Home || The Aggressive Vision || Prophetic Word Of The Lord || On Line Library || Current Articles and What's New
Free Literature || Visions from The Lord || More About ACMTC || Contact
Roman Catholicism Against Itself
O. C. Lambert
[With added punctuation, emphasis,
“If it be not identical in belief, in government, etc, with the primitive Church, then it is not the Church of Christ”
(Catholic Facts, 27).
UNRELIABILITY OF CATHOLIC LITERATURE
IMPRIMATUR—Let It Be Printed
I T IS easier to separate authorized from unauthorized Catholic literature than with any other religious body, for the reason that no book can be printed by Catholic printers, or sold by Catholic booksellers, or read by Catholic members, without the imprimatur (Latin for “let it be printed”) of a bishop, an archbishop or a cardinal. “No book treating on religion (de rebus sacris) can be published till it has been examined by the bishop’s orders and received his imprimatur” (Cath. Dic., Addis, 85). It must also have the approval of the book censor; so, every Catholic book is checked and double checked for orthodoxy. This has served the Catholic Church well in keeping most of her members from reading Protestants books, but it backfires terribly when it comes to denying what she has thus approved! So, in this book, I will confine myself to authenticate and approved Catholic books, unless it is otherwise stated. Her writers complain that her critics are ignorant of real Catholic teaching, and URGE THAT WE SHOULD LET HER REPRESENT HERSELF. THIS I SHALL DO.
“In fact, it is impossible for me to misrepresent when I only repeat their own words” (Bishop John Hughes, Hughes-Breckenridge Debate, 191).
THERE ARE PRACTICALLY two kinds of Catholic literature. One sort for popular circulation and another of entirely different nature for the clergy; one in which she tells the truth, and in the other she does not. One is to be printed and sold very cheap or given away; the other, usually, in large expensive sets or expensive single copies. The casual reader, among Protestants, and the Catholic laity [def. “members of a religious community that do not have the priestly responsibilities of ordained clergy”], rarely will spend the money necessary to buy the expensive editions. Damaging admissions will be made here and there, in practically all her literature, the full import of which does not become fully apparent to one who does not get them all together.
Terrible Catholic Faults Cited by Catholic Writers
CATHOLIC AUTHORITIES complain that she is maligned by her critics and almost invariably accuses them of ignorance of Catholic teaching, but in confining myself to Catholic books, scarcely anything will be left out, for they are sometimes as voluble on the faults of Catholicism as Protestants, and many times, more so—a surprising fact. Almost everything that was ever alleged against her can be found in Catholic books of highest authority, admitting them with hardly a blush!
Forgeries, Fabrications, Falsehoods, Fakes, and Frauds!
“SUBSTITUTING OF FALSE documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages” (Cath. Ency., VI, 136).
The “Middle Ages,” a favorite designation of that period of history from the fifth to the sixteenth century, comprising more than a thousand years, is not used so much by Protestants, who prefer “Dark Ages” instead. Catholics admit that it was “an age of great ignorance, when criticism was neither in favor nor provided with means” (Catholic Dictionary, 105). Catholic Encyclopedia speaks of “the distorted and legendary view the Middle Ages had of ecclesiastical antiquity” (V, 779). So we see that it was an exceedingly “DARK” age!!
With reference to one of the most monumental forgeries of that age, Apostolic Canons, Catholic Dictionary says: “A tradition (accepted because unexamined) long prevailed that these canons were dictated by the Apostles to St. Clement of Rome, who committed them to writing. Accurate research has dispelled this notion” (pages 41, 42).
The astonishing thing is that the Catholic Church admits that she took advantage of this gross ignorance to impose on the millions of trusting men and women through the centuries, as Peter says: “But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there shall be among you lying teachers who shall bring in sects of perdition and deny the Lord who bought them: bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their riotousness, through whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you. Whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not: and their perdition slumbereth not” (2 Peter 2:1-3, Douay Version).
