Back to the Beginning: A Brief Introduction to the Ancient Catholic Church

[epostle]

WHAT ARE THE ROMAN CATACOMBS?

The catacombs are underground tunnels that were forged out of soft rock. They are long, marrow winding corridors. The dead were buried in the walls on either side. From time to time, going through these corridors, one comes to a wider space like a room. In these rooms (formerly occupied by pagans) the Christians would gather for the sacrifice of the Mass so as to worship free from the pagan’s persecutions.

Burial in the catacombs stopped when the barbarians plundered Rome. The popes removed the relics of the saints and martyrs from the catacombs. The catacombs, once abandoned, were gradually forgotten and not discovered again until the end of the sixteenth century. Most famous of the catacombs is that of St. Callistus, where many of the popes were buried after they were martyred for the faith.
The Catacombs of Saint Callixtus. The Christian Catacombs of Rome - Le Catacombe di San Callisto

HOW THE CATACOMBS BEAR WITNESS TO THE TRUE CATHOLIC FAITH TODAY

An authentic Catholic catechism, containing to true Catholic teachings, could be composed from the pictures and inscriptions on the tombs and walls of ancient catacombs of the first three centuries. Pictures, medals, and inscriptions in the catacombs identify the faith of the early Christians with the Catholic faith.

he monogram of Christ is formed by interlacing two letters of the Greek alphabet: X (chi) and P (ro), which are the first two letters of the Greek word "Christòs" or Christ. When this monogram was placed on a tombstone, it meant a Christian was buried there.

The Good Shepherd with a lamb around his shoulders represents Christ and the soul which He has saved. This symbol is often found in the frescoes, in the reliefs of the sarcophagi, in the statues and is often engraved on the tombs.

The emblem of the fish, ichthys, was frequently used in the catacombs. It is a symbol of the Lord Jesus, for the Greek word ichthys means “fish” and its letters are the initials for “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Savior.” When Christians spoke of “receiving the fish”, they meant to receive Jesus in Holy communion.

Frequently, pictures of our Savior in the catacombs reveal him as the Good Shepherd., carrying the lost sheep on his shoulders. This is the ancient biblical form which reveals the same message as our modern devotion to the Sacred Heart of Jesus. A number of people are sitting around a table on which is bread and fish.

Death and resurrection were often in the minds of the early Christians, as indicated by the pictures of Noah and the ark, Jonah and the whale, Daniel in the lions’ den, and the raising of Lazarus. Their faith in resurrection and eternal life gave them courage in facing death under persecution. There is also the famous account of Tarsicius being martyred a he took the holy Eucharist, the bread of life, to Christian prisoners.

The eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass was offered in the catacombs on the altars under which rested the bodies of martyrs. Catholic altars even today have “altar stones” in which the relics of saints and martyrs were placed by bishops when they consecrated the altar stones.
Rev. 6:9 – the martyrs who are seen under the heavenly altar is similar to the Church’s tradition of keeping relics of saints under the earthly altars.

source: A Catechism of the Catholic Church, by Robert J. Fox. Franciscan Herald Press, pgs. 20, 21

 

[prodromos]

Both East and West acknowledge wrongdoing in the tragic events leading up to 1054 when the schism finalized. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that the West (and especially the Roman See) had a much more solid and consistent record of orthodoxy. For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:

• • The Arian schisms (343-398)
  • The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415)
  • The Acacian schism (484-519)
  • Concerning Monothelitism (640-681)
  • Concerning Iconoclasm (726-787 and 815-843)

This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.

A couple of things. One, it was never the Pope who brought back the East from heresy. It was always champions of orthodoxy in the East. Two, you provide ample evidence that the Church never believed the Pope was infallible when speaking on faith and morals. It never occurred to anyone to simply ask the Pope to set the record straight when embroiled in controversies about the faith.

