Martin Luther: A Short Biography

Martin Luther (1483-1546) was born in Eisleben, Germany. His father, Hans Luther, was a copper miner and ore smelter. He wanted his son to become a lawyer.

In July 1505, Luther had a life-changing experience that set him on a new course to becoming a monk. Caught in a thunderstorm where he feared for his life, Luther cried out to St. Anne, the patron saint of miners, that if saved, he would become a monk. The storm subsided and he was saved.

In keeping with his promise, he joined a monastic order becoming an Augustinian friar. He was ordained in 1507.

In 1510, he visited Rome on behalf of Augustinian monasteries and was appalled by the corruption he found there. On October 31, 1517, Luther, angry with Pope Leo X's new round of indulgences to help build St. Peter's Basilica, nailed a sheet of paper with his 95 Theses on the door of the University of Wittenberg's chapel. He intended these to be only discussion points. The 95 Theses was a devastating critique of the indulgences and good works ( which often involved monetary donations) that popes could grant to the faithful to cancel out penance for sins as well as relief from stay in purgatory. 

In October 1518, at a meeting with Cardinal Thomas Cajetan in Augsburg, Luther was ordered to recant his 95 Theses by the authority of the pope. He refused. The meeting ended in a shouting match. Soon the process of his excommunication from the Church was initiated.

Luther had come to believe in Apostle Paul's doctrine that Christians are saved by faith alone and not through their works. He called on the Church to return to the message of Jesus in the gospels. 

1.      As opposed to all the doctrines, laws and traditions of the Church, Luther emphasized the primary of the scripture.

2.       As opposed to the thousands of saints and other mediators between God and man, he emphasized the primacy of Christ.

3.       As opposed to all pious religious works and efforts by man to attain the salvation of the soul, he emphasized the primacy of grace and faith. (Hans Kung)

In January 1521, Pope Leo X excommunicated Luther.

In 1525, Luther married Katharina von Bora, a former nun, with whom he had six children. In 1534 he published a complete translation of the Bible into German. 

Luther died on 18 February 1546.

Today, many are convinced that Luther was correct in his belief that faith alone and not works (paying for indulgences, going for pilgrimages, veneration of relics and such similar activities) and a life lived by the scripture will bring salvation. He is not the villain or heretic that the dictatorial and feudalistic Catholic Church makes him out to be. The more one understands his thinking, the greater is the appreciation one has for his efforts at bringing Jesus back to the center stage of the Catholic Church. His excommunication by the playboy pope should be revoked and he should be made a saint at the earliest.

Is it time for another Reformation?

It was Martin Luther who started the Reformation Movement in the 16th century. Although it began as a protest against the sale of indulgences by the playboy Pope Leo X to raise money to build St. Peter's Basilica, it soon developed into an effort to take the Church away from its human 'ecclesiocentricity'  (centered around priests and bishops) to the divine 'Christocentricity' (centered around Christ) of the gospel.

These days, the Christian churches, particularly the Catholic Church in Kerala, is in a similar 'ecclesiocentric' situation. Power and wealth have become the two foci around which the Church is elliptically revolving. Most, if not all, Catholic dioceses in Kerala and many have amassed an unbelievable amount of wealth, solely controlled by the bishops who are accountable to no one. Christ has been kicked out of the central stage. The gospel and its message are perfunctory. 

This situation, though existing for some time, came to limelight during the recent arrest of Franco, bishop of Jalandhar, for the alleged rape of a nun under his care. The seminary he started has all rooms (including those for the seminarians) fully airconditioned! The 50-lakh rupees he paid as rental for 2 days' stay with his entourage at the luxurious hotel Crown Plaza in Ernakulam when summoned for police questioning, is peanuts for this ecclesiastic. It is alleged that he contributes substantial sums to the Vatican. According to some media reports, when he is exhausted from 'serving' those poor, hungry, sick and abandoned members of his diocese,  he dines on imported Italian pasta in the evenings, washed down with scotch whiskey followed by forced 'nude performances' by nuns under his administration. [One is reminded of the orgy held in the Vatican by Pope Alexander VI in 1501, referred to as Banquet of Chestnuts.] Where does all his money come from? And who or what allows him to squander all this in such fashion?

Recently, it was claimed in media reports and television debates that the diocese of Kottayam has spent around Re 500 crores (?) in defense of the two priests and one nun accused in the alleged murder of the young nun, Abhaya, found dead in her convent well about 25 years ago.

In the early Church, the faithful gathered in groups at a house. There, they recalled the life and teachings of Jesus, prayed and shared everything they had. The Church in Kerala was built on the sweat and contributions of the faithful (remember the widow in the gospel with her mite). As wealth increased, the Catholic Church invested it in hospitals and schools with a positive motive to help the poor. Charity, in course of time, gave way to sheer greed. As more wealth accumulated, it was invested in more productive enterprises like real estate with a much better return.

With such wealth at their command, bishops began to dabble in politics. The ever blind, obedient and brainwashed little lambs, the faithful, formed vote banks with which the bishops manipulate political parties. In return, the latter save them in times of crises: when priests, bishops and nuns are caught in illegal, immoral and criminal acts, rape, murder, pedophilia, tax evasion etc. 