Peter and Paul Predict
PROTESTANTS WILL recognize that there is very little difference between the foregoing reading from the Douay, or Catholic Version, and the King James. In this statement, we find mentioned nearly every point I wish to make in this book. The false doctrines were to be brought in without the people generally recognizing them to be false. Many were to be induced to believe them, and those who bring them in, will, by this means, “make merchandise” of the people. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN ANYTHING IN THE WORLD THAT WAS SO FALSE, AND THERE NEVER HAS BEEN ANY SYSTEM INVENTED THAT WAS SO LUCRATIVE, AS THE CATHOLIC SYSTEM.
Paul predicted the “Middle Ages” and Catholic apostasy: “But evil men and seducers shall grow worse and worse: erring, and driving into error, But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned and which have been committed to thee. Knowing of whom thou hast learned them: And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures which can instruct thee to salvation by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice: That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. I charge thee, before God and Jesus Christ, who shall judge the living and the dead, by his coming and his kingdom: Preach the word: be instant in season, out of season: reprove, entreat, rebuke in all patience and doctrine. For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables” (2 Tim. 3:13 through 4:4, Douay Version).
No institution on earth has as much to fear from a general knowledge of the Bible as Catholicism.
I hope the reader is not easily bored, and that he will examine all the unimpeachable admissions of Catholic writers concerning the forgery, fabrications, falsehoods, fakes, and frauds by which The Roman Catholic Church has led so many millions away from the Bible. To one who is at all acquainted with the morality taught so clearly in the Bible, the statements quoted here will be shocking. I would like for every reader to know that the Roman Catholic Church is the most vulnerable institution on earth today. This is why her hierarchy very carefully avoids a free, public discussion of these things.
Forgeries Began before “Middle Ages”
“WRITERS OF the fourth century were prone to describe many practices (i.e., The Lenten Fast of Forty Days) as apostolic institutions which certainly had no claim to be so regarded” (Cath. Ency., Ill, 484).
“One is forced to admit that the gradual corruption of Christianity began very early” (Cath. Ency., XII, 414).
Catholic History Series of Forgeries
Unreliability of Catholic Literature: “Speaking Lies in Hypocrisy”
PAUL SAYS, in 1 Timothy 4:2, of false teachers, who lead men away from the faith that they will speak “lies in hypocrisy.” He speaks again in 2 Thes. 2:9 of the “lying wonders” of the man of sin. The surprising thing concerning Roman Catholic writers is their lack of reticence in applying that sort of characterization to the Catholic Church by using practically every synonym for forgery and lying in the language, to describe their own literature. I have noted more than fifty different expressions all of which have this general meaning. All these are used by Catholic writers to describe their own “history.” I have arranged them in chart form as follows:
Forgery “Quite a Trade” with Catholics (Almost Every Synonym)
Cath. Ency., VII, 136; V, 780; XII, 768; XIV. 378.
I “Substituting of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages” (Cath. Ency., VI, 136).
I “Forgery,” Cath. Dic., 772, 338. Dogmatic Theology, II, 279, 564; Cath. Ency., V, 778, 780; VII, 648; XII, 768; XIII, 186; XIV, 378.
I “Spurious,” Cath. Dic., 43, 522; Cath. Ency., Vll. 644, 645; IX, 224-5; XV, 485.
I “Fraud,” De Montor, I, 197.
I “Legal Fiction” Inquisition, 128-130.
I “Fable” Short History, 82; Explanation of Catholic Morals, 115, 116; Cath. Dic., 9; Cath. Ency., VII, 539.
I “Fictitious,” Cath. Ency., I, 636.
I “False,” Cath. Dic., 105.
I “Highly Debatable” Cath. Ency., IX, 743.
I “Unlikely Tale,” Explanation of Catholic Morals, 115, 116.
I “Exaggeration,” Question Box, 520, 521.
I “Pure Work of Imagination,” Cath. Ency., IX, 743.
I “Pious Fancy,” Catholic Ency., IX, 743.
I “Editorial Manipulations,” Cath. Ency., IX, 743.
