THE PAPACY
by
Loraine Boettner D.D.*
(taken from his book “Roman Catholicism” first published 1962)
Chapter 6.
1. The Rise of the Papacy. 2. The Claims of the Papacy.
3. Worldly Character of the Papacy.
1. THE RISE OF THE PAPACY
Much of what needs to be said in
regard to the papacy has already been covered in the discussion dealing with
the church, the priesthood, and Peter.
But there remain some further points that should be clarified.
The word ‘pope,’ by which the head of the Roman Church is known,
and the word ‘papacy,’ by which is meant the system of ecclesiastical
government in which the pope is recognized as the supreme head, are not found
in the Bible. The word ‘pope’ comes
from the Latin papa, meaning
‘father.’ But Jesus forbade his
followers to call any man ‘father’ in a spiritual sense: ‘And call no man your
father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven’ (Matt.
23: 9). For centuries this term was
applied to all priests, and even to the present day it is so used in the
Eastern Church.
In Italy the term ‘pope’ came to be applied to all bishops as a
title of honour, and then to the bishop of Rome exclusively as the universal
bishop. It was first given to Gregory I
by the wicked emperor Phocas, in the year 604.
This he did to spite the bishop of Constantinople, who had justly
excommunicated him for having caused the assassination of his (Phocas’) predecessor,
the emperor Mauritius. Gregory,
however, refused the title, but his second successor, Boniface III (607)
assumed the title, and it has been the designation of the bishops of Rome ever
since.
Likewise, the title ‘pontiff’ (as also the term ‘pontificate,’
meaning ‘to speak in a pompous manner’), which literally means ‘bridge builder’
(pons, bridge, and facio, make), comes not from the Bible
but from pagan Rome, where the emperor, as the high priest of the heathen
religion, and in that sense professing to be the bridge or connecting link
between this life and the next, was called ‘Pontifex Maximus.’ The title was therefore lifted from paganism
and applied to the head of the Roman Catholic Church. As the high priest of the Old Testament was the mediator between
God and men, so the pope also claims to be the mediator between God and men,
with power over the souls in purgatory so that he can release them from further
suffering and admit them to heaven, or prolong their suffering indefinitely.
But Christ alone is the mediator between God and men: ‘For
there is one God, one mediator also between God and men, himself man, Christ
Jesus’ (1 Tim. 2: 5). And He alone is
the true Head of the church. It was He
who founded the church and redeemed it with His own blood. He promised to be with His church always,
even unto the end of the world. He
alone has the perfect attributes needed to fill that high office, for ‘in him
dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily’ (Col. 2: 9). ‘He put all things in subjection under his
feet, and gave him to be head over all things to the church, which is his body’
(Eph. 1: 22–23). ‘And he is the head of
the body, the church’ (Col. 1: 18). For
the pope or any other man to claim to be the head of the church and the
mediator between God and men is arrogant and sinful.
The papal system has been in process of development over a long
period of time. Romanists claim an
unbroken line of succession from the alleged first pope, Peter, to the present
pope, who is said to be the 262nd member in that line. But the list is in many instances quite
doubtful. The list has been revised
several times, with a considerable number who formerly were listed as popes
now listed as anti-popes. It simply is
not true that they can name with certainty all the bishops of Rome from Peter
to the present one. A glance at the notices
of each of the early ‘popes’ in the Catholic
Encyclopedia will show that they really know little or nothing about the
first ten ‘popes.’ And of the next ten
only one is a clearly defined figure in history. The fact of the matter is that the historical record is so
incomplete that the existence of an unbroken succession from the apostles to
the present can neither be proved nor disproved.
For a period of six centuries after the time of Christ none of
the regional churches attempted to exercise authority over any of the other
regional churches. The early ecumenical
councils were composed of delegates from the various churches who met as
equals. There is not a scholar anywhere
who pretends to show any decree, canon, or resolution by any of the ecumenical
councils which attempts to give pre-eminence to any one church. The
first six hundred years of the Christian era know nothing of any spiritual
supremacy on the part of the bishops of Rome.
The papacy really began in the year 590 with Gregory I, known as
Gregory the Great, who consolidated the power of the bishopric in Rome and
started that church on a new course. We
quote two contemporary church historians, one a Protestant and the other a
Roman Catholic, concerning the place of Gregory in this development. Says Professor A. M. Renwick, of the Free
Church College, Edinburgh, Scotland:
‘His brilliant rule set a standard for those who came after him
and he is really the first “pope” who can, with perfect accuracy, be given the
title. Along with Leo I (440—461),
Gregory VII 1073—1085), and Innocent III (1198—1216), he stands out as one of
the chief architects of the papal system’ (The
Story of the Church, p. 64).
