning the baptism of heretics, 25.
——  upon the discussion concerning Easter, 21.
——  upon the Letter of St. Clement of Rome, 17-18.
——  upon the affair of Dionysius of Alexandria, 32
——  upon the affair of Origen, 32.
Eustathius, the Patriarch, his overtures to the court of Rome, 157. Excommunications, nature of the, of the Bishops of Rome In the first centuries, 29.


False Decretals, the basis of the Papacy, 115, et seq., note. Filioque, addition of, to the Creed, 148, et seq.
Firmilian, his doctrine concerning the Roman primacy, 26-28. Florence, Council of, and the false union proclaimed there, 169-170.
Frankic Bishops of the eighth century opposed to the Papal sovereignty, 119, 121, 137. Fathers, doctrine of the, contrary to Papal authority, 10, note, 11, note 59-60, 80, (See their


Gelasius of Rome, erroneous doctrine of, 86-87.
Germanus, letter of the Patriarch, to Pope Gregory IX, 167.
——  to the Cardinals, 167.
——  assembles the Council of Nymphæum, 168.
Greeks, (united,) policy of Rome in respect to the, 165, 166, 169.
Gregory IX, his singular accusations against the Eastern Church, and his doctrine concerning
Papal prerogatives, 166.
Gregory X. and Michael Palæologus, 168.
Gregory Nazianzen, text of, upon the Church of Constantinople, 25.
——  doctrine of, contrary to the Papacy, 71.
Gregory of Nyssa, doctrine of, contrary to the Papacy, 72. Gregory of Syracuse and Ignatius of Constantinople, 122.
Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, opposed to Papal authority, 90-104. H
Hilary of Poitiers, doctrine of, unfavourale to the Papay, 64. Hippolytus of Ostia, doctrine of, unfavourable to Papal authority, 29. Honorius, Bishop of Rome, his heresy, 105.
——  condemned after his death by the sixth œcumenical Council and by the Bishop of
Rome himself, 110.
Head, or caput, meaning of the word, 52-53.
——  change in its meaning, and its official origin, 104. I
Iconoclasts, matter of the, a proof against Papal authority, 112. Ignatius of Constantinople deposed, 122, 128, 129..
——  his appeal to Rome, 129, 134.
——  doubtful authenticity of his appeal papers, 134, note.
——  reinstated by the Council of Constantinople, called by Romanists the eighth œcumenical, 139, et seq.
——  his silence during that council, 141.
——  threatened by Adrian II., 141.
——————   John VIII., 142, 143.
——  reconciled to Photius, 145-146.
Innocent III., Letters of Pope, to the Patriarchs and Eastern Emperors, and his doctrine on the pretended rights of the Roman see, 163-164, 165.
——  excuses the crimes of the Crusaders because of their devotion to the see of Rome, 164.
——  endeavours to establish firmly the Latin Empire of Constantinople, 164.
——  the real author of the schism between the two Churches, 164-165.
——  doctrine of, concerning the prerogatives of the see of Constantinople, 165
Irenæus admonishes Pope Victor, 20.
——  Text of, touching the primacy of the Roman Church, 21-25.


Jager, (Abbé,) draws his information regarding Photius from Stylien, 155, note.
——  calling himself the historian of Photius is guilty of an absurdity for the sake of insulting Photius, 131, note.
Jager, (Abbé,) indirectly acknowledges the changes which took place during the ninth century in the authority of the Bishop of Rome, 135.
——  errours of this pretended historian, 136, note, 137, note, 138, note, 143, note, 144-145,
note, 151, note, 156, note, 156, note.
John Camaterus, Patriarch, Letter of to Innocent III, 161.
John the Faster, Bishop of Constantinople, his title of œcumenical, 90-104. John, (St.,) text of, relative to St. Peter, 13.
John VIII., threatens Ignatius with deposition, 142-143.
——  claims the right to depose the Greek Bishops and clergy of Bulgaria, 143
——  his legates recognize Photius as legitimate Patriarch, 143.
——  Letters of, modified, 144-145, et seq.
——  letter of, against the addition Filioque, 153.
Jerome, doctrine of, opposed to Papal authority, 80-82. L
Lambs and sheep, 13, 14.
Latin Empire, foundation of, at Constantinople, 164.
——  Fall of, 168.
Leo VI., Emperor, violates church discipline, 156
——  is condemned by the Patriarch of Constantinople, 156-157.
——  absolved by the Court of Rome, 156-157.
Leo I., Bishop of Rome, doctrine of, opposed to Papal authority, 38-40, 65-66. Leo III, opposed to the addition Filioque, 149.
Leo IX., Pope, his relations with Constantinople, and his doctrine concerning her rights, 157-160.
Luke, (St,,) Texts of, relating to St. Peter, 12-13
Lyons, Second Council of, and the pretended reunion of the Churches, 152. M
Macarius, Monseigneur, his treatise upon the Procession of the Holy Spirit, 148-151,
Maimbourg, (Father,) a Jesuit, indirectly admits the change that took piece during the ninth century in the authority of the Bishops of Rome, 126.
Matthew, (St.,) Text of, "Thou art Peter," etc., 8-12.
Michael Cerularius. His protest against the Roman innovations, 157-159.
——  excommunicated by the legates of Leo IX., 159.
——  general character of his protest, 160.
Monothelites, matter of the, a proof against the Papal authority, 104-111. Morosini, (Thomas,) first Latin Patriarch of Constantinople, 164-165.