I “Unreliable” Cath. Ency., IX, 743.
I “Manufacture” Cath. Dic., 338.
I “Not History,” Explanation of Catholic Morals, 115, 116.
I “Historically Untenable,” Cath. Ency., IX, 224.
I “Falsely Attributed,” Cath. Ency., XIV, 666.
I “False, spurious, counterfeit”-Webster.
I “Pseudo-Athanaseus,” Cath. Ency., II, 92.
I “Pseudo-Origins” Cath. Ency., II, 92.
I “Pseudo-Dionysius” Cath. Dic., 402.
I “Pseudo-Isadore,” Cath. Ency., V, 778, 780.
I “Full of Errors” Cath. Ency., IX, 224.
I “Apocryphal,” Cath. Ency., V, 780; Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiff, I, 31, 86; Cath. Ency., XIV, 378.
I “Myth,” Explanations of Catholic Morals, 115, 116.
I “Doubtful Value” Externals of the Cath. Church, 131.
I “Whitewash” Question Box, 178; Catholic World, Oct. 1925.
I “Not Authentic,” Expl. Cath. Morals, 115, 116; Administrative Leg., 158.
I “Unauthentic,” Cath. Ency., IX, 225; De Montor, I, 36.
I “Utterly False,” Cath. Dic., 338.
I “Subterfuge,” Inquisition, 128-130.
I “Anachronism,” Cath, Dic., 674.
I “Place [words] on the Lord’s Lips.”
I “Invented Decretals,” Cath. Dic., 338.
I “Superstition,” Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, I, 187.
I “Legend,” Cath. Dic., 9.
I “Quasi-Historical Testimonies,” Cath, Ency., VII, 328, 341, 342.
I “Profess to Contain,” Cath. Dic., 43.
I “Purports to Be,” Catholic Ency., I, 36.
I “Compiler Supposes,” Cath. Ency., I, 572.
I “Substituting False Documents,” Cath. Ency., VI, 136.
I “Tampering with Genuine Ones,” Cath. Ency., VI, 136.
I “Very Good Poetry—very poor history,” Cath. World, Oct. 1925.
I “Human Origin,” Externals of the Catholic Church, 19.
I “Pretended to be,” Cath. Dic., 41, 42.
I “Little or No Historical Value,” Cath. Dic., 9, 10.
I “Assumed,” Cath. Ency., 184, 188.
I “Rife with Fabrications,” Commentary on Canon Law, Augustine, I, 23.
I “Invention,” Cath. Dic., 772; Cath. Ency., VII, 327.
I “Antinomies,” (contradictions).
I “Age of Great Ignorance.”
I “Uncritical Age.”
I “Simplicity”, Explanations of Catholic Morals, 115, 116.
I “Naivete,” Explanations of Catholic Morals, 115, 116.
I “Mental Reservation” Question Box, 433, 434.
I “Changes,” Cath. Ency., VII, 327.
Admission of Forgery Destroys All Her Claims
SHE CERTAINLY cannot claim holiness, while admitting such wholesale forgery, especially, since she has continued to use them for hundreds of years after they were exposed. In fact, she has used them just as much since, admitting them to be forgeries, as before. She cannot claim infallibility and at the same time make the ridiculous statement that the popes were deceived, and used these forgeries in good faith. She cannot claim that her popes are infallible in morals, when everyone knows that it is very immoral to write and use forgeries. SHE COULD NOT CLAIM, CONSISTENTLY, THAT HER POPES ARE INFALLIBLE IN MATTERS OF FAITH, WHEN SHE ADMITS THAT THEY TAUGHT THINGS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FROM THE FAITH OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
We could have more respect for her if she had repudiated and ceased to use these documents when she says she discovered that they were forgeries.
