Evangelicals: Change of Heart toward Catholics

Evangelicals have been going through a major change of heart in their view of Catholicism over the past 15 years or so. In the 80’s when I was in college I lived in the Biblebelt and had plenty of experience with Evangelicals–much of it bad experience. The 80’s was the height of the “Are you saved?” question. In Virginia, the question often popped up in the first 10 minutes of getting to know someone. As I look back, Isurmise that this was coached from the pulpit or Sunday school as it was so well coordinated and almost universally applied. It was a good tactic for putting Catholics on the defensive even before it was known that they were Catholic—”ummmm, uhhh, well no, I’m not sure, I’m Catholic.” Then a conversation about works righteousness or saint statues would ensue. Yeah, nice to meet you, too.
Thankfully, those days are pretty much over. We now have formerly rabid anti-Catholics apologizing and even praising the pope. Catholics and Evangelicals have both learned that we have much in common and need each other to face the secular culture with a solid front. But, where did this detente come from? I think there is a real history to be told here and a book should be written. Let me give my perceptions of 7 major developments since 1993, which I regard as the the watershed year for the renewal of the Catholic Church in the United States.

With such an array of Providential developments, Evangelicals as well as Catholics have come to appreciate the depth and the breadth of the Catholic faith. It is far more difficult for them to honestly dismiss Catholicism as the work of Satan as once they did without qualm. There have been apologies and there have been calls for a new partnership. Let us hope these developments will bring about a new moment of understanding for the Glory of the Lord.

Many would prefer ignore to historical facts and use their own conceptions of the early Church and then model themselves after that.

What is to follow is not to be taken as condemnation to living Roman Catholics. It is history!

The rise of papal power in Rome was a very slow development or process. In the beginning of the leadership of the individual “assembly” of Christians it was composed of appointed Elders who were given the job of OVERSEERS; and MINISTERS were appointed to help the leadership. Notice the words used in the last sentence: “Overseers” = bishops; “ministers” = deacons. It is a fact of history that we see that the churches founded by the Apostles had a PLURALITY of “bishops” and “deacons;” with no individual person having as so-called “primacy” — a word meaning “first in rank,” or “first place.” And another thing, the Apostles never set up any one church having jurisdiction over any other church. They also never set up any method of “succession” such as is found in the Roman Church. There were no such offices as “Archbishop” and “Cardinals,” nor was there a “clergy-laity” division. As for “priests,” all members were to be priests in the “Kingdom of God”—the Church of Christ on earth. The only “head” of the church was the Christ; and he never abdicated that position. Christ still lives and reigns as the only “head” of the church he had created on Pentecost. The Holy Spirit of God was sent to operate on earth during Christ’s absence on earth. To deny this is to deny the Will of God for the church.

But, with only the Apostle John still living, we see some individuals in the local churches asserting to themselves a “primacy” of office. The Apostle John condemned this! He said, “I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say” (III John, verse 9). John’s letter was apparently sent to the “Elders” or “Overseers” of this “assembly” of Christians, as we can see in John’s words, “first AMONG THEM.” Diotrephes was a revolting model of Christian leadership, per se, because HE LOVED TO BE FIRST! By doing that he became an apostate from the teachings of our Lord Jesus the Christ (read Matthew 20:25–27). How long will it take the leadership of the Roman Papacy to reject the philosophy of Diotrephes and to accept the teachings of Jesus? Pride? Diotrephes was so full of pride that he wouldn’t even accept the authority of an Ambassador of Christ: “I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes…does not accept what we say.”

Diotrephes didn’t just want to have “primacy,” he already thought he was first — and loved it! No one is more arrogant than one who will not accept the authority of the Christ, or be taught by another. The more closed-minded one is, the more “infallible” he thinks he is. The more inflexible he is, the more impossible he becomes. The more impossible he becomes, the more he thinks he is like God — and acts like a god, even to claiming he take the place of God on earth!

“Now just hold on a moment,” you may say, “you are insinuating that the popes claim to be God on earth. That’s blasphemy! No Pope would ever say such a thing! You are just making up all the things you are saying!”

“Really?”, I answer, “I am not insinuating anything. Who claims to be taking the place of Christ as the ‘head’ of the church on earth? Do not the popes claim to be the “Vicar” of Christ? How do you explain away the following claims of the popes?”

The Bull “Unum Sanctum” written by Pope Boniface VIII reads as follows: “The Roman Pontiff judges all men, but is judged by no one. We declare, assert, define and pronounce: to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every human creature altogether necessary for salvation… That which was spoken of Christ, ‘Thou has subdued all things under his feet,’ may well seem verified in me. I have the authority of the King of kings. I am all in all and above all, so that God himself and I, the Vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do all that God can do. What therefore, can you make of me but God?” This is not blasphemy you say?

