Peter and the Popes

by A. Burt Horsley























Contents
Foreword
Preface
Introduction
Simon Peter
Upon This Rock
The History
Render Unto Caesar
Pontiffs, Palaces and Pornocracy-a Godless Age
Pontifex Maximus-days of Glory and Papal Power
Captivity and Schism
When Peter Speaks
The Papacy in the Twentieth Century
Summary and Conclusion
Appendix A
Appendix B
Bibliography












FOREWORD
The fifth volume in the Specialized Monograph Series of the Religious Studies
Center stands as a tribute to its author, Professor Emeritus A. Burt Horsley,
whose long interest in Christian History and, particularly, in those who sat upon
the Cathedra or throne of Peter in Rome, has enriched the understanding of
students for decades. The popes were men who profoundly influenced the course
of the Western World far out of proportion to their mere numbers. But in view of
the enormous responsibility and power which accrued to the office they shared,
their centrality in the life of the West seems neither misshapen nor
misappropriated.
For his readers, Professor Horsley has prepared a highly readable and
informative introduction to the world of the papacy. He has been honest in his
assessments and yet has remained sensitive to the religious dimensions of his
subjectfrom his insightful review of Peter's ministry to his enlightening
discussion of the orders and doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church.
Naturally, the views expressed are those of the author and in no way do they
represent official views of either the Religious Studies Center or the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Even so, the Religious Studies Center is
pleased to be able to assist in some small way in seeing this study into print.
S. KENT BROWN
CHARLES D. TATE, JR.









PREFACE
Among the religious institutions which have persisted throughout the course of
Christian history, none has proven to be of greater durability in the face of
opposition and change than the papacy of the Roman Church.
However, there are many convulsive movements abroad today symptomatic of
an intellectual disquietude which forbodes a change. The recently completed
Second Vatican Council in Rome, functioning not only as a self inquisition but
also as a forum of dialogue with the non-Catholic world, has revealed this to be
true in a camp formerly regarded as an unwavering bastion of tradition and
conservation.
Our time is a time of unconstrained thinking and plain talk. We are living in a
day when the assertion is being made repeatedly that Christianity fears no
inquiry, in a century that has so abundantly revealed new material and insights.
In the spirit of our time, then, we may properly direct attention to the Roman
Catholic popes in their historical setting with greater assurance of world-wide
approbation. It seems, after all, inevitable that we will eventually know each
other in all our perfections and in all our weaknesses.
While spending part of a sabbatical leave in Rome during the Fall and Winter of
1965, and again in 1972, I designed to write an account of the history of the
papacy. This has proven to be in part, idealistic. Because of the massive
accumulation of centuries of materials in this particular subject matter, to be
totally comprehensive would require discursive detailing into a multi-volume
work. The alternative is conscientious editing. By this, then, I justify and qualify
myself, a presumption to conscience and detachment, being neither Catholic nor
Protestant.
The source materials and voluminous writings available for research and study
on this subject of the papacy are almost illimitable. This one-volume work, then,
represents primarily, a brief survey of the general course of the history of the
people and events identified with it.
Since this story can tell only a portionand a small portion at thatof a
sometimes glorious and sometimes notorious past, I have had to select from all
the events and people those that seemed most significant to the history of the
papacy as an idea. History as it actually occurred was a tangle of confusion, but
the idea of the papacy, once established, emerged intact, perpetuating itself into
the succeeding age.
The reporter of history gets his facts from certain written or printed documents:
diaries, letters, official declarations, legal instruments, eye-witness accounts, and
other primary sources which constitute first-hand information. In addition to this,
he has to rely on secondary sources, the work of other researchers and historians
who have studied the primary sources. This is especially true in a situation such
as this where the historical span is so broad as to make impractical and
unrealistic a personal examination of all available source materials.
I am indebted to those whose earlier studies and research in the area have
produced fruits, the benefits of which have fallen to us, their academic heirs. A
great deal of the material here presented is based upon the work of others whose
writings are cited in the bibliography. More particularly the commentaries of the
great Petrine and early Christian-period traditionalists and classicists such as
Dummelow, Edersheim, Farrar, Goodspeed, Harnack, Meyer, Milner, Mosheim
and Scott have been studied and compared together with the papal biographers
Eusebius, Platina, Flacius, Baronius, and Pastor. The more modern critics Betz,
F. M. Braun, Bultmann, Cullman and Dinkler have been valuable sources and
the work of Donfried, Reumann and Brown (eds.), especially helpful.
The bulk of this work has grown out of a BYU Leadership Week lecture series,
years of teaching the history of the papacy, and from personal source research.
For this I must assume full responsibility.
Because of the innate shortcomings of any redaction process it is possible for
even the best intentioned author to fall short of satisfying the needs of readers
requiring a more exhaustive treatment of special periods of papal history. For
this reason, it is advisable to also read books by other authors which might
broaden understanding and insight.
I am deeply indebted to my colleague, Professor Rodney Turner, whose critical
judgment and assistance in the editing and revision of the New Testament
materials on the Apostle Peter have been inestimable. Acknowledgment is also
given to suggestions and ideas I have received from Professors Richard L.
Anderson, S. Kent Brown, Larry Evans Dahl, C. Wilfred Griggs and Charles D.
Tate, Jr. Special mention must be made of the support and encouragement given
by Dean Robert J. Matthews. I wish to acknowledge Diane Gonzalez and
Charlotte Pollard for their editorial assistance and others too numerous to
mention by name.
A. Burt Horsley






1
INTRODUCTION
When one walks through the narrow streets and alleys of Rome with their
overladen evidence of agelessness, emerging eventually into one of the larger
plazas or squares with the ever-present church shrine or monument, there is
strong awareness of much religious tradition. Here, indeed, of all places, there
transpired many of the great follow-up events of developing historical
Christianity. However, one also senses the haunting suspicion that this is window
dressing, that it is not properly representative of that which was originally the
religion of Jesus. Somehow, the rocks and the mortar and the fungus, the
accumulation of centuries, seem to misrepresent the simplicity of that beginning.
There is something lacking that can be discovered and renewed to the mind and
the memory only with the eventual reference back to the Holy Land itself.
Nevertheless, Catholic tradition has insisted upon a divine founding and inspired
perpetuation linking its beginnings with the charge given to Peter in the 16th
chapter of Matthew. Therefore, this work will begin with the story of Peter in its
proper setting in the Holy Land, but it will also seek to account for the
subsequent events and developments which eventually place him in Rome.
In a brief summary-history of the papacy itself, an attempt will be made to
portray the evolution of an ideaa conceptthat of Petrine primacy or Roman
supremacy. The biographical elements cannot be ignored entirely, although they
should be minimized. The responsibility of identifying the popeswho they
were and what their contributions werecould not be neglected with any degree
of justification in a work whose scope pretends to comprehend such things. It
will be necessary to examine more carefully and with proper consideration the
available evidence and data, claims and counter-claims, the possibility of Peter's
having been the first of the popes as identified in the Catholic tradition. What is
really the meaning of the concept or the terminology "upon this rock"?
The great Caesaro-papal conflict, the problem of the relationship of church and
state, will be examined with reference to the possible implication of such a
relationship for the course of Christian history, the direction of its tradition, the
unfolding of its policy and doctrine, and the development of its ecclesiastical
structure. The great age of godlessnessthe palaces, the luxury, the grandeur,
the pontiffs who enjoyed and partook of all that was worldly and available in the
Babylon of that daywill come into focus, as also the days of glory and papal
power, when the pope as Pontifex Maximus was a great ruling force asserting
great civil and secular authority as well as presiding over things religious and
spiritual. The days of infamy and humiliation, when the papacy found itself in
captivity and removed from Romedays of confusion and schism within the
great institution itselfare also part of this account.
The great medieval synthesis of centuries of new and old ideas in tradition and of
the huge accumulation of policies, practices and cultures, barbaric and classic
must be examined carefully. What is the effect of the papal annunciation, papal
bull or constitution? What force do they carry? What command to duty? What
mandates are implied in the concept of papal infallibility? This will be examined
searchingly in the light of all that is implied in the phrase "when Peter speaks."
We need also to examine the papacy in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries
with reference to the relationship of conciliar authority brought into focus during
the two most recent councils, Vatican I of 1869 and Vatican II of 1962-65.
Finally, what of tomorrowwhat does the future hold for this great institution
we call the papacy of the Roman Catholic Church? Of course, it will not be
possible to see it in all its grandeur or in its weakness; however, from a certain
historical, theological, and cultural perspective, we shall view critically at least
some of its many facets. Like other institutions, it has had periods of infamy and
greatness as it played out its historical, traditional role. The proportion between
the human and the divine in our religious establishments has always claimed
premium attention and evoked commentary and opinion while stirring up claims
and counter-claims among interested students of theology and history over the
centuries. In no single historical institution has the disproportion appeared so
immeasurable as in the story of the bishops of Rome. The record shows that the
papacy, almost from its inception, has imbibed the imperfections of humanity,
albeit to a greater degree in some ages than in others.
From this vantage point in history, it would appear that the memories of those
who attempted to perpetuate a reliable account of the unfolding events of the
early centuries soon corrupted for us certain impressions which might otherwise
have been preserved in fidelity, had they been assisted by a contemporaneous
written record. Since they burdened their recollections with the added weight of
religious feeling, the problem was compounded all the more. Occasionally, an
irrepressible suspicion arises that neither the authors of the Petrine tradition nor
Peter's biographers were any more careful of historical truth than papal historians
of subsequent generations. Some, for example, have been accused by later critics
of having deeply colored their accounts with popular traditions and fancy. Since
the experience of the race has taught us that unrestricted devotion tends to
enlarge the object of its affection so that legend takes form gradually under the
influence of sympathizing devotees, one might well inquire, where does reliable
history begin? In the case of Peter, the story has its beginning in scripture and its
ending in the never-never wasteland of Roman-Christian legend and tradition.
And, since neither legend nor tradition are to be regarded as historically
authentic in the scientific sense, it will be necessary to accept whatever
conclusions are arrived at in that frame of reference.
In like manner, the disparity between some of the writings of Paul compared
with Luke's account in Acts, although not really of that serious a nature, has
caused some historians to reverse a tradition of priority in primary and secondary
source documentation. Normally, biographical writings are accepted as more
likely to be objective than autobiographical data in validating historical events.
In the case of Paul and Luke, the opposite has apparently been true. Paul, as an
autobiographer, has been considered by some critics and historians as a more
reliable reporter of the events and people related thereto than Luke as a
biographer.
Reflecting this school of thought, Raymond E. Brown refers to the difficulty in
distinguishing between Lucan redaction and pre-Lucan sources:
It is still more difficult to move back beyond Lucan redaction . . .to the historical
level,. . .and to compare the historical picture of Peter's role detected behind Acts
and its sources with the historical picture we have detected behind the writings of
Paul.
He further notes that even though "the apologetic character of Paul's letters may
have lent a subjective coloring to Paul's report of what happened. . . . Paul was
closer to some of the events concerning Peter than was Luke" (Brown, et al., 39-
42).
In the meantime, since every qualified inquirer has a right to examine the data
and form his own opinion, to search under the rubble of Rome, behind every
facade, within the canon or among the pseudepigrapha and, since honest inquiry
can do no worse than offer another version, let us return to the sources in search
of Simon Peter and his story (see McKay, Ancient Apostles 9).











