How the (Catholic) Church Built Western Civilization

Zenit News Agency ^ | September 26, 2005

[NYer]

Interview With Historian Thomas Woods Jr.

CORAM, New York, SEPT. 26, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Contrary to popular opinion, the Catholic Church historically has been the champion of scientific, economic, legal and social progress.

So says Thomas Woods Jr., history professor at Suffolk County Community College and author of "How the Church Built Western Civilization" (Regnery).

Woods shared with ZENIT how the Church has contributed to science, the development of free-market economies, Western legal systems and international law, and why Catholic intellectual and cultural figures desperately need to redeem Western civilization.

Q: How did it come to be that the Church is considered the enemy of progress, freedom, human rights, science, and just about everything else modernity champions, when in fact your book claims that the Catholic Church is at the origin of these phenomena?

Woods: There are many reasons for this phenomenon, but I'll confine myself to one. It is much easier to propagate historical myth than most people realize.

Take, for instance, the idea -- which we were all taught in school -- that in the Middle Ages everyone thought the world was flat. This, as Jeffrey Burton Russell has shown, is a 19th-century myth that was deliberately concocted to cast the Church in a bad light. It couldn't be further from the truth.

The matter of Galileo, which most people know only in caricature, has fueled some of this fire. But it is both illegitimate and totally misleading to extrapolate from the Galileo case to the broader conclusion that the Church has historically been hostile to science.

It may come as a surprise to some readers, but the good news is that modern scholarship -- say, over the past 50 to 100 years or so -- has gone a long way toward refuting these myths and setting the record straight.

Scarcely any medievalist worth his salt would today repeat the caricatures of the Middle Ages that were once common currency, and mainstream historians of science would now be embarrassed to repeat the old contention that the relationship between religion and science in the West has been a history of unremitting warfare -- as Andrew Dickson White famously contended a century ago.

Q: Can you briefly describe the Church's particular contributions to the origins and development of modern science?

Woods: Let's begin with a few little-known facts. The first person to measure the rate of acceleration of a freely falling body was Father Giambattista Riccioli. Father Nicholas Steno is considered the father of geology. The father of Egyptology was Father Athanasius Kircher, and the man often cited as the father of atomic theory was Father Roger Boscovich.

The Jesuits brought Western science all over the world. In the 20th century they so dominated the study of earthquakes that seismology became known as "the Jesuit science."

Some Catholic cathedrals were built to function as the world's most precise solar observatories, and the Basilica of San Petronio in Bologna was used to verify Johannes Kepler's theory of elliptical planetary orbits.

The science chapter of "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" is by far the longest. In addition to discussing examples like the ones I've just mentioned, it also notes that certain aspects of Catholic teaching -- including the idea of God as orderly and even mathematical, thus making possible the idea of autonomous natural laws -- lent themselves to the development of modern science.

Q: One question you have examined in particular in your books is the Church's role in the development of free-market economies. Many historians, including Catholics, claim that it was only with the Enlightenment and Adam Smith that Western nations were able to expunge "medieval" notions of economics and bring about the Industrial Revolution. Why do you think this is a misreading of history?

Woods: Recent scholarship has discovered that medieval economic thought, particularly in the High and Late Middle Ages, was far more modern and sophisticated than was once thought.

Many scholars, but above all Raymond de Roover, have shown that these thinkers possessed a deeper understanding and appreciation of market mechanisms, and were more sympathetic to a free economy, than traditional portrayals would suggest.

In general they did not believe, as has been commonly alleged, in an objectively ascertainable "just price" of a good, or that the state should enforce such prices across the board. To the contrary, the Scholastics were deeply indebted to Roman law, resurrected in the High Middle Ages, which described the value of a good as what it could commonly be sold for.

The common estimation of the market in effect determined the just price. Debate and discussion on this matter continues, but no serious scholar has been so foolish as to reject de Roover's findings root and branch.

I develop this point at even greater length in my book "The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy," which has received the endorsements of the economics chairmen at Christendom College and the University of Dallas.

An interesting tidbit, by the way, that I discuss in "How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization" is that at the very time Henry VIII was engaged in the suppression of England's monasteries, those monks were on the verge of developing dedicated blast furnaces for the production of cast iron. Henry may have delayed the Industrial Revolution for two and a half centuries.

