The unbiblical Popes

[bibleberean]

Imperial Popes

Mary Ann Collins
(A Former Catholic Nun)

October 2002



In 314 A.D., Pope Silvester was crowned by Emperor Constantine. The Roman Emperor had converted to Christianity and he wanted to promote it. The Pope wanted to have the favor of the Roman Emperor instead of being persecuted.

Constantine gave Pope Silvester a beautiful palace with the finest furniture and art. Silvester wore silk brocade robes and he had servants to wait on him. Near his palace was a cathedral which had seven altars made of gold, a canopy of solid silver above the main altar, and 50 chandeliers. Silvester was given the use of the imperial mail system and transportation system. [Note 1]

Churchmen wore purple robes, reflecting the purple of Constantine's court. That was an external change. The most important change was an internal one. Under Pope Silvester, the internal structure of the Church took on the form and practice and pomp of the Roman Empire. Popes dressed and acted like Roman emperors and they had the same imperial attitude. They lived in luxury and they wanted to rule over both church and state. [Note 2]

Imperial papacy reached its peak during the Middle Ages. Popes were rich and powerful, and they ruled over kings and emperors.

Pope Gregory VII reigned from 1073 to 1085. He excommunicated the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV. In order to receive forgiveness from the Pope and to have the excommunication removed, Emperor Henry had to spend three days repenting in front of the castle where the Pope was staying. It was bitter cold (January 1077). Henry spent most of his time kneeling in the ice and snow, weeping and pleading for forgiveness. When Gregory finally allowed Henry to come into the castle, the Pope publicly humiliated the Emperor. [Note 3]

Pope Gregory VII declared that the Pope has the right to depose kings and emperors, to make laws, and to require secular rulers to kiss his feet. He said that nobody has the right to judge the Pope. Gregory also declared that because of the merits of Saint Peter, every duly elected Pope is a saint. [Note 4]

Pope Innocent III reigned from 1198 to 1216. He wore a gold crown covered with jewels. He sat upon a purple throne. His clothes sparkled with gold and jewels. His horse was covered with scarlet. Kings and churchmen kissed his foot. The Inquisition persecuted people who disagreed with him. Innocent became the most powerful man in the world. [Note 5]

Pope Boniface VIII reigned from 1294 to 1303. He said that he was Caesar, the Roman Emperor. He wore a crown which was covered with more than 200 costly jewels, including rubies, emeralds, sapphires, and large pearls. [Note 6]

Boniface sought to further increase the Pope's power and authority. In his encyclical "Unam Sanctam" he said that no person can be saved unless he or she is subject to the Pope. (You can read this online.) [Note 7]

Purple dye used to be extremely expensive. The color was a symbol of wealth and power. Purple was worn by Roman emperors and popes. During the middle ages, wealthy popes used gems and purple stones in papal architecture. The purple came from porphyry (a stone which has crystals embedded in a purple groundmass). [Note 8]

Pope Paul II reigned from 1464 to 1471. In 1464 he introduced the use of scarlet as another symbol of wealth and power. He called it "Cardinal's Purple" because it was worn by his cardinals. Scarlet became a luxury dye during the Middle Ages. Catholic cardinals still wear scarlet. [Note 9]

Pope Paul VI reigned from 1963 to 1978. He was the last Pope to wear the papal tiara. This is a triple crown, made of gold and covered with jewels. You can see pictures of the tiara online. [Note 10]

The Pope is an absolute monarch in the Vatican. He sits on an ornate throne. You can see pictures of the throne online. [Note 11]

Cardinals are called "princes of the church". They are citizens of the Vatican in addition to being citizens of their homelands. [Note 12]

Popes, cardinals and bishops wear gold and jewels. They wear rings and crosses. The Pope has a special ring known as the "Ring of the Fisherman". He also has magnificent pontifical rings which he wears on special occasions. Cardinals have rings of sapphire and gold. They often have additional rings of their own choosing. [Note 13]

Catholics kiss the Pope's ring. (They also kiss the rings of cardinals and bishops.) You can see pictures of this online. It is traditional to kneel when kissing the Pope's ring, but evidently some people don't kneel. On August 2, 2002, the President of Mexico kissed the Pope's ring. He bowed instead of kneeling, but even that caused a political controversy. [Note 14]

On special occasions, the Pope, cardinals and bishops wear gold miters and gold vestments. This is real gold, made with gold thread. You can see pictures online. [Note 15]

Popes wear ermine (an expensive fur often worn by royalty). They have a special cape called a mozzetta which is trimmed with ermine. [Note 16]

For solemn occasions, popes use a portable throne called a "sedia gestatoria". It is a richly adorned chair which is covered with silk. Long rods go through gold-covered rings. The throne is carried by twelve uniformed footmen. When the Pope celebrates solemn pontifical Mass in Saint Peter's Basilica, he arrives in state, preceded by a procession of cardinals, bishops and prelates. The Pope is carried on the sedia gestatoria, with a canopy over him and special fans made of white feathers on either side of him. [Note 17]

Pope Pius XII reigned from 1939 to 1958. When Vatican officials came into his presence, they had to kneel while speaking with him, and leave the room walking backwards. When he telephoned Vatican officials, they had to drop to their knees with the phone in their hand and remain kneeling while they spoke to him. This was going on in 1958. That is less than 50 years ago.[18]

The Pope has a huge, luxurious palace. The Pontifical Palace, the Sistine Chapel, and Saint Peter's Basilica are filled with priceless paintings and statues. The architecture is rich and ornate. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was painted by Michelangelo. In addition, there are 22 Vatican museums which are full of art treasures. Pictures of all of these things are available online. Please look at them. Words are inadequate to convey the rich architectural complexity and the artistic elegance of the Pope's palace, chapel, and church. Their opulence defies description. [Note 19]

 

[bibleberean]

Part of the notes for this article.

USE OF THIS ARTICLE

I encourage you to link to this article. You have permission to quote from this article, as long as you do it fairly and accurately. You have permission to make copies of this article for friends and for use in classes.

NOTES

1. James G. McCarthy, "The Gospel According to Rome" (Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers, 1995), pages 231-232. James McCarthy is a former Catholic

2. Malachi Martin, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church" (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1981), pages 19-38. Malachi Martin recently died. He was a Catholic priest, a Vatican insider, and the personal confessor of Pope John XXIII. He did research in the Vatican Archives.

