The M+G+R Foundation
The Papacy In Historical Perspective
The Seldom Told History
A History That Should Be Known
FOREWORD
The M+G+R Foundation
commissioned this document from Lee Penn, a
Christian journalist and the author of False Dawn. miguel
de Portugal vouches for this
document, which
brings into
sharp focus one of the central messages that miguel must convey to all
- believers and non-believers alike: Accept no man-made
substitutes for the true Christ.
INTRODUCTION
Catholic
apologists magnify the Pope and the Papacy, saying: “The Pope is the
flesh-and-blood reminder” of the “Church and its teachings. He
personifies Catholicism – and for some this is personally offensive.” [1] Leaving
aside the bait-and-switch tactic (why would the Pope – not Christ
–
personify Catholicism?), to exalt the person of the Pope
ignores history. The Popes of the 20th Century were, for the most
part, virtuous in their personal lives. Many who preceded
them were
quite otherwise.
We would not bring these
historical events to light except for the fact that, in keeping with
the
End of These Times and in preparation for the manifestation of the
False
Christ, the Papacy and the Popes are being exalted by the Vatican's
Media Machinery to a level that we will not tolerate - equality with
God.
The following are behaviors which are not even acceptable
from an average human being, much less from some who have the audacity
to claim equality with God and demand the blind sheep to finance it!
DETAILS
The Papacy From 896 to 1048 AD
Even the Vatican’s apologists acknowledge that the Papacy passed
through a dark age from 896 to 1048; they describe the Papacy of the
900s as a “pornocracy,” due to its domination by the Theophylacts, a
corrupt family of Roman nobles. The Papal misdeeds of this era include:
[1]
Boniface VI (896):
Died after about 15 days in office – the second shortest Papal term of
office in history. He was elected despite having been defrocked twice
(once from the sub-diaconate, and once from the priesthood, and without
being canonically reinstated to orders) by Pope John VIII for
immorality. [3]
Stephen VI (896-897): Exhumed the corpse of Pope
Formosus (891-896), tried the body for offenses against canon law in
the “Cadaver Synod,” and had the former Pope's body mutilated (the
three fingers used for blessing were chopped off) and the remains
tossed into the Tiber. This outraged the population to the point of
insurrection. Stephen was deposed and strangled – and then buried in
St. Peter's.
Sergius III (904-911):
Jailed and strangled his predecessor Leo V (903), as well as the
antipope Christopher who had overthrown Leo. Sergius reaffirmed the
“Cadaver Synod” verdict against Pope Formosus, and bore an illegitimate
son with the Theophylact noblewoman Marozia; the boy later became Pope
John XI.
John X (914-928):
In order to gain the release of the French King (Charles the Simple)
from his imprisonment by Count Heribert of Aquitaine, John confirmed
the election of the Count's five-year-old son as Archbishop of Rheims.
John XII (955-964):
Elected at age 18, deposed for “perfidy and treason” in 963, overthrew
his successor after a few months, and “died at age twenty-eight – of a
stroke suffered while in the bed of a married woman.” [4]
A traditionalist historian says, “The Lateran Palace was called a
brothel in his day, thanks to his diverse taste in lovers – both in
terms of gender and number.”[5] John “did not
hesitate to consecrate as bishop a ten-year-old boy as token of his
affection, or to give sacred vessels to prostitutes.”[6]
John XIX (1024-1032):
Won election through bribery.
Benedict IX (1032-1045):
According to a traditionalist historian, “his personal life was so
disgusting (filled as it was with mistresses and rumors of incest and
sodomy) that one of the city's factions was able to rally support
against him and drive Benedict out of Rome.”[7]
After he fought his way back to power, he soon “accepted a bribe to
abdicate in favor of his godfather, the arch priest John Gratian. [8]
Gregory VI (1045-1046):
John Gratian was deposed for having bought election to the Papacy.
