Papacy - Christendom's Riddle

Surrounded by Catholic books and booklets as well as excerpts from the Catholic press, I try to find a starting point. Roman Catholics would have no problem, for they would go back to Matthew 16. From there they would weave their Aramaic Matthew theory, although an Aramaic original of Matthew has never been found. It is, however, a necessary theory if one is to protect the Catholic understanding of the papacy.

Perhaps it would be better to go back a bit farther, to the first chapter of John's Gospel, when Andrew first brings Peter to Christ.

Jesus said to Simon, "Thou shalt be called Cephas." In commenting on this, The Catholic Enquiry Centre's booklet Peter and the Eleven, says this. "Actually Cephas is Aramaic for Rock. Peter is the English form of the Greek word for Rock."

The Greek/English word Cephas comes from the Aramaic keph which means hollow rock. The word is used twice in the Old Testament.

Job 30:6, "To dwell in the cliffs of the valleys, in caves of the earth, and in the rocks." When you read the context, (verses one to eight), you do not picture the gigantic foundation stone lauded by Karl Keating in his tract, Peter and the Papacy.

Keating writes, "Not only was there significance in Simon (sic) being given a new name . . . but the place where the renaming took place was also important. . . The city (Caesarea Philippi) lay near . . . a gigantic wall of rock about 200 feet high and 500 feet long . . . "

(While never having had the opportunity of visiting Caesarea Philippi, it is interesting to see a photograph taken from the Pictorial Bible Dictionary of "the scene of Peter's historic confession of Christ's divinity." It shows gentle southern slopes of Mount Hermon.)

Jeremiah 4:29, "The whole city shall flee for the noise of the horsemen and bowmen; they shall go into thickets, and climb up upon the rocks; every city shall be forsaken, and not a man dwell therein."

Just from these, it should be plain that (even in Aramaic) Jesus did not think of Peter as a gigantic foundation stone. However, we are not left to surmising. In the remainder of verse 42, the Holy Spirit gives His infallible definition of Cephas.

Even if it could have meant either rock or stone, we are told, "which is by interpretation, a stone." While various Catholic versions sidestep this by substitution "Cephas" or "Peter" for "stone", the Holy Spirit carefully chose the right Greek word Petros which means a piece of rock. Petros is smaller than petra but larger than lithos which is always translated "stone."

Catholics may argue that the feminine Petra (large rock) couldn't be used to describe the man Peter, hence his being called Petros (small rock). Yet, in 1 Corinthians 10:4 we read, "And that Rock (Petra - large rock) was Christ."

THE POPE'S TEACHING AUTHORITY

"Papal infallibility was defined by the [First] Vatican Council as follows: `The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra - that is, when in the discharge of the office of Pastor and Doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding Faith or Morals to be held by the Universal Church - by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed with that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding Faith or Morals; and therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not in virtue of the consent of the Church'" From Explanation of the Baltimore Catechism, page 136.

Dr. Murray from the Maynooth Roman Catholic Seminary in Ireland, said: "By saying (Matthew 16:18), Jesus appointed Peter supreme head of the Church, and gave him full authority . . . to teach, . . . to reject and denounce all false doctrines, and to declare what is the true Faith; . . . in short, the whole church, its officers, its constitution, its work, were entrusted to Peter."

It is impossible to get a volume called Roman Catholic Tradition and have before you all of Catholic Tradition. Probably the closest one can get to this is a fourteen volume set, The Catholic Tradition. The writers in these books put, as the compilers say, "the entire written heritage of the Catholic faith at your fingertips. . .The Catholic Tradition . . . captures the ancient wisdom and beliefs of the 2,000 year old institution . . ."

Even though it is maintained that the teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church was vested in the Pope, only six of the 200 selections were written by popes, and NONE of these is infallible!

PAPAL INFALLIBITY

From Keenan's Catechism (Catholic Catechism), 1869 edition:

"Q. Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible?

A: This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of Catholic faith." After 1870, the question was omitted, but in 1896, this was added: "Q: Is the Pope infallible?

A: Yes, the Pope is infallible.

Q: But some Catholics, before the Vatican Council, denied the infallibility of the Pope, which was impugned by this very Catechism. A: Yes, they did so under the usual reservation, insofar as they then could grasp the mind of the Church, and subject to her future definitions, thus implicitly accepting the dogma."

Christians should understand the Catholic Church does not believe popes are without sin (impeccable). That would be a hard one to prove, given the centuries of papal wickedness and intrigue. They do say, that under very strict conditions, the pope is protected by God from saying anything untrue.

He must speak to the entire Church on faith and morals, and couch his declaration in words that denote infallibility (usually something like "I say, declare and pronounce . . .") That this happened seldom doesn't seem to bother Catholic apologists.

