I had to deal with exactly this article, or the book from which it is drawn, not too long ago:

"The Fraudulent Papacy - A History Lesson; The Fallacy of Catholicism's Papacy, Part II, JOHN SCHROEDER; Contender Ministries; Posted: September 5, 2003"

This is apparently an extract based upon a book written by Schroeder. The book is filled with rather dishonest comments and silly deductions.

And not surprisingly there are a number of things which are simply not true. Shall we see what's inside?

"It shows, for example, that no bishop of Rome considered himself to have any greater authority than the many other bishops, nor sought monarchial authority over all Christendom, until the 3rd century was well underway."

Untrue. It is clear that Pope Clement, in the first century, believed he had much greater authority than other bishops or else he would never have written to the Corinthians telling them what to do.

"Then, Calixtus I, whose most celebrated accomplishment recorded in Britannica is the transfer of the Roman Christians cemetery from the Via Salaria to the Via Appia,"

So this guy relies on an encyclopedia for his research?

"... attempted to hijack our Lords legacy by citing Matthew 16:18 as the establishment of Peter and all succeeding bishops of Rome to be rulers over all the churches."

No, Matthew 16 is, in fact, about the establishment of Peter as the Rock, a prophecy of it. And what proof is there that Calixtus was the first to talk about Matthew 16?

"Putting a wagon in a garage does not make it an automobile; and declaring oneself to be the boss doesnt produce a boss. The great Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, ridiculed Calixtus and his claim, referring to him as a usurper. In its Catechisms the Vatican quotes Tertullian whenever it is expedient, but you wont find his appellation for Calixtus I in any RCC printed matter."

Why would the ravings of someone in the grips of a heresy be in Catholic "printed matter"? As anyone can discover:

"AD 213: Tertullian becomes a Montanist heretic.

"AD 217: Martyrdom of Pope St. Zephyrinus. He was buried in a separate sepulchral chamber over the cemetery of Callistus on the Via Appia (Appian Way). During his reign as Pontiff, two decrees have been attributed to him; one on the ordination of the clergy and the other on the Eucharistic Liturgy in the title churches of Rome. St. Calixtus becomes Pope. As a youth he was the slave of a Christian Freedman, Carpophonrs, who set him up in a bank. He was the Principal Deacon and advisor to Pope St. Zephyrinus."

Notice: Calixtus became pope AFTER Tertullian became a heretic so whatever Tertullian said about him is not particularly important now is it?

"Nor will you find Rome confessing to the faithful Roman Catholic laity, that the great Augustine, joined by Cyril, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and delegates to the Council of Chalcedon, declared the rock upon which Christ would build His Church was Christ himself, not the Apostle Peter."

Maybe we don't find this because it never happened. Here are the actual details about the council: "Thereafter, Pope Leo succeeded in getting both Emperors to call the Council of Chalcedon in 451. At this Council, attended by about 600 bishops (almost all of the Eastern Church), Pope Leo's Tome against Monophysitism and for the orthodox teaching of the two natures of Christ was embraced with the pronouncement:

"This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!'" (Acts of the Council, session 2 ).

Now, many anti-Catholic scholars have tried to chip away at the significance of this statement. However, when compared to other contemporary writings, the meaning of the Council Fathers becomes abundantly clear:

"Blessed Peter, preserving in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. ...And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his see. To him whom they know to be not only the patron of this see, but also primate of all bishops. When, therefore, believe that he is speaking whose representative we are. -- Pope Leo, Sermon 3:3-4"

"Now the Lord desired that the dispensing of this gift should be shared as a task by all Apostles, but in such a way that He put the principal charge on the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the Apostles. He wanted His gifts to flow into the entire Body from Peter himself, as it were from the Head. Thus, a man who had dared to separate himself from the solidity of Peter would realize that he no longer shared in the Divine mystery. -- Pope Leo, Ep 10"

Similarly, the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, speak of Leo, saying...

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." -- Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3

In the same way, upon concluding their synod, the Council fathers write to Pope Leo, saying...

