A Point in Common.

I have chosen to begin with this topic because all the Protestant denominations that have separated from — and remain apart from — the Catholic Church justify their existence in this way. This is, then, for me, “the heart of the matter,” “the quid of the question,” or, as the celebrated G. K. Chesterton used to say, “the thing.”[1] For although there are notable differences among these denominations, all of them without exception have embraced the hypothesis that the Church gradually became corrupt, as human traditions and false teachings infiltrated the Christian Church to the point of displacing the truths of faith contained in Scripture.

It is in this situation that God “decides” to renew the Church, refounding it in a new “Church,” “group,” or “organization” that is indeed capable of remaining faithful to the truth — and each one is convinced of belonging to that group. Some of the names they take for themselves are very suggestive: “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints”[2], “The True Jesus Church”[3]; others are less so: Lutherans, Methodists, Presbyterians, Pentecostals, Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, etc. But the fact remains that all of them without exception believe themselves to be a reform and renewal of authentic Christianity, and the new and true Church of Jesus Christ.

They do not believe themselves to be schismatics or apostates because their founder departed from the Catholic Church or from some other group that had itself departed from her, but rather as “reformers.” If they left the Church, it is because they believe she “became corrupt,” and if they left some other Christian denomination it is because they believe that denomination also “became corrupt.”[4] In this context, where it becomes necessary again and again to “refound” the Church, a vicious cycle is produced in which schism arises continually and degenerates into the multiple divisions we observe in the Protestant denominations of today.

But if the Catholic Church did not become corrupt — being the only Church truly founded by Jesus Christ, with a legitimate succession tracing directly back to the Apostles — then there is no valid excuse for departing from her. A Lutheran, for example, could not claim that his Church was founded by Jesus Christ, since the very name of his denomination reminds him that it was founded by a man, Martin Luther, in the sixteenth century. The same applies to any other denomination, even those that do not bear the name of their founder. If we study the history of the Presbyterians, Reformed, and Calvinists, we find their origin in John Calvin (16th century); if we investigate the Methodists, we find John Wesley as their founder (18th century); the Adventists were founded by William Miller and Ellen White (19th century); behind the Mormons stands Joseph Smith (19th century); behind the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Charles Russell (19th century); and so on.[5]

This is the reason why these groups accuse the Catholic Church of corruption — to varying degrees, some more intensely, others less — in order to justify their existence before the world and before their own conscience, presenting an excuse for their own separation. There is no doubt that the vast majority may be sincerely convinced of this; what is contested here is the validity and truthfulness of this way of thinking. It is also the reason I have written this book: to analyze each of the most important and most common objections that each of these groups raises, so that readers may reflect, in the light of this evidence, on whether those claims are well-founded or not.

The Beginning of the “Apostasy”

It is also striking that, although all these denominations agree that an apostasy occurred, they cannot agree on exactly when it began. The great majority place it at the time when the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great granted freedom of worship to Christians in the Edict of Milan[6] (A.D. 313). Others, more daring, point to a much earlier date, some even placing its beginning with the death of the last Apostle.

There are also differences in what they consider “apostasy.” For the Adventists, for example, the apostasy begins when the Church stopped keeping the Sabbath as the Lord’s Day and replaced it with Sunday. For the Jehovah’s Witnesses, it begins with the embrace of doctrines such as the divinity of Christ and the Trinity. For more traditional Protestants, the argument is usually that the Church forgot that salvation is “by faith alone” and adopted the Pelagian heresy.[7] And so for each denomination there is “something” that distinguishes it substantially from the others and is the reason why they — and not the others — are the “true” Church. They also find an excuse in the typical references to the Inquisition, the Crusades, and the corrupt lives of some members of the Catholic clergy.

But although this hypothesis may be easily digested by persons steeped in anti-Catholic prejudices and sentiments, what matters here is to examine whether this hypothesis conforms to reality.

1. A Hypothesis in Conflict with Scripture

The Gates of Hell Do Not Prevail against the Church, Which Is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth

Much of what we know about Jesus we know through the witness of Scripture, and it is precisely through Scripture that we see Jesus prophesying again and again events that were to come. Yet not a single text can be found in Scripture which, when seriously analyzed, allows one to infer that either Jesus or the Apostles thought that the Church would become so corrupt as to slide into a great apostasy lasting millennia. Quite the contrary: all the biblical evidence points in the opposite direction, as we shall now see.