The Extent of Catholic Forgeries
TO MAKE THESE things easier to find, I have arranged in chart form certain statements made by her writers as to the extent of these forgeries, and also as to their purposes in writing them. Is it possible to imagine any Protestant body admitting to just one piece of forgery, and continuing to use it? I have a book entitled “Explanation of Catholic Morals,” which very name is an admission that she has a different moral code from Protestants, and we will learn, as this story unfolds, just how true this is. She admits, as you will see, by glancing at the chart, that it is a gigantic thing designed to make the world accept her apostasy. This is not my assertion—not the falsehoods of her enemies—THIS IS WHAT SHE SAYS OF HERSELF!
Forgery Quite a Trade
When: In Every Century
To What Extent?
I “Quite a Trade,” (Cath. Ency., VI, 136).
I “So often met with,” (Outline of Dog. Theol, II, 564).
I “Many writings,” (Cath. Ency., IV, 14).
I “A great Many,” (Cath. Ency., IX, 224).
I “Prolific in forgeries,” (Com. Augustine, I, 27).
I “Rife with fabrications,” (Com. Augustine, I, 23).
I “A large number of forgeries,” (Cath. Ency., IV, 544).
I “Describe many practices as apostolic institutions,” (Cath. Ency., Ill, 484).
I “Alleged instances from earlier times,” (Cath. Ency., XIV. 378).
Purpose of Catholic Forgeries
I “Plainly for the purpose of deceiving,” (Cath. Ency., V, 13).
I “Secure the authority of the Roman Pontiff,” (Com. Augustine, I, 25).
I “Defend hierarchy,” (Com. Aug., I, 25).
I “Against heretics,” (Cath. Ency., V, 16).
I “To supply documents,” (Dic., 388).
I “Create Impression...time of apostles,” (Cath. Ency., V, 14).
I “To describe many practices as apostolic.”
I “Produce alleged instances from earlier times.” (Cath. Ency., XIV, 378).
I “Exalt power...of...Pope,” (Cath. Dic., 338).
I “More centralization,” (Com. Augustine, I, 26).
I “Defend hierarchy in all its degrees” (Com. Augustine, I, 25).
I “The writer wished to be thought to belong to the preceding generation,” (Hermas) (Cath. Ency., VII, 270).
Who Perpetrated These Forgeries?
When Did She Forge These Documents?
THE NEXT CHART is a listing of some of the most important of her forgeries, though by no means all of them. By each, I give the century in which she admits to making them, and on the other side a reference to her own writings verifying the statement. You will note that there are thirty-one listed. Others might be presented.
Nearly All These Documents Are Extensive
To let you see how extensive they are, we find that: Apostolic Constitutions have 8 volumes,
Acts of the Martyrs comprise 12 volumes,
The Clementines consists of 20 books, and
Lives of the Saints are printed in 64 volumes!!! (Question Box 122, 1929 edition).
Forgery “Was Quite a Trade in the Middle Ages”
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA speaking of these matters says: “Substituting of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages” (VI, 136).
Let us remember that the “Middle Ages” was the period when the Catholic Church had everything her own way. She would even forge a document in one century and re-forge it in later centuries!!! Catholicism is the most gigantic hoax of history!
My next chart is given to show the actual century in which the persons lived or were supposed to have lived, whose names were forged. They were continually manufacturing documents, purporting to be ancient, many of them attributed to New Testament characters. But these forgeries were really made hundreds of years after the death of the persons whose names they bear.
Actual Century of Forgeries
(Century listed before forgery.)
Some Catholic Forgeries by Centuries:
2 Epistle of Barnabas (Cath. Ency., II, 299-300) In Codex Sinaiticus (4th Cen.).
2 Shepherd of Hermas (Cath. Ency., VII, 268-270) Sinaiticus-Mid. Ages-Penance.
3 Didache (Cath. Ency., IV, 779) “embodies” Apostolic Constitutions.
3 Didaskalia Apostolorum (Cath. Ency., IV, 781-2) “earliest attempt-Corpus Juris.”
4 Apostles Creed (Cath. Ency., I, 629-630) “unhistorical” “legend” “ex Cathedra” (Cath. Ency., I, 632).
4 Liberian Catalogue (Cath. Ency., IX, 224) ends with Liberius.
4 Clementine Recognitions-20 books (Cath. Ency., IV, 14. 39-41, 44) Summa 7 times, “forms” (Cath. Ency., IV, 42).
4 Clementine Liturgies (Dic. 522).
4 Apostolic Church Ordinances (Cath. Ency., I, 635).
4 Egyptian Church Ordinances (Cath. Ency., I, 636).
5 Acts of the Martyrs-12 books (Dic., 9) Lives of Saints 64 Volumes (Question Box, 122) Lives of Saints began Acts of Martyrs (Cath. Dic., 9).
