Rome Sealed Her Own Doom

 

by Bishop Enoch

Vicar of the Metropolitan
in the Autonomous Orthodox Metropolia
    of North & South America and the British Isles

 

Dr. Joseph Julian Overbeck

“History was always the weak point of the Jesuits, and consequently of the Papists. If this nasty and troublesome stumbling-block could be cleared away altogether, Romanism would be irrefutable. But it is with history as with conscience. Could the criminal only clear away his provokingly uncomfortable conscience, he would be a perfectly happy man. History is the conscience of mankind, and Rome by falsifying it has sealed her own doom.”

(pg. 64, “A Plain View of the Claims of the Orthodox Catholic Church As Opposed To All Other Christian Denomination, by Dr. Joseph Julian Overbeck, published in 1881)

Dr. Overbeck’s statement illustrates the fact that Papism’s claims to being the Church Christ established are fundamentally and exclusively built upon forgery and subterfuge. Every attempt by Papism to bring forth a Biblical, Patristic or Conciliar text that is not forged is an example of pure mendacity. It is well-known by historians that the material put forth for the Great Schism and for entrenching the distinct heresies of Papism are fabrications. One is reminded of Aquinas’ text against the Orthodox, wherein most of the controversial quotations he brings forward are revealed to be forgeries and interpolations.

It is for this reason that the Papal claims collapse when under cursory investigation of the Scriptures and Fathers using consensus-based analysis. One of the supports of Papism over the past few hundred years has been that its main enemies in the West were Protestants: because Protestantism lacked any support from the Biblical/Patristic perspective, Papism seemed like a viable alternative to many. However, once Orthodoxy enters the arena of religious discourse, the pretensions of Papism to this heritage collapse, and it is exposed as the fallacious institution that it is, at which point its only strength historically has been its force of arms and an array of quote-mined text that operate to cover its lack of intellectual and spiritual foundation. 

We will examine briefly a few of many examples from the ancient Western Church that demonstrate that the Orthodox Western peoples before the schism had an understanding of ecclesiology which rejected the future Papist ideology.

 

Pope Sylvester II Against Papism

The future Pope Sylvester II, previously Abbot Gerbert of Bobbio and then Archbishop of Ravenna, in a letter to Siguin, Archbishop of Sens, urges him to reject the judgment of the Council of Pavia, because this would admit he was guilty of something he was innocent of in 997:

“Your Prudence found it necessary, indeed, to avoid the craftiness of shrewd men, and to hear the voice of the Lord saying: “If any shall say to you, behold, here is Christ, or lo! There, do not follow after [Mat. 24:23]. Rome is said to be the one who will justify these things that you condemn and who will condemn what you think just.

“And we say that to condemn those things which seem just and to justify what is considered evil are God’s province, not man’s. “It is God Who justifies, who shall condemn?” asks the Apostle [Rom. 8:33-34]. Consequently, if God condemns, He will not be the one Who justifies.

God says: “If thy brother sin against thee, show him his fault between thee and him alone,” and the rest of the words through “Let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.” [Mat. 18:15-17]

How, therefore, can our rivals say that in the deposition of Arnulf the decision of the Roman Bishop should have been awaited? Have they been able to show the Roman Bishop’s judgment to be greater than God’s?

But the First Bishop of the Romans, nay, rather the Prince of the Apostles themselves, exclaimed: “We must obey God rather than men” [Acts 5:29]. Declared also that Master of the world, Paul: “If any shall preach unto you anything other than that ye have received, even an angel from heaven, let him be anathema” [Gal. 1:8-9].

Because Pope Marcellus burned incense to Jove, did all Bishops, therefore, become incense burners? I firmly maintain that if the Roman Bishop himself shall have sinned against his brother and though often advised, shall not have listened to the Church, that Roman Bishop, I say, is, according to the Word of God, to be considered a heathen and publican. For the loftier the position, the greater the ruin. Even though he leads us unworthy mortals through his power over communion, he cannot, therefore, separate us from communion with Christ, because none of us agrees with him when his opinion is contrary to the Evangel [Gospel], nor should a Priest be removed from office, moreover, unless he has confessed to, or been convicted of a crime, especially since the Apostle says: “Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?” [Rom. 8:35] and: “For I am sure that neither death nor life [will]” [Rom. 8:38].

But what greater separation is there than to remove anyone of His followers from the Body and Blood of the Son of God, Who daily is Sacrificed for our salvation? If he who buys temporal life either for himself or for another is a murderer, by what name shall he be called who buys eternal life?

