Papal Rome Part II
The church of Rome is monarchical and the popes are absolute rulers. This is so despite the efforts of the last Council of the Church, now undergoing a few subtle revisions under the headship of Pope Benedict XVI. Vatican II. Under the guidance of Pope John XXIII, the bishops proposed a more open, democratic, collegial style of leadership. This view was enshrined in the documents of the Council and the bishops returned to their dioceses in the hope that the old autocratic ways of papal government were consigned to the past. These hopes have been slowly dashed as pontificate followed pontificate. From Pope Paul VI through to John Paul II, and since 2005 Pope Benedict XVI, the reins of power have reverted into the hands of the papacy alone. The popes have sole responsibility for the appointment of the cardinals, who elect the popes, and the bishops from whom cardinals are selected. The episcopate becomes in the course of a long papal reign, such as that of John Paul II, in terms of thinking and outlook a reflection of the pope who appointed them. In the case of the last few popes most of their appointees would be considered conservatives and traditionalists. This narrows the papal selection process down to a few, most if not all of whom will have been examined, sieved and sifted for any views that might not be congenial to the ruling elite.
The former Cardinal Joseph Ratszinger, now Pope Benedict XVI is lord and master of all he surveys. His election was guaranteed by a process that in a democratic state would be thought laughable. Little time was given for any opposition to his strong candidature to be thought through. He alone was enabled to give two highly influential sermons to the rapidly assembled cardinals each one of whom was a potential rival. One of these two addresses was a virtual manifesto laying out his concerns for both for the Church and society at large. These views were known to be identified with those of the recently deceased Pope John Paul, whose loss the entire Church and most of the world’s leaders were still officially mourning. In retrospect the result of this election was as certain as those held in any fundamentalist, fascist or communist controlled state. There was no opposition, no obvious contender, other than Cardinal Ratzinger who had the backing of the curia and the virtual anointing of his predecessor.
As a cardinal, Ratzinger had for decades been Pope John Paul’s right hand man, in the media he has been described as the pope’s enforcer. He headed the reformed and renamed office that had once been known as the Inquisition. He demonstrated the durable nature of this institution’s effectiveness by ending the careers of a number of notable Catholic theologians and activists such as Hans kung and Leonardo Boff. Neither theologian conformed to Vatican notions of orthodoxy. Cardinal Ratzinger demonstrated that the papacy will not tolerate for long any opposition either to its prevailing attitude or to its power base.
The papacy is a world class player in the realm of global politics. The reign of John Paul II was partly characterised by an intimate involvement in the politics of the latter part of the twentieth century. For years he worked closely with President Reagan and the heads of the C.I.A., sharing information through their joint networks regarding Communism in general and Poland, Central and South America in particular. The scope for intrusions in the business of continents and nations is intrinsic to an understanding of papal power. Books have been written and many more will be written about the impact of popes like Pius XII before and during the Second World War and Pope John Paul over the period of his pontificate. The reign of Benedict XVI will I believe see a deep involvement of the Roman Church in the development of the European Union.
Rome was designed as a republic to be ruled by its senate. It became a dictatorship ruled by its emperors, and these emperors became gods. The Church of Rome is a fine copy of its original; apostolic collegiality, the sharing of authority overtaken by monarchy, plurality given over to a singularity. The successors of Peter become virtual gods, treated as absolute monarchs. The genius behind the doctrinal definitions concerning the bishop of Rome is the perceived role of the Apostle Peter as head of the Church. Peter the first among twelve equals, plus the Apostle Paul ultimately became the primacy of Peter, the first Bishop of Rome the original Pope, the supreme head and ruler of Christendom. His successors became the Vicars of Christ on earth, the guarantors of doctrinal orthodoxy, as popes, the true representatives of Christ. Hence the cringing obeisance offered to the popes throughout the centuries. Pope Pius XII at his coronation was kissed by those of lower ecclesiastical rank on the hand, on the knee and on the foot. His administrators received a telephone call from their pontiff on their knees. Such was the rule in the Vatican less than sixty years ago. The fact that all this contradicts the spirit, the words, the life of the Apostle Peter and makes a mockery of the Life, the Spirit and the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ seems to un-nerve the Papacy not one jot.