5 Apostolic Canons (85 Canons) (Dic., 41-42; Cath. Ency., Ill, 280).
5 Apostolic Constitutions—“embodies” Didache (Cath. Ency., IV, 779; I, 571; Dic., 43).
5 Dionysius the Areopagite (Dic., 402; Cath. Ency., V. 13-17; Dog. Theol., II, 279).
5 Antiochene Liturgy (Cath. Ency. I, 572).
5 Canons of Hippolytus (Cath. Ency., VII. 361-2; XL 307, 622, on penance I, 636).
6 Symmachian Forgeries (Cath. Ency., XIV. 378).
7 Augustine-3 forged (Cath. Ency., II. 79; I. 629; XI, 623).
(a.) (De Condition Cordis (Summa, Part III, Fourth No., 119).
(b.) De Penitentia (Summa, Part III, Third Number, 57).
(c.) Hypognosticon (Summa, Part III, Fourth Number, 77).
These  forgeries cited many times by Thomas.
8 Liber Pontificalis “took over” Liberian-Catalogue-Used Clementine Recog. (Cath. Ency., IX, 225) Reforged.
9 Donation of Constantine (Cath. Ency., VII, 539; Short History, 82; Dic., 165 De Montor, I, 73).
9 False Decretals of Isadore (Cath. Ency., V, 773; Gen. Leg., 37; Cath. Ency., V, 777; Comm. Augustine, I, 25-6). Took over former forgeries, reforging them.
10 Deed of Gift to Sylvester II (Dic., 338-9; XIV, 371).
12 Apoc. Acts of Apostles; Acts of Peter and Paul (Cath. Ency., I, 610-13).
13 Prayer of Manasses—Quoted from Latin Bible by St Thomas Aquinas (Summa, Third Part, Third Number, 87).
14 (?) Bonaventure’s Writings-several works forgeries (Cath. Ency., II, 654) 2000 variants in vol. I (10 Volumes).
14 Forged Decree of Council of Vienna 13 (Disciplinary Decrees of General Council, 429).
14 Works of Duns Scotus (Cath. Ency., V, 195).
14 Works of Thomas (Cath. Ency., XIV, 666; Outline of Dog. Theol., II, 564).
15 Alan De Rupe—Rosary a Forgery—St. Dominic (Devotion of Holy R., 52; Cath. Ency., XIII, 186; Catholic Facts, 86).
16 Clement VIII & “St.” Bellarmine’s Lie in Preface to Vulgate Bible (Cath. Ency., II, 411, 412). Popess Joan—Falsifying history.
18 Irenaeus (Pfaff) (Cath. Ency., VIII, 131).
10 Leo XIII Approves De Rupe’s Forgery, (Cath. Ency., XIII, 186; Catholic Facts 86).
20 Liguori—Glories of Mary (New edition a Forgery!).
20 Assumption of the Virgin—based on Dionysius, a forgery (Cath. Ency., I, 608).
Actual Century of Persons Whose Names Are Forged (For Reference)
2 Alexander I
2 Sixtus I-“bishop of bishops”
2 Shepard of Hermas
4 Ambrose (alias Hegesippus) (Cath. Ency., VII, 195; I, 387)
4 Eusebius “Cannot be used as historical data” (VII, 341)
4 Damasus (Letters: some of them forged) (Cath. Ency., IV, 614) “earliest form”
4 Liberius (Letters forged) (Cath. Ency., IV, 614)
5 Hilary of Arles
13 Duns Scotus
15 Concerning Alexander VI, “white wash”
16 Sixtus V
41 Men; 33 of them before the 5th Century.
Names of Others Whose Names Are Forged
MANASSES (PRAYER)—Quoted from Latin Bible in Summa (Third part, Third number 87).
