Another Side of Catholicism

Mary Ann Collins, A Former Catholic Nun

Chapter 2

The Roman Catholic Church claims that the early Christians were all Roman Catholics and that (aside from the Orthodox Church) all Christians were Roman Catholics until the Protestant Reformation. It also claims that the Apostle Peter was the first Pope, ruling from Rome.

But do these claims stand up to the test of history?

There is historical evidence that the Roman Catholic Church began with Emperor Constantine. Many Protestants believe that, throughout Church history, there have been many true Christians who were not Catholics. They also believe that Peter was just one of the apostles.

Constantine

On October 28, 312 A.D., the Roman Emperor Constantine met with Bishop Miltiades. (Catholics would later refer to him as Pope Miltiades, but at the time he was known as the Bishop of Rome.) Miltiades was assisted by Silvester, a Roman who spoke educated Latin and acted as interpreter.

The previous day, Constantine had seen a sign in the heavens: a cross in front of the sun. He heard a voice say that he would conquer in the sign that he had seen. Constantine painted crosses on the shields of his soldiers. They won an important battle. He believed that the victory was due to the power of the sign he had seen. He asked for two of the three nails that were used to crucify Jesus. One nail was made into a bit for his horse. Another nail was made a part of his crown, signifying that Constantine ruled the Roman Empire in the name of Jesus. He allowed Miltiades to keep the third nail.[1]

The fact that Constantine saw the cross and the sun together may explain why he worshiped the Roman sun god, while at the same time professing to be a Christian. After his “conversion,” Constantine built a triumphal arch featuring the sun god (the “unconquered sun”). His coins featured the sun. Constantine made a statue of the sun god, with his own face on it, for his new city of Constantinople. He made Sunday (the day of the Roman sun god) into a day of rest when work was forbidden.[2]

Constantine declared that a mosaic of the sun god (riding in a chariot) represented Jesus. During Constantine’s reign, many Christians followed the Emperor’s example and incorporated worship of the sun god into their religion. They prayed kneeling towards the east (where the sun rises). They said that Jesus Christ drives his chariot across the sky (like the sun god). They had their worship services on Sunday, which honored the sun god. (Days of the week were named in honor of pagan gods.) They celebrated the birth of Jesus on December 25, the day when sun worshipers celebrated the birthday of the sun, following the winter solstice.[3]

Historians disagree as to whether or not Constantine actually became a Christian. His character certainly did not reflect the teachings of Jesus Christ. Constantine was vain, violent and superstitious. He worshiped the sun god. He had little respect for human life. He was known for wholesale slaughter during his military campaigns. He forced prisoners of war to fight for their lives against wild beasts. He had several family members (including his second wife) executed for questionable reasons. Constantine waited until he was dying before asking to be baptized. Historians disagree as to whether or not he actually was baptized.[4]

Constantine wanted to have a state church, with Christian clergy acting as civil servants. He called himself a bishop. He said that he was the interpreter of the Word of God. He claimed to be the voice that declares what is true and godly. According to historian Paul Johnson, Constantine saw himself as being an important agent of salvation, on a par with the apostles. Bishop Eusebius (Constantine’s eulogist) relates that Constantine built the Church of the Apostles with the intention of having his own body be kept there along with the bodies of the apostles. Constantine’s coffin was to be in the center (the place of honor), with six apostles on each side of him. He expected that devotions honoring the apostles would be performed in the church. Constantine expected to share the title and honor of the apostles.[5]

Constantine told Bishop Miltiades that he wanted to build two Christian basilicas, in honor of the Apostles Peter and Paul. He offered a large, magnificent palace for the use of Miltiades and his successors. Miltiades refused. He could not accept the idea of having Christianity be promoted by the Roman Empire.[6]

Constantine rode off to war. By the time that he returned in 314 A.D., Miltiades had died. Bishop Silvester was Miltiades’ successor. Silvester was eager to have the Church be spread, using Roman roads, Roman wealth, Roman law, Roman power, and Roman military might. Constantine officially approved of Silvester as the successor of Miltiades. Then he had a coronation ceremony for Silvester and crowned him like a worldly prince. This was the first time that a bishop had ever been crowned.[7]

Before Constantine’s “conversion,” Christians were persecuted. Now, instead of facing persecution, Bishop Silvester lived in luxury. He had a beautiful palace, with the finest furniture and art. He wore silk brocade robes. He had servants to wait on him. Near his palace was a basilica that served as his cathedral. This luxurious building had seven altars made of gold, a canopy of solid silver above the main altar, and 50 chandeliers. The imperial mail system and transportation system were placed at Silvester’s disposal. It was now possible to have worldwide church councils.[8]

Have you read the Book of Acts and the Epistles? If so, compare the Church, as portrayed there, with the Church of Bishop Silvester. Here is how the Apostle Paul described the kinds of things that he had to endure, as a leader in the early Church:

“Of the Jews five times received I forty stripes save one. Thrice was I beaten with rods, once was I stoned, thrice I suffered shipwreck, a night and a day I have been in the deep; In journeyings often, in perils of waters, in perils of robbers, in perils by mine own countrymen, in perils by the heathen, in perils in the city, in perils in the wilderness, in perils in the sea, in perils among false brethren; In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness.” (2 Corinthians 11:24-27)

After Constantine’s “conversion,” the Church was radically changed. Suddenly, being Christian resulted in power, prestige, and promotion (whereas previously it had resulted in persecution). Suddenly, by the Emperor’s decree, Christianity became politically correct. As a result, ambitious people joined the Church for worldly reasons. The Bishop of Rome was supported by the military might, political power, and wealth of the Roman Emperor. Worldwide church councils were convened.

This was the birth of the Roman Catholic Church. It was created in the year 314 A.D. by Emperor Constantine and Bishop Silvester.

A Tale of Two Bishops

The degree of change that Constantine caused in the Church can be illustrated by looking at the lives of two Bishops of Rome. Let’s go back in history to look at the life of Bishop Pontian, who died 76 years before Constantine’s “conversion.” Then we will compare Pontian’s life with the life of Bishop Silvester.

(The following information about Bishops Pontian and Silvester comes from several sources. See Note 9.)

Pontian became the Bishop of Rome in the year 230 A.D. He was made bishop suddenly and unexpectedly, when his predecessor was arrested and killed by Roman authorities.

On September 27, 235 A.D., Emperor Maximinus decreed that all Christian leaders were to be arrested. Christian buildings were burned. Christian cemeteries were closed. The personal wealth of Christians was confiscated.

Bishop Pontian was arrested the same day. He was put in the Mamertine Prison, where he was tortured for ten days. Then he was sent to work in the lead mines of Sardinia.

When prisoners arrived at Sardinia, iron rings were soldered around their ankles, linked together with a six-inch chain that hobbled them. A tight chain around their waist was fastened to their ankle-chain in such a way that they were permanently bent over.

The prisoners worked for twenty hours a day, with four one-hour breaks for sleep. They had one meal of bread and water per day. Most prisoners died within six to fourteen months from exhaustion, malnutrition, disease, beatings, infection, or violence. Some went insane or committed suicide.

Pontian only lasted four months. In January, 236 A.D., Pontian was killed. His body was thrown into the cesspool.

What happened to Pontian was not unusual. Many Christians were sent to the Sardinian lead mines, or persecuted in other ways. If a man accepted the position of being a Christian leader, he knew that his life from that time on was likely to be short and painful. There were 14 Bishops of Rome in the 79 years between Pontian and Silvester.

Then along came Constantine.

In the year 314 A.D., Emperor Constantine crowned Silvester as Bishop of Rome. Silvester lived in luxury, with servants waiting on him. Constantine confessed his sins to Silvester and asked for his advice. Silvester presided over worldwide Church councils. He had a splendid palace and a sumptuous cathedral. He had power, prestige, wealth, pomp, and the favor of the Emperor.

Silvester died in December, 336 A.D. He died peacefully, in a clean, comfortable bed, in the Roman Lateran Palace. He was surrounded by well-dressed bishops and attended by Roman guards. His body was dressed in ceremonial robes, put in an elegant casket, and carried through the streets of Rome in a solemn procession. He was buried with honor and ceremony, attended by leading members of Roman society.

It is understandable that many Christians would have preferred an officially approved status for the Church. But what was the result?

Before Constantine, the Church was a band of heroic men and women who were so committed to serve the Lord Jesus Christ that they would endure any hardship. After 314 A.D., the Church became infiltrated by opportunists who were seeking power and political advancement. Church leaders were no longer in danger of persecution. Rather, they enjoyed power, prestige, and luxury.

Did the Roman Empire surrender to Christianity? Or did Christianity prostitute itself in order to gain benefits from the Roman Empire?[9]

The temptation for an ungodly alliance with the Roman Empire was very great. But at what cost?

State Religion

In 380 A.D., Emperor Theodosius published an edict requiring that all Roman subjects profess the faith of the Bishop of Rome. Those who refused were considered to be “heretics.” Jews, pagans, and “heretics” were subject to harsh punishments. In 390 A.D., Bishop Ambrose excommunicated Emperor Theodosius. In order to be restored to the Church, the Roman Emperor had to do penance for eight months. Theodosius complied.[10]

It is amazing how much power the Roman Catholic Church gained in 76 years. Constantine promoted the Church by giving it special benefits, but Theodosius forced people to become Roman Catholics. He imposed harsh punishments on anybody who disagreed with the Bishop of Rome. Constantine asked for advice from Bishop Silvester, but Theodosius obeyed orders given by Bishop Ambrose.