The Roman See, with its bishop, the pope, was the supreme arbiter of orthodoxy in the Church universal in the early centuries. There is abundant historical evidence for this, but suffice it to say that even many of the East’s most revered Church fathers and Patriarchs sought refuge in Rome (theologically and/or geographically), for example: St. Athanasius (339 to 342), St. Basil the Great (371), St. John Chrysostom (404), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (430), and St. Flavian of Constantinople (449).The East all too frequently treated its greatest figures much like the ancient Jews did their prophets, often expelling and exiling them, while Rome welcomed them and restored them to office by the authority of papal or conciliar decree.

You ignore the fact that they sought help from other bishops and not simply the bishop of Rome. It is also a gross mischaracterization to say the East expelled or exiled them when it was the emperor doing so.

Many of these venerable saints (particularly St. John Chysostom), and other Eastern saints such as (most notably) St. Ephraim, St. Maximus the Confessor, and St. Theodore of Studios, also explicitly affirmed papal supremacy.

Certainly not true of St John Chrysostom, so I am suspicious of your claims for the others.

The popes functioned as the “supreme court” of the Church, and they presided over (personally or through papal legates) and ratified the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. One may argue that this was mere custom or a particularly “pragmatic,” “governmental” aspect of the primacy of honor, but whatever view one takes, the historical facts of the papacy as “final court of appeal” are undeniable.

Your interpretation of history is certainly deniable, since it ignores certain contrary historical facts.

A Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs

These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods:
357-60 (Arian),
475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and
640-42 (Monothelite):
a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642. At least two out of three of the sees suffered under the yoke of a heterodox “shepherd” simultaneously for 112 years, or 33% of the period from 341 to 681 (or, two-thirds heretical for one-third of the time), and at least 248 of these same years saw one or more of the sees burdened with sub-orthodox ecclesiastical leaders: an astonishing 73% rate.

Thus the East, as represented by its three greatest bishops, was at least one-third heretical for nearly three-quarters of the time over a 340-year span. If we examine each city separately, we find, for example, that between 475 and 675, the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch were outside the Catholic orthodox faith for 41%, 55%, and 58% of the time respectively.

Furthermore, these deplorable conditions often manifested themselves for long, unbroken terms: Antioch and Alexandria were Monophysite for 49 and 63 straight years (542-91 and 475-538 respectively), while Constantinople, the seat of the Byzantine Empire and the “New Rome,” was embroiled in the Monothelite heresy for 54 consecutive years (610-64). There were at least (the list is not exhaustive) 41 heretical Patriarchs of these sees between 260 and 711.

All clear proof that no one ever considered getting the Pope's opinion to set them straight. No one considered him infallible in regards to the faith.

No such scandal occurred in Rome, where, as we have seen, heresy was vigilantly attacked by the popes and local Synods, and never took hold of the papacy (not even in the ubiquitous “hard cases” of Honorius, Vigilius, and Liberius — none having defined heretical doctrines infallibly for the entire Church to believe).

What a coincidence. None of the Eastern patriarchs defined heretical doctrines infallibly for the entire Church to believe.

Rome never succumbed to heresy. It experienced barbarian invasions, periodic moral decadence, a few weak or decadent popes, the Protestant Revolt, the “Enlightenment,” Modernism, etc., but always survived and rejuvenated itself.

Rome had a pretty good run, but unfortunately did eventually fall into heresy, which set the stage for the Reformation

The papacy continues unabated to this day

Yes, the heresies of Rome have far outlasted any of the heresies that arose in the East

 

[epostle]

I also wondered how he came up with that from your post. I also note that he apparently does not understand that the office of the Papacy has never existed in any of the branches of Christianity and is purely a development of the Roman Catholic denomination.

The "branches of Christianity" rejected the office of the papacy (that was always there) who perpetually splintered after the Protestant Revolt. No pope, no unity. Period.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The "branches of Christianity" rejected the office of the papacy (that was always there) who perpetually splintered after the Protestant Revolt. No pope, no unity. Period.

It is terrifically difficult to reject something that did not exist. The Oriental Orthodox Christians went their way long before anything like a pope in Rome existed.