The faithful have begun to question the source of all this money and have started to demand accountability from the bishops. They are forming groups and action movements. All Kerala Church Act Action Council is demanding the passing of Church Act (bill), a legislation to make financial dealings of Churches transparent by bringing them under a trust. Another is the Kerala Reform Movement. Their agenda is manifold: women to confess only to nuns to prevent confessional solicitation by priests; rehabilitation of ex-priests and nuns; passing of the Church Act etc. In the aftermath of the 'illegal and underhand' land transactions done by Cardinal Alancherry, the Archdiocesan Movement for Transparency was formed demanding complete transparency in the financial affairs of the Ernakulam-Angamaly archdiocese.

Progress made by these groups is very slow. The naive lambs have been so deeply brainwashed from childhood in Sunday schools to believe that priests and bishops can do no wrong. The gospel messages are superficially transmitted by the clergy, who insists more on rituals: attendance at mass, sacraments, daily rosary, adoration, novenas, pilgrimages, festivals of saints, to name a few. Both CBCI (Catholic Bishops Conference of India) and KCBC (Kerala Catholic Bishops Conference) have lost their moral high ground, acting as they are in the Franco rape case, going out of the way to publicly support the alleged criminal and totally ignoring the victim, a nun for that matter, who has served the Church for a long. The faithful are beginning to see through the tactics of the bishops who, with the help of their fundamentalist supporters,  divert criticism against the alleged rapist bishop as insults to the entire Catholic Church!

It is time for another Reformation. Who will wear the mantle of present day Martin Luther?

Compulsory celibacy for catholic priests: since when and why?

After the recent sensational case of the arrest of Franco Mulakkal, bishop of Jalandhar, for the alleged repeated rape of a nun under his care, the issue of clerical celibacy is in the limelight again.

There is a difference between celibacy and chastity (purity).

In a 'narrow' sense, celibacy refers to the unmarried state as a result of a vow or some kind of renunciation. In a 'broad' sense, it means absence from sexual activity. A Catholic priest is expected to be celibate both in the 'narrow' and 'broad' sense. He cannot marry since it is against Church law, nor can he engage in sexual activity as that is against God's law. 

Chastity is the state of not having sex with anyone except your legally wedded husband or wife. Religious priests and nuns take a vow of chastity along with two other vows of poverty and obedience. 

While priests belonging to the Roman Catholic Church, with certain exceptions, are not allowed to marry, priests of the Eastern Church are may marry. 

During his life, Jesus had words of praise for marriage. "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh. What God has put together, let no man put asunder" (Matt. 19: 5-6). He never made celibacy a condition for discipleship. All his disciples were married. 

Apostle Paul did not advocate celibate priests, rather the opposite. "For it is better to marry than to be aflame with passion" (1 Cor. 7: 9). For Paul, marriage and ministry were quite compatible. 

In the early Church, the normal expectation was that a man would be married. Celibacy was the odd thing that needed explaining. According to Garry Wills, priests and bishops were married in the 4th century. There was no question of declaring such marriages invalid. 

The first effort at celibacy was legislation to prevent priests from sleeping with their wives (a) before celebrating the Eucharist or (b) after they became bishops or (c) after the birth of an heir. Only in the 11th century would clerical marriages be declared invalid. 

The earliest textual evidence of forbidding clerical marriages and the duty of those already married to abstain from sexual contact with their wives is in the decree of the Synod of Elvira in 305.  However, the Council of Nicaea, convened by Emperor Constantine in 325, rejected any ban on priests marrying as per the request of the Spanish clerics. But the Council of Carthage held in 330 reconfirmed the decision of the Synod of Elvira for bishops and priests to observe perfect continence by abstaining from conjugal intercourse. In practice, however, most clerics flouted these norms.  

In the 11th century, Pope Benedict VIII (1012 - 1024) prohibited wives and children of priests from inheriting property. Pope Gregory VII ( 1073 - 1085) decreed against clerical marriage. He called upon all  Christians to boycott the ministries of married clergy. The second Lateran Council held in 1139 reconfirmed the rule forbidding priests to marry. Priestly marriages were regarded as a priori invalid, all priests' wives as concubines and all priests' children Church property as slaves! In 1563, the Council of Trent reaffirmed the requirement of celibacy for priests. It considered celibacy as an integral part of the priesthood, a sign of a priest's commitment to God and service. Even today, the Catholic Church holds on to this position.

What circumstances led to clerical celibacy?

After the conversion of Emperor Constantine in 312, persecution of Christians stopped. He made Christianity the recognized religion of the empire.  This helped to win for the Church worldly success, but the quality of the spiritual leadership deteriorated and became worldly and materialistic. After Constantine's death, Christianity was torn apart by a number of heresies. 

This was the time asceticism - a lifestyle characterized by abstinence from sensual pleasures. Ascetics abstained from sex, fasted for long periods, prayed throughout day and night, all this to bring their bodily desires under control. Asceticism was on the rise in the Church during the 4th and 5th centuries. Monasteries and nunneries were cropping up all over the Christian world with many Christians wanting to become monks and nuns. In spiritual matters, ordinary priests were losing their authority while ascetics were gaining the upper hand. One way to reduce the gap between priestly and ascetic authority was for priests to imitate ascetics - to become celibate themselves so as to regain their moral authority.

