This paper explores the issue of the Catholic dogma of a unitary deity on the Catholic-dominated US Supreme Court’s apparent understanding of the unitary authority of the Executive. For ten centuries a core dispute within Christendom lay in whether God was one, or whether Jesus was a separate (and lesser) person in the Godhead. The schism has a history of debate and violence, spiritually in the various councils in 4th and 5th centuries, and physically in wars before and after. Knowledge of that long history is necessary for understanding the unconscious relationship of Unitary God and Unitary Presidency.
My interest in the convoluted historical events around Christian doctrines is prompted by the ongoing question of the constitutional authority of the US President. While the centuries-old theological schism continues today, I hypothesize that it has metamorphosed into a parallel dispute within secular affairs: is the nature, powers and authority of the Unitary Presidency as the Supreme Court has decided in several court cases? Or is it checked and balanced by the Congress and Judiciary? Given the preponderance of Catholic belief among the US Supreme Court Justices, this provocative question is worth serious consideration. Does the Justices’ bias toward unitary power and authority in the Executive arise from centuries of embedment of the doctrine of the unitary power and nature of God and Jesus?
The title of this paper is from Pope Leo I, who dubbed the Council of Ephesus in 449 the "Robber Synod" for challenging the complex Christian doctrine around ‘the unitary nature of God’. The Nicene creed that was re-ratified by the Council of Constantinople in 381 remains part of the Catholic and many Protestant churches liturgy. It defines what one believes as a Christian.[2]