Peter de Rosa, "Vicars of Christ" (Dublin, Ireland: Poolbeg Press, 1988, 200), page 45. Peter de Rosa is a practicing Catholic and a former Catholic priest. While he was a priest, he did research in the Vatican Archives.

3. Paul Johnson, "A History of Christianity" (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1976, 1995), pages 194-197. Paul Johnson is a Catholic and a prominent historian. Peter de Rosa, pages 62-64. Malachi Martin, pages 137-146.

Pope Gregory VII and Henry IV

http://www.saburchill.com/history/biblio/006.html

Declaration made by Pope Gregory VII when he deposed Henry IV

http://www.uoregon.edu/~klio/tx/med/g7-ban1.html

http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/Churc ... c%20Three/
GregoryVIIDeposition.htm

4. Malachi Martin, page 140.

5. Peter de Rosa, pages 66-69. Paul Johnson, page 199.

Glimpses of Church History, 1200-1300 CE [A.D.]

http://www.goacom.com/overseas-digest/
Archives%202/Church%20History/history08.html

6. Bruce L. Shelley, "Church History in Plain Language" (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982, 1995), page 215.

7. Pope Boniface VIII, "Unam Sanctam," November 18, 1302. The quotation is near the end.

http://www.geocities.com/papalencyclica ... B8unam.htm
http://faculty.juniata.edu/tuten/unam.html
http://www.catholicism.org/pages/unam.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/docs/bo08us.htm
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html

8. An article from a book on architecture. It tells how wealthy medieval popes used purple and gems in papal architecture in order to show their imperial power. The purple came from porphyry (a rock which has crystals embedded in a purple groundmass).

http://www.wwnorton.com/NPB/nparch/cosmornexpt.htm

9. "History, Shellfish, Royalty, and the Color Purple"

http://pffc-online.com/ar/paper_history ... sh_royalty

10. Six pictures of popes with the papal crown (tiara). There is a colored picture of the papal tiara on the head of a statue of the Apostle Peter. The color enables you to see the jewels on the gold crown. (Once a year, the Pope's crown is put on this statue.) Two of these pictures show Popes Pius XII and John XXIII seated on an ornate papal throne.

http://www.geocities.com/rexstupormundi/papalcrown.html

"The Papal Monarchy". This article has two pictures of popes wearing the tiara.

http://www.geocities.com/rexstupormundi ... archy.html

Pictures of the papal tiara. A statue of Pope Paul VI is crowned with the real tiara.

http://www.ewtn.com/jp2/papal3/tiara.htm
http://www.nationalshrine.com/NAT_SHRINE/tour_c06.htm

11. Six pictures of popes with the papal crown (tiara). Most of these are black and white. However, there is a colored picture of the papal tiara on the head of a statue of the Apostle Peter. The color enables you to see the jewels on the gold crown. (Once a year, the Pope's crown is put on this statue.) Two of these pictures show Popes Pius XII and John XXIII seated on an ornate papal throne.

http://www.geocities.com/rexstupormundi/papalcrown.html

"The Papal Monarchy". An article with two pictures of popes wearing the tiara (papal crown)

http://www.geocities.com/rexstupormundi ... archy.html

12. Eric Convey and Tom Mashberg, "Law Grilled in Deposition" in "Boston Herald.com". The third and fourth paragraphs discuss Cardinal Law's dual citizenship.

http://www2.bostonherald.com/news/local ... 082002.htm

13. Pictures of pectoral crosses.

http://www.exquisitevestments.com/crosses.html

Pictures of bishops' rings.

http://www.exquisitevestments.com/rings.html

Picture of a bishop (wearing gold vestments) kneeling and kissing the Pope's ring. (The Pope is wearing a gold miter.)

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~acolyte/
Roman%20Catholic%20Vestments/rings.html

Pictures of bishops' chairs and staffs.

http://www.exquisitevestments.com/church.htm

"Rings" in the "Catholic Encyclopedia," Volume XIII, 1912 (online edition 1999).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13059a.htm

"Pectorale" in the "Catholic Encyclopedia," Volume XI, 1911 (online edition 1999). This is the pectoral cross which is worn by popes, cardinals, bishops, and abbots. It is made of precious metal (gold, silver, platinum) and ornamented with jewels (diamonds, pearls, etc.). It contains a relic of a saint.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11601a.htm

14. A diocesan newsletter with a story about some people who had an audience with the Pope. There are two pictures of people kneeling and kissing the Pope's ring.

http://www.ecclesia-ottawa.org/dio-news/dn240502.html

A story from "Catholic World News" which mentions kneeling and kissing the Pope's ring

http://www.cwnews.com/Browse/1999/01/9465.htm

An account of an audience which Frank Sinatra and Phil Silvers had with the Pope.

http://members.aol.com/louhel/psfs.htm

News stories about the President of Mexico kissing the Pope's ring. He bowed rather than kneeling, but even that caused a political controversy. The first story has a picture.

http://www.khou.com/news/mexico/
khou020801_ds_PopeLeavesMexico.4a983e07.html

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexi ... -pope.html
http://www.arabia.com/afp/news/int/arti ... 71,00.html
http://www.coxnews.com/washingtonbureau ... O-FOX.html
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/mexi ... e-fox.html

15. Pictures of gold vestments and miters.

A picture of a gold miter.

http://www.gordonfabrics.com/TTWEB/threads/fx130010.htm

Pictures of gold embroidered vestments. They take a while to load.

http://www.stalbanswestcliff.pwp.blueyo ... ld%20f.jpg
http://www.stalbanswestcliff.pwp.blueyo ... ld%20R.jpg

An article about vestments, with pictures. The last picture shows bishops wearing metallic gold vestments. The picture just before that shows a bishop wearing a metallic gold miter.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~acolyte/
Roman%20Catholic%20Vestments/chasuble.html

An article about vestments, with pictures. There is a gold and purple miter.

http://www.exquisitevestments.com/bishops.htm

Pictures of the liturgical dress of bishops and popes in the sixteenth and seventeenth century. These show gold vestments and gold miters.

http://www.siue.edu/COSTUMES/PLATE51DX.HTML
http://www.siue.edu/COSTUMES/PLATE51CX.HTML

 

[bibleberean]

The rest of the Notes

A doll of Pope John Paul II. It shows him wearing a gold miter and red vestments with gold embroidery.