Virginity, then and even now, was regarded as superior to the married state, since both Jesus and his mother were virgins. Virgins had sixty times the reward of ordinary Christians in heaven, although martyrs came first with a hundredfold. According to Cardinal St. Peter Damian (1007 - 1072), "since a virgin brought forth Jesus as a baby, only a virgin should bring him forth on the altar in the Eucharist."  

Another reason for compulsory celibacy was the thinking that celibate priests, free from family duties, can fully focus on their ecclesiastical duties. This also enabled the Church to control the wealth amassed by clerics through their religious activities, without it passing on to their wives and heirs. 

In spite of the regulation of clerical celibacy, the Catholic Church has always been and continue to be in crisis over this rule. According to De Rosa there are many 'unchaste celibates' among Catholic priests. Priestly celibacy has hardly ever worked. In fact, the regulation of celibacy is 'institutionalized hypocrisy', feels Hans Kung. Many popes who maintained celibacy for their priests with an iron hand, lived in unbridled sensuality, fathering many children. Sixtus IV (1471 - 84), sponsor of the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary, was one. Another was Innocent VIII. He had all his children publicly recognized and celebrated their marriages in great splendor in the Vatican.  He made his son Giovanni a cardinal at age 13. Giovanni later became Pope Leo X. Pope Alexander VI had four children by his mistresses (more by other women when he was cardinal). [Leo X and Alexander VI are such 'interesting' characters that they will be discussed in detail later.] 

Even today, 'unchaste celibates' are found all around the world. Instead of reporting them to the police for their abuse and dismissing them from priestly ministries, they are being protected; a brief period of suspension followed by transfer to some remote area or abroad. Fr. Eugine Figarez (rape of a 14-year-old girl), Fr. James Thekemuriyil (rape of a 21-year-old seminarian), Fr. Raju Kokkan (abuse of a 10 year-old-girl), Fr. Robin Vadakkumchery (impregnation of an underage girl), four Orthodox priests who sexually blackmailed and abused an innocent house-wife by passing her around like a ball, form only the tip of the iceberg. Of course, if there is a Nobel prize for rape and abuse, it will surely be awarded to Franco Mulakkal, Catholic bishop of Jalandhar, who is out on bail for the unnatural repeated rape of a nun working under him. 

Pope John XXIII who convened the 2nd Vatican Council (1962 - 65), was sympathetic to the request by bishops from Latin America and Africa to allow married priests to supplement the short supply of clergy. Someone said that if celibacy is strictly enforced in Africa, no priests or bishops would be left to serve the faithful. African tradition looks down upon a man who does not have children.  So, a  priest having a girlfriend living with children is accepted by the community of faithful. 

Unluckily, Pope John XXIII died in1963. He was succeeded by Pope Paul VI, who refused to change the Church regulation of clerical celibacy. In fact, he released an encyclical Priestly Celibacy (Sacerdotalis Celibatus) on June 12, 1967, in which he said that the regulation of clerical celibacy was most appropriate today 'in helping priests to consecrate all their love completely and generously in the service of the Church and souls'. Since he could not produce much evidence from the New Testament in support of his arguments for clerical celibacy, he cited a reference to eunuchs (a man who has been castrated) in the gospel of Mathew (Mt: 19 11-12). Both Hans Kung and Garry Wills say that this encyclical of Pope Paul is an example of how Church authorities have 'twisted, omitted, extended, distorted and perverted New Testament passages to make them mean whatever the Pope wants to mean'.

In the light of widespread clerical abuses, including pedophilia, there must soon be a rethink on clerical celibacy.

A nun raped and a bishop arrested in Kerala

Franco Mulakkal, bishop of Jalandhar, India, is in the news for all the wrong reasons. He has been accused of a number of crimes: repeatedly raping a nun under his jurisdiction, engaging in 'unnatural sex' with her, threatening her life, trying to influence witnesses in his favor etc. 

Those who have read the history of the Catholic church written by unbiased authors are least shocked by the scandalous behavior of this bishop. There have been far worse criminals and sex offenders among popes, bishops and priests in the past. Franco is in the limelight because he is the first Indian bishop to be arrested and incarcerated. In the past, using their political influence and money power, church authorities in India have managed to sweep all such criminal activities under the carpet. With the advent of social media like Facebook and WhatsApp, and an active print and visual media, the ecclesiastical authorities are unable to keep the genie of clerical misdemeanors corked up in a bottle. 

Several questions and issues have cropped up in my mind around Franco's case. Since when was clerical celibacy made compulsory? Why was it done? Why are church authorities protecting ecclesiastics found guilty of serious crimes like murder, rape, and pedophilia? How did these 'successors of Peter' amass so much wealth, forgetting the warning that Jesus made to the rich: 'it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven'? Again, have the church authorities forgotten what Jesus told the young man who asked him as to how to attain salvation: 'sell everything and follow me'? Has the Catholic church become a multinational company (MNC) with the Pope as CEO and the bishops, regional managers assisted by avaricious priests?

