Attacks on the Pope

[Seeker]

Fellow community members, I came across these claims regarding the Pope at an Anti-Catholic web site and would like to see if anyone can help me find the truth behind these claims.  I know at least one of these claims is spurious and I would guess the rest are either spurious or have been taken out of context.  You can find these claims repeated at numerous Anti-Catholic web sites.  The Google hits I get searching on the references this web site uses just turn up the same quotes (except in the case of number 6).  No real source material.  I question these claims because what they imply go against what the Catechism teaches about the Pope.  Many of these came from the Protestant Alliance Magazine from 1922.  I guess I question its credibility because there was a lot of public Anti-Catholicism around that time.  Why would we pray for the Pope if we thought he is equal to God?  I appreciate any help or comments you can give.

Here's what my measly research has turned up so far...

The web site itself actually better explains number 1.  They do, however use it as a lead-in to back up their claims that the Pope himself and other Catholics believe that the Pope is God.  

I don't think that Marcellus' oration amounts to official Catholic teaching in number 3.

I could not find number 5 repeated in the Catechism I have.  Maybe someone else has heard of the New York catechism.

I was able to find the truth regarding number 6.  Not sure who this Fr Pereira is that acknowledges it, by the way.  And who are these writers on Canon Law the web site quotes?  The Gloss is simply not part of Canon Law.

Anyone heard of Cardinal Manning in number 8?

WHO DOES THE POPE CLAIM TO BE?

The following is a brief outline of some of the claims of the Pope. These are facts which should be studied and their implications thought through very carefully indeed. There is no misrepresentation - Rome speaks for herself.

1) "We the Archbishops and Bishops of Ireland, prostrate at the feet of your Holiness, humbly offer you our warmest congratulations on the occasion of the Golden Jubilee of your ordination to the priesthood… our thoughts go back to that great event fifty years ago by which your Holiness was taken from amongst men and appointed for men in the things that pertain to God, was made a minister of Christ and a dispenser of His mysteries, received power over the real and mystical body of our Saviour and became a mediator between God and man - another Christ." Address to Pope Pius Xll in 1949:-

Note: Although we are including these offending words ("a mediator between God and men - another Christ") in relation to the Pope…if you read the address carefully, they actually refer to him as a mere priest…and so is believed of every priest including your local "Father" But they do but "set the scene" for the blasphemies to come.

2) Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) wrote: "We may according to the fullness of our power, dispose of the law and dispense above the law. Those whom the Pope of Rome doth separate, it is not a man that separates them but God. For the Pope holdeth place on earth, not simply of a man but of the true God." (1 Book of Gregory 9 Decret. c.3)

3) The Lateran Council addressing Pope Julius II in an oration delivered by Marcellus said: "Take care that we lose not that salvation, that life and breath which thou hast given us, for thou art our shepherd, thou art our physician, thou art our governor, thou art our husbandman, thou art finally another God on earth." (Council Edition. Colm. Agrip. 1618)

4) Pope Nicholas said of himself: "I am in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the vicar of God, hath both one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do…wherefore, if those things that I do be said not to be done of man, but of God, what do you make of me but God? Again, if prelates of the Church be called of Constantine for gods, I then being above all prelates, seem by this reason to be above all gods. Wherefore, no marvel, if it be in my power to dispense with all things, yea with the precepts of Christ." (Decret. par. Distinct 96 ch. 7 edit. Lugo 1661)

5) The RC New York catechism states: "The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth…by divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith, in morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the 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."

6) The title "Lord God the Pope" - these words appeared in the Canon Law of Rome. "To believe that our Lord God the Pope has not the power to decree as he is decreed, is to be deemed heretical." (The Gloss extravagances of Pope John XXII Cum. Inter, tit XIV Ad Callem Sexti Decretalium, Paris, 1685)

Father A. Pereira acknowledged: "It is quite certain that Popes have never disapproved or rejected this title "Lord God the Pope" for the passage in the gloss referred to appears in the edition of the Canon Law published in Rome by Gregory XIII."

Writers on Canon Law say: "The Pope and God are the same, so he has all power in Heaven and earth." (Barclay Cap. XXVII p. 218 Cities Petrus Bertanous, Pius V)

7) Pope Nicholas I declared that "the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who being God, cannot be judged by man." (Labb IX Dist.: 96 Can 7 Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para)

Speaking the name of the Pope (a rhetorical device) Cardinal Manning said: "I acknowledge no civil superior, I am the subject of no prince, and I claim more than this, I claim to be the supreme judge on earth and director of the consciences of men, I am the last supreme judge of what is right and wrong." (Sermon in the Pro Cathedral, Kensington, Tablet Oct 9, 1864)

[tklein1014]

I'm not going to be much help with research, but I'd like to add a point in addition to yours...