Nor can the words of [St] Gregory, referring to the people be truly said of Bishops. “Whether,” he said, “a pastor compels [them] justly or unjustly, the flock must respect the opinion of the pastor." [Homily on the Gospel, II. Xxvi.6] For the Bishops are not the flock, but the people [are]. By as much as the life of the pastor is separated from the flock should the life of the Priest be distant from his people.

“Therefore, you ought not to be suspended from Holy Communion like a confessed and a convicted criminal. Thus far, indeed, no legal sentence of condemnation could have been pronounced against you, as if you were a rebel and fugitive, especially since your acts and conscience are unstained, you who have never avoided the sacred councils; nor can it be, according to law. No legal sentence has been pronounced, because Gregory [I] says: “A sentence pronounced without our writing does not merit being considered a sentence.” [Registrum xiii.xlv] Nor can it be pronounced according to law, because Pope Leo the Great says: “The privilege of Peter does not hold wherever a judgment does not arise from the justice of the case." [Sermones IV, 3]

Do not give our rivals such an opportunity that the Priesthood, which everywhere is One, just as the Catholic Church is One, seem to be so subjected to one person that when he has been corrupted by money, friendship, fear, or ignorance, no one can become a Priest except one whom these “virtues” commend. Let the common Law of the Catholic Church be by the Evangels [Gospels], the Apostles, the Prophets, the Canons established by the Spirit of God and consecrated by the reverence of the whole world, and the Decrees of the Apostolic See not discordant with them. And let him who through contempt shall deviate from these Laws be judged according to these and be degraded according to these. Therefore, let there be continuous peace forever and ever for the one keeping these [laws] and carrying them out according to his abilities.

After one reads this letter, it is readily apparent that the Archbishop of Ravenna, who held the position of second in the hierarchy of the Western Church after the Bishop of Rome, publicly declaimed the notion that obedience of the Pope was necessary if the Pope rejected the doctrines, canons, and teaching of the Church, also stating that only those constitutions of the Bishops of Rome which were in accord with those above standards of the Church, demonstrating that it was not the Pope who judges the Church, but the Church who judges the Pope.

 

Archbishop Arnulf of Orleans (+1003) Speaks of the Pope as Antichrist

In the late 10^th century, Archbishop Arnulf of Orleans (+1003) speaking at a Council of French Bishops, publicly denounced --not only a series of Popes but-- the institution of the Papacy during the period of portending the Antichrist. It is noteworthy that these are not country priests but prelates of the highest rank in the Western Church:

“The Church of Rome is forever to be honoured in memory of St. Peter; and the Decrees of the Popes are to be duly respected, saving always the Canons of Nicaea and of other Councils, which must remain eternally in force. For we must take good heed that neither the silence nor the new constitutions of the Pope are allowed to prejudice the Ancient Canons of the Church. If his silence is to prevail, it follows that all laws – all the Decrees of Antiquity – must be suspended so long as he remains mute. But if we are to be bound by his new constitutions, where is the use of enacting laws at all, since they may be rescinded at once by the will of a single individual? Do we, then, wish to detract from the just prerogatives of Rome? By no means. But, alas! How pitiful is the condition of Rome at the present! The Throne of the Leos and the Gregories, of Gelasius and of Innocent, is occupied by monsters of licentiousness, cruelty, and impiety. Let us pray for the conversion of our superiors; but, meanwhile, let us look for advice and direction to some other quarter than Rome, where all is corrupt, and justice is bartered for gold.”

(taken from “The Gallican Church: A History of the Church of France”, pages 40-42) https://books.google.com/books?id=_jRDAQAAMAAJ&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&hl=en

Then he replies to other claims:

 “If this be so, we have at least a right to demand that the Roman Pontiff shall be one capable of pronouncing an indisputable judgment; whereas it is reported that, at present, Rome is given up to the most barbarous ignorance. But, even supposing that the present Pope were a Damasus, what have we done to contravene his decree? We never attempted to decide this cause until no hope remained of our obtaining a decision from Rome. And as to holding a Council without his permission, the Council of Nicaea, so specially reverenced by Rome herself, ordains that any Councils shall be held in each Province twice every year, without any mention of the authority of the Pope. In short, to avoid further disputing, if the judgment of Rome be just, we will accept it willing; but, if unjust, let us obey the Apostle, and refuse to listen even to angel from heaven, if he should command anything contrary to the Gospel. If Rome is silence, as in the present case, let us consult the Laws of the Church. What other course is open to us, since Rome appears to be abandoned by all aid, Divine and human, nay, even to have abandoned herself?”

