Peter's Successor? Give Me A Break!

John XXII (1316-1334) permitted priests who paid a tax to keep their mistresses. He actually had a set table of fees for the absolution of any crime – from murder to incest to sodomy. That he was serious about his revenue programs is shown by the fact that he excommunicated 1 patriarch, 5 archbishops, 30 bishops and 146 abbots for not paying taxes to the pope. Sixtus IV (1471-1484) levied a tax on priests who kept mistresses and was the first to offer indulgences for the dead, thereby establishing a virtually infinite source of revenue. Alexander VI (1492-1503), who reportedly, at the tender age of 12, murdered his uncle, Pope Callistus II, was labeled "The Tiberius of Christian Rome" by Gibbons. He freed murderers for a price and appointed cardinals for a flat fee – after which he poisoned them to take possession of their goods and hasten job turn over.

Some of those called Vicarius Filii Dei indeed were lusty men. Sergius III (904-911), at the age of 45, seduced 15-year-old Marozia, mother of Theodora, in theLateran Palace. One of his sons is known to history as John XI. Pope John XII (955-963), a grandson of Sergius III and Marozia, became pope when he was 16. He slept with his mother and maintained a harem in the Lateran Palace. He died when an angry husband caught him inflagrante delicto and bashed in the back of his head with a hammer.

Benedict V (964) dishonored a young girl and fled to Constantinople, taking with him what he could carry of the treasury of St. Peter's. He was killed by a jealous husband and his corpse, riddled with over 100 dagger wounds, was dragged through the streets and dumped into a cesspool. Benedict VII 974-983 was caught in the act of adultery and killed by an outraged husband. Four months after he was chosen pope, a Roman crowd seized Leo III (795-816) and, accusing him of adultery, gouged out his eyes, cut off his tongue and imprisoned him in a monastery, from which he later escaped..

Boniface VIII (1294-1303), whom Dante called "The Black Beast," had a married woman and her daughter as his mistresses. That murderous pope Alexander VI 1492-1503 had incestuous relationships with his daughter, her mother and her grandmother. He is known to have fathered at least ten illegitimate children. (From one of my earlier posts)

How can Rome claim that men such as those mentioned above continued in the apostolate originally occupied by Peter? How can they ignore that Christ Himself selected not only Peter but all the original Twelve, including Judas, whose role was vital to His mission? How can they pay homage to such vile creatures by conferring on them such titles as Vicarius Filii Dei, Vicar of Christ? Ask yourselves, would Christ truly have chosen such men to lead His church? Would Christ be pleased to appoint such men His vicars on earth?

But let us move on to other arguments against Peter's primacy in the early church and his anchoring of an unbroken line of apostolic succession. Look to the account of the Council at Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-11), where Peter appears as nothing more than the first speaker and debater. James presided over that council, which fact is inconsistent with the claim that, from that moment in Matthew 16:18-19, he was universally recognized as the leader of the Christian church. Had Peter been the boss, as Rome claims he was, then reason dictates that he would have made an infallible and binding decision and there would have been no need for a council to decide the issue. That Peter's position was found to be wrong underscores that he certainly was not infallible, as the RCC claims her popes are when addressing matters such as this.

Turn to Galatians 2:11-14. Paul, the newest of the Apostles, openly rebuked Peter. Had the early church recognized Peter's supremacy, such an action would have been unthinkable and surely would have resulted in Paul's being called to account for his temerity.

Look to the pronouncements of the greatest of popes, from Leo I to Leo XIII. These guys do go on concerning their authority over all the bishops and all the churches. Peter, on the other hand, never does that. In fact, in his letters he exhibits great humility in writing to his "fellow elders" and to the whole of Christianity, to whom he refers as "clergy." I reckon Peter simply did not understand the reality of his situation. Or, perhaps he did.