Peter called himself an apostle, a fellow elder, he made no extravagant claims for himself, and he was an essentially humble man. Not humble by pious definition but humble in character, able to take criticism and correction. In his second letter he wrote about the nearness of his death and the provision he had made for those who shared the faith. He spoke of nothing other than his concern that they should remember the things he had taught them. See 2 Peter. Ch.1 v 13-15
There is no exalted Petrine office, no dynasty, no genealogy, no successor, no legal transference of power and authority, nothing but his care and love for the people he served and love for the Lord he worshipped and died for.
In chapter 5 of his first letter he wrote the following:
“ To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed. Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers - not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be, not greedy for money, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.”
As regards crowns, for centuries, certainly until very recent times popes were crowned with the ancient triple tiara at their coronations. At this ritual the officiating cardinal says: “ Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns, and know that thou art the father of princes and kings, ruler of the world…”
A twentieth century American Catholic Catechism states that:
" the pope takes the place of Christ on earth... is the father and teacher of all Christians... that he is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and judge of councils, the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no-one, God himself on earth."
It is obvious that papal claims regarding their office have reached during the high points of papal aggrandisement to the very plinth upon which stands the throne of the Almighty.
If this is difficult to believe, then take it as true from the mouth of a pope. In 1885 Pope Leo XIII in an encyclical, (The Reunion of Christendom) declared that the pope holds “ upon this earth the place of God Almighty.”
That the papacy has risen so high has been the result of the work of some of the greatest popes in history.
Leo I (440-461) At the Council of Chalcedon his Dogmatical Letter was accepted as the authentic voice of St. Peter.
Gregory I (590-604) He asserted Rome’s supremacy and exercised almost imperial powers. Surprisingly it was this pope of all popes who took exception to anyone taking the title Universal Priest, (Pontifex Maximus ).
He wrote: “ I confidently say that whoever calls himself, or desires to be called the Universal Priest is the forerunner of Anti-Christ in his pride, because by exalting himself he places himself above others. Nor is this pride different from that which leads Anti-Christ to his error, because as that wicked one wishes to be thought a god before all men, so he who desires to be called sole Priest, exalts himself above all other priests.”
Ask a knowledgeable Catholic to name one of the greatest of all popes and you will soon hear the name Pope, Saint Gregory the Great. And yet it was he who said a bishop or metropolitan who sought this title would be the forerunner of Anti-Christ. Three years later following Gregory’s death Pope Boniface III appealed to the emperor Phocas and took possession of the title Universal Priest / Bishop / Pontiff; and so has every other pope since.
The great Catholic, Cardinal John Henry Newman, who had earlier in his life rocked the Anglican Church of the 19th century by converting to Rome and who became one of Rome’s foremost apologists, said the following about Pope Gregory’s quoted statement.
He criticises Protestants for using Gregory the Greats’ statement. He says: ‘they appeal to Pope Gregory the Great as asserting that whoever calls himself universal bishop is Anti-Christ whereas the great doctor really speaks of the forerunner of Anti-Christ who was in the language of the day was nothing but a token of an impending evil.’
Quoted from the Catholic internet Encyclopaedia New Advent.
Well, that’s O.K. then !
It is good to hear such an eminent Catholic conceding that all the popes who have taken the title Universal Pontiff were not Anti-Christ, but just his forerunner, a promise of impending evil. I would fully agree, the papacy of this era was a forerunner of an impending and greater evil: The Papacy of the dark ages, the medieval, the renaissance, and onwards towards Napoleonic times, the end of ruling monarchies and into the modern age. Each age adding something more to the evil that had already accrued.
An even more amusing quote from the same source, again by Cardinal Newman is a classic in terms of an own goal. New Advent are using Newman’s comments in order to defend Catholicism against the charge that the popes are the Anti-Christ’s.
Newman says: ‘ The gibe… “ If the pope is not an Anti-Christ, he has bad luck to be so like him.” is really another argument in favour of the claims of the pope. Since Anti-Christ simulates Christ and the pope is an image of Christ, Anti-Christ must have similarity to the pope, if the latter is the true Vicar of Christ.’
I would love to hear a Catholic apologist demonstrate the similarities that exist between the popes and Jesus Christ.
I suspect the only similarities they could produce are the claims made by both to be infallible, to speak in the place of God, to receive obeisance and worship and so on. The only similarity is that both seem to claim divinity for themselves. God on earth. To the one it is due, to the other it is an abomination. Apart from that what other similarities are there?
