|
 |
| Catholic Heaven |
|
|
|
 Catholics and HistoryHistory is the strongest claim made by Catholics. By contrast with evangelical churches who can trace their continuous institutional existence back no more than a few centuries, the institutions that define Roman Catholicism have been around a long time. But history is also the most implacable accuser of Roman Catholicism. Only by averting one's eyes from much of this history can one continue to see Roman Catholicism as a church, much less the church:
Fruit of the Spirit"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." (Galatians 5:22). So if someone claims to be filled with the Holy Spirit, we know what fruit to look for...and what not: "Cadaver Synod. One of the most gruesome events in papal history, held in January 897 by Pope Stephen VI (VII) during which the corpse of Pope Formosus (891-896) was exhumed and placed on trial...Having stirred up anti-Formosan sentiment among the populace and nobility of Rome, Lambert commanded Stephen to convene a synod to try the dead pope on assorted charges such as perjury, canonical violations, and ambition in seeking the papacy. What made the proceeding so grotesque was Stephen's decision to have Formosus appear personally. The rotting corpse was taken out of the tomb, dressed in vestments, and propped up in a chair. A deacon, standing behind the body, answered on its behalf. To no one's surprise, Formosus was found guilty." (The Pope Encyclopedia, Matthew Bunson, p. 58). What is missing in this account, is not only any reminiscence of the early church writers' pastoral tale of one bishop sitting at the feet of his predecessor, learning the faith, but even any veneer of civilization. One must marvel at the vogue for swimming the Tiber; given all the bodies down there, it's a wonder the Board of Health doesn't shut it down for swimming. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mass Murder |
|
Apostolic Succession
When Marcion arose in the early church, claiming that his gnostic theology was just what the apostle Paul meant by his letters, critics realized that the churches founded by Paul, or guided by Paul subsequent to their founding by others (like Rome), represented a useful way of checking this claim. Would Paul have taught the congregations he was gathering a different gospel than he described in his letters? So why was Marcion's novel, unheard-of gospel not the gospel anyone could remember hearing on grandma's knee? In the early years of the church, the doctrine taught at churches of apostolic foundation did provide a useful check against 'wild' interpretations of scripture.
These early authors stressed how short was the chain and how few the links leading back to the apostolic generation. Modern Roman Catholics invert this claim, looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope. They glory in how many links there are in the chain, even though a transmission chain with many links gives no guarantee the message hasn't been garbled. Apostolic succession supposes that each bishop of Rome in turn learned his doctrine by sitting at the feet of his predecessor. Even in a healthy state of the church this was not always so. But in those ages when bandit chieftains vied over this lucrative office, buying it outright, of what worth is such a 'succession'?:
"Gregory VI Pope 1045 to 1046, the godfather to the infamous Pope Benedict IX, John Gratian (or Giovanni Graziano) was a participant in the reprehensible effort of Benedict to sell the papacy in 1045. John possessed a reputation for virtue and was known in some circles for his reforming zeal. He was consulted by his godson as to whether it was possible to resign the papacy because Benedict had become infatuated with a woman and was anxious to wed. John replied in the affirmative, and was suddenly offered the throne himself in return for a large payment of money. While technically paying the pope to step down, John in effect purchased the throne of St. Peter." (The Pope Encyclopedia, Matthew Bunson, p. 157).
Norman Rockwell produced an illustration showing a long line of tale-bearers, calling one another up and reporting a juicy bit of gossip. The chain ended where it began, with the first gossip starting back in shock at what she heard. What she heard was not the same tale she had told at the start of the chain. That is what is prone to happen with long transmissions chains.
Heretic Popes
In 1870 the bishop of Rome acclaimed himself "infallible" when speaking ex cathedra on questions of faith and morals. This bold coup left many wondering if the heretic bishops of Rome of bygone days had been infallible as well:
Callistus I -- according to Hippolytus (known to Roman Catholics as Saint Hippolytus), Pope Callistus I was, not only a modalist heretic, but himself the crafter of that version of modalism promoted in the present day by the new religious movement known as 'Oneness' Pentecostalism:
"For that which is seen, which is man, he [Callistus] considers to be the Son; whereas the Spirit, which was contained in the Son, to be the Father." (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book 9, Chapter 7).
"Callistus corroborated the heresy of these Noetians, but we have already carefully explained the details of his life. And Callistus himself produced likewise a heresy, and derived its starting-points from these Noetians, - namely, so far as he acknowledges that there is one Father and God, viz., the Creator of the universe, and that this (God) is spoken of, and called by the name of Son...And he is disposed (to maintain), that He who was seen in the flesh and was crucified is Son, but that the Father it is who dwells in Him. Callistus thus at one time branches off into the opinion of Noetus, but at another into that of Theodotus, and holds no sure doctrine." (Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book 10, Chapter 23).