Q: One of the more interesting claims of your book is that Western legal systems developed from canon law. How was this possible considering the seemingly incongruous subject matter?

Woods: What I argue is that canon law served as a model for developing Western states seeking to codify and systematize their own legal systems. Harold Berman, the great scholar of Western law, contends that the first modern legal system in the Western world was the Church's canon law.

And that canon law, particularly as codified in Gratian's "Concordance of Discordant Canons," served as a model of what Western states sought to accomplish.

Scholars of Church law showed the barbarized West how to take a patchwork of custom, statutory law and countless other sources, and produce from them a coherent legal order whose structure was internally consistent and in which previously existing contradictions were synthesized or otherwise resolved.

Moreover, the subject matter of canon law was not as far removed from that of civil law as we might think.

For example, the Church had jurisdiction over marriage. The canon law of marriage held that a valid marriage required the free consent of both the man and the woman, and that a marriage could be held invalid if it took place under duress or if one of the parties entered into the marriage on the basis of a mistake regarding either the identity or some important quality of the other person.

"Here," says Berman, "were the foundations not only of the modern law of marriage but also of certain basic elements of modern contract law, namely, the concept of free will and related concepts of mistake, duress and fraud."

Q: Additionally, you note that the concepts of international law and human rights were developed by 16th-century Spanish scholastics such as Francisco de Vitoria. How might this fact be relevant to today's discussions of international law, as well as the Holy See's role in shaping international institutions?

Woods: People such as Francisco de Vitoria were convinced that international law, which codified the natural moral law in international relations, could serve to facilitate peaceful coexistence among people of disparate cultures and religions.

The idea of international law, as the Late Scholastics saw it, was an extension of the idea that no one, not even the state, was exempt from moral constraints. This idea ran completely contrary to the Machiavellian view that the state was morally autonomous and bound by no absolute moral standards.

While the idea of international law is morally indispensable and philosophically unimpeachable, there are practical difficulties associated with its enforcement by an international agency.

If the institution has no coercive powers it will be impotent; if it does have coercive powers then it, too, must be protected against and becomes a threat to the international common good.

There is also the risk that the organization will seek to go beyond mediation and peacekeeping and seek to intervene in the domestic matters of member states or to undermine traditional institutions in those states.

This, of course, is what has happened today, what with the radical politics on constant display at the United Nations. The Holy See's role in international relations, it seems to me, is both to advance peace by means of its own initiatives, and to remain the great obstacle to the leftist social agenda put forth at typical U.N. conferences.

Q: It seems that over the last 40 or 50 years, Catholic contributions to art, literature and science have waned. Additionally, Catholic influence in the academy and other important cultural institutions has also declined. Why do you think this is the case?

Woods: This is a tough one to answer in brief, though I take it up to some extent in my book "The Church Confronts Modernity." That book looks at the great vigor of the Catholic Church in America during the first half of the 20th century.

Here was a self-confident Church that engaged in healthy interaction with the surrounding culture without being absorbed by it.

Hilaire Belloc observed at the time that "the more powerful, the more acute, and the more sensitive minds of our time are clearly inclining toward the Catholic side."

Historian Peter Huff notes that the Catholic Church in America "witnessed such a steady stream of notable literary conversions that the statistics tended to support Calvert Alexander's hypothesis of something suggesting a cultural trend."

According to historian Charles Morris, "Despite the defeat of Al Smith, American Catholics achieved an extraordinary ideological self-confidence by the 1930s, much to the envy of Protestant ministers."

That self-confidence and sense of mission has, for a variety of reasons, diminished substantially since the 1960s.

It is dramatically urgent that Catholic intellectual and cultural figures regain that old confidence and sense of identity, for people need to hear the Church's message more than ever. Pope Benedict XVI has made abundantly clear his displeasure with the moral condition of Western civilization and its need for redemption.

Simone Weil once wrote, "I am not a Catholic, but I consider the Christian idea, which has its roots in Greek thought and in the course of the centuries has nourished all of our European civilization, as something that one cannot renounce without becoming degraded."

Western civilization seems to be learning that one the hard way.