The Papacy From 1455 to 1555 AD
The Papacy of 1455-1555 likewise earned infamy for its immorality.[9]
As is obvious, various Papal decisions (those that apologists describe
as “disciplinary acts”) led directly to Protestant revolts in Germany
and England. During this period, ancient paganism became respectable in
the Vatican; Curial writing referred to “God the Father as ‘Jupiter
Optimus Maximus,’ to the Virgin Mary as ‘Diana,’ to the Apostles as
‘legates,’ and to the bishops as ‘proconsuls.’”[10]
Callistus III (1455-1458):
Made two nephews cardinals, and made a third nephew the commander of
the Papal army. One of these nephews, Rodrigo Borgia, was made
cardinal-deacon at age 25, and became vice-chancellor of the Holy See
at age 26. This posting – and the immense wealth that the young
cardinal was able to gain from it – paved the way for Rodrigo’s
election as Pope Alexander VI in 1492.
Pius II (1458-1464): “known throughout Italy and
beyond as a connoisseur, an historian, and the author of erotic plays
and tales.”[11] PiusII made two nephews
cardinals; one of these – who got his red hat at age 21 – reigned for a
month as Pius III (1503).
Paul II (1464-1471): According to a liberal
historian, he was “among the worst of the Renaissance popes: a vain,
intellectually shallow, ostentatious playboy.” [12]
Sixtus IV (1471-1484): Named six nephews to the
College of Cardinals; one of these would later become Pope Julius II.
Sixtus’ coronation tiara cost 100,000 ducats – and this was just the
beginning of his extravagances. He “connived at the Pazzi conspiracy to
murder Lorenzo and Giuliano de’ Medici at High Mass at the Duomo in
Florence.”[13] Giuliano died, but Lorenzo
survived, and Florence rose against the Pope's allies. In response,
“the pope placed Florence under interdict, and a two years’ war with
the city began.”[14]
Innocent VIII (1484-1492): Won election by
bribery, and created a plethora of unnecessary new posts in the Curia,
auctioning them to the highest bidder to raise money. In 1489, he
struck a deal with the Turkish Sultan. The Pope detained the Sultan
Bayezit's fugitive (and rival) brother in Rome, and the Sultan gave the
Pope an initial payment “almost equal to the total annual revenue of
the papal state,”[15] plus an annual fee of
45,000 gold ducats, plus the relic of the Holy Lance, which supposedly
pierced the side of Christ on the Cross. Innocent VIII made Giovanni
Medici a cardinal at age 13; the young man was later elected as Pope
Leo X.
Alexander VI (1492-1503): The father of “at least
nine illegitimate children,”[16] he won his
election by “generous bribes and promises of lucrative appointments and
benefices,” and soon made clear that “the consuming passions of his
pontificate would be gold, women, and the interests of his family. He
named his son Cesare, at age eighteen, a cardinal, along with the
brother of the current papal mistress. He also arranged several
marriages for his daughter Lucrezia and often left her in charge of the
papacy, as virtual regent, when he was away from Rome.” [17]
The aforementioned papal mistress was Giulia Farnese, wife of Orsino
Orsini; Romans referred to her sarcastically as “the bride of Christ.”[18]
Julius II (1503-1513): The nephew of Sixtus IV,
and made cardinal by him at age 18. While a cardinal, he sired three
daughters. With the aid of “substantial bribes and promises of
ecclesiastical preferments,” he won unanimous election to the Papacy in
a one-day conclave.[19] Julius donned silver
armor and led his armies across Italy to expand the Papal States. He
gave Henry VIII, the King of England, a dispensation to marry his
brother's widow, Catherine of Aragon. (The dispensation soon backfired.
When Henry sought an annulment from his marriage to Catherine, Pope
Clement VII refused. This led to the Anglican schism of 1534.) Julius
laid the cornerstone of the new Basilica of St. Peter in 1506 – but
made the fateful decision to cover the construction costs by selling
indulgences. In the bull Cumtam divino, he also declared Papal
elections invalid if gained through simony – an ironic ruling, given
the circumstances of his own election.
Ironically ,the sainted Pope Pius
X reversed this decree. In the 1904 decree Vacante Sede Apostolica,
Pius condemned simony, but held that this would not invalidate a Papal
election. His successors did the same. John Paul II ruled in 1996 that
“If – God forbid – in the election of the Roman Pontiff the crime of
simony were to be perpetrated, I decree and declare that all those
guilty thereof shall incur excommunication latae sententiae. At
the same time I remove the nullity or invalidity of the same simoniacal
provision, in order that – as was already established by my
Predecessors – the validity of the election of the Roman Pontiff may
not for this reason be challenged.”[20]
LeoX (1513-1521): Upon his election, he said,
“God has given us the papacy; now let us enjoy it.”[21]
He continued the sale of indulgences to finance construction of St.