2
SIMON PETER
Simon, son of Jonas or John, nicknamed Cephas or a rock (Greek Petros) by
Jesus, was born into a fisherman's family in the Galilean fishing town of
Bethsaida a few years before the birth of Jesus during the reign of Augustus
Caesar. He grew up in a time of turmoil when vast political and religious
movements were stirring among his people.
We do not know the extent of his education, but it probably was typical for the
time, consisting mainly of informal training in the home and some formal
instruction in the synagogue where he was taught as a boy to memorize some
portions of scripture and the law together with certain prayers and meditations.
By the time he was a young man, he had learned the fishing trade and had
entered into a business partnership with his brother Andrew on the Sea of
Galilee. After his marriage, he made his home in the nearby city of Capernaum,
where in later years the Savior would share his hospitality for some time while
making his headquarters in that area.
He had made the acquaintance of some men, also fishermen, who were members
of a family involved in the founding of a new religious group. James and John,
sons of Zebedee and Salome, had joined the popular Baptist movement of John,
son of Zachariah and Elizabeth. Jesus, Son of Mary, who is identified by some as
Salome's sister, 1 would subsequently be baptized and become the leader of a
movement with such power for good in the lives of men that it would thereafter
be identified with the title of Christ, which Peter bestowed upon Jesus in his
moment of truth, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matthew
16:15-16).
For many, Peter represents each one of us, the Christian as a whole person, both
believer and doubter, faithful and unfaithful.
After the death of John the Baptist, Peter was one of those who accepted Jesus as
the new leader of the composite movement. A careful reading of the scripture
reveals that John had explicitly referred to Jesus as the Savior whose coming he
had anticipated and for whom he had prepared the way. Andrew, Peter's brother,
was present when John said, "This is he of whom I said, After me cometh a man
which is preferred before me . . ." (John 1:30). Andrew was also one of two,
who, after listening to Jesus speak, followed him home and spent part of the day
talking with him before he departed from Jesus and went in search of the others.
"He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the
Messias, which is, being interpreted, the Christ. And he brought him to Jesus.
And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jonah: thou shalt
be called Cephas [Peter] which is by interpretation, A stone" (John 1:41-42).
After this meeting with Jesus, Peter and Andrew returned to their nets and the
call of the fishing business for the time being. But, Jesus had seen the potential in
Peter. He had recognized the man that was to be.
Sometime later, as Jesus continued his ministry in Galilee, he sought Peter out on
a day when the fishing had been poor and Peter and his business partners had
decided to use the remainder of the day repairing nets. Jesus' admonition to
them, "Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men" (Matthew 4:19), has
become classic, but less often remembered is Peter's confession as he abandoned
his former way of life, ". . . I am a sinful man, O Lord" (Luke 5:8). There is here,
an indication of soul searching on his part and an admission to himself of an
insufficiency of characterleaving him some distance to go before he can
change from catching perch and bass to becoming "a fisher of men." But he
seized upon the opportunity as a possible fulfillment of hope and salvation.
Someday he would see in Jesus, the Light and the Way, the healer of the halt and
the lame, the shepherd, and the nearest, simplest and only way to God.
Raymond Brown, in portraying Peter as a confessor and guardian of the
Christian faith, admits that:
this high view of Peter's function does not, however, eliminate the dark side in the
image of the Apostle, the image of Peter the weak and the sinful man. In the New
Testament trajectory he can be portrayed as being reproached by Paul (Gal.
2:11ff.), as misunderstanding Jesus' words and intentions (e.g., Mark 9:5-6; John
13:6-11; 18:10-11), as being rebuked by Jesus as "Satan" (Mark 8:33; Matthew
16:23). In the Passion Narrative he can be singled out as the one who denied the
Lord (Mark 14:66-72 and parallels). But his very tears at the end of this scene show
that, while being portrayed as a weak, sinful man, Peter is seen as a truly repentant
sinner. Thus, even as Simon once denied Jesus, he has been rehabilitateda
rehabilitation doubtlessly to be connected with the appearance of the risen Jesus to
him [as hinted in John 21:15-17] (Brown, et al., 166).
During the ensuing months of discipleship and apostolic commission, before the
crucifixion of the Lord, Peter's moodiness, pessimism, stubbornness, lapse of
faith, even despair, came to the surface along with a general lack of polish. When
Jesus wished to encourage or praise him, He called him Peter; but when He
reminded his friend that he was slipping back to his old ways, He called him
Simon.
On one occasion Peter had merited both praise and rebuke from the Lord. He had
referred to Jesus as the Messiah and then offended with his expression of
contempt for Jesus' premonition of death as part of the fulfillment of his
messiahship. A few days later, Peter saw Jesus clothed in a celestial glory on the
mount of transfiguration; and, while commenting, "Master, it is good for us to be
here," had heard, ". . . a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son:
hear him" (Mark 9:5,7).
Despite these purging, chastening experiences designed to fit him for the yoke of
presidency yet to be placed upon him, the fisherman, during all the Savior's
ministry (including the ordeal of the trials and the trauma of the crucifixion) had
not yet achieved the unfaltering, resolute character imperative in such a leader.
That Peter's full conversion and transformation came slowly, painfully, was
apparent in his question as to the number of times sufficient to forgive an
offending brother. "Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times:
but, Until seventy times seven" (Matthew 18:21-22). But, the event in his life
destined to leave the bitterest memory of all was yet ahead.
He often acted hastily, and thoughtlessly. Yet, when chided and admonished, he
became moody with a slight tendency toward withdrawal and reserve (Mark
8:31-33).
There were times when Peter seemed to be alive with a desire to learn,
recognizing his own poverty of mind and spirit, in abject humility, submitting
himself to be taught. Nevertheless, when sufficiently provoked, he could react
with an almost spontaneous assertion of force, as was evidenced at the time of
Jesus' arrest (John 18:10). He might react unpredictably, showing forth either the
gentle side of his nature or the impetuous, headstrong, unpolished facet. He
would lie when his own security was threatened despite having declared only a
few hours previously that he would go with the Lord "both into prison, and to
death" (Luke 22:33). James E. Talmage says, "Peter went so far in the course of
falsehood upon which he had entered as to curse and swear that he did not know
Jesus" (Talmage, Jesus the Christ 631).
It is not unlikely that in the years to come when he had occasion to look back on
those days of tortuous growth and change, there would be some bitter memories
intermingled with the joyous ones: his sinking beneath the waves while of little
faith; his resisting Jesus' offer to wash his feet when his refusal would have
deprived him of one of the greatest privileges of all time, would be events to be
remembered (Matthew 14:28-31, John 13:8).
Centuries of foreign domination had stirred resentment in the hearts of
Palestinians which periodically crystallized into varying forms of revolt,
including militant defiance and demonstration. That Peter had not actively
identified with groups such as the Zealots in no way rules out a strong
nationalistic concern on his part. His apparent misunderstanding of the Savior's
true messianic mission would indicate that along with other disciples he,
initially, may have entertained notions of political, social and economic
emancipation.
No doubt he had chafed under the subtle or deliberate pretention to cultural and
intellectual superiority on the part of many Romans. Nevertheless, he probably
accepted the Lord's suggestion to "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which
are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's," albeit without any show of
servility (Matthew 22:21).
On Peter and his household was conferred the singular blessing of hosting Jesus
during his stay in Capernaum. After spending part of a Sabbath day with the
Savior preaching in the synagogue, Peter returned home with his guest to find his
wife's mother sick with the fever. Peter and his family "besought him for her"
(Luke 4:38), requesting a blessing of the Savior in her behalf. "And he came and
took her by the hand, and lifted her up; and immediately the fever left her, and
she ministered unto them" (Mark 1:31).
During the ensuring days of the early Galilean ministry, Peter accompanied Jesus
as "he preached in their synagogues throughout all Galilee. . ." (Mark 1:39). On
one occasion, after returning to Peter's home, Jesus asked the Apostles who had
accompanied him, "What was it that ye disputed among yourselves by the way?
But they held their peace: for by the way they had disputed among themselves,
who should be the greatest" (Mark 9:33-34).
Jesus used the moment to teach a great principle which Peter may have learned
better than his brethren, since it appears that they continued to quibble about the
same matter throughout the rest of the ministry. Holding a little child in his arms,
the Lord emphasized the value of humility and teachability, trying to impress
upon the big fisherman that, "If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last
of all, and servant of all" (Mark 9:35). The words of Jesus were not yet entirely
clear to Peter, but a small beginning had been made in his transformationa
transformation that would have to be at least partly completed in a few months'
time.
Those few months passed all too quickly. At Passover time, Peter was assigned
with John to go to Jerusalem ahead of the others to make arrangements for the
use of a guest chamber wherein they could eat the passover meal together in
private. Jesus had in mind an upper room of a house belonging to a woman
convert, thought by some to have been the mother of John Mark, who would one
day be the traveling secretary to Peter and subsequently the author of one of the
gospels (Acts 12:12). "And they went, and found as he had said unto them: and
they made ready the passover" (Luke 22:13). In the evening, the other Apostles
came secretly with the Lord and assembled in the upper room.
At passover time there had again been some misunderstanding among the
Twelve, as Luke says that even at the passover table "there was also a strife
among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest" (Luke 22:24).
Peter must have been indignant over this display of petty politics and somewhat
embarrassed too. His closest friends, the Lord's own first cousins, James and
John, were the most contentious about the matter. In fact, their mother, Salome,
Mary's sister, had arranged to make a special appeal to Jesus in their behalf
(Matthew 20:20-21).
Peter tried to make it clear to his beloved teacher that he needed no reward for
his loyalty, that he would remain true come what may. The Lord perceived the
struggle going on within this great spirit: many confusing things had been
crowded into the last few days, straining his understanding. Now he was
grasping for straws of faith and needed more assurance from the Savior. "And
the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he
may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and
when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). That faith
was not yet great enough to sustain him wholly through the trials ahead, when as
Jesus predicted, "the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice
deny that thou knowest me" (Luke 22:34).
Jesus rose from the table and, after wrapping a towel about himself, proceeded to
wash the feet of these men who had stayed with him. They had not understood
his mission, neither did they realize for which cause he had come into the world.
But, he loved them enough to try once more to teach the lesson of humility. In
reply to Peter's protest, "Thou shalt never wash my feet," he answered, "If I wash
thee not, thou hast no part with me" (John 13:8). Peter, humbled, listened to the
admonition:
If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one
another's feet. For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to
you. Verily, verily I say unto you; The servant is not greater than his lord; neither
he that is sent greater than he that sent him (John 13:14-16).
This tensive drama was heightened in that hour by the announcement of the
betrayal. And, in the hours ahead, Peter, by his actions, would leave unanswered
the age old question, why does a man who knows what is good do that which is
evil? He would allow the weakness of the flesh to subdue the willingness of the
spirit by failing to watch with Jesus one hour, by rising up in a gesture of
violence in the garden, and by denying it three times when accused of being an
associate of the Nazarene.
In Peter's tragic moment, Jesus might well have voiced David's lament, "Yea,
mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath
lifted up his heel against me" (Ps. 41:9). Instead, he simply glanced at Peter. It
was enough. "And Peter remembered the word of the Lord, how he had said unto
him, Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. And Peter went out, and
wept bitterly" (Luke 22:61-62).
With bitter tears Peter purged away much of the old Simon and prepared himself
for the rebirth of the new. Those same tears partly washed away a past strewn
with doubt and misunderstanding, and after they were spent, the picture of a
kingdom worth dying for began to come into focus.
Even the most casual study of the lives of the spiritual giants of the Old and New
Testaments together with those of the modern prophets leads us to the conclusion
that only through a process of overcoming earlier weaknesses and gradually
maturing do they eventually achieve the spiritual stature and greatness for which
they become renowned. In the years ahead, the challenges and sacrifices that
characterized so much of Peter's life would transform him into the mighty man
of God that he became.
Paul implies that Peter was the first of the Twelve to behold the resurrected Lord
(1 Cor. 15:5). That same evening Jesus appeared to the other apostles who had
gathered in an upper room in Jerusalem (Luke 24:34-49).
Subsequently, Jesus appeared to seven of the Apostles on the shores of the Sea of
Galilee and singled out Peter by commanding him to "Feed my sheep" (John
21:15-17). This incident further established Peter as the chief Apostle upon
whom Jesus had conferred the keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16:18-19).
Peter's preeminence was further confirmed on the day of Pentecost (the feast of
weeks) when he and his fellow Apostles were "all filled with the Holy Ghost,
and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance" (Acts
2:4). It was Peter who preached the powerful summary address on that occasion,
and he witnessed that the risen Lord was the promised Messiah and that the
Apostles were now blessed with the same spiritual gifts by which God had
revealed himself through Christ. The scripture tells us there were three thousand
converts as a result of the manifestations of that day.
By the eloquence and conviction of his Pentecostal sermon, Peter had made it
clear to Jewish leaders and laymen alike that he was no longer intimidated by
former doubts and fears. The Sanhedrin could not expect him to bow before that
august body ever again. Neither need the members of the scattered flock hesitate
any more to affiliate boldly with the brotherhood which was now substantially
organized and receiving divine direction from that same beloved Master, who
only a short time ago had been with them in the flesh. "And this Jesus hath God
raised up, whereof we are all witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of
God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost,
he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear" (Acts 2:32-33). Through the
Spirit manifest on Pentecost, several thousand new members, both from within
and beyond the land of Palestine, were integrated into the movement and
fellowshipped with those of the original flock. These local members worshipped
both privately and in the precincts of the temple and constituted the Jerusalem
church.
It appears that, except for private dwellings, Christianity was proclaimed mainly
in synagogues throughout Palestine and the Jewish settlements of the Diaspora,
wherever the Apostles felt inspired to take the gospel under Peter's direction,
until about A.D. 70. Indeed, the form, liturgy, ceremony, and later the vestments
of Hebrew worship passed down into Catholic ritual. Even the Catholic church
government reflected the administrative structure of the synagogue. 2
Peter's sermon on Pentecost marked the beginning of an approximately eighteen-
year Palestinian ministry. Assisted by his fellow Apostles, more particularly
James and John, who had witnessed with him those things that transpired on the
mount of transfiguration (2 Peter 1:16-18; Matthew 17:1-9), Peter presided over
the Church from Jerusalem, the first capital of Christianity (Acts 8:14), giving it
its spiritual direction.
The apostolic church was demeaned by its Jewish enemies as the "sect of the
Nazarenes." But to Peter it was a powerful spiritual force destined to strike at the
very roots of the legalistic evils under which the Jews suffered. His was a first-
hand knowledge of the lives of the people of the circumcision. He spoke in a
language they could understand, with unbounded courage and energy. He was
convinced that a kingdom was coming in which justice and peace would prevail.
Soon after assuming leadership of the Christian brotherhood, Peter presided over
the covenant effort in communal living. This model of the stewardship principle,
as practiced in the spirit of Christian love by the disciples, is one of the finest
examples of the workability of basic gospel ideals in practical human relations.
Luke relates:
And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither
said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they
had all things in common. . . . Neither was there any among them that lacked: for
as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of
the things that were sold, And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution
was made unto every man according as he had need (Acts 4:32, 34-35).
There is no specific follow-up information in the scriptures as to the success or
failure of enterprise, but that it was subject to imperfections of humanity; the
gradual encroachment of the things of the world over the things of the spirit is
affirmed. Eventually greed and selfishness on the part of some may have
threatened the foundation of a system that depended upon the highest
manifestations of a personal love and devotion to principle. Among those who
burdened this order of consecration were Ananias and Sapphira, who sold their
property and greedily kept a portion back for themselves before contributing the
balance to the order, while pretending the consecration of all they had. The two
deceivers perished after Peter confronted them, saying, "Why hast thou
conceived this thing in thine heart? Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God"
(Acts 5:4).
In the years ahead, Peter would witness time and again disappointing examples
of human conduct and attitude. The process of religious and spiritual change
which was gradually transforming him did not always have the same effect on
others. His mind was beginning to serve him well in the liberation of the new
man, freeing him from the self-serving instincts which tend to restrain most men,
in one degree or another, from becoming their best selves. He had learned from
sore experience that knowing what is good is not enough to save one from
reversion to the baser self, unless that knowledge enlists the whole man,
including the higher, nobler instincts to defend the right before the soul is
wounded.
Some gave lip service to the cause, others were openly brazen in their show of
ignorance about things sacred. Religious enthusiasm, with its accompanying
manifestations of the power of God to work good in the lives of faithful men, is
particularly vulnerable to misunderstanding and abuse, as is, also, the very
power, or gift, by which things take place.
While successfully healing the sick at Samaria, Peter met a man also named
Simon, who was typical of those whose spiritual eyes remain sightless while the
natural eyes see well the outward forms of religion. This man professed
conversion with his lips, but his heart was far from it.
But there was a certain man, called Simon, which beforetime in the same city used
sorcery, and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some
great one. . . . And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles' hands
the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money (Acts 8:9, 18).
Some have asserted that this same Simon was the father of Christian Gnosticism,
a heresy which threatened the very foundation of the early Church for many
decades (Talmage, Apostasy 9; Roberts and Donaldson 8:477-86). Others have
found no evidence linking Simon Magus to Gnosticism.
At approximately this point in his own ministry, Peter received word of the
appearance on the Christian scene of a new personality whose coming would
eventually play a great role in the development of the apostolic church. Paul, a
Jew of the Diaspora who had been active in the anti-Christian campaign, was
miraculously converted near Damascus. Not having been proselyted by the
missionaries, Paul maintained, for some time, an aloofness that bore out his
sense of rejection. In fact, he claims that he did not even take the trouble to make
the acquaintance of Peter and other leaders for at least three years:
I conferred not with flesh and blood: Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which
were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto
Damascus. Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode
with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's
brother (Gal. 1:16-19).
At this time, neither Peter nor Paul suspected how closely their lives would one
day be intertwined by the thread of the gospel; At the same time, their personal
understandings, opinions, and backgrounds would lead them in separate
directions as they sought to fulfill their respective destinies and the destiny of the
Church.
The next few years of Peter's Palestinian ministry were enriched by a diversity of
experiences as he went from place to place. Luke records a few incidents
including the healing of Aeneas, a paralytic at Lydda, and the raising of the
woman Dorcas from the dead at Joppa. But Peter also experienced arrest and
imprisonment again and again. Sometimes he was flogged and released.
However, the scripture attests, more than once, to a miraculous escape from his
captors.
That there was great resistance among the Jews to this "heresy" cannot be
doubted. However, some regarded Christianity as merely another messianic
movement which would spend itself innocuously if left alone. This attitude is
reflected in the advice given by none other than the great Gamaliel to the council
of High Priests and Jewish leaders who were considering the case of Peter and
his associates following the arrest of Peter for preaching his famous temple
sermon and healing the lame man at the temple porch. "Refrain from these men,
and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to
naught: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it" (Acts 5:38-39).
Later, while in Joppa, a small town on the Mediterranean coast, he stayed at the
home of a Jewish tanner, whose occupation in handling and preparing the skins
of animals made him ceremonially unclean by Rabbinical law. Peter's
condescension in staying many days in such a household shows what a giant step
away from Judaistic legal tradition he had taken.
Alerted by a noontime vision, Peter left Joppa with messengers from a certain
Italian army officer and accompanied them to Caesarea thirty miles farther north.
This constituted even more of a departure from the way of his fathers, since
Cornelius, the officer, was a Gentile and, in spite of his being "one that feared
God" (a believer in Jehovah), an unfit host for one of the covenant (Acts 10:9-
16).
When Peter arrived at the home of Cornelius, and accepted his hospitality, he
established a precedent in extending the blessings of the gospel to non-Jews that
Paul would remind him about at Antioch in the years ahead (Gal. 2:14). But, he
had been reinforced in his inclination to break with tradition by a divine
manifestation from which he learned that "I should not call any man common or
unclean" (Acts 10:28). He had, indeed, not only set the precedent but would also
justify this before his brethren upon his return to Jerusalem (Acts 11:4-13).
In his discussion of the matter with the other Apostles and disciples among the
Judaizers in Jerusalem, he did not hesitate to declare his conviction that what he
had done was in harmony with the will of God. He was now identifying himself
with the universal dimension of the Lord's work, a dimension no longer to be
ignored.
And the apostles and brethren that were in Judaea heard that the Gentiles had also
received the word of God. And when Peter was come up to Jerusalem, they that
were of the circumcision contended with him, Saying, Thou wentest in to men
uncircumcised, and didst eat with them. But Peter rehearsed the matter from the
beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, saying, . . . Forasmuch then as
God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus
Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God? (Acts 11:1-4, 17).
Thus, when the time came to expand the movement beyond the borders of
Palestine and to introduce Christ's message to other peoples in their own
homelands, Peter was ready to do so. A series of divine manifestations
associated with his experience with the gentile Cornelius had taught him, "Of a
truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that
feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him" (Acts 10:34-35).
In retrospect, it is possible to recognize at least two principle stages in Peter's
development between the crucifixion of Jesus and Peter's more forceful assertion
of leadership responsibility. The first moved him away from his understandable
attachment to Jewish legalism and tradition to an emphasis on the reality and
implications of the resurrection of Jesus the Messiah. During this phase, Peter is
described by Luke as a forthright and fearless advocate of the risen Lord and of
the fact that salvation was obtainable through Jesus' name, and his name only
(Acts 2:38; 4:12).
The second major stage in Peter's spiritual growth and leadership development
began with the events surrounding the conversion of the gentile Cornelius.
Peter's recounting of the matter supposedly mollified his reactionary critics who
were offended at his having eaten with the Gentiles, but the issue of the
obligations of the Mosaic law was far from resolved.
Following his conversion, James, the half brother of Jesus, appears to have
gained considerable prominence in the Jerusalem church. Peter seems to have
shown some deference to him, perhaps out of courteous consideration for the
special relationship of James to the Lord. For example, Peter sent word to James
of his miraculous deliverance from prison (Acts 12:17). Peter and James were
the only leaders seen by Paul on his first post-conversion visit to Jerusalem (Gal.
1:18-19). Paul included James with Peter and John as supposed "pillars" of the
Church (Gal. 2:9).
James is sometimes identified with the "Judaizers" or circumcision party who, at
least initially, sought to impose circumcision and the law on all gentile converts.
Paul implies that Peter allowed himself to be intimidated in Antioch by the
arrival of men from James, "fearing them which were of the circumcision" (Gal.
2:11-12). He also suggests that, in Peter's dilemma, he seems to have given
himself back to the traditionalists, albeit with some reserve.
President David O. McKay, noting that Peter possessed the keys of presidency,
wrote: "one key was to open the door of the gospel to the Gentiles, but it took
quite a while before Peter knew how to use it. It is one thing to know that the
gospel is true: it is quite another thing to comprehend its purpose and
significance" (McKay, Gospel Ideals 231).
Peter may have been caught in the middle of a misunderstanding between James
and Paul. While his reaction may have been due to confusion on his part, it may
also have been prompted by an awareness of his position which necessitated a
mediating, conservative response on that particular occasion. This isolated
incident (described from only one point of view) should not be blown out of
proportion.
As to Peter's relationship to James and his reaction to what might have seemed to
some as an encroachment on his presidential authority, the scriptures are not that
clear (Acts 15; Gal. 2). However, in that moment when Peter knew he could not
"withstand God," he had indeed exercised his ecclesiastical responsibility. He
may now be prepared to take the step into "all the world."
In this connection, according to Paul, James had been the recipient of a personal
visitation from his resurrected brother (I Cor. 15:7). And it may have been this
experience that moved him to conversion.
Later, at a special conference in Jerusalem, Paul met with Peter, James and the
other Apostles and elders. Following "much disputing" over the obligations of
gentile converts to the Mosaic law, Peter spoke against the views of the believing
Pharisees, arguing that the law had always been a burden and that when it came
to salvation, God made no distinction between Jew and Gentile (Acts 15:4-29).
James concurred with Peter and expressed a presumptive if not final statement
when he declared, "Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which
from among the Gentiles are turned to God" (Acts 15:19). Whatever his
traditionalist views may have been originally, his devotion to the cause of Jesus,
as he understood it, cannot be questioned.
During the reign of the tyrant Emperor Caligula, referred to by one historian as a
"young madman [who] entertained himself with murder and theft" (Frank 423),
minority groups, and especially the Jews, suffered persecution throughout the
empire. In Palestine, his attempts to enforce the practice of emperor worship had
led to riots. Peter and the saints in Jerusalem had weathered the storm, and, with
the death of Caligula and the ascension of Claudius, there was a newly declared
policy of tolerance (see Momigliano 29-32; Scramuzza 150-51). This policy may
have aided in the increased proselyting activity and missionary success of Peter,
but eventually it would react against it.
Caligula had left Herod Agrippa, grandson of Herod the Great, in office as a
puppet ruler in Palestine. He proceeded to court the favor of the Emperor
Claudius with exaggerated enforcement of the edict of toleration in Jerusalem,
and with special concessions to the Jewish High Priests and Sanhedrin leaders.
Jewish leaders, in attempting to stamp out the "godless sect," organized a
campaign against the spread of Christianity. Strong measures were employed
including the sending of messengers into all areas of the Diaspora. Justin Martyr,
a convert to Christianity from Jerusalem a few decades after the death of Peter,
points out in his Dialogue with Trypho that the Jewish leaders had sent
emissaries "into all the land to tell that the godless heresy of the Christians had
sprung up, and to publish those things which all they who knew us not speak
against us" (Roberts and Donaldson 1:203).
Thus, influential Jews had come to regard the "Christian sect" as perhaps the
most dangerous threat to Jewish solidarity. Because of the great pressure exerted,
Herod pacified the Jews by ordering the death of James, who was the brother of
John and probably a cousin of Jesus. James served as counselor to Peter. The
scripture concludes that Herod not only put James to the sword but, "because he
saw it pleased the Jews, proceeded further to take Peter also" (Acts 12:3).
Peter was arrested at the time of the Passover as Jesus had been more than a
decade earlier. Showing deference to the custom of not dealing with profane
matters during the holy season, Herod chose to wait until after the holiday to
bring the Apostle to trial before the people. Peter was kept under heavy guard,
and, as an extra precaution, he was chained between two soldiers even while
sleeping.
The night before he was to go on trial, he was miraculously delivered from the
prison. An angel of the Lord appeared to him while the guards slept. His chains
were loosened and he passed through two prison wards and an unlocked main
gate into the freedom of the street before the angel left him suddenly aware that
what had happened to him was really true and not just a dream or a vision.
After thinking it over, he decided to seek out his friends who were assembled for
payer in the middle of the night at a popular meeting place, the home of the
mother of John Mark (Acts 12:12). It may have been in the upper room of this
house that the events of the Last Supper had transpired on that fateful night, still
vivid in Peter's memory.
Now those assembled there for the prayer meeting could not have expected that
the Apostle would be freed at all and least of all during the nighttime. It is not
surprising then that the young lady who listened at the door when he knocked
was so astonished at hearing his voice that she ran to the others than open the
door to him. Even as he finally entered and stood before them, they thought it
must be his ghost until he succeeded in persuading them otherwise, and told
them of his experience. His last instruction to them was to report these things to
James the brother of the Lord. "And he departed and went into another place"
(Acts 12:17).
With few exceptions the remaining years of Peter's life and ministry are not
accounted for in the New Testament. He is dropped suddenly by Luke in the
midst of his story. From this point on, we are dependent upon Paul and tradition
for the few references available to us. The tradition is to some extent derived
from non-canonical, apocryphal, or early religious literature, much of which is
sheer fabrication or out and out forgery. From such sources, however, we do get
a picture of the popular stories and accounts going the rounds in that day. Some
of these are repeated and reinforced often enough that they cannot be ignored;
they carry some weight, if only that of folklore consensus.
From the available sources it seems reasonable to conclude that Peter left
Jerusalem to work among Jewish Christians in Judea and Samaria. That he did
not formally abandon his ties and responsibilities is clear since he eventually
returned before the council which convened there about A.D. 50 to consider the
gentile question.
Here at Antioch, he had one of the most difficult experiences of his ministry, one
which probably gave him more cause to think about his position, both
ecclesiastically and theologically, than any other since the days when he had
come under the direct tuition of the Savior himself.
Paul was very explicit when he declared in the second chapter of Galatians:
when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be
blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but
when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them. I said
unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles,
and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of
Jesus Christ If [we built] again the things [we] destroyed, [we] make [ourselves]
transgressors (11-12, 14, 16, 18).
Peter no doubt chafed under this and subsequently modified his position
considerably since he eventually became a great missionary unto the Gentiles
(although this has not been emphasized as part of the Petrine tradition).
It appears that his Antiochian ministry included missionary ventures into the
north and west provinces of Asia Minor and Galatia en route to and from the city
of Corinth. Although there is some disagreement among Catholic scholars, the
consensus of Roman tradition has it that Peter arrived in Rome between A.D. 41
and 45, was the founder of the congregation, and continued to reside there as its
bishop, presiding over the whole Church until his death, except for visits to the
East and the Holy Land to attend the councils.
Since Peter could not have been in Rome while Paul was writing his epistle to
the Romans, and since there is neither scriptural nor even legendary reference to
any of the other Apostles having been there, this author senses the implication in
Paul's letter to the Romans that no Apostle had yet visited that city. Paul insists
that he is the Apostle to the Gentiles and will magnify his office (Romans 11:13).
Since he does not preach the gospel where there has already been an apostolic
witness "lest I should build upon another man's foundation" (Romans 15:20), it
would be inconsistent for him to plan to preach in Rome if another Apostle had
founded that branch. Therefore, there appears to be justification for the assertion
that Peter could not have resided in Rome before A.D. 56-57. This would allow
him at least five years for the Antiochian ministry and missionary activities prior
to his arrival in Rome two or three years after Nero's ascension to the imperial
throne, and at least that many years before Paul's arrival in the capital city. From
this we can establish a plausible chronology: Peter left Jerusalem and began his
Antiochian ministry, A.D. 51 Nero came to the throne, A.D. 54; Peter may have
come to Rome, c. A.D. 56-57; Paul to Rome, A.D. 58-59, assuming he followed
Peter.
It is also clear that neither Peter nor Paul could have been the founders of the
church at Rome since in Paul's letter to the Romans he is corresponding with an
already established community of Christian believers sharing some formal
arrangement of congregational communion. This study must therefore concur
with others of the same opinion that the Roman congregation may have been
made up of Jews of the Diaspora, of the merchant and military class, probably
converted by missionaries or during visits to the homeland. Some may even have
been among those present on the day of Pentecost and had been converted or
moved to investigation by Peter's sermon.
During at least part of the period of apostolic supervision and leadership in
Rome, Peter shared veneration and recognition with Paul. A great deal of
evidence is available, especially from fourth century mosaics, burial relics, and
other archeological remnants, showing Paul on the right side of the Lord and
Peter on the left. Nevertheless, Peter eventually came to be singularly recognized
as the presiding Apostle in Rome.
In scant literary remains of the earliest time we have reference to these two
united in closest conjunction as sharing in the development of the apostolic
church in Rome.
St. Clement, within thirty-five years of their martyrdom, referred to them in this
relationship while Gaius and Irenaeus allude to such before the end of the second
century; Irenaeus went so far as to declare that when Matthew was publishing a
written gospel for the Hebrews, Peter and Paul were anxiously engaged in the
good work in Rome (Roberts and Donaldson 1:414).
In the confession of the Roman celebration of the Lord's Supper, both are still
accorded recognition as Saints of the Roman church. There is both scriptural and
traditional evidence enough to justify the conclusion that John Mark was also a
close associate and assistant to both of the Apostles.
We know that for a while Paul had refused to be bothered with Mark after the
young man had deserted him in the midst of their first missionary journey. But
even though they had parted asunder, we find that when the Epistle to the
Colossians was written by Paul from Rome A.D. 60-61, he makes reference to
the fact that Mark is with him and is a fellow worker and a comfort to him
(4:10). Papias, through Eusebius, tells us that during this time Mark was also
interpreter for Peter, who was residing in Rome, albeit in a separate house. And,
the First Epistle of Peter alludes to the affectionate association of Peter with
Mark (1 Peter 5:13).
Although the church members in Rome sustained both Apostles during the
apostolic period, and Paul may have had many Jewish converts as well, he seems
to have looked for most of his support among the gentile converts. He admits
that this was true in certain places even outside of Rome when he states in 1 Cor.
1:12, some said, "I am of Paul;. . . and I of Cephas." In Colossians, while
referring to Mark as one of his fellow workers and comforters, Paul also makes it
clear that Mark is one of only three of ecclesia circumciionae who are with him.
The rest seem to be gentile converts.
Now, one final consideration. Did Peter live and die in Rome? The Roman
tradition can be affirmed with an unequivocal yes. The weight of both historical
and traditional evidence supports the claim.
On the other hand, however positive the evidence and tradition seem to be as to
his presence and death in Rome, the facts as to his burial are lacking. Here, the
evidences made available through archeological findings and tradition, including
folklore, must be employed.
Some scholars believe that when Tacitus discussed the multitudo ingens of
Christians who died "among ourselves," there was an implied reference to
Vatican Hill as Peter's place of death (Lowrie 108). This, together with the claim
in 1st Clement, makes an interesting combination.
The examination of mounds of material from Gaius, Zephyrinus, Proklos and the
Montanist cults, the Petrine and Pauline cults of the third century, the records of
the Ecclesia Apostolorum, the Epigram of Damascus, the Diggings of 1917,
1949, and the most recent archeological findings at the Vatican, provide
convincing evidence that the Roman congregations of the third century had no
united understanding. There was no consensus of opinion about the actual burial
place of Peter, although there was no question in their minds that he had been
buried somewhere in Rome.
It is reasonable to conclude that of two current theories pertaining to the burial of
Peter, the less popular may be the more reliable. The consensus of Vatican
scholars is that Peter was crucified on Vatican Hill. It is further claimed that he
was buried there and that Constantine's Basilica was built over his tomb. Later,
because of the threat of vandalism and persecution, the remains were temporarily
removed to a spot under St. Sebastian's Church on the Appian Way, and then
finally moved back to Vatican Hill. The present Cathedral of St. Peter was built
over the burial place.
An alternative theory, based on this author's composite sequence information
derived from inferential data in the catacomb beneath St. Sebastian's Church,
together with evidence compiled by diggers and researchers ad catacumbus, 3
suggests the possibility that Peter was crucified along the Appian Way. His body
was claimed by Christians who buried him in a shallow, temporary grave near
the roadside. His remains were later entombed in the catacomb over which St.
Sebastian's Church was built and subsequently removed to Vatican Hill. The
altar of the present Cathedral of St. Peter was built approximately 75 feet above
the location of Peter's entombment. Finally, the concern is not with the present
whereabouts of his bones, but whether this may have been the location of his
final resting place. An interesting apocryphal account found in the Acts of the
Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, claims that Peter met Paul on the Appian Way
while they were both on the way to execution. After they embraced and parted
with good feelings Paul was led away to a more distant place and was beheaded.
"And seeing each other they wept for joy; and long embracing each other, they
bedewed each other with tears" (Roberts and Donaldson 8:479).
Notwithstanding all this, there are numerous questions left unanswered with
reference to certain others who must have figured prominently in the life of
Peter. For those of us whose minds remain restless over such, as yet, unsolved
problems, there will be the anticipation that some future researcher historian will
be able to tell us more about Perpetua, said by Clement of Alexandria to have
been the wife and companion of Peter on many missionary journeys. What was
her final fate? According to Clement, Peter saw his wife led away to her death
and called out to her as a parting word of comfort and admonition, "Remember
thou the Lord" (Ibid. 2:541).
How did the missionary couple of Aquila and priscilla end their lives after years
of service? Their home was open to the brethren and other membersa place of
refuge and assembly. Flavia Domitilla, and her husband, Senator Flavius
Clemens, were Christians, but were also relatives of the Emperor Domitian, and
their sons were claimants to the imperial throne. Their house (Flavian) was a
central gathering place in Rome for leaders and laity alike. As with much of
Peter's story, it is likely that more was buried with them than has ever yet been
uncovered.

Notes and References
1. For the legend that Salome was Mary's sister, see The International Standard Bible
Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960) 4:2664 and the Dictionary of the Bible
(Edinburgh Clark, 1902) 4:355. For the role of these women in Christ's ministery (Mark
15:14; 16:1 and Matthew 27:56), see The Interpreter's Bible, George Arthur Buttrich, et
al, eds. (New York: Abingdon, 1951) 7:908-9; See also James E. Talmage, Jesus the
Christ (Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981), p. 521
and Bruce R. McConkie, The Mortal Messiah, 4 vols. (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book
Co., 1981), 4:223. Talmage states that the scriptural affirmation is implied and
inferential, whereas McConkie categorically asserts that Salome was Mary's sister and
the wife of Zebedee, therefore her sons James and John were cousins of Jesus.
2. Specific examples of how the form, liturgy, ceremony and vestments of Hebrew
worship have passed down into Christian ritual, especially the Catholic Mass, include
the Cantor, singing or chanting of liturgy, candelabra and candles, chalice, certain
vessels, unleavened bread, tablets and script, server, tabernacle, holy of holies, elevation
of the host, incense, ringing of the bell, the basilica patterned after the synagogue, and
the vestments including the ephod and even the onyx buttons on the shoulders.
3. Gaius (about A.D. 200) said that he could point to the monuments of the Apostles
(Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, Book 2, chapter 25, cited in Roberts and Donaldson,
The Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers Second Series (New York: the Christian Liberator
Company, 1890). Rediscovery of these catacombs by De Rossi was identified with his
finding of the inscription: Postea pervenies via Appia ad S. Sebastianum martyrem cuius
corpus iacet in inferiore loco. et ibi sunt sepulcra apostolorum Petri et Pauli in quibus
XL annorum requiescebant. A translation of the inscription includes "And there (in the
neighborhood) are the tombs (now empty) of the Apostles: Peter and Paul in which they
rested forty years."