 

[epostle]

A couple of things. One, it was never the Pope who brought back the East from heresy. It was always champions of orthodoxy in the East.

• Antioch Paul of Samosata 260-269 Modalist
• Antioch Eulalius c. 322 Arian
• Antioch Euphronius c. 327-c. 329 Arian
• Constantinople Eusebius 341-42 Arian
• Constantinople Macedonius 342-60 Semi-Arian
• Antioch Leontius 344-58 Arian
• Alexandria George 357-61 Arian
• Antioch Eudoxius 358-60 Arian
• Constantinople Eudoxius 360 Arian
• Antioch Euzoius 361-78 Arian
• Constantinople Nestorius 428-31 Nestorian!
• Alexandria Dioscorus 448-51 Monophysite
• Alexandria Timothy Aelurus 457-60, 475-77 Monophysite
• Antioch Peter the Fuller 470, 475-7, 482-88 Monophysite
• Constantinople Acacius 471-89 Monophysite
• Antioch John Codonatus 477, 488 Monophysite
• Alexandria Peter Mongo 477-90 Monophysite
• Antioch Palladius 488-98 Monophysite
• Constantinople Phravitas 489-90 Monophysite
• Constantinople Euphemius 490-96 Monophysite
• Alexandria Athanasius II 490-96 Monophysite
• Alexandria John II 496-505 Monophysite
• Alexandria John III 505-518 Monophysite
• Constantinople Timothy I 511-17 Monophysite
• Antioch Severus 512-18 Monophysite
• Alexandria Timothy III 518-35 Monophysite
• Constantinople Anthimus 535-36 Monophysite
• Alexandria Theodosius 535-38 Monophysite
• Antioch Sergius c. 542-c. 557 Monophysite
• Antioch Paul “the Black” c. 557-578 Monophysite
• Alexandria Damianus 570-c. 605 Monophysite
• Antioch Peter Callinicum 578-91 Monophysite
• Constantinople Sergius 610-38 Monothelite
• Antioch Anthanasius c. 621-629 Monothelite
• Alexandria Cyrus c. 630-642 Monothelite
• Constantinople Pyrrhus 638-41 Monothelite
• Antioch Macedonius 640-c. 655 Monothelite
• Constantinople Paul II 641-52 Monothelite
• Constantinople Peter 652-64 Monothelite
• Antioch Macarius c. 655-681 Monothelite
• Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite

"champions of orthodoxy"??? seriously???

Two, you provide ample evidence that the Church never believed the Pope was infallible when speaking on faith and morals.

Nonsense, I made no such provision.

It never occurred to anyone to simply ask the Pope to set the record straight when embroiled in controversies about the faith.

It never occurred to the SynodS of Hippo and the Council of Carthage to present their findings on the canon of Scripture which was ratified and made binding on all Christians by Pope Damascus in 408? i would expect such a comic book view of the Magisterium from a paranoid fundamentalist, not an orthodox.

What a coincidence. None of the Eastern patriarchs defined heretical doctrines infallibly for the entire Church to believe.

So what. They held heretical doctrines and were excommunicated. The emperor has no authority to excommunicate. Your polemics is just that, misleading nonsense.

Rome had a pretty good run, but unfortunately did eventually fall into heresy, which set the stage for the Reformation

OFF TOPIC, RED HERRING.

Yes, the heresies of Rome have far outlasted any of the heresies that arose in the East

OFF TOPIC, RED HERRING, STUPID AND INSULTING BASELSS FLAMING ZINGER. .

 

[epostle]

It is terrifically difficult to reject something that did not exist. The Oriental Orthodox Christians went their way long before anything like a pope in Rome existed.

According to baptist mythology, which is entirely dependent of false histories.

 

[bbbbbbb]

According to baptist mythology, which is entirely dependent of false histories.

I suppose a false history is probably better than inventing history out of thin air.