Peter's. It was the marketing of this “spiritual benefit” by the
Dominican preacher John Tetzel that caused Luther to post the “95
Theses” on the cathedral door at Wittenberg in 1517, starting the
Reformation. King Henry VIII publicly opposed Luther and wrote In
Defense of the Seven Sacraments; as a reward for this book, Leo
gave the English King the title of “Defender of the Faith” – a title
that the English royalty have continued using ever since, despite their
schism from Rome. One of Leo's cardinals was his nephew, Giulio de’
Medici, who was later elected as Clement VII (1523-1534).
Paul III (1534-1549): While serving as a
cardinal, he had kept a mistress, by whom he had four children. Upon
his election, the first two cardinals he chose were his teenage
grandsons. Paul “was an ardent believer in astrology, timing
consistories, audiences, even the issue of bulls, according to the most
auspicious arrangement of the stars.” [22]
Julius III (1550-1555): “created a scandal because
of his infatuation with a fifteen-year-old boy whom he picked up in the
streets of Parma,had his brother adopt, and then made a cardinal and
head of the Secretariat of State.”[23] Another
biographer describes this youth, Fabiano (who took the name of
Innocenzo del Monte), as a “depraved … custodian of monkeys,”[24]
and a Roman satirist of the time described Fabiano as an “empty and
feminine boy.”[25] Fabiano fell from grace after
Julius III died. Pius IV jailed Fabiano for killing two people at a
banquet, and exiled him after his release from prison; then, Pius V
removed Fabiano’s red hat.
The Standards set forth by St.
Paul for Bishops
Contrast the behavior of these Popes to
the standards that St. Paul set forth for bishops:
“The saying is sure: If any one
aspires to the office of bishop, he desires a noble task. Now a bishop
must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, sensible,
dignified, hospitable, an apt teacher, no drunkard, not violent but
gentle, not quarrelsome, and no lover of money. He must manage his own
household well, keeping his children submissive and respectful in every
way; for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how
can he care for God's church? He must not be a recent convert, or he
may be puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the
devil; moreover he must be well thought of by outsiders, or he may fall
into reproach and the snare of the devil.”(1 Tim. 3:1-7)
Some Popes have been evil, indeed. Their good works notwithstanding
(John XII, for example, supported the monastic reform that began at
Cluny, and the Renaissance popes commissioned great works of religious
art), these Popes demonstrate that no earthly religious leader
“personifies Catholicism.” The deeds of these Popes show that Gregory
VII (1073-1085) was in error when he asserted, in the Dictatus Papae,
that “the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is
undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter.”[26]
Another part of the Dictatus was
“the claim that the Pope alone has the right to use the imperial
insignia, or that princes shall kiss his foot;” these were derived from
the Donation of Constantine,[27] a
fraudulent document.
The Defenders of the Hierarchy
Fail in Their Efforts
1. Defenders of the
Hierarchy say that (a) even the worst of Popes never formally
taught heresy, and (b) that the evil behavior of some Popes
does not impair their authority and accuracy as teachers of the Faith.
This defense fails on both counts: 1. Several Popes have indeed
fallen into heresy,[28] at least for a time, and
one Pope was anathematized by an Ecumenical Council.
Liberius (352-366):
Initially opposed the Arian heresy (which denied the divinity of
Christ), and was exiled in 355 by the Arian emperor Constantius II.
Under duress, Liberius approved a semi-Arian creed that had been
produced by a church synod, and excommunicated the orthodox bishop
Athanasius. The Emperor allowed the Pope to return to Rome in 358. Only
after the Emperor died in 361 did Liberius return to orthodoxy,
reinstating Athanasius and urging all bishops to adhere to the faith
that had been stated at the Council of Nicaea.
Zosimus (417-418): Initially revoked the prior Pope's
condemnation of Pelagius (who promoted the heresy that men can be saved
by their own efforts, without the need for divine grace). After
protests from bishops in North Africa, including St. Augustine), the
Pope reversed himself and restated Rome’s opposition to the heresy.