Linus (De Montor, I, 19).
Soter (De Montor, I, 36).
Alexander I (De Montor, I, 25).
Barnabas (Cath. Ency., 11, 299). In Codex Sinaiticus with Shepard of Hermas.
Evaristus (De Montor, I, 23). “Now considered to be apocryphal.”
Shepherd of Hermas (Cath. Ency., VII, 270). “The writer wished to be thought to belong to the preceding generation” (Also Cath. Ency., II, 299).
Ignatius (Cath. Ency., 637; VII, 646-7). Forged 5th century—re-forged! “Even Catholics have denied that St. Ignatius was aware of a divine origin for the hierarchy” (Cath. Ency., VII, 339).
Sixtus I (De Montor, I, 30). “An apocryphal letter,” “bishop of bishops.”
Telesphorus (De Montor, I, 31). Used today.
Zephrinus (quoted in Liber Pontificalis) (Cath. Ency., XV. 757).
Corneleus (Cath. Dic., 338).
Pontian (De Montor, I, 45). “Two epistles are evidently apocryphal.”
Fabian (Cath. Dic., 338).
Athanaseus (Pseudo-Athanaseuan Creed (Cath. Ency., II, 92).
Marcellinus (De Montor, I, 66). “Both letters...spurious.”
Sylvester (Cath. Dic., 338-9).
Constantine (Cath. Ency., VII, 539).
Chrysostom (Cath. Ency., II. 92; IV, 782).
Eusebius (De Montor, I, 67). “Three letters...spurious.” Used as proof (VII, 338).
Jerome (De Montor, I, 86). “A letter...now known to be apocryphal.”
Vitalian (Cath. Ency., IX, 224; XV, 485).
Bonaventure (Cath. Ency., II, 654). “Several works”—2000 variant readings in 1st Vol. (10 Volumes).
Ambrose (Cath. Ency., I, 386-7). Forgeries in Benedictine edition!! (Cath. Ency., I, 368-9).
Liberius (Cath. Ency., IX, 220).
Hegesippus (alias Ambrose) (Cath. Ency. VII, 195).
Damasus (Cath. Ency., IV, 614).
Hilary of Arles (Cath. Ency., VII. 349).
Cyprian (Cath. Ency., VII, 268).
Tertullian (Cath. Ency. VII, 195, 269).
Origen (Cath. Ency., II, 92).
These two charts cite 71 names of men to whom forgeries were attributed! We will now give a more detailed description of these forgeries. [Reader, please keep in mind that the author, nor publisher agree with Catholicism/Catholic materials, but cite them here as proof for forgeries etc.]
Epistle of Barnabas
THIS IS ONE of the earliest forgeries which figure rather prominently in Catholic writings. It is referred to as “pseudo-Barnabas,” and was written long after Barnabas was dead, or as Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Was written at the end of the second century” (Cath. Ency., XIV, 617). Of its character, the same authority says: “From a literary point of view, the Epistle of Barnabas has no merit. The style is tedious, poor in expression, deficient in clearness, in elegance, and in correctness. The author’s logic is weak, and his matter is not under his control; from this fact arises the numerous digressions” (Cath. Ency., II, 300).
This means that it is a clumsy forgery.
The Shepherd of Hermas
THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT that this is a forgery is expressed as follows: “THE WRITER WISHED TO BE THOUGHT TO BELONG TO THE PRECEDING GENERATION” (Cath. Ency., VII, 270). This forgery, together with the Epistle of Barnabas was appended to the Codex Sinaiticus (Cath. Ency., VII, 268; II, 299, 300). This Codex was found by Tichendorf at the Catholic monastery at Mount Sinai in the nineteenth century. This shows that Catholic Monks thought these forgeries belonged to the Bible. These two works are associated with the doctrine of [the Catholic sacrament of] penance, (Cath. Ency., VII, 268-270), and are used as proof of this unscriptural doctrine. The writer claims the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Cath. Ency., VII, 339).