 

[epostle]

The Catholic response to the latter position is a demonstration that the Roman See and the papacy — irregardless of their ultimate status vis-a-vis the government of the Universal Church (it doesn’t affect the validity of the argument) — were absolutely necessary for the purpose of upholding Christian orthodoxy (literally, correct doctrine), and preserving apostolic tradition.

A view that the East was always “primary” and orthodox, was the apostolic “mainline” (over against Roman and Western orthodoxy), and never forsook the apostolic tradition, is incoherent and self-defeating. Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox ecumenical outlooks entail this logical conundrum. Only the “anti-Catholic” Orthodox view does, based on the following historical facts:

Both East and West acknowledge wrongdoing in the tragic events leading up to 1054 when the schism finalized. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that the West (and especially the Roman See) had a much more solid and consistent record of orthodoxy. For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:

• • The Arian schisms (343-398)
  • The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415)
  • The Acacian schism (484-519)
  • Concerning Monothelitism (640-681)
  • Concerning Iconoclasm (726-787 and 815-843)

This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.

 

[bbbbbbb]

The Catholic response to the latter position is a demonstration that the Roman See and the papacy — irregardless of their ultimate status vis-a-vis the government of the Universal Church (it doesn’t affect the validity of the argument) — were absolutely necessary for the purpose of upholding Christian orthodoxy (literally, correct doctrine), and preserving apostolic tradition.

A view that the East was always “primary” and orthodox, was the apostolic “mainline” (over against Roman and Western orthodoxy), and never forsook the apostolic tradition, is incoherent and self-defeating. Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox ecumenical outlooks entail this logical conundrum. Only the “anti-Catholic” Orthodox view does, based on the following historical facts:

Both East and West acknowledge wrongdoing in the tragic events leading up to 1054 when the schism finalized. Nevertheless, it is undeniably true that the West (and especially the Roman See) had a much more solid and consistent record of orthodoxy. For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:

• • The Arian schisms (343-398)
  • The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415)
  • The Acacian schism (484-519)
  • Concerning Monothelitism (640-681)
  • Concerning Iconoclasm (726-787 and 815-843)

This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.

My goodness gracious! Has Rome ever been wrong?

 

[Albion]

According to baptist mythology, which is entirely dependent of false histories.

If no Baptist ever existed, it would still be correct to say that the Oriental Orthodox separated (or were separated) from the rest of ancient Christianity prior to or at approximately the same time as the Bishop of Rome established his role as Pope.

 

[epostle]

prodromos,
You don't represent main stream Eastern Orthodox, just a radical anti-ecumenical, anti-Catholic fringe group.

Pope Francis meets with Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew - Vatican News

Orthodox Anti-Catholicism

A vocal Orthodox minority nowadays expresses itself in an alarming fashion, which might be described as “anti-ecumenical,” or, in some instances, “anti-Catholic.” This group is too often drawn from converts from evangelical Protestantism or from Catholicism (Orthodoxy, like Catholicism, is experiencing a wave of conversions of late). From this highly polemical perspective, the Catholic Church is regarded as a radically corrupt church which has departed from the apostolic “mainstream,” so to speak, rather than as a “sister Church,” or as one of the “two lungs” of the Body of Christ, as in the Catholic and mainstream ecumenical Orthodox outlook.
Roman See as Historic Standard-Bearer of Orthodoxy

 

[bbbbbbb]

You don't represent main stream Eastern Orthodox, just a radical anti-ecumenical, anti-Catholic fringe group.

Pope Francis meets with Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew - Vatican News

Who is the "you" that you are addressing?

 

[prodromos]

A couple of things. One, it was never the Pope who brought back the East from heresy. It was always champions of orthodoxy in the East.

• Antioch Paul of Samosata 260-269 Modalist
• Constantinople John VI 711-15 Monothelite

"champions of orthodoxy"??? seriously???

You seem to lack reading comprehension. I clearly refer to bringing the East back from heresy. I'm talking about people like St Athanasias, St Cyril of Alexandria and St John of Damascus. Thank you again for providing comprehensive evidence that no-one considered the bishop of Rome to be the arbiter of the Christian faith.