Why would we pray for the Pope if we thought he is equal to God?

I also understand that the Pope goes to confession daily, and I know he himself prays.  Why would he think this was necessary if he believed he was God?  Doesn't seem logical to me.  

Tina

[Rev. Eric]

Hello Tina,

As you probably know, there are a number of anti-Catholics out there who try to "prove" that Catholics believe weird things and do weird things.  The scavange through the extensive 2000 year history of the Catholic Faith and try to dig up little blubs here and there to support their claims.  The latest fad, of course, is to try to prove that the Catholic Church backed Hitler.  Basically, there are people out there who are bent on trying to tie the Catholic Church to every attrocity in history and every abominable sin imaginable.  I have even come across those who say that Rome created the KKK.

People such as these have already decided that the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon and they are quite willing to distort facts, misrepresent facts and even invent facts to support their claim.  I have seen this countless times.

At other times they are not trying to distort the facts, but they fail to understand Catholic teaching or they fail to understand the nuances of  the language of the time.  For example, you may have heard the hymn "Daily, Daily, Sing to Mary."  It is an old English hymn and the original version tells us to worship the actions of Mary.  I have seen anti-Catholics cite this to prove that we worship Mary.  But up until very recently, the word "worship" and "honor" were completely interchangable in the English language.  They both meant "honor."  In the U.S. we call judges "Your Honor" and in Britain they still call judges "Your Worship."  But notice how no one accusues the British of believing that their judges are divine beings.

At other times, anti-Catholics have been know to completely fabricate information.  Jack Chick does this on a routine basis.  Lorraine Boettner did this in the book Roman Catholicism, which grossly distorts history and invents facts (it has been called the "anti-Catholic bible").  There has been the Pope Joan Urban Legend that has been cited by some as fact.  Etc., etc.

In light of all this, when you come across an article such as this one about Catholics believing the pope to be God, here are some things to keep in mind if you want to investigate this further.  This is, of course, assuming that you want to spend any more time with this nutty stuff.

1)  Do not assume that any of these documents exist in the first place.  Due to the practices of people like Jack Chick, Lorraine Boettner, Alberto Riviera, etc. we are under no obligation to take anyone's word for it that the items on the list are not utter fabrications.  Plus, any honest historian will provide clear references for his sources.

2)  Once you come across the document, consider the original language and  the translation being used.  The translation may have not properly conveyed the nuances of the original document.  For example, we see Pope Nicholas I quoted in English below, but he wrote in Latin.  It is the same thing for the books of Canon Law cited below.

3)  Also consider the usage of the language of the time.  Remember my above example of "Daily, Daily Sing to Mary" (which, incidentally, has been revised when it appears in modern hymnals).  Consider the fact that flowery court language throughout the world (including Europe) sometimes addresses kings which to modern ears sound like titles of divinity.  For example, the bible says that "Jesus Christ is Lord" but, nevertheless, European Christians have called noblemen "lord" to this day.  In England we have the House of Lords.  But no one accuses the British of thinking that these government officals are divine beings.

In the Middle Ages kings felt that they were chosen by God to be king and given divine authority to wield temporal power.  The common rhetoric of the time had them being addressed in titles that strongly implied a type of divinity because their station in life reflected both secular and religious authority.  In other words, these titles sounded like they were being called gods.  If a pope wanted to stress his authority over that of kings then he may feel compeled to use even stronger sounding titles.

Now keep all that in mind when you consider the items in the list attributed to Pope Nicholas I.  Nicholas I was pope in the mid-9th Century.  He was a very energetic and forceful pope and during his reign European kings were trying to exert their authority over that of the papacy, espeically in matters of marriage and divorce.  Over and over again Nicholas I had to stress the supremacy of his office over temporal rulers, temporal rulers who were claiming religious authority.  This is the historical context that has to be understood before interpreting anything that Nicholas I said some 1150 years ago.  Furthermore, in #4 of the article, Nicholas I distinguishes himself from God, so I don't see how we can accuse him of thinking that he is the Eternal Living God.