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”[8]

In the preceding passage, Jesus promises that the forces of hell would not prevail against his Church. A Protestant may agree with this, thinking that in the end the gates of Hades did not prevail because the founder of his “Church” reformed and renewed it — but it makes little sense to interpret these words in that way, for it would mean that evil prevailed in the Church for more than sixteen centuries (in the case of the most recent sects such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Adventists, and Mormons, for more than eighteen or nineteen centuries), leaving billions of souls abandoned. How could this happen to the Church which the very Bible calls “the pillar and foundation of the truth”?

“if I am delayed, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth.”[9]

It is unconvincing to think that Christ, who promised to be with his Church “always, to the close of the age,”[10] permitted apostasy to prevail for all those centuries to the detriment of all the people who lived during that time. This would imply believing that Jesus and his Apostles were a kind of incompetent men who founded a Church that hastened to corrupt itself the moment they departed. In Scripture, however, we find something quite different. It is Jesus himself who prays that the faith of Peter, to whom he entrusts the keys of the Kingdom of heaven, will not fail:

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”[11]

It is to the Church that Jesus promises he would send the Holy Spirit to guide her into all truth:

“When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth; for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.”[12]

A poor guide indeed would he be who lasted only until the last Apostle died, and it is unreasonable to believe that the Holy Spirit was unable to accomplish his purpose for more than 1,600 years until the coming of a Martin Luther or a John Calvin — not to mention the leaders of more recent sects such as Charles Russell, Ellen White, or Joseph Smith.

If this were so, it would have been in vain that Jesus commanded the Church to baptize all nations and to teach them to observe everything he had commanded, for he would have known that they would end up preaching a false doctrine.

“Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.”[13]

It is the Catholic Church, and no other, that has brought the Gospel to the entire world. No Protestant denomination can claim the same achievement, since none can demonstrate its existence during the first sixteen centuries of Christian history.

In the Bible, the firm resolve of the Apostles that the teaching of the Church be preserved uncorrupted from generation to generation is clearly attested — for which purpose they commanded that faithful men be instructed, so that they in turn would be able to teach others:

“You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.”[14]

Bad Christians within the Church — The Wheat and the Tares

Many Protestants who hold the hypothesis of the great apostasy typically cite in their favor the parable of the wheat and the tares, which announces that within the Church there would be false Christians:

“Another parable he put before them, saying: The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the householder came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ The servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’”[15]

The existence of false Christians within the Church does not imply that the Church would apostatize and her doctrine would become corrupt. This is precisely one of the texts that allows us to show Protestants their error, especially if one reads Jesus’ own explanation of the parable:

“Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, ‘Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.’ He answered, ‘He who sows the good seed is the Son of man; the field is the world, and the good seed means the sons of the kingdom; the weeds are the sons of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the close of the age, and the reapers are angels. Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the close of the age. The Son of man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all evildoers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.’”[16]

Note, in the first place, that Jesus establishes as a fact that the wheat and the tares will always be mixed together in the Church. There will always be better and worse Christians.

In the second place, this is not an excuse to leave the Church and claim to found a new one, for when one of the servants asks whether he should gather up the tares, the Lord answers that they should let both grow together, lest in pulling up the tares they also uproot the wheat. Someone who may today be “tares” can tomorrow convert and become “wheat.” It will be at the judgment that Jesus separates the one from the other. The very Protestant communities that divide, thinking to found a Church without sinners, end up discovering that among them, too, there are sinners — because we all are.

What Distinguishes False Christians

But if we study Scripture still more deeply, we find that it identifies these false Christians with those who, with a schismatic attitude,[17] abandoned the Church to found their own:

“Children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that antichrist is coming, so now many antichrists have come; therefore we know that it is the last hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out, that it might be plain that they all are not of us.”[18]

The Apostle goes so far as to call those who abandoned the Church “antichrists.” It is worth noting that sects such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses, Adventists, and Mormons apply these texts to those who leave their own ranks, conveniently forgetting that their respective denominations were themselves founded by men who in turn abandoned their own former denominations — thus fulfilling the old proverb: “the pot calling the kettle black.” They were themselves schismatics in abandoning the Church founded by Christ, and yet have the audacity to accuse of schism those who leave their ranks.

Some time ago, a Protestant pastor told me that the divisions of the Church were beneficial because they allowed for plurality and freedom of opinion; but in Scripture, on the contrary, those who divide the Church are identified with those who lack the Holy Spirit:

“But you must remember, beloved, the predictions of the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ; they said to you, ‘In the last time there will be scoffers, following their own ungodly passions.’ It is these who set up divisions, worldly people, devoid of the Spirit.”[19]

Divisions are called by the Apostle a “work of the flesh,” on the same level as orgies, idolatry, fornication, and the like.