"You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith." -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

"For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him ...Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will." -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451

"Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness." -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

"You have often extended your Apostolic radiance even to the Church of Constantinople." -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

"Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children." -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

So, the Council of Chalcedon clearly recognized Pope Leo as the successor of Peter and the Head of the Church. However, the Council did have one problem. One of its canons, Canon 28, had given Constantinople primacy in the East. The Canon read:

"...we do also enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the one hundred fifty most religious Bishops gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome...." (Canon 28, Chalcedon)

However, Pope Leo refused to agree to this canon; and employing a kind of "line item veto," ordered it struck from the Council documents. In this, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople writes to Pope Leo, apologizing and explaining how the canon came to be, saying ...

"As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness." -- Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).

So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon -- the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome's "line item veto." This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) -- all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.

However, when canon 28 was first rejected by Rome, the Monophysites tried to exploit the situation claiming that Leo had rejected the authority of the entire Council. So, at the urging of the Eastern Emperor, Pope Leo drafted a letter to the bishops, explaining how Chalcedon was doctrinally sound:

"I have willingly complied, therefore, with what the most clement emperor thought necessary by sending a letter (Ep 114) to all brothers who were present at the Council of Chalcedon to show thereby that the decisions taken by our holy brothers concerning the tenets of the Faith were pleasing to me. My doing so was naturally on account of those who want the decisions of the council to appear weak and dubious, as an occasion for cloaking their own perfidy, on the grounds that decisions were not ratified by assenting opinion of mine (canon 28) , whereas I did dispatch a letter." -- Pope Leo, Ep 117


Now back to Schroeder's supposed history of the papacy:

"That is not this writers opinion or pipedream. That is hard, cold, unyielding history. In his 13th sermon, preserved I believe by divine intent, Augustine made his belief perfectly clear."

Thou art Peter, and on this Rock petra which thou hast confessed, on this rock which thou hast known, saying: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God, I will build my church upon Myself, who am the Son of the living God; I will build it on Me, and not Me on thee.

"Roman Catholic apologists have called this writer some unflattering names for stating that there was no pope and no papacy for more than 500 years after Christ returned to heaven."

Really? So Catholic apologists would insult a CATHOLIC SAINT? No, I don't think so. This is getting nuttier all the time. One must remember that Augustine also said:

"Peter, who had confessed Him the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built." (Augustine, In Ps. lxix. n. 4, Tom. iv. p. 1020, ed. Bened. 1836) in Charles F. B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri -- the Titles abd Perogatives of St. Peter, (London: Burns and Oates, 1879), 23.

or how about:

"These miserable wretches, refusing to acknowledge the Rock as Peter, and to believe that the Church has received the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, have lost these very keys from their own hands." (Augustine, Christian Combat, in J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina, 40:289), in Michael Malone, ed., The Apostolic Digest, (Irving, TX: Sacred Heart, 1987), 246.

Interesting that Schroeder failed to mention any of this huh?

"But history is history, and all the name calling in the world will not alter the fact that Augustine spoke the previously quoted words during his years in Africa as bishop of Hippo get this, now in the first third of the FIFTH CENTURY. Moreover, Augustines conviction based on a correct interpretation of the Scriptures - that Jesus Himself was the foundation rock of Christianity, was shared almost 100% by the churches existing at that time."

There are several problems with the above paragraph. First of all, where is the proof that any Catholic calls Augustine names? Secondly, why would anyone call Augustine names when the idea Schroeder says he espoused was not what he, in fact, espoused? And was Schroeder merely ignorant of these facts? Or was Schroeder deliberately deceiving his readers?

"Following the abortive attempt of Calixtus I to seize control of Christendom, Stephen I, bishop of Rome AD 253-257, took a shot at it citing as his authority some newly discovered documents now known as the pseudo-Clementine Letters and Homilies. This spurious collection contained a forged letter allegedly written by Peter to James the Lords brother in which he appoints Clement to be his successor as bishop of Rome, with binding and loosing authority unlimited. Since Linus and Cletus, according to church historian Eusebius, were, in that order, the first two known bishops of Rome, the authenticity of the purported Petrine letter was at once an issue, and Stephens effort failed as miserably as that of Calixtus I."