When these facts are drawn to their attention, Catholics point out that Pope Callistus excommunicated Sabellius, so he cannot be suspected of Sabellius' heresy. This is correct; he taught a very different heresy from that taught by Sabellius, who did not identify 'the Son' as 'the flesh,' but spoke of a 'monad' dilating into a 'dyad,' etc. They are also prone to impugn Hippolytus' motives, character and integrity, in a manner unbecoming to people who call Hippolytus a 'saint.'
Modern Roman Catholics are under the impression their church played a constructive role in the early church's debates over the Trinity. How different is the reality! After Pope Callistus had plunged the matter into confusion by his false teaching, a Pentecostal lay-man with a Bible in his hand rose to confute his errors. When he wrote his treatise on the Trinity, 'Against Praxeas,' Tertullian was not in fellowship with the Bishop of Rome.
Catholics impose a set of categories on Tertullian's life which assume their own church to be a fixed, rather than a moving, point, like those train passengers who think the platform is moving. From the first, Tertullian spoke only favorably about the Montanist prophets; so long as Victor was Pope, he could be friends both with the Montanists and with Rome. Once that was no longer possible, he followed his conscience. Tertullian contributed helpful and clarifying phrases like 'Trinity' and 'of one substance,' later incorporated into the Nicene Creed.
In this most crucial doctrinal matter, the Roman church was obliged to out-source the work to the Pentecostals. No doubt the Montanist emphasis on the Holy Spirit was helpful to Tertullian; while the modalists at Rome were still arguing about the Father and the Son, for all the world like the benighted converts in Acts who complained, "We have not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost" (Acts 19:2), the Montanist Tertullian realized God was Father, Son and Holy Ghost. It's a good thing there were Pentecostals in those days, so that Rome could look outside for sound, Bible-based teaching to correct her errors. How did Rome define the doctrine of the Trinity? By sub-contracting it out to the Pentecostals.
Liberius I -- Liberius was at first a partisan of the Nicene faith, and bravely submitted to exile from Rome in defense of the orthodox faith. He was recalled by the Arian emperor Constantius in circumstances that suggest he compromised that faith. Here is how church historian Sozomen tells it:
"Not long after these events, the emperor returned to Sirmium from Rome; on receiving a deputation from the Western bishops, he recalled Liberius from Beroea.Constantius urged him, in the presence of the deputies of the Eastern bishops, and of the other priests who were at the camp, to confess that the Son is not of the same substance as the Father. He was instigated to this measure by Basil, Eustathius, and Eusebius, who possessed great influence over him. They had formed a compilation, in one document, of the decrees against Paul of Samosata, and Photinus, bishop of Sirmium; to which they subjoined a formulary of faith drawn up at Antioch at the consecration of the church, as if certain persons had, under the pretext of the term 'consubstantial,' attempted to establish a heresy of their own. Liberius, Athanasius, Alexander, Severianus, and Crescens, a priest of Africa, were induced to assent to this document, as were likewise Ursacius, Germanius, bishop of Sirmium, Valens, bishop of Mursa, and as many of the Eastern bishops as were present. They partially approved of a confession of faith drawn up by Liberius, in which he declared that those who affirm that the Son is notlike unto the Father in substance and in all other respects, are excommunicated. For when Eudoxius and his partisans at Antioch, who favored the heresy of Aetius, received the letter of Hosius, they circulated the report that Liberius had renounced the term 'consubstantial,' and had admitted that the Son is dissimilar from the Father. After these enactments had been made by the Western bishops, the emperor permitted Liberius to return to Rome." (Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen, Book 4, Chapter 15).
The confession "drawn up" by Liberius described the Son as "like unto" the Father. Recall, the formula preferred by Arians is 'homoiousion' versus 'homoousion,' of similar substance.
Honorius I -- Honorius' heresy is an obscure one called 'monothelitism.' A concession to monophysitism, this teaching held that Jesus Christ had only a divine will and not a human will. Opponents argued that the human will was above all corrupted and depraved by sin, and what was not assumed was not healed. If Jesus' human nature did not include the faculty of will, He would not have assumed true humanity but only a semblance of humanity.
"His [Honorius'] pontificate, however, would be dominated by the controversy of Monophysitism, the heresy that proposed that Christ had only one nature instead of the usually accepted two, human and divine. Honorius became embroiled in the controversy over the heresy when he chose to respond to a letter on the nature of Christ sent by Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople. The pope quoted the Council of Chalcedon (451), which was strictly orthodox, but he also used the unfortunate term 'one-will' in Christ. This caused severe controversy in both the Eastern and Western Churches and Honorius was subsequently anathematized by the Council of Constantipole (680-681) and was actually condemned by his successors - Pope Leo II upheld the condemnation by the council in 682." (The Pope Encyclopedia, Matthew Bunson, p. 173). So whatever view one takes of 'monothelitism,' either Honorius was fallible, or the successor popes who condemned him as a heretic were.
Marcellinus - This next is not a heretic, but an apostate: "It is highly possible that Marcellinus was guilty of apostasy, handing over copies of the Scriptures to the Roman authorities and perhaps even giving incense to the gods." (The Pope Encyclopedia, Matthew Bunson, pp. 232-233)