He speaks on corruption:

“Looking at the actual state of the Papacy what do we behold? John [XII], called Octavian, wallowing in a sty of filth concupiscence, conspiring against the Sovereign whom he had himself recently crowned; then Leo [VIII], the neophyte, chase from the city by this Octavian; and that monster [Octavian] himself, after the commission of many murderers and cruelties, dying by the hand of an assassin. Now we see the Deacon, Benedict, though freely elected by the Romans, carried away captive into the wilds of Germany by the new Caesar [Otto I] and his Pope Leo. Then a second Caesar [Otto II], greater in arts and arms than the first, succeeds; and in his absence Boniface, a very monster of iniquity, reeking with the blood of his predecessor, mounts the Throne of St. Peter. True, he is expelled and condemned, but only to return again and redden his hands with the holy bishop [John XIV]. Are there any, indeed, bold enough to maintain that the Priests of the Lord over all the world are to take their Law from monsters of guilt like these – men branded with ignominy, illiterate men, and ignorant alike of things human and Divine? If, Holy Fathers, we be bound to weigh in the balance the lives, the morals, the attainments of the meanest candidate for the Sacerdotal Office, how much more ought we to look to the fitness of him who aspires to be the lord and master of all Priests? Yet how would it fare with us if it should happen that the man the most deficient in all these virtues, one so abject as to fill the lowest place among the Priesthood, should be chosen to fill the highest place of all? What would you say of such a one when you beheld him sitting upon the Throne glittering in purple and gold? Must he not be the Antichrist sitting in the Temple of God, and showing himself as God? Verily, such an one lacketh both wisdom and charity; he standeth in the Temple as an image, as an idol, from which as from dead marble you would seek counsel.” (As quoted in “History of the Christian Church”, page 749) 

It is evident that when the claims of the pseudo-Isidorian decretals were brought forth as evidence for the claims of Rome at this point that Archbishop Arnulf and his brother Bishops were flabbergasted and the claims were considered outrages, showing that even the use of the  pseudo-Isidorian decretals had immense and weighty opposition in the contemporary West. He even goes so far as to say that even if these statements were made by past sainted Popes that they still would not be justifiable, and certainly not justifiable where equity, right judgment, and saintliness are not to be found.

 

Rodolphus Glaber, Historian-Monk of Cluny

The Cluniac Historian and Monk Rodulphus Glaber records the reaction of the Gallican Bishops in 1004 to the interference of the Pope in their diocese, when he attempted to consecrate a Church built by a local nobleman, such interference being uncanonical:

“All [the bishops of Gaul] were equally hostile because it was shameful that he who rules the Apostolic See was breaking the original apostolic intention and the tenor of the canons, especially when it is an old and well-founded rule that no bishop may presume to exercise authority in the diocese of another unless he is asked, or at least permitted, to do so by its own bishop….Although the pontiff of the Roman church, because of the dignity of the Apostolic See, is honoured more than any other bishop, he is not permitted to transgress the canon law in any way. For each bishop of the orthodox church is bridegroom of his own See, and equally embodies the Saviour, and so none should interfere insolently in the diocese of another bishopric.”

(From Book II of the “Histories” of Monk Rodulfus Glaber [+1047], chapters 6 and 7, as quoted in in John Howe’s “Before the Gregorian Reform: The Latin Church at the Turn of the First Millennium”)

It should be noted that the Bishops were so devoted to the canonical rights and privileges of their Sees that even attempts to create what we would call Stavropegial monasteries, which later in the East would become a de facto privilege of Patriarchs, were rejected here.

 

Conclusion

We are reminded of St Gregory the Great say “…it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others”.  Through Church history, figures have arisen in different places and different Sees; Bishops of venerable and ancient, even, Apostolic Sees, and, brought about Schisms and Heresies that have had the most disastrous effects on Christian History.  Whether these were putative Bishops of Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Moscow, and many others, this has happened; this does not, however, derogate from the sanctity of past Bishops of these Sees who were holy men of God and preached and rightly divided the word of truth; but, it does tear away from us the notions of Papism, whether in the form of its most obvious manifestation, such as above, or in more recent manifestations that post not one Pope but multiple Popes / Patriarchs as “the Church”.