Character of the Papacy by John O. Corliss

Review and Herald Publishing Association · Takoma Park Station, Washington, D. C. · Nov 28, 1907

Character of the Papacy

By John O. Corliss

—No. 1

Its Essential Dogma

J. O. CORLISS

The word “papa” lengthened to “papacy” to express the system of Roman church government, is a simple Latin word, meaning the same as the English word “father.” But even this explanation does not give a knowledge of what the Roman papacy is, except in part. We may know that if it is true to its name, it will attempt to exercise a fatherly government over the church, instead of one of a brotherly nature. The father of a family is its head, to whom each member is responsible for every act of his career, at least so long as he is a dependent of the family. The system of discipline inaugurated by the father must be adhered to, under all circumstances. The religious teachings of the head of the house (if there be any such) are to be listened to with respect, and their application to the life is supposed to be made intensely practical.

All this, and much more unnecessary to mention in this connection, represents the relation of a father and his family. But if, in the administration of his family affairs, the father becomes so arbitrary that he must enforce unreasonable decrees by severe punishment, then he has exceeded his privilege, even though he has dealt with his own flesh and blood. But in assuming fatherhood in the government of the church, the pope, or papa, oversteps the right of humanity in the assumption itself, because no authority has ever been conferred by which he may exercise such prerogative.

Continuing this phase of the subject, we feel justified in saying, first of all, that Christ himself is the rightful Head of the church, and so of each individual member of the church. The reason for this conclusion may be stated as follows: To become a true member of the church, one must become “dead” to the world (Col. 3:3; Gal. 2:20), and be made “alive unto God through Jesus Christ.” Rom. 6:11. This condition must be effected through the “new birth” from above as taught by Christ to Nicodemus in John 3:3. Thus one is “born of God,” and so passes from death unto life (1 John 3:9, 14), being born of “incorruptible” seed, by “the Word of God, which liveth and abideth forever.”

1 Peter 1:23. Jesus Christ being the “Word” by which this work is accomplished (John 1:1), he therefore becomes the “Everlasting Father” and the “Prince of Peace” to every believer. This leaves no room for a human father to rule in the church.

Besides this line of reasoning, we have some direct and definite statements of inspiration which sustain this conclusion. The great apostle says that we have “one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Eph. 4:6), thus echoing the words of Malachi: “Have we not all one Father?” Mal. 2:10. As the true and only representative of God in the earth, therefore, only the Lord Jesus is entitled to be recognized as the Head over his church. See Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18, etc. In view of these plain statements, the Saviour well cautioned his followers: “Call no man your father upon the earth: for One is your Father, which is in heaven.” Matt. 23:9.

But notwithstanding this plain teaching of the Scriptures themselves,—to many the sole source of eternal wisdom,—the papacy places a mere man at its front, to be recognized as the divinely appointed head of the church. More than this, also, is true. Innocent III declared that the “pope is God’s locum-tenens [that is, deputy, or substitute] on earth, set to watch over the social, political, and religious condition of mankind, like a divine Providence, as chief overseer and lord, who must put down all opposition.” He held further that “all rank and authority not held by priests is an incongruity in the divine plan of the world, introduced through human folly and sinfulness, while the priesthood is, properly speaking, the sole ordinance and institution of God.” See “Epistle to Joan, in Rymer’s Fœdera Reg. Angl.” Vol. I, chap. 1, page 119.

This broad statement concerning the power of a pope, meant to the people of the twelfth century just what was recorded in “Codex dipl. Frieder,” Vol. II, chap. 4, page 921: “I am the representative on earth of the Almighty, and my power stands high above all earthly power and limitations; in me and through me is the church free.” According to the view then freely proclaimed, the church could be free only if omnipotent, and the church was really centered in the pope. In order to convince the Greek patriarch of the superiority of the Roman See over that of Constantinople, Innocent III wrote to him, saying that “Christ has committed the whole world to the government of the popes.” As conclusive evidence of this, he said that Christ gave Peter power to walk on the sea; and as the sea is symbolic of nations, it became clear that Peter’s successors were entitled to rule the nations. See Lib. 2, 209, ad Patr. Constantin.

This was, to say the least, an ingenious argument; and though to some it may seem puerile, yet it meant a great deal to those concerned. It meant that everybody, whether he would or not, was subject to papal decrees, and could be called to account and punished even to death, for disobedience to that power. In harmony with this idea, Innocent IV established the principle that “every cleric must obey the pope, even if he commands what is wrong, for no one can judge him.”—Comment in Decretal. Francof. 1570, 555.

To follow such a rule, it was not necessary to know much besides strict obedience to papal decrees. In fact, Innocent himself defined the amount of knowledge that was necessary for both clerics and laity in order to please the system under which they moved: “It is enough for the laity to know that there is a God who rewards the good, and, for the rest, to believe implicitly what the church believes. Bishops and pastors must distinctly know the articles of the Apostles’ Creed; the other clergy need not know more than the laity, and also that the body of Christ is made in the sacrament of the altar.”—Comment, in Decr. 2.

The laity were therefore “forbidden to read the Bible in their own tongue, and if they conversed publicly or privately on matters of faith, incurred excommunication by a bull of Alexander IV, and after a year became amenable to the Inquisition.”—Sext. Dec. 5, 2.

In harmony with the declaration of Innocent III, Boniface VIII issued his Bull Unum Sanctum, in which was affirmed that “the pope is judge over all secular matters where sin is involved, and holds the two swords, one to be used by himself, the other by kings and warriors, but at his beck, and by his permission; that he judges all, but is judged by none, being responsible to God only; and that whoever denies this subjection of every human being to the pope can not be saved.” See Dupuy’s collection of the writings of French jurists and theologians.

The question most naturally arises as to the authority for such statements, by which to satisfy all those concerned. This was not wanting; for Innocent III had already found and cited the Scripture evidence to this end more than one hundred years before Boniface’s rule. His reference was to Deut. 17:12, which, referring to the right of an Israelite to appeal to the ministering priest for justice in any case, and his duty to abide by the decision rendered, says: “The man that will do presumptuously, and will not harken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die.” By an interpolation in this text, it was made to teach that whoever would not submit to a decision of the high priest, whose office is now held by the pope, must be sentenced to die by the judge. See Dec. Per. Venerabilium, 4, 17.

By such wicked methods did the church of Rome succeed in dominating the state, to its own profit and glorification. Before the twelfth century the bishop of that church dared to assume but the title of “Vicar of Peter.” But when everything was established to his liking, he then boldly called himself the “Vicar of Christ,” and was not afraid to claim a position above every earthly potentate. Like another mentioned in Scripture, he came to the point where he, too, declared, “I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: . . . I will be like the Most High.” Isa. 14:13, 14. And as that arch-conspirator has not yet withdrawn the statement of his proclaimed ambition, the papacy has also imitated him in this, and insists that it still reigns on high. May it not be possible that the reproof witnessed against the first one so strongly desirous of unlicensed exaltation, is also applicable to the one who has copied him? The Lord says of the original one in this role: “Thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, and that did shake kingdoms?”

But not just yet. There is still a history before the papacy, no more flattering than that made during the Dark Ages. Of this, however, we can not speak now, but will do so later when noting its career, as marked out by the prophetic, yet infallible Word.

Mountain View, Cal.