What does 'church' (ecclesia) mean? Is it the gathering of the faithful, as it originally meant or is the church = KCBC (Kerala Catholic Bishops' Conference) with the faithful merely meek lambs who blindly obey the ecclesiastical command "pay, pray and obey"? If members of the faithful or the media refer to Franco as the 'devil incarnate', does it imply that they are tarnishing the good name of the church? Members of KCBC go out of their way to rally around the accused since he is one of their own, but do they lift a finger in support of the traumatized nun? Is not the raped nun a member of the Catholic church? And moreover, as a member of a religious congregation, who has dedicated her life to the service of the church, is she not deserving of greater sympathy than an ordinary member of the faithful?

The raped nun had complained about the bishop's abuse to the local parish priest, to various bishops, to Cardinal Alancherry, to the Nuncio, to the Vatican itself with no response from any one of these worthies. In desperation, she filed a police complaint. Her colleagues and relatives took to the street in protest. The public joined in. Now, the skull-capped men in KCBC are bemoaning this protest since according to them it has put the Catholic church in a negative light. Here is a good example of a double standard!

It was reported in the media that Franco, prior to his questioning and arrest by Kerala police, stayed for two days with his entourage in Crown Plaza, one of the most expensive hotels in Ernakulam. It is rumored that the bill came to 50 lakh rupees. Where did this money come from? How transparent are the financial dealings of Indian bishops? 

Many are wondering: how did Franco become a priest in the first place? What are the criteria for selection to the holy orders? How did this apparent criminal manipulate his way to the bishopric? How are bishops chosen in the Roman Catholic church?

I plan to discuss some of these issues in my future blogs.

Sacraments, Confession, Solicitation - Part 3

Solicitation: Sin of the Confessional

Solicitation is the act of asking someone for something such as money or support or in the case of confession, for sexual favors.

There is a section titled 'Sins of the Confessional' in the highly readable book Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of Papacy by Peter De Rosa. Here is a summary of what he says. 

The two rules of compulsory yearly confession and confessional secrecy led to a sin known as 'solicitation' in canon law: that is a priest using the confessional to ask for sexual favors. The privacy of the confessional provided the clergy with ready access to women at their weakest, that is when they were obliged to confess every sexual thought and desire. To make matters worse, during confession, the penitents would kneel next to the chair of the confessor where it was possible for unscrupulous priests to indulge in physical abuse. It was to prevent such abuse that the confessional box was introduced around the middle of the sixteenth century. However, solicitation in the confessional continued unabated. 

Another reason for the widespread solicitation by priests can be traced to their seminary life and formation. Priests are trained from around the age of 17 (in some religious congregations, from the age of 14 as aspirants or minor seminarians) in a prison-like environment away from contact with girls and women. They are forbidden to engage in sexual thoughts and imaginations, let alone acts, as such thoughts and acts are regarded as mortal sins. Every sexual impulse must be suppressed as a danger to their celibacy. As soon as they are ordained, these mostly innocent men are forced to listen, in the secrecy of the confessional, to the most lurid and pornographic description of sexual activities. It is no wonder why many of them stray and uses the confessional for sexual advances.

John Cornwell, in his book, The Dark Box: A Secret History of Confession, highlights a major cause for the priestly pedophile cases of the recent years. In 1910, Pope Pius X issued the decree Quam Singulari which instructed that the first confession and communion should be made not at puberty, as it used to be before, but at age 7. It also encouraged weekly confession and communion. This implied that instructions in sin and categories of sin including sexual ones started at the age of 5 or 6. It is much easier for a pedophile priest to manipulate a 6-year-old than someone who has reached the age of puberty.  

Some interesting canon laws that most people are unaware of:

Canon 977 prohibits a priest from giving absolution to someone with whom he has had unlawful sexual relations. This means that if a priest commits sexual sin with someone, he cannot then absolve the same person from the sin.

If a penitent has been solicited to sin, he or she cannot be absolved by any confessor until the penitent actually reports the delinquent priest to the proper ecclesiastical authority (usually the bishop) or promises to make such denunciation as soon as possible!

After the scandal of the four Orthodox priests mentioned earlier, the faithful, particularly the women among them, are demanding changes to the current practice of one-to-one auricular confession. The options are (a) abolish private confession to priests altogether; let the faithful confess  directly to God or (b) conduct a public-for-all confession  whereby everyone in the congregation quietly recalls his or her sins, asks God for forgiveness, and the priest absolves the whole congregation at one go or (c) allow senior nuns to hear women's confessions in private.

In a future blog, I hope to dwell on the psychology underlying the mental make-up of pedophile priests and their moral and theological justifications for their acts, as discussed by John Cornwell in his book.

Sacraments, Confession, Solicitation - Part 2

Confession: the sacrament of reconciliation

According to Garry Wills, the sacrament of confession did not exist in St. Augustine's 4th century any more than the sacrament of matrimony did.

In the early church, a serious offense led to expulsion from the Body of Christ. Such an offender rejoined the Body after a fixed period of humiliation and good behavior, with reduced status (e.g., priests lost their priesthood). One more offense and the sinner was permanently excommunicated. It was the whole community that accepted the sinner back. There was no private confession with a priest who alone might claim the power to forgive sin in secret.