http://ashtondrake.collectiblestoday.co ... 665001.jsp

This webstore has pictures of two vestments. The second one is purple. It is decorated with bands of metallic gold.

http://www.floscarmeliliturgicalarts.com/

16. "Mozzetta" (cape) in the "Catholic Encyclopedia," Volume X, 1911 (online 1999). This is a special red cape worn by the Pope. In the six winter months, he wears a mozzetta trimmed with white ermine. In the six summer months he wears a lighter mozzetta without ermine.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10624b.htm

17. "Sedia Gestatoria" in the "Catholic Encyclopedia," Volume XIII, 1912 (online edition 1999). This is the portable papal throne. It is a kind of litter.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13679a.htm

"Pontifical Mass" in the "Catholic Encyclopedia," Volume XII, 1911 (online edition 1999). This describes the use of the sedia gestatoria (portable papal throne) during the procession.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12232a.htm

18. Paul Johnson, page 503.

19. A series of 14 web pages with color pictures of Saint Peter's Basilica, the Pontifical Palace, and the Vatican Gardens. Each page has a number of small pictures which give different perspectives and details. If you click on them you will see large pictures.

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/citta/0-Citta.html

A series of 27 web pages with color pictures of the Sistine Chapel. Three of these web pages have pictures of prophets and sybils. A sybil is a pagan prophetess.

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/sistine/0-Tour.html

A series of 22 web pages with color pictures of the Vatican museums. A number of them have statues of Greek, Roman and Egyptian gods and goddesses.

http://www.christusrex.org/www1/vaticano/0-Musei.html

 

[stray bullet]

Imperial Popes

Mary Ann Collins
(A Former Catholic Nun)

October 2002



In 314 A.D., Pope Silvester was crowned by Emperor Constantine. The Roman Emperor had converted to Christianity and he wanted to promote it. The Pope wanted to have the favor of the Roman Emperor instead of being persecuted.

That's a lovely bit of history revision, but Mary Ann Collins wishes only to deceive you. Constatine did not 'crown' the Pope, the Pope was a successor of Peter the Apostle selected by the Vatican, not the Emperor- although saying 'crowned' implies otherwise.

Saying he wanted the favor of the Roman Emperor instead of being persecuted implies he traded something for it? What did he give up by being publicly allowed to preach the Gospel in the Roman Empire?

It's funny how people attempt to make it seem like the Church was taken over by Rome. All Rome did was accept the Church, no government has sway over her.

 

[stray bullet]

I won't even bother with the rest of your cut and paste job because it's not worth my time. None of you bother to respond to it, so I'm sure you don't read it and certainly don't take any of it to heart.

All you know how to do is cut and paste gross misfornation and hate writing from anti-Catholic sites and never engage in any time of discussion. What is it that you are trying to accomplish? All you are doing is seperating yourselves further from the truth and trying to take others with you. What is it that you hope to gain?

You are like sheep without a shephard because you are Christians without an apostle- seeking only the ruin of souls to assure yourselves your personal rejection of the Church is valid. You indeed have much in Christ, but how much have you lost of it by what you are doing here?

 

[Gary]

Who was pope in AD 305?

Who was pope in AD 309?

Who was pope in AD 259?

:o :o :o

 

[stray bullet]

Who was pope in AD 309?

St. Marcellus I and then St. Eusebius

Who was pope in AD 259?

There was no Pope in 259 or 305. The Pope is selected from the Vatican, which has been around since Peter the Apostle founded it.

 

[Gary]

So there were years in which there was no pope... thanks!

Therefore the line of popes WAS broken.

 

[bibleberean]

The Popes

Mary Ann Collins
(A Former Catholic Nun)

October 2002



Part one

The Roman Catholic Church paints a picture of an orderly chain of succession of popes who followed in the footsteps of the Apostle Peter. If even one of these men was not a valid Pope, then the chain is broken.
What does it take to be a valid Pope? What does the Bible say are the minimum requirements for Church leaders? A Pope is not only the head of the Catholic Church, he is also the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, he must at least meet the Biblical requirements for being a bishop.

The Apostle Paul gave Timothy and Titus instructions regarding the necessary qualifications for bishops. He said,

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker [not violent], not greedy of filthy lucre [money]; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil." (1 Timothy 3:1-7, emphasis added)

"For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker [not violent], not given to filthy lucre [money]; But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." (Titus 1:7-9, emphasis added)

We are going to look at some popes and compare their lives with the Biblical qualifications for being a bishop. In the process, we will learn about some distressing things. However, we should not be surprised. Jesus told us that there would be tares among the wheat. (Matthew 13:24-30) He also warned us that there would be wolves among the sheep. (Matthew 7:15) So did the Apostle Paul. (Acts 20:29-30)

Every church has had its share of tares and wolves. However, the Catholic Church claims to have apostolic succession-an unbroken chain of valid popes that go all the way back to the Apostle Peter. My reason for telling you about these "wolf" popes is to demonstrate that some popes were not even valid bishops, let alone valid popes. And that breaks the "chain" of apostolic succession.

I apologize for putting you through this, but I can't adequately make my point without giving you this information. (You can read about these popes online.)

Pope Honorius reigned from 625 to 638 A.D. He was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681). He was also condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II, as well as by every other pope until the eleventh century. [Note 1]

In 769, Pope Stephen IV came to power with the help of an army which conquered the previous Pope. Stephen gave orders for his papal rival to be flogged, have his eyes cut out, have his kneecaps broken, and be imprisoned until he died. Then Pope Stephen sentenced a second man to die a slow, agonizing death. He had pieces of his body cut off every day until he finally died. [Note 2]

Pope Leo V only reigned for one month (July 903). Cardinal Christopher put Leo in prison and became Pope. Then Christopher was put in prison by Cardinal Sergius. Sergius killed Leo and Christopher while they were in prison. He also killed every cardinal who had opposed him. [Note 3]

Pope John XII reigned from 955 to 964. He was a violent man. He was so lustful that people of his day said that he turned the Lateran Palace into a brothel. He drank toasts to the devil. When gambling he invoked pagan gods and goddesses. He was killed by a jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery with the man's wife. [Note 4]

In the tenth century, a wealthy Italian noblewoman named Marozia put nine popes into office in eight years. In order to do that, she also had to get rid of reigning popes. Two of them were strangled, one was suffocated, and four disappeared under mysterious circumstances. One of the popes was Marozia's son; he was fathered by a Pope. [Note 5]