When did the Romans begin to dream these dreams of empire? The Catholic Encyclopedia tells us:

"History bears complete testimony that from the earliest times the Roman Church has ever claimed the supreme leadership, and that that leadership has been freely acknowledged by the universal Church."

Does history so record? Actually, it was not until the last decade of the second century after Christ that the Roman church first flexed it's ecclesiastical muscles and claimed authority over all the other churches. From that time until the fall of the Roman Empire, every such claim made was repudiated, often scornfully. To this date, no part of the Eastern segment of the "Universal Church" has ever accepted that claim.

At the end of the first century, the Roman church, which existed outside the city, had a bishop and deacons. This was declared in a letter, attributed to Clement by tradition, it sent to the Corinthians. This letter was not, as claimed now by Rome, a papal document. It was simply a letter of admonition from one church to another.

By the time of Victor I (189-98), the Roman church had established its hopelessly flawed interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19. Victor, who was a close friend of the Roman Emperor's mistress, Marcia, called on this misreading of the Word to support the declaration of his "right" to rule over the churches of Asia Minor. As Eusebius tells us, the eastern bishops rejected this claim and bitterly reproached Victor. The issue had to do with the celebration of the Passover. The Asian churches wanted to keep to the Jewish reckoning of the date. Councils and synods were held all over the place to discuss the issue. The council held in Rome and presided over by Victor I, in company of other bodies, held that the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no day but the Lord's day. Victor and other bishops so informed the leaders of the Asian church. Eusebius records what happened next.

Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom . . . (Philip Schaff, Ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, VOL. 1; Eusebius, Church History, p. 325)

Seems to me that if the Christian church had universally accepted the Bishop of Rome as it's Christ-designated leader, the bishops of Asia Minor would not have dared to reject his declarations and rebuke him so strongly. Could the infallible Magisterium be in error on their spin on this segment of church history?

Tertullian, writing from Africa, makes ironical reference to this rejection of Rome's authority in Chapter I of his treatise On Chastity, where he refers to the pope's claims to be "the Supreme Pontiff, that is to say Bishop of Bishops." For some 50 years after Tertullian wrote these words, the Roman bishops were silent concerning their "supremacy" over the whole of the Christian church.

The popes Cornelius (251-253) and Stephen (254-7) resurrected this claim in their efforts to dictate to the bishops of the African church. Cyprian's response to such efforts has been as distorted by Roman apologists as is their corrupt interpretation of Scriptures. Cyprian referred to the Roman church as "the principal church" in acknowledgement of its location in the imperial city and as having been the center from which Africa was Christianized. The Magisterium's spin doctors jumped on this and continue to claim it demonstrates that Cyprian recognized Rome's claim to supremacy. Strange how they never tell of how Cyprian scornfully repudiated this claim (See his Letters LIV, LXVII and LXXII). Writing in the name of 80 bishops, Cyprian declares (Letter LXXII) quite clearly:

Tertullian, writing from Africa, makes ironical reference to this rejection of Rome's authority in Chapter I of his treatise On Chastity, where he refers to the pope's claims to be "the Supreme Pontiff, that is to say Bishop of Bishops." For some 50 years after Tertullian wrote these words, the Roman bishops were silent concerning their "supremacy" over the whole of the Christian church.

The popes Cornelius (251-253) and Stephen (254-7) resurrected this claim in their efforts to dictate to the bishops of the African church. Cyprian's response to such efforts has been as distorted by Roman apologists as is their corrupt interpretation of Scriptures. Cyprian referred to the Roman church as "the principal church" in acknowledgement of its location in the imperial city and as having been the center from which Africa was Christianized. The Magisterium's spin doctors jumped on this and continue to claim it demonstrates that Cyprian recognized Rome's claim to supremacy. Strange how they never tell of how Cyprian scornfully repudiated this claim (See his Letters LIV, LXVII and LXXII). Writing in the name of 80 bishops, Cyprian declares (Letter LXXII) quite clearly:

"None of us regards himself as the Bishop of Bishops or seeks by tyrannical threats to compel his colleagues to obey him."