[mike182d]

Tim Staples explains this better than I could:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2005/0503fea4.asp

"But even if a Protestant accepts the notion of Christians being priests and accepts the Catholic interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:5 and Hebrew 7:22–25 in this respect, this in no way shows that there is a distinct ordained priesthood apart from the universal priesthood of the faithful. First Peter 2 indicated that all Christians are priests—but not ministerial priests. Here was my biggest problem with the Catholic notion of a ministerial priesthood. The ordained ministers of the New Covenant are called apostles (cf. Eph. 4:11), elders (Jas. 5:14), bishops (1 Tim. 3:1), and deacons (1 Tim. 3:8ff). They are not referred to directly with the typical Greek word for "priest," which is hiereus. But the English word priest is derived from the Greek word presbuteros, or "elder." It does not originate from hiereus. The German word priester also has its origin from the Greek word for "elder." So there is etymological reason to say that the elder in the Christian Church was considered to be a priest. In fact, the Douay-Rheims Bible translates presbuteros as "priest," which can be a valid translation (see Jas. 5:14, DRV). Having said that, I must say that for me, it was not the word elder or priest that helped me to see the truth of the New Covenant priesthood; it was the function of the apostle, bishop, and elder, which is clearly revealed to be of a priestly nature. (A deacon is ordained, but he is not a ministerial priest.) There were basically four biblical steps I took on the road to discovering the New Covenant priesthood. First, I saw that although the standard noun for priest—hiereus—is not used for New Testament ministers, the verb form of hiereus is. And it is found when Paul refers specifically to his ministry as an apostle. He refers to his ministry as a "priestly service": "Because of the grace given me by God to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles in the priestly service [Greek: hierourgounta] of the gospel of God" (Rom. 15:15–16). Second, I saw that 1 Peter 2:5–9 is a reference to Exodus 19:6: "and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." This text indicates a universal priesthood in the Old Covenant. Yet in that same chapter, verse 22, we read: "And also let the priests who come near to the Lord consecrate themselves." I clearly saw that there was a universal priesthood in existence in the Old Covenant, but this did not exclude the possibility of a distinct ministerial priesthood as well. Could it be the same in the New Covenant? I discovered that it was. Third, as far as the term priest is concerned, it began to seem plausible to me that the Christians of the first century would avoid using it in naming the ministerial offices of the Church, because it was the same term being used by the more numerous Jewish and even pagan priests (cf. Luke 1:8–9; Acts 14:13). Christians used language to distinguish their priests from the Jewish and pagan priests of their day. But what was most important for me was the fourth step in the process. I saw in Scripture that New Covenant ministers functioned as priests. As the old saying goes: "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck. . . ."

Or would you like to argue against the Trinity because the word "trinity" isn't explicitely in the Bible either?

[NYer]

Apparently, you still haven't read Hebrews. I am pretty sure that the 'Catholic Bible' has that one. < grin >

Hebrews is one of my favorite books!

Heb. 2:17; 3:1; 4:14; 8:1; 9:11,25; 10:19,22 - Jesus is repeatedly described as "High Priest." But in order to be a priest, “it is necessary for [Jesus] to have something to offer.” Heb. 8:3. This is the offering of the eternal sacrifice of His body and blood to the Father.

Heb. 2:18 - although His suffering is past tense, His expiation of our sins is present tense because His offering is continual. Therefore, He is able (present tense) to help those who are tempted.

Heb. 5:6,10; 6:20; 7:15,17 - these verses show that Jesus restores the father-son priesthood after Melchizedek. Jesus is the new priest and King of Jerusalem and feeds the new children of Abraham with His body and blood. This means that His eternal sacrifice is offered in the same manner as the bread and wine offered by Melchizedek in Gen. 14:18. But the bread and wine that Jesus offers is different, just as the Passover Lamb of the New Covenant is different. The bread and wine become His body and blood by the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit.

Heb. 4:3 – God’s works were finished from the foundation of the world. This means that God’s works, including Christ’s sacrifice (the single act that secured the redemption of our souls and bodies), are forever present in eternity. Jesus’ suffering is over and done with (because suffering was earthly and temporal), but His sacrifice is eternal, because His priesthood is eternal (His victimized state was only temporal).

Heb. 4:14 – Jesus the Sacrifice passes through the heavens by the glory cloud of God, just like the sacrifices of Solomon were taken up into heaven by the glory cloud of God in 2 Chron. 7:1. See also Mark 16:19; Luke 24:51; and Acts 1:10.