Negotiations between Rome and Constantinople, why they were useless, 160-161
Nicholas, Patriarch, his relations with the court of Rome, 156-157
Nicholas I, Pope of Rome, 121.
——  strengthens the new Institution of the Papacy, 126.
——  new doctrine contained in his letters, 127, et seq., 133, et seq., 135, et seq., 137 et seq.
——  declares against the council that deposed Ignatus, and recognized Photius, 134.
——  autocratic pretensions of, 131, et seq.
Nicholas I. deposes Photius, 134.
——  is anathematized by the Council of Constantinople, 137, et seq.
——  his reply to the Bulgarians, 136.
——  applies to the Western Bishops to reply to the protest of Photius, 152. Novatians, matter of the, unfavourable to Papal authority, 34-35.
Nymphæum, Council of, discussions between the Greeks and the Latins respecting the addition Filioque, 167-168.


Object of this work, 5, et seq.
Œcumenical, title of, 90-104.
Optatus of Melevia his doctrine opposed to Papal authority, 79, 82. Origen, his pretended appeal to Rome, 32.
——  his doctrine opposed to the Papacy, 73.


Palæologus, (Michael,) his policy toward Rome, 168.
————    (John,) his policy, 169.
Papal authority contrary to God's Word, 7-16. Papacy, origin of the, 114.
——  first pretensions to the, condemned, 20, 27, 28, 29, 30.
——  opinions against the: (see Fathers.) Ambrose of Milan, 73-75. Augustine, (St.,) 75-78. Avitus of Vienne, 30. Basil of Cæsarea, 73.
Chrysostom, (St. John,) 66-71. Council of Nicea, 36-38.
——  Constantinople, 38.
——  Ephesus, 40.
——  Chalcedon, 37-40.
——  Fifth Œcumenical, 89, 90.
——  Sixth          “     109-111.
——  Seventh     “      114, 117-118.
——  Sardica, 51-53.
——  in Trullo, 111-112.
Cyprian, (St.,) 24, 28-31, 35, 61, et seq.

Cyril of Alexandria, 72-73. Dionysius of Alexandria 26-28. Epiphanius, 65.
Eusebius, 60-61. Firmillan, 26-28.
Gregory Nazianzen, 71-72. Gregory of Nyssa, 71-73. Gregory the Great, 90-104. Hilary of Poitiers, 64. Hippolytus of Ostia, 29, note. Jerome, 80-82.
Optatus, 79. Origen, 73.
Tarasius, Bishop of Constantinople, 113-114. Tertullian, 24, 28, 30-32, 61.
Theodore Studites, 119-120. Paul of Samosata, affair of, 33.
Paul, (St.,) doctrine of concerning the Church, 7, 11. Photius, his election and character, 122, 123, et seq., 130..
——  slandered by Stylien, according to the Emperor's order, 155.
——  Biographers of, 122-124.
——  first letter of, to Pope Nicholas, 123, et seq.
——  second letter of, 129.
——  Injustice of the accusations brought against, 134-135, note.
——  exiled by the Emperor Basil, 138.
——  arbitrarily condemned, 139, et seq.
——  reinstated by a legitimate council, 144.
——  apology of, 145, et seq.
——  reconciled with Ignatius, 145-146.
——  protest of, against the Roman Innovations, 150, et seq.
——  again arbitrarily deposed by the Pope, 154, et seq.
——  exiled a second time, 155.
——  death of, 156,
Peter, (St.,) doctrine of concerning the Church, 8
Policy of the Eastern Emperors toward the court of Rome, 160, 161, 166. Polycrates, answer of, to Victor, 20.
Primacy of Peter according to Scripture, 14-16. R
Rock, Jesus Christ the, of the Church, 8, et seq.
Rome and Constantinople, antagonism between, 83-89, 113, 147.
Rome, first attempts of the Bishops of, to increase their authority, 85, 86, 87, 106, 107, 113,
117, 120.
——  its rupture with the Empire of the East, 113.
——  radical change in the doctrine of, In the ninth century, concerning the authority of its bishop, 121.
——  Council of, against Photius, 138.
——  innovations of, 147-148.

——  variations of, relative to the addition Filioque, 153.
——  false policy of, 155. S
Sheep and lambs, 13-14.
Summary of this work, and consequences which flow from it, 170. Sardica, Council of, opposed to the Papal sovereignty, 51, 53. Stylien, an enemy and calumniator of Photius, 155, 156.


Tarasius, Bishop of Constantinople, opposed to Papal authority, 114. Tertullian, doctrine of, opposed to Papal authority, 24, 29, 30-31. Theodore Studites, opposed to Papal authority, 119.
Three Chapters, matter of the, a proof against Papal authority, 88-90. U
Union, conditions of, according to the envoys of Gregory IX. to the Council of Nymphæum,
Union, the political, decreed at the second Council of Lyons, 169.
——  second, decreed at Florence, 169.
Urban IV., (Pope,) causes a Crusade to be preached against the Greeks, 168. V
Victor, Bishop of Rome, admonished by Polycrates of Ephesus, 19-20.
————————    by Irenæous of Lyons, 20, 21.
Vigillus, Bishop of Rome, falls into errour and submits to the sixth œcumenical council, 202-
88-89. W
West, the Popes contribute to the establishment of a new Roman empire in t

No comments:

Popular Posts

Christ will return, first: the Coming of Antichrist

The Parousia of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ - The Nuzul i Isa (descent from heaven) of 'Isa al-Maseeh and Qiyamah, judgment of all men, at the Resurrection.

The Antichrist comes first. We are to have nothing to do with that, even at the cost of our lives.




click on picture