Catholicism was now the state religion of the Roman Empire. The Roman Catholic Church, which was born under Emperor Constantine, had now become so powerful that a bishop could give orders to the Roman Emperor.

From Martyrs to “Heretic” Hunters

Emperor Constantine and Bishop Silvester created the Roman Catholic Church in the year 314 A.D. Forty years later, Augustine was born. He became a bishop and a “doctor of the Church.” He lived from 354 to 430 A.D.

Augustine insisted that it was right and necessary to use force to bring about unity among Christians. He said that “heretics” should not just be expelled from the Church. Rather, they should be compelled to denounce their beliefs and conform to “orthodoxy,” or else be destroyed. This became the basis for the Inquisition. It was used to justify killing “heretics” throughout the history of the Catholic Church.[11]

During the century following Constantine, the Roman Catholic Church went through an amazing transformation. Catholics became “heretic” hunters. They killed people who disagreed with them.

By the time of the Middle Ages, the Roman Catholic Church burned people at the stake for translating the Bible into the language of the common people. They even burned people for reading the Bible in Latin. (See the chapter, “Hunting ‘Heretics.’”)

The Book of Acts tells how the high priest and the Jewish leaders put the Apostles in prison. They wanted to kill them, because the Apostles told people about Jesus. Gamaliel, a respected rabbi, urged them not to persecute the Christians. He said:

“And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.” (Acts 5:38-39; see Acts 5:17-40)

Jim Jones was a religious leader who ordered his 900 followers to commit suicide. They obeyed him. Jones and his followers demonstrated that Gamaliel was right. They destroyed themselves. Their religious movement died with them.

The men who translated the Bible into the language of the common people also demonstrated that Gamaliel was right. The Catholic Church was unable to suppress the translation of the Bible. That is why people like us, who are not Latin scholars, are able to read the Bible today.

How does the persecution of “heretics” compare with the picture of Jesus that we see in the Gospels? Did Jesus try to force people to conform to His teachings?

With amazing patience, Jesus kept on teaching the crowds of people, healing the sick, and demonstrating the love and the power of God. When His disciples didn’t understand His teachings, He explained them. (Luke 8:5-15) When the rich young man turned away from Jesus, He didn’t rebuke him or threaten him. He let him go. (Matthew 19:16-22)

Many of Jesus’ disciples left Him. Jesus asked the Twelve: “Will ye also go away?” (John 6:67) He didn’t threaten them or rebuke them. He didn’t try to force them to believe what He taught them. He left them free to believe or not believe, to stay or to leave.

Legends and Traditions

I was taught that, when he was a boy, George Washington chopped down a cherry tree and confessed his transgression to his father. Parson Weems’ biography of George Washington is the source of that story. According to modern historians, the cherry tree event never happened. I was quite surprised to hear that, because I had never questioned the story.

Some people say that Parson Weems deliberately created the cherry tree legend some time between 1800 and 1809. But perhaps Parson Weems wasn’t deliberately deceiving people. Perhaps he was simply passing on a story that he believed to be true. Either way, modern biographers of George Washington say that the cherry tree episode never really happened.[12]

If we hear a story repeated often enough, then we tend to believe it. The idea of questioning it becomes almost unthinkable, because the story is so familiar and so widely accepted.

I believe that something similar has happened with the Catholic Church’s stories about Peter. These traditions have been repeated so often that many people never question them. (See the chapter, “According to Tradition.”)

The “Early Fathers”

Catholic apologists often quote the “Early Fathers” in support of Catholic doctrines, the papacy, and other Catholic claims. Who were these people?

There were many early Christian leaders, including priests, bishops, and scholars. There were a lot of these men. They had a wide variety of opinions on religious matters. Their theological differences were as widely varied as those of theologians from different denominations are today.[13]

So one person finds some Early Fathers to support one position, and another person finds some other Early Fathers to support the opposite position. But it’s not a level playing field. Among all of those early Christian leaders, who decided which ones qualified to be called Early Fathers? The Catholic Church.

There is also the problem of knowing which documents are authentic. Some documents were forged. They were falsely attributed to Early Fathers, in order to give them credibility. In addition, some genuine documents were changed by forgers, in order to give credibility to papal claims of power and authority. Sometimes these altered documents wound up saying the opposite of what they had originally said. (See the chapter, “Forged Documents and Papal Power.”)

Infallibility

According to Roman Catholic doctrine, popes and Catholic church councils are infallible. This means that, whenever they make official declarations concerning matters of faith or morals, God supernaturally protects them from making errors. Infallibility applies to all Roman Catholic popes and church councils: past, present, and future.[14]

What happens if a pope or a Catholic church council makes an “infallible” declaration that directly contradicts the “infallible” declaration of another pope or church council?