In 1003, Pope Silvester II was murdered by his successor, Pope John XVII. Seven months later, John was poisoned. [Note 6]

Pope Benedict VIII reigned from 1012 to 1024. He kept a private force of "pope's men" who were known for torture, maimings, and murder. The Pope personally ordered many assassinations. He enjoyed cutting the tongues out of living men and he had a reputation for blood lust. [Note 7]

When Benedict VIII died, his brother seized power and became Pope John XIX. He had himself ordained a priest, consecrated as a bishop, and crowned as pope, all in the same day. John died under suspicious circumstances. [Note 8]

Pope Benedict IX reigned from 1032 to 1044, in 1045, and from 1047 to 1048. He became Pope through bribery. He had sex with men, women and animals. He gave orders for people to be murdered. He also practiced witchcraft and Satanism. The citizens of Rome hated Benedict so much that on two occasions he had to flee from Rome. Benedict sold the papacy to Pope Gregory VI. As part of the deal, he continued to live in the Lateran Palace, with a generous income. Benedict filled the Lateran Palace with prostitutes. [Note 9]

In 1298, Pope Boniface ordered that every man, woman, child and animal in the Italian town of Palestrina be slaughtered. He was known for torture, massacre, and ferocity. [Note 10]

Pope Clement VI reigned from 1342 to 1352. He ordered the slaughter of an entire Italian town. He lived a life of luxury and extravagance. He openly admitted that he sold church offices and he used threats and bribery to gain power. Clement purchased a French palace which became known as a papal brothel. [Note 11]

Pope Alexander VI reigned from 1492 to 1503. He was known for murder, bribery and selling positions of authority in the Church. He was grossly licentious. On one occasion he required 50 prostitutes to dance naked before him and to engage in sexual acts for his entertainment. He had cardinals killed so that he could confiscate their property and sell their positions to ambitious men. He died of poison after having dinner with a cardinal. It was rumored that the cardinal suspected that the Pope would try to poison him and he therefore switched wine goblets with the Pope. [Note 12]

Pope Julius II reigned from 1503 to 1513. He became Pope through bribery. He was extremely ruthless and violent. He had a reputation for lust, drunknness, rages, deception, and nepotism. [Note 13]

Pope Leo X reigned from 1513 to 1521. He put a statue of himself in Rome's Capitol to be saluted by the public. He had statues of Greek gods and goddesses put in Rome. [Note 14]

Pope Gregory VII reigned from 1073 to 1085. He required kings and emperors to kiss his foot. Gregory and his successors used forged documents in order to expand the power of the papacy. Some Roman Catholics tried to expose these forgeries but they were excommunicated for it. However, the Orthodox Church kept records and wrote detailed information about the forgeries. [Note 15] (For more information about this, see my article "Forged Documents and Papal Power".)

Simony was rampant among clerics. It was commonplace for priests to pay money in order to become bishops and abbots. Pope Gregory VII said that he knew of more than 40 men who became Pope by means of bribery. [Note 16]

Pope Innocent III reigned from 1198 to 1216. He said that the Pope is the ruler of the world and the father of princes and kings. He claimed that every priest and bishop must obey the Pope even if the Pope commands something evil. Pope Innocent wanted to get rid of the Albigensian heretics who lived in France. He forced the King of France to kill hundreds of thousands of French citizens. The Albigensians lived mingled among the French Catholics. Pope Innocent commanded that every person in the region, including the Catholics, be killed. This was called the Albigensian Crusade, or the Albigensian Massacre. The Pope gave the Albigensian Crusaders a special indulgence which was supposed to guarantee that if they died in battle then their sins would be remitted and they would go to Heaven. [Note 17]

Would you want any of these men to be your pastor?

 

[bibleberean]

The Popes

Mary Ann Collins
(A Former Catholic Nun)

October 2002



Part II

Sometimes two or more men would claim to be Pope at the same time. All of these claimants to the papacy had followers. Eventually one contender would be declared to be Pope, and the other would be declared to be an antipope. For centuries, Roman Catholic books differed as to which men they considered to be the genuine popes. However, today there is much more agreement about which men were popes and which men were antipopes. According to the "Catholic Encyclopedia," there were thirty antipopes. [Note 18]

There are so many breaks in the chain of apostolic succession that it is not a chain at all.

There is one Biblical qualification for being a bishop which most popes have not met since the first few centuries of the church. The Apostle Paul said,

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife..." (1 Timothy 3:1, emphasis added)

"One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)" (1 Timothy 3:4-5, emphasis added)

Even deacons were required to be married men whose home lives demonstrated their ability to rule the Church.

"Let the deacons be the husbands of one wife, ruling their children and their own houses well." (1 Timothy 3:12)

Pope Gregory VII wanted to increase the power of the papacy. For reasons of politics and power, he abolished clerical marriage. In 1074 he passed laws requiring that priests be celibate, and he got rid of married priests. [Note 19]

As a result, since 1074 no Pope has been able to meet the Apostle Paul's requirement for bishops.

Now I realize that some individuals (such as the Apostle Paul) are called to be celibate. I could understand a few exceptions to the rule. But for nearly a thousand years, not one Pope or cardinal or bishop has ever been able to meet Paul's qualifications for being a bishop.

USE OF THIS ARTICLE

I encourage you to link to this article. You have permission to quote from this article, as long as you do it fairly and accurately. You have permission to make copies of this article for friends and for use in classes.

 

[bibleberean]

Notes to part one and two

NOTES

GENERAL NOTE

I have four online articles which each give historical information about several popes. I will list the appropriate ones in the notes for individual popes. You can find the particular pope by searching for him by name. [Click on EDIT. Then click on FIND. Then type in the name of the pope.] At the end of the Notes, there are links to a series of online chapters about popes and Church history. These articles give detailed information about a number of popes.

This 20-page article has historical information about more than 30 popes. The author describes himself as a skeptic, and he seems to be anti-Christian. At times his tone is harsh. However, he has a lot of valuable historical information and it is documented.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/papacy.html

Three shorter articles by Christian authors.

http://members.aol.com/jasonte/papacy.htm
http://origin.island.lk/2002/07/16/featur04.html
http://www.christianchronicler.com/hist ... apacy.html

NUMBERED NOTES

1. William Webster, "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History" (Carlisle, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), pages 63-71. The author is a former Catholic.