Easter and Trisagian Based on Hermas
“NO DOUBT, even in the early Church, the ‘Shepherd’ of Hermas had for a time quasi-canonical authority. The visions of St. Perpetua promoted the belief in purgatorial pain; the origin of the Trisagian was attributed to private revelation...An early pope (Pius I) was led to institute the celebration of Easter on Sunday by the revelations of Hermas” (Cath. Dic., 940). So a pope accepted a forgery and based “Catholic law” upon it!
No Distinction-Elder and Bishop in Hermas (Cath. Ency., VII, 340).
THIS TITLE, “The Teaching of the Apostles,” would suggest the author wished the reader to think it originated with the Apostles. To show what an influence this forgery exercised, we have but to remember that three hundred years later, the Didache was incorporated into the Apostolic Constitutions (Cath. Ency., IV, 779), and finally in Codex Juris Cononici, that is, into the Canon Law!
THIS IS “a treatise which pretends to have been written by the Apostles at the time of the Council of Jerusalem (Acts XV), but is really a composition of the third century” (Cath. Ency., IV, 781). It also was incorporated into the Apostolic Constitutions in the fifth century, (Cath. Ency., IV, 781). “It has been called the earliest attempt to compile a Corpus Juris Canonici” (Cath. Ency., IV, 782).
THIS IS one of the most universally accepted forgeries of the early centuries. Most Protestants accept it, and recite it as reverently as if it had really been given by the Apostles. The myths surrounding it would have us to believe that one apostle wrote one part, and another a different part. This really is a product of the FOURTH CENTURY (Cath. Ency., I, 629-630). It is said to be a “legend” and “unhistorical.”
IT IS A CURIOUS FACT THAT IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO PUT YOUR FINGER ON ANYTHING WHICH CATHOLIC WRITERS AFFIRM TO BE AN INFALLIBLE UTTERANCE OF A POPE. THEY CAUTIOUSLY CLAIM THAT THERE HAVE BEEN LESS THAN 20 SUCH UTTERANCES (A CATH. COM., 59).
But, as strange as it may seem, they say that this ADMITTED FORGERY [the Apostle’s Creed] is an “ex cathedra” [ex cathedra: “with the full authority of the office”] statement! (Cath. Ency., I, 632). This forgery then is one of the less than 20 infallible pronouncements!
Liberian Catalogue—List of the Popes
IT IS CALLED the Liberian Catalogue because it ends with Liberius, who was supposed to have been Bishop of Rome from 352 to 366 AD. Dollinger is quoted in Catholic Encyclopedia as follows: “The ‘Catalogue of Liberius’ merits little confidence before 230 [AD]" (Cath. Ency., I, 446). As with the other forgeries, it was “taken over” by the author of Liber Pontificalis (Cath. Ency., IX, 225), or “Book of the Popes.”
Clementine Recognitions—20 Books
(See Cath. Dic., 67)
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA says that “they were very popular in the Middle Ages.” Though they are now admitted, since the sixteenth century, to have been a HUGE FORGERY. The “infallible Church,” and the “infallible popes” used them continually, and still do! Like most of these forgeries, they were re-forged, occasionally, to bring them up to date, so Catholic Encyclopedia speaks of “the earliest form of the Clementines” (Cath. Ency., IV, 42), and again, “the date of the original is therefore fixed as after Nicaea, 325, probably c. 330...” (Cath. Ency., IV, 44).
“We must nevertheless abandon any attempt to argue from the Clementines, since the oldest parts betray themselves more and more as a product of the third century”—“he was guilty of arbitrary inventions and changes” (Cath. Ency., VII, 327).
Showing this continual emending, and the use that was being made of the forgeries, we read: “...[in a letter] Clement relates how Peter before his death gave his last instructions and set Clement in his own chair as his successor in the See of Rome...”