4)  These blamsphemous sounding references to the pope may, in the larger context, be ways of trying to express the idea of papal infallibility.  In describing the pope as being the head of the Church and an instrument of divine revelation, the language used may at times seem to be labeling the pope himself as God.  If you pull out that little blub without the context then you may see things such as what is listed below.  To many Protestants, merely saying that the pope is infallible is calling him God, but that is their opinion, not Catholics.  Their opinion also does not take other things into account.  And here I would like to make a point that all Catholics should keep in mind when debating this stuff with Protestants:  Consider that the various books of the bible were infallibly written by prophets, apostles, etc.  And yet no one claims that Moses, David, Luke, Paul, etc. are God in virtue of their ability to proclaim infallibly the revelation of God.  The infallibilty of the pope in no way makes him God any more than Moses, Luke, Paul, etc. are God for writting the bible.

5)  I have no problem with any of the langauge describing the pope as "another Christ."  This is a traditional description given to all ordained priests.  A priest is "another Christ" because he stands "in persona Christi" (in the person of Christ) when the sacraments are celebrated.  At the Mass the priest stands at the altar as the ordained representative of Christ and he speaks the words of Christ ("This is my body...").  During baptism the priest says, "I baptize you..."  In confession the priest says, "I absolve you..."  Now, who is actually doing the Mass, the baptism, the absolution?  Christ, but he does it through his priest.  In this sense, the priest is "another Christ."  But no sane priest thinks that he is a divine person with a divine nature.

6)  I have never heard of Father A. Pereira.  We are given no reference as to the source of this quote.

7)  The name Cardinal Manning rings a bell.  I do not intend on double checking his quote as I have no problem with the material ascribed to him.  All that language means is that the pope has the final say over what is right and wrong in the area of faith and morals, by virtue of holding the office of St. Peter.  The line about the pope being "the last supreme judge of what is right and wrong" sounds strong but earlier it is clearly stated that he is such a judge on earth.  Plus, this quote is listed as a "rhetorical device" which, by nature, uses poetic license, hyperboles and strong sounding statements to emphasize points.

 I have never heard of the New York Catechism.  My seminary library (which has been run by Benedictine monks for over a hundred years and is quite extensive) has no copy of it.  My seminary professors have never heard of it.  Before the recent revision of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church, the official catechism for the United States was the Baltimore Catechism (which was written in the 1880s).  Nevertheless, a bishop is free to write his own catechism for his diocese, so it is possible that at some point in the past there was a New York Catechism written by a New York Priest.

Nevertheless, I can find no reference on the internet to a New York Catechism aside from anti-Catholics quoting passages from it about Confession and the Pope being God.  Furthermore, Lorraine Boettner presents these quotes from the New York Catechism in his book Roman Catholicism, which, as I stated above, is the "anti-Catholic bible", simply crammed with false facts.  In light of all this, I am willing to bet that people quoting the New York Catechism simply pulled this stuff from Boettner's book, and Boettner pulled it from his own imagination.  This is my official stance until someone can actually show me this book.

Ok, I think that is enough for now.  So I huess we as Catholics can now rejoice in knowing that we do not, indeed, think the pope is God.  (And I say that with a little sarcasm   ).

Incidentally Tina, I had never seen this list until you brought it up, but I have since discovered it on the internet where it is causing all kinds of confusion, so that you for bringing it to my attention.

God bless,

-Rev. Eric

[Seeker]

Thanks for taking the time to reply Rev. Eric!  You're insight has helped me out greatly on this.  

[Rev. Eric]

Seeker,

I was racing to get my earlier post typed before class and I now realize that I addressed my earlier post to Tina but I meant to address it to you and thank you for bringing this stuff to my attention.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric  

[Rev. Eric]

Tina,

Good point about people praying for the pope and the pope going to confession!  If he thinks he's God then why is he confessing sins and exactly who is absolving him?  All this illustrates how silly the whole idea of "pope as God" is, as if anyone could seriously entertain this notion.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

(a.k.a.  Eric the Cleric   )

[Melody]

Seeker,

After the good Rev's reply, you prob. have all the clarification you need on this topic

However if you want to read up a bit more on the topic, I suggest you try POPE FICTION by Patrick Madrid. It clarifies many of the common allegations against the Papacy (& some not so common ones too, like what the Rev. mentioned about Hitler, lol).

Melody

[Melody]

One more note: You asked about Cardinal Manning.

Cardinal (Henry) Manning is the last one Protestants should be quoting (rather misquoting) for his works are truly 100% Catholic in every way.

He was incidentally an Anglican Archdeacon who broke away from the Church of England (after long years of study and soul searching) and joined the Catholic Church. Ultimately he was made a Cardinal. He has extensively written about the causes & motives of his conversion in his public writings as well as in private letters & journals that he maintained that became public after his death.