Peter de Rosa, "Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy" (Dublin, Ireland: Poolbeg Press, 1988, 2000), pages 208-209. The author is a practicing Catholic and a former Catholic priest. While he was a priest, he did research in the Vatican Archives.

Hans Kung, "The Catholic Church: A Short History" (translated by John Bowden) (New York: Modern Library, 2001, 2003), page 60. The author is a Catholic theologian.

2. Malachi Martin, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church" (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1981), pages 85-89. Martin recently died. He was a Catholic priest, a Vatican insider, and the personal confessor of Pope John XXIII. He did research in the Vatican Archives. His books are a plea for reform within the Catholic Church.

You can search for "Stephen IV" in this article.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/papacy.html

3. Malachi Martin, page 123.

You can search for Sergius III in these articles. (He is the Pope who killed Popes Leo V and Christopher.)

http://members.aol.com/jasonte/papacy.htm
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/papacy.html

4. Peter de Rosa, pages 211-215. Hans Kung, page 79.

You can search for "John XII" in the following articles.

http://origin.island.lk/2002/07/16/featur04.html
http://www.christianchronicler.com/hist ... apacy.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/papacy.html

Pope John XII

http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/people/A0826379.html
http://www.slider.com/enc/28000/John_XII_pope.htm

5. Malachi Martin, page 119. Hans Kung, page 79.

You can search for "Marozia" in these articles.

http://www.christianchronicler.com/hist ... apacy.html
http://members.aol.com/jasonte/papacy.htm
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/papacy.html

6. Malachi Martin, page 131.

7. Malachi Martin, pages 130-131.

You can search for "Benedict VIII" in this article.

http://origin.island.lk/2002/07/16/featur04.html

Pope Benedict VIII

http://orthodox.truepath.com/articles/c ... ctVIII.htm

8. Malachi Martin, pages 131-132.

9. Malachi Martin, page 132. Peter de Rosa, pages 54-56.

You can search for "Benedict IX" in these articles.

http://members.aol.com/jasonte/papacy.htm
http://origin.island.lk/2002/07/16/featur04.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/papacy.html

10. Paul Johnson, "A History of Christianity" (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1976, 1995), pages 191, 218-219. Johnson is a Catholic and a prominent historian. Malachi Martin, page 175.

You can search for "Boniface VIII" in this article.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/papacy.html

11. Peter de Rosa, pages 84-88.

You can search for "Clement VI" in this article. He was one of the "Avignon popes".

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/papacy.html

12 .Paul Johnson, pages 280, 363. Peter de Rosa, pages 103-110. Hans Kung, pages 119-120.

A long article with some detailed information about Pope Alexander VI.

http://www.goacom.com/overseas-digest/
Archives%202/Church%20History/history11.html

Two articles about Pope Alexander VI (the Borgia Pope). The second one also discusses the Pope's son, Cardinal Cesare. If the links don't work, then go to http://www.crimelibrary.com and search for "Borgia".

http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_kill ... tml?sect=6
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_kill ... tml?sect=6

Short articles about Pope Alexander VI, his personal faults and political skills.

http://itrs.scu.edu/students/winter03/b ... /pope.html
http://history.boisestate.edu/hy309/pap ... dervi.html

13. Paul Johnson, pages 274, 280. Hans Kung, pages 125-126.

You can search for "Julius II" in this article.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/papacy.html

14. Malachi Martin, pages 202-203.

You can search for "Leo X" in this article.

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/papacy.html

15. Paul Johnson, pages 194-198, 161. Peter de Rosa, pages 57-66. Hans Kung, pages 85-92.

William Webster, "Forgeries and the Papacy: The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy". The author is a former Catholic.

http://www.christiantruth.com/forgeries.html

The Development of Papal Power

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthen ... power.html

An article about the Medieval Papacy. It includes a good summary of information about forged documents and their use to increase papal power.

http://www.christianchronicler.com/hist ... apacy.html

Articles about various forged Church documents

http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/PF/cld.htm
http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/PF/lp.htm
http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/PF/doco.htm
http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/PF/6c.htm
http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/PF/sf.htm

Articles about false Decretals

http://concise.britannica.com/ebc/article?eu=389494
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?eu=34257
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/F/FalseD1ec.asp
http://www.bartleby.com/65/fa/FalseDec.html
http://www.slider.com/enc/18000/False_Decretals.htm

16. Malachi Martin, pages 141-142.

17. Paul Johnson, pages 199-201, 252. Peter de Rosa, pages 66-74, 152-155. Hans Kung, pages 87-103.

 

[bibleberean]

More
Notes for article one and two

You can search for "Innocent III" in these articles.

http://origin.island.lk/2002/07/16/featur04.html
http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/papacy.html

The Albigensian Crusade (the Albigensian Massacre)

http://jmgainor.homestead.com/files/PU/Cru/albcr.htm
http://militaryhistory.about.com/cs/albigenscrusade/

18. "Antipopes"

http://www.angelfire.com/ky/dodone/Antipopes.html

"Antipope" in the "Catholic Encyclopedia," Volume I, 1907 (on-line edition 1999).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01582a.htm

19. Malachi Martin, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, pages 141-142.

John Shuster, "A Concise History of the Married Priesthood in Our Roman Catholic Tradition."

http://www.rentapriest.com/history.htm

POPES AND CHURCH HISTORY

http://www.goacom.com/overseas-digest/A ... ory03.html
http://www.goacom.com/overseas-digest/A ... ory04.html
http://www.goacom.com/overseas-digest/A ... ory05.html
http://www.goacom.com/overseas-digest/A ... ory06.html
http://www.goacom.com/overseas-digest/A ... ory07.html
http://www.goacom.com/overseas-digest/A ... ory08.html
http://www.goacom.com/overseas-digest/A ... ory09.html
http://www.goacom.com/overseas-digest/A ... ory10.html
http://www.goacom.com/overseas-digest/A ... ory11.html

 

[Solo]

Imperial Popes

Mary Ann Collins
(A Former Catholic Nun)

October 2002



In 314 A.D., Pope Silvester was crowned by Emperor Constantine. The Roman Emperor had converted to Christianity and he wanted to promote it. The Pope wanted to have the favor of the Roman Emperor instead of being persecuted.