Hans Kung in his book, The Catholic Church: A Short history says that the early church practiced the once-for-all public penance. Auricular confession, as we have today, was propagated in medieval times by Irish-Scottish monks. This could be repeated any number of times and was not tied to a priest.

He further says that the Fourth Ecumenical Council held at the Lateran Palace in 1215, convened by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216), confirmed by a decree compulsory confession at least once a year, and if possible, more often. More importantly, it laid down the obligation of confessional secrecy. Canon 21 of the Council says:

"Accordingly, it is absolutely wrong for a confessor in any way to betray the penitent for any reason whatsoever, whether by word or in any other fashion. A confessor who directly violates the sacramental seal incurs an automatic excommunication whose lifting is reserved to the Holy See".

Sacraments, Confession, Solicitation - Part 1

In Mahabharat there is a character Draupadi, who lived happily with five husbands, the Pandava brothers. In June 2018 there appeared in the Kerala media the sad story of a present-day 'Draupadi' forced to sleep with four Malankara Orthodox priests, who passed her around like a football. 

It started in 1999 with Abraham Varghese, who as a seminarian forced himself upon her when she was just 16 years old. This continued even after both got married (to different people, of course!- Malankara priests are allowed to marry). He allegedly blackmailed her to continue the relationship by threatening to reveal it to her husband. 

She then confessed about this affair to another priest, Job Mathew. Instead of keeping the confessional information confidential, he used it to blackmail her and demand sexual favors.

The hapless woman then sought help from another priest, John Mathew, who was her former classmate. Instead of helping, he sexually took advantage of her plight!

All this abuse caused so much trauma that she sought counseling from a fourth priest, Jaison George. Tragedy of tragedies! Instead of helping, he too sexually abused her!!

According to the victim, all priests knew about the others' affair with her.

It was after this scandal of the confessional secret being revealed for sexual exploitation that I decided to read up on the history of sacraments. 

What are Sacraments?

The Latin term Sacramentum means solemn oath. It had referred to the sacred oath of fidelity sworn by Roman soldiers. The term was popularised in the Western Church by the austere bishop of Carthage, Tertullian (c. 160-220).

According to the  Catechism of the Catholic Church, 'Sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. Christ instituted all seven sacraments as ways in which He could be present to His people even after His ascension into heaven'.

In earlier times, the number of sacraments varied from 9 to 11. The fourth Lateral Council held in 1215 fixed the number at 7. This was finally confirmed at the Council of Trent (1545-1563). They are organized into 3 categories: the sacraments of initiation into the church (the body of Christ), consisting of baptism, the Eucharist and confirmation; the sacraments of healing consisting of reconciliation (confession) and anointing of the sick and the sacraments of service: holy orders and matrimony.

New Testament verses are commonly cited to support the Roman Catholic belief concerning the sacraments. e.g., the verse "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20: 23) is used for the sacrament of confession.

Protestant reformers of the 16th century rejected the claim by the Catholic Church of 7 sacraments, insisting that only 2 of the sacraments were instituted by Christ and could be vouched for by scripture: baptism and the Lord's Supper.  

Lying for God: Papal Forgeries

Catholic children are brought up to believe that popes, bishops and the rest of the clergy are holy men, practicing what they preach. However, after reading up on the history of Christianity by authors known for their objectivity, I have realized that my earlier perceptions about church affairs are not necessarily true.

Hans Kung, in his book The Catholic Church: A Short History, describes some of the papal forgeries that were knowingly done for financial and doctrinal manipulation. The mother of all such forgeries was one that came to be called “The Constantine Donation”.

Peter De Rosa has details about this forgery in his book Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of Papacy. 

Constantine was the Roman Emperor from 306 to 337. During this time, one of the popes was Sylvester I (314-315).

Let us move forward to the year 752 when Stephen III became pope. At that time ‘Pepin the Short’ was king of Franks, a group of Germanic tribes. A year after becoming pope, Stephen III met Pepin and his son Charlemagne to ask for their help in the protection of Rome. In this meeting, Pope Stephen showed Pepin a dusty and crumbling document called The Constantine Donation dated March 30, 315. It was a deed of gift from Emperor Constantine to Pope Sylvester.

The document tells the moving story of how Constantine contracted leprosy all over his body. He tried, without success, to cure it by immersing himself in the freshly drawn blood of infants. Then one night he had a dream in which apostle Peter told him to contact Pope Sylvester. The pope baptized him and after that, he was cured. Convinced that he was cured by the power of Apostle Peter, Constantine gave a gift to the Vicar of Christ and all his successors. 

In this Donation, he “confers on the pope and his successors primacy over all other bishops, including the eastern patriarchs, senatorial privileges for the clergy, imperial palaces and regalia, Rome itself and the western empire”.

Pepin was impressed. He handed back to the pope all the lands that were rightly his by the Donation.

However, it was later found that the Donation document was a forgery, a fabrication most likely concocted by a Lateran priest. It was only in 1440 that a papal aide, Lorenzo Valla, ‘took it apart line by line and proved it to be a fraud’.