I'm not sure about the quote that is attributed to him, but if it is an authentic quote of Manning's, you can be sure that it is not Anti-Catholic, though out of context it may appear to be so.

[Seeker]

Thanks again everyone for your help.  You've all either answered all my questions or sent me in the right direction to find the answers.

God Bless!

[Ayodhya Nath Bhat]

The Pope: Infallible

According to Catholic doctrine, the Pope is infallible in matters of doctrine, faith and morals.

"In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a supernatural sense of faith the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's livi ng magisterium, unfailingly adheres to this faith." Pg. 235, #889  

The Catechism restates the same belief this way:

"The Roman Pontiff... enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith - he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals... This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself." Pg. 235, #891  

Sadly, this doctrine is but another tradition of men that contradicts Scripture. The Bible declares that all people are sinners. No one is perfect or infallible in anything:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23
"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Romans 3:10
 

Notice, you didn't read, " no one, except the pope." Jesus is the only infallible person who ever lived:

"For he (God) hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin..." 2 Corinthians 5:21  

Are other Catholics infallible too?

The Catechism further alleges that other Catholic leaders have also somehow achieved this state of infallibility:

"The pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church' s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals." Pg. 235, #890

"The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed." Pg. 495, #2051
 

It is important to understand that God did not declare these people to be infallible, other sinful men did.

Scriptures overflow with stories of sinful people. Even those whom God used the most were sinners. God referred to King David as "a man after mine own heart" (Acts 13:22), yet David was a murderer and an adulterer, among other things.

The Apostle Paul and all the other apostles were sinners. Paul said of himself:

"Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;" Ephesians 3:8  

Nobody in Scripture, except Jesus, was infallible.

More questions

Aside from being unscriptural, this far reaching doctrine raises other important questions which you must answer for yourself:

When the pope and other Catholic leaders, who claim to be infallible, disagree with God' s Holy Word, then God must be wrong. Are you willing to accept this?

Why does the Catholic church want you to believe that the pope and other Catholic leaders are infallible in matters of doctrine? Is it to bring members into further bondage and obedience to the Catholic church?

Where do fallible men obtain the authority to declare other men infallible?

Why does the Catholic church refuse to honor Jesus Christ by acknowledging Him as the only infallible One, as the Holy Scriptures teach?

Conclusion

Here is another tradition of men that raises more questions than it answers.

Please don't blindly accept this Catholic doctrine as truth. Look to God's Word for answers to these questions, then settle this issue in your own heart:

"And being made perfect, he (Jesus) became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;" Hebrews 5:9

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[tklein1014]

Please excuse my long response to your long post.  I'm not a theologian, as I've stated many times, but this is just my $.02...

According to Catholic doctrine, the Pope is infallible in matters of doctrine, faith and morals.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23

It's possible to be infallible in those matters by grace from the Holy Spirit (which, if I'm not mistaken, is how papal infallibility is achieved according to church beliefs), but still be a sinner, personally.  I re-iterate (sp?) that the pope goes to confession daily, I understand, and so therefore, he's a sinner just like the rest of us, and he knows it.

The Catechism further alleges that other Catholic leaders have also somehow achieved this state of infallibility:

"The pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church' s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals." Pg. 235, #890

"The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed." Pg. 495, #2051

See my response to the first quote - same thing applies here.  Infallibility is acheived through the Holy Spirit, and all of them are sinners also, just like the rest of us, and most likely they go to confession regularly as well.

Jesus is the only infallible person who ever lived:

"For he (God) hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin..." 2 Corinthians 5:21

It is important to understand that God did not declare these people to be infallible, other sinful men did.

You contradict yourself here.  Jesus Himself declared infallibility, and He, as you said yourself, was/is most certainly not a sinful man:

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.  I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.  Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" Matthew 16:18-19

This suggests to me, at least, that the Holy Bible is not the sole resource of religious doctrine, but with the guidance of the Holy Spirit the Pope has the ablility to "bind" and "loose" things in earth/heaven, which to me says that he can change religious doctrine, guided by the Holy Spirit.  I'm having trouble putting this into words, maybe one of the other Catholics here could help clarify, but I hope that made some sense, anyway.

That isn't to say that every man of the cloth is infallible, there have been many "bad apples" in every denomination, most likely due to succumbing (sp?) to the temptations of Satan.  Judas was the first of these to be personally called by God to serve & wound up betraying Him and his fellow disciples.

Tina

[Rev. Eric]

Hello Ayodhya,

In your posts you turn to the bible as the source of authoritative teaching.  Of course I think this is very proper, because it is the revelation of God set in writing using His divine inspiration.  Therefore I think you will agree that the bible is an infallible source of Christian teaching (after all, your posts treat Scripture as such).