But the similarities that do exist between Christ Jesus and the Anti-Christ and the Papacy are precisely in these same areas. Each claiming divine authority, on earth and indeed beyond. In Rome’s case, into the realms of purgatory and even into decisions concerning who does and who does not get saved or enter heaven. These are the attributes of God, vouchsafed to Him alone, perfect Justice and perfect Mercy. The heart and mind and spirit of man is not made for such decisions. They are God’s and His alone. This truth does not prevent Rome and the Anti-Christ’s claiming a lions share of these divine attributes.
During the age of the eye witnesses to the life and death and resurrection of Jesus, apostles called directly by Jesus, were given authority which demonstrated and validated the Gospel message and proved that these men were sent by God, first to the Jews and then to the Gentiles. It also authenticated their message, written and oral, that became incorporated into the book called the New Testament. A book that bore testimony to its own completion, a finished work, the revelation of God through the work of the Holy Spirit. All of this was unique to that period. Rome however has insinuated itself into this apostolic authority and made ludicrous claims about the ‘ You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ statement made by Jesus. Rome is constantly claiming the authority of the so called ‘Fathers of the Church.’ to validate its doctrines and dogmas. The belief that the apostle Peter was the subject of the words: ‘upon this rock’ is however denied by a great list of these Fathers.
By Augustine, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and the delegates of the Council of Chalcedon.
For this information I am indebted to an ex Catholic John Shroeder whose writing appears on the web under the title 'Contender Ministries / The Fraudulent Papacy'.
But Rome has claimed it and gloried in it. Before the title Vicar of Christ was developed popes were said to be the Vicars of Peter.
But the powers and authority given to Peter and the Church of the apostolic age, greater than any that have succeeded it, were never, until Rome flexed her muscles, ever used in the manner that has become characteristic of Rome. She, unlike Peter who accepted correction from Paul, has felt herself qualified to judge infallibly on everything.
But who is best qualified to judge? God or the Church that became the Church of Rome. Look at whom Rome set above us to be our judge and look how they have judged us. Pope Innocent III, another of the greats, felt himself qualified to judge those who had judged the Church of Rome and concluded that it was corrupt and worldly and teaching in error. He sent one of the greatest armies ever gathered by Rome to crush, kill and burn the cities and the peoples of southern France who had dared to stand against Rome. The Albigensians were virtually wiped from the face of the earth in a bloody holocaust for which Rome must bear total responsibility.
These are the judges. Some may be good but others could be anyone or anything.
A bishop or priest, who may be a paedophile in his spare time. A Jesuitical canon lawyer who applies his subtle legal brain to the matter of truth and doctrine. A Dominican Inquisitor who racks the required answer from a tortured body. Or a Pope, one of whom (Stephen VII. 896-897) exhumed the body of a former pope (Formosus. 891-896 ) sat the cadaver up before a mock court, harangued it, removed some of its fingers, formerly excommunicated it and had the remains thrown in the Tiber. Give me the Living God as my Judge before any representative of Rome, mad or sane.
There is no likeness between Rome and the Church of the generation that was chosen by and saw Jesus. Nor is there a single likeness between Jesus and any pope.
The person who according to scripture takes the place of Christ on earth is not a pope: He is the third person of the Trinity. The much neglected, hardly ever seen or heard in Catholic devotions or doctrines, other than as a servant to the priesthood: He is the Holy Spirit. Once again the popes confuse themselves with the divine. Something one would expect from one similar to, a substitute for, someone who stands in the place of another, a vicar. A Vicar of Christ who stands in the midst of God’s people. Taking the place of God amongst these people as if he were a god, and because of this accepts worship as if he were. A figure already seen and described by Paul centuries earlier in the 2nd chapter of the 2nd Letter to the Thessalonians. An Anti-Christ.
The only trouble for Catholic apologetics is this:
The fact that Jesus Christ is the incarnate God.
The Holy Spirit is Himself God and the Spirit of Christ upon the earth and His representative.
The popes, in contrast, can be shown to be not just mere mortals but often stand amongst the worst specimens of humanity ever to take totalitarian power over their subjects.
This history is little known. Papal brutality, self- righteousness, hypocrisy, debauchery and worldliness cover virtually its entire history. There cannot be a century that has not seen examples of these characteristics.
But the 10th and 11th stand above any other for sheer madness and mayhem.