3
UPON THIS ROCK
Around the inside of the dome of Saint Peter's Basilica in Rome are inscribed
these words: "Tu es petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam . . .
et tibi daba claves regni caelorum" (A Latin translation of Matthew 16:18-19).
These are words spoken directly to Peter by Jesus and not to all the apostles as a
quorum.
Many authors, interpreters, and translators have sought to determine from this
text the original intent of the writer. However, we are not concerned with the
intent of the writer but with that of the speaker, Jesus Christ. The best translation
of this text in the Catholic version (the King James Version is practically the
same) is, "thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, And I
will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16:18-19).
It is obvious that the position of the Catholic church, relative to the primacy of
Peter rests upon this scripture. Both the doctrine of Petrine priority and the
principle of Roman supremacy are derived either directly or by implication from
this text. It was to Peter that the revelation was given, "flesh and blood hath
not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 16:17).
The claim of the Catholic church rests on the idea that the authority bestowed
upon Peter has been perpetuated through the centuries in the papacy.
Latter-day Saints accept the presidency of Peter but take the position that the
Church was to be built upon the rock of revelationnot on Peter. Further, the
point at issue between Latter-day Saints and Catholics is whether there has been
an inspired perpetuation and transmission of Petrine primacy or a deviation and
departure from the spirit and intent of the conferred divine commission, as
recorded in the New Testament.
Of particular significance is the fact that there are various textual problems, not
only canonical and theological, but semantic ones. There are also problems that
have to do with interpolations and interpretations that we might consider. A
person who is inclined to refute the Catholic position on a basis of semantics,
that is on the basis of the language, will find that though we may not have the
original or true text, that which we do have is quite exact; it is quite clear, and
the intent seems to be rather definite if the specific text is read within its context.
The Savior had just completed an exchange of compliments with Peter. In the
conversation, which was rather casual, Peter had referred to Jesus as the Son of
God and had indicated that he knew he was. The Savior had told him that he did
not know it by any empirical or rational experience, but that it was through the
revelation of God unto him, through the witness of the spirit, that Peter was able
to so testify. The Lord then turned and used this idiomatic form, "Thou art a
rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."
If it were a singular situation, the first time that this kind of idiom had been used,
we might be inclined to say that the language is twisted a bit; but it is not true.
There are other references in the scripture, and it is typical of the Hebrew poetic
way of doing things to use this kind of metaphor. Peter is not the only one in
scripture who is referred to as a rock on whom the Lord will establish that which
he is to establish. For example, writers in the Old Testament, make reference to
others as a rock. The Savior himself was referred to as "the rock" or "stone" as
was also Abraham, among others (see Deut. 32:4; 2 Samuel 22:32; Ps. 18:2;
Isaiah 8:14, and especially in 28:16). In rabbinical literature, this device is used
sometimes with parables. In Isaiah 51:1-2, Abraham is designated as the rock,
"look unto the rock [from] whence ye are hewn, Look unto Abraham, your
father"
There are additional accounts in rabbinical literature which make use of this
form. The Midrash refers to Abraham as the rock upon which the world was
built. We find in other rabbinical sources similar parables, especially with
reference to the patriarchs. In the Pearl of Great Price, the Messiah is referred to
as, "the Rock of Heaven" ( Moses 7:53).
Philologically speaking, any attempt to interpret the text to suit specific needs is
not justified. Some have assumed that a case can be made both for rejecting Peter
as the "rock," since the feminine form of the word rock is in the text in
apposition with the feminine word church, and for substituting either revelation
or faith. These ideas can be read in only on the basis of one's own theology or
from further knowledge not available within the text itself. The meaning of the
text seems to be clear, that if we go back to the original language in which Jesus
made the expression, Aramaic, the word "rock" is genderized both masculine and
feminine. Some German translators and scholars (Gontard 43) have not
developed the semantic implications. There is no reason to assume that Jesus
said anything in the original tongue as he spoke it, other than, "thou art a rock
and upon this rock I will build my church."
That revelation is the rock upon which the Church would be built is, however,
inescapable. When the Lord gave the injunction to Peter and the Apostles to go
forth and establish his kingdom, he made them co-partners with him in a joint
enterprise. To be one with him is to be spiritually sensitive to his counsel, to be
in accord with his mind and will through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. This
oneness was one of the "gifts of heaven" to which Peter was entitled as a co-
partner. "Truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus
Christ" (1 John 1:3).
Though it is true that we do not have revelation in a vacuum, but rather through
or unto a "chosen vessel," it is equally true that without that revelation the
"chosen vessel," whether it be peter or Abraham or Joseph, would be ineffective
and unqualified or unauthorized. In fact, it would be by revelation that such an
agent would qualify to be the "chosen vessel." It is reasonable to assume that the
neglect of this principleChurch leaders not honoring, respecting and
identifying themselves with continuing inspired directionwould eventually
prevent the pure Church from flourishing. It indicates that the concept of needed
revelation began to disappear at a very early time. Tertullian accused Proxeas, an
early Roman Bishop, of fighting against the gifts of prophesy (Roberts and
Donaldson 3:598). It may well be the key to the encroachment of apostasy. The
words of the psalmist seem to have prophetic relevance at this point, "O God, the
heathen are come into thine inheritance" (Ps. 79:1).
Before the end of the first century A.D., the Greek mind was doing the thinking
for the Church. By the time the Latin-Roman leaders took control of the
Christian movement, a pattern was already well established.
Man, as a child of God, has been inclined to assert his independence. There have
been historic moments in which he has said, I can do it. I can do it alone. I know,
I know, myself.
God seems hesitant to force, to impose His will and counsel. Rather, revelation
and inspiration come as a result of felt need for it. There is seldom a reaching
down until there is a reaching up. When men are satisfied with the results of their
own efforts, with the fruits of their own minds, they often shut themselves off
from this source of enlightenment, thus depriving themselves and their whole
generation of the gifts of heaven which might otherwise have been theirs.
One cannot read the writings of the early fathers without being impressed that
there were vast influential movements contemporary with the developmental
period of Christianity. And, although Eusebius refers to mid-second century
Quadratus as a bishop of great spiritual gifts and leadership; the fact of the
matter is, that Christianity had taken a step away from Christ and "into all the
world" before the end of the first century (Roberts and Donaldson 3:598). God
did not withdraw His spirit suddenly at any one historical moment; rather, man
gradually withdrew from the Spirit of God over a longer period of time.
Some change was good, reflecting progressiveness, but much was ill-conceived
and uninspired. The process was slow enough in developing it is possible for us
to trace its course. In the writings of some earlier fathers, we find no mention of
"gifts of heaven," "illumination," and "power" that had been claimed in the New
Testament. That an occasional distressed soul had some misgivings about this
trend is apparent in the third century writing of Tertullian:
The Lord sent the Paraclete (The Holy Ghost) . . . I have many things to say to you,
but ye are not yet able to hear them: When that Spirit of truth shall have come, He
will conduct you into all truth and will report what is still to come. . . . What, then,
is the Paraclete but this: the direction of discipline, the revelation of the Scriptures,
the reform of intellect, the advancement toward the better things? . . . (Ibid.)
Eventually, the combined minds of council and committee solved problems,
determined policies, established rituals, and proposed doctrines. In subsequent
periods, there were numerous instances of complete confusion and loss of
direction. God was being patient while man groped and stumbled in a world
gone dark, catching an occasional glimmer of light, but still confused as to its
source.
Now let us examine the Roman claims that Peter presided in Rome using the title
of bishop and, that from that time on, the title bishop could be used as
synonymous with apostle, that the bishops are the successors of the apostles. A
polity statement relative to the perpetuity of the primacy of Blessed Peter and the
Roman pontiffs, and the fellowship taken from the canons of the Vatican Council
of 1870 make clear the traditional position of the Catholic church: ". . . the
Roman pontiff is the successor of Peter, . . . full power was given to him . . . by
Jesus Christ" (Dogmatic Canons and Decrees 246, ft. nt. 6).
For a long time, Rome based her claim to central authority on the idea of the
apostolic founding and the presence of the chief Apostle. 1 After the death of
Peter, the idea of Petrine founding alone was not sufficient. Other cities claimed
that same distinction (Antioch and maybe Corinth). To establish a stronger case
for Roman supremacy, the fiction was invented and became tradition that Peter
consecrated his followers in the Roman hierarchynot merely as bishops, but as
successors in his place as apostolic bishop of the Church universalwith the
seat of ecclesiastical centrality at Rome.
In the minds of those who cherish the concept of Petrine priority and apostolic
presidency, there can be no doubt but that Jesus gave the commission to Peter to
feed his sheep. He gave him the keys of the kingdom. This is something that is
dear, not only to the Catholics and the Latter-day Saints, but to certain others
whose traditions depend upon such a principle. To most Protestants, however, it
is unnecessary to perpetuate the idea of Peter's sole possession of keys of
apostolic presidency.
Latter-day Saints have much in common with the Catholics, in contrast with the
Protestant position, but it is at this point that they come to a parting of the way.
The question as to whether or not Jesus intended that there should be primacy of
one church congregation and one locality over all others, and that it should be
vested in the successors of Peter, resident in a specific place, is left in grave
doubt because of the text itself. Here the semantics approach can be explored
without apology. There is no reference to the fact that his successors are to have
the keys perpetuated in them in the bishopric of Rome. There is no reference to
the possibility that Peter should be the founder of the church at Rome, and, there
is no historical justification for the assumption that he was, although tradition has
implied it for a long time. Peter may or may not have preceded Paul to Rome,
but the fact is that both of them came to an already existing group of Christian
believers.
Another question comes immediately to mind with reference to what Peter doing
in the time prior to his arrival at Rome. If he founded another church before he
arrived in Rome, then certainly, that church should be the church of primacy and
the See of Peter, not Rome. There was a strong tradition in the early centuries
that Peter founded the church at Antioch and was its bishop. Neither Catholic nor
Protestant historians have historically resolved the question of Rome's status of
primacy or the identity of Peter as exclusive successor in any final sense of the
world.
Is it possible that Peter did, perhaps with the assistance of Paul, ordain one or
more bishops to preside over the separate congregations in Rome? The answer
might well be in the affirmative. If this is so, does that in any way do away with
the apostolate? Does not the apostolic authority continue to function in spite of
the fact that there are also bishoprics established? Certain of our early fathers
have provided us with some insight in this matter. Addressing Bishop
Gaudentius in his preface to Clement's Book of Recognitions, Rufinus
Tyrannius, one of our earliest sources wrote:
For some ask, since Linus and [Ana] Cletus were bishops in the city of Rome
before this Clement, how could Clement himself, writing to James, say that the
chair of teaching was handed over to him by Peter? Now of this we have heard this
explanation, that Linus and Cletus were indeed bishops in the city of Rome before
Clement, but during the lifetime of Peter: that is, that they undertook the care of the
episcopate, and that he fulfilled the office of apostleship; as is found also to have
been the case at Caesarea, where, when he himself was present, he yet had
Zacchaeus, ordained by himself, as bishop. And in this way both statements will
appear to be true, both that these bishops are reckoned before Clement, and yet that
Clement received the teacher's seat on the death of Peter (Roberts and Donaldson
8:76).
This in no way implies that Peter himself was a bishop at the expense of his
apostolate, but rather that he was functioning as an apostle who consecrates
bishops. Another thing which seems to provide a good deal of controversy and
was one of the earliest stumbling blocks for the Catholic claim is the fact that
traditionally, in the first lists of the bishops of Rome which we have available
(the first one being from Irenaeus), Peter was not listed as the first bishop of
Rome, but as the consecrator of the first bishop of Rome who was Linus. In the
first list of Irenaeus), with reference to the early pontiffs of Rome, Peter was left
out of the lineup. In subsequent references, he began to be included as the first
bishop, preceding Linus, Anacletus, Clement and Evaristus, etc. It is significant
to note, for example, that Eusebius says, "Linus was the first to obtain the
episcopate of the Church at Rome" (Ibid. 1:416). Irenaeus writes, "The blessed
apostles, then, having founded and built up the church, committed into the hands
of Linus the office of episcopate" (Ibid. 415). Yes, the early lists of bishops are
very explicit in listing Linus as the first bishop, and yet, in the quote from
Rufinus already cited, it is clear that some considered Clement to be Peter's
direct successor but distinguished as late as the end of the fourth century between
the office of bishop and apostle.
There may be some justification for the conclusion that Peter took on the role of
presiding bishop as well as apostolic president, but there is no evidence that he
telescoped all of the apostolate into the bishopric. This was accomplished by
subsequent Christian leaders. Thus, history leaves us with several unanswered
questions.
The issue of Petrine authority in Rome is further confounded by the fact that the
Apostle Paul seems to have played a very prominent role. The question may well
be asked: If Peter was the authority in Rome, and spoke for the church from
Rome, did not Paul exercise apostolic authority and counsel also, since the letters
to the early church, for the most part, were written by Paul, some, apparently
from Rome? Could there have been a Pauline congregation or branch in Rome,
contemporary with that of Peter's? There is also a further complication in the
matter of establishing the Petrine authorship of the letters ascribed to Peter. With
the exception of some adamant Catholic writers, many scholars today, including
some Latter-day Saint authors, are inclined to refute the Petrine authority of the
epistles of Peter primarily on the basis of an anachronism because they contain
information and make reference to things not associated with his time but with a
later period. With reference to such anachronisms and similar problems, one
Latter-day Saint author has the following to say:
Scholars are divided as to the time when [1 Peter] was written. . . . The chief reason
which makes scholars regard the letter as not from Peter is the remarkably high
quality of the Greek, the close similarity and even dependence upon not only the
thought, but even the language of Paul's Letters (at that time not yet collected). And
most difficult of all is the problem of the persecution itself. There was no known
outbreak during the life of Peter, even the attack of Nero, which could in any sense
be called widespread as was the situation of the saints to whom this epistle was
addressed ("Acts and Epistles" 264-84).
With further reference to 2 Peter, the work continues to justify such a
conclusion:
No New Testament document is more obviously the work of another hand than that
of its purported author. . . . From 2:1-23 it follows quite literally the account of
Jude 4-18. It is inconceivable that the Apostle Peter would have to depend upon a
secondary source like that for his teachings (Ibid.)
If Peter died in the Neronian persecution at Rome, and the letters ascribed to him
were composed in a later period, then obviously Peter could not have written
them. Thus the controversies and questions posed with reference to this problem
make for interesting study, but the theories and purported answers have never
provided conclusive evidence for the support of one position or another (Ibid.) It
is significant, however, to note that Rome assumed this general role of
superintendency quite gracefully, and emerged gradually as the mother church.
In the very earliest centuries there is evidence of an attempt to claim this
exclusive role. On the other hand, there were frequent attempts made to resist the
exercise of it on the part of Rome. It was not until much later that the Roman
church could proceed without fear of counterclaims against its assumption of
Petrine priority and Roman supremacy.
Certain incidents stand out in which Rome began to emerge, in the thinking of
the Catholic church, as the ecclesia, or the church built upon the rockthe rock
of the authority vested in Peter.
By 1909, however, there was divided opinion even among Catholic writers as to
the explicit establishment of the church on the rock. For example, of about 85
Catholic Fathers polled, 17 regarded Peter as the rock; 44 regarded Peter's
confession, that is, his faith, as the rock; 16 felt that Christ himself was the rock;
and 8 were of the opinion that the church is built upon all of the Apostles
(Drummelow 681).
What are some of the situations in which Rome did begin to emerge as the
ecclesia built upon the rock? Some have contended that Clement's epistle from
Rome to Corinth, written about A.D. 96, implies more than mere counsel and,
indeed, could be interpreted as an assumption of superintendency and authority
at that early time. Clement was the third of the popes according to Irenaeus, and
his letter is, perhaps, one of the most interesting of the early noncanonical
writings relative to the New Testament era. It reveals a great deal of information
and is considered by some to be one of the finest writings to come out of this
period. He was, possibly, the first bishop of Rome to issue what we would call
an encyclicala letter from Rome explaining the counsel and instruction of the
bishop there in certain matters. Others have failed to recognize that any such
assertion of Roman primacy is even implied in the letter.
About the same time, the peculiar position of the bishop was acknowledged by
Ignatius of Antioch in his famous letter which was written about A.D. 107, on
the eve of his martyrdom (Petry 9). Although the Roman traditionalists have held
that Ignatius had in mind the bishop of Rome, there is no explicit reference to
him as such.
Reference has already been made to the first list of Irenaeus which shows Linus
as first bishop of Rome, but it also indicates instances in which his successors
attempted, very early, to play the role of general superintendents. Shortly
thereafter, in the time of Victor I (Victor I being about the thirteenth or
fourteenth pope, reigning during the years A.D. 189-198), there is a striking
example of Roman authority which was exercised to compel the apostolic church
of Ephesus in matters of liturgy (Fremantle 36-38). And, it has been asserted that
around A.D. 249, Saint Cyprian of Carthage was influenced by the counsel of the
bishop of Rome, who was also credited with correcting the theology of the
bishop of Alexandria.
Among these accounts there are also the examples of both resistance to such
central assertion of authority, and of situations in which other churches have
asserted authority. An example is the later period of Saint Ambrose of Milan.
There is no question but that he was the great leading light and figure of the
church of that time. A man who not only controlled emperors and dominated the
society and happenings around him, Ambrose is a rather impressive example of
what could happen in the early church. He was not even a Christian when he
supervised the election of a new bishop in the city of Milanat that time bishops
were elected by the voice of the people as well as by the voice of the clergy.
However, Roman governmental agents referred the church electors and,
Ambrose, working for the governmentattempting to find out the wishes and
the will of the people in this respectwas inquiring around the great hall of
Milan. In the midst of his supervisory work there, some child from the gallery
seems to have spotted him and cried out, "Ambrose is Bishop." The words
electrified the people. The chant was taken up and the whole electorate was fired
with enthusiasm. Ambrose, who was not even a member of the church, was
elected bishop of Milan by acclamation. Of course, the formalities of baptism
were duly seen to and he was consecrated to take over the position. So it
happened, that in a very early period of the church, at the beginning of the fourth
century, a Christian convert bishop, who did not live in Rome and was not of the
See of Peter, was more influential in the church and had greater power and
influence than any of his contemporaries, including the Pope.
There are, of course, other instances of influence outside Rome, particularly in
the Eastern church, where an autonomous attitude was persistently maintained.
Nevertheless, Rome did begin to emerge as the mother church. This may have
been, in part, due to Rome's unique position as hub of the empire, at least until
Constantine's removal of the capital to Byzantium. And, even when the
assumption of primacy met with resistance, there were enough times when it was
asserted with authority and backing that Rome perpetuated herself in this role.
The significant thing is that the church did eventually emerge with emphasis on
the authority of the See of Peter. The episcopate of Rome began to appear, to
most of Christendom, to be the seat of government of the whole church.
Because of Rome's distinctive position in the West and the church's support of
the state, the eventual instrusion of politics helped to solidify the Roman
primary. Yet, still unanswered by the historians, however, was the question, was
the church built upon Peter in Rome or upon revelation to and through the chief
apostle wherever he might have been?
The ecclesiological emphasis up to this point has not accounted for the process
by which certain foreign elements crept into the Christian movement, with the
gospel itself evolving into a philosophical doctrine as well as a theological
pattern. With the persistent attempt to identify not only Peter, but also the central
life source of the whole movement with Rome, the outcome would be inevitable.
The Roman way of life, with its many cultural componentsincluding some
Greek enlightenment and nominal portions of the religion of Jesuseventually
became synonomous with the increasingly popular, though clandestine, religion
known as Christianity.
Notes and References
1. David O. McKay, Ancient Apostles (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1964, p. 89.
After relating the story from the apocryphal Acts of Peter, Book 35, of Peter's returning
to Rome after meeting the Lord, the author suggests that, if it is true, it is based on
legend and tradition. Many assert that where Mark was, there also was Peter, since Mark
was his secretary. Several references in the scriptures have Mark in Rome. Whether
written by Peter or not, 1 Peter 5:13 has Peter referring to Mark as "my son." "[The
Church] that is in Babylon (i.e. Rome), elect together with you, saluteth you, and so
doth Mark my son." In Revelations 17:5, 18, "Babylon"/Rome, that Mother of Harlots
"the great city which reigneth over the Kings of the earth."




4
THE HISTORY
According to Luke, the disciples of Jesus were first called Christians in the city
of Antioch. And by coincidence, it was also in Antioch that the term catholic was
first used by Bishop Ignatius in his epistle to the Smyrnaeans. About A.D. 107,
he wrote with reference to the mainstream of Christianity, "Nobody must do
anything that has to do with the Church without the Bishop's approval . . . where
the Bishop is present, there let the congregation gather just as where Jesus Christ
is, there is the Catholic Church" (Petry 10).
Before it formally became a part of the identifying label of the Christian church,
the word catholic was used as a descriptive, uncapitalized adjective meaning the
universal or worldwide church, as opposed to a local community's branch or
congregation.
With the gradual strengthening of the power of the bishops, and a tendency on
the part of some to look to Rome as the hub of the Church, as well as capital of
the empire, a corresponding assertion by the bishop of Rome of his right to
superintend the other bishops would provide the substructure, the fundament of
the institution which would subsequently be known as the papacy.
Before the close of the third century, the word Catholic, now capitalized, had
become a recognized part of the identifying label for the bulk of Christianity. It
also set it apart as being orthodox and official in contrast to any heretical or
unorthodox movements.
An end to many decades of hostility and persecution, which had kept the Church
underground, was finally reached in the early part of the fourth century A.D.
when Emperor Constantine and his associates issued the edict of toleration (Edict
of Milan, A.D. 313).
Under imperial protection, but with some notable exceptions, the Catholic
church expanded rapidly throughout this period of the Roman Empire. It was an
official act of Constantine in that same century, however, that laid the foundation
for the traditional Roman Catholic church as we know it, although it eventually
separated from the Eastern or Greek church. By turning the imperial attention
away from Rome and by moving the capital of the empire from Rome to
Byzantium (A.D. 330), Constantine left Rome to its bishop.
Over the centuries, with persistent, but not unchallenged assertion of central
authority, the Roman bishop acquired the title of papa or pope, father of fathers,
father of bishops, and other secular and political titles. The traditional concept of
the papacy as the supreme hierarchical authority of the Roman Catholic church
was well established in the early part of the Middle Ages.
When Constantine moved the capital of the Roman Empire to Byzantium in the
East and established the new capital, Constantinople, Rome declined as a
commercial and political center. There are those historians who tell us that it was
reduced in population within a matter of a few short years, becoming a mere
"ghost town" of its former self. But, while declining as a political and economic
hub, it became the religious and, betimes, the cultural center of the West.
The bishop of Rome particularly, because of the very lack of a strong political,
temporal authority in the West, stepped in to fill the void of authority, thus
strengthening the power of the Roman See even more. After the death of
Constantine, there continued a definite trend towards centralization with the
bishop of Rome assuming a dual role, not only as the ecclesiastical and religious
leader of the people, but also as a secular authority in matters political and
temporal. Two of the most striking examples are Pope Leo I and Gregory I. Both
men represent excellent examples of great medieval figures, filling the role of the
bishop of Rome in the best tradition of the popes. Of all of the approximately
264 men who have come into this position in its history, only three of them have
been given the title "The Great" by the Catholic church. Two of these men, Leo
the Great and Gregory the Great, played out their respective roles between the
age of Constantine and the age of Charlemagneor the rise of the Holy
Roman Empire. Leo was a man with great ability and even greater determination
who sought to strengthen the position of the church at Rome. He established the
precedent of the popes as great letter writers, whereas, prior to his time, with few
exceptions, the bishops of Rome had left very little evidence of their leadership
via this medium. He is also credited with stabilizing the relationship between the
church and the new Christian emperors.
A century and a half later, Gregory I, a successor in the papal office, was also
confronted with the problem of perpetuating the power of the papacy in the
matter of superintendency and Roman supremacy. The time span separating
these great figures, between the middle of the fifth century and the end of the
sixth, was filled with lesser lights whose contributions were, by contrast,
sometimes negative; but the whole age reflects, to some degree, the issues and
problems identified with the "great ones." There was a constant conflict
concerning the issue of the primacy of the See of Peter over the other churches,
particularly with the patriarchates of the East. Although, there existed a generally
close tie between the patriarchs and the emperors of the East, there was not the
same congenial compatibility between the emperors and the bishop or the pope
at Rome. In fact, it is a matter of historical record that the Emperor Mauritius
referred to Gregory as "that simpleton." In several instances there was assertion
of authority in opposition to Rome. Notwithstanding the emperor's unflattering
reference to the pope, Gregory, a man of some prestige and affluence, heir to
much of the wealth of one of the great families of Rome, was an outstanding
example of personal piety and humility not always apparent in either his
predecessors or those who came after him. He sold all that he could turn into
money, gave the rest to the poor, took the money and established monasteries,
and became a monk in one of them himself. Gradually, he rose up through the
ranks to become the pope, although for years he declined the honor and resisted
the attempt to put him into the "chair of Peter." He was a man who wanted no
high position. He sought no office and yet he became one of the leading religious
figures of the entire Christian tradition. However, after he had once been
installed in the papal office - to make of this responsibility nothing less than a
divine calling, something which was to be before the world the actual
representation of God on earth - he added dignity and prestige to the papal name.
Once he had ascended to the throne of the See of Peter, he dealt steadfastly with
all who sought to undermine his position, and he defended his office with all
firmness. He is noted for his attack upon Donatism in Africa. His refusal to
recognize the patriarch of Constantinople as ecumenical proved to be one of the
acts which widened the split between East and West. He was able to deal with
the attacking Lombards after the imperial exarch, the representative of the crown
in the West, had failed. Because of his particular way of doing things, together
with his interest in music, in literature, and his versatility in general, he actually
shaped the history of the church for centuries. So influential was he, and such a
great figure, that even the emperors of his time fared rather shabbily by
comparison in terms of the imprint they made on history. He was one who stood
out for his time.
He established rules for the lives of the clergy, sent missionaries to England, and
wrote much and well. He enjoined the members of the church to keep their lives
sanctified before God, and implored and appealed to the clergy to live lives of
saints. He instructed the other bishops in their responsibilities as to pastoral care
and contributed to the development of what we know as the Gregorian chant
which remains in the liturgy of the Roman mass even in modern times.
These two men have been singled out for special attention because they present a
traditional image of the popes in this early power-struggle setting, particularly in
their relationship to other bishops and other centers of Christian influence.
Beginning with the middle of the eighth century, there was a great deal of papal
discord. Pope Paul I was succeeded in 757 by Constantine, who was a layman of
the military party. Little more than a century later, there began, with the murder
of Pope John VIII, such a constant turnover of popes so that thirty-seven popes
came to the throne of Peter within a period of about 160 years. These popes were
identified with an age where there was little regard for the things to which the
papacy had previously been dedicated.
The final split between the culturally incompatible Eastern and Roman churches
did not come until the eleventh century. Notwithstanding recurrent periods of
infamy within its hierarchical ranks, including an age of great worldliness, the
Roman Catholic church emerged from the Middle Ages as the all-embracing
Christian establishment of Central and Western Europe. It had acquired a
sacerdotal image consistent with the sacramentalism and ritual which made up a
large part of its system, and the pope was the predominant and crowning figure
of that image as it was projected to the world.
The Protestant Reformation of the sixteenth century was directed mostly against
that highly developed sacramentalism by protestors who wanted to return to
early medieval emphasis upon salvation by grace and justification by faith. The
protestors believed that man had a direct relationship to God, without the indirect
channeling of grace from God to the individual, both through the pope, and
through the sacraments and ordinances over which he presided.
Despite the great inroads made by that Protestant Reformation and the resulting
breakdown of the medieval monolithic church, Roman Catholicism experienced
its own revival and reform. It eventually recovered some of the territory lost to
Protestantism and, through renewed zeal and missionary effort, continued into
our own time as the largest of all Christian denominations of the world.
With its headquarters at the Vatican, a city of 108 acres within the city of Rome,
it has established dioceses (bishoprics) in every corner of the world where clergy
and missionaries have had contact with people.
Historically, it seems to have been able to gain adherents in one part of the world
when there have been losses in other parts. Within the last three decades, the
gradual, and at times abrupt, decline of influence in places such as Asia or in
eastern European countries has been offset in part by the rise of Catholic
influence in America and other areas.
Still at the head of the church today is the pope, who, as bishop of Rome, claims
direct apostolic succession from Peter as representative or Vicar of Christ on
earth, with full authority to preside over the whole of Christendom. He is elected
to the office by the College of Cardinals assembled in conclave after the death of
his predecessor.
Thus, over the centuries, the bishops of Rome have come and gone, but the
institution of the papacy has endured the erosion of time and weathered the
storms of circumstance and human relationships.
Like a roster of kings in a vast time-encompassing dynasty, the men who have
occupied the throne of Peter have been listed in chronological order by those
who presume to account for such things. So-called official and unofficial listings,
both including and excluding the anti-popes (those not recognized subsequently
as "true popes"), tend, after centuries of examination and inflection by degrees of
comparison and contrast, to contain the same names in approximately the same
order. About 264 pontiffs have been recognized as "true popes"; the roll usually
begins with Peter and ends in our time with the currently presiding Pope John
Paul II.
Among those who have attempted to account, historically, for the biographies of
the popes, only the most recent have succeeded in maintaining some degree of
acceptable standards of objectivity and scientific disclosures of the available
data. Early lists of the Roman bishops had been prepared by chronographers,
such as the second century Irenaeus, bishop of Lyon. But Eusebius of Caesarea
(c. 263-339), in his Ecclesiastical History, probably produced the first account of
what might reasonably be called - within its scope - a papal history. However,
his strong Arian leanings, together with certain other prejudices recognized by
students and scholars since the earliest times, have weakened his reliability as an
objective historian.
More than a thousand years later, Pope Sixtus IV, in the midst of scandalous
nepotism and simony, which at that time corrupted the hierarchy of the church,
appointed Bartolomeo Sachi - known as Platina - to the office of director of the
Vatican library and commissioned him to write a history of the popes. Needless
to say, the spirit of the time and Platina's personal involvement in the scandals of
Rome would taint the work, however authentic and scholarly it might otherwise
have been. Not only did he deliberately distort the image of the former Pope Paul
II, whom he despised, but the manner in which he dealt with the complete
absence of data concerning some of the popes of the first two centuries was
manifestly irresponsible. Whereas both Catholic and Protestant modern writers
have had the integrity to acknowledge in specific instances, "There are no
records of his pontificate" (Kuhner 6-7). Platina took the liberty of inventing data
and of padding a page or two wherever it seemed necessary.
A Lutheran reformer, Matthius Flacius, wrote prolificly on Christian history in
the sixteenth century and exposed a great deal of historical error and useless
tradition found in the prior Catholic versions, but his Protestant bias corrupted, at
least partially, an otherwise valuable contribution. In that same century, a general
Catholic reaction to the work of Flacius inspired the effort by the Vatican
librarian, Caesar Baronius, who between the years 1588 and 1607 completed his
monumental twelve-volume history of the church and the papacy through the
twelfth century. This great work, one of the first genuine attempts to write
history from an objective viewpoint, was somewhat marred by errors of
ignorance, not intent. Nineteenth- and twentieth-century writers, including the
two great German classicists, Leopold von Ranke and Ludwig von Pastor, have
finally unfolded for the world, in multi-volume contributions and in objective
scholarly fashion, the story of this at once famous and infamous institution.
From these materials, and from other extant primary sources, it has been possible
to form both a collective and individual image of these "successors" of the
fisherman, and to answer questions about their background, social status,
nationality, education, spirituality, worldliness, personal weaknesses and
strengths.
The chief interests of some have been intellectual and ethical rather than
theological, while others pursued political and material interests instead of
religious ones. There have been statesmen, reformers, humanitarians, educators,
and arts patrons. But there have also been those whose personalities and
examples have elicited contempt and disrespect, not because of their lowly
origins and pedigrees, but because of apparent deficiencies of character and
ability.
Whereas the official title of the pope is a highly exalting one, some have been
given much less complimentary appellations by their associates or biographers,
contemporary or subsequent. Some records describe Pius II as a "reformed rake,"
while "Peter Pig's Mouth" was a nickname attached to Sergius IV (Brusher 286,
416). It was said of the economist Pope John XXII, who manipulated high
finance during his pontificate, that he was, indeed, the Bankier des Heiligen
Stuhles (Banker of the Holy Chair or Holy See; Gontard 319). At the conclusion
of the conclave which put Jacques Fourrier in "Peter's Chair" as the newly
elected Benedict XII, he declared of himself, "You have elected a jackass"
(Brusher 390).
It is true that most have come from the clerical and priestly ranks or from the
monasteries. But some have been laymen, totally lacking in preparation or
training for such an office.
Any assumption that religious leadership and ecclesiastics have been exclusively
the concern and preoccupation of priests and theologians ignores hundreds of
years of history. It also forgets that religion has been a human experience
responsible for much of the worst examples of man's inhumanity to men. The
popes have had their share in this.
There have been more Italians or Romans than any other nationality. However,
the Greeks, the French, the Syrians and Germans have all contributed several to
the papacy. At least two or more Spaniards, Africans, Sicilians, Portuguese and
Sardinians have all aspired to wear the tiara, together with one from each of
several other countries.
The names of these men, both the Christian names and the assumed new names,
or papal names, have been as diverse as their nationalities and backgrounds.
Twenty-three "true" popes have used the name John as have some anti-popes
who were not officially recognized. Several have used the names Paul, Pius,
Adrian, Gregory, Felix, Benedict, Clement, Leo or Nicholas.
Some of them took the world by its economic, political and moral tethers and
shook it a bit. Their wisdom and benevolence have blessed respective
generations while their mistakes and blunders have brought the world time and
again to the brink of self-destruction. Their perspectives toward such human
enterprises as education, economics, civics and even charity were as varied in
detail as their backgrounds. Yet, most were Christian idealists.
But, to view them as merely pious, sanctimonious, timorous souls would belie
their humanity and ignore the recorded examples of disposition to heresy, anger,
despair, skepticism, and the temptations of the flesh.
Many of them wrote much, but very little of it could have made its way to the
best seller list in any age, though some of it has become classic in theological
contexts. They have been bound together through the centuries not by their
personalities, nor religious conviction, neither by fidelity to each other, but rather
by common commitment to the idea of the papacy itself - that was the common
denominator.