But you seem to also reject the idea of any human possessing the ability to teach infallibly.  In your last post, to defend your position you presented such quotations as:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;" Romans 3:23
"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" Romans 3:10
"For he (God) hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin..." 2 Corinthians 5:21

My point here is that you are quoting a human (Paul, the author of Romans and Corinthians) as an infallible source of authority to prove that humans cannot teach infallibly.  This proposition contains an inherent contradiction.

Furthermore, you readily pointed out that Paul is a sinner:

The Apostle Paul and all the other apostles were sinners. Paul said of himself:
"Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;" Ephesians 3:8
Nobody in Scripture, except Jesus, was infallible.

So my question to you is,
if nobody in Scripture was infallible except Jesus,
and if being a sinner excludes someone from teaching infallibly,
then why do you quote the teachings of Paul (a sinner) as an infallible authority?

Keep in mind that when you quote the bible, you are quoting sinners.  Even though Sacred Scripture comes to us through sinless divine revelation, God chose sinners to record it.  Moses was a sinner, and so was David, and so were all the prophets as well all the writers of the Gospels and the Epistles, etc.  Therefore, the entire bible is an infallible record of God's revelation passed through the hands of sinful writers.

Therefore, being sinless cannot be a requirement for teaching infallibly.  Your argument that the pope cannot teach infallibly because he is a sinner does not stand.  Infallibilty does not require a sinless teacher, it only requires that the Holy Spirit be working through this sinless teacher, while making sure that his (the teacher's) sinful nature does not hamper the truth of the revelation being channeled.

And if God teaches infallibly through Scripture (and all its sinful wtiters), why can He not also do so through the pope and the bishops in union with him?  Nowhere does Scripture say that divine revelation comes to us only through Scripture.

I will also ask you to consider the following.  In ancient days there were many Jews and Christians who wrote religious things claiming divine inspiration.  Aside from the books that are now contained in the bible, there was also the Book of Enoch (Jewish), the Assumption of Moses (Jewish), the Gospel of Mary (Christian) the Apocryphal Acts of the Apostles (Christian, not to be confused with Luke's Acts of the Apostles) and the Gospel of Thomas (Christian).  These are just a few of many non-biblical writings.

For approximately 400 years, the bible as we know it did not exist.  True, Christians had Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the Esistles of Paul and so forth, but these were kept as individual scrolls.  In addition to these works, Christians also had scrolls containing such things as the Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, etc.  Furthermore, Christians were arguing among themsleves as to which writings were truly inspired and which were not.  There was no general consensus.  You may be surprised to learn that Hebrews, Jude, 2Pet, 2John and 3John and Rev. were treated with grave doubts by many Christians, while such things as the Gospel of Thomas were embraced as authentic divine revelation.  The problem is that no book in the bible tells us which books are supposed to be in the bible.

In the year 382, Pope St. Damasus I held a council in Rome with his bishops to address this problem.  They discerned exactly which of books were inspired and which were not.  This is called the Canon of Scripture and it is accepted by Catholics and mainstream Protestants.  Although Protestants disagree on including certain Deuterocanonical works in the Old Testament (such as Wisdom and the Books of Maccabees), they accept that the Holy Spirit guided Pope Damasus and his bishops in determining the Canon of Scripture.  And not only that, they agree that the Holy Spirit guided this pope and his bishops in a way that they could not err when discerning which books were truly inspired and which were not.

Therefore, if you accept that the books in the bible are truly inspired whereas, say, the Gospel of Thomas and the Book of Enoch are not, then you have to agree that on at least one occasion (A.D. 382 in a council in Rome) the leaders of the Catholic Church acted infallibly.  If it happened once then who is to say that it only happened then?  Who is to say that it did not happen before 382 concerning other topics, and who is to say that it has not happened since then regarding other things?

I hope all this has been helpful.

God bless,
-Rev. Eric

[Ayodhya Nath Bhat]

Thanks Rev Eric and Tina for this clarification.I am amazed by the considerable research you have undertaken to justify your point.I will spread this message among my other non-catholic christian friends.

A N Bhat

[DavidFilmer]

If Ayodhya plans to cut-and-paste the works of others, the least he could do is attribute it. Ayodhya plagerized the content of his Jan 31 reply from the book "Understanding Roman Catholicism," copyright 1995 by Rick Jones, which is posted (with permission and attrition) on Jack Chick's website (Jack Chick is a professional anti-Catholic):

http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160%5F07.asp