Vigilius (537-555): Vacillated between support for
orthodox theology (as taught by Chalcedon– that Christ is fully God and
fully man, thus having two natures) and the Monophysite heresy, which
teaches that Christ has only one nature. (As with Liberius, coercion by
the Emperor explained some of Vigilius’ conduct.)
Vigilius ’greatest crime had been the way he obtained the Papacy: he
had aligned himself with the dissolute Empress Theodora, posed as a
Monophysite sympathizer to gain her support, and went to Rome with her
money to buy election as Pope. The clergy there had already elected
Silverius as Pope; the Imperial authorities responded by sending
Silverius into exile and declaring the Holy See to be vacant. Vigilius
won then Papal election, arrested Silverius as soon as the former Pope
returned to Rome, and exiled him again – leading to Silverius’ early
death by starvation. As a historian of the Papacy reports, “To all
intents and purposes, one Pope, and he the son of a pope, had been
deposed and murdered by another.”[29] These acts
raise a question: shouldn't posing as a heretic, and doing so with such
lethal effect, “count” against a Pope in the same way that
intentionally issuing a heretical encyclical would?
Honorius I (625-638): Adhered to Monothelitism,
which held that there is only one (divine) will in Christ. After
Honorius died, he was solemnly condemned as a heretic by the Third
Council of Constantinople, (680-681 – the Sixth Ecumenical Council).[30]
Pope Leo II (682-683) affirmed the verdict, saying, “We anathematize
…Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this ApostolicChurch with
the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted
its purity to be polluted.”[31] The Seventh
Ecumenical Council (787) restated this condemnation.[32]
Even though Honorius did not formally define his view as Church
teaching,[33] this event clearly shows that Popes
can be heretical.
2.
“Teaching” involves more that putting orthodox words into an encyclical
with the appropriate canonical formulae. Jesus taught by his
acts as well as with his sermons. Any wise parent, teacher, or manager
knows that bad example can – and usually will – negate even the most
inspired or well-intentioned words (or teachings) given to those under
their authority. As the Apostle James said: “faith, by itself, if it
has no works, is dead.” (James 2:17). Thus, when Popes lived evil lives
– and yet more, when they pursued evil policies using the power,
resources, and authority associated with their office – they were teachers
of evil.
Lord Acton, a Catholic historian in 19th
Century England, makes this case for sober and realistic judgment of
the behavior of Popes (and other powerful men):
“I cannot accept your canon that
we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men, with a favourable
presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption it is
the other way against the holders of power, increasing as the power
increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal
responsibility. Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts
absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they
exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the
tendency or the certainty of corruption by authority. There is no worse
heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it.”[34]
NOTES
[1] Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction,Basilica
Press, 1999, p. 18.
[2] Sources used for this history include:
Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes, Harper San Francisco,
2000, pp. 143-174 (liberal perspective); Charles A. Coulombe, Vicars
of Christ, Citadel Press, 2003, pp. 163-204 (traditionalist
perspective); Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners, Yale University
Press, 2001, pp. 104-114 (centrist, academic perspective); Claudio
Rendina, The Popes: Histories and Secrets, Seven Locks Press,
2002, pp. 210-257 (liberal perspective).
[3] Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes,
Harper San Francisco,2000, p. 146.
[4] Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes,
Harper San Francisco,2000, pp. 157-158.
[5] Charles A. Coulombe, Vicars of Christ,
Citadel Press, 2003, p. 179.
[6] Claudio Rendina, The Popes: Histories
and Secrets, Seven Locks Press, 2002, p. 226.
[7] Charles A. Coulombe, Vicars of Christ,
Citadel Press, 2003, p. 200.
[8] Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners,Yale
UniversityPress, 2001, p. 111.
[9] Sources used for this history include:
Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes, Harper San Francisco,
2000, pp. 260-284; Charles A. Coulombe, Vicars of Christ, Citadel
Press, 2003, pp. 322-347; Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners, Yale
University Press, 2001, pp. 184-218; Claudio Rendina, The Popes:
Histories and Secrets, Seven Locks Press, 2002, pp. 413-461.