And the Roman Catholic, Philip Hughes, says that Gregory I,
‘…. is generally regarded as the greatest of all his line…It
was to him that Rome turned at every crisis where the Lombards [the invaders
from the north] were concerned. He
begged his people off and he bought them off.
He ransomed the captives and organized the great relief services for
widows and orphans. Finally, in 598, he
secured a thirty years’ truce. It was
St. Gregory who, in these years, was the real ruler of Rome and in a very real
sense he is the founder of the papal monarchy’ (A Popular History of the Catholic Church, p. 75, 1947. Quoted by permission of The Macmillan
Company).
2. THE CLAIMS OF THE PAPACY
When the triple crown is placed
on the head of a new pope at his ‘coronation’ ceremony the ritual prescribes
the following declaration by the officiating cardinal:
‘Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns, and know that
thou art the Father of Princes and Kings, Ruler of the World, the Vicar of our
Saviour Jesus Christ . . . .’ (National
Catholic Almanac).
The New York Catechism says:
‘The pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth. . . . By
divine right the pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each
and every pastor and his flock. He is
the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher
of all Christians. He is the infallible
ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and the judge of councils; the
universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of the world, the supreme judge of
heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one, God himself on
earth.’
And pope Leo XIII, in his encyclical, The Reunion of Christendom (1885), declared that the pope holds
‘upon this earth the place of God Almighty.’
Thus the Roman Church holds that the pope, as the vicar of
Christ on earth, is the ruler of the
world, supreme not only over the Roman Church itself but also over all
kings, presidents, and civil rulers, indeed over all peoples and nations. The fact is that on numerous occasions the
popes have exercised that authority in countries where the Roman Church was
strong. They have excommunicated and
deposed kings and governors, and, as in the cases of Queen Elizabeth I of
England, and Emperor Henry IV of Germany, they have attempted to arouse rebellions
by releasing subjects from any allegiance to their rulers.
The pope thus demands a submission from his people, and indeed
from all people in so far as he is able to make it effective, which is due
only to God. Sometimes that submission
takes a particularly servile form, with even the cardinals, the next
higher-ranking officials in the Roman Church, prostrating themselves before him
and kissing his feet! The popes have
gone so far in assuming the place of God that they even insist on being called
by His names, for example, ‘the Holy Father’ and ‘His Holiness.’ Such titles applied to a mere man are
blasphemous and unchristian. We cannot
but wonder what goes through the mind of a pope when people thus reverence him,
carrying him on their shoulders, kissing his hands and feet, hailing him as the
‘Holy Father,’ and performing acts of worship before him. By such means this so-called ‘vicar of
Christ’ accepts the position of ruler of the world which the Devil offered to
Christ, but which Christ spurned with the command, ‘Get thee hence, Satan!’
The triple crown the pope wears symbolizes his authority in
heaven, on earth, and in the underworld—as king of heaven, king of earth, and
king of hell—in that through his absolutions souls are admitted to heaven, on
the earth he attempts to exercise political as well as spiritual power, and
through his special jurisdiction over the souls in purgatory and his exercise
of ‘the power of the keys’ he can release whatever souls he pleases from
further suffering; those whom he refuses to release are continued in their
suffering, the decisions he makes on earth being ratified in heaven.
It is impossible to denounce strongly enough the folly and
guilt of such glorification of man. The
papacy, however, is the direct consequence and ultimate result of the
exaltation of the priests as necessary mediators between God and men.
But who can really believe that Christ has built His church
upon a man? The Bible teaches clearly
that Christ’s Vicar on earth is the Holy
Spirit—’the Comforter, even the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in
my name, he shall teach you all things’ (John 14: 26). The Holy Spirit, since He is the Third
Person of the Trinity, has the attributes of wisdom and power which enable Him
to perform effectively and perfectly the work of guiding and developing the
church of Christ. Christ does not need
such a deputy as Rome claims that she has in the pope, and history shows that
all men who have attempted to function in that capacity have failed miserably. Over against the claims of Rome the
Reformers set the Word of God. Against
Rome’s ‘Thus saith the church,’ they placed a ‘Thus saith the Lord.’ Luther and Calvin were willing to recognize
only Christ as the Head of the Church and denounced the pope as the
Antichrist. Indeed, the claims of the
pope to universal and total authority over the souls of men, over the church,
and over nations are such that either he is all that he claims to be—the vicar
of Christ and the vice-regent of God—or he is the biggest impostor and fraud
that the world has ever seen!