 

[prodromos]

prodromos,
You don't represent main stream Eastern Orthodox, just a radical anti-ecumenical, anti-Catholic fringe group.

Pope Francis meets with Orthodox Patriarch Bartholomew - Vatican News

Orthodox Anti-Catholicism

A vocal Orthodox minority nowadays expresses itself in an alarming fashion, which might be described as “anti-ecumenical,” or, in some instances, “anti-Catholic.” This group is too often drawn from converts from evangelical Protestantism or from Catholicism (Orthodoxy, like Catholicism, is experiencing a wave of conversions of late). From this highly polemical perspective, the Catholic Church is regarded as a radically corrupt church which has departed from the apostolic “mainstream,” so to speak, rather than as a “sister Church,” or as one of the “two lungs” of the Body of Christ, as in the Catholic and mainstream ecumenical Orthodox outlook.
Roman See as Historic Standard-Bearer of Orthodoxy

Patriarch Bartholomew's 1997 address to Georgetown University.
ADDRESS OF HIS ALL HOLINESS ECUMENICAL PATRIARCH B A R T H O L O M E W PHOS HILARON "JOYFUL LIGHT" GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY WASHINGTON, DC - October 21, 1997 - Homily - The Ecumenical Patriarchate

Assuredly our problem is neither geographical nor one of personal alienation. Neither is it a problem of organizational structures, nor jurisdictional arrangements. Neither is it a problem of external submission, nor absorption of individuals and groups. It is something deeper and more substantive.
The manner in which we exist has become ontologically different. Unless our ontological transfiguration and transformation toward one common model of life is achieved, not only in form but also in substance, unity and its accompanying realization become impossible.​

 

[prodromos]

A view that the East was always “primary” and orthodox, was the apostolic “mainline” (over against Roman and Western orthodoxy), and never forsook the apostolic tradition, is incoherent and self-defeating.

This is a strawman argument. Enjoy refuting something that no one has ever argued.

 

[prodromos]

This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered “orthodox” by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.

As I have already pointed out, the bishop of Rome hardly had any role in the defeat of heresies in the East. There were always those who remained Orthodox in the East during the periods where the leaders had fallen into heresy, and it was from these, not the popes, that God raised up champions to defend and restore the faith.

 

[prodromos]

OFF TOPIC, RED HERRING, STUPID AND INSULTING BASELSS FLAMING ZINGER.

Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction are heresies that have lasted for almost 150 years. The "filioque" goes back even further.

 

[epostle]

Papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction are heresies that have lasted for almost 150 years. The "filioque" goes back even further.

My response: Corunum Catholic Apologetic Web Page
and again, your radical anti-Catholic anti-ecumenical revisionisms are more Protestant than Orthodox. You speak for a minor fringe group.

Why I am not Eastern Orthodox

When it comes to examining Christianity, and especially which path to follow upon careful study and prayer, the three "top choices" are: Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and Protestantism. Protestantism is the least likely candidate, and is to be rejected on various grounds (e.g. no historical continuity before Luther). This leaves Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. The following ten reasons (not necessarily exhaustive) are why I'm not Eastern Orthodox, while not forgetting there is much good in the Orthodox Churches and that they are very close to Catholicism in many ways:

(1) Their leading Bishoprics, Constantinople and (now) Moscow, have no Apostolic Roots. (Where as the Roman Church was founded by the "two most glorious Apostles," Saints Peter and Paul.)

(2) They cannot agree upon a Canon of Scripture - nor does there appear to be a means of infallibly defining one. (e.g. The EO at the Council of Jerusalem in 1672 affirmed the same Canon as Catholics, though I've seen other EO sources denying some of those books.)

(3) They have manifestly defected from basic Christian principles, caving into worldly pressure, for example they allow Divorce and Contraception.