Pope Leo XIII, in his Encyclical Letter, The Reunion of Christendom” (1885), declared that the Pope holds, “upon this earth, the place of God Almighty!” That’s not all by a long shot. As late as April 30, 1922, Pope Pius XI, in the Vatican throne room, declared to Cardinals, Bishops, nuns and priests who were on their knees before him, that “You know that I am the Holy Father,…the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on Earth.” Yes, the Popes have not only usurped the place of Christ as the head of the church, but assert and define that they are “God on earth.” They love to be first; not only in rank, but in honor.

Because Diotrephes “loved to be first,” and did not accept what an Apostle of Jesus wrote to the church, that Apostle said: “For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words: and not satisfied with this, neither does he himself receive the brethren, and he forbids those who desire to do so, and puts them out of the church” (III John, verse 10). Diotrephes’ perverted practices can be listed as such: 1) rejecting apostolic teachings when it didn’t agree with his, 2) unjustly slandering others —even an Apostle of Christ, 3) refusing to be hospitable, 4) forbidding members to practice hospitality, 5) excommunicating those who practiced hospitality.

This Diotrephes-mentality lives on. History is filled with examples showing that this mentality spread to other churches from that day on. It is a great tragedy that, from the time of Diotrephes, pride invaded the leadership of the churches and certain ones asserted “primacy” to themselves. Verbal battles were fought among almost all churches where one took unto himself the title of “Bishop of bishops!” It didn’t take too long before those having the mentality of Diotrephes tried to prove their stance. The bishops of both Rome and Constantinople had harsh words to say to each other — even excommunicating each other because of the claim of apostolic authority by means of a worldly “succession” doctrine.

The first real falsification or step in the development of papal power at Rome came from the influence of the well-known “pseudo-Clementine Letters and Homilies” — a forgery originated in the middle of the second century. These writings claimed to be from the hands of Clemens Romanus, who supposedly writes to James after the death of the Apostle Peter, and states that Peter, shortly before he died, appointed him to be his successor.

Here we have the origin of successorship, repeated by Tertullian, that Clement was “ordained” Bishop of Rome by Peter the Apostle (Clement I, 91–100 AD). There is here an obvious contradiction stated against later traditions that Peter the apostle died in 63 or 65 AD. Do you see it? If the Apostle Peter died in the year 63 or 65, how could he possibly have “ordained” Clemens as his successor in the year 91? What about the two “popes(?)” before him — Linus (67–79), and Cletus (79–91)? The Bishop of Manchester is of the opinion that “the only early persuasion of St. Peter’s Roman Episkopate ‘was due’ to the acceptance in the third and following centuries of the Clementine fiction as genuine history. No one had any suspicion that the Clementine romance was a lie invented by a heretic! The story was accepted on all sides.” But was it? Not quite! An Encyclical Letter of the Greek Orthodox Church repudiated the claims of popedom by saying: “Those absolutistic pretensions of popedom were first manifested in the pseudo-Clementines.”

The second step came by the action of the Council of Sardica (343 AD) in giving a right of appeal to the bishop of Rome on the part of any bishops who considered himself unjustly excommunicated. This eventually led to the consolidation of power in the hands of the bishop of Rome; who had already taken the first place among his fellow bishops. But, the decision of this Council was not accepted nor recognized lawful by the churches of the East, nor of the bishops of Africa. Many bishops had committed idolatry in honoring the Roman Emperor as a god in times of persecution to save their lives, and many churches would not re-unite them back into the church as a bishop. These bishops, for the most part, then sought help from elsewhere to regain their office — the decree stated Rome! Thusly we see a letter written to the bishops of what is now the Greek Orthodox Church, in which it is stated that “anyone who seeks help from that one overseas (Rome), let him know that he will no longer have communion with us bishops of Africa.” This was written by the well-known St. Augustine, who is revered by the church of Rome as one of the greatest theologians — a “Doctor” of the church.

Thusly, the appeals provided for by that Concil of Sardica and by the decree of the Roman Emperor Valentinian were to be voluntary appeals, but in the ninth century, Pope Nicolas I came forth with a claim that, with or without appeal, the bishop of Rome had an inherent right to review and decide all cases affecting bishops. Now falsehoods really got started; the Pope had to back up what he claimed.