Heb. 7:24 – Jesus holds His priesthood is forever because He continues forever, so His sacrificial offering is forever. He continues to offer His body and blood to us because He is forever our High Priest.

Heb. 8:2 - Jesus is a minister in the sanctuary offering up (present tense) His eternal sacrifice to the Father which is perfected in heaven. This is the same sanctuary that we enter with confidence by the blood of Jesus as written in Heb. 10:19. See also Heb. 12:22-24.

Heb. 8:3 - as High Priest, it is necessary for Jesus to have something to offer. What is Jesus offering in heaven? As eternal Priest, He offers the eternal sacrifice of His body and blood.

Heb. 8:6; 9:15; cf. Heb. 12:22-24; 13:20-21 - the covenant Jesus mediates (present tense) is better than the Old covenant. The covenant He mediates is the covenant of His body and blood which He offers in the Eucharist. See Matt. 26:26-28; Mark. 14:22,24; Luke 22;19-20; 1 Cor. 11:24-25 - which is the only time Jesus uses the word “covenant” (which is the offering of His body and blood).

Heb. 9:12 – Jesus enters into heaven, the Holy Place, taking His own blood. How can this be? He wasn’t bleeding after the resurrection. This is because He enters into the heavenly sanctuary to mediate the covenant of His body and blood by eternally offering it to the Father. This offering is made present to us in the same manner as Melchizedek’s offering, under the appearance of bread and wine.

Heb. 9:14 - the blood of Christ offered in heaven purifies (present tense) our consciences from dead works to serve the living God. Christ's offering is ongoing.

Heb. 9:22 – blood is indeed required for the remission of sin. Jesus' blood was shed once, but it is continually offered to the Father. This is why Jesus takes His blood, which was shed once and for all, into heaven. Heb. 9:12.

Heb. 9:23 – Jesus’ sacrifice, which is presented eternally to the Father in heaven, is described as “sacrifices” (in the plural) in the context of its re-presentation on earth (the author first writes about the earthly sacrifices of animals, and then the earthly offerings of Jesus Christ’s eternal sacrifice).

Heb. 9:26 – Jesus’ once and for all appearance into heaven to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself shows that Jesus’ presence in heaven and His sacrifice are inseparable. This also shows that “once for all,” which refers to Jesus’ appearance in heaven, means perpetual (it does not, and cannot mean, “over and done with” because Jesus is in heaven for eternity). “Once for all” also refers to Jesus’ suffering and death (Heb. 7:27; 9:12,26;10:10-14). But “once for all” never refers to Jesus’ sacrifice, which is eternally presented to the Father. This sacrifice is the Mal. 1:11 pure offering made present in every place from the rising of the sun to its setting in the Eucharist offered in the same manner as the Melchizedek offering.

Heb. 10:19 - we have confidence to enter the sanctuary by the blood of Jesus on earth in the Eucharistic liturgy, which is the heavenly sanctuary where Jesus’ offering is presented to God in Heb. 8:2.

Heb. 10:22 - our hearts and bodies are (not were) washed clean by the action of Jesus' perpetual priesthood in heaven.

Heb. 13:10 – the author writes that we have an altar from which those who serve the tent have no right to eat. This altar is the heavenly altar at which Jesus presides as Priest before the Father, eternally offering His body and blood on our behalf. See. Mal. 1:7,12; Lev. 24:7; Ez. 41:22; 44:16; Rev. 5:6; 6:9; 9:13; 11:1; 16:7.

Heb. 13:20-21 - Jesus died once, but His blood of the eternal covenant is eternally offered to equip us (present tense) with everything good that we may do God's will.

Heb. 13:8 - this is because Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. While His suffering was temporal (because bodily pain is temporal), Jesus and His sacrifice are eternal (because redemption, salvation, and the mediation of the New covenant are eternal).

Heb. 13:15 – the letter concludes with an instruction to continually offer up, through Christ, a sacrifice of praise to God. The phrase “sacrifice of praise” refers to the “toda” animal sacrifices that had to be consumed. See, for example, Lev. 7:12-15; 22:29-30.

[safisoft]

Or would you like to argue against the Trinity because the word "trinity" isn't explicitely in the Bible either?

You bet. Who do you think I am?

[safisoft]

I am a student of the history of Christianity, but I am not an admirer of Augustine, Ignatius, or Luther.