Incorrect. All the popes had authority whether forgeries existed or not. Where is the evidence for these accusations anyway?

"So, even when Constantine the Great convoked the famous Council of Nicaea early in the FOURTH CENTURY there was no pope and no papacy."

Yes, actually there was. We know the following about the Council of Nicea: "The Council of Nicaea 325 AD WAS a Catholic Council: Sometimes the absurd claim is made that the church of Nicaea in 325 was not the Catholic Church. These are the typical arguments, and the appropriate Catholic refutation.

"Objection 1.) The council was not called by the Pope. Pope Sylvester sent two presbyters to the Council and there is no proof they had authority to confirm anything. The only proof is that they signed first as approving the canons."

"Furthermore, the fact that a council was needed to solve the disputes proves there was no papacy with universal jurisdiction. If there had been a papacy, why not appeal to Rome to solve the dispute?"

"Response 1. There exists positive documentary evidence that two representatives of the Pope signed themselves as such in the records of the Council of Nicaea, and Bishop Ossius (Hosius) of Cordoba, who signed ahead of them, was in all probability designated by the Pope to preside over this council. See the excellent biography of Ossius, Ossius of Cordoba (Washington, 1954) by Victor De Clercq."

"At Nicea, Pope Sylvester did indeed send two priests as his legates, who helped preside over the sessions and ho did sign the canons on behalf of the Pope.. Needless to say, there is no way two priests would have been permitted to preside over a synod of bishops and been allowed to sign the cannons first if they had not been representing the recognized leader of the Catholic Church."

"Regarding Pope Sylvesters (314-335) not leaving Rome ot attend the Council of Nicaea , it should eb brne in mind that the Pope likewise did not attend the Council of Arles (314), thinking it improper for him to leave Rome. He repeated this example at Nicea (325), which his successors followed in the councils of Sardica (343/344), Rimini (359), and the Eastern ecunmenical councils. After the Council of Arles, the bishops present commended the Pope for not leaving the place "where the Apostles daily sit in judgement."

"Objection 2.) Barrow's 1836 work Discourse on the Unity of the Church against the papacy claims that the historical evidence points against a universal primacy in the early Church. One example the author cites is that if the Pagans had known of a papacy they would have opposed it but there is no record of oppositions."

"Response 2. The pagans were indeed aware of the Papacy, at least by the third century; the Emperor Decius began his persecution of the Christians in 250 by martyring Pope Fabian and said he would rather hear of a rival claimant to his throne than of the election of a new Bishop of Rome (see W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, , pp. 300-302, also John A. P. Gregg, The Decian Persecution , pp. 70-81, 94-96)"

"Objection 3.) On the issue of Arianism the position of Rome was known. Why didn't that end the controversy? Because no one believed the Bishop of Rome was the Universal Head of the Church."

"Response 3. We have evidence from as early as the ened of the first century to show this is not correct. Around 96 A.D., Pope St. Clement I wrote a letter to the church in Corinth, whose text still exists , cautioning them among other things that to disregard his words would be a serious sin, indicating he must have an overarching authority (see the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, 59,1, translated in Michael M. Winter, St. Peter and the Popes <1960> London: 1960 / Westport, CN: 1979, pp. 119-121) "

"There are plenty of other examples of the pre-Nicene popes exercising universal jurisdiction over the Catholic Church, among them Clement (88-97), Sixtus (115-125), Anicetus (155-166), Calixtus (217-22), Cornelius (251-253), Stephen (254-257), and Dionysius (260-268) ."

"Further, there are lots of proud liberal Catholics who know the Bishop of Rome is the head of the Universal Church but they do not let that fact swing their wayward decisions."

"Objection 4.) The 6th canon of Nicaea makes it plain that Rome had no jurisdiction beyond its own territory. The same Cyprian said at the Council of Carthage 80 years earlier: "For neither does any of us set himself up as bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compell his collegues to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop...has his own proper right of judgement, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another"."