Hildebrand: Pope St. Gregory VII became pope in 1073. He began the business of cleaning up the Church after a period of such debauchery and worldliness within and around the papacy that it is difficult to speak about. It went on for nearly two hundred years. Some pontificates lasted just days such were the jealousies, ambitions and the violence.
If you were to select from some un-policed modern inner city sink estate, its worst and most powerful families, and get them to fight amongst one another in order to elevate one of their number to the top dog position, you will get some idea of the prolonged period prior to Hildebrand. Beyond that give them unfettered power and wealth.
Popes, some of them juveniles and others older but little wiser rose one after the other. They murdered and were murdered themselves, they were raised up like puppets and thrown down when used up or when a better candidate arose. They were manoeuvred in and out by the power brokers of that period. So called noble families in and around Rome. And among the most notable pope makers and breakers were two infamous women, perhaps known best for their reputed lewd and immoral behaviour. But Theodora and Marozia were pope makers par excellence. They and their lovers appointed pope after pope. Forget authorised conclaves, some of these were made in the bedroom, some literally. They produced a series of popes who were famous for their sexual vices, brothels, male and female, wars, violence, occultism and utter disregard for anything holy or good. The only good they recognised was the servicing of their base appetites. Every office, every position of importance had a price, including the papacy. The Christian emperors tried, mostly in vain, to impose some kind of order but it was not possible. This is accredited history. Roman Catholic historians will not deny it; some may quarrel with the description I have given, but if I detailed the horrors it would make matters seem even more dark.
The Roman Church lists many false claimants to the papacy. They are called anti-popes. Many of them were elected by conclaves. Who was a legitimate pope and who was not could not have been established while the disputes raged. The true pope would have been unknown to his contemporaries. Some of these were dubbed anti-popes later by those in Rome entrusted with such matters. The major reason for these adjustments are that the list documenting the Apostolic Succession, from Peter onwards, must be seen to be a seamless record.
The point I want to make is that all the popes of the dismal period from the end of the 9th century to late into the 11th century: roughly forty-four of them, depending on which list you use, were all genuine, bone-fide popes, listed in the official records. Most of these must have selected and ordained cardinals bishops and priests of the Catholic Church. For about one hundred and eighty years the spiritual progeny of these terrible men were sent forth to represent God and His Church, give the sacraments and preach the Gospel.
And at the end of it you got Hildebrand, Pope Gregory VII who as part of his clean up, separated priests from their marriage vows, broke up families, in some cases leaving women and children destitute and imposed celibacy on the Catholic priesthood. And we in the modern era know, as a result of huge pay outs from Rome and many court cases what a holy blessing clerical celibacy has been.
Most Catholics know nothing of this. Nor do most of the evangelical Christians who are prepared to make common purpose with this Church.
Both Scripture and the Protestant Reformers show the likeness there is between the popes and the Anti-Christ. In this Cardinal Newman is spot on. They, the Anti-Christ and the Popes ‘must have similarity’ if the latter are ‘the true Vicars (substitutes) of Christ’ on earth. They are the only human vicars of Christ because only the papacy has had the nerve and calling to make such a claim. A calling not from God the Father but from another father altogether.
More mighty popes followed.
Gregory VII Hildebrand (1073-1085) The pope who forced the Holy Roman emperor Henry IV to wait shivering in the snow outside the castle in Canossa for four days as a humble penitent before receiving his pardon. The emperor got his revenge, Gregory was driven from Rome and died in exile.
Innocent III (1198-1216) The temporal power of the papacy reached its summit during his pontificate. He asserted papal power over secular princes, particularly over the Holy Roman emperors. King John of England was his vassal. He initiated a crusade of appalling savagery against the Albigensians of southern France; Christians who, as described above, had turned away from Rome in disgust at their worldliness, corruption and vice.
Pius IX (1846-1878) He denounced Modernism and proclaimed the dogmas of the Virgin Mary’s Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility.
Pope Pius XII (1939-1958) The first pope to officially, legally use the doctrine of papal infallibility, He proclaimed the dogma of the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven. He has been accused of standing by throughout the entire Second World War and watched without protest while the Jewish Holocaust, the most murderous genocide in history, proceeded.
In whom do we place our trust ? God and the Holy Scriptures
or the substitute Christ, the earthbound god and his church sitting on and pontificating from the seven hills of Rome.