5
RENDER UNTO CAESAR
The unresolved struggle going on, seemingly, since the beginning of time
between Caesar and God, or the church and the state, has kept the papacy in
perpetual alternations of agony and ecstasy almost since the moment of its
inception. No one particular institution always fits into either of these patterns,
but it might be assumed, at least nominally, that in our western culture, the
Christian church has historically represented the spiritual forces which have been
in conflict with the materialistic, temporal forces identified with the idea of
political government generally. More specifically, there has been an actual
struggle between the popes of the Roman church and contemporary political
governments and figures with whom they came in contact. The idea of "render
unto Caesar" implies that there were times when the popes were under some kind
of compulsion to conform to the will of the state. However, the study of their
history reveals that very frequently the opposite was true.
In analytical perspective then, we are concerned with a study of the inconstant
vacillating positions of both of these elements of the culture. And although the
Caesaro-papal conflict has been a perpetual part of the unfolding western cultural
drama, certain particular struggles have captured historical attention, especially
those with implications for the assumption of political and temporal power on
the part of the Roman pontiffs. Politics with religious overtones - religion with
political overtones - how do they mix?
There are other implications as well. With what propriety does the person who
assumes ascendancy and primacy in a position of ecclesiastical, theological,
religious and spiritual leadership enhance this position as a spiritual leader of the
people, with the added acquisition of strong political powers and the
accumulation of wealth and temporal domain?
The reign of Constantine marked the beginning of several examples of struggle
for power distinctive enough to punctuate with emphasis the spirit of the time.
The bishops of Rome, during the administration of Constantine in the early part
of the fourth century, were relatively weak individuals with very little power and
authority, except that which was accorded them by those who governed
politically. Constantine controlled the situation with a firm hold on not only
political and temporal affairs, but religious as well.
The emperor was one of those so-called great figures of Christian history whose
claim to greatness certainly did not in any way rest upon the fact that he was a
man of the cloth or a theologian or any pillar of virtue. And yet, his life so
modified and conditioned the turn of events in Christian history that it was
inextricably interwoven into the fabric of the church itself. It was because of him
that many events transpired, which without him might never have taken place,
and certain conditions maintained and made possible which otherwise would not
have been likely. Therefore, it is reasonable to lay the measuring stick alongside
the life of the man and make the pragmatic assessment as to what difference it
would otherwise have made to the direction of Christian history, or to the history
of the papacy, had this man never lived.
Although this Csaro-papal conflict began with Constantine, the problem was
aggravated and re-emphasized again during the reign of Leo the Great and
subsequently in the administration of Pope Gregory the Great, whose respective
papal reigns overlapped the fifth through the seventh centuries.
In the case of Constantine, he was strong enough to tell the bishops what to do,
to control the acceptance and rejection of doctrine by the church, and to establish
and annunciate the official position of the church even though he was not yet a
baptized Christian.
In Leo the Great (440-461), the church had a leader who definitely was able to
assert effectively the authority of the Roman bishop. The emperor, now resident
in the East, was not strong. The projection of his authority in the West was even
weaker, and with the intrusion of the invading Huns and the approach of Atilla to
the gates of Rome, Leo I stepped in to fill the void of temporal power. Atilla
with half a million troops had crossed the Rhine, plundering and burning as he
moved towards Rome. The Visigoths were forced to unite with the Romans, and
eventually Atilla attacked Italy. Many cities fell and, as he stood before the gates
of Rome ready to sack the city, it was Leo, the bishop, who went out and met
him at the gates or at his camp on Lake Garda. There Leo stood up in all the
majesty of his office and warned Atilla of the wrath of God that had befallen
Alaric after his desecration of the Holy City. The great invader, Atilla, withdrew
from before this imposing figure who displayed such assurance, a man who
spoke as one having authority. Whether it was because of his superstitious fear
of the claim of Leo, or because he was actually impressed with the sincerity of
the man, is not known. In any event, he withdrew.
On a subsequent occasion, Leo attempted to deal again with the plundering
hoards of the vandal pirates. He was not successful this time; they paid no heed
to him. However, in his effort, there was to be seen a determined presumption on
the part of the pope to assert authority not only as an ecclesiastic but also in
matters of political and secular influence.
Some lesser irregularities were apparent in the power struggle both among the
leaders of the church hierarchy and in the relationship of church and state in the
period subsequent to this, but they were symptomatic of things yet to come
rather than examples of designed Csaro-papal conflict.
By the middle of the eighth century, great factional disputes among the feudal
Italian nobility began to be common-place. The object of contention was the
potential political and secular power apparent in the office of the pope of Rome.
To bring this power under political control and patronage would be of
tremendous advantage to any one of the several contending noblemen.
This was also the time of the rise to power of a new Roman Empire in the West.
And, although there had been a temporary period of congenial compatibility
which brought about a relationship of cordial exchange of support between
church and state, the power struggle continued.
The ninth century was the beginning of the age of Charlemagne and the rise of
the Frankish kings in the West. The very lack of civil authority and politically
significant leaders in the West made possible the rise to the papacy of some of
the more effective popes. The papacy declined again in influence, resulting in the
formation of certain groups - military cliques and parties of the Lombards,
Normans and factions of the Italian-Roman noblemen. These people took sides
in their allegiance to the papacy or their rejection of the particular individual who
was in office at the time. Frequently, the papacy became a political plum and its
occupant was selected on a basis of political expediency or prestige.
In 751, with the consent of Pope Zacharias, Pepin the Short, father of
Charlemagne, drove Childeric III, last of the Merovingian kings, from the
Frankish throne. Forced to retire to a monastery, Childeric suffered the final
indignity of having to relinquish his throne to his adversary Pepin, who was the
first king in history to be anointed and crowned twice, first by a representative of
the pope, and later, by Pope Zacharias himself.
In his thrust to the East, in defense of Rome against the Lombards, Pepin
donated to the papacy the wrested city of Ravenna along with other territories,
thus helping to establish the papal states over which the pope would reign not
only with ecclesiastical presidency, but as an absolute monarch in the strictest
secularly sovereign meaning of the term. It was also during the administration of
Stephen II, successor to Zacharias, that the notorious forgery "donation of
Constantine" was counterfeited in an attempt to bolster the papal claims to the
endowment of lands in the fourth century known as the "Patrimony of St. Peter."
With the death of Pepin in 768, Charlemagne and his younger brother took over
regal control. They shared a divided realm for three years until Carloman died in
771, leaving Charlemagne as uncontested king of the Franks. As he moved
eastward among the Saxons and the Lombards, and into Italy, he conquered as he
went and it became obvious that he was a man of great influence and power. His
father and the Frankish kings had been loyal to the institution of the papacy. As
dutiful Catholics they had sought to perpetuate its power and influence. Thus, by
virtue of his background, Charlemagne was also destined to fit the role of a
Catholic prince very well. Before he had reached the gates of Rome, however,
the powers of political intrigue and treachery inside of Rome were seeking to
unseat Pope Leo III, who appealed to the advancing prince for assistance.
Charlemagne still had before him the completion of the military campaign which
would eventually bring him to Rome, and he sent word to Pope Leo to wait and
be patient. In the meantime, he considered the counterclaims of those seeking to
take the papal throne away from Leo III and decided in favor of Leo. Although
Leo III was an average pope, there being nothing very great about him, he was
apparently as deserving of the office as anyone else at that time; so Charlemagne
officially installed Leo as the bishop of Rome, seeing to it that he had the
acknowledgement of others in this calling. As a counter gesture, the pope, with
the authority which he claimed was vested in him as Vicar of Christ and as the
Prince of the Church, officially crowned Charlemagne the first of the Holy
Roman emperors on Christmas Day in the year 800 in Rome. This was the
beginning of another period of very close relationship and compatibility between
the papacy and the government.
There was a great possibility for revival and renewed growth under Charlemagne
because as he went out conquering all of continental Europe and even the
islands, he was "Christianizing" as he went. He imposed a compulsory
proselyting program - those who were conquered had the Christian faith forced
upon them and were compelled, by imperial edict, to confess Christianity. Thus
the whole church moved into new territory behind the military thrust of the
expanding Holy Roman Empire. Each new conquest made possible the further
expansion of Christianity and, of course, the accompanying prestige and power
of the pope. Unfortunately, Charlemagne had no successors of the same caliber,
the same ability to deal with the church, and at the same time deal wisely with
the people who came under their administration. Eventually, the Carolingians, as
they were called, died out and lost their authority. Again, there was a temporary
lapse of power of the Holy Roman Empire. It was not effectively reestablished
until the time of Otto in the tenth century in Germany.
Then there began a period of constant conflict between the popes and the
German emperors. This reached a climax in the eleventh century when
Hildebrand came into the papacy and fought it out with King Henry IV, who
stood in the snow for three days asking for forgiveness before the gates of the
castle at Canossa, where the pope was spending a vacation. Before this
forgiveness was bestowed, the king was compelled to crawl in a prostrate
manner through the entire cathedral up to the feet of the pope, and kiss his feet.
Only then was he received back into communion in the church. Henry had been
excommunicated because of his refusal to recognize the power of the pope over
the kings. It was the contention of Hildebrand that since the church controlled
the sacraments and since even the princes, the rulers and sovereigns, needed the
sacraments for salvation, there was thus circumstantial ascendancy of the church
over any temporal authority. Even kings must of necessity bow to the rule of
Jesus Christ, and the authority vested in the church to administer the sacraments.
Therefore, the pope had the right to withhold the sacraments from those who
would not accede to his influence and desires in ecclesiastical and doctrinal
matters.
This particular struggle between church and state also focused attention on the
issue of whether or not a monarch has the right to install a bishop, or to function
in ecclesiastical matters in any manner whatsoever, an issue complicated by the
question of simony - the buying and selling of church office. Should a lay
member, who has never had any training in the duties of the clergy or in
theology, be called to an office in the church, either as a bishop or a priest,
because of political patronage or because the ruling sovereign of a given area
decides that it should be so for purposes of political expediency? This
controversy waged continuously into the period of the reformation, but had spent
itself considerably by the end of the papal reign of Innocent III (1198-1216).
Nevertheless, we find that the conflict later resumed between the French King
Phillip IV (1268-1314) and Boniface VII, who represent the end of this period.
Never again would the papacy be as strong as it had been during the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries. The Renaissance popes, who were weaklings for the most
part, preceded the age of reform and the beginning of the modern period. On the
other hand, almost without exception, the popes in more recent times have been
men of character, men of greatness. As pious religionists, they have attempted to
serve the needs of the people and to function in keeping with a more religious
interpretation of the position of the pope of Rome. Yet, even in the twentieth
century, the controversy - the so-called Csaro-papal conflicthas continued;
this time, in the struggle of the church against communism, fascism, and nazism.
In the United States today, in spite of a recent decline in the annual rate of
membership growth, there are about fifty million Roman Catholics. Together
with other denominational groups, they are part of a continuing problem which
aggravates or enunciates the age-old issue as to what shall be the relationship
between the state and the church. In a place like America, where separation of
church and state has been established, traditionally, by the Constitution, there are
always questions being raised as to how justice might best be served if certain
controversial issues were to surface. When there is a preponderance of members
of the Catholic church in a given area, or members of The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints, should the interests of the majority be subverted for the
sake of the minority? Would there be a strain on the traditions of American
representative government? It has always been maintained in this country, since
the very earliest days, that it just might be impossible that a Catholic would be
elected president. In the election of John F. Kennedy, that false assumption was
laid to rest.
Frequently, people from certain churches, who have attempted to aspire to
positions of prominence in the federal government, have been challenged on the
basis of their loyalty or allegiance. The question has often been raised, "where is
the loyalty or the allegiance of this man? Is it to his church, to the hierarchal
authority of his church, or would it be to the government of the United States in a
matter of decision wherein he had to choose one or the other?" These questions
are being raised again and again wherever there is a strong sense of the need to
preserve the principle of separation of church and state.
Other problems have developed because of attempts which have been made to
defame popes and potentates by identification with certain scriptural references,
or with certain unsavory or disreputable titles. In Revelation 13:18, there is
reference made to the mark of the beast, and it is identified with the number 666.
The book of Revelation is one of those apocalyptic writings which presents, for
many, a rather formidable challenge in the area of scripture interpretation: it is
practically unfathomable. There is no question but that much of its meaning was
hidden and intended to be meaningful only to those who were acquainted with
the code which perhaps would untangle it. But traditionally, there has been an
attempt to try to identify the man who has the mark of the beast, the one who has
the number 666. Many Bible scholars are in agreement that the author of the
book of Revelation might possibly have had reference to Nero. By this reasoning
Nero was the great beast of Babylon, the one who persecuted Christians, and the
one who was the murderer of Peter and Paul in the thinking of early Christians,
the one responsible for the great struggle that the church was going to have to
face to survive. There is, perhaps, reasonably good evidence to support this early
claim that the reference made by the author of the book of Revelation to the man
who has the mark of the beast, the man whose number is 666, was indeed Nero
Caesar.
If Nero's name is written in Greek and the letters given their numerical
equivalent, it comes out with some modification to the number 666. If it is used
in Latin, one can leave the "n" off the end of it, change the letters to the Hebrew
equivalents, and then take the Hebrew equivalents of the numbers represented by
these letters, and it again comes out 666. To the thinking person the employment
of numerology in matters such as this is an irrational but age-old practice.
Therefore, it certainly was not confined to this particular period or to
numerological manipulation.
Another example during the reformation period involved Albrecht, who had
purchased the archbishopric of Mainz. He already held two other bishoprics in
defiance of the established policy of the church. Moreover, such avarice was
considered a serious sin, therefore requiring suitable penance. Negotiations were
entered into as to the amount he would have to pay in charity to the church in
order to obtain forgiveness. The pope suggested twelve thousand ducats in
memory of the twelve Apostles. Albrecht countered with seven thousand ducats
representing the seven deadly sins. They finally compromised for ten thousand
ducats, without specifying whether it was in memory of the Ten Commandments
or the ten virgins.
Numerology has been employed in various enterprises, but perhaps the most
historically humanitarian significance for the number 666 was in the
employment of it to designate the experiment by Dr. Paul Ehrlich, which resulted
in the effective treatment of syphilis. This may have been more meaningful for
humanity than the use of the number in the field of denominational religion.
Nevertheless, denominational devotees have been undaunted in their pursuit of
the identity of him who bears the mark of the beast. The Adventists have
attempted to identify it with the popes of Rome. The inscription on the tiara or
the crown of the pope of Rome is Vicarius Filii Dei, the Vicar or representative
of the Son of God. It is a simple matter to take the equivalent of the Roman
numerals which are in these words: D equals five hundred, I is one, C is one
hundred, the V and the U being the same in Latin are both fives, the L is a fifty,
and added all together it comes out 666. It is, by their calculation, obviously the
pope of Rome to whom the book of Revelation has reference. One knotty point
left in dispute, however, is the obvious question of what to do with the other
letters which do not fit into the formula and are left over.
To retaliate, some German Catholics decided that the formula would work
equally well if applied to the Adventists. If one takes the German-Latin
composite for the Adventists, Adventisten Apocalypsen, and the international
initials of their names, UNFVG, it adds up to 666 and so the Adventist is
obviously the one referred to in the book of Revelation.
We do not know for sure what was meant by the numerology in the book of
Revelation. Apparently, John may have been attempting to confuse certain
unbelievers and yet, at the same time, to make clear to those who knew what his
numbers were intended to imply, the identification of someone; maybe the head
of state, or who knows, maybe an apostate bishop.
In summary, the age-old struggle between the church and state, between Caesar
and God, has never been conclusively settled; it continues on. In spite of the
periods of decline and the loss of prestige and influence by the papacy at times,
that institution is still with us; whereas, its historical opponents have one by one
passed on into oblivion. Nations have come and gone, kings have been toppled
from their thrones, Hitlers and Mussolinis have come to tragic end and empires
have declined and fallen in the throes of the struggle to survive, but many roads
somehow still seem to lead to Rome.












6
PONTIFFS, PALACES AND PORNOCRACY:
A GODLESS AGE
The godless age of pornocracy and the infamy of its leaders has frequently been
the favorite theme of those who have sought to oppose the papacy and its
position in Christian history. The term itself is obviously denigrating and might
imply many things. And, although the most desirable method of approach to the
study of a great institution - and the history of the idea or concept which has
perpetuated it through the ages - would be to avoid entirely all disparaging
biographical references, and to steer clear of burdening this great system with the
imperfections of its individuals, the scope and dimension of the situation place it
beyond the point of passing over without notice.
In the history of the papacy we find singular instances, here and there, of popes
who did not measure up to the dignity and trust of their callings. We also find a
period of nearly three hundred years during which an almost constant line of
disgraceful, sensual, despots ascended the "throne of Peter" allowing only brief
intervals of relief. Needless to say, a whole block of history cannot be ignored
entirely. It would not serve the interests of history itself to refuse to admit that it
was there, or that it happened. Even the most ardent Catholic writers, who are
dedicated to the preservation of the dignity of the papacy and who are inclined to
try to minimize as much as possible the events and people of this age, are faced
with the necessity of accounting for it and giving some kind of an explanation.
Those Catholic writers who are genuinely objective in their approach are just as
reliable as others who may have no such vested interest as defenders of the faith.
It is inevitable, however, that reputations of people attach quite frequently to the
organizations which they represent; and the papacy is no exception. Thus, the
lives of its people are rather inextricably interwoven into the fabric of the whole
history of this great institution. It is impossible to disentangle the one without
bringing some of the other with it. It is very much like the study of history as it
relates to theology. It is likewise impossible to study the history of the church, it
being so completely and closely interwoven with the fabric of its theology, in
such a way that the history could be extracted without bringing some of the
theology with it. Very frequently the history grows out of the theology, and not
less frequently, the theology grows out of the history.
In the case of the Roman papacy, the threads of biography of individuals are very
much a part of the greater pattern of the history of the institution. The historian
Draper has said, "The signal peculiarity of the papacy is that, though its history
may be imposing, its biography is infamous" (Draper 1:378).
As we turn to a general history of this period, beginning about the middle of the
eighth century and continuing into the eleventh, we discover years of endless
disorder, almost three centuries of continuous invasion, war, rapine, and
destruction. Those who lived in this period were frequently victims of the great
compelling forces which worked together to produce the kind of environment
and the general atmosphere of impiety. The integrity of the ecclesiastical system
had generally collapsed of its own internal rot. There had been a decline in the
moral caliber of those who had come into positions of prominence both
ecclesiastical and secular. To a marked degree, the hierarchy of the church had
succumbed to much of the influence of the feudal system lending its support and
becoming a victim of its own unique manifestations: it was not unusual for
people in high places ecclesiastically to also hold prominent positions politically.
It was a time in which there was little clerical discipline. The respect for the
clergy had disappeared generally, and there was a great dearth of learning.
Many of the clergy knew only the bare rudiments of theology and many were
unlearned in terms of the classic languages usually identified with training in the
clergy. Those were the years of darkness (757-1046), a period in which there was
a great neglect of formal priestly education. For the most part, those bishops who
were zealous of preserving the old traditions of holiness of life were in the
minority. They came into the picture at rare intervals and then disappeared again
quickly.
The papal office was burdened with the unfortunate fusion of civil, military, and
temporal responsibilities into the ecclesiastical office with the accompanying
exercise, prerogatives and functions which pertain to such things.
Father Phillip Hughes, one of the outstanding Catholic church historians writing
in English in the last half of the twentieth century says,
Whenever the masters of the Roman See were the military aristocracy, it might
almost be taken for granted that a bad election would be made, and once the
empire of Charlemagne had really disappeared, the only competition was
between the rival Roman families (Hughes 89).
In view of the great emphasis which has traditionally been placed upon the
concept of apostolic succession and priesthood authority by the Catholic church,
the implications for priestly and ecclesiastical integrity are obvious.
The election of popes who were not qualified for office, the practice of lay
investiture, putting into office those who have no training for such things - the
granting of recognition and authority to popes because of their political prestige
or their family influence or the fact that they had been great military figures -
make it very difficult to preserve a traditional line of apostolic authority and
succession.
Indeed, the circumstance of the time bore such evil fruit that its effects were felt
right down into the very lives of the lowest of the laity. Quoting from Hughes,
the popes in this age were very much "like the brutal, illiterate and licentious
baronage from whom they sprang" (Ibid. 93). There was a defiance of law and
tradition in the conduct of those who led. In the office of the pope there was
particular disregard for the traditions of the cloth, including celibacy. The
sanctity of the holy orders had definitely disappeared. Instead, secret marriage,
incontinency and the attempt on occasion to transmit covertly the authority of the
see to the illegitimate heirs of the bishops of Rome were commonplace.
There appears to be ample historical evidence to sustain the conclusion of
correlation between the beginning of the age of pornocracy and the formation of
the papal states. In the middle of the eighth century during the papal reign of
Stephen II, a document of donation was drawn up between the pope and Pepin,
father of Charlemagne, providing for the transfer of large land holdings which
would become the foundation of the papal states. During that same mid-century
period, in the reign of Stephen III, certain specific examples of brutality,
including the torture blinding of the anti-pope Constantine II, who had occupied
the papal throne for eighteen months, signaled the beginning of worse things to
come. In spite of recognition by both Charlemagne and his brother Carloman;
Stephen III proved to be ecclesiastically impotent in trying to control the
excesses of some of his agents in their retaliations against the opponents of the
pope.
At a later time, family members of Hadrian I, 772-795, seeking to perpetuate
dynastic control turned against his successor Leo III, 795-816, and, although
failing in an attempt to blind and assassinate him, forced the pope to leave Rome
and seek the protection and support of Charlemagne. Another quotation from
Father Phillip Hughes provides a general overview of things yet to come in that
age:
The situation at Rome was complicated by the magnitude of the prize which the
see offered to wickedness, by the new tradition of lay domination in the
nominal - election of the pope, and by the permanent place in the papal State of a
barbarous and unruly baronage. [The time] between the murder of Pope John
VIII(882), and the council of Sutri (1046), . . . marks the definite end of these
horrors (Hughes 93).
It is true that there was a "definite end of these horrors" temporarily, and a few
generations of relief from it. But it is not to be assumed that this brought a final
or permanent end to such things. Eventually, there would be more popes
undeserving of the respect identified with the dignity of the office. In fact, the
Renaissance popes, although not of the deliberately wicked and completely
demoralized type, were little more than profligates. Some of them sought to
perpetuate their names and to give themselves some distinction and honor as
connoisseurs of fine art, collectors of relics and decorators of the palaces at
Rome. But they were popes who were more concerned with building
architectural monuments to themselves than with the welfare of the people.
Hughes is justified in saying that in terms of the obscene wickedness which had
continued during that long period there was somewhat of an end of it at that
point, and continuing with the quote:
there were in a hundred and sixty years, thirty-seven popes. By no means were all
of these bad men. The majority were good, and among them were many energetic
reformers. But far too many of these good popes died violent deaths at the hands of
their opponents (Ibid.)
Indeed, one of the greatest problems of succession had to do with identifying
those popes who were recognized by the church as having been in office with
proper authority and with proper consecration. In the traditional list of popes, the
Catholic church identifies those who were not properly in office with the title,
"anti-pope" - one who sought to contest the valid claim of another pope and was
successful in assuming the office temporarily. There were a great number of
these. In the traditional listing of popes, the pages are completely interspersed
here and there with the words "anti-pope," indicating that this individual was not
accepted as one who held the office with proper authority. As in cases already
cited, the office was often regarded as a political plum, something to be coveted,
to be used, and over which there was a great deal of contention until one faction
or party was victorious and able by force or violence to have the pope of its
choosing inaugurated. In fact, a particularly infamous family, the house of
Theophylact, controlled the papal office for almost seventy years (897-964)
while making appointments of their own choice, among them the most
controversial and corrupt of all the bishops of Rome.
Apart from the coincidence of the formation of the papal states as a political
entity and the beginning of the age of pornocracy, what were some of the other
possible causes of the deterioration of the papacy? What additive factors present
in the culture were likely to contribute to such a condition? It would be very easy
to oversimplify by noting that these people were all merely victims of the time:
they lived in a godless age and they responded accordingly. It would be more
realistic to acknowledge the position of strength and potential for despotism
inherent in the office of the pope. It would be inevitable that certain individuals
would actively seek the power of the office to use it for less than worthy
purposes. In the fusing together of tremendous political, temporal, and military
strength along with ecclesiastical authority, there was produced, albeit
unintentionally, almost unlimited potential for despotic power. Joseph Smith, the
American prophet of the early nineteenth century, recognized this as a
temptation even in the simplest leadership setting:
We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all
men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately
begin to exercise unrighteous dominion (DC 121:39).
He cautioned against this abuse of power, saying that it is a dangerous thing and
that it can eventually mean "amen" to that man's priesthood and his authority.
There is no question but that the position of the pope was unique in this respect.
Eventually, with the disappearance of civil authority in the West, greater
authority became vested in the pope. Critics who were prone to show the papacy
in a bad light frequently cited contrast between the ideal and the real. Martin
Luther was an expert in this form of critique. He liked to have his artists draw
cartoons depicting a situation as it should exist as compared to the situation as it
had existed during the Middle Ages. A favorite cartoon in the Reformation
period was one in which Christ was pictured on one side, possessing very little of
worldly goods and depending upon the assistance of others, whereas, on the
other side was depicted the pope of Rome with his vast resources and wealth.
Another portrayed Jesus' entry into Jerusalem riding on a donkey with all
evidence of austerity and frugality, bearing in his hand an olive branch,
contrasted to the pope riding on a great steed, dressed in armor, with the papal
tiara, the three-leveled crown, on his head and holding in his hand a weapon of
some kind, a sword or staff, indicating military power, great prestige and wealth.
Other critics have made a great deal of the pomp and ceremony of Rome in terms
of the wearing of great and elaborate ermine robes and habiliments in contrast
with the simple apparel of the true religionist. There is no question but that the
accumulation of this wealth was accompanied by the temptation to do something
with it, and as the Savior had pointed out and as has been borne out in so many
instances in human experience, the accumulation of some wealth usually tends to
incite the desire for the accumulation of more.
Certainly there were many factors which brought about the situation which
developed in the Roman papacy. Of significance is the proximity of the Roman
popes to the Roman institutions of government.
Perhaps this proximity of the popes to the government would also explain how
the pope came to claim the title Pontifex Maximus. Prior to the empire, the title
was used by great Romans. Later, it came to be used in reference to the emperor
as the supreme link between the people and the council of government. It would
seem natural that, because of the frequent, very close relationship between
church and state, the pope himself would eventually assume the title.
The word pontifex derives from the words pons, meaning a bridge, and facere,
meaning to make, or, the bridgemaker. Maximus means highest. So, we have the
highest bridgemaker or supreme representative. Since the pope had evolved into
viewing himself as over earthly rulers or as all men's liaison with God, he
became Pontifex Maximus: he lived the role.
Finally, it might properly be said, that these pontiffs, or popes, were in a general
sense like the rest of the people, succumbing to the general apathy and ignorance
of the age. There were popes elected who were not qualified intellectually. They
assumed office because they were militarily strong enough to force their way
into it violently, and in this sense it might be said that they were just simply
representative of the time in which they lived. However, other factors being
considered, certain barbaric intrusions into Roman life had already brought with
them an insensitive disregard for the sacred and holy institution of Christianity
beginning as early as the first century. A carry-over of the old Greek mystery
cult and pagan traditions into Christian life was inevitable. Those who had been
sent out to do missionary work and proselyting on the fringe of the Roman
Empire or to the far reaches of the expanding church, in their contact with
barbarian people, frequently absorbed into their own life styles the things that
they found. These were synthesized into the Christianity which was gradually
developing.
Many of the earliest traditions of the Christian ideal were incompatible with the
adoption of newer ideas which were being introduced through contact with new
cultures and more people. Basically, that which was evolving as nominal
Christianity was a combination of many great forces, consisting of a synthesis of
Jewish tradition, the old Roman way of life which formed the mainstream, and
the intrusion of the Greek culture. Superimposed upon all of this were the new
components, which were derived from many extraneous sources. The emerging
product was a nominal Christianity or Catholicism, a synthesis of both old and
new. It cannot help but be adulterated because it has partaken of too many other
elements.
One of the earliest departures seems to have been an abandonment of the concept
of revelation. The idea of inspired personal communion had long since gone by
the way, and out of this began the assumption of self-sufficiency.
Turning again to a further detailing of specific examples of godlessness in the
period after Charlemagne and Pope Leo III, it is apparent that subsequent
generations failed likewise in the "achievement of better things," that Tertullian
had already hoped for in the third century.
Even Leo, though probably not guilty of such behavior himself, had come under
severe censure for his way of life and had been the victim of attempted violence
upon his person by the "nephews" of his predecessor. Leo's immediate successor,
Stephen V, was forced to flee Rome to escape the indignation of the people, and
Paschal I died after having been charged with acts of atrocity and murder.
In the decade from 872-882, the Muslims continued to expand their sphere of
influence beyond the Near East and encroached the environs of Rome. This
confusion was compounded by the presence in Rome of Italian princes alien to
the interests and objectives of the pope. The constant struggle against the princes
dissipated whatever strength Pope John VIII might have had to fend off the
intrusions and threats of the Saracens. Consequently, he was forced to pay tribute
to the invaders. The situation was further complicated by the alliance of the
bishop of Naples with the Muslim leaders. Several high churchmen were
involved in the conspiracy to murder the pope, including Formosus who, in the
following decade, would himself be elected pope.
Reading from Platina's Lives of the Popes, written in the fifteenth century, we
touch on a problem that has perplexed papal biographers since the end of the
ninth century. Even Catholic writers have been among those who allowed for the
possibility that a woman served as pope during this time, and although Platina
may not be thoroughly reliable, his comments are enlightening with respect to
this issue. Modern research discounts such a claim, but Platina dealt with the
possibility of its truthfulness in the person of John VIII:
John, of English extraction but born at Mentz, is said to have arrived at the
Popedom by evil arts; for disguising herself like a man, whereas she was a
woman, she went when young with her paramour, a learned man, to Athens, and
made such progress in learning under the professors there, that, coming to Rome,
she met with few that could equal, much less go beyond her, even in the
knowledge of Scriptures; and by her learned and ingenious readings and
disputations, she acquired so great respect and authority, that upon the death of
Leo (as Martin says), by common consent she was chosen pope in his room. As
she was going to the Lateran Church, between the Colossean theatre (so-called
from Nero's colossus) and St. Clement's, her travail came upon her, and she died
upon the place having sat two years, one month, and four days[in the papacy],
and was buried there without any pomp. This story is vulgarly (ie. popularly)
told, but by very uncertain and obscure authors, and therefore I have related it
barely and in short, lest I should seem obstinate and pertinacious if I had omitted
what is so generally talked. I had better mistake with the rest of the world;
though it be certain, that what I have related may be thought not altogether
incredible (Gontard 206).
The sinister reign of Stephen VI (VII) 896-897, was characterized by actions and
events so sadistic, so macabre, that it is difficult to discover their equal in the
annals of the most corrupt secular history, much less reconcile such things with
the tradition of the church.
Stephen had the body of Formosus dug up after nine months in the grave, an act
of contempt against Formosus and his defiled priesthood. The rotted corpse,
dressed in the papal vestments, was trussed up on a throne and tried on various
charges. The three fingers of the right hand used to gesture the blessing of the
bishop of Rome were cut off and the body first thrown into the river and then
ignominiously buried. The indignant populace of Rome joined supporters of
Formosus in protest against Stephen, who was incarcerated and strangled.
The turn of the new century would see the rise to power in Rome of three
women, a harlot mother and her two daughters, whose influence would cast an
even greater shadow of infamy and shame upon the papacy. For more than half a
century, by their amorous and devious manipulations, they contrived to control
the highest office in the church. These were the infamous women of the
Theophylact dynasty.
Theodora, a woman who had taken the title, Senator of Rome, was responsible
for placing no less than two popes in office. Living with Pope Sergius III as his
lover, she used her political support in combination with his use of force of arms
to place him in the office of pope. Later, she abandoned Sergius for another
lover, and again, using her influence, the new lover became Pope John X.
John, not content to enjoy the papal office with its customary political and
secular powers, turned his attention to the glories of military life. Speaking in his
favor, as head of his own troops and with the support of other military
confederates, he led a campaign which prevented the Saracen Muslims from
capturing Rome.
Although John had gained the papal throne by the power and influence of his
mistress Theodora, he lost it by the intrigues and treachery of her daughter
Maroziaequally skilled in the art of seduction and harlotry. The pope's brother,
Peter, was killed by Marozia in the Lateran Palace while John, being taken
prisoner himself, looked on helpless to do anything about it. History records that
the pope was smothered to death at the instigation of Marozia.
In the interim from May 928 to February 931, Marozia installed two more
puppets on the throne of Peter, both of whom were probably murdered like their
predecessor.
In March 931, Marozia was successful in obtaining the papacy for her own son
who took the title John XI. A power struggle within the family, however, made
his reign of limited duration.
The question of the paternity of its favorite sons now plagued the family of
Marozia. The gossip mongers of Rome insisted that Pope Sergius III was John's
father and that any one of her lovers could have fathered John's brother Alberic.
Marozia herself was uncertain but decided to attribute them both to her former
husband, Alberic, after whom she named the one son.
Alberic, who managed to undermine his mother's political power in Rome,
subsequently reigned for more than twenty years as "Prince and Senator of the
Romans." Not even his brother, the pope, and their mother were spared the
consequences of his uncontrolled jealousy. They were both imprisoned and
murdered.
During the next twenty years, four rather innocuous popes presided over the
church at least partly under the control and influence of Alberic. Before he died
in 954, Alberic succeeded in obtaining, by coercion, a promise from the then
pope and the other Roman nobility that Alberic's son would be raised to the
papacy. This son was trained for the priesthood while still a boy, and came to the
papal office at age twenty already many years sophisticated in the ways of
wickedness and corruption. He took the title John XII and for ten years ravaged
the holy office with contempt and satanic indulgence.
The Emperor Otto I passed off lightly earlier reports of irregularities in the
behavior of this pope with the remark, "The pope is still almost a child who is
easily led astray. The example of honest men will make him better" (Benham
1:224-25).
He eventually changed his opinion of John and called an ecclesiastical synod in
November 963 to investigate the numerous charges brought against the pope.
Pope John XII was indicted for simony in the sale of several bishoprics, incest
and adultery in the Lateran Palace, blinding a priest and castrating a deacon,
witchcraft, insobriety, and squandering away the treasury of St. Peter in
wagering and gambling.
Forced from the throne, he returned eventually to seek revenge against his
successor and his supporters. He died as a consequence of a beating received at
the hands of a cuckold husband whose wife he had debauched.
In subsequent years, these examples of abject depravity and corruption would be
repeated time and again with apparent impunity on the part of the princes of the
church. In 985 Boniface VII, who had thrown his predecessor, Pope John XIV,
into prison and starved him to death, was himself a victim of the indignation and
uprising of the people of Rome. No longer willing to tolerate such conduct, the
populace rose up and assassinated Boniface dragging portions of his mutilated
corpse through the streets.
In the succeeding quarter of a century, seven popes would come to power, some
of them reigning for less than a year. Most of them were so embroiled in
dynastic politics that they functioned more as rulers of the pontifical state than as
ecclesiastical reformers.
In 1044 Benedict IX, who had exploited his papal office for twelve years, was
forced to leave Rome. In the following year, he sold the papacy twice, once to
Sylvester III, who was soon deposed, and again to the reform leader Gregory VI.
Although the stigma of simony eventually forced Gregory from the throne, it
must be said to his credit that, aside from the manner in which he obtained
office, he sincerely intended to reform and restore its dignity and sanctity. Such
then was the condition of the papacy at the midpoint of the eleventh century.
In summary, there was definitely a period of moral decline during which time the
office of the pope was held by people who were not worthy of the calling. They
represented, in a sense, the age in which they lived, but that was only one factor.
These were black pages of Catholic history, so recognized by its own historians
and by its own interpreters of the time.