"Response 4: About 180 St. Irenaeus of Lyons in Gaul wrote:
"By pointing out the apostolic tradition and creed which has been brought down to us by a succession of bishops in the greatest, most ancient and well-known church, founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul at Rome, we can confute all those who in any other way, either for self-pleasing or for vainglory or blindness or badness, hold unauthorized meetings. For with this church, because of its stronger origin, all churches must agree, that is to say, the faithful of all places, because in it the apostolic tradition has always been preserved." (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies," III, 3.2, translated in Michael M. Winter's St. Peter and the Popes (1960), p. 126).
After Nicea, Pope Julius I (337-352) decided that Athanasius, rather than Pistus, should be the bishop of Alexandria. So the 6th Canon of Nicaea did no t speak against papal authority."

"Objection 5.) In the decades after Nicea Rome did not lead the way against Arianism. Liberius caved and signed theArianized Sirmium Creed and was Athanasius in Alexandria the one tolead the way."

"Response 5: Pope Liberius (352-366), imprisoned by Emperor Constantius and threatened with torture, condemned the great defender of orthodoxy against Arianism, St. Athanasius (the issue of papal infallibility was not involvd as this charism does not extend to judgments on individuals) but refused to sign the clearly Arian Second Formulary of Sirmium. He did sign the equivocal Third Formularly of Sirmium but attached a postscript to it saying that he still anathematized "all those who did not believe that the Son is like the Father in substance and in all things." Thus papal infallibility was preserved."

"CONCLUSION: Nicaea (325) was certainly a Catholic Council and has been cited as the first council since the apostles by every Church historian, even the schismatics and the heretics. In contrast, there were no fundamentlists at Nicaea (or anywhere else before or after Nicaea until the Baptists were founded in 1609)."

Thus, again, we see that Schroeder is simply wrong -- but he warbles on anyway:

"Constantine, who is not listed as a pope in Romes papal lineage, himself assumed the leadership of the churches and took the title Pontifex Maximus highest priest."

Incorrect. The Pontifex Maximus title at the time of Constantine was a title held exclusively BY THE PAGAN ROMAN EMPERORS and had nothing to do with Christianity. It was only later that the title was passed on, by a Christian emperor (Gratian, in AD 375), to the pope in acknowledgement of the fact that Roman paganism was abandoned in favor of Christianity. Clearly Schroeder has no idea of what he is talking about.

Inasmuch as the Pontifex Maximus title is one of the many applied to Roman Catholic popes, Sylvester, bishop of Rome at the time, should have had that title if he was the reigning pope. He was not the pope or a pope, and he was not even in attendance at the AD 325 Council of Nicaea.

Clearly Schroeder is wrong again. How could Sylvester have the title when it had not been given up by the emperors yet? Did Schroeder do any research at all?

In that fourth century, five episcopates emerged as jurisdictional centers to which individual independent churches could look for counsel in ecclesiastical matters. These five were Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome.

Incorrect. These episcopates did not emerge in that century except for Constantinople because Constantinople was a new city and the new seat of imperial authority so Constantine asked that a great episcopate be established there. The others already existed and were very famous. And they held great authority.


In AD 387, just before the Roman Empire split into separate East and West divisions, Siricius, another bishop of Rome, once again tried to highjack Christendom, and with the same result as Calixtus and Stephen. Nobody paid any attention.

No, there was no attempted seizure of Christendom by Pope Siricius. In 385 a bishop, named Himerius, asked Siricius, because of his authority to resolve questions he had about practice. He did so. That is hardly an attempted seizure of Christendom.

More history, easily checked by those seeking truth and not vindication of false teachings: at the FIFTH CENTURY Council of Carthage, (AD 412) convoked by that citys bishop Aurelius, the assembled prelates drafted a letter to the bishop of Rome warning him not to accept for ruling appeals from African bishops, deacons or other clerics. Besides that, he was forbidden to send any further emissaries or legates to the African churches. In another council of African churches, that one at Melvie, Augustine was the secretary. History shows he fully supported the synods decree of excommunication leveled at any in the African churches who would seek settlement of appeals or disputes outside of Africa or from the Roman See.