That's a lovely bit of history revision, but Mary Ann Collins wishes only to deceive you. Constatine did not 'crown' the Pope, the Pope was a successor of Peter the Apostle selected by the Vatican, not the Emperor- although saying 'crowned' implies otherwise.

Saying he wanted the favor of the Roman Emperor instead of being persecuted implies he traded something for it? What did he give up by being publicly allowed to preach the Gospel in the Roman Empire?

It's funny how people attempt to make it seem like the Church was taken over by Rome. All Rome did was accept the Church, no government has sway over her.

Peter was sent to preach the gospel to the Jews and died in Jerusalem. Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles and was in Rome much of his latter life, and he died in Rome. Paul never wrote that Peter was in Rome, and I suspect that Peter never traveled to Rome. So how is Peter the first pope instead of Paul?

 

[Gary]

IF Linus (66-78) and Anacletus (79-91) were the so-called "pope" after Peter, why did John not even mention them?

:-?

 

[stray bullet]

Peter was sent to preach the gospel to the Jews and died in Jerusalem. Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles and was in Rome much of his latter life, and he died in Rome. Paul never wrote that Peter was in Rome, and I suspect that Peter never traveled to Rome. So how is Peter the first pope instead of Paul?

Your understanding of history (and the bible) is completely off. Peter did not 'die' in Jerusalem. Peter was murdered (crucified in Rome) just as predicted in John 21.

The bible also clearly shows Peter leaving Jerusalem and traveling to Antioch in Gal 2:11. There he established the See of Antioch and later went to Rome where he established the See of Rome, now known as the Vatican.

Finally, the idea that Peter was only sent to preach the Gospel to the Jews completely contradicts the bible- "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," 1 Peter 1:1

 

[stray bullet]

IF Linus (66-78) and Anacletus (79-91) were the so-called "pope" after Peter, why did John not even mention them?

:-?

Why on Earth would the Gospel according to John, which is about the life of Jesus, mention who was the Bishop of Rome three decades after the Resurrection?

 

[Solo]

Peter was sent to preach the gospel to the Jews and died in Jerusalem. Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles and was in Rome much of his latter life, and he died in Rome. Paul never wrote that Peter was in Rome, and I suspect that Peter never traveled to Rome. So how is Peter the first pope instead of Paul?

Your understanding of history (and the bible) is completely off. Peter did not 'die' in Jerusalem. Peter was murdered (crucified in Rome) just as predicted in John 21.

The bible also clearly shows Peter leaving Jerusalem and traveling to Antioch in Gal 2:11. There he established the See of Antioch and later went to Rome where he established the See of Rome, now known as the Vatican.

Finally, the idea that Peter was only sent to preach the Gospel to the Jews completely contradicts the bible- "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," 1 Peter 1:1

My understanding is clear on Biblical matters, and I am continually learning from historical accounts. The Bible is my favorite history book.

The following scripture shows the truth that Peter was the Apostle to the Jews, and Paul was the Apostle, chosen by Jesus Christ, to the Gentiles.

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Galatians 2:7-9

Peter was in Antioch as you state according to Galatians 2:11 and if you would have continued to read past verse 11 you would have noticed that Peter was in error, whereby Paul corrected him. Peter was not following the gospel at the time because he was fearful of what the Jews would have thought.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Galatians 2:11-16

Peter wrote his first letter from Babylon to the Jews that were dispersed from their homeland. The letter mentions Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia in order as they extended into Asia minor as one would see them from Babylon not Rome.

No where in the Bible is there mention that Peter established a See in Antioch or in Rome. Paul mentions those that were with him at Rome, and Peter was never mentioned. Paul did mention Peter when they met up in Antioch, and it was there that Paul had to set Peter straight.

Peter was led away killed in his later years just as Jesus said, but he was killed and buried in Jerusalem where he began and ended his ministry to the Jews.

Excerpt from http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

I talked to priest Milik, the co-writer of this Italian book, in the presence of my friend, a Christian Arab, Mr. S. J. Mattar, who now is the warden of the Garden Tomb, where Jesus was buried and rose again. This priest, Milik, admitted that he knew that the bones of St. Peter are not in Rome. I was very much surprised that he would admit that, so to confirm his admittance, I said, to which he also agreed, "There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome." This was something of an understatement, for he knew as I know that there is absolutely no evidence at all that Peter was buried in Rome.

I would rather be a proponent of the Word of God than I would of false doctrines.

 

[Orthodox Christian]

Peter was sent to preach the gospel to the Jews and died in Jerusalem. Paul is the Apostle to the Gentiles and was in Rome much of his latter life, and he died in Rome. Paul never wrote that Peter was in Rome, and I suspect that Peter never traveled to Rome. So how is Peter the first pope instead of Paul?

Your understanding of history (and the bible) is completely off. Peter did not 'die' in Jerusalem. Peter was murdered (crucified in Rome) just as predicted in John 21.

The bible also clearly shows Peter leaving Jerusalem and traveling to Antioch in Gal 2:11. There he established the See of Antioch and later went to Rome where he established the See of Rome, now known as the Vatican.

Finally, the idea that Peter was only sent to preach the Gospel to the Jews completely contradicts the bible- "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," 1 Peter 1:1

My understanding is clear on Biblical matters, and I am continually learning from historical accounts. The Bible is my favorite history book.

The following scripture shows the truth that Peter was the Apostle to the Jews, and Paul was the Apostle, chosen by Jesus Christ, to the Gentiles.

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; 8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles 9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Galatians 2:7-9

Peter was in Antioch as you state according to Galatians 2:11 and if you would have continued to read past verse 11 you would have noticed that Peter was in error, whereby Paul corrected him. Peter was not following the gospel at the time because he was fearful of what the Jews would have thought.

11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. 14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? 15 We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, 16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Galatians 2:11-16

Peter wrote his first letter from Babylon to the Jews that were dispersed from their homeland. The letter mentions Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia in order as they extended into Asia minor as one would see them from Babylon not Rome.

No where in the Bible is there mention that Peter established a See in Antioch or in Rome. Paul mentions those that were with him at Rome, and Peter was never mentioned. Paul did mention Peter when they met up in Antioch, and it was there that Paul had to set Peter straight.

Peter was led away killed in his later years just as Jesus said, but he was killed and buried in Jerusalem where he began and ended his ministry to the Jews.