Karl Keating explained it clearly. He illustrated papal infallibility by imagining the pope were infallible in trigonometry. You, as his trig teacher, gave him an exam with 100 questions. How many would the pope get correct?

Most of us would expect an infallible pope to get 100 questions correct. But Karl assured us this is not the case. The pope might get none of the questions correct. He might leave his paper blank!

Papal infallibility was defined in 1870 at the first Vatican Council. Pope Pius IX was pope at the time. He left his paper blank, as did Leo XIII, Pius X, Benedict XV and Pius XII. The silence was finally broken by Pius XII, who, in 1950, defined the dogma of the Assumption of Mary. Since, there have been none that have been universally accepted by Catholics as infallible.

We were told, by Karl Keating, that "parts of Humanae Vitae (the pope's encyclical on birth control ) were infallible." (He didn't say which parts - I guess that is up to private interpretation. Recently, the pope has spoken out against the possibility of having women priests. Conservative Catholics say this was an infallible statement. Liberal Catholics say it is not. The only one who really knows is the pope, and he isn't telling.

THE CONFUSION OF THE POPES

The late Alex Dunlap, in his tract of this name lists three Roman Catholic books, all with the Nihil Obstat (nothing obstructs [Roman Catholic faith or morals]) and Imprimatur (let it be printed) of eminent Roman Catholics.

The books are The Faith of Millions and What's the Truth about Catholics? (John O'Brien), and The Story of the Pope (with the imprimatur of Francis Cardinal Spellman). They give the number of popes, from Peter to Pius XII, as 261, 262 and 258 respectively.

In both of his books, John O'Brien names Pope No. 137 - first as John XIV and then as Donus II. A January 18, 1947 news report from the Vatican states that Pope Donus was found to be "a person who never existed." (O'Brien's second book was published in 1950, three years after the Vatican announced that Donus was the little pope who wasn't there.) O'Brien also names Pope #207 - in his first book as Martin V and in his second book as John XXII, John XXIII or John XXIV.

In spite of his own uncertainty about who was really pope and when, O'Brien has the gall to say that the popes "constitute a distinguished list of holy and saintly men, linking the Church with Christ and constituting the Title Deed of the Catholic Church - the one true Church of Jesus Christ on earth."

Pope Boniface VIII published an encyclical in 1302. It had all the earmarks of what we should regard as falling within the pale of infallibility. It was addressed to the entire Church, regarded faith and morals and certainly was couched in infallible language.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (Robert Appleton Company, Imprimatur John Cardinal Farley, New York, Copyright 1912) says in Volume XV, page 126, "(Unam Sanctam) lays down dogmatic propositions on . . . the necessity of belonging to (the Church) for the attainment of eternal salvation"

Specifically, they quote the encyclical (sometimes called a Bull), "Declaratio quod subesse Romano Pontifici est omni humanae creaturae de necessitate salutis, (It is here stated that for salvation it is necessary that every human creature be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff)."

Vatican II contradicted this. It said, "Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by His grace, strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience." As pope John Paul II demonstrated, in his 1986 Prayer Meeting for Peace, this includes Protestants (separated brethren), Anglicans, Baptists, Buddhists, Jains, Zoroastrians, Sun worshipers, Hindus, Jews, snake worshipers, and a variety of less known religions. Is Vatican II infallible? Was Boniface VIII infallible? Is anyone infallible?

POPE JOHN PAUL II AND INFALLIBILITY

Prior to his visit to Denver for World Youth Day, the Denver Catholic Register ran a number of articles about the pope. One (3/31/93) was dated March 24 and entitled Supreme Pastor.

In part it read, "In today's general audience, Pope John Paul II continued his catechesis on the Roman pontiff's infallibility, which, he stated, `(is given) by virtue of his office as pastor and master of all Christians.'

"He continued: `In virtue of the "supreme apostolic authority," the papal magisterium is exercised when a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals, explicitly or implicitly revealed, is defined.'

"The Holy Father explained that `the Councils expound the conditions for the exercise of papal infallible magisterium which is called extraordinary, and whose manifestations are unreformable . . . that is to say, for them to be valid they do not need the bishops' consensus nor are they submitted to another judgment.'"

We can see that the Roman Catholic church of today is governed by an absolute (albeit, so far benign) monarch.

TITLE DEED OR ROGUES GALLERY?