Wrong again. Not only is the date wrong, but Schroeder gets the facts wrong: These records show how the close relations between Africa and Rome were several times troubled during the course of five centuries. The baptismal controversy put the Church into a state of passive resistance to Rome. In the Synod of September, 256, St. Cyprian was placed in a painful dilemma. While maintaining the right of bishops to think for themselves, he still clung to the necessity of unity in the Church, and would not break the revered bond with Rome. Again, early in the fifth century, the appeal to Rome of Apiarius (q.v.), a deposed priest, stirred up strong feeling among the African bishops, and appeals of priests and laics "over sea" (to Rome) were forbidden in the Synod of 418. Legates came from Rome to adjust the difference. In the Synods of 419 an enquiry was made into the canonical warrant for such appeals. The Roman legates cited by mistake, as canons passed at Nicea (325), the canons of Sardica (343) regulating the appeals of bishops. This led to a tedious delay, and the whole matter was dropped for the moment. It was reopened a few years later, when Apiarius, who had been deposed a second time, on new charges, again appealed to Rome for reinstatement. Faustinus, the Roman legate, reappeared at the Synod of 424 and demanded the annulment of the sentence passed on the priest. Apiarius, however, broke down under examination, and admitted his guilt. So nothing further could be done for him. A synodal letter to Rome emphasized how needful it was that Rome should not lightly credit all complainants from Africa, nor receive into fellowship such as had been excommunicated.

The actual hijacking of Christendom by the bishops of Rome, then, did not take place in the first 500 years after Christ. In truth, it hasnt really taken place at all, because the eastern branch of Christendom has never accepted Romes self-assumed primacy.

Actually the Eastern bishops did accept the authority of the pope as already demonstrated by their pleas to the various popes at ecumenical Church councils already described above.

For the beginning of the successful takeover of the western branch of Christianity the Latin churches - we must move to the very middle of the FIFTH CENTURY, to the episcopate of Leo 1 (Leo the Great), bishop of Rome AD 440-461. He assumed the title, Primate of All Bishops, and for validation of his theft obtained the endorsement of Western Roman Emperor Valentinian III. Wonderful! A self-styled Vicar of Christ seeking not the approval of God - but the approval of a secular entity to be the Vicar of Christ.

Incorrect. The whole Christian world respected the authority of Pope Leo. According to the Protestant church historian JND Kelly, In Africa, traditionally jealous of its autonomy, his rulings on irregularities in elections and other scandals were eagerly sought and accepted.

Leo intimidated a lot of people by his various claims, one of which was, Lord of the Whole Church, but when he declared that resisting his absolute authority would condemn a soul to the fires of hell, the delegates to the AD 451 Council of Chalcedon put their collective feet down.