I have particular disgust for such men because of their vitriol against all things Jewish. Their wild abandon of the Hebrew Scriptures led to their disloyalty, and shameful repudiation of the family of the Messiah they CLAIMED to follow.

BTW, I am not Jewish.

[little jeremiah]

I am not talking about Christians or indeed, any monotheists perfecting their own personal spiritual lives or their own missions.

I am talking about people of differing viewpoints such as different sects of Christians, Jews, and even Hindus (whose foundation is monotheist and whose scriptures mandate very similar moral absolutes as the Bible) tolerating each others' differing views and seeing what they have in common. Purpose? Not to water down anything, not to promote feelgoodism, but to fight against the rising tide of atheism, forced secularism, homosexualism, godless Marxism and its associated evils.

If this doesn't happen, the dark side - those who hate God by any name - will win, and religious folk can nitpick at each other all the way to the star chamber, the Gulag, or the firing squad.

[NYer]

I remember from my research in college that the Church promoted the study of foreign languages so that the gospel could be spread to other cultures.

I am Roman Catholic, practicing my faith in a Maronite (Eastern) Catholic Church. Our pastor, born in Lebanon, is bi-ritual (Maronite and Latin). He has a BA from Boston College in Biblical Languages. Not only does he speak 8 contemporary languages fluently, he also reads Koine Greek, Hebrew, Latin and Aramaic.

It is from Jewish roots that the church of Antioch sprung. In fact, the church of Antioch was founded by St. Peter and it was there that the terms "Christian" and "Catholic" were first used. The first Christians were Jews and entire communities came to accept Jesus as the Messiah. Evidence from archaeological studies of Maronite church buildings show that they had earlier been synagogues.

To this day, the Maronite Church retains its Jewish roots more than any other Catholic rite, as evidenced by its use of Aramaic/Syriac and by the prayers which remain faithful to Semantic and Old Testament forms. The Maronite liturgy is one of the oldest in the Catholic Church. St. Peter and other Apostles brought the liturgy of the Last Super to Antioch where it developed in Greek and Syriac concurrently. The early Antioch liturgy is the basis of the Maronite liturgy.

Our parish community is very small - only 48 families. Yet this priest with a BA and MA, hosts monthly 'gospel soirees'. Only a small handful of people show up and it is truly a shame. Last winter while discussing one tract from the Gospels, Father read it in English, hesitated, furrowed his brow, sourced it back to the original Greek text and then explained that while the translation was accurate, it lacked the emphasis of the original Greek text. He then searched for an English adjective to lend the proper weight. He is simply awesome! I only wish more Roman catholics would attend these get togethers, to deepen their faith and understanding of Holy Scripture.

[ican'tbelieveit]

Catholic suppression of anything that does not support their beliefs is proof that they have something to hide. If the Catholics were the only true church, why did they slaughter other Christians throughout history? Why did they (and you) fear the other Christians?

[annalex]

It is a very poor exegete who starts with the 'new' to understand the 'old'.

Of course, but this little slogan should not obscure the fact that Christ did Judaism anew. "Behold, I make all things new". The Old Testament is indeed sufficient to Jews, but the Christians need the Catholic Church to understand either Old or New Testament, because the rabbinical worldview has been radically transformed by Christ.

Thank you for visiting my home page. I realize that it contains some unpopular ideas, although "hunting down people like [you]" is not among them. Why should I be hunting you, -- unless you are a duck?

No, I do not have any title of nobility.

[Tao Yin]

If you think I bear false witness, then I guess you missed the vocab lesson. If it makes you more comfortable, I will use the new terminology.

You honor God the most, then Mary, then the Saints.

Feel better?

[Tao Yin]

The idea that the keys gave Peter primacy was first mentioned by Optatus, who lived in the fourth century. This is an example of looking back into the Bible to get what you want out of it.

Getting back to 1 Clement...

We know that the letter contains factual errors. We also know that this letter lays the foundation for the papal succession. Should we believe the letter contains doctrinal truth?

Here comes circular papal logic to the rescue. According to Papal Infallibility, all Popes are protected by the Holy Spirit from doctrinal errors. So 1 Clement contains doctrinal truths even though it contains factual errors. Therefore the papacy is established.