“Now the works of the flesh are plain: fornication, impurity, licentiousness, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, anger, selfishness, dissension, party spirit, envy, drunkenness, carousing, and the like. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.”[20]

The command given to Christians was, on the contrary, to maintain doctrinal unity: one Lord, one baptism, and one faith:

“I appeal to you, brethren, to take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them.”[21]

“I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.”[22]

If a tree is known by its fruit, then the Protestant system — divided to the extreme — cannot be the legitimate representative of Christ’s Church. In them, unfortunately, what had already been prophesied is fulfilled:

“For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own likings, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander into myths.”[23]

We will go into greater detail later regarding the doctrinal differences that exist among the various Protestant denominations, but it is a fact that the truth is one. If they do not all teach the same doctrine, it follows that they cannot all be right, and therefore the great majority must be teaching errors mingled with half-truths, while accusing the others of being in error. One cannot fail to notice the remarkable coincidence of this prophecy with the Protestant system (though not exclusively so), in which different teachers gather followers around themselves, teaching them doctrines according to their own understanding of the Bible.

2. A Hypothesis in Conflict with History

The hypothesis of the great apostasy finds no support in history either. Those who venture to study the writings of the early Christians find that they professed essentially the same faith that we Catholics profess today. Those who maintain that the corruption came about with the Emperor Constantine discover that there are no substantial changes between what Christians believed before and after his reign. To demonstrate this, each topic of this book will be addressed from both a biblical and a patristic standpoint. The reader will find here dozens of testimonies from primitive Christians prior to Constantine that will demonstrate it. This discovery has been made, and continues to be made, by many Protestants who have tirelessly sought the truth and have ultimately embraced full communion with the Catholic Church. Such testimonies are so numerous that it is impossible to mention them all, but I wish to recommend two notable ones: that of John Henry Newman[24] and that of Gilbert Keith Chesterton[25].

The reason why other sects have preferred to place the beginning of the apostasy at dates as early as the death of the last Apostle is that they have been unable to find, in a period of more than 1,600 years, a group of Christians with whose doctrines they can fully identify. Were this the case, they could point to such-and-such a period and say that true Christians existed then; yet they cannot even identify with the heretical groups of the first millennium, for they did not believe the same things they do. They are left, therefore, with no alternative but to brand as heretics and apostates every Christian who came before them — as if no true Christians had existed before their own time. It is no sign of humility or wisdom to regard oneself as holier, more intelligent, wiser, and more inspired than the billions of Christians who lived before us. Here we encounter not only the sin of pride, which manifests itself in contempt for one’s ancestors in the faith, but also a deficient understanding of what the Church truly is.

Thus, if one of these persons happens to come across some primitive patristic texts and realizes that these early Christians believed Catholic doctrines which they now reject, they will be conditioned to think that even by that time they were already apostates or heretics. They will be predisposed to consider more trustworthy the interpretation of the Scriptures by the founder of their denomination — born thousands of years after Christ, and who, without having known either Him or His Apostles, set about interpreting the Bible in his own way.

Others prefer to think that there were indeed “true” Christians who thought as they do, but that because they were persecuted by the official Church they left no record and remained hidden. But this hypothesis also has a fundamental problem, for it amounts to confessing that even those they themselves consider heretics — of whom we have abundant historical records — were braver in defending their faith and principles than these anonymous and invisible Christians. Jesus compared true Christians to “the light of the world” and said of them: “a city set on a hill cannot be hid”[26]. In the Gospel we find numerous examples of the courage of the Apostles, who never ceased to preach despite being persecuted and imprisoned[27]. The thesis that true Christians remained hidden from the world and left no trace behind them is scarcely logical. The plain fact is that in 1,600 years of history, not one person can be found who interpreted the Bible in the same manner as Luther, Calvin, Zwingli — or as today’s Baptists or Pentecostals do.

As a Catholic, I recognize that among those separated Protestant denominations there are many Christians who honestly believe they are in the truth; excellent people who seek to worship and serve God wholeheartedly. I fraternally acknowledge them as brothers in the Lord and as Christians, but they are victims of a system that has deceived them and uses them to draw in more proselytes who propagate the same errors in a vicious circle. As Archbishop Fulton Sheen said, the great majority do not hate the Catholic Church, but what they mistakenly think the Catholic Church is. We also acknowledge that in Protestantism, even though it is divided into numerous ecclesial communities and sects, there are many good things; but all that is good and holy that may be found in them has belonged and still belongs to the heritage of the Catholic Church, beginning with the Bible itself.