The use of falsehood is inseparable from the historic rise of papal claims. This falsehood is manifested in every sort of way; in the description of the Pope as “the Lamb of the Vatican,” “the Living Christ,” “the Vicar of Christ,” “the Most Holy Lord,” “His Holiness,” “Our Holy Father the Pope,” “Our Lord God the Pope,” etcetera and etcetera; as well as in the forgeries so ably exposed by a Dr. Dollinger in his book, The Pope and the Council. Example: the Isidorian Decretals of the ninth century — “That huge fabrication of lies;” then there are the Hildebrandine forgeries of the eleventh century, which used the Isidorian forgeries to further papal absoluteism; the “earlier Roman forgeries” from the end of the fifth and beginning of the sixth centuries, when “the compilation of the spurious acts of Roman Martyrs” began, and “was continued for some centuries.” These forgeries included “the fabulous story of the conversion and baptism of Constantine, invented to glorify the Church of Rome, and to make Pope Sylvester appear as a worker of miracles.” “Then the inviolability of the Popes had to be established, and the principle that he cannot be judged by any human court.”

Towards the end of the sixth century a fabrication was undertaken in Rome, the full effect of which did not appear until long afterwards, that is, the interpolation of a falsehood in Cyprian’s book on the unity of the church, which represented Cyprian as teaching the “the church is built on the Chair of St. Peter.” An old list of Roman bishops was then interpolated for an ulterior motive, afterwards carried out in the “Liber Ponificalis.” “It is the first edition of 530 AD which is chiefly to be reckoned as a deliberate forgery, and an important link in the chain of papal claims and inventions.” The historian Hallam’s book, “View of the State of Europe During the Middle Ages, page 348, says: “Upon these spurious decretals was built up the great fabric of papal supremacy over the different National Churches: the imposture is too palpable.”

Around the middle of the eight century the famous “Donation of Constantine” was concocted at Rome, based on an earlier fifth century legend, whereby the pope is described as Lord and Master of all bishops, and as having authority over the four “thrones” of Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem; and as having received Italy and the Western Provinces from the Emperor. It is upon this forgery that the pope’s claim to temporal power rests. The earliest reference to this pretended gift of Constantine occurs in Pope Adrian’s letter to the Emperor Charlemagne in 777 AD; although that claim may have been made as early as the year 752 by Pope Stephen II. As the Church Historian Dr. Dollinger was quick to remark, “such language first became intelligible when the (forged) ‘Donation of Constantine’ was brought forward to show that the Pope was the rightful possessor, as heir of the Roman Caesars in Italy.

But then, about 20 years later (797), the need was felt at Rome to a more extensive invention. So a document was laid before Charlemagne in Rome, professing to be his father’s “gift” or “promise” of territory to the papacy. This forgery assigned all Corsica, Venetia, Istrai, Luni, Moselica, Parma, Reggio, Mantua, and the Duchies of Spolito and Benevento, and the Exarchate of Ravenna to the Pope’s Temporal Power (see the “Liber Pontificalis,” book 2, page 193, Vignol Edition).

The most potent instrument and manipulation of history was Gratian’s “Decretum,” issued in the 12th century from Bologna. In this “Decretum” the Isidorian forgeries were combined with other fabrications originated in the Diotrephes-mentality of papal supremacy over mankind, as well as with Gratian’s own. This work of falsehoods displaced all older collections of Canon Law, and became the basis of knowledge for all “Scholastic Theologians.” Forgery was herein added to forgery, all alike enhancing the claims of the papacy in matters concerning Temporal Power.

Around the year 1570, this compilation of falsehoods was “corrected,” at the order of the Pope; yet today it forms the “Codex” for all papal authority — in temporal and spiritual matters. For instance, the false principles that the Pope is superior to Law, and that all church property is his by right of office, and that clerics of the Roman Church (and not other church groups) are exempt from Civil Law by a so-called “divine ordinance” — in other words, “God said so” (but God didn’t say so!). It must be remarked here that in 1582, by order of Pope Gregory XIII, and under the committee appointed by him, a corrected, or revised text of the “Corpus Juris” was published. But, even with most of the learned bishops asking that the false “Decretals” be suppressed from the new “Corpus Juris,” they were retained on the order of the Pope.

Because of this false power, texts of Scripture have been deliberately falsified to further the aims of papal power. Thus we see Pope Innocent III, in his creating the Office of the Inquisition, alter Deuteronomy 17:12 in the Vulgate version of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) Bible so as to mean that whosoever does not submit to the decisions of the high priest (whose place the Pope claimed to hold) is to be killed (Decret. Per Venerabilem, IV, 17). Pope Leo X quoted this text the same way in a Bull, but made a blunder; giving a reference to the book of Kings instead of Deuteronomy, to prove that whosoever disobeyed the Pope must be put to death (Pastor Aeternus, Hardouin, Concil., 9, in 1826).