7
PONTIFEX MAXIMUS:
DAYS OF GLORY AND PAPAL POWER
Although a connection may be made between the secularization of the church
and the depths of moral corruption; and dearth of piety and spirituality, the
opposite may be true as well. The secularization of papal power also made
possible the restoration of priestly integrity, spiritual reform, moral regeneration
and general Christian fidelity to some degree. At least some reform has been
directly identified with the temporary concentration of power in the office of the
pope.
The historical apogee of pontifical power was reached in the papal reign of Pope
Innocent III. Never before or after was there vested in any single pope such a
potency of political-ecclesiastical sovereignty. Yet, a forerunner, Gregory VII
(Hildebrand) 1073-1085, had set the stage a century earlier for the eventual
fulfillment of the full sovereign potential of the office.
Extreme assertion of papal prerogative and undying devotion to reform had
elevated Hildebrand to the status of one of the greatest and most powerful of the
popes. The devotion to reform spanned half a century and influenced nine other
popes prior to Hildebrand's own assumption of the papacy. But those same
policies and virtues, and the attempt to enforce them throughout Europe,
eventually stirred up sufficient reaction among powerful anti-reformists and lay
princes to force a premature end to his leadership and his reforms.
Although reference has already been made in chapter 5 to the showdown
between Gregory VII, 1073-1085, and the German King Henry IV over the issue
of lay investiture, some of the special events and ideas identified with his reign
deserve to be detailed as setting precedent for the subsequent pontifical
accomplishments of Innocent III, 1198-1216.
Except for the popes identified with the period of Catholic revival during the
sixteenth century, the name Hildebrand, in all probability, has been linked with
the word reform more prominently than that of any other papal figure.
Born Ildebrando in Florence, Italy, on an unknown date, he came up the line
from a family of religious reputation, which was singular in itself in that age of
pornocracy. He was brought up, however, by the Benedictine monks in a
monastery in Italy and was very much aware at an early age of the general
impiety of the time, including specific examples of violation of clerical vows and
church regulations.
He later went to Cluny, France, where the Benedictine abbey was the major
center of a reform movement of which he eventually became the great driving
force, influencing all subsequent popes until his own election 22 April 1073. He
had repeatedly refused the pleas of reformers to accept the papal crown until he
had assurance that there was no suggestion of simony in his own election.
Although he had the support of the laity and general populace of Rome, his
greatest support among the clergy was found outside of the city. In Rome, the
buying and selling of clerical office had become so common a practice among
the so-called simoniac leaders of the several branches of church government that
he found his bitterest enemies in these circles. Indeed, the words of support at his
election read:
We, the cardinals, clerks, acolytes, sub-deacons and priests, with the bishops,
abbots, and many others, both of the laity and clergy, do choose this day (April 22,
at the Church of St. Peter in Chains in the year 1073), as Christ's true vicar,
Archdeacon Hildebrand, a man of much learning, piety, prudence, justice,
constancy, religion, modesty, sobriety, and continency, who governs his family
well.
These words were privately disavowed by those who resented the imposition of
his orders forbidding simony, lay investiture, and enjoining celibacy (Petry 226-
30; 235-39).
In the wake of several episcopal excommunications culminating in the eventual
excommunication of the king himself, the pope's opponents took revenge upon
him. On Christmas Eve 1075 while Gregory was celebrating Mass in the church
of Santa Maria Maggiore, his enemies dragged him by his hair out of the church
into the street where he was further abused and insulted before being pummeled
off to prison. On the following day after having been delivered by the enraged
people of Rome, who mobbed the prison and carried him back to the church, he
continued the celebration of the Mass picking up where he had left off at the
moment of the assault upon him.
Subsequently, Gregory was exiled to Salerno before he could experience the full
sovereign potential of the office for himself. It was here, in Salerno, that he died
in 1085. It has been recorded that his last words were, "I loved justice and hated
injustice, I die in exile" (Kuhner 74).
During the twelve year reign of this pope, much had been accomplished in the
restoration of dignity and sovereignty to the papal office. His influence was felt
and remembered by several of his successors who, although sometimes but
feebly, attempted to continue his policies until the most renowned defender of
the papal idea came along in the person of Innocent III.
To Gregory's credit it must also be said that, as long as he was able, he strove to
establish a foundation for the doctrine of the two powers, reasserting to his death
the power priestly over the political. Included in the legacy of example and
instruction which he left for those who came after him was a wealth of literature
by his own hand.
In his Dictatus Papae, a summary of guideline principles for supporters of the
Hildebrandine reform, it is boldly asserted that the Roman church was founded
by God alone, that the Roman pontiff alone is rightly to be called universal, that
he alone may use the imperial insignia, that he may depose emperors, and that
the pope may absolve subjects of unjust men from their fealty. He insisted that
the bishop of Rome, if canonically ordained, is sanctified by the apostolic merits
of Saint Peter and, therefore, cannot err by the witness of scripture in matters of
faith and morals. Although controversial, it was finally declared to be the official
position of the church and announced to the world as the doctrine of infallibility
by the Vatican Council of 1870.
In many ways Innocent III was a second Hildebrand, succeeding in the
accomplishment of the things Hildebrand had dreamed about but had never been
able to fulfill completely. One of the most prominent figures of medieval history,
he was born in 1160 in Bavignano, Italy, of noble parentage. His father was
Count Trasimondo of the house of Segni; and among other relatives of
prominent noble Roman families was his uncle, Pope Clement III, who no doubt
had much to do with the education and career of this young nephew, who had
been baptized Lotario di Segni.
After having studied theology in Paris and canon law in Bologna, he was raised
to the cardinalate by his uncle the pope. He wrote several works on theology and
religion before turning his attention to the ecclesiastical affairs of the papacy and
its relationship to the state. He was raised to the papal throne in 1198 being only
thirty-seven years of age at the time. Though some contemporaries complained
of his "too great youth," he had already gained wide recognition as a theologian
and as a lawyer with unusual intellectual talent.
As he moved to effectuate his theory of papal supremacy, he arbitrated disputes
in the Holy Roman Empire, set aside claimants to archbishoprics, influenced the
election of emperors, declared the Magna Carta invalid since it was extorted by
force, and reclaimed, reorganized papal territories.
His Italian nationalist sentiment led him to refocus attention on Rome itself, but
more significantly, to build the foundation of the secular papal states with the
pope as absolute monarch. As promoter of the fourth crusade, he asserted his
papal power in calling many princes and sovereigns to show forth their
allegiance to the cause of Christianity and to the papacy. He protested the attack
on Byzantium as a wicked and unnecessary side excursion and recognized the
Latin Kingdom of Constantinople once it had been set up. His influence
dominated the fourth Lateran Council in the same way that it dominated in
affairs generally throughout the Christian world.
Innocent III represents the ultimate in papal authority not only with respect to
Roman supremacy and the doctrine of Petrine priority, but also with respect to
the relationship of the papacy to the empire in an era of great triumph for the
church over the state.
Almost four hundred years earlier, Charlemagne and his father had promised the
eventual papal control of the secular papal states. That promise had never really
been fulfilled until Innocent III. After ten years of civil war, he overcame Roman
independence and imperial and monarchial opposition. His majestic character
commanded the respect and admiration of even his opponents and made more
tolerable some of the severe policies imposed by him as he not only secured the
patrimony of Saint Peter, but also consolidated and strengthened the papal states
over which he reigned as absolute monarch. He also brought under his control
Poland, Sweden, Denmark, Portugal, Aragon, Sicily, and Naples, using and
manipulating their kings like pawns in a grand pan-European game with the
Continent and Britain as his chess board.
The interpretation and imposition of the doctrine of the two powers by Innocent
has become classic. Although both secular and spiritual powers coming from
God should complement each other, no emperor or king may assume divine right
except as it is granted and sanctioned by the Vicar of Christ on earth, the pope.
With the anointing of the new emperor, he declared the empire itself to be a
stewardshipa trust conveyed by the churchand the emperor a vassal tethered
to the throne of Saint Peter.
All men, even princes and potentates, must come back to God through the
sacraments dispensed by the church and through its priesthood. Therefore, of the
two powers, the spiritual power of the scepter is greater than the secular power of
the sword.
On the death of Emperor Henry VI, two claimants contended for the throne of
the Holy Roman Empire. The German prince Philip of Swabia, a brother of the
deceased emperor and a Hohenstaufen, was elected, but was opposed by Otto IV,
a member of the House of Guelf. Otto, who had been recognized by Innocent III,
was formally crowned by the pope on 9 October 1209, but subsequently lost
favor when he attempted the conquest of Sicily, which was the stewardship of
Frederick II, the pope's ward. It was also rumored that Otto may have been
implicated in the assassination of Philip.
The kings of England, because of that country's distance from Rome, had
generally been able to ignore the intervening influence of the papacy in matters
of both church and state. King John, 1167-1216, brother of Richard The Lion
Hearted, however, was forced to submit to Pope Innocent in an unprecedented
example of the exercise of the pope's power. Consistent with the reform
repudiation of lay investiture, clerics and monks at Canterbury had chosen their
own archbishop without consulting King John. In retaliation John chose his own
archbishop and drove the monks of Canterbury out of England, but not before
Innocent III had intervened to reject both choices, and place Stephen Langton on
the episcopal throne of Canterbury.
John's continued defiance brought about his excommunication and the placing of
all England under the interdictan ecclesiastical punishment barring the
subjects of the church who came under it from certain sacred rights and
sacraments. Moreover, King John was told by the pope that he must recant or his
dominion and stewardship would be given to Phillip August of France. Innocent
prevailed and John delivered the stewardship of England over to the pope,
receiving it back as an estate in trust held in feudal tenure.
Another great triumph of Innocent III was the calling of the Fourth Lateran
Council of 1215, over which he presided. It actually functioned more as an
international congress than a mere plenary assembly of bishops and cardinals. It
was attended not only b-5y those high ranking clerics but also by legates of
kings, princes and other feudal lords.
The agenda included both political and religious problems involving abuses of
church and state, and matters of heresy. Among the decrees handed down by the
council were the confirmation of Frederick II as king and the excommunication
of Otto IV.
Papal power had reached its zenith in the reign of Innocent III. Yet, his
successors continued to enjoy the carry-over effect of his policies and practices
in their relationship with the empire for the next half century.
The ward of Innocent III, Frederick II, in whom Innocent had placed much
confidence and who was certainly indebted to the pope not only for his
stewardship and eventual imperial status but also for his very upbringing and
education, proved to be more of a problem than a help.
Even before the death of Innocent in 1216, Frederick's assertion of independence
and defiance of papal direction had caused a severe breach in their relationship.
After Innocent's death, the young emperor moved quickly to more firmly
establish his sovereignty and show his independence of papal influence. His
actions set up a confrontation which threatened to become another mortal
struggle between church and state. The Csaro-papal conflict, now revived with
greater intensity, occupied the stage for another two generations.
Sometimes referred to as the "first modern King," Frederick II was the pride of
the imperial Hohenstaufen dynasty, comprising emperors and kings from 1138 to
1254. During much of that time, the empire under the Hohenstaufens had
extended from Germany through Italy, including the Norman kingdom of Sicily.
Frederick was only three years old when, at the death of his father, he was left
under the guardianship of his foster father the pope. He grew up in Sicily where
certain feudal families already had a reputation for secret alliances, intrigue, and
defiance of the law. Although well educated and a brilliant student, craftiness
and deceit were part of his character before he was old enough to take over, from
an interim regency, the reigns of government.
Trusting no one and convinced that everyone had his price, he was made King of
the Germans at Aachen while only seventeen years of age, and ascended the
throne of the Holy Roman Empire just a few years later at Rome.
Moving quickly to make himself secure in the empire, he gave much time to the
affairs of state, neglecting a promise made to Innocent that he would become a
soldier of the cross. The far flung reaches of his domain, from Germany on the
north to Sicily on the south, made it difficult for him to be present everywhere
and territorial conditions required diverse solutions and programs. Often his
policies were not in harmony with the pope's, particularly with reference to
Frederick's home kingdom of Sicily. Here a strong centralized bureaucracy
produced a wealthy country wholly responsible to the emperor. The papal states
and much of the rest of Italy tried to constrain him and eventually the power of
the scepter would prove to be more than the Hohenstaufens could contend with.
Meanwhile, in Germany, the many independent city-states, duchies, bishoprics,
counties and baronies required policies in direct contrast to those employed in
southern Italy. Frederick, although remaining all powerful, granted the exercise
of even greater power to the nobility than they had known before.
Two successors of Innocent III waited impatiently for Frederick to undertake the
crusade he had promised. His constant deferring of the expedition prompted
Pope Gregory IX to excommunicate him in 1228. Under the pressure of
excommunication, Frederick attempted a reconciliation with the pope by starting
out on his long delayed crusade. Some termed it little more than a state visit,
since there was little or no combat involved and the cession of Jerusalem,
Nazareth, and Bethlehem plus his coronation as King of Jerusalem was obtained
by peaceful means.
After being excommunicated a second time for having started out on a crusade
while still an excommunicant, Frederick returned home in 1230 to make
temporary peace with the pope and to be received back into communion until
1239, when he broke with the church and was excommunicated a third time by
Pope Gregory IX for his military attempt to enslave all Italy.
Although Frederick's power had been acknowledged and dreaded by kings and
feudal lords throughout Europe, having acquired much of it by diplomacy and
alliance as well as by force of arms, still the papacy stood firm in opposition,
refusing to cower before him. Rome had found itself surrounded by strong
kingdoms, and the pressure to succumb to imperial domination was at its height
by 1245, when the new pope, Innocent IV, called the Council of Lyons, which
put Sicily under the interdict and excommunicated Frederick for the fourth time.
Having also been deposed by the council, Frederick was forced to abandon his
position in Italy and retreat to Germany, which remained his stronghold until his
death in 1250. With the beheading of Conradin, Frederick's sixteen year old
grandson, in Naples in 1268, the Hohenstaufen dynasty came to an end.
The German kings of the new Hapsburg dynasty continued to call themselves
emperors but mostly without papal sanction, and the empire itself was a mere
hollow shell. The independence of many political and territorial entities in
Northern Italy and throughout Germany left Italy not reconquered and Germany
divided and without an unopposed sovereign. It would be centuries before either
of these countries would develop into strong nations. However, although the
pope's cause appeared to have been victorious and the political triumph over the
Hohenstaufens decisive, the very forces which had contributed to the
strengthening of the papacy and the weakening of the empire would also bring
about the eventual erosion of papal political power and the end of the papal
states. Nationalism, a growing spirit of individualism among nations and people,
would take its toll.
Moreover, while exalting itself secularly over a period of several generations
through an aggressive policy in temporal affairs, such distractions from things
spiritual and ecclesiastical had again left the papacy discredited in the eyes of
clerics and laymen alike throughout Europe. Even the Crusades, the pet projects
of several popes, had contributed to a dearth of spirituality, contrary to their
supposed intent and purpose.
In spite of the retrieving of certain classic treasures and the introduction of some
new ideas and luxuries from the East, the Crusaders succeeded in doing very
little for the glory of Christ and the preservation of Christian values. Lusty
peasants interpreted the call to deliver the Holy Land out of the hands of the
infidel as a justification for the abandonment of family and responsibilities which
had tied them to the soil. As a consequence, large areas of European farmland
were left uncultivated and neglected. The treasuries of the West were depleted.
Eastern Catholics having been plundered and exploited by their western brethren
in the march to the Holy Land were even further alienated, while the supposed
adversaries, the Moslem nations and feudal groups, suffered relatively little.
When all was said and done, except for temporary possession, the Christian
shrines and treasures of tradition, including the Holy Land itself, remained in the
hands of the infidels. Spirituality and religious integrity had indeed suffered a
setback. Thousands had confused religious zeal with spiritual stamina, and the
Crusader's pilgrimage with largeness of soul. While religious excuses were
given, the real motivating reasons for participation on the part of kings and
princes were dynastic and territorial. On the other hand, dreams of adventure and
anticipation of plunder may well have aroused the fighting spirit of the common
peasant and the soldier.
In retrospect, it must be concluded that this age of glory and papal power was
also a period of exploitation of the weak by the strong. Serfdom and illiteracy
among the masses increased even more, although, some popes and monks in
their respective settings were struggling to gain power and preserve morals; and
to retrieve letters and learning out of the milieu which surrounded them.