Truth does not contradict truth. Therefore, if the “infallible” pronouncements of the popes and Catholic church councils really are infallible, they will never contradict other “infallible” pronouncements. So if there is even one contradiction, then the doctrine of infallibility cannot be correct.

The claim for papal infallibility does not stand up to the test of history. Pope Zosimus (417-418 A.D.) reversed the pronouncement of a previous pope. He also retracted a doctrinal pronouncement that he himself had previously made. Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681 A.D.). (This means that Pope Honorious made doctrinal statements that are contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine.) He was also condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II, as well as by every other pope until the eleventh century. So here we have “infallible” popes condemning another “infallible” pope as a heretic. In 1870, the First Vatican Council abolished some “infallible” papal decrees. It also abolished some decrees of two “infallible” Catholic Church councils.[15]

The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary states that Mary was taken bodily up to Heaven. This was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith on November 1, 1950. Therefore, every Roman Catholic is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it. However, as we will see, the teaching of the Assumption of Mary originated with heretical writings that were officially condemned by the early Church.

In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius declared that the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary is a heresy, and that people who teach it are heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas declared that anyone teaching this doctrine is a heretic. Two “infallible” popes both declared that this doctrine is a heresy. Then, on November 1, 1950, Pope Pius XII (another “infallible” pope) declared that the same doctrine is official Roman Catholic dogma, which all Catholics are required to believe.[16]

So before November 1, 1950, any Catholic who believed in the Assumption of Mary was a heretic (because of “infallible” declarations of popes). But after November 1, 1950, any Catholic who failed to believe in the Assumption of Mary was a heretic (because of the “infallible” declaration of Pope Pius XII).

In 1864, Pope Pius IX “infallibly” declared that the idea that people have a right to freedom of conscience and freedom of worship is “insanity,” “evil,” “depraved,” and “reprobate.” He also declared that non-Catholics who live in Catholic countries should not be allowed to publicly practice their religion. In 1888, Pope Leo XIII “infallibly” declared that freedom of thought and freedom of worship are wrong.[17]

The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965) produced a document called, “Declaration on Religious Liberty,” which states that all people have a right to freedom of religion.[18]

Now I certainly agree with the idea of freedom of religion. However, it totally contradicts the “infallible” declarations of Popes Pius IX and Leo XIII. It also contradicts the Council of Trent, the killing of “heretics,” the Inquisition, the burning of people who translated the Bible into English, and the persecution of Protestants during the Protestant Reformation.

Freedom of religion also contradicts modern Canon Law (1983). Canon 1366 says that parents are to be punished if they allow their children to be baptized in a “non-Catholic religion” or taught to observe it. The reference to baptism shows that this means Christian religions that are not Roman Catholic.[19]

Here the Catholic Church is on the horns of a dilemma. If it says that people have a right to freedom of religion, then it admits that it is not infallible. If it says that it is infallible, then it admits that it really does not believe that people have a right to freedom of religion.

The Catholic Church can claim infallibility, or it can claim that it has seen the error of its ways and it now supports freedom of religion. But it can’t have it both ways.

Two Roman Catholic organizations have found contradictions between “infallible” doctrinal declarations of the Second Vatican Council and “infallible” doctrinal pronouncements of Pope Pius IX.[20]

The conservative group (True Catholic) concludes that, therefore, the Second Vatican Council must not be legitimate. The liberal group (Women Priests) concludes that, therefore, Pope Pius IX taught “errors.” Either way, there are contradictions between official doctrinal declarations of an “infallible” pope and an “infallible” church council.

True Catholic also claims that Pope John Paul II has taught 101 things that are contrary to “infallible” Catholic doctrines that were declared by “infallible” popes and church councils. They conclude that John Paul II is therefore a heretic. According to Canon Law, that would mean that he is not a valid pope. So they call him an antipope.[21]

If John Paul II is not a valid pope, then the papal chair has been vacant. In order to rectify this situation, True Catholic has elected a pope. On May 20, 1998, Pope Pius XIII was elected.[22]

So we now have two men who claim to be Pope: John Paul II and Pius XIII. It seems that having two men claim to be Pope at the same time is not confined to the Middle Ages.

Conclusion

The Roman Catholic Church was created by Emperor Constantine and Bishop Silvester in the year 314 A.D.

Peter did not act like a Pope and he did not describe himself as having any special authority. In the Church meeting that is described in chapter 15 of the Book of Acts, James appears to be the person in authority. He makes the final decision. The Bible shows Peter as being in Jerusalem, not in Rome. (See the chapter, “Was Peter a Pope?”)

There are “infallible” doctrinal declarations that contradict one another. Therefore, the doctrine of infallibility is not valid.

The contradiction of “infallible” doctrines has caused some very conservative Catholics to believe that John Paul II is not a valid pope and the Second Vatican Council was not a valid council. It has also caused some very liberal Catholics to believe that Pope Pius IX taught doctrinal errors.