In the thirteenth century, a new fabrication appeared, affecting dogmatic theology and education. It is know as the “Dominican Forgeries” because it was composed by a Dominican Monk; who concocted a litany of spurious passages or sentences from the Greek Councils and early writers of the Church’s history. These forgeries were put forth as being over 800 years old, and were at once used by Pope Urban IV to prove that the “Apostolic Throne” is the sole authority in doctrinal matters (Raynaldus, Annal., Ann., page 61, 1263 AD). Pope Urban sent the document to Thomas Aquinas, who knew no Greek, and from the Latin translation made by Buonaccursia, the Dominican Monk mentioned above, invented the theory of papal infallibility and authority: “The pope is Christ hidden under the vale of flesh.” Thusly, on the basis of a fabrication by a Dominican Monk, Aquinas built up the papacy; which ever since has put forth the blasphemeous claim to be the “Pontifex Maximus” and “infallible” in all matter concerning temporal and spiritual authority.

The Roman Catholic, Lord Acton, Regius Professor of History at Cambridge University, forced by history itself, had this to say: “The passage from the Catholicism of the Fathers to that of modern Popes was accomplished by willful falsehoods; and the whole structure of traditions, laws, and doctrines that support the theory of infallibility and the practical despotism of the Popes stands on a basis of fraud” (North British Review, Oct., 1869, page 130 — The Vatican Council of 1870 passed the theory of infallibility as being from God!).

The entire authoritarian system of religion put forth by Roman Prelates is based upon lies; lies that the Apostle Peter was “Prince of the Apostles” and “Bishop of Rome,” and that his successors are “Vicars of Christ.” It is permeated through and through with lies, which are known to be such, but are deliberately utilized to bolster up their claims. For example: The remains of a dead man were dug up from the catacombs under the Vatican, and were claimed to be the bones of the Apostle Peter. But, when scientists asked to test the bones to see if they were as old as claimed, the Hierarchy refused on the grounds that they might destroy the “papal evidence” by their testing. That reason put forth to the public was ridiculous, for, as the scientists had explained, all they needed for the test was a small sliver from the hip or leg bone.

What were the papal officers afraid of? Were they afraid that their latest “bone discovery” would prove as false as their earlier “latest” bone discovery had, which proved to be the bones of a woman? What about the bones of an OLD man dating back to the first century, and which were found inside of a stone “bone-box,” upon which the inscription, “Simon Bar Jona,” was found? It was excavated by a team of Roman Catholic Archeologists. And it was not the only “bone-box” found: within 12 feet of it were found boxes inscribed with the names of “Mary and Martha,” and one with “Lazarus,” their brother. Pope Pius XII ordered that this discovery remain secret until they could figure out how to deal with the other bones that they had just publicized as being the Apostle Peter’s. Just what is a “cover-up”? Or is this just a story that is interesting?

There is a book called “Gli Scavi del Dominus Flevit”, printed in 1958 at the Tipografia del PP. Francescani, in Jerusalem, written by P. B. Bagatti and J. T. Milik, both Roman Catholic priests, that tell of this discovery of Peter’s bones. The bone-boxes were found in Jerusalem on the Franciscan monastery site called “Dominus Flevit” (where Jesus was supposed to have wept over Jerusalem), on the Mount of Olives. Other bone-boxes were also found with the names of early Christians. They all date back to a little before the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. Father Milik stated in the book that “There is a hundred times more evidence that Peter was buried in Jerusalem than in Rome.” Both Bagatti and Milik are archaeologists, and Dr. Albright, of the John Hopkins University in Baltimore, personally knew Bagatti and states that he was a very competent archaeologist. Dr. Nelson Gluek, archaeologist and president of the Hebrew Union College in Cincinnati, Ohio, said, “I regard Father J. T. Milik as a first class scholar in the Semitic field” and stated that he knew Milik to be a very able scientist. This discovery happened in 1953. It is reported that Father Bagatti went to Pope Pius XII in 1953, or shortly thereafter, and showed him the evidence. The pope supposedly said to him, “Well, we will have to make some changes, but for the time being, keep this thing quiet.” And “quiet” it has been kept. There is only one known copy of this book in private hands, and that is in the hands of a man by the name of F. Paul Peterson. All other copies, if there are any, are controlled by the papacy.

This is just a little reminder to all that the Papacy is a man-made institution that is very unscriptural and negates what Jesus told the Apostles to proclaim. It is not a part of the gospel of Christ by any interpretation of the Word of God. In fact, it puts God out of the picture in our present world order, and glorifies an institution not built by Christ nor His Apostles.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.