8
CAPTIVITY AND SCHISM
The entire fourteenth century and the first two decades of the fifteenth century
turned out to be a period of great confusion for the papacy as well as for all who
looked to it for direction. Having reached its highest level under Innocent III,
when the Lateran Council affirmed that princes might be removed from their
possessions by papal fiat, the tide of papal power ebbed and then declined even
more abruptly with the turn of the fourteenth century.
Some of the causes of this decay have already been examined, but a growth of
nationalism, closely coupled with a natural feeling opposed to increasing
concentration of power in Rome, might well have been the most compelling
force at work.
National monarchs gained popularity and increased loyalty among their own
people. This developing sense of nationality contributed to a breakdown of
feudalism and a resentment of papal interference in political affairs on the part of
both rulers and countrymen. The pope no longer referred the disputes between
sovereigns, and what had formerly been regarded as arbitrage came to be
considered papal meddling.
The very targets of the former Hildebradine reforms, simony, lay investiture, and
clerical laxity, weakened the church again from within. To these debilitating
elements were added sale of indulgences and excessive tithes.
To counter such measures and meet his own heavy expenses, King Phillip IV of
France taxed the clergy in spite of the traditional tax exemption for the church.
Not only were the rich estates of the bishops heavily assessed but the personal
property of all clergy as well.
In the ensuing years, from 1296 to 1303, retaliatory measures were exchanged
back and forth, first by Pope Boniface VIII against the French king and then by
King Phillip IV against the pope. Failing to read the handwriting on the wall,
Boniface did not realize that he was fighting a losing battle against Phillip, who
was the darling of the French people (dubbed Phillip the Fair) and champion of
their nationalism.
When the pope issued the bull, clericis laicos, forbidding the clergy to pay taxes
in France, Phillip forbade the exportation of all gold and silver out of the
country, thus cutting off the French source of Vatican revenue. In blundering
tyrannical fashion, Boniface countered with a reassertion of the doctrine of the
two powers in a papal bull, Ausculta fili, clumsily worded in exaggerated terms
and destined to stir the indignation of the entire States General of France. The
bull was burned in public and the pope accused of heresy, tyranny, and, with
probable justification, unchastity.
As a final gesture of power, the aging pope, now in his mideighties
excommunicated Phillip, only to suffer the humiliation of being seized by the
king's emissaries and left to die in solitude before he could be whisked off to
France, where it no doubt was intended he should be even more impotent
without his immediate aides and loyal supporters. For all practical purposes, the
death of Boniface VIII, in 1303, marked the demise of medieval papal political
power.
Much has been written about the treachery and captivating power of France in
controlling the papacy during the following seventy years. However much this
may have been overstressed historically, there seems little reason to doubt that
by a mixture of intrigue and violence some French kings did obtain and exert a
powerful influence over the papacy for at least part of the seven decades during
which the popes resided not in Rome but in Avignon.
The short pontificate of Benedict XI, which lasted less than a year, marked the
transition period of the papacy and the beginning of what came to be known
during the exile in Avignon as the "Babylonish Captivity."
Since the earliest recognition of the bishop of Rome as metropolitan, the papacy
had been identified with that city. The title Roman pontiff had been used
synonymously with the term pope, and the claim of Roman supremacy was
linked by traditionalists almost inseparably with the concept of Petrine primacy
and priority. Indeed, the basis of Roman Catholic assertion of papal authority
had rested, at least partly, on the fact of Peter's residence in Rome, with Rome as
the hub of the church. The bishop of Rome claimed unique apostolic succession
as successor of Peter, not the bishop of Lyons, neither of Carthage nor of
Avignon.
Consequently, the decision of Benedict's successor, Clement V, to stay in France
and establish papal residency there must have stirred considerable confusion in
the minds of clerics and laity alike throughout Europe. It was true that in times
past, an occasional pope had resided in places other than Rome, but it had
usually been assumed that Rome was the official home residence even though
the pope may have been absent and lived elsewhere for years at a time.
In 1305 a Frenchman, Bertrand de Got, archbishop of Bordeaux, was elected
pope with the collusion of the French king and French cardinals. Although
certain of his contemporaries and some historians have insisted that the new
pope, Clement V, had every good intention of eventually crossing the Alps to
take up residence in Rome, the fact remains that during the nine years of his
pontificate he never set foot in Italy. Out of deference to the French cardinals, he
convened the College of Cardinals in Lyons for the coronation rites, which took
place in the nearby Church of St. Just. Thereafter, until he established permanent
residence, March 1309, in Avignon, he wandered about like a minstrel from
Lyons to Cluny to Languedoc, spending almost a year in the Bordeaux area
because of ill health. He had, in those years, never left French soil.
Technically, Avignon was not French but rather part of the kingdom of Naples, a
vassalage of the church. It was situated just across the Rhone river from French
territory, however, and was more under French influence than Neapolitan.
Having come to the papal office as a relatively weak figure politically, Clement
sought to strengthen his power by packing the College of Cardinals with
supporters of his own choosing. Twenty-three of the twenty-four cardinals
appointed by him were Frenchmen. He further compounded the humiliation of
the Italians by lending an estimable amount of the accumulated church treasury
to the kings of France. More than a proportionate amount of the church's money
had been amassed by assessing the Italians, as well as the rest of the church,
exorbitant payments for services at the Curia and for every benefice conferred
by the pope, in addition to increased general tithes and taxes.
Clement, who had lived extravagantly, wasting the church's money and benefices
excessively on his own family and friends, set a precedent for the other popes in
Avignon, with few exceptions. His successor, Pope John XXII (1316-34),
however, was not elected until after a vacancy in the office of more than two
years. The intervening time was punctuated with outbreaks of violence and
disorder as the opposing French and Italian cardinals sought to strengthen their
respective positions.
A former pope, Gregory X (1274), had left instructions that in the event of an
impasse in the conclave of the Sacred College called to elect a new pope, secular
authorities should intervene, confine the cardinals if necessary and compel them
to resume the election process until a pope was chosen. Clement had sought to
soften this provision to some degree before he died, in his constitution, Ne
Romani, suggesting that disagreeing cardinals might be excused to leave the
conclave.
However, when the cardinals, ignoring the Roman tradition, met again in France
to choose Clement's successor, they had hardly allowed themselves to be shut up
in the episcopal palace before it was apparent that the French and Italian Factions
were implacable opponents. During the ensuing two months, the French
populace grew impatient with the delay. Roving groups looted and plundered.
Italian nationals, who were part of the delegation to the conclave or who were
employed by the Curia during the conference, were threatened and abused. Some
were attacked and killed. Consequently, the conclave broke up without having
accomplished its purpose.
Almost two years later in March 1316, the conclave was reconvened in Lyons
with the guarantee of protection from violence and freedom of movement for the
cardinals. In spite of this assurance, impatient secular authorities adopted severe
measures when no agreement had been reached by the end of June. French
troops surrounded the Convent of Comfort, where the cardinals were meeting,
and closed it off. The cardinals were told that they would remain imprisoned
there until they had elected a pope. By coercion and necessity - and after another
month's time had taken its toll - dissidence and opposition subsided enough to
bring about the election of John XXII.
Thus, after a long vacancy, a man with simple habits and an unpretentious life
style came to govern the Catholic church. In contrast to the extravagant living
and imprudent luxury indulged in by Clement V, John disdained such things for
himself as sinful waste. There was, indeed, much to admire in the character of
this pope. However, he had the disposition of a governor and was inflexible in
many of his decisions. Moreover, before his death he had, through nepotism and
favor, endowed his entire family, including nieces and nephews and even
neighbors from his home town, with every conceivable benefice, office and
dignity, and the necessary wealth to enjoy it. One exception to such extravagant
nepotism was demonstrated in the policies and practices of John's successor,
Benedict XII (1334-42). This pope, nevertheless, was responsible for the erection
of the famous papal castle at Avignon whose splendor and magnificence could
not be matched by the nearby small and unimposing cathedral. The contrast, it
was said, typified the spirit and policy of the Avignon captivity.
A new level of nepotism and extravagance was reached by the next pope,
Clement VI, but historians have credited his successor Innocent VI with keeping
his nepotism within very limited bounds.
For a brief period Urban V (1362-70) went to Rome but returned to Avignon. It
was left to his successor Gregory XI, the last of the French popes, to return to
Rome with the sincere intention of re-establishing the papal residence there.
Credit has been given to Catherine of Siena, a young woman of great piety and
equal persuasion, for her role in encouraging the pope to bring the papacy back
to Rome.
After a long and trying journey by boat and galley, prolonged in part because of
the delicate health of Gregory XI, the papal entourage arrived in Rome on 17
January 1377. His Italian experience was destined to last a little more than a
year. Although he enjoyed the cheering and jubilation of the crowds who
welcomed him at first, he was eventually remembered for former alleged
incidents and events of infamy by the Italians, and he died in March 1378 feeling
that he had not accomplished the reforms he had intended nor that he was
understood by the Romans.
The death of Gregory XI in 1378 brought about a disorder in the papal tradition
far more confusing even than was the foreign residency of the popes. The next
few months after the return of Gregory to Rome, including the election of his
successor Urban VI, proved to be but a brief interlude between "captivity" and
schism. Within five weeks after Urban, an Italian, came to power his blundering
and tyrannical efforts so offended the French cardinals that they fled from Rome
and elected Roger of Geneva, who took the name of Clement VII, with residence
back in Avignon. Thus began another extended period of forty years of
indiscriminate embarrassment for the church which would eventually see not
only two, but three popes ruling simultaneously from three separate locations in
Europe.
The circumstances promoted new political alliances. The more powerful nations
divided over support of a series of rival popes, who held their ground
tenaciously. Bishops and secular leaders in England, Germany, Poland and
Scandinavia supported Urban VI and his successors in Rome, while the churches
and states of France, Spain, Scotland, and the Saxon areas of Germany supported
the pope in Avignon.
Eventually the two papacies, requiring double expenditures to maintain two
systems of ecclesiastical government, angered by the disrepute and shame of
division, resorted to denouncing each other as Antichrist. The remedy decided
upon by the cardinals of both parties resulted, however, in an even greater
scandal. Abandoning their support of either pope, they called a council at Pisa in
1409, where they deposed both the Roman and Avignonese claimants and
elected a third, Alexander V, who established the papal throne at Pisa.
England, France, and some of the German bishops offered their support to the
pope at Pisaonly to have him die within a year's time. It was rumored that he
had been poisoned by one of the opposition.
Alexander was succeeded by a gifted but impious and ambitious ecclesiastic who
came to office under the stigma of both simony and bribery.
Baldassar Cossa, who took the name John XXIII, was not unsuited to the times.
Many rumors and legends spread abroad concerning his earlier life. It was said
by some that he kept his waking hours in the night and slept by daylight. His
enemies claimed that as an adventurous seafarer and soldier of fortune he had
one time been a pirate and that more than two hundred widows and virgins of the
seaport at Bologna could trace their syphilitic miseries to him. Biographical
evidence supports the fact of his Neapolitan seafaring ancestors and the
indiscretions of his later student days in Bologna, but the details and number are
no doubt exaggerations.
The unsettled situation was further complicated by a general political unrest in
what remained as but a shell of the former Holy Roman Empire in the West. The
coincidence of three pretenders to the long vacant imperial throne seemed to
portend something ominous. Of the three imperial aspirants, Sigismund, King of
Hungary, had finally succeeded in gaining at least token recognition as emperor,
having outmaneuvered his brother Wenzel of Bohemia and his cousin Jobst of
Moravia. He was not officially crowned, however, until 1433.
Nevertheless, invoking his assured imperial authority, Sigismund finally took
matters into his own hands and requested the popes to call a council to settle the
issue. The Roman and Avignonese popes declined, but John XXIII in Pisa,
although reluctant at first, no doubt anticipated some advantage from the
maneuver and summoned the Council of Constance to convene in 1414 in the
resort town of that name situated on the shore of Lake Constance in Southern
Germany. He may have derived comfort from the fragile tradition which
assumed that only a true pope may call an ecumenical council, hoping to be
recognized and supported by the assembled bishops.
Actually, the council, when it did convene, took on the unprecedented dimension
of an international congress, involving more than just ecclesiastical leadership,
and combining European political as well as religious matters for conciliar
consideration.
The challenge was formidable enough to deter many from approaching such an
undertaking without some urging, and the matter was further hindered by a
general disagreement over priorities on the agenda. It was thought by many that
the obvious and overwhelming disgrace of the schism itself would take
precedence over any other matter, but it soon became apparent that many bishops
were even more disturbed over the aftermath of the teachings of Wycliffe, long
since dead and buried in England. It was contended that there existed a renewed
immediate threat to orthodoxy in the revival of Wycliffe's teaching in the
heresies and rebellion of John Huss of Bohemia. Still others felt that the most
pressing order of business was the general reform of the church.
The council was opened with a speech by the emperor in which he exposed his
ignorance of Latin and Greek grammar, but otherwise gave the assembly official
charge and status. A second innovation beyond the international composition of
the conference was the introduction of nearly three hundred learned professors
from fourteen universities of Europe, representing the academic community in
the discussions.
From the outset, the council wasted valuable time debating whether the question
of reforming the church or choosing a bona fida pope should be taken up first.
Failing an agreement on this point, they then turned to the question of heresy and
disposed of it rather hastily when John Huss, who had been promised safe
conduct by both emperor and church, was condemned and burned in 1415. The
case of Huss provoked a fierce war in Bohemia, where his followers swore to
avenge his fate. In England, the bones of Wycliffe were cast out of consecrated
ground by order of the council, reduced to ashes, and scattered in the Thames
River.
The attempt to reform the church bogged down in three years of deliberations
with little accomplished. Attention was finally diverted to the problem of the
three popes. It was clear that under the circumstances of confusion and schism,
the authority of councils must necessarily be superior to papal decrees. To
further assure future conciliar power and influence, the council decreed the
calling of a general council every ten years on a regular basis.
After deposing John XXIII and Benedict XIII, the council accepted the
resignation of Gregory XII, thus leaving the papal throne vacant. A new pope,
Martin V, an Italian, was elected in November 1417, bringing an end to the
"Great Western Schism."
The former Baldassare Cossa, who had reigned briefly as Pope John XXIII and
had called the council at the instigation of the emperor, now found himself not
only deposed but threatened with the exposure of his past. Charges were being
drawn up by many who had suffered from his exploitations and fraud. The fifty-
four charges brought against him before the council included bribery, paganism,
lechery, and robbery. After being confined for the duration of the council, he was
released to spend most of the remainder of his life in asylum and retreat. His
title, John XXIII, was put on the shelf, shunned and unwanted until retrieved
more than five hundred years later, when that name would be chosen again by
Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli, who became "Good Pope John XXIII" in the
twentieth century.
Looking back from a fourteenth century vantage point, an analyst of the time
might well have sensed something sadly dispiriting in much that transpired
during those decades in Avignon and the ensuing years of confusion and
disunity. Indeed, the poet Dante, author of the Divine Comedy, may have
expressed the sentiments of many when he lamented in the twenty-seventh canto
of that portion of his work called Paradiso, "Must that which began so loftily,
end so shamefully?"
Although there had been a vast reorganization of the various offices and agencies
of the church at all levels and serious effort had been made to reform the clergy,
still those occasional attempts at remedy had produced but little cure for the
church as a whole. Even the fact that an increased missionary zeal had taken
Christianity to the Far East was overshadowed by the dissolution of spirituality
and internal strife on the home front.
The religious fervor of the people might have been revived had it not been for
the dissolute character and conduct of popes, bishops, and priests. Instead,
Christians throughout the West expressed disgust with the mode of life
characterized by the material abundance and free indulgence in pretentiousness
and luxury at the court of Avignon, with the accompanying political
maneuvering and patronage.
There was widespread resentment over the papal residency in Avignon,
especially in Germany and England, resulting in irreparable damage to the
prestige of the institution of the papacy. The College of Cardinals began to
acquire more power in the leadership of the church, which might have produced
a more representative governmental structure had not the increased power and
prestige resulted in inflated ambition and the development of factions within that
body.
Despite factional weakening of the college, conciliar authority did, for a short
period, dominate the papacy both during and immediately following the Council
of Constance, and no doubt, its greatest contribution was the healing of the
schism. Nevertheless, it did fail to reform the church and its efforts to stem the
tide of heresy were futile. When all was finally said and done, the theory of
conciliar authority lost its appeal and, although the papacy was given new life, it
would never again be restored to its former majesty and sovereignty. Indeed, it
might be said that the great structure of power dreamed of and partly begun by
the resolution and courage of a Hildebrand, and more firmly established by the
transcendent ability of an Innocent III, collapsed under the burden of the
contriving and scandalous devices of the popes themselves. The confidence and
trust of the whole Christian world had been strained.

9
WHEN PETER SPEAKS
With reference to the matter of doctrine and dogma in the Catholic church, the
non-Catholic is frequently misinformed. Surveys have revealed the fact that this
is no less true of the average Catholic layman. It might well be said that general
ignorance, laced with a taste for the sensational on the part of the non-Catholic
and a reluctance to raise questions on the part of the Catholic layman, has led to
the acceptance of anything that comes to one's attention from almost any source
as being authentic. Many, out of curiosity to know or hear something authentic
or official about the doctrine and the views of the Catholic church, look to the
sermon of perhaps a priest or the writings of some Catholic interpreter, assuming
that he has the official dogma. In reality, since the very earliest days of the
church, especially in times of ecumenical approval, it has been the tradition that
the popes, as the successors of Peter in the papacy, have been the ones to speak
for the church. Thus, at any given time in the church, there is only one who
speaks for the entire church with authority and has the right to declare the
position of the church.
The title of this chapter "When Peter Speaks," might imply many things.
Actually, it has reference to the idea that the successor of Peter in the papacy
speaks in the name of Peter and, as he represents Peter, speaks forth the word of
the prince of the apostles unto his congregation. Historically, many spokesmen,
and presently, many contemporary Catholics, have offered their views. Not
infrequently, whole groups of bishops may take a position at variance with the
Vatican, and the expressions and meditations of individuals available to us in
magazines, on the radio, and on television often assume a mantle of authenticity.
There are frequent elaborations of theological tradition. But in the last analysis,
perhaps the very best source we have to turn to for the official dogma and
doctrine of the Catholic church would be the pronouncements of the popes. The
official list of the pronouncements begins with the Catholic version of the "First
Epistle of the Blessed Apostle, Peter," as it is called. Consequently, since all
popes in the Catholic tradition are heirs to the See of Peter and speak for him by
his authority, Peter speaks through them. The term "When Peter speaks," has to
do with the concept of the perpetuation of Peter's influence through those who
have succeeded him and continue to speak for the church.
In addition to the epistles of Peter, a continuation of the idea of the rightful
responsibility of the Roman bishop has been preserved in several early
established documents.
there is one god; . . . there is one Christ . . . and one Holy Spirit; and . . . there
ought to be one bishop (Roberts and Donaldson 5:341).
For example, Pope Innocent I (401-417) wrote in his epistle:
Who does not know or observe that it (the church order) was delivered by Peter the
chief of the apostles to the Roman Church, and is kept until now, and ought to be
retained by all, and that nothing ought to be imposed or introduced which has no
authority or seems to derive its precedents elsewhere (Petry 188-89).
Another interesting reference to Petrine priority is found in a letter to the bishops
of Thessaly from Pope Boniface I, dated 11 March 422. "The universal ordering
of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of blessed Peter, in which
is found both its directing power and its supreme authority" (Giles 230-31).
Thus it was asserted very early that Peter's, that is the pope's, word is final and
binding. This concept was reinforced even more strongly by Pope Galaius I
(492-96) in a letter to the Byzantine Emperor Anastasius I. Known as his theory
of two powers, Galasius denied the right of the emperor to interfere in church
affairs:
There are two powers, august Emperor, by which this world is chiefly ruled,
namely, the sacred authority of the priests and the royal power. Of these, that of
the priests is the more weighty, since they have to render an account for even the
kings of men in the divine judgment. You are also aware, dear son, that while
you are permitted honorably to rule over human kind, yet in things divine you
bow your head humbly before the leaders of the clergy and await from their
hands the means of your salvation. In the reception and proper disposition of the
heavenly mysteries you recognize that you should be subordinate rather than
superior to the religious order, and that in these matters you depend on their
judgment rather than wish to force them to follow your will (Robinson 1:72-73).
The question might well be posed, through what media is the voice of Peter
heard? Just how do the various popes make their pronouncements to the world
and in what manner is their word - or the will of Peter - given out for all to
know? Among the earliest sources would be the epistles to which reference has
already been made, accredited to Peter himself. Linus did not write anything of
which we have record, and there is nothing attributed to Anacletus. But the
church gives considerable attention to the writings of Clement. At least one of
the epistles of Clement, which is well accepted and perhaps one of the finest
extracanonical documents we have from this period, is considered very valuable
by the Catholic church in helping to establish authority. At a later time, epistles
were used frequently by the bishops of Rome to manifest their will unto the
world.
There are also other official documents of papal origin which have come down to
us through tradition, taking precedence as media through which the pope makes
the will and position of the church known not only to the church, but to the world
at large.
One of the most frequently used in times past is called the papal constitution.
There had been very little attempt to distinguish the constitution in its unique
usage from among other pronouncements or documents until the year 1587 when
Sixtus V in his Papal Bull Immensa eterni precisely defined the various writings
and announcements that proceed from the Vatican and described the particular
format identified with each one according to its purpose.
Papal constitutions are ordinarily used for doctrinal disciplinary
pronouncements. A papal bull is a device by which dignitaries are appointed,
dioceses are erected and saints canonized. However, prior to the year 1587 a
papal bull might have been used for other purposes. For example, it was a papal
bull which officially excommunicated Luther and put him under the ban of the
church. And it was this document that Luther burned publicly before the Elster
gate in Wittenberg along with the canon law, to show his contempt.
There is the papal brief. This generally grants less important decrees or
privileges and concessions. The encyclicals, which are perhaps the most
important of the forms in terms of discovering doctrine, along with the papal
constitution, are papal letters relating to doctrinal or moral matters, exhortations,
warnings, or commendations. The word encyclical means that it is a letter which
is of a circular nature: it is circulated among all the bishops of the church so that
all are aware of its contents.
A rescript regularly contains some grant or favor, some dispensation or privilege
bestowed in consequence of a previous petition or request.
There are also decrees, papal instructions ordinarily issued by one of the Roman
offices or congregations in the name of the pope to which the pope's approval is
attached either in forma communi, the common form; or in forma specifica, the
special form.
Finally, there are two other types of Letters Apostolic that are not usually
significant for doctrinal purposes; Motu Proprio, an action taken on the pope's
personal initiative, and the Chirographi, autograph letters written in the pope's
own handwriting.
The concern here will be primarily with those documents which have to do with
the teaching and guiding of the faithful, subject to the sovereign power of the
pope, particularly those things which have to do with faith, morals, discipline,
and administration. These are properly ecclesiastical matters, although
theological in nature, and are confined primarily to two of the types already
mentioned, the encyclical and the papal constitution.
The Catholic tradition assumes that there is authority in the voice of Peter, or in
the pronouncements of the popes, that this authority is established and accepted,
and that, consequently, great attention and credence are given to the pope when
he speaks. This is verified for the Catholic tradition by none other than the great
Thomas Aquinas in his famous Summa Theologicae in Part 2ae, the tenth article.
After asking whether or not the creed is subject to the authority of the pope, he
says that it definitely is for two reasons: (a) because Jesus Christ prayed for
Peter's faith, that it might not fail and (b) because the one bread (of the
Eucharist) "makes us one body" in one faith.
Thus the pope is only infallible when he speaks as head of the Church, but then
always and necessarily infallible. Infallible means he cannot sin against either
faith or morals. The infallibility is part of the primacy of Peter and means that
when the pope defines the doctrines he does not merely anathematize those who
believe differently nor only exclude error, he also determines and defines truth
(Aquinas Part 2ac).
It is necessary to differentiate between pronouncements ex cathedra - when the
pope speaks for the entire church from the seat or throne of Peter - and when he
is merely giving out his opinion, voicing his feeling in the form of an encyclical
for example. This kind of differentiation is necessary in the thinking of people in
all faiths.
Coupled together with the idea of authority is the problem of the extent to which
the authority of the encyclical is binding upon the church membership when it is
not defined as ex cathedra, that is where the pope is not necessarily speaking for
the whole church on matters of faith and morals from the throne of Peter. Then
the question might arise, even in the thinking of a good Catholic, "To what
extent am I obligated to listen to the word of the pope when he has not spoken
out in the voice of Peter in the sense that he speaks ex cathedra, from the chair,
and has defined it as such. Is it binding upon me as a member of the Catholic
church?"
Two statements speak to this matter: one from Monsignor Joseph Fenton in the
American Ecclesiastical Review says, "It is quite probable that some of the
teachings set forth on the authority of the various papal encyclicals are infallible"
(Fenton 217) even though they are not given as ex cathedra statements of the
Holy Father. It is absolutely certain that all the teachings contained in these
documents and dependent on their authority merit at least an internal religious
assent from every Catholic.
Another from Father Thomas Pegues in Revue Thomiste:
The authority of the encyclicals is not at all the same as that of the solemn
definitions ex cathedra. These demand an assent without reservations and make a
formal act of faith obligatory.
It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is a teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the
Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with
infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly . . .
an internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teachings of the
sovereign authority within the church (Pegues 28).
The main thrust of such statements is that, although it is not obligatory that a
Catholic accept the teachings of the pope without question, without reservation,
unconditionally as they are given out in the various papal letters, particularly in
encyclicals, it seems consistent with the idea of the pope's unusual position of
authority that it is to be expected of a Catholic that he respect this word as the
word of the supreme sovereign of the Church; therefore, it is to be heeded and
given consideration.
With reference to the famous doctrine of infallibility, it is important that
considerable attention be given not only to the historical aspect of it, but also to
its theological implications. The Vatican Council of 1869-70 was quite
concerned with this problem of the infallibility of the voice of Peter or of the
pope. Traditionally, it had been accepted by most Catholics without question.
But there had never been an official pronouncement to the extent that it was
given out ex cathedra - "This is the doctrine of the church" - so there were those
who still had their reservations about it. Consequently, there was substantial
voiced opposition from various parties and factions during some council sessions
of 1870. After an appeal by the pope himself, and in the face of some opposition,
it was finally passed. The vote by bishops in this council was 535 to 2 for
acceptance of the doctrine of infallibility.
The straining point of consistency, however, was the fact that whether the
council had accepted it or not, by tradition it had come to be. That is, that the
pronouncement of the pope, ex cathedra, was infallible. The conciliar
affirmation was simply that they agreed with the principle that when the pope
speaks in matters of faith and morals ex cathedra, there is no such thing as
opposition. These things ought not to be taken by reservation and there should be
no appeal, no assent, no agreement to conform; meaning ultimately that there can
be no agreement to agree. The official publication of this doctrine appeared in
what is known as the papal constitution, Pastor aeternus which defines the
dogma as a new dogma, not in the sense that the idea was new, but that it was
given out then as official. The following quote is from Seeberg's History of
Doctrines,
In order that there might be one espicopate and that the multitude of believers
might by it be held together in harmony, Christ placed Peter above the other
apostles: "In him he established both perpetual source of unity and a visible
foundation upon whose stability should be constructed the eternal temple" (2:461-
62).
This is from the preface of the Pastor aeternus:
The "primacy of jurisdiction over the universal church of Christ" was imparted by
Christ directly and immediately to Peter and to Peter alone. It conflicts with the
teachings of the Scriptures to say that "this same primacy was conferred, not
immediately and directly upon the blessed Peter himself, but upon the church and
through it upon him as a minister of this church." This power has passed from Peter
upon his successors: "whence, whoever succeeds in this chair of Peter, he,
according to the institution of Christ himself, obtains the primacy of the universal
church." According to this doctrine which is demanded by the Scriptures and
tradition, the popeas the Florentine decretal has taughtis to be recognized as a
successor of the prince of the apostles, "the true vicar of Christ is head of the whole
church and father and teacher (pater et doctor) of all Christians." To him belongs
the actual "power of jurisdiction" (potestas jurisdictioni). This power is "ordinary"
and "immediate" and extends to every single believer, is, i.e. the pope exercises
such power, not only in special cases as a last resort, but he can employ it at all
times and under all circumstances. It is a "truly episcopal" power, inasmuch as the
pope is authorized to perform all episcopal functions in all places. Every individual
is therefore bound to render direct obedience to the ordinance of the pope in all
things affecting faith and life, or the discipline and government of the church: This
is the doctrine of the Catholic truth from which no one can deviate without
forfeiting faith and salvation."
The pope is the supreme judge of believers (the faithful). It is an error to desire
to appeal from his decision to a council as a higher authority. The popes have
always been acknowledged as the supreme authority in matters of faith. (And
then the pronouncement of the council is formulated as follows:)
Therefore, we . . . the holy council approving, teach and declare to be divinely
revealed the dogma: That the Roman pontiff, when he speaks from the chair (ex
cathedra), that is, when he, exercising the office of pastor and teacher of all
Christians by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, defines the doctrine
concerning faith or morals (fide vel moribus which is to be held by the universal
church, he acts, through the divine assistance promised to the blessed Peter
himself, with that infallibility by which the divine Redeemer wished his church to
be instructed in the defining of doctrine concerning faith and morals; therefore the
definitions of such Roman pontiff are of themselves but not by virtue of the
consent of the church, beyond revision (irreformabiles). If anyone (which may God
prevent) shall presume to contradict this our definition let him be anathema (Ibid.)
That there was some excitement stirred up by this act of the council cannot be
ignored. Although the excitement was short-lived, it has at times been revived.
Prior to 1870, there had been frequent instances in which some had spoken out in
favor of the supreme authority of the council rather than the supreme authority of
the pope.
A few select examples of the teachings of the popes cited here, some out of the
past, some more recent, provide an insight into the historical exercise of such
prerogative. From out of the distant past, we have one of the first examples, a
summons by Eugene III, 1 December 1145, to the second crusade. Among other
things in this encyclical, he says,
According to the institution of our aforesaid predecessor, by the authority of the
Almighty God and by that of Saint Peter the chief of the apostles, conceded to us
by God, we grant such remission and absolution of sins that he who shall devoutly
begin so sacred a journey and shall accomplish it, or shall die during it, shall obtain
absolution for all his sins which with a humble and contrite heart he shall confess,
and shall receive the fruit of eternal retribution from the remunerator of all (Petry
247).
This is one of the gems emerging from the Middle Ages prior to the Reformation
wherein the assumption on the part of the pope to grant a plenary indulgence to
those who participate in the crusade is assured, conditioned upon confession of
sins with a humble and contrite heart.
In 1744, still prior to the act of the Vatican Council which recognized the
doctrine of infallibility, a document which we know as the encyclical Inter-
omnigenas was given out by Benedict XIV on 2 February 1744. Having to do
with prohibiting divorce from a runaway wife, it shows the diversity of topics
which come under this kind of pronouncement:
If the wife of a Catholic runs off to the Turks and dares to contract with one of
them a criminal alliance, her husband may not marry another in her stead; for
marriage, indissoluble by divine right so long as the parties to it live, cannot be
dissolved by this woman's crime. Therefore any man who, in such a case, marries
another woman, is guilty of adultery, and must be refused access to the sacraments,
unless he had completely separated himself from the woman (Fremantle 106).
The last line makes reference to the new woman whom he would take, the
woman whom he might marry in adultery. Unless he completely abandons her
and separates himself from her, since this is not a marriage, he would be refused
access to the sacraments, this being the crime of adultery.
The excommunication of Queen Elizabeth in the bull Regnans in excelsis by Pius
V is something of considerable interest. Among other things, important here is
the fact that the pope takes it upon himself not only to excommunicate Elizabeth,
but to release all of her subjects from their allegiance and obligation to her. And,
if they give support and allegiance to her, then he, in a plenary manner,
excommunicates them also:
He that reigns in the highest, to whom has been given all power in heaven and
earth, entrusted the government of the only Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
(outside which there is no salvation) to one man alone on the earth, namely to
Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and to Peter's successor, the Roman pontiff, in
fullness of power [potestatis plenitudo]. This one man he set up as chief over all
nations and all kingdoms, to pluck up, destroy, scatter, dispose, plant and build
Resting then upon the authority of him who has willed to place us (albeit
unequal to such a burden) in this supreme throne of justice, we declare the
aforesaid Elizabeth a heretic and an abetter of heretics, and those that cleave to her
in the aforesaid matters to have incurred the sentence of Anathema, and to be cut
off from the unity of Christ's body.
Moreover we declare her to be deprived of her pretended right to the aforesaid
realm, and from all dominion, dignity and privilege whatsoever.
And the nobles, subjects and people of the said realm, and all others who have
taken an oath of any kind to her we declare to be absolved for ever from such oath
and from all dues of dominion, fidelity and obedience, as by the authority of these
presents we do so absolve them; and we deprive the said Elizabeth of her pretended
right to the realm and all other things aforesaid: and we enjoin and forbid all and
several the nobles, etc. . . . that they presume not to obey her and her admonitions,
commands, and laws. All who disobey our command we involved in the same
sentence of anathema (Bettenson 338-39; Fremantle 122).
In a somewhat different vein, on Christmas Day, 1825, Leo XII gave out his
proclamation as to Sabbath observance in his encyclical, Caritate Christi:
Warned by you, May the people recall the precept imposed by the Lord,
"Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day." But the perversity of many is so
great that they do not hesitate on that day to give themselves over to servile work;
or, taking advantage of the exemption granted them from such works on that day,
they profit by it to go to the devil. Thus, on feast days they give themselves over to
banquets, to drunkenness, to debauchery and to all works of the devil. In so far as
you can, see to it that this scandal disappears and that it is replaced by a willingness
to pray, to listen to the word of God by the very salutary participation in the august
sacrifice of the mass not only assisted at piously, but also by the reception of the
body of Christ (Wynn 424-29, 518-29).
A matter of doctrine, this interesting interpretation on the Holy Ghost comes to
us from Leo XIII in 1897:
The Church which, already conceived, came forth from the side of the second
Adam in His sleep on the cross, first showed herself before the eyes for men on the
great day of Pentecost. On that day the Holy Ghost began to manifest His gifts in
the mystic body of Christ, by that miraculous outpouring already foreseen by the
Prophet Joel, for the Paraclete, (in other words, the Holy Spirit) "sat upon the
apostles as though new spiritual crowns were placed upon their heads in tongues of
fire. . . ." Thus was fully accomplished the last promise of Christ to His apostles of
sending the Holy Ghost, who was to complete and, as it were, to seal the deposit of
doctrine committed to them under His inspiration. "I have yet many things to say to
you, but you cannot bear them now; but when He, the Spirit of Truth, shall come,
He will teach you all truth." For He who is the Spirit of Truth, inasmuch as he
proceeded both from the Father, who is externally True, and from the Son, who is
the substantial Truth, receiveth from each both His essence and the fullness of all
truth. This truth He communicates to His Church, guarding her by His all-powerful
help from ever falling into error, and aiding her to foster daily more and more the
germs of divine doctrine and to make them fruitful for the welfare of the peoples.
And since the welfare of the peoples, for which the Church was established,
absolutely requires that this office should be continued for all time, the Holy Ghost
perpetually supplies life and strength to preserve and increase the Church. "I will
ask the Father and He will give you another Paraclete, that He may abide with you
forever, the Spirit of Truth" (Ibid.)
Now he goes on to point out the extent of the influence of the Holy Ghost upon
the bishops of the church:
By Him the bishops are constituted, and by their ministry are multiplied not only
the children, but also the fathersthat is to say, the prieststo rule and feed the
Church by that blood wherewith Christ has redeemed her. "The Holy Ghost hath
placed you bishops to rule the Church of God, which He hath purchased with His
own blood." And both bishops and priests, by the miraculous gift of the Spirit, have
the power of absolving sins, according to those words of Christ to the apostles:
Receive ye the Holy Ghost; whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them,
and whose you shall retain they are retained (Vatican Press Release).
Even today many assume the necessity of a dispensation for someone to get
married if there exist certain circumstances with reference to the lives of the
intended marital contractors. Although the policy has been altered somewhat by
the resolutions of the last Vatican Council, much of the spirit of the tradition still
survives in the thinking of some Catholics. In order then, for a Catholic girl to
marry a man who has been divorced it would require a papal dispensation,
permission from the pope for this to be done. Otherwise, the marriage would be
adultery. This could be even more complicated if the person whom she is
marrying is not a Catholic and has been divorced. Whatever the complications, a
papal document of relief or remedy which implies special permission would be
referred to as a rescript, a dispensation.
On at least one occasion, an item became doctrine by mistake. Pope Pius XII had
given word of mouth counsel to a specific group. And, because the matter had to
do with faith and morals, someone assumed this to be a statement of infallible
weight. The following was reported by the press:
Pope Pius XII told Italian doctors in answer to a questionnaire here Sunday that the
use of pain-killers is legitimate under certain circumstances, even when they hasten
death. The statement was the latest of a long series of comments in which the
eighty-one-year old Pontiff has discussed the moral problem of easing human
suffering in childbirth and in sickness. The Pope told the doctors that the age-old
ban of the Roman Catholic church on mercy-killing remains firm, but that in
certain circumstances they may use death-hastening pain-killers. The Pope said that
once a dying Christian has made his peace with God, said final prayers and
discharged other duties and desires such as leave taking with friends, he may
accept anesthesia to cut pain at death's approach. But the Pope forbade doctors to
force anesthesia on dying patients who wish to face their sufferings as a means of
expiation and as a source of merit in order to go forward in the love of God in the
abandonment to His will (Pope Pius XII).
Thus, the Pope was still speaking and to some the voice of Peter was still being
heard. In fact, Pius XII did a great deal to clarify the position of the Church
regarding the issue of mercy-killing in the years just prior to his death. Another
significant pronouncement to come down to us during his administration has
been the Sacra Virginitas of 25 March 1954, in which he pointed out the
importance and the sanctity of the sacrament of marriage. At the same time, he
tells us that the church and the members of the churchChristiansmust never
be led, because of the sanctity and importance of marriage, to assume that in
itself marriage is as high a state as that of virginity. The following is quoted from
the English translation:
Holy virginity and that perfect chastity which is consecrated to the service of God
is without doubt among the most precious treasures which the Founder of the
Church has left in heritage to this society which He established Innumerable is
the multitude of those who from the beginning of the Church until our time have
preserved their virginity unspoiled; others after the death of their spouse, have
consecrated to God their remaining years in the unmarried state, and still others,
after repenting their sins, have chosen to lead a life of perfect chastity; all of them
at one in this common oblation, that is, for love of God to abstain for the rest of
their lives from sexual pleasure. May then what the Fathers of the Church preached
about the glory and merit of virginity be an invitation, a help, and a source of
strength to those who have made the sacrifice to persevere with constancy, and not
take back or claim for themselves even the smallest part of the holocaust they have
laid on the altar of God. And while this perfect chastity is the subject of one of the
three vows which constitute the religious state, and is also required by the Latin
Church of clerics in major orders and demanded from members of Secular
Institutes, it also flourishes among many who are lay people in the full sense: men
and women who are not constituted in a public state of perfection and yet by
private promise or vow completely abstain from marriage and sexual pleasure, in
order to serve their neighbor more freely and to be united with God more easily
and more closely
However, since there are some who, straying from the right path in this matter, so
exalt marriage as to rank it ahead of virginity and thus depreciate chastity
consecrated to God and clerical celibacy, our apostolic duty demands that we now
in a particular manner declare and uphold the Church's teachings on the sublime
state of virginity, and so defend Catholic truth against these errors
Those therefore who do not marry because of exaggerated self-interest or because
as Augustine says, they shun the burdens of marriage, or because like Pharisees
they proudly flaunt their physical integrity, an attitude which has been condemned
by the Council of Gangra, lest men and women renounce marriage as though it
were something despicable instead of because virginity is something beautiful and
holy, none of these can claim for themselves the honour of Christian virginity
This then, is the primary purpose, this is the central idea of Christian virginity: to
aim only at the divine, to turn thereto the whole mind and soul; to want to please
God in everything, to think of Him continually, to consecrate body and soul
completely to Him
And certainly those who obligate themselves by perpetual vow to keep their
virginity, put into practice in the most perfect way possible what Christ said about
perpetual abstinence from marriage; nor can it justly be affirmed that the intention
of those who wish to leave open a way of escape from this state of life is better and
more perfect (Ibid. 1-5).
In summary, it is one of the great traditions of the institution of the papacy that
the pronouncements of the popes represent the word of Peter, who is the Vicar of
Christ unto the world. And, when these pronouncements on matters of faith and
morals are given to the world and to the church, ex cathedra, they are infallible.
The greatest tendency in the interpretation by non-Catholics of this particular
doctrine is to assume that it means that the pope is perfect, that he can make no
mistake. There is no intent to convey the idea that the pope does not make
mistakes, that he may not be sinful the same as anyone else, but rather in matters
of faith and morals, he would speak out infallibly, that is, without error, since he
would be speaking for the Lord and he would not err in this respect. This does
not mean that he cannot be sinful himself in matters of faith or morals, or that he
cannot himself sin against morals.