Excerpt from http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

I talked to priest Milik, the co-writer of this Italian book, in the presence of my friend, a Christian Arab, Mr. S. J. Mattar, who now is the warden of the Garden Tomb, where Jesus was buried and rose again. This priest, Milik, admitted that he knew that the bones of St. Peter are not in Rome. I was very much surprised that he would admit that, so to confirm his admittance, I said, to which he also agreed, "There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome." This was something of an understatement, for he knew as I know that there is absolutely no evidence at all that Peter was buried in Rome.

I would rather be a proponent of the Word of God than I would of false doctrines.

Well, there's always hope that you can make the switch- but in the mean time, let's deal with your false teaching.


Some months back, an ostuary (burial box) with the name 'James the brother of Jesus' was found. This was found to be as authentic as the Piltdown man.

The corroborating evidence for the supposed remains of Peter is non-existent. The archeological evidence for Peter's presence in Rome is substantial- to the extent that the LIBERAL scholar Adolph Harnack stated

"...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice."

According to FF Bruce

"That Peter as well as Paul was put to death at Rome under Nero is the UNANIMOUS testimony of Christian tradition so far as it touches this subject."

"That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is CERTAIN; that they were claimed as co-founders of the Roman church and that this, together with their martyrdom there, conferred great religious (as distinct from political) prestige on that church, is likewise CERTAIN...."

Understand that my defense of Peter being at Rome is not subjective or partisan- as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, Peter's presence or absence at Rome is not crucial. I just happen to find this Jerusalemtomb story non-credible.

 

[bibleberean]

Forged Documents and
Papal Power

Mary Ann Collins
(A Former Catholic Nun)

June 2002


What we now call popes were originally bishops of Rome (one bishop among brother bishops from other cities). Then they became popes, with power over the entire Church. Then they became so powerful that they were able to depose kings and emperors. They became so powerful that they were able to force kings use their secular might to enforce the Inquisition, which was conducted by Catholic priests and monks.

In 1870, the Pope was declared to be infallible. The process of increasing papal power was influenced by forged documents which changed people's perception of the history of the papacy and of the Church.

I'm just going to briefly summarize some information about these forgeries. At the end of this paper is a link to an on-line article which gives detailed historical information.

One of the most famous forgeries is the "Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals," which were written around 845 A.D. (They are also known as the "False Decretals".) They consist of 115 documents which were supposedly written by early popes. [Note 1]

The "Catholic Encyclopedia" admits that these are forgeries. It says that the purpose of these forged documents was to enable the Church to be independent of secular power, and to prevent the laity from ruling the Church. [Note 2 gives the address of an on-line article.] In other words, their purpose was to increase the power of the Pope and the Catholic Church.

In addition to documents which were total forgeries, genuine documents were altered. One hundred twenty-five genuine documents had forged material added to them, which increased the power of the Pope. Many early documents were changed to say the opposite of what they had originally said. [Note 3]

One of the forgeries is a letter which was falsely attributed to Saint Ambrose. It said that if a person does not agree with the Holy See, then he or she is a heretic. [Note 4] This is an example of how papal power was promoted by fraudulently claiming the authority of highly respected Early Fathers.

Another famous forgery from the nineth century was "The Donation of Constantine". It claimed that Emperor Constantine gave the western provinces of the Roman Empire to the Bishop of Rome. The Pope used it to claim authority in secular matters. [Note 5]

When Greek Christians tried to discuss issues with the Church in Rome, the popes often used forged documents to back their claims. This happened so frequently that for 700 years the Greeks referred to Rome as "the home of forgeries". [Note 6]

For three hundred years, the "Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals" and other forgeries were used by Roman Popes to claim authority over the Church in the East. The Patriarch of Constantinople rejected these false claims of primacy. This resulted in the separation of the Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholic Church. [Note 7 gives addresses of on-line articles.]

In the middle of the twelfth century, a monk named Gratian wrote the "Decretum," which became the basis for Canon Law (the legal system for running the Roman Catholic Church). It contained numerous quotations from forged documents. Gratian drew many of his conclusions from those quotations. Gratian quoted 324 passages which were supposedly written by popes of the first four centuries. Of those passages, only eleven are genuine. The other 313 quotations are forgeries. [Note 8]

In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas wrote the "Summa Theologica" and numerous other works. His writings are the foundation for scholastic theology. Aquinas used Gratian's "Decretum" for quotations from church fathers and early popes. [Note 9] Aquinas also used forged documents which he thought were genuine. [Note 10]

The importance of Thomas Aquinas' theology can be seen in the encyclical of Pope Pius X on the priesthood. In 1906, Pius said that in their study of philosophy, theology, and Scripture, men studying for the priesthood should follow the directions given by the popes and the teaching of Thomas Aquinas. [This papal encyclical is available on-line Note 11 gives addresses.]

William Webster is the author of "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History". (I recommend this book.) His web site has an article entitled "Forgeries and the Papacy: The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy". The article gives detailed information about the "Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals" and other forged documents, showing their influence on the papacy and on the Catholic Church. Four quotations from his article are below. (They are used by permission.)

"In the middle of the ninth century, a radical change began in the Western Church, which dramatically altered the Constitution of the Church, and laid the ground work for the full development of the papacy. The papacy could never have emerged without a fundamental restructuring of the Constitution of the Church and of men's perceptions of the history of that Constitution. As long as the true facts of Church history were well known, it would serve as a buffer against any unlawful ambitions. However, in the 9th century, a literary forgery occurred which completely revolutionized the ancient government of the Church in the West. This forgery is known as the "Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals," written around 845 A.D. The "Decretals" are a complete fabrication of Church history. They set forth precedents for the exercise of sovereign authority of the popes over the universal Church prior to the fourth century and make it appear that the popes had always exercised sovereign dominion and had ultimate authority even over Church Councils."

"The historical facts reveal that the papacy was never a reality as far as the universal Church is concerned. There are many eminent Roman Catholic historians who have testified to that fact as well as to the importance of the forgeries, especially those of "Pseudo-Isidore". One such historian is Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger. He was the most renowned Roman Catholic historian of the last century, who taught Church history for 47 years as a Roman Catholic." [Webster quotes extensitely from Dollinger.]