Kung mentions other forgeries that were done in the fifth and sixth centuries. One was the writings of the pseudo disciple of Paul, Dionysius the Areopagite. Another was the ‘Symmachian’ Forgeries’ which were forged documents produced by Pope Symmachus (498-514) and presented in his curia. The object of these forgeries was to produce alleged instances from earlier times to support the position that the Roman bishop could not be judged by any court composed of other bishops. (Wikipedia)

In the second half of the 9^th century, there were the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals. (Decretal is a papal decree concerning a point of canon law.) These were a set of extensive forgeries, probably written by a group of Frankish priests. ‘They created documents purportedly authored by early popes and council documents’ to defend the position of bishops against metropolitans and secular authorities. (Wikipedia)

Role of Emperor Constantine in the evolution of Christianity

Constantine was born in CE 272 to Flavius Constantius, a Roman army officer, and Helena, his concubine.

A brief history of the Roman empire of the time is relevant here. The dates, all CE, refer to the period of the reign of emperors.

Emperor Diocletian reigned from 284-305. He decided, for administrative reasons, to divide the Empire into two regions, East and West, and to appoint co-emperors in each. He took charge of the East from 286 and made Maximian co-emperor of the West (286-305). In 305, Maximian adopted Constantius, father of Constantine, as co-emperor and heir to the West. Constantius ruled for 1 year 2 months (305-306). After his death, Constantine (306-337) was declared co-emperor of the West by his troops. In the meantime, Maximian made his son Maxentius (306-312) the co-emperor of the West. Meanwhile, Licinius (308-324) was the co-emperor of the East.

With two co-emperors Constantine and Maxentius in charge of the West, civil wars and internal battles for dominance were to be expected. The battle of Milvian Bridge was one such battle. It was a historical turning point not only in the life of Emperor Constantine but also in the evolution of Christianity as an organized religion.

Milvian bridge was an important route to Rome over River Tiber. The armies of the opposing emperors stood on either side of the river. The army of Maxentius outnumbered Constantine’s two to one, was better equipped and fresh. The day before the battle, Constantine knelt to pray to his favorite Sun god, Sol. Suddenly he had a vision. He saw black rays leap diagonally out of the sun and heard in his head the name Christos. He had heard his mother Helena, who had become a Christian, utter this name frequently. He had never thought anything about it till then. A voice from somewhere out of this world seems to be telling him: “In this sign, you will conquer.”

He immediately ordered to substitute Christ’s symbol for that of the Roman Imperial Eagle on the soldiers’ shields. The next morning, 27 October 312, he routed the armies of Maxentius and entered Rome in triumph. Maxentius tried to escape by diving into the river Tiber, but his heavy armor dragged him down and he drowned. After his victory, Constantine began to sponsor Christianity because it had proved itself useful in winning him a decisive battle.

“So began the fatal alliance between Caesar and Pope, Throne and Altar.”, comments De Rosa.

Among the more important follow-up to Constantine’s victory were the following:

1.       Christians were persecuted in the Roman Empire for their beliefs. It started with Nero in 64 AD and continued with great vigor during Emperor Diocletian’s time. Constantine, believing his all-important victory at Milvian bridge was helped by Christ, was the first emperor to stop the persecution of Christians and to legalize Christianity. He was also influenced by his Christian mother Helena.

2.       In February 313, he met in Milan with Licinius, the co-emperor of the East, and developed the Edict of Milan, which stated that Christians would be allowed to follow their faith without oppression. This removed penalties for professing Christianity, under which many had been martyred previously, and it returned confiscated Church property. The Edict protected all religions from persecution, not only Christianity, allowing anyone to worship any deity that they chose.

The Edict of Milan is an exemplary example of religious tolerance drawn up by two bloodthirsty warriors. The tragedy was and continues to be that this principle of tolerance was often not practiced by the church. Whenever she was in control, she tried to deny freedom of religion to others.

3.       When Constantine became Emperor, there were many sects among Christians holding divergent and opposing views on doctrinal matters. One such doctrine was propounded by Arius, an Alexandrian priest (250–336). He denied the divinity of Christ, maintained that the son of God was created by the Father at a point in time and was, therefore, neither coeternal nor consubstantial with the Father. Others opposed this view. This debate was becoming more and more acrimonious and bloody. Constantine saw a spiritual split threatening the unity of the empire. To resolve the issue, he convened the Council of Nicaea in 325. Nicaea is the present-day Iznik in Turkey. 

According to De Rosa, most bishops supported the Arian view. Constantine, a pagan, with ‘no known theological preferences’, rose from his gold throne to end the discussion. Probably to demonstrate that he was in charge, “he proposed the ‘orthodox view’ of God’s Son Jesus being of one substance with the Father”. The whole matter was put to vote and Arius’ doctrine was rejected by a vote of 3 to 217. It was agreed that God had made the world from nothing and that God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were the same substance.

This is the Nicaean creed that Catholics all over profess during Sunday mass. We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father… 

Here we have a belief system that was democratically chosen!!

Legend has it that Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian bishop named Eusebius!

An example of distortion of truth by popes to suit their political agenda

The founding of Christianity by Jesus based on his telling Peter “You are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church” (Mathew 16: 18) is a total distortion of the truth.