10
THE PAPACY IN THE TWENTIETH [AND TWENTY
FIRST] CENTURY
Today the pope is no longer the holder of vast properties. The papal states have
diminished, and his territorial holdings are confined to the space known as
Vatican City. This consists of an area approximately 108 acres in size, on one
side of the city of Rome. There are several hundred people who live within this
walled area, most of them clerics or employees of the government of the Vatican.
As a culmination of many centuries of Csaro-papal conflict, the world has thus
seen the final establishment of the pope, politically and territorially speaking, in
a relatively confined area.
Tradition and growing liberalism have gradually synthesized themselves into the
modern papacy and the modern condition of the church. In retrospect, Catholic
tradition has been concerned with the perpetuation of a great idea, the idea of
Petrine priority, which included the concepts of Roman supremacy and the
primacy of the See of Peter. This idea has been perpetuated in spite of all the
problems that have confronted it. Down into the twentieth century has come not
only the idea of the papacy, but the fact of the institution itself, perpetuated as an
instrument of the voice of Peter.
In the twentieth century there are essentially the same old problems to deal with.
New figures have entered onto the scene, and new characters are playing the
roles, but for the most part the age-old problems recur over and over again. It is
apparent here that history indeed repeats itself.
Nevertheless, in this century, even in Catholic countries, there has been manifest
breakdown in the traditional church and state proximity, which has tended to
reduce the political influence of the pope and church in those countries, and
among Catholic people generally. In 1904 in France, the pope was publicly
insulted by the French president. Deliberate attempts were made to bring about a
rift between the traditionally Catholic French people and the papacy.
The pope, very much concerned over this problem and over the resulting
embarrassment, asked for an apology, and was rebuffed. The French requested
their ambassador to return home to Paris. There was a confiscation of
ecclesiastical properties in France, and traditional immunities from taxation for
the church were no longer granted, resulting in a further widening of the
separation of church and state. Under the old traditional agreement, wherever
Catholicism had been established as the people's religion, the priests were
supported in part by church tax revenues, now they were left without any means
of support.
Not only was the pope confronted with the external problems of political
opposition and misunderstanding, but the condition within the French church
itself, due to the rising influence of modernism, was becoming an ever increasing
problem. There was indeed a tendency among the French priests to lean in the
direction of the modernist philosophies of the day. Papal reaction to this
condition served only to compound the problem.
In Italy, in the very shadow of St. Peter's, the laity have drifted generally towards
socialism. An aggravated poverty, coupled with general social and economic
inequities, drove many into the communist camp. As in France, there was a
severely strained relationship between church and state. In Italy, however, the
church found itself caught in the middle of a power struggle with socialists of
extremely opposite ideological views pressuring from both the right and the left.
With the rise of fascism, the papacy faced serious intrusions into its traditional
influence, power, and authority closest to home, as the government attempted to
woo the people away from the church. King Victor Emanuel had definitely taken
a stand against the papacy, making it improbable that these wounds could be
healed easily, and with the coming of Mussolini the rift was widened even more.
It is, however, significant to note that in spite of the agnostic mood of the
fascists, some kind of agreement was reached in the signing of the Lateran
Treaty of 1929.
Similar situations prevailed elsewhere. At mid-century there were riots and
demonstrations in Belgium because of an attempt there to break down the close
relationship between church and state. The government, seeking to avoid its
traditional responsibilities in the support of the Catholic schools, found itself in
serious trouble with the students. It required the exercise of police power and the
use of fire hoses to quell the riots.
Almost simultaneously in Argentina, there were developments which gave rise to
the eventual overthrow of the government and the flight of the dictator, Perona
definite indication that all was not well in the matter of traditional close ties
between devoutly Catholic South American countries and the Vatican. However,
in this case, church influence had prevailed.
The presence of Roman Catholics behind the Iron Curtain and the need for the
church to extend its comfort and protection to them as far as possible has raised a
different kind of problem, and generally each situation has required its own
handling and solution. Nevertheless, in its earlier confrontation, an attempt was
made on the part of the Roman church to bring to light every available bit of
evidence with reference to the so-called ulterior purposes and intents of world
communism, to do everything possible to prevent its spread, and to maintain, on
all fronts, an aggressive attitude toward Marxism in general. In some instances
whole groups of people, who attempted to serve two masters at the same time,
Catholicism and communism, were excommunicated.
Essentially, all this means that there has been a continuation of the old Csaro-
papal conflict into our time. It appears in new attire, with modern terminology
applied, but substantially it is a story of the same issues of conflict being
repeated over and over again.
In modern times, the loss of the papal states has proved to be a great
disadvantage politically. In one respect, however, it has been a boon to the
papacy, having made perforce more of a spiritual and ecclesiastical leader of the
pope than a temporal and political ruler. The recent popes have been inclined to
give their attention and their lives in a dedicated way to things spiritual, and to
the interests of Christianity and particularly to world Catholicism. Among the
popes of the modern period, one would look in vain for anyone who has in any
way disgraced the office of the papacy because of misconduct in the manner
identified with the age of pornocracy. These leaders have usually been men well
trained in theology, men of high standards and high ideals. We see in them a
sense of fulfillment of the Christian ideal as they seek to represent, in the way
they understand and in keeping with the tradition as best they are able, the
mission of Peter to the world. This, of course, is best understood by the Catholic
mind.
As we view the status of the papacy in the twentieth century, we are particularly
concerned with the lives and contributions of popes Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul
VI, and John Paul II.
Pius X, who had led the crusade against liberalism and modernism, and who died
in 1914, was the first of the popes in modern times to be canonized, to be made a
saint. This was done during the administration of and under the direction of Pius
XII, in 1954. Pius XII, himself, came to be recognized as one of the greatest
Christians of the twentieth century, primarily because of his unfaltering example,
during the world wars, as a crusader for humanity.
Born Eugenie Pacelli on 2 March 1876, in Rome, he was the son of the dean of
Vatican lawyers, an aristocrat, one of the nobility of Italy, and was expected to
follow in the footsteps of his predecessors. His family was able to provide a great
deal for him including an education at the Roman Gregoriana. He did not enjoy
the best of health as a youth and was given certain privileges and concessions
that assisted him in his effort to prepare for office in the clergy.
After his ordination in 1899, he was appointed professor of law at the Roman
seminary, where he made a good name for himself, leaving that position only to
enter the papal secretariat of state. In this position the opportunity was opened up
to him to relieve the suffering of the world wherever he found need. He
dedicated himself to the cause of humanity regardless of race, color, or religious
confession. Supervising the work of exchanging prisoners and moving wounded
to hospitals during World War I, he allowed no discrimination in administering
of aid and compassion to enemy and ally alike.
In 1929, he was recalled to Rome to succeed his friend and teacher Cardinal
Gasparri as the papal secretary of state. In the ensuing years he became legate to
the Eucharistic Congress in Buenos Aires, and visited the United States in 1936,
where he was well received.
On the death of his predecessor, Pius XI, he was elected pope on the first ballot
in the conclave of 1939. The outbreak of World War II provided an almost
immediate opportunity for him to show to the world that his humanitarian
interests transcended all other things, crossing over the borders of nationalism,
creed and race. The fact that he spoke several languages fluently and used others
in study and research enhanced his capacity to communicate on an international
scale. His work for peace continued throughout the war, including over thirty
appeals for peace in seven languages, and the granting of asylum to those who
were being persecuted for political or ethnic reasons. This was particularly
meaningful during the Nazi occupation of Rome.
After the war, he openly opposed the use of atomic energy in warfare and led in
the struggle by Catholics against atheistic communism. The year 1950 was
declared a holy year by Pius XII, and for the first time in history television
cameras and the other media of communication were given access to the
ceremony that took place in St. Peter's, attesting to his desire to adjust to modern
needs and circumstances. His growing concern for such adjustment was further
evidenced in his Mediator Dei, wherein he insisted upon greater participation of
the laity in the ceremonies. While preserving the essential doctrinal elements
along with the beauty of the liturgy, it allowed for improvements and appropriate
responses of the lay members in the celebration of the Mass. This laid the
groundwork for even further expansion of this principle in the Second Vatican
Council (Abbott 161).
In spite of a continuing tendency toward atheism in some parts of the world
where the influence of the church had been curtailed, under Pius XII, the Roman
Catholic church had grown to become the largest Christian denomination in the
world. Its membership comprised more of the population of the Christian nations
on the average than all of the rest of Christianity combined, and its influence so
obviously worldwide that there were few areas that it had not touched.
In his declining years Pius XII experienced serious illness several times, and was
in fact very close to death in 1955 and 1956, yet he carried on the papal duties as
vigorously as possible until his death in 1958. He had governed well for nineteen
years, but left no particular recommendation as to his choice of successor.
The most memorable contribution of Pope John XXIII, 1958-1963, was the
calling of the Second Vatican Council. But more astonishing than the surprise of
the council was the man himself. Many insisted that the cardinals had
deliberately elected him as an innocuous, temporary, seventy-seven year old
expedient, who obviously would not live long and who could then be succeeded
by a pontiff more to their liking. More time and appropriate deliberation would
be needed to elect the real man of destiny.
Laity and clerics alike, especially his electors, were amazed when he became
exceedingly active, traveled abroad, and issued a papal encyclical which touched
upon a broad range of current social, political, and economic issues. He
denounced nuclear warfare, encouraged the United Nations to move in the
direction of world government, made a case for the preservation of free
enterprise, and at the same time challenged governments to assume the
responsibility for adequate health and welfare insurance for all citizens.
Born Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli in Sotte il Monte, Italy, in 1881, he was one of
ten children. Growing up on a farm, he knew the rigors of peasant life until he
was eleven years old, when he entered the seminary at Bergamo. From that time
until his death in 1963, his life was dedicated to the church and its ministry. Over
a lifetime he served as archbishop, papal nuncio, cardinal, and patriarch of
Venice before finally being elected to the papal throne in 1958.
His congenial personality and down-to-earth warmth, coupled with a more
intimate closeness to the people, impressed millions both in and out of the
church, but his innovative procedures and dislike of traditional protocol caused
him to be somewhat controversial among his colleagues in the ministry. He was
called "Good Pope John" by the people, but his policies and procedures, lacked
full support among all his bishops. Some feared the conciliatory moves toward
the communist bloc, and still others among the conservatives would have
welcomed a revival of the militant anti-communism of Pius XII.
He squelched the reactionary protestors and critics among the Curia and
cardinals who had opposed his calling of the Second Vatican Council, by
announcing that it had been called by revelation. And, although he lived only
long enough to summon the council and preside over its first session, from
September to December 1962, his successor would carry on the work which he
began and see the harvest of the seeds sown by John XXIII.
Lest it influence their choice of his successor, Pope John withheld from the
cardinals his secret desire that his good friend Giovanni Battista Montini,
archbishop of Milan, should succeed him as pope. He had expressed this hope
before his death in an unpublished diary, and had taken the preparatory step of
elevating Montini to the cardinalcy as one of his first official acts at the time he
had become pope in 1958.
Choosing the name Paul VI, Montini did not disappoint his electors, who had
anticipated that he would be an outstanding administrator in a time when that
particular talent was especially needed. Thirty years of experience in the Vatican
secretariat, in addition to his many other assignments, had equipped him well.
He reconvened the Second Vatican Council, presided over the remaining three
sessions from 1963 through 1965, and lived to see the results and the impression
that it made on the Catholic and non-Catholic world for an additional thirteen
years before his death in 1978. What was finally announced to the world as its
findings and contributions had his support and approval. Published in four
constitutions, nine decrees, and three declarations were items including (1) a
greater role for the ordinary lay member in church matters and greater
participation in church functions; (2) a new look at Bible scholarship and study,
with recommended regular reading of the scriptures not only in the Catholic
version but also in approved non-Catholic Bibles; (3) reference to the non-
Catholic Christians as "our separated brethren"; (4) recognition of the holiness in
other Christian bodies and the good in non-Christian religions; (5) a statement
regarding freedom of religion; (6) exoneration of the Jews for the crucifixion of
Jesus; (7) the possibility of eventually extending the sacrament of matrimony to
some of the clergy; (8) and, finally, the policy of leaving the door open for
further improvements.
With the close of Vatican II in December 1965, many Catholic modernists and
reformists expected the church to move off abruptly in the direction of
liberalism. Pope Paul VI, although moderately modernist himself and committed
to continue the progressive approach of the Vatican implemented by John XXIII,
nevertheless, was determined to move with caution. In assembling around him
several aides and consultants of known conservative views, including Cardinal
Cicognani as Secretary of State, it became increasingly clear that nearly two
millennia of tradition would not be suddenly set aside. In fact, after a few years
of some dissent and controversy over certain unsettled issues and anticipated
changes, the liberal voices have quieted down to some degree.
The pope's policies and views of papal responsibility culminated in greater world
acceptance and approval of his role as a religious leader. Before his death he
sought to put into effect the spirit of some of the resolutions of Vatican II with
respect to non-Catholics. He made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, met with the
patriarch of Constantinople (of the Eastern Orthodox tradition), traveled abroad
to other places outside Italy, and won the respect and enthusiastic admiration of
Protestant Christians in Europe and America.
As we come to the conclusion and summary of this study, we are in the last
quarter of the twentieth century. The reigning pope is John Paul II, who like his
predecessors John XXIII and Paul VI, is held in high esteem by Catholic and
non-Catholic Christians, as well as by people of other religions everywhere.
The world was surprised and pleased at the election of a non-Italian, but even
more delighted that the electors had seen fit to elevate to the papal throne a
relatively unknown Polish cardinal, whose second love was writing poems.
The faithful Catholic refers to him as "Your Holiness" or "Holy Father." But his
official title as "Bishop of Rome, Governor of Jesus Christ, Successor of the
Apostolic Prince, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Province
of Rome, Ruler of the Pontifical State."
Born Karol Wojtyla, in 1920, son of a middle class Polish worker, the new pope
had studied literature at the University of Krakow before the Nazi invasion in
1939. During the German occupation years, he supported himself by hard work
in the quarries and in a chemical plant, and for some time joined the Rhapsodic
Theater in Krakow. During part of that time, he became active in the anti-Nazi
underground. He enjoyed a normal social life and courted a young lady for a
while until he began seriously studying for the priesthood.
His ordination to the priesthood in 1946 and consecration as bishop in 1958 did
not so completely occupy his talents and time that he forgot his second vocation.
In 1962, he published his poems under a pseudonym, and his identity as a poet
was a well-guarded secret almost until the time of his election to the papacy.
In the years of his pontificate, he has traveled widely and has been received with
great applause and enthusiasm in Poland, in spite of the communist control of his
homeland. He has visited many other countries including Mexico, the United
States twice, and even non-Christian countries.
Speaking out firmly on the controversial issues of our time, he ratified the
teachings of the Catholic church, "exalting the beauty of marriage," and
condemning divorce, abortion, homosexuality, and the use of artificial
contraception, echoing the convictions of Paul VI. And, although he realized it
was not possible to avoid criticism or to please everyone, he was able to return
home from his visits to the United States knowing that the public opinion polls
gave him overwhelming approval and acceptance.
What tragic irony it was that back in the sanctuary of the Vatican itself he should
have been cut down by a would-be assassin's bullet in May 1981, while in the
very act of bestowing his blessing on the people. That he recovered and resumed
again the routine of his ministry after many weeks of hospitalization caused
rejoicing among people of all faiths everywhere who had prayed for him.