Most of us are not old enough to remember more than a few popes - John Paul II, John Paul I, Paul VI, John XXIII, and Pius XII. The first four listed were "good" popes - they did not do anything noticeably wicked. Pius XII's relationship with the Nazis and possible implication with the holocaust place him on probation. Today's Roman Catholics are likewise very hazy about papal history, and few have any inclination to get the 1907-12 Catholic Encyclopedia to find out more. They are content to follow the line of their apologists, most of whom reckon there were three immoral popes. If I were a Catholic, I would prefer to have none, but since Jesus had Judas, "a few" bad popes can be tolerated.

The Pope Speaks by Harry Borleis, quoting from the Catholic Encyclopedia (1907-12 edition) cites 16 popes of whose accomplishments they have no record; at least 25 with questionable (if not heretical) doctrine; one who attempted suicide, at least 20 who were illegally appointed; 18 guilty of simony; 12 guilty of murder, at least 10 controlled by secular power and more than 20 guilty of nepotism. (Some were guilty of two or three of the above.)

POPE JOAN

No article on the papacy would be complete without an appraisal of this controversial figure. Roman Catholics are very touchy about Pope Joan. Baronius, the Roman Catholic analyst calls pope Boniface VI "a disgusting monster," but this seems to leave the Catholic unmoved.

Tell him that a young lady once occupied the papal chair, and he will bare his teeth!

There has for centuries been a controversy raging about the occupancy of the "see of Peter" by a female. The following article was copied from information received in a publication by The Protestant Alliance, 77 Ampthill Rd., Flitwick, Bedford MK45 1BD, England.

"Tradition gives the title of John VIII to the female Pope, commonly called Pope Joan. She is said to have been of English parentage, born at Mayence. The date of her succession is stated to be A.D. 855, and she reigned 2 years, 5 months and 4 days.

"At an early age she assumed the male garb, and entered a monastery. Still under disguise, she went to Rome, where she gained distinction by her secular and theological lectures. She was elected Pope on the death of Leo IV. During a solemn procession she was delivered of a child and expired. A statue was erected on the spot to commemorate, or, as some say, to excite abhorrence of the act.

"Emmanuel Rhoidis, a Greek, has undertaken the task of proving the existence of a female pope, passing under the title of John VIII. A translation of this is now, for the first time, presented to the English reader."

"Platina, secretary to a reigning pope and Vatican librarian, felt bound to include Pope Joan in the canon of the popes (John VIII).

"The reality of the existence and reign, as head of the Roman church, of a female pope has been chronicled and maintained by a phalanx of Papal champions, cardinals, bishops, priests, historians and even by officials of the Papal Court. The following are some of the leading members of the Roman church, among others, who have related the history as a fact: Anastasius, librarian of Leo IX (A.D. 1049), Marianus Scotus the learned theologian at the end of the 10th century; Siegbert, the Annalist, who lived about the same period; Bishop Othon, the Dominican, brother-in-law of the Emperor Conrad III; Martinus Polonus, Penitentiary to Popes John XX and Nicholas III (A.D. 1277) and Almeric D'Auger, who dedicated his work Nomenclature Chronique des Eveques de Rome to Pope Urban V (A.D. 1562).

"The Neuremberg Chronicle, which bears the date 1493, and is deposited at Cologne, not only records her succession as a fact, but actually gives what purports to be her portrait.

"Dr. Dollinger, then a loyal member of the R.C. Church admits that "in the 15th century hardly any more doubt about her shows itself.

"Quite at the beginning of the century, a bust of Pope Joan was placed in the Cathedral of Sienna, along with the busts of other Popes, and no one took offence at it. It was not till two centuries later that, at the pressing demand of Clement VIII (about A.D. 1602) Joan was metamorphised into Pope Zacharias."

"The fact of the bust of Pope Joan existing for a long period `placed' between Leo IV and Benedict III in the Cathedral of Sienna is beyond denial. There is remained for upwards of two centuries."

(Write for a free copy (or copies) of POPE JOAN: THE POPE THAT SHOOK THE WORLD from C.E.C./M.O.T.C.)

THE CATHOLIC "PROOF TEXT" ON TRADITION

2 Thes. 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions (Greek paradosis, transmission, precept) which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." What precepts did Paul transmit, or teach? See Acts 26:22, recorded AFTER 2 Thessalonians.

"Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which Moses and the prophets did say should come:"

What was taught by word? Old Testament

What was taught by Paul's epistle? New Testament.

Karl Keating maintains that "the apostles' doctrine" of Acts 2:42 was equivalent to Roman Catholic Tradition. Nonsense. It was revelation based on Old Testament truth and orally given to Christians, and then written down.

The bulk of Paul's sermon in Acts 13:14-41 was a reference to the Old Testament. Paul's oral statement about justification by faith in verse 39 is only an introduction to the teaching on the same subject we find in Paul's epistles. The oral and written teachings of the Apostles always agree, as do the Old and New Testaments.