[10] Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners,Yale
University Press, 2001, p. 188.
[11] Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners,Yale
University Press, 2001, p. 184.
[12] Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes,
Harper San Francisco,2000, p. 263.
[13] Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners,Yale
University Press, 2001, p. 189.
[14] Charles A. Coulombe, Vicars of Christ,
Citadel Press, 2003, p. 326.
[15] Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners,Yale
University Press, 2001, p. 196.
[16] Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners,Yale
University Press, 2001, p. 189.
[17] Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes,
Harper San Francisco,2000, pp. 267-268.
[18] Claudio Rendina, The Popes: Histories
and Secrets, Seven Locks Press, 2002, p. 431.
[19] Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes,
Harper San Francisco,2000, p. 270.
[20] John Paul II, Universi Dominici Gregis,
para. 78, 1996;
http://catholiculture.com/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=5518, accessed
01/11/06.
[21] Charles A. Coulombe, Vicars of Christ,
Citadel Press, 2003, p. 337.
[22] Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners,Yale
University Press, 2001, p. 209.
[23] Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes,
Harper San Francisco,2000, p. 283.
[24] Claudio Rendina, The Popes: Histories
and Secrets, Seven Locks Press, 2002, p. 459.
[25] Claudio Rendina, The Popes: Histories
and Secrets, Seven Locks Press, 2002, p. 460.
[26] Gregory VII, Dictatus Papae, 1075,
translation at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/g7-dictpap.html,
accessed 01/11/06.
[27] Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners,Yale
University Press, 2001, p. 121.
[28] Sources used for this history include:
Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes, Harper San Francisco,
2000, pp. 60-62, 66-68, 90-93, 101-103; Charles A. Coulombe, Vicars
of Christ, Citadel Press, 2003, pp. 71-72,101-103, 113-115; Eamon
Duffy, Saints and Sinners, Yale University Press, 2001, pp.
32-33, 54-57; Claudio Rendina, The Popes: Histories and Secrets,
Seven Locks Press, 2002, pp. 47-51, 58-60, 89-93, 112-114.
[29] Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners,Yale
University Press, 2001, p. 55.
[30] Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes,
Harper San Francisco,2000, p. 395.
[31] Charles A. Coulombe, Vicars of Christ,
Citadel Press, 2003, p. 126.
[32] Decree of the Second Council of Nicaea,
which stated: “Further we declare that there are two wills and
principles of action, in accordance with what is proper to each of the
natures in Christ, in the way that the sixth synod, that at
Constantinople, proclaimed, when it also publicly rejected Sergius,
Honorius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Macarius,those uninterested in true holiness,
and their like minded followers.”
(http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum07.htm, accessed 01/23/06).
[33] Charles A. Coulombe, Vicars of Christ,
Citadel Press, 2003, p. 115.
[34] John Acton, “Acton-Creighton
Correspondence,” April 5, 1887, in Lord Acton, Essays on Freedom
and Power, ed. Gertrude Himmelfarb, Meridian Books, 1957, pp.
335-336.
Copyright 2006 -
2016 by The M+G+R Foundation.
All rights reserved. However, you may freely reproduce and
distribute this document as long as: (1) Appropriate credit is given as
to its source; (2) No changes are made in the text without prior
written consent; and (3) No charge is made for it.
The
M+G+R
Foundation
About Us
and
Frequently Asked
Questions
For Related Documents
About
Papal Infallibility
The
True Petrine Ministry
Papal
Index
POLITICS and
RELIGION : AN
EXPLOSIVE COMBINATION An Index
PAGE of INTRODUCTION
to DOMAIN
HOME PAGE
HOME PAGE - Español
HOME PAGE - Portugues
Back Up HOME
PAGE
Our
Research Department
To
Search for Information Within Our Domain Click
Here
Index of
Documents Sorted by File Name
Please Note:
If
the above dated image does not appear on this document, it means that
you are not viewing the original document from our servers. Should you
have reason to doubt the authenticity of the document, we recommend
that
you access our server again and click on the "Refresh" or "Reload"
button of your Browser to view the original document.
If you wish to contact
The M+G+R Foundation, please Click Here
and follow the
instructions.