"In addition to the "Pseudo Isidorian Decretals" there were other forgeries which were successfully used for the promotion of the doctrine of papal primacy. One famous instance is that of Thomas Aquinas. In 1264 A.D. Thomas authored a work entitled 'Against the Errors of the Greeks'. This work deals with the issues of theological debate between the Greek and Roman Churches in that day on such subjects as the Trinity, the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory and the Papacy. In his defense of the papacy Thomas bases practically his entire argument on forged quotations of Church fathers.... These spurious quotations had enormous influence on many Western theologians in succeeding centuries."

"The authority claims of Roman Catholicism ultimately devolve upon the institution of the papacy. The papacy is the center and source from which all authority flows for Roman Catholicism. Rome has long claimed that this institution was established by Christ and has been in force in the Church from the very beginning. But the historical record gives a very different picture. This institution was promoted primarily through the falsification of historical fact through the extensive use of forgeries as Thomas Aquinas' apologetic for the papacy demonstrates. Forgery is its foundation."

I strongly encourage you to read William Webster's article. It has an abundance of valuable historical information. The address of the article is:

http://www.christiantruth.com/forgeries.html

USE OF THIS ARTICLE

I encourage you to link to this article. You have permission to quote from this article, as long as you do it fairly and accurately. You have permission to make copies of this article for friends and for use in classes.

Notes

1. William Webster, "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History" (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1995), pages 62-63. Webster is a former Catholic.

Peter de Rosa, "Vicars of Christ" (Dublin, Ireland: Poolbeg Press, 1988, 2000), pages 58-61, 174, 208. De Rosa is a Catholic, and a former Catholic priest. He was able to do historical research in the Vatican Archives.

Paul Johnson, "A History of Christianity" (New York: A Touchstone Book, Simon & Schuster, 1976, 1995), page 195. Johnson is a Catholic and a prominent historian.

2. "Benedict Levita" in the "Catholic Encyclopedia". [Benedict Levita is the pseudonym of the author of the "Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals".]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02466a.htm

3. De Rosa, page 59.

4. De Rosa, page 166.

5. Johnson, pages 170-172.

6. De Rosa, page 59.

7. Orthodox Christian Information Center, "The False Decretals of Isidore". An excerpt from "The Papacy" by Abbee Guette. The author was a devout Catholic and a historian. As a result of his historical research about the papacy, he eventually joined the Orthodox Church.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/decretals.htm

"The Great Schism of 1054". This is a sermon given at the Russian Orthodox Cathedral of St. John the Baptist,in Washington, D.C.

http://www.stjohndc.org/Homilies/9606a.htm

8. Webster, pages 62-63. De Rosa, page 60.

9. Webster, page 63. De Rosa, page 60.

10. William Webster, "Forgeries and the papacy: The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy". This gives detailed accounts of Aquinas' use of forged documents which he wrongly believed to be genuine.

http://www.christiantruth.com/forgeries.html

11. Pius X, "Pieni l'animo" ("On the Clergy in Italy"), July 28, 1906. (See paragraph 6.)

http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/stp06010.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/P10CLR.HTM

 

[Solo]

http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm[/url]

I talked to priest Milik, the co-writer of this Italian book, in the presence of my friend, a Christian Arab, Mr. S. J. Mattar, who now is the warden of the Garden Tomb, where Jesus was buried and rose again. This priest, Milik, admitted that he knew that the bones of St. Peter are not in Rome. I was very much surprised that he would admit that, so to confirm his admittance, I said, to which he also agreed, "There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome." This was something of an understatement, for he knew as I know that there is absolutely no evidence at all that Peter was buried in Rome.

I would rather be a proponent of the Word of God than I would of false doctrines.

Well, there's always hope that you can make the switch- but in the mean time, let's deal with your false teaching.
Ad Hominem attack of the messenger. Not allowed by the rules of this forum, Ortho! Ad Hominem attacks are exercised by those without evidence of their position.

Some months back, an ostuary (burial box) with the name 'James the brother of Jesus' was found. This was found to be as authentic as the Piltdown man.

Another feeble attempt of using critical fallacies to substantiate an argument. The ossuary that was proported to be that of James the brother of Jesus was found to be false; The ossuary that was found in Jerusalem had the name Simon Bar Johah in Aramaic, and this ossuary was found in a 1st century Christian burial ground along with Mary, Martha, and Lazarus.

The following quote from the author is taken from the article presented at http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

"I talked to a Yale professor, who is an archaeologist, and was director of the American School of Oriental Research in Jerusalem. He told me that it would be very improbable that a name with three words, and one so complete, could refer to any other than St. Peter."


The corroborating evidence for the supposed remains of Peter is non-existent. The archeological evidence for Peter's presence in Rome is substantial- to the extent that the LIBERAL scholar Adolph Harnack stated

"...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice."

According to FF Bruce

"That Peter as well as Paul was put to death at Rome under Nero is the UNANIMOUS testimony of Christian tradition so far as it touches this subject."

"That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is CERTAIN; that they were claimed as co-founders of the Roman church and that this, together with their martyrdom there, conferred great religious (as distinct from political) prestige on that church, is likewise CERTAIN...."

The evidence that Peter was killed and buried in Jerusalem was believed by Pope Pius XII, whereby the pope replied that they would have to make some changes but to keep the truth quiet. Imagine that.

Then I asked, "Does Father Bagatti (co-writer of the book in Italian on the subject, and archaeologist) really believe that those are the bones of St. Peter?" "Yes, he does," was the reply. Then I asked, "But what does the Pope think of all this?" That was a thousand dollar question and he gave me a million dollar answer. "Well," he confidentially answered in a hushed voice, "Father Bagatti told me personally that three years ago he went to the Pope (Pius XII) in Rome and showed him the evidence and the Pope said to him, ‘Well, we will have to make some changes, but for the time being, keep this thing quiet’." In awe I asked also in a subdued voice, "So the Pope really believes that those are the bones of St. Peter?" "Yes," was his answer. "The documentary evidence is there, he could not help but believe." http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm

Understand that my defense of Peter being at Rome is not subjective or partisan- as an Eastern Orthodox Christian, Peter's presence or absence at Rome is not crucial. I just happen to find this Jerusalemtomb story non-credible.

Your position looks very subjective and partisan especially when you state that "Peter's presence or absence at Rome is not crucial", and then you call my post false teaching. The Peter buried in Jerusalem evidence is very credible, and it matches up very well with the scriptures.
I do recognize that the world does not like the truth, and it would rather exist in darkness as opposed to coming to the light. [/quote:94935]