History Online - Papacy
[an error occurred while processing this directive]Roman Catholic Papacy
God's Associé
The Catholic Church has no support for the passing down of the power and authority of Peter. Why do no early Church Fathers speak of the bishop of Rome as Peter's successor, as an infallible spokesman for Christianity. Why is it that justification for Rome's primacy only appeared after Rome had amassed power and wealth through the help of the Roman Empire. It was Constantine who first built the magnificent churches, palaces, and financed church operations. The obvious conclusion is that the church applied revisionist history to legitimize its power and authority - to prove that it did not come just from the Roman state, but was derived from God. It was at this time, late 4th century, when Christianity had become the official state religion, that claims to being a "successor" to Peter first appeared based on the "Thou art Peter and upon this rock ....." argument.
The reform movement in the Roman Church which began in the 11th century had the effect of increasing the independence of the Church from the Empire and greatly enhancing the prestige of the Bishop of Rome. Prior to the Gregorian reform, the Holy Roman Emperor or other local political authorities generally had control of Church offices and property. Some exceptions were monasteries such as that at Cluny in France which was founded by the Duke of Aquitaine in 910, but was set up to owe its allegiance to Rome. Cluny also established a model of independence in that its abbots were appointed by their predecessors instead of by the local ruler. The growing reform movement sought a form of church organization in which the local church was independent and free. This view, popular among such writers as Peter Damian and Humbert de Silva Candida, proposed a "return" to a church organization centered on Papal authority. The historical credibility for a central Papal authority was bolstered by the widespread circulation of forgeries of early church documents. The large number of false letters purportedly written by early Popes and false church council decrees are lumped together under the name "Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals." These documents are believed to be mostly composed in the seventh century and it is probable that the reformers believed in their authenticity. In a similar fashion the Liber Pontificalis was an earlier composition which was now accepted as fact by the reformers.
The Liber Pontificalis ("Book of the Popes") was the Catholic Church's official history of the Popes for centuries. It was considered the most authoritative guide to the history of the papacy and used as a reference by numerous scholars. The book is also a blatant forgery in the most critical area of the early papacy. Most of the information from this page is taken from the translation of the Liber Pontificalis by Louise Ropes Loomis, PhD, who is generally sympathetic to the work.
Peter wasn't even the first bishop of Rome....he is listed with Paul as the founder of the Roman church until approximately the 4th century. In the early lists of the bishops of Rome, however, Linus is given as the first bishop. The title of pope was used for various bishops in the early church, not just the bishop of Rome. Only in 1073 did Gregory VII forbid anyone else from using the title.
Emperor Constantine (312 ad - ?) never relinquished his title of Pontifex Maximus, head of the pagan state religion. He built statues to pagan gods and put their images on his coins. He murdered his own son, Crispus, and had his second wife killed, his nephew, and his brother-in-law. In other words, he wasn't a Christian. Constantine, along with eastern ruler Licinius, instituted the Edict of Milan which granted religious freedom. For most of Catholic history, Constantine was portrayed as a faithful Christian when at best he was ambivalent - reportedly receiving baptism upon his death bed. This did not stop him from exercising what he thought was his role as head of the Church. Just as he was head of the pagan state religion as Pontifex Maximus, he functioned as head of the Christian church which he now patronized. If his contemporaries objected to this idea, they kept silent and the tendency was to heap fulsome praise upon him such as Eusebius.
The Papacy reached its height of power after the Gregorian reform of the late 11th and early 12th centuries. The Pope remained the uncontested spiritual leader of Western Christianity until the 16th century Reformation. The statuette at left depicts a regal Boniface VIII (1296-1303) typifying the image of the Pope as absolute spiritual ruler during this period.
The Gregorian Reform
These documents helped create the earnest desire to restructure the church which Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) pushed in his aggressive reform plan. Shortly after assuming the Papacy, Gregory issued his Dictatus Papae which consisted of 27 statements asserting the authority of the Roman Church and the Pope. Among other things, they declared that the Roman Church was founded by God alone, that it had never erred, nor according to scripture, will ever do so, that the Bishop of Rome was automatically a saint, that the Bishop of Rome was above all rulers and that he should have his feet kissed by all princes. Naturally, such a bold change in the status quo did not play well with the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV, whose father had deposed a Pope and personally selected others just a few years prior. A power struggle ensued which eventually led to Gregory VII having to flee Rome. The ideals of the Gregorian Reform, however, lived on and the following years saw a progressive increase in the power of the Papacy.