In the year 340, Pope Julius again attempted to give orders to the Bishops of the Eastern church, who were not at all receptive. In fact, their response was "full of irony and not devoid of serious threats" (Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, III, 8).

In 382, Pope Damasus tried once again to assert his authority over the Eastern church, with essentially the same results. (Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, V. 9) With that, the Roman church essentially abandoned its attempts to exert control over the Eastern church and concentrated its efforts on consolidating its claims in the West.

Catholic apologists love to point to the writing of Augustine as declaring the legitimacy of Rome's claim to supremacy over all the church. How many times have you read the words, "Rome has spoken?" Contrary to what the Roman mythologists would have us believe, Augustine here was not recognizing Rome's authority. Quite the contrary, he was merely acknowledging that the issue was closed because both the African and Roman churches had come to the same conclusion. There simply was nothing in dispute between the two bodies. Continuing, Augustine and his African bishops rejected papal claims of authority every bit as forcefully as had Cyprian and the bishops of the Eastern church (Labbe, Collectio Conciliorum, 419, 424).

The Vandals made a trainwreck of the African church and, in 445, Pope Leo I attempted to establish his authority over the church in southern Gaul. The response of Hilary of Arles, leader of that church, so shocked the Pope that he described (Letters, X, 3) it as having been couched "in language which no layman even should dare to use and no priest to hear."

Leo I did not give up. He managed to get Valentinian, the last of the Roman emperors, issue an edict granting to the Roman See authority over all the church. But even this "authority" was insufficient to establish Rome's authority over the Eastern church, as demonstrated by Leo's inability to block the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon from declaring Leo's rival in Constantinople to to be officially equal in authority to the Bishop of Rome.

The times were hard in Europe, but the Papacy for a time flourished. By the reign of Gregory I, the Papacy had become the richest owner of land and slaves in all of Europe. Quite a contrast to the humility we see in Peter's letters. Despite the Lombard annexation of a large portion of the papal estates, the power and wealth of the Roman See continued to grow and flourish. Rome may not have been doing much of a job of protecting and sharing the Gospel, but she sure was a successful commercial enterprise in the Dark Ages. By the end of the 8th Century, the "temporal power" – read "possessions" – of the Papacy had reached their greatest extent. Then things really began to go downhill.

The death of Nicholas I, in 867 A.D., ushered in a period of uncommon barbarity known as the Rule of the Whores. For the next 150 years, with but few exceptions, the Holy See was occupied by a succession of incredibly corrupt men. All thoughts of ruling over the universal church were forgotten as some 30 popes concentrated on satisfying their worldly lusts. Things got so bad that a group of reformed monks called upon German rulers of the Holy Roman Empire to intervene. And intervene they did, with one of the emperors (Hildebrand) even becoming a pope (Gregory VII).

In his Rationalists Encyclopedia, former Roman Catholic monk Joseph McCabe, writes:

The thirteenth century , which Innocent inaugurated, is one of the loosest (sexually) in history, and it reeked with cruelty and injustice, especially in Italy. Its Papal history ended in the extraordinary scandal of the pontificate of Boniface VIII (1294-1303), and this was followed by the depravity of the Papal Court at Avignon (1309-77), the disgusting Popes of the Great Schism (1378-1414), under whom even the best Catholic historian, Pastor, says, "the prevailing immorality exceeded anything that had been witnessed since the tenth century" (History of the Popes, I, 97), and the Popes of the Renaissance (1450-1650), when, considering the new enlightenment of Europe, the Papacy sank to a lower depth than ever and, except during a few short periods, remained in its corruption longer than ever.

Ask yourself, would Jesus have chosen these men to rule over His church?