However, 1 Clement also claims inspiration. This is a problem. Works inspired by the Holy Spirit are protected from all errors. However, 1 Clement contains factual errors so it can not be inspired. So if 1 Clement claims to be inspired and it is not then it contains doctrinal errors. Therefore the doctrinal foundation of the papacy is in question.

1 Clement is the base on which the Papal House of Cards is built. The Church is built on the unshifting rock. The Catholic Church is built on 1 Clement.

[Tao Yin]

I guess the vocab lesson went over your head. If it makes you more comfortable, I will use the new terminology.

You honor God the most, then Mary, then the Saints.

Feel better?

[Scotswife]

Do you really think you are accomplishing anything by being arrogant and rude?
I perfectly understood everything you said - I simply do not agree with your interpretation and your views.
Insulting language on your part is not going to change that.

Adios.

[conservonator]

The Keys are and were an ancient symbol or authority that any knowledgeable Jew would have recognized for what it was. To claim that the keys represent some sort of symbolic key to understanding Scripture is be ignorant of history and Scripture itself. Besides, if the key's did hold some sort of Bible interpretive power, you will note that Peter and ONLY peter was given the Keys.

[mike182d]

Catholic suppression of anything that does not support their beliefs is proof that they have something to hide. If the Catholics were the only true church, why did they slaughter other Christians throughout history? Why did they (and you) fear the other Christians?

So, when the Catholic Church tried to suppress the Arian heresy, were they trying to hide the fact that Jesus Christ really wasn't God or were the Arians just plain wrong?

Second, provide me with the documentation of the Catholic Church ordering the slaughter of other Christians.

Third, what is this "fear" nonsense? All I've done is provide historical, Biblical, and theological evidence revealing fundamental flaws in Protestant thinking and that somehow translates into "fear" for you?

How peculiar...

[mike182d]

The idea that the keys gave Peter primacy was first mentioned by Optatus,

Absolutely fascinating. Explain to us, then, what the early Christians thought the handing of the keys over to Peter meant if it did not mean granting Peter a leadership role amongst equals?

You can hypothesize anything you want 2000 years later in retrospect, but historically the Church has never had a problem with the Bishop of Rome being a leader amongst equals. If you look back, there were in fact several "Sees" in addition to the "Holy See" in Rome - there was one in Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, etc. - and there was a heirarchy to this listing of "Sees" within the Christian Church and guess which "See" was on the top of that list?

Now, granted, the position of the Papacy has evolved quite a bit since its original inception, but then again, what in Christendom hasn't? Our understanding of the Trinity alone has evolved considerably from the beginning of the early Church.

Unless of course, you're suggesting that all Christian truth and teaching remain stagnant and not grow in depth and clarification.

[mike182d]

Tao Yin,

I would research the doctine of papal infallibility before commenting any further on it. You clearly lack a sufficient understanding of what this belief actually entails.

If the Pope said "It must be 90 degrees outside!" and the temperature is only 85 degrees, the Pope's infallibility does not therefore stand in question. The doctrine of Papal Infallibility only states that the Pope, and the greater body of Bishops, will not teach in error specifically on matters of faith and morals.

If you can provide a belief pronounced as doctrine to believed by all Christians that either a) contradicts prior teachings of the Church or b) is theologically in error then you have an argument. But, unfortunately for you, such is not the case.

Infallibility doesn't mean that everything that comes from the Pope's mouth, even if it pertains to the faith, is absolutely without error.

Why is it that Protestants always put the Pope on a higher pedestal than Catholics themselves?

[ican'tbelieveit]

You are proving my point.

[mike182d]

The idea that the keys gave Peter primacy was first mentioned by Optatus, who lived in the fourth century. This is an example of looking back into the Bible to get what you want out of it.

I'm sorry, there was just so much error in your post that I couldn't let it go :-)

Tertullian in 220 AD - a century before your claim:

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven' [Matt. 16:18-19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed" (Modesty 21:9-10 [a.D. 220])."

As I said, please do more research on the Papacy.

[mike182d]

You are proving my point.

I'm sorry, I think I completely miss the point you're trying to make as you've failed to assert anything.

Please explain what on earth you are talking about then.

[mike182d]

No thanks. I stick with people who live like the Master lived and honor the things He honored.

Ironic, isn't it? Given that it was the Master that granted Peter and the Apostles authority over His Church when He left.

1. Christ established the Church
2. You deny the Church
3. Therefore, you deny the wishes of Christ.