3. WORLDLY CHARACTER OF THE
PAPACY
The fallacy of the claim that the
pope is the vice-regent of Christ is apparent in the glaring contrast between
him and Christ. The pope wears, as a
fitting symbol of the authority claimed by him, a jewel-laden, extremely costly
crown, while Christ had no earthly crown at all—except a crown of thorns which
He wore in our behalf. In solemn
ceremonies the pope is carried in a portable chair on the shoulders of twelve
men, while Christ walked wherever He needed to go. We cannot imagine Christ, who came not to be ministered unto but
to minister, being carried in luxury on the shoulders of men. The pope is adored with genuflexions (a
bowing of the knee in reverence), he is preceded by the papal cross and by two
large fans of peacock feathers, and his garments are very elaborate and costly,
all of which is out of harmony with the person and manner of Christ. The pope lives in luxury with many servants
in a huge palace in Vatican City, while Christ when on earth ‘had not where to
lay His head.’ Many of the popes,
particularly during the Middle Ages, were grossly immoral, while Christ was
perfect in holiness. Christ said that
His kingdom was not of this world, and He refused to exercise temporal
authority. But the pope is a temporal
ruler, just like a little king, with his own country, his own system of courts,
vassals, coinage, postal service, and a Swiss military guard (100 men in
sixteenth-century uniforms) which serves as a papal bodyguard. The popes claim political power, and for
many years ruled the Papal States, which stretched from sea to sea across Italy
and contained 16,000 square miles and a population of approximately
3,000,000. Those states were confiscated
by Italy, in the days of Cavour and Garibaldi (1859–60). In 1870 the city of Rome itself was
taken. Since that time the popes have
been limited to Vatican City, located within the city of Rome, which has an
area of about one-sixth of a square mile and a permanent population of about
1,000, with some 2,000 more employed there.
In maintaining his claim to political power the pope sends ambassadors
and ministers to foreign governments, and in turn receives ambassadors and
ministers from those governments. As of
October 12, 1960, 31 nations maintained ambassadors at the Vatican and received
ambassadors from the Vatican, and 11 other nations maintained ministers
there. In each country to which a papal
ambassador is sent Rome seeks to have her ambassador designated as the doyen of
the diplomatic corps, thus giving him rank above the other ambassadors.
The affairs of the Roman Church are controlled by a bureaucracy
that is tightly controlled, completely authoritarian, and self-perpetuating,
all of which is in striking contrast with the New Testament principles of
church government in which the affairs of the church were in the hands of the
people. The pope is elected by the
cardinals, who then disband and have no further power to censure any of his
actions. New cardinals are appointed by
the pope, without necessary consultation with anyone; nor is there any limit on
the number of new cardinals that he may appoint, the full number of the college
of cardinals having remained at seventy for centuries until recently when pope
John XXIII increased the number to eighty-five.† The bishops too are
appointed by the pope,‡ and may be promoted, moved, demoted, or
dismissed as he pleases. The priests
are chosen by the bishops, and are promoted, demoted, or transferred by them,
without explanation if they so choose.
And the people must be obedient to the priests, although in all of that
elaborate system they have no official voice at all, nor is there any official
channel through which they can express their ideas or preferences in church
affairs. The papacy, therefore, is not
a spiritual unity in Christ, but an external unity under the pope, a cloak that
covers divisions and dissensions between the various church orders which on
occasions have emerged with much rivalry and bitterness.
We close this discussion of the papacy with a quotation from
Dr. Harris, which we believe states correctly the New Testament teaching
concerning church government and inter-church affairs:
‘The fact is that the early church had no head on earth. Christ was their head and they all were
brothers. They did have an
organization, however, and Presbyterians point to Acts 15 as a splendid example
of how it operated. There was a
doctrinal question at Antioch. What
should the church of Antioch do to settle it?
Should they write a letter to Peter asking his decision? This would be the Romanist position. But they did not. Should they write a letter to the “college of Apostles”? This is the episcopal position that the
bishops by apostolic succession have the whole authority in the church. But Antioch did not do that. Should they call a congregational meeting of
the church at Antioch and have the matter decided by the vote of the congregation? That would be the independent theory of
church government. But they did not do
this either. Rather they sent
representatives to a synod meeting held at Jerusalem where the apostles and
elders came together to consider the matter.
They considered it carefully with prayer and Scripture study. Finally the apostles and elders decided on a
policy and gave out decrees to which all the churches were expected to submit
(Acts 16: 4). There was no primacy of
Peter or of anyone else. There was
instead a democratic meeting of the ordained leaders of the churches judging
matters according to God’s Word. This
is the Scriptural answer to Roman Catholic pretensions on Peter’ (The Bible Presbyterian Reporter, Jan.
1959).
FOOTNOTES
*A graduate of
Princeton Theological Seminary (Th.B., 1928; Th.M., 1929), where he studied
Systematic Theology under Dr. C. W. Hodge, his books include: The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination,
Roman Catholicism, Studies In Theology, Immortality, The Millennium and A Harmony of the Gospels.
†On February 22, 1965,
the number was increased by pope Paul VI to 103.