This is absurd. This is what Chalcedon said about Leo: Thereafter, Pope Leo succeeded in getting both Emperors to call the Council of Chalcedon in 451. At this Council, attended by about 600 bishops (almost all of the Eastern Church), Pope Leo's Tome against Monophysitism and for the orthodox teaching of the two natures of Christ was embraced with the pronouncement:
"This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!'" (Acts of the Council, session 2 ).
Now, many anti-Catholic scholars have tried to chip away at the significance of this statement. However, when compared to other contemporary writings, the meaning of the Council Fathers becomes abundantly clear:
Blessed Peter, preserving in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. ...And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his see. To him whom they know to be not only the patron of this see, but also primate of all bishops. When, therefore, believe that he is speaking whose representative we are. -- Pope Leo, Sermon 3:3-4
Now the Lord desired that the dispensing of this gift should be shared as a task by all Apostles, but in such a way that He put the principal charge on the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the Apostles. He wanted His gifts to flow into the entire Body from Peter himself, as it were from the Head. Thus, a man who had dared to separate himself from the solidity of Peter would realize that he no longer shared in the Divine mystery. -- Pope Leo, Ep 10
Similarly, the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, speak of Leo, saying...
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness." -- Acts of Chalcedon, Session 3
In the same way, upon concluding their synod, the Council fathers write to Pope Leo, saying...
You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98
For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him ...Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451
Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98
You have often extended your Apostolic radiance even to the Church of Constantinople. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98
Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98
So, the Council of Chalcedon clearly recognized Pope Leo as the successor of Peter and the Head of the Church. However, the Council did have one problem. One of its canons, Canon 28, had given Constantinople primacy in the East. The Canon read:
"...we do also enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the one hundred fifty most religious Bishops gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome...." (Canon 28, Chalcedon)
However, Pope Leo refused to agree to this canon; and employing a kind of "line item veto," ordered it struck from the Council documents. In this, Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople writes to Pope Leo, apologizing and explaining how the canon came to be, saying ...
As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness. -- Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).
So, the matter was settled; and, for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon -- the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome's "line item veto." This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) -- all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.
However, when canon 28 was first rejected by Rome, the Monophysites tried to exploit the situation claiming that Leo had rejected the authority of the entire Council. So, at the urging of the Eastern Emperor, Pope Leo drafted a letter to the bishops, explaining how Chalcedon was doctrinally sound:
I have willingly complied, therefore, with what the most clement emperor thought necessary by sending a letter (Ep 114) to all brothers who were present at the Council of Chalcedon to show thereby that the decisions taken by our holy brothers concerning the tenets of the Faith were pleasing to me. My doing so was naturally on account of those who want the decisions of the council to appear weak and dubious, as an occasion for cloaking their own perfidy, on the grounds that decisions were not ratified by assenting opinion of mine (canon 28) , whereas I did dispatch a letter. -- Pope Leo, Ep 117
Clearly, Schroeder is wrong YET again.

Leo was denied his endorsement, and at the end of the fifth century, there still was no pope and no papacy.

Clearly there was a papacy or else there could have been no Pope Leo! How can Schroeder simply make this stuff up and not realize that it doesnt even make sense?

What amazes about all this is how the Vatican has been able to obliterate the actual early Church history, successfully replacing it with the fairytales of apostolic succession and an unbroken chain of popes stretching all the way back to Peter.

What amazes me is that Schroeder tried to obliterate all of history and of course he failed. Anyone could have done some simple research and discovered what I posted here today. Did Schroeder? No. So apparently Schroeder doesnt know how to research or doesnt care to research. Does that worry anyone? Does that bother anyone? Isnt even more sad that there are Protestants who will believe him? What does that say about the knowledge and intelligence of Protestants?

The first bishop of Rome to wield the kind of power for which the papacy is now known, was Gregory 1 (Gregory the Great) whose 14-year episcopate began in the very last decade of the SIXTH CENTURY AD 590-604. But this man was adamantly opposed to the very papal office that the Vatican insists he occupied as the 64th successor to the Apostle Peter. In a letter to Maurice, the Emperor, Gregory had this to say:I confidently affirm that who so calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, (Pontifex Maximus), in his pride goes before anti-ChristSt. Peter is not called Universal Apostle .Far from CHRISTIAN (not Catholic) hearts be that blasphemous name.

Well, here we see the height of Schroeders ignorance of history. Gregory had great authority as pope and I will demonstrate that he used it in just a minute. What Gregory denied was a title given to him, or applied to him, by a Archbishop John the Faster, Universal Bishop. Please note that the title was Universal Bishop and not Universal Priest (Pontifex Maximus doesnt mean Universal Priest either. Schroeder needs to study some Latin so he wont make these basic mistakes). Gregory denied the title, because he believed it would imply that there were no other real bishops. Please note that it was a BISHOP, an Eastern ARCHBISHOP who tried to ascribe the title to him and Gregory said no. This not only means Gregory did the right thing, but it shows that Eastern bishops did believe in the authority of the Pope, which means Schroeder would be wrong on one point even if he were right on the other (and he isnt!)! In Epistle LXVIII Gregory wrote: For if one, as (John the Faster) supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops. Gregory, however, never denied his actual universal jurisdiction. He simply denied that the title of Universal Bishop was appropriate and he had every right to do so:

Epistle LXXXI: Gregory restored Bishop Maximus to the Church showing that bishops believed Gregory had the power to do so to excommunicate and restore bishops. No one objected to this authority of the pope.