The Roman spin doctors love to paint glorious pictures of those who occupied the Holy See in Rome. Graciously, they acknowledge there were indeed a few bad apples in the papal barrel. After all, they remind us, the Roman church has never demanded impeccability of its popes. The other heathen religions with which Rome, in her ecumenical fervor, seeks to align have no history of being led my such monstrously corrupt and vile men as have claimed to be links in the unbroken apostolic succession. Look to Brahmanism, Buddhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism and others. You will find no accounts to parallel those of Rome in the areas of corruption or the acquisition of high office.

Roman martyrology confers the title "Martyr" on virtually every pope who held that office up to the year 310, though Catholic historians such as Duchesne assert that at most only about two of 30 were martyred. Every pope but one right up to the year 530 A.D has been declared a "Saint", though we known almost nothing of all but three of these men.

Turning to McCabe again, I offer his evaluation of the first 260 men who sat on the throne of the roman church:

We may sum up the biography of the Popes (and the "holiness" of the Papacy) by saying that, of the 260 Popes one-fourth are of unknown character and half the remainder had grave defects of character. At least thirty were sexually loose men (in half a dozen cases paederasts) and a dozen are credibly charged with murder and mutilation. If moreover, we judge them from the Catholic point of view, more than one half of the 200 Popes, from the year 300 to 1650, were notoriously guilty of vices that are held to be worse than sexual irregularities: simony, nepotism, and protecting the corruption of the Papal Court and the clergy.

Those of you who are under the yoke of Catholicism, consider what you are being required to believe. Rome asserts that the authority of the Pope extends over all the Christian church. Further, she declares that submission to papal authority is a necessary component of the salvific process.

We, moreover, proclaim, declare and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human being to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (Pope Boniface VIII, Bull Unam Sanctam, November 18, 1302)

The popes love power and have gone to great lengths to acquire and increase their power.

We likewise define that the holy Apostolic See, and the Roman Pontiff, hold the primacy throughout the entire world; and that the Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of blessed Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, and that he is the head of the entire Church, and the father and teacher of all Christians; and that full power was given to him in blessed Peter by Our Lord Jesus Christ, to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church; just as is contained in the acts of the ecumenical Councils and in the sacred canons." (Pope Eugene IV, Papal Bull Laetentur Coeli, July 6, 1439)

Innocent III (1198-216), who turned Rome into a clerical state and considered himself "Lord of the World," called himself Universal Bishop (A title repudiated by earlier popes). He promulgated more laws than all the preceding 50 popes combined, yet was bound by none of them. Declaring himself the "Foundation of All Christianity," he proclaimed that "Every cleric must obey the pope, even if he commands what is evil, for no one may judge the pope. (My emphasis). Reversing this infallible declaration, Innocent IV (1243-1254) declared – no doubt also infallibly – that the faithful are not to obey any papal utterance that is heretical or tends to divide the church. (from one of my earlier postings)

See how it works? The Pope rules over all the Christian church because the Pope says he does. Can't argue with logic like that. But what gives the Roman Bishop such great authority? Could it be, as Innocent IV (1243-54) declared, the pope is Christ on earth Praesentia Corporalis Christi?

And does not such a declaration, issued by one of the many infallible popes, lay the foundation for yet another conundrum? Scripture tells us that Christ is in Glory, seated at the Father's right hand:

Romans 8:34, "Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us."

Ephesians 1:17-23, "That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him: The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."

What questions. From Scripture we know that the risen Christ is seated at the right hand of God, acting as our advocate and attending to the business of the Father. On the other hand, an infallible Roman pope has announced the pope to be the corporal presence of Christ on earth. And to make matters more complicated, Roman dogma, as codified in canon law and the catechism, teaches that Christ is called down from Heaven at the command of a million priests, millions of times a day to reside in a cookie on millions of altars or locked in millions tabernacles or being dissolved in the gullets of tens of millions of Catholic communicants. Where does truth lie? I say it is to be found in the Word of God, not the self-serving deceits of Rome.