11
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
At the outset of this study, we postulated that the history of the papacy has been
a diversified spectacle of great expanse. Perhaps the reader now finds that
proposition abundantly confirmed. It was conceded that it would not be possible
to see it in all its grandeur or in all its weakness; however, from a certain
historical, theological, and cultural perspective, we have viewed critically at least
some of its many facets.
In principle, the objective historical method is assumed to be "value free." But
maintaining a value free stance is impossible because by the very act of choosing
topics, issues, and people to write about, an author necessarily makes value
judgments.
With the assertion that Peter represents each one of us as a whole person,
believer and doubter, faithful and unfaithful, we examined the data of his early
life and the months of soul searching in his ministry with Jesus. We found that
his full conversion came slowly.
The post-resurrection Peter seemed transformed into a new person, a converted
preeminent leader, whose powerful Pentecostal address marked the beginning of
an approximately eighteen-year Palestinian ministry. During this period, Peter
presided from Jerusalem, although he traveled away from that center of the
apostolic church on occasion.
In a subsequent struggle for leadership, some students feel that Peter yielded
some to the encroaching influence and popularity of James, the brother of Jesus.
He seemed confused as he attempted to reconcile Judaistic tradition with the
universal concept of the gospel until his vision at Joppa taught him the gospel
was for the Gentiles as well as for the Jews. Apparently leaving James in charge
at Jerusalem he traveled throughout the empire and even to Rome itself. He was
rebuked by Paul for not being consistent when he allowed James and the
Judaizers to intimidate him. After Peter arrived in Rome, there was an apparent
revival of his presidential authority and leadership.
Chapter 2 concludes with Paul and Peter both in Rome and notes not only their
reconciliation but also Paul's influence and leadership over the congregation of
gentile converts. Tradition has it that after Peter was martyred, he was buried in a
temporary shallow grave near the Appian Way. His remains were subsequently
removed to the catacombs and finally to Vatican Hill.
The claim of the Roman Catholic church rests on the issue of Petrine primacy
and Roman supremacythe idea that authority bestowed upon Peter has been
perpetuated through the centuries in the papacy. In the light of canonical,
theological and semantic data, an examination of the problem of whether the
foundation "rock" upon which Christ would build his church is Peter or
revelation shows the inescapable necessity of its being revelation. However,
revelation does not come in a vacuum. Revelation without a "chosen vessel," in
this case Peter, would be ineffective and unqualified or unauthorized.
That Peter held the keys of the Kingdom is something dear to both Catholics and
Latter-day Saints, but the Catholic claim to unbroken succession is refuted,
necessitating an eventual restoration of the priesthood and presidency through
revelation. Peter, as the apostolic president, may also have functioned as
presiding bishop in Rome, but not by telescoping all of the apostolate into the
bishopric.
That the church at Rome gradually emerged as the mother church, assuming
supervision over other churches, is a fact of history. Before the close of the third
century, the word Catholic, now capitalized, had become a recognized part of the
identifying label for the bulk of Christianity. After nearly three centuries of
persecution, it is not surprising that many welcomed the imperial protection
provided by the empire under Constantine. This proved, however, to be both an
advantage and a disadvantage. The increased ecclesiastic importance of Rome
was in part due to Constantine's moving the capitol of the empire from Rome to
Byzantium, leaving Rome to its bishop.
The gradual assumption of secular, political and temporal power by the bishops
of Rome, while adding greater dimension to the office, made them more
vulnerable to influences other than spiritual and priestly ones. Nevertheless, two
examples of great medieval figures filling the role of the bishop of Rome in the
best tradition of the popes were reviewed, Leo the Great (fifth century) and
Gregory the Great (sixth century).
Although many authors have attempted historically to account for the
biographies of the popes, it is only the most recent who have succeeded in
maintaining some degree of acceptable standards of objectivity.
Without pretense of full coverage of the problem of the relationship between
church and state, Chapter 5 considered some of the more prominent examples of
the unresolved struggle between Caesar and God, politics with religious
overtonesreligion with political overtones.
Beginning with Constantine and ending on the contemporary scene, there were
many times when the popes or the Catholic church as an institution were under
some kind of compulsion to conform to the will of the state. And yet, the
opposite was very frequently true. The exercise of absolute sovereignty on the
part of both of these elements of the culture was inconstant and vacillating.
However, in spite of the periods of decline and the loss of prestige and influence
by the papacy, that institution is still with us and many roads somehow still seem
to lead to Rome.
In turning to the question of moral integrity and example of the popes,
particularly in the medieval period, we faced the problem of whether or not
disparaging, biographical references could be avoided. Needless to say a whole
block of history involving disgraceful, sensual despots who ascended the "throne
of Peter" cannot be ignored. Certain popes either exploited the papal office with
impunity or were part of a general pattern of endless disorder and godless
behavior for a period of almost three centuries. There was an almost unlimited
potential for autocratic power evident when the sovereignty of the papal office
expanded into the papal states. All of this eventually led to the Protestant
Reformation.
And yet, there were popes whose undying devotion to reform, coupled with the
assertion of papal prerogative, provided the papacy with a temporary relief from
its debauched past. In the papal reign of Gregory VII (Hildebrandt) 1073-1085,
the stage was set for the subsequent pontifical accomplishments of Innocent III,
1198-1216.
The administrations of these two popes show that, on occasion, the secularization
of papal power can actually make possible the revival of priestly integrity,
spiritual reform, and moral regeneration to some degree. Both of these men
asserted the power of the priestly over the political, the scepter over the sword,
and in Innocent we see the ultimate in papal supremacy. Never before was there,
nor has there been since, a pope who arbitrated disputes in the Holy Roman
Empire, manipulated the selection of kings and emperors, and declared as invalid
official declarations and judicial pronouncements of certain kings and
governments, like Innocent did. His successors continued to enjoy, for at least a
short period, the carry-over effect of his policies and practices, but that was
slowly dissipated.
During this time, the ongoing crusade movement fell far short of achieving its
goals. The crusades actually contributed to the death of spirituality and religious
integrity in the West.
The age of glory and papal power was also a period of increased serfdom and
illiteracy among the masses. Yet, some popes and monks struggled to preserve
morals and to retrieve letters and learning.
The historical context of the "Babylonish Captivity" shows that the
establishment of papal residency in France instead of Rome brought about a
confusing state of affairs. This abrupt turnabout with reference to Roman
supremacy ignored one of the two traditional claims for the basis of the whole
papal idea, which also included the concept of Petrine priority and primacy. For
a period of about seventy-five years, 1305-1378, the popes lived in Avignon,
France, where some of the French kings were able to exert a powerful influence
over the papacy for at least part of that time.
The confusing and unstable state of the papacy was compounded after its
eventual return to Rome. Three disagreeing factions within the College of
Cardinals eventually established their own papal headquarters with one in Rome,
another in Avignon, and a third in Pisa. This was the beginning of another
extended period of embarrassment for the church, with three popes ruling
simultaneously from three separate locations in Europe.
In the Council of Constance, called in 1414, the delegates ignored papal primacy
in favor of conciliar authority and ousted, or forced, the abdication of all three
popes, electing Martin V, an Italian, to bring an end to the "Great Western
Schism." But before the council had settled the matter of the schism, they had
strained the confidence and trust of much of the Christian world by condemning
and burning the Bohemian reformer John Huss, after he had been promised safe
conduct by both the emperor and the church.
The phrase, "When Peter Speaks," identifies the idea that the successors of Peter
speak, in the place of Peter, the inspired word of the Apostle unto the whole
Church. This principle undergirds the pronouncements of the official dogma and
doctrine of the Catholic church from the first Epistle of Peter down to and
including papal teachings in our time.
There has been confusion and misunderstanding among both Catholics and non-
Catholics over the centuries about the doctrine of papal infallibility. Declared an
official doctrine of the church by the Vatican Council of 1867-70, it holds that
the pope is infallible when, under specified conditions, he speaks out on matters
of faith and morals to the whole church. It does not mean that everything he says
is always true or that he cannot be sinful himself.
"The Twentieth Century" popes, Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II,
among others, have been unfaltering examples of moral and religious integrity.
They have faced various political and social trends such as modernism, fascism,
communism, and "the new morality." They have also faced the impact of the
diminished size of the papal states, now reduced to a single 108-acre site on one
side of Rome.
The work and findings of the second Vatican Council, 1962-65, have had great
meaning not only for Catholics, but also for non-Catholic societies as they have
wrestled with these modern problems.
The contemporary pope, John Paul II, enjoys approval and acceptance by people
in various parts of the world, even some who may at times disagree with him.
His recovery from the wounds of a would-be assassin's bullet has caused
rejoicing among people of all faiths.
The completed Catholic roster of the popes shows John Paul II to be the 264th
man to hold the office of pope from the inception of the papacy. And yet,
although Peter may have been the apostolic leader in Rome and a forerunner of
those who have called themselves popes, this study would have to conclude that
Peter never thought of himself as a pope, and neither should anyone else.
Finally, although biographical consideration of inadequate popes has been
unavoidable, the institution of the papacy itself (as an historical reality) has
endured way beyond the mortals who have been identified with it.
It is hoped that this study might lead to better understanding and greater
tolerance among religious groups as they seek to know and appreciate each
other, especially in view of history and tradition. It seems, after all, inevitable
that we will eventually know each other in our perfection and weakness.
APPENDIX A
Roman Catholic Church Orders and Doctrine
The College of Cardinals has the responsibility of electing the new pope,
advising and assisting him in matters of church government, and voting in
ecumenical councils. Many cardinals are called to serve in the general governing
council of the church known as the Curia Romana. In carrying out their
respective duties for the church, they exercise authority and jurisdiction
delegated to them by the pope.
The Curia is divided into three classifications of administrative or judicial
bodies: the Sacred Congregations, the Roman Tribunals, and the Roman Offices.
The Sacred Congregations are similar to general committees or councils, having
jurisdiction over universities and seminaries, ceremonies, extraordinary
ecclesiastical affairs, discipline, and studies of church clubs. The Roman
Tribunals are comprised of three higher level courts to handle legal and
canonical questions of appeal for the general church. The third type of governing
body within the Curia consists of cabinet or secretariat dignitaries whose special
assignments and responsibilities are known as the Roman Offices.
The next level of authority is the diocese or bishopric. It may be large in the
territory it comprises or relatively small with a great number of members,
depending on the density of Catholic population in the area. The diocese is
presided over by a bishop, who receives his jurisdiction directly from the pope.
The diocese may comprise several or many local congregations or subdivisions
known as parishes. The parish is presided over by a pastor, who may be assisted
by a curate or other parish priests.
At a very early time in the developmental period of Christianity, the practice of
asceticism and institutional monasticism got a foothold. This religious way of
life has been perpetuated by Roman Catholics with greater support and
enthusiasm than by any other denomination in the Christian community. There
are many orders representing various concepts of duty and devotion for both men
(monks, friars, etc.) and women (nuns). The object and purposes of their
founding and perpetuation range from devotion and meditation to education and
charity.
A common misunderstanding among non-Catholics is the assumption that a
religious or monastic way of life is necessarily identified with the priesthood and
clerical responsibility. Monks and priests are not one and the same. Most monks
or members of religious orders are not priests, although some are. The
priesthood, and preparation for it, represent a discipline and training apart from
the system of religious orders.
Strictly speaking, monasticism implies withdrawal from society or being
cloistered or shut off in housing away from the world, but not all religious orders
are monastic in this sense. Some are dedicated to a kind of charity or service,
such as preaching, teaching, and caring for the sick and the orphaned, which
requires being in the world.
The theology of Catholicism, which has emerged into the twentieth century, has
developed around the doctrines that are either expressed in, or inferred from,
scripture and the tradition of the doctors or fathers of the church. Eventually, the
scripture as a source of revelation was relied upon only indirectly, and more
emphasis was given to tradition.
The development of authoritarian, sacramentarian theology logically followed
the importance attached to priesthood and apostolic succession. Catholics believe
that the sacraments of the church are administered by the priesthood as a means
for the Lord to channel his grace to the faithful. Included among the seven
recognized sacraments are baptism, confirmation, penance, the Lord's Supper
(mass), extreme unction, holy orders (ordination), and holy matrimony.
The first five of the sacraments plus either one (but not usually both) of the last
two are prescribed for all faithful Catholics. Those who enter the priesthood or
one of the religious orders, with some exceptions, do not marry. Some who have
been widowed or have formerly been married may eventually take religious
vows and thus partake of all the sacraments, but this is the exception.
The following from the Baltimore Catechism indicates how the seven sacraments
have the function of giving and sustaining grace in the individual:
Baptism starts supernatural life in the soul, Confirmation strengthens it, Holy
Eucharist nourishes it, Penance restores it, Extreme Unction protects it up to the
end. Holy Orders provide ministers for the Sacraments, and Matrimony
sanctifies married life. Thus the Sacraments correspond to our temporal and
spiritual welfare (Baltimore Catechism 3).
As with most religious symbolism, some of the sacraments are identified in the
experience of the individual with life's most important events: baptism with the
birth, confirmation with accountable age, matrimony with maturity sufficient to
wed, and extreme unction with physical death.
Baptism is performed by the priest within one or two weeks after a child's birth.
In the presence of the parents and other family members, together with two
sponsors, who are called godfather and godmother, the priest pours a small
amount of water on the forehead or face of the child and, while pouring, says, "I
baptize thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost."
Although they are not necessary to make the baptism efficacious, certain other
preparatory ceremonies are customarily performed. A new name is given. This is
usually the name of a respected saint, whose name should remind the child as he
grows up to imitate certain virtues. There is a ceremony of the casting out of the
devil, the placing of salt in the mouth to symbolize protection against corruption,
the signing with the cross to take possession in the name of Christ, the placing of
a stole on the child to lead it into the church, the reciting of the Apostles' Creed
and the Lord's Prayer by the godfather and the godmother, the opening of the
ears and nostrils with spit, the anointing of the breast and back to bear the burden
of Christ, and the profession and promising of faith made by the sponsors as
proxy for the child, who could make them for himself if he were old enough to
reason.
Confirmation is administered by the bishop to the child who has reached his
eighth year. This is done by the imposition of hands and the anointing of the
forehead as an outward sign of the strengthening of faith, the increase of
sanctifying grace, and the gifts of the Holy Ghost.
The sacrament of the Lord's Supper is conducted as the mass that, it is believed
by Catholics, was first said by Jesus in the upper room. In the celebration of the
mass, the priest repeats the words of the Lord, by which Catholics claim that
transubstantiation of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is
supernaturally accomplished: "this is my body this is my blood" (Matthew
26:26, 28). The offering of the body of Christ upon the altar is the only sacrifice
sanctioned by the Catholic covenant. The act of a Catholic of accepting, in good
faith and good standing, either the bread or water in similitude of the blood and
flesh of Christ is called communion. The layman participates at a mass by
repeating necessary prayers, by receiving communion, and by displaying genuine
piety, respect, and devotion.
Until recently, the prescribed formulas for public worship (the liturgy of the
mass) were in Latin. Recommendations of the Second Vatican Council have
resulted in a changeover to the local vernacular in some western countries.
Associated with the sacrament of penance is the confession. In a spirit of
contrition, the faithful confess their sins to the priest in the confessional. Based
on the statement of the Lord to the apostles, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose
soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye
retain, they are retained" (John 20:22, 23), Catholics believe that the priest has
the power of absolving sins committed after baptism. He then assigns to the
penitent a proper penance or penalty (acts of devotion, charity, or self-sacrifice)
that will help to restore the spirituality of that person and discipline him in his
character growth and development.
For centuries the extreme unction or last anointing has been customarily given
by the priest only to those in danger of death. The Second Vatican Council
recommended a return to the former practice of anointing for the healing of the
sick rather than reserving this ordinance only for the dying.
Extreme Unction, which may also and more fittingly be called "anointing of the
sick" is not a sacrament for those only who are at the point of death. Anointing
of the sick is a much happier term than "Extreme Unction," since it does not
suggest imminent death. This comforting sacrament should be given not at the
moment of death, but as soon as there is some danger of death from sickness or
old age (Abbott 161).
The priest also assists the sick or dying person in remembering his prayers and
devotions and helps him to admit his need for mercy and compassion because of
his sins.
The sacrament of holy matrimony is regarded as a very sacred covenant
instituted by the Savior for those who marry. Believing that no human power can
dissolve the bond of Christian marriage, the church therefore recognizes and
grants no divorce. Husbands and wives are sometimes counseled to live apart in
cases of extreme incompatibility, and the church sometimes declares a marriage
invalid by affirming that there never actually was a bond of marriage sealed.
Holy virginity for those who do not marry because of devotion or religious duty
is considered a holier state than matrimony.
The Catholic concept of God is found in the traditional trinitarian doctrine of the
creeds. Without the help of God, through the arm of the priesthood and church
and through the grace that is channeled to him through the sacraments, man is
incapable of accomplishing his own salvation.
Catholics believe that man is responsible for his own sins, both mortal (grievous)
and venial (less serious), but that he is also born into the sinful state known as
original sin. This is the depraved condition of the material world of flesh and
corruption that has prevailed since Adam's transgression. The condition of
original sin can be overcome by the spiritual covenant made in baptism. For this
reason, the advantages of baptism are given to the infant as soon as possible.
The doctrine of salvation includes the traditional place and condition concepts of
heaven and hell. It also provides for a temporary, intermediate state of purgatory
for the purification and cleansing, through suffering, of those who are yet to
enjoy the blessings of heaven but who have not been penitent or have not
prepared sufficiently in this life.
In addition to these more important commitments, the religious life of the
Catholic layman might include the veneration of certain sacred relics, the use of
the rosary in prayer devotion, and a special veneration or reverence for Mary, the
mother of Jesus. This is sometimes misunderstood by non-Catholics to mean
worship of Mary, but it is really an appeal to Mary or other departed members of
the church to pray for the one making the appeal or request. Mary is held in such
high esteem that a recently promulgated doctrine declares that she has been
wholly and bodily resurrected and is now in the presence of the Father and Son,
thus enjoying a special advantage as one who might intercede or petition in
behalf of another.
In a day when world Christianity is in dire need of reform, there is still much of
fundamentalism left in Catholicism. It is possible that the winds of change in the
Catholic church may incline toward those primary elements.
The Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, concluded after four annual sessions in
December of 1965, might well have been a step toward that change.


APPENDIX B
List of the Popes in the Catholic Tradition
1. Peter, d. 64-67.
2. Linus, 67-76?
3. Anacletus, 77-78.
4. Clement I, 88-97.
5. Evaristus, 97-105.
6. Alexander I, 105-15.
7. Sixtus I, 115-25?
8. Telesphorus, 125-36.
9. Hyginus, 136-40?
10. Pius I, 140-55?
11. Anicetus, 155-66?
12. Soter, 166-75?
13. Eleutherus, 175-89?
14. Victor I, 189-99?
15. Zephyrinus 199-217.
16. Calixtus I, 217-22.
. Hippolytus, 217-35 (anti-pope).
17. Urban I, 222-30.
18. Pontian, 230-35.
19. Anterus, 235-36.
20. Fabian, 236-50.
21. Cornelius, 251-53.
. Novatian, 251 (anti-pope).
22. Lucius, 253-54.
23. Stephen I, 254-57.
24. Sixtus II, 257-58.
25. Dionysius, 260-68.
26. Felix I, 269-74.
27. Eutychian, 275-83.
28. Caius, 283-96.
29. Marcellius, 296-304.
. Vacancy, 3 yrs., 7 mos.
30. Marcellus I, 308-09.
31. Eusebius, 309-10?
32. Miltiades, 311-14.
33. Sylvester I, 314-35.
34. Marcus, 336.
35. Julius I, 337-52.
36. Liberius, 352-66.
. Felix II, 355-65. (anti-pope).
37. Damasus I, 366-84.
. Ursinus, 366-67. (anti-pope).
38. Siricius, 384-99.
39. Anastasius I, 399-401.
40. Innocent I, 401-17.
41. Zosimus, 417-18.
42. Boniface I, 418-22.
. Eulalius, 418-19. (anti-pope).
43. Celestine, 422-32.
44. Sixtus III, 432-40.
45. Leo I, 440-61.
46. Hilarius, 461-68.
47. Simplicius, 468-83.
48. Felix III (II), 483-92.
49. Gelasius I, 492-96.
50. Anastasius II, 496-98.
51. Symmachus, 498-514.
. Lawrence, 498-505? (anti-pope).
52. Hormisdas, 514-23.
53. John I, 523-26.
54. Felix IV (III), 526-30.
55. Boniface II, 530-32.
. Dioscurus, 530. (anti-pope).
56. John II, 533-35.
57. Agapetus I, 535-36.
58. Silverius, 536-37.
59. Vigilius, 537-55.
60. Pelagius I, 556-61.
61. John III, 561-74.
62. Benedict I, 575-79.
63. Pelagius II, 579-90.
64. Gregory I, 590-604.
65. Sabinianus, 604-06.
66. Boniface III, 607.
67. Boniface IV, 608-15.
68. Adeodatus I, 615-18.
69. Boniface V, 619-25.
70. Honorius I, 625-38.
71. Severinus, 640.
72. John IV, 640-42.
73. Theodore I. 642-49.
74. Martin I, 649-53.
75. Eugene I, 655-57.
76. Vitalian, 657-72.
77. Adeodatus II, 672-76.
78. Donus, 676-78.
79. Agathon, 678-81.
80. Leo II, 682-83.
81. Benedict II, 684-85.
82. John V, 685-86.
83. Conon, 686-87.
. Theodore, 687. (anti-pope).
. Paschal, 687. (anti-pope).
84. Sergius I, 687-701.
85. John VI, 701-05.
86. John VII, 705-07.
87. Sisinnius, 7020 days.
88. Constantine, 708-15.
89. Gregory II, 715-31.
90. Gregory III, 731-41.
91. Zacharias, 741-52.
92. Stephen II, 7523 days.
. (never consecrated).
93. Stephen III (II), 752-57.
94. Paul I, 757-67.
. Constantine II, 767-69.
. (anti-pope).
. Philip, 768. (anti-pope).
95. Stephen IV (III), 768-72.
96. Adrian I, 772-95.
97. Leo III, 795-816.
98. Stephen V (IV), 816-17.
99. Paschal I, 817-24.
100. Eugene II, 824-27.
101. Valentine, 8271 mo.
102. Gregory IV, 827-44.
103. Sergius II, 844-47.
. John, 844. (anti-pope).
104. Leo IV, 847-55.
105. Benedict III, 855-58.
. Anastasius, 855. (anti-pope).
106. Nicholas I, 858-67.
107. Adrian II, 867-72.
108. John VIII, 872-82.
109. Marinus I, 882-84.
110. Adrian III, 884-85.
111. Stephen VI (V), 885-91.
112. Formosus, 891-96.
113. Boniface VI, 89615 days.
114. Stephen VII (VI), 896-97.
115. Romanus, 897.
116. Theodore II, 89720 days.
117. John IX, 898-900.
118. Benedict IV, 900-03.
119. Leo V, 9032 mos.
. Christopher, 903-04. (anti-pope).
120. Sergius III, 904-11.
121. Anastasius III, 911-13.
122. Lando, 913-14.
123. John X, 914-28.
124. Leo VI, 928.
125. Stephen VIII (VII), 928-31.
126. John XI, 931-35.
127. Leo VII, 936-39.
128. Stephen IX (VIII), 939-42.
129. Marinus II, 942-46.
130. Agapetus II, 946-55.
131. John XII, 955-64.
132. Leo VIII, 963-64.
(Overlap period).
133. Benedict V, 9641 mo.
134. John XIII, 965-72.
135. Benedict VI, 973-74.
136. Benedict VII, 974-83.
. Boniface VII, 974-84. (anti-pope).
137. John XIV, 983-84.
138. John XV, 985-96.
139. Gregory V, 996-99.
. John XVI, 997-98. (anti-pope).
140. Sylvester II, 999-1003.
141. John XVII, 10034 mos.
142. John XVIII, 1004-09.
143. Sergius IV, 1009-12.
144. Benedict VIII, 1012-24.
. Gregory, 1012. (anti-pope).
145. John XIX, 1024-32.
146. Benedict IX, 1032-44 (fled).
147. Sylvester III, 10451 mo
. Benedict IX, 1045 (returned).
148. Gregory VI, 1045-46.
149. Clement II, 1046-47.
. Benedict IX, 1047-48.
. (returned after 2nd abdication).
150. Damasus II, 104823 days.
151. Leo IX, 1049-54.
152. Victor II, 1055-57.
153. Stephen X (IX), 1057-58.
. Benedict X, 1058-59. (anti-pope).
154. Nicholas II, 1059-61.
155. Alexander II, 1061-73.
. Honorius II, 1061-72. (anti-pope)
156. Gregory VII, 1073-85.
. Clement III, 1080-1100. (anti-pope).
157. Victor III, 1086-87.
158. Urban II, 1088-99.
159. Paschal II, 1099-1118. (anti-pope).
. Theodoric, 1100. (anti-pope).
. Albert, 1102. (anti-pope).
. Sylvester IV, 1105-11. (anti-pope).
160. Gelasius II, 1118-19.
. Gregory VIII, 1118-21. (anti-pope).
161. Calixtus II, 1119-24.
162. Honorius II, 1124-30.
. Celestine II, 1124. (anti-pope).
163. Innocent II, 1130-43.
. Anacletus II, 1130-43. (anti-pope)
. Victor IV, 1138. (anti-pope).
164. Clestine II, 1143-44.
165. Lucius II, 1144-45.
166. Eugene III, 1145-53.
167. Anastasius IV, 1153-54.
168. Adrian IV, 1154-59.
169. Alexander II, 1159-81.
. Victor IV, 1159-64. (anti-pope).
. Paschal III, 1164-68 (anti-pope).
. Calixtus III, 1168-78. (anti-pope).
. Innocent III, 1179-80. (anti-pope).
170. Lucius III, 1181-85.
171. Urban III, 1185-87.
172. Gregory VIII, 11872mos.
173. Clement III, 1187-91.
174. Celestine III, 1191-98.
175. Innocent III, 1198-1216.
176. Honorius III, 1216-27.
177. Gregory IX, 1227-41.
178. Celestine IV, 124117 days.
179. Innocent IV, 1243-54.
180. Alexander IV, 1254-61.
181. Urban IV, 1261-64.
182. Clement IV, 1265-68.
. Vacancy, 2 yrs., 9 mos.
183. Gregory X, 1271-76.
184. Innocent V, 1276.
185. Adrian V, 12761 mo.
186. John XXI, 1276-77.
. (There was no John XX).
187. Nicholas III, 1277-80.
188. Martin IV, 1281-85.
189. Honorius IV, 1285-87.
190. Nicholas IV, 1288-92.
. Vacancy, 2 yrs., 3 mos.
191. Celestine V, 12945 mos.
192. Boniface VIII, 1294-1303.
193. Benedict XI, 1303-04.
194. Clement V, 1305-14.
(Avignon Papacy).
. Vacancy, 2 yrs., 3 mos.
195. John XXII, 1316-34.
(Avignon Papacy).
. Nicholas V, 1328-30. (anti-pope).
196. Benedict XII, 1334-42.
(Avignon Papacy).
197. Clement VI, 1342-52.
(Avignon Papacy).
198. Innocent VI, 1352-62.
(Avignon Papacy).
199. Urban V, 1362-70.
(Avignon Papacy).
200. Gregory XI, 1370-78.
(Avignon Papacy).
201. Urban VI, 1378-89.
(Pope back in Rome.)
. Clement VII, 1378-94.
(anti-pope in Avignon).
202. Boniface IX, 1389-1404.
. Benedict XIII, 1394-1417.
(anti-pope in Avignon).
203. Innocent VII, 140406
204. Gregory XII, 1406-15.
. Alexander V, 1409-10.
(anti-pope in Pisa).
. John XXIII, 1410-15.
(anti-pope in Pisa).
205. Martin V, 1417-31.
206. Eugene IV, 1431-47.
. Felix V, 1439-49.
(Last of the anti-popes).
207. Nicholas V, 1447-55.
208. Calixtus III, 1455-58.
209. Pius II, 1458-64.
210. Paul II, 1464-71.
211. Sixtus IV, 1471-84.
212. Innocent VIII, 1484-92.
213. Alexander VI, 1492-1503.
214. Pius III, 150326 days.
215. Julius II, 1503-13.
216. Leo X, 1513-21.
217. Adrian VI, 1522-23.
218. Clement VII, 1523-34.
219. Paul III, 1534-49.
220. Julius III, 1550-55.
221. Marcellus II, 155522 days.
222. Paul IV, 1555-59.
223. Pius IV, 1559-65.
224. Pius V, 1565-72.
225. Gregory III, 1572-85.
226. Sixtus V, 1585-90.
227. Urban VII, 159013 days.
228. Gregory XIV, 1590-91.
229. Innocent IX, 15912 mos.
230. Clement VIII, 1592-1605.
231. Leo XI, 160527 days.
232. Paul V, 1605-21.
233. Gregory XV, 1621-23.
234. Urban VIII, 1623-44.
235. Innocent X, 1644-55.
236. Alexander VII, 1655-67.
237. Clement IX, 1667-69.
238. Clement X, 1670-76.
239. Innocent XI, 1676-89.
240. Alexander VII, 1689-91.
241. Innocent XII, 1691-1700.
242. Clement XI, 1700-21.
243. Innocent XIII, 1721-24.
244. Benedict XIII, 1724-30.
245. Clement XII, 1730-40.
246. Benedict XIV, 1740-58.
247. Clement XIII, 1758-69.
248. Clement XIV, 1769-74.
249. Pius VI, 1775-99.
250. Pius VII, 1800-23.
251. Leo XII, 1823-29.
252. Pius VIII, 1829-30.
253. Gregory XVI, 1831-46.
254. Pius IX, 1846-78.
255. Leo XIII, 1878-1903.
256. Pius X, 1903-14.
257. Benedict XV, 1914-22.
258. Pius XI, 1922-39.
259. Pius XII, 1939-58.
260. John XXIII, 1958-63.
261. Paul VI, 1963-78.
262. John Paul I, 1978.
263. John Paul II, 1978-2005
264. Benedict XVI, 2005-2013
265. Francis I, 2013-present
If John XX could be accounted for, there would be 266 popes.





BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abbott, Walter M., ed. The Documents of Vatican II. New York: Herder and
Herder, 1966.
Aquinas, Thomas. Summa Theologica. New York: Benziger Bros., 1947-48.
Beer, Bernard. Leben Abrahams nach Auffassung der Judischen Sage.
Leipzig: Leiner, 1859.
Bettenson, Henry, ed. Documents of the Christian Church. London: Oxford
University Press, 1963.
Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, eds. Peter in the
New Testament. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1973.
Brusher, Joseph S. Popes Through the Ages. Princeton: Van Nostrand, 1959.
Corbett, James A. The Papacy, A Brief History. Princeton: Van Nostrand,
1956.
The Dictionary of the Bible. 4 vols. James Hastings, ed. Edinburgh: Clark,
1899-1902.
Doctrine and Covenants. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, 1981.
Dogmatic Canons and Decrees. New York: Devin Adair, 1912.
Draper, John W. History of the Intellectual Development of Europe. 2 vols.
New York: Harper and Brothers, 1876.
Dummelow, J. R. A Commentary on the Holy Bible. New York: McMillan,
1927.
Fenton, Joseph Clifford. "The Doctrinal Authority of Papal Encyclicals, Parts
1 and 2." American Ecclesiastical Review (Aug-Sep 1949) 121:136-50, 210-
220.
Frank, Tenney. A History of Rome. New York: Henry Holt, 1923.
Fremantle, Anne, ed. The Papal Encyclicals in Their Historical Context.
New York: New American Library, 1956.
Giles, E. Documents Illustrating Papal Authority A.D. 96-454. London: The
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1952.
Ginzberg, Louis. The Legends of the Jews. 7 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish
Publication Society of America, 1909-38.
Gontard, Friedrich. The Chair of Peter. A.J. and E.F. Peeler, trans. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1964.
Haller, Johannes. Das Papsttum, Idee und Wirklicheit. 5 vols. Munchen:
Rowolt, 1965.
Hughes, Philip. A Papal History of the Catholic Church. London: Burns,
Oats and Washbourne Ltd., 1939.
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia. 5 vols. James Orr, ed.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960.
Interpreters Bible. 12 vols. George A. Buttrick, et al. eds. New York:
Abingdon Press, 1951-57.
Kuhner, Hans. Encyclopedia of the Papacy. Kenneth J. Norcott, trans. New
York: Philosophical Library, 1958.
Lowrie, Walter. SS Peter and Paul in Rome. London: Oxford University
Press, 1940.
McConkie, Bruce R. The Mortal Messiah. 4 vols. Salt Lake City: Deseret
Book, 1979.
McKay, David O. Ancient Apostles. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1964.
. Gospel Ideals. Salt Lake City: Improvement Era, 1953.
Momigliano, Arnaldo. Claudius. Cambridge, England: Heffer, 1961.
The New Testament: The Acts and Epistles. Gospel Doctrine Department
Course of Study for 1956. Salt Lake City: Deseret Sunday School Union
Board, 1955.
Petry, Ray C., ed. Readings in the History of the Early and Medieval Church.
Vol. 1 of A History of Christianity. 2 vols. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
Hall, 1962, 1964.
Platina, B. The Lives of the Popes. 2 vols. W. Benham, ed. London: Griffith
Farran, nd.
Pope Pius XII. "Sacra Virginitas." Vatican: Polyglot Press, 1954/English
version pamphlet, "On Sacred Virginity." Washington, D.C.: National
Catholic Welfare Conference, 1954.
Roberts, Alexander, and James Donaldson, eds. The AnteNicene Fathers. 9
vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951, 1978-81 reprint.
Robinson, James H., and Charles A. Beard. Readings in Modern European
History. 2 vols. New York: Ginn and Co., 1904.
Schaff, Philip, and Henry Wace. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. 14
vols. New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1890-1900.
Scramuzza, Vincent M. The Emperor Claudius. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1940.
Seeberg, Reinhold. Textbook of the History of Doctrines. 2 vols. Charles E.
Hay, trans. Grand Rapids: Baker Book, 1952.
Talmage, James E. The Great Apostasy. Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1909.
. Jesus the Christ. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-day Saints, 1981.
Wood, Karl. "Simon Peter." Unpublished Manuscript. (Author's file).
Wynn, John. The Great Encyclical Letters of Pope Leo XIII. New York:
Benziger Bros., 1903.