(4) They cannot agree as to whether Catholics have valid holy orders or other valid sacraments - some EO say 'yes', others say 'no'. Some re-baptize Catholics, others do not. And, again, there appears no way of 'officially' settling the issue.

(5) They cannot agree as to whether decrees such as the Council of Jerusalem of 1672 was universally binding - moreover, those EO who deny the authority of the Council of Jerusalem (often because it sounds too "Latin") wont go as far as to condemn it as manifest heresy and an abomination (which it logically should be *if* it teaches heresy and other abominable things).

(6) They cannot agree as to whether "Latin" figures such as Augustine are "saints," or "venerable," or merely confused Christians, or even arch-heretics (nor have I seen any 'official' EO pronouncements for the last option). Further, they generally don't give the Western Fathers as much respect or recognition as they do the Eastern Fathers.

(7) They have not had an Ecumenical Council in over 1,000 years, and this is apparently because they have no objective means of calling and establishing one.

(8) They downplay into virtual irrelevance the strong testimony (be it in Scripture, Tradition, or Patristics) for the Papacy.

(9) They have backed out of agreements, such as the Council of Florence, often with individual bishops overturning the 'votes' of other bishops and Patriarchs.

(10) They have had little influence in terms of evangelization outside of Eastern Europe, where as the Catholic Church originally evangelized (and still dominates) North and South America, Africa, and Asia all centuries ago.

In my experience, when Protestants leave their own denominations for Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy, those choosing the latter are often primarily driven by anti-Catholic bias more than a fair and balanced look at the facts and which side offers the better arguments. Though I am Catholic, in fairness I cannot brush aside worthy candidates for the title of "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," and that is why I felt it necessary to give some reasons for my choice. I believe the above reasons are sound and decisive in making the right choice. I realize there are major issues such as the Filioque not (directly) addressed above, but that is because the acceptance of such issues is largely dependent on which side has the true Authority to decide such matters.
NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Why I am not Eastern Orthodox

 

[epostle]

The Vatican has been engaged in formal dialogue with the Orthodox Church for decades. Since the Second Vatican Council, numerous meetings between the popes and Orthodox leaders have taken place. Additionally, representatives of both communions have issued joint theological statements on a variety of topics once considered divisive.

The Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox church most recently has been working toward a shared understanding of the ministry of the bishop of Rome.
New Orthodox schism stalls ecumenical dialogue, Vatican official says
Temper tantrums of certain individual Orthodox is not helping.

 

[epostle]

Ancient Baptists" and Other Myths
Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem.

Nicea, August 24, A.D. 325, 7:41 p.m. "That was powerful preaching, Brother Athanasius. Powerful! Amen! I want to invite any of you folks in the back to approach the altar here and receive the Lord into your hearts. Just come on up. We've got brothers and sisters up here who can lead you through the Sinner's Prayer. Amen! And as this Council of Nicea comes to an end, I want to remind Brother Eusebius to bring the grape juice for tomorrow's closing communion service . . ."

Ah yes, the Baptists at the Council of Nicea. Sound rather silly? It certainly does. And yet, there are those who claim the Church of Nicea was more Protestant in belief and practice than Catholic. I recently read an article in The Christian Research Journal, written by a Reformed Baptist apologist, who argued this very point. No, I'm not making this up. The article, "What Really Happened at Nicea?" actually claimed the Fathers of the Council were essentially Evangelical Protestants.

As a trained patristics scholar, I always feel a great deal of sadness and frustration when I encounter shoddy historical "scholarship," whether it be in the pages of The Watchtower, a digest of Mormon "archaeology," or a popular and usually well-produced Evangelical Protestant apologetics journal. But this article was so error-laden, so amateurishly "researched," and so filled with historical and theological fallacies, that I simply couldn't let it stand without response.

Baptists at Nicea by Fr. Hugh Barbour, O.Praem. ::


Read more: https://www.catholicfidelity.com/apologetics-topics/other-religions/protestanism/baptists-at-nicea-by-fr-hugh-barbour-o-praem/