In 382 Pope Damasus I commissioned his secretary St. Jerome to translate the Bible from Greek and Hebrew into Latin. The result of Jerome's scholarly labor was the Vulgate ('common version'), the Bible in Latin that was to guide Holy Mother Church for the next thousand years. In the original Greek, ‘You are Peter (petros meaning small rock) and upon this rock (petra meaning bedrock or much bigger rock foundation) are two different Greek words. In Jerome’s Latin translation these two words mean the same thing. That is how and where Jesus’ words to Peter were misinterpreted to justify apostolic succession and papal authority.

In the original Greek, what Jesus meant was the following: he told Peter, “I say to you that you are a small stone, and upon this bedrock I will build my church”. Peter was just a small stone built atop the bedrock of something much bigger than himself: namely, the truth that Jesus is Christ, the Son of the living God. As Peter testified to the truth about Christ, that he is the Messiah (which Peter did in verse 16), the church was built upon this belief as its foundation.

According to Hans Kung, the promise to Peter ‘You are Peter,...’ is “not once quoted in full in any of the Christian literature of the first centuries”. He continues: “Far less is there any evidence of a successor of Peter (also in Rome) in the New Testament. In any case, the logic of the saying about the rock tends rather to tell against it: Peter’s faith in Christ (and not the faith of any successor) was to be and remain the constant foundation of the church.

Regarding the word “church” (ekklesia in Greek meaning ‘assembly’) in Jesus’ promise to Peter "I will build my church", this is what Kung has to say: “The original meaning of ekklesia, ‘church’ was not a hyper-organization of spiritual functionaries, detached from the concrete assembly. It denoted a community gathering at a particular place at a particular time for a particular action – a local church…” As we shall see, popes of the fourth and fifth centuries reinterpreted the word to consolidate their temporal and spiritual power over Christendom.

Now, a little early church history:

According to Catholic church history, there were, starting with Peter, 36 popes plus 3 antipopes (someone who makes claim to be pope against a legitimately elected pope) till AD 366. In the early church, the Bishop of Rome, elected by the people of Rome, was regarded as the head of the entire Catholic church.

Bitter rivalries showed themselves at the death of a pope. Peter De Rosa describes one such incident in his book Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of Papacy. When Pope Liberius died in AD 366, each of two warring factions of believers, elected its gangster leader as successor. Ursinus was one pope, Damasus the other. After a lot of street fighting, Ursinus’ followers locked themselves in the Basilica of St. Mary Major. Damasus’ supporters climbed on the roof and bombarded the occupants with tiles and stones. Other followers of Damasus were attacking the main door. When this caved in, a bloody fight ensued lasting for three days. When it was over, ‘137 bodies were carried out, all of them followers of Ursinus’.

Ursinus was exiled and Damasus I ascended the papal throne. However, the gangland rivalry would last another fifteen years, from time to time arbitrated by the pagan city prefect and forcing Pope Damasus to move about the city with a bodyguard of armed gladiators.

Baigent in his book The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History has more on this. The massacre was a blot on his reign; to compensate, Pope Damasus termed Rome “the apostolic see” – the only place in the entire church that might claim a continuous succession from the apostles.  He claimed to be the true and direct successor to Peter and rightfully inherited the church that Christ had supposedly founded upon Peter. Only from his time was the text ‘You art Peter…’, as translated by Jerome, began to be used as a scriptural base for the primacy of Rome and apostolic succession. 

Pope Leo I (440-461) formally established the primacy of Rome based on the inherited authority of the apostle Peter. He claimed that this heritage gave Rome the right to lead Christendom. It is to be noted that without this claim the entire edifice of the Vatican and the papacy would crumble into dust.

Peter was retrospectively designated as the first pope. (Baigent)

Postscript 1: I have used information mostly from the following three books:

1.       De Rosa, Peter. Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of Papacy.

2.       Kung, Hans. The Catholic Church: A Short History.

3.       Baigent, Michael. The Jesus Papers: Exposing the Greatest Cover-Up in History

Who are these three?

Peter De Rosa

Was born in 1932 in London; ordained priest in 1956 but left the priesthood in 1970. He was Professor of Metaphysics and Ethics at Westminster Seminary and Dean of Theology at Corpus Christi College, London.

Hans Küng

Was born in 1928; he is a Swiss Catholic priest, theologian and prolific author. He was appointed as an expert theological advisor between 1962 and 1965 to the Second Vatican Council by Pope John XXIII. He rejected the doctrine of Papal Infallibility and for this, he was banned in 1979 by Pope John Paul II from teaching theology.

Michael Baigent

Religious historian and a leading expert in arcane knowledge.

Postscript 2: After his death, the mass murderer Damasus was declared ‘Saint Damasus’ and his feast day is celebrated on December 11. He is the patron saint of archeologists.

Did Jesus build the Catholic Church on Peter's rock?

Mathew 16: 18-19 is quoted by church authorities when they want to prove that Jesus founded the Catholic church.

Before we discuss Mathew 16: 18-19, let us take a quick look at the history of the four Gospels of the New Testament (NT) and its authors.

Dr. James Gardner’s book Jesus Who? Myth vs Reality in the Search for the Historical Jesus is helpful in this context.