The Borgia Popes were a series of popes controlled by the powerful Borgia family (ca 15th 16th centuries). The papacy then had control over a large portion of what is now central Italy (the Papal States) as well as extensive landholdings in other countries. This power and wealth made the See of St. Peter a prize coveted by the less than spiritually minded. The Borgias were not the only bad popes, of course, as the papal office was often in corrupt hands for decades on end. In spite of this fact, the Catholic Church maintains that even the most overtly immoral pope has a gift of infallibility in his teachings on Faith and Morals. The historic corruption of the papacy is little known among the average Catholic today. Certainly, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't advertise the fact, but the testimony of history is too clear to deny it.
Pope Pius IX, the first pope to be declared infallible in matters of faith and morals was anything but in the administration of his papal states. Beginning his reign in 1846, his initial political reforms were popular. He strengthened the army (!) and, assisted by the Piedmontese, drove the Austrians from the occupied papal city of Ferrara. In 1848, however, he became a victim of a democratic revolution in Rome itself, being forced to flee the city in disguise. In the ensuing elections, the pope and the clergy faired badly. When the elected assembly met, it ended papal rule and instituted a democracy. By 1850, Pius IX was back in Rome, this time by the military assistance of the French. The papal states were in his control, but only so long as the garrison of French troops protected him. These remained until 1870 when Napoleon III was defeated in the Franco Prussian war. A war whose outbreak, ironically, brought an abrupt end to Vatican I (1869-1870), the council which had affirmed Pius' infallibility. He ended his life as extremely unpopular among the locals, having to be buried at night for fear of the populace.
Liber Pontificalis
According to Loomis: "in the sixth or seventh century the Liber Pontificalis, the first historical narrative or series of papal biographies, was compiled by a member of the papal court." The work was later expanded as the biographers of succeeding Popes added material. "Throughout the Middle Ages and until comparatively modern times the Liber Pontificalis was accepted as not only the oldest but as also the most authentic existing history of the papacy. Extracts from it were incorporated in church liturgies. It was quoted as an authority by countless historians and ecclesiastical writers from the eighth century to the eighteenth. It served as model for other chronicles, both secular and religious, in particular for the Gesta Episcoporum and the Gesta Abbatum, the records which were kept in cathedral chapters and monasteries of Western Europe during the later Middle Ages. Because of its unmistakable antiquity and because of the profound importance of its subject matter it was reckoned as a source of unimpeachable veracity and as one of the indisputable proofs of the primitive power and activity of the popes."
Loomis goes on to remark that the earlier portion of the Liber Pontificalis, from Peter to the seventh century "is itself a mesh of veritable fact, romantic legend, deliberate fabrication and heedless error. It deals with persons and things which seemed often as remote to the author as they do to us and of which he had only the scantiest and most fragmentary accounts; it describes achievements which he had little means of estimating justly and which he had sometimes the strongest motive to exaggerate or misrepresent ........ Yet the very frauds and uncorroborated assertions and mistakes and venerations have a value to us of a sort. It is interesting to know what could be believed about some of these matters in the sixth or seventh century."
The chronology of the popes up to approximately 350 AD was based on the Liberian Catalogue, an unofficial work of the 4th century which has survived to our day. The Liberian Catalogue, and consequently the Liber Pontificalis, make the same error concerning Cletus and Anencletus, making two popes out of confusion over the names as they appear in earlier lists. The author of the Liber Pontificalis also draws material from later writers, such as Jerome, Prosper of Acquitane, and others who add details mostly from their own period. Loomis writes "Into this framework of names and dates he proceeded to fit a large quantity of fresh material, in order to make his book more interesting and more instructive and to give it the character of a history rather than of a catalogue. This body of new material, which forms the distinguishing feature of the Liber Pontificalis as compared with the chronologies, must next be the subject of our attention." In any case, Loomis plainly states that the two prefatory letters ostensibly composed by Jerome and Pope Damasus are "manifest forgeries." The author of the Liber Pontificalis apparently felt it appropriate to forge the letters which attribute the authorship of the first portion to St. Jerome, thereby enhancing its credibility. Loomis also adds "The decrees for the organization and government of the church ascribed to the various bishops are practically all spurious until they reach the latter half of the fifth century."
Thus, the Liber Pontificalis was a necessary concoction to justify the growing authority of the Roman Catholic Church. By the seventh century it was natural for people to question on what basis the Pope had amassed such power. Had things always been this way or was the Pope taking power that rightly belonged to the body of believers or Christ Himself? There was a need to answer such questions and only one answer would work. That need was satisfied by documents like the Liber Pontificalis or the many false decretals that appeared later. It was this body of spurious documents which provided the foundation for the further growth of papal authority.