Epistle X: Gregory approved some candidates for episcopacy and rejected others.

Epistle LXVIII: Gregory asserts the authority of the episcopal see of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles.

Epistle LIX: Gregory wrote that he knows of no bishop that is not subject to his authority.

And these are just a few examples of Pope Gregorys universal authority which was accepted by the other bishops by the way. Schroeder was wrong yet again.

To the bishop of Antioch in another letter, Gregory wrote that the title of Universal (Catholic) Bishop was:
profane, superstitious, haughty, and invented by the first apostate."
And as I already said, Gregory didnt like the title, but the authority clearly was his. Also, is Schroeder sure he even got the title right since now it says Universal (Catholic) Bishop when it earlier was Universal Priest. Clearly Schroeder is making up things and changing them as he goes on. How honest is a man who does that?

No matter that Gregory I refused such a signal honor, and believed that anyone claiming to be universal (katholikos) bishop would in fact be Anti-Christ. A successor, Boniface III, AD 607-8, coerced the Emperor, Phocas, to confer upon him that very title of Universal Bishop, papa, or pope, of all Christendom.

No, this is what happened: After his elevation to the See of Rome, Boniface obtained a decree from Phocas, against Cyriacus, Bishop of Constantinople, by which it was ordained, that "the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle should be the head of all the Churches", and that the title of "Universal Bishop" belonged exclusively to the Bishop of Romean acknowledgment somewhat similar to that made by Justinian eighty years before (Novell., 131, c. ii, #####. xiv). And how could Boniface, sitting in Rome, force an Emperor in Constantinople to do anything?

The eastern churches refused to submit to his self-assumed authority, however, so Boniface and all his successors have had to settle for a partial monarchy ruling only the western churches. Historically, then Romes claims of a papacy begun with Peter and stretching down the annals of time to the present are proven falsehoods.

Clearly Schroeder is wrong as I already demonstrated. Also, it should be noted that he is contradicting himself. How can it be that Boniface had authority, according to Schroeder, over an Eastern emperor and Patriarch of Constantinople, but had no authority over the Eastern bishops? Which is it?

And, even after Boniface III succeeded in gaining for bishops of Rome the coveted title of papa, there was stubborn resistance to their claimed authority lasting into the ninth century. Then, in the episcopate of Nicholas I (Nicholas the Great), bishop of Rome AD 858-867, documents known today as the pseudo-Isidorean Decretals appeared on the stage of history. Contained in this fortuitous discovery were letters allegedly written by popes prior to Nicaea (AD 325) and from Clement 1 to Miltiades. All are blatant forgeries! (They had to be, for there were no popes and no papacy in that time frame.)

Yes, there were forgeries, and yet there were still popes as already shown by what I posted about Nicea and Chalcedon.

Also included in the collection were letters of popes from Sylvester 1 (4th century) to Gregory II (8th century) in which are more than 40 falsifications. But the most pope-friendly inclusion in the decretals was a document entitled, The Donation of Constantine. Thought to be authentic for 600 years, and used successfully by bishops of Rome as grounds for their claims to primacy, it actually contained the ultimate proof that popes and the papacy are NOT DIVINELY ORDAINED, but are simply another invention of mere mortals.

Incorrect. The Donation of Constantine was a forgery made by an unknown person or persons to confirm what already existed. It was certainly referred to by popes, but it only confirmed the state of things that already existed and thus, was accepted by everyone. In other words, the complete acceptance of the Donation of Constantine for centuries shows that everyone already knew about and accepted the popes authority and primacy.

