Replies

Sir,

From the link you posted, Jerome to Augustine:

“5. You, however, in order to avoid doing what I had asked, have devised a new argument against the view proposed; maintaining that the Gentiles who had believed in Christ were free from the burden of the ceremonial law, but that the Jewish converts were under the law, and that Paul, as the teacher of the Gentiles, rightly rebuked those who kept the law; whereas Peter, who was the chief of the “circumcision,” Galatians 2:8 was justly rebuked for commanding the Gentile converts to do that which the converts from among the Jews were alone under obligation to observe. If this is your opinion, or rather since it is your opinion, that all from among the Jews who believe are debtors to do the whole law, you ought, as being a bishop of great fame in the whole world, to publish your doctrine, and labour to persuade all other bishops to agree with you.”

Augustine was obviously in the wrong, since what he wrote is contrary to scripture. However, Jerome is also insisting, 3 centuries after the fact, that Paul did not rebuke Peter - which clearly is contrary both to scripture, and to the account given by an eyewitness, while the other party was still alive and capable of contradicting him.

“11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.”

And what had he done? In addition to action, he had tried to “force the Gentiles to live like Jews”. Frankly, force is a much stronger word than teach, since it implies a penalty if the teaching is not followed.

Also, I believe you lay at the feet of Jerome what he considered blasphemous.

“In fact, St. Jerome comments that St. Paul sometimes had envy towards ST. Peter and boasted of things that he did not do. Remember, St. Paul himself notes that he struggled with a sin throughout his life, perhaps Jerome was telling us that this may have been the struggle St. Paul had, as St. Jerome writes with respect to Paul he “had written boastfully of things which he either had not done, or, if he did them, had done with inexcusable presumption.”

But Jerome wrote: “...and to restrain the shameless blasphemies of Porphyry, who says that Peter and Paul quarrelled with each other in childish rivalry, and affirms that Paul had been inflamed with envy on account of the excellences of Peter, and had written boastfully of things which he either had not done, or, if he did them, had done with inexcusable presumption, reproving in another that which he himself had done.”

“I spent some time last night reading about the history of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church has had multiple Popes at one time, bitter fighting (with folks killed) between factions, Popes excommunicating Popes...its record as a single teaching authority is very spotty, to say the least.”

Glad to see you’re reading up on the history Mr Rogers though perhaps starting in the middle with ‘bad popes’ isn’t the way I’d go but suggest you start with the Apostolic Fathers and work your way forward.

Yes, Catholics agree there were bad popes. Historians say there were at least 8-12 out of 266 who were morally corrupt. A few of them were selected by corrupt secular governments while a few others passed it from family to family. Benedict IX 1032-1045 AD was morally corrupt. He became Pope in his late teens and early 20’s and was running around with many different women. He incited a riot in Rome because the people were fed up with him. Probably the worst pope was Alexander VI (1492-1503). He had several illegitimate children before and during his reign as pope. He was into bribery, deceit, debauchery and anything else you could imagine. Pope Innocent VII (1484-1492) and Pope Leo X (1513-1521) were from the Borgia and Medici families which were kind of like the Good Fellas of the middle ages. They were infamous in Italy. It was these three popes who contributed significantly to the unrest that led to the Reformation - which in turn (we Catholic would argue) led to secularism (the disintergration of Christendom —Christian civilization), and thus our long-overdue response to it at Vatican II, which (if you notice) rid the Papacy of a lot of its “imperial trappings” and restored it to much of what it was in the earlier centuries of the Church but Catholic Dogma was NOT nor can it be changed nor was it blurry except to those who wanted it blurred for their own personal agenda. Some of the changes are that the Pope is no longer carried around on an imperial-style litter, for example and no longer wears the three-crowned tiara, etc. He also (per the canons of Vatican II) permits the bishops to manage the internal affairs of their own dioceses. Of course, this has recently back-fired on us with the homo/pedophile scandal in the priesthood, with our critics claiming that Rome itself is to blame because of the mis-management of American bishops. So, it seems we Catholics can’t “win” with our critics, no matter what we do.

Also keep in mind that the Reformation didn’t escape many of the same kinds of corruptions that it was accusing Catholic courts of practicing. Martin Luther was disgusted with the conduct of many of fellow protestants who had authority. Church historian John Laux writes:

...in his own Wittenberg, where Protestant Princes confiscated the wealthiest bishopbrics and monasteries for their own use…while the preachers often suffered the direst want. Irreligiousness, immortality and vices of all sorts flourished...

In a 1545 letter to his wife Martin Luther writes about the Reform...

Let us get out of this Sodom. I prefer to wander about homeless and to beg my bread from door to door than to poison my poor last days by the spectacle of all these disorders. We experience it daily that the people are seven times worse today than ever before under the Papacy; they are more avaricious, more unchaste, more envious, more intemperate, more dishonest... [John Laux, CHURCH HISTORY, p.431]

The Catholic Church claims that its teaching is infallible, but it does NOT claim that its people are not indefectible. Even Jesus chose a bad disciple, Judas. We don’t say “Hey Jesus can’t be the Saviour, he had a bad disciple.” Ten of the disciples deserted him.

What is really amazing regarding the bad popes is that they stayed silent on issues of faith and morals. They could have defined all kinds of crazy doctrines in the name of their teaching authority, but they didn’t. Catholics think this is a testimony in favour of the Papacy. These bad popes did NOT define any doctrines. Catholics think this is part of God’s infallibility promise. Not only will God direct popes in their teaching, but He’ll also shut them down. Catholics believe God protected his Church during those periods when there were bad popes. We believe He meant what He said:

...you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. (Mat 16:18)

Since Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church (Matt. 16:18b), this means that his Church can never pass out of existence. But if the Church ever apostasized by teaching heresy, then it would cease to exist; because it would cease to be Jesus’ Church. Thus the Church cannot teach heresy, meaning that anything it solemnly defines for the faithful to believe is true. This same reality is reflected in the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is “the pillar and foundation of the truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). If the Church is the foundation of religious truth in this world, then it is God’s own spokesman. As Christ told his disciples: “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” (Luke 10:16).