When were the NT books written? There are various ways of dating manuscripts. Reference to contemporary historical events, type of material used to write, script analysis, language analysis, carbon dating etc. are some of them. Using such techniques, experts have concluded that the four Gospels (meaning ‘good news’) of the NT were probably composed/compiled between AD 80 and AD 180. They are regarded as ‘biographies’ of Jesus. The four biographers – Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John - are called ‘evangelists’ (meaning ‘bringing good news’). As opposed to popular myth, these four were not apostles or disciples of Jesus who followed him around and jotted down his every word and act. In fact, no one knows the real identity of these four.

The first three Gospels of Mark, Mathew, and Luke are similar and are referred to as “Synoptic Gospels” (from a Greek word meaning ‘with one eye’). In fact, they are so repetitive that some believe the second evangelist copied from the first and the third from the first and second!

Let us now come back to the issue at hand. Here is Mathew 16: 18-19 from Good News Bible:

18: And so I tell you, Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my church, and not even death will ever be able to overcome it.

19: I will give you the keys of the Kingdome of heaven; what you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and what you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven. 

Church authorities quote these two verses as evidence of Jesus founding Christianity and to support the doctrine of Apostolic Succession.  This doctrine says that the pre-eminence attributed to Peter among the twelve apostles is the basis for the primacy of the bishop of Rome over other bishops throughout the church.

For a deeper contextual understanding of these verses, one needs to examine (a) the situation leading to making these statements by Jesus; (b) what follows afterward; and (c) how the other evangelists, Mark and Luke, report this incident.

Mathew 16: 13-16, Mark 8: 27-29 and Luke 9: 18-20

Jesus asked his disciples: “Who do people say I am?”. This question was asked while they were all traveling to Caesarea Philippi. They answered: “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; still others say, one of the prophets.” Then he asked them: “Who do you say I am?” Peter answered: “You are the Messiah.”

Mathew 16: 17-19

Jesus tells Peter that he is the rock on which he will build the church and hand over to him the keys to heaven.

There is no mention at all in both Mark and Luke about this part of the conversation.

Mathew 16: 20, Mark 8: 30 and Luke 9: 21:

Jesus tells his disciples not to mention to anyone that he is the Messiah.

Mathew 16: 21-23 and Mark 8: 31-33:

From that time Jesus started telling his disciples about his suffering and death. Peter was upset, and he took Jesus aside and told him: “God forbid it, Lord! That must never happen to you.” Then Jesus rebuked him: “Get away from me, Satan. Your thoughts don’t come from God but from man.”

Luke simply skips this part. It looks as though he is a big fan of Peter.

The omission of the conversation between Jesus and Peter regarding building the church and handing over the keys to heaven in both Mark and Luke could either be accidental or purposeful. Some church historians believe that this inclusion in Mathew alone was intentionally done as a postscript. Others argue that these verses were distorted in translation from Greek to Latin by St. Jerome to suit the political agenda of his time.  A quick reading of the church history of the 4^th and 5^th centuries will shed more light on these arguments.

Who founded Christianity? Jesus? Apostle Paul? Neither?

The above question is taken from a blog by Prof. Bernard Starr. What he says should be thought-provoking to those who have been taught to believe that Jesus is the founder of Christianity. They base this conclusion on the verse found in the gospel of Mathew 16: 'Thou art  Peter,  and on this rock, I will build my church'.

Others believe that it was Apostle Paul who founded Christianity.

To understand the evolution of Christianity, one needs to go back to the two developments that took place after the death of Jesus. One was the takeover by James, the brother of Jesus, of the 'Jesus movement'. This movement, considered by Jesus as his life mission, was an attempt to bring the Jewish nation to the righteous path of Jehovah. The other was the version of Jesus' life and teachings conceived and preached to non-Jews in the Greco-Roman world by the self-proclaimed apostle Paul as revealed to him by Jesus in 'visions' and through 'disembodied voices'. 

Around the year AD 36, Paul had a 'conversion' experience in which he claimed to have 'seen' Jesus in a 'vision'. He said that he had received both a revelation and a commission. The revelation was that 'Jesus was the heavenly exalted Christ'; the commission was that he, Paul, was to preach the good news of 'salvation through faith in Jesus' to the Gentiles, the non-Jews.

During the period AD 66-70, the Jews revolted against Roman rule. This was brutally put down by the Romans and in the process, they burned down and destroyed the Temple in Jerusalem. James and the followers of the 'Jesus movement' were either killed or fled the massacre and the 'movement' died a natural death. Had the temple not been destroyed, perhaps Christianity would have been a continuation of 'Jesus movement' and Paul would have been a footnote in history.

It is a fact that Paul's writings and teachings remained and continued to influence the evolution of Christianity. The present Christianity is often referred to as "Pauline Christianity".

Coming back to the question as to who officially launched Christianity as a religion, Starr answers: no one officially founded Christianity; it just happened. May I add that this was 'religious evolution' akin to Darwin's 'natural evolution'.

There is no evidence in the New Testament (NT) to show either Jesus or Paul rejected Judaism to start a new religion. Rather, it is quite evident from NT readings that they regarded their teachings as Jewish revivalism, a move to bring the Jewish people closer to God. Both Jesus and Paul were born and died as Jews. They both followed Jewish traditions and practices throughout their lives. Neither officially founded the Christian religion. Nor were they Catholics!