Notes

  1. Gilbert Keith Chesterton, The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic. ↩
  2. Commonly known as Mormons. The name of their Church reflects their conviction that Our Lord, after the early corruption of the Church, founded a new one solely for “the latter days”. ↩
  3. A Pentecostal-type church known in English as the True Jesus Church, or TJC. ↩
  4. I do not intend here to judge the internal conscience of those who join these groups, nor even that of their schismatic founders. I readily concede as perfectly possible — and indeed most probable in many cases — that they are sincerely convinced that the Church has become corrupt and apostate and that it is their moral duty to lead people out of her. What is being judged here is the validity of this hypothesis and whether it conforms to the truth. ↩
  5. I am referring, of course, to the Protestant denominations that arose from the Protestant Reformation, not to the Eastern Orthodox churches, which, though in schism and in imperfect communion with the Church, have preserved apostolic succession and valid sacraments. ↩
  6. It must be acknowledged that even within Protestantism there are voices that question this hypothesis. In 2004, Pastor Rick Wade — who graduated with honors in 1990 from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School with an M.A. in Christian Thought (theology/philosophy) — wrote an article in which he stated: “Occasionally, one encounters references to the idea of the ‘fall’ of the church after the conversion of the Emperor Constantine in the fourth century. Some believe that under Constantine the church began its slide toward a state religion, having been corrupted by power and money. The interests of the church and state overlapped, resulting in the corruption of the church. This cast a shadow over all of church history until the Reformation. Tradition is considered an element of the corrupted, institutionalized church. While it is true that the new freedom the church experienced under Constantine did have its negative side, it does not follow from this that the church ‘fell,’ as some say. Throughout history the church has made errors in her dealings with secular society and in knowing how to properly handle the freedom and power she has experienced. Some complain today that Christians align themselves too closely with political parties, risking compromise in doing so. This is no different from what was happening in the time of Constantine. That the church acquired a new character when she became established under Constantine, no one questions. But the idea that the church quickly became corrupt, and that the councils convened under his reign were mere pawns of the emperor, is simplistic. The church continued to be faithful to the task of clarifying and transmitting the apostolic tradition. ‘The faith professed and practiced in the early churches was not determined by political machinations of emperors and episcopal hierarchies,’ says Williams. ‘The essential formulation and construction of Christian identity was something that the fourth century received and continued to expand through biblical exegesis and liturgical life, as reflected in the tradition of the creeds.’” Rick Wade, Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church, Probe Ministries, 2004. ↩
  7. Pelagianism is an ancient heresy that maintained the natural capacity of man to attain salvation; to this end, the use of reason and free will sufficed, without the supernatural intervention of God. It simultaneously denied both the substance and the consequences of original sin, as well as the absolute necessity of grace for performing supernatural acts. ↩
  8. Mt 16:18 ↩
  9. 1 Tim 3:15 ↩
  10. Mt 28:20 ↩
  11. Lk 22:31-32 ↩
  12. Jn 16:13 ↩
  13. Mt 28:19-20 ↩
  14. 2 Tim 2:1-2 ↩
  15. Mt 13:24-30 ↩
  16. Mt 13:36-43 ↩
  17. A schismatic is one who creates divisions, not one who is born within a schism and bears no guilt for having caused it. ↩
  18. 1 Jn 2:18-19 ↩
  19. Jude 1:17-19 ↩
  20. Gal 5:19-21 ↩
  21. Rom 16:17 ↩
  22. 1 Cor 1:10 ↩
  23. 2 Tim 4:3-4 ↩
  24. He was an Anglican clergyman who, after his conversion, became a Cardinal of the Catholic Church. While still an Anglican, he began writing An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, in which he discovered that the Catholic Church is the true Church, and he ended by converting. His celebrated work, Apologia Pro Vita Sua: A History of His Religious Opinions, in which he himself narrates his path of conversion, has helped thousands of people to follow the same road. ↩
  25. A celebrated writer who passed from agnosticism to Anglicanism and from Anglicanism to Catholicism. His works have moved countless agnostics, atheists, and Protestants to conversion. I especially recommend two of them: The Everlasting Man and The Thing: Why I Am a Catholic. ↩
  26. Mt 5:14 ↩
  27. Acts 5:29 ↩