On the one hand, Rome teaches that Christ ordained Peter as the head of His Church, the rock on which it was founded, and the first pope. But for 600 years from the ninth to the fifteenth century, the Donation of Constantine was invoked as the historical event granting to bishops of Rome ecclesiastical authority over all of Christendom and its episcopates, and temporal power over Rome and the entire Western Roman Empire.

Incorrect. The Popes always pointed to Christ as the establisher of the papacy and only acknowledged the Donation of Constantine as the recognition granted it by the state and that recognition was real and genuine even if the document was not. Schroeder, not surprisingly ignores that obvious fact.

Allegedly donated by Constantine the Great to Sylvester 1, bishop of Rome AD 314-335, it was used by Nicholas I to dispel opposition to popes and the papacy, and history shows that, from the ninth century to the present, bishops of Rome have been unopposed as exclusive occupants of the office of pope.

What? Does that even make sense? First of all, how many people, other than the Bishops of Rome, would claim to be the Bishop of Rome which is an office synonymous with the office of pope? And there have been pretenders who have been anti-popes something Schroeder ignores.

In AD 1054, Leo IX tried to use the Donation of Constantine to secure control of the eastern as well as the western churches. The patriarch of Constantinople suggested Leo should mind his own business, and the split of the eastern (Orthodox) churches from Rome became permanent thereafter.

Incorrect. Pope Leo merely exercised the authority already long accorded the pope by Eastern bishops. He, however, was opposed by bishops who followed the wishes of the Eastern Emperor. Later, when those Eastern emperors needed help from the west to stave off attack from Muslims they pretended to be interested in re-union. If the Eastern bishops had not been so ingrained in the caesaro-papism of their day the whole history of the Church would have been different.

The Donation of Constantine was shown to be a deliberate forgery in AD 1440 by Lorenzo Valla, but not before the Vatican had used it to permanently secure its position of primacy over the entire western church, and to exercise nearly absolute control over kings and nations for 500 years as well.

Thats absurd. The Church ALWAYS had authority over itself. The Church never had and never claimed authority over kings except in religious matters. This is why the whole idea of the two swords of authority was used. I guess Schroeder never heard of that either? And if the Church had absolute authority over kings then why did the Investiture Struggle ever happen? Why did King Philip the Fair kidnap Pope Boniface VIII? Why did the popes need the Normans to protect their elections from imperial and even Roman political interference? Has Schroeder ever even attempted to research this?


What is most interesting about this forged document and Romes use of it, is the secular source from which Rome allegedly derived its ecclesiastical and temporal power - its papacy.

The Papacy is not and was not a secular source. The Pope was the Bishop of Rome. That is not a secular source. Even if invested with secular authority in the papal states of 200 years ago or 1000 years ago, the papacy was not a secular authority source, but an ecclesiastical one.

Where in history do we find Constantine invested with the power and authority to appoint a monarch over the Church of the living God?

No where. Constantine, by the way, tried to exert authority over the Church and the popes rejected his attempts!

Isnt the use of the Donation of Constantine by numerous popes eloquent proof that popes and the papacy are frauds, not initiated by Christ, but founded on the forged documents of men greedy for power?

No, it isnt. It is proof that a forged document was believed in because it reflected what actually already existed. The Donation of Constantine was not the founder of the papacy Christ was.

Clearly Schroeder has no idea of what he is talking about. That didnt stop him and it wont stop Protestants from believing him either.

And what does it say that Protestants so readily believe that which is so easily demonstrated to be untrue? Do Protestants naturally gravitate to dishonest renderings of history? If they don't, then why are there so many examples of exactly that sort of thing? Look at two of the more recent postings from X: 1) Schroeder's stuff (actually just a link. I posted the extract or article from Schroeder); 2) the list of so-called heresies which X apparently lifted from a website which lifted it from Boettner. Notice, Boettner was wrong. The website that used his material even edited the list to make Boettner look more right! But the webmaster apparently never actually checked the facts and X didn't either. As long as it condemns that Catholic Church many Protestants will believe it even if it doesn't make sense or is contradictory.

End Paste

And the fact that Budge just posts material without EVER checking on the facts of these anti-Catholic articles says a lot about her doesn't it?