“The writer knows A COMPLETE SYSTEM OF ECCLESIASTICAL ORGANIZATION. Peter sets a bishop over each city, with priests and deacons under him; the office of bishop is well defined” (Cath. Ency., IV, 41).
Catholic authorities now admit that NO SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT PREVAILED IN APOSTOLIC TIMES, and, for a few hundred years afterwards, this forgery is still the only foundation for the ecclesiastical system of Catholicism. The reason for such forgeries was to mislead the world into accepting the Catholic hierarchy! This has ever been the conduct of Rome.
To show how it is necessary for them to be constantly re-forging these forgeries, WE LEARN THAT THE EARLIER EDITIONS OF THESE WORKS MADE JAMES AND NOT PETER HEAD OF THE CHURCH!!! (Cath. Ency., IV, 14-44).
Forgeries are “often met with” in Catholic writings, according to Outline of Dogmatic Theology, II, 564. “Many writings have been falsely attributed to Pope St. Clement I” (Cath. Ency., IV, 14).
Reinforcing their statement that these books were “very popular in the Middle Ages” (Cath. Ency., IV, 39), let me say that “St.” Thomas Aquinas, reputed to be the greatest Catholic teacher, even today, quotes seven times from these forgeries, and they are just as useful to the hierarchy today as in the thirteenth century!
THIS IS the name given to an apocryphal form for the worship, which work became a part of Apostolic Constitutions. The origin of different parts are falsely attributed to the Apostles. Some of this work is now incorporated in Canon Law (Cath. Ency., VI, 425). Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledges that such things as are set forth in these forgeries were not known in the time of the Apostles: “Our present convenient compendiums—the Missal, Breviary, and so on—were formed only at the end of a long evolution. In the first period (lasting perhaps till about the fourth century), there were no books except the Bible, from which lessons were read and psalms were sung. Nothing was written because nothing was fixed” (Cath. Ency., IX, 296).
Of the Clementine Liturgy [this is also known as the Eucharist], this same authority says: “It is, however, absolutely impossible to suppose that these liturgies, as we have them (St. James, St. Mark, St. Clement), came from those whose names they bear” (Catholic Dictionary, 522), “an apostolic liturgy...did not exist” (Cath. Ency., IX, 307), “there was no written liturgy in the first three centuries” (Catholic Dictionary, 523).
“The writers of the fourth century were prone to describe many practices as apostolic institutions which certainly had no claim to be so regarded” (Cath. Ency., Ill, 484).
Apostolic Church Ordinances
THIS “PSEUDO Apostolic collection” was fabricated “in the third, or at the latest, in the early part of the fourth century" (Cath. Ency., I, 635). It is described as "The so-called Apostolic Church Ordinance” (Cath, Ency., V, 359).
Egyptian Church Ordinances
THIS IS an apocryphal work of thirty canons (Catholic Ency., V, 359) and is like a multitude of other such works that have been made a part of the warp and woof of what is now Canon Law.
Acts of the Martyrs
THIS IS a mass of material of which the Catholic Encyclopedia has the following to say: "their historicity is of little or no value" (Cath. Ency., IX, 743). Much of it is "PURE WORKS OF IMAGINATION" (Ibid.). "But they were the novels of those days which unfortunately came to be taken as history" (Ibid.). This authority speaks of the efforts of writers of these documents as practicing "editorial manipulations of various kinds" (Ibid.). They are “literary figments” (Ibid.). "The writers of the Middle Ages are responsible for a large element of the fictitious in the stories of the Martyrs; they did not even make proper use of the material they had at their disposal" (Ibid.). They are further said to be "unreliable and "highly debatable" (Cath. Ency., IX, 743, 744). One of these "pious fancies" or "hagiographical forgeries," is "the Christian adaptation of the Buddha Legend" (Cath. Ency., IX, 743). Some of these writers had "the express purpose of perverting history" (Ibid.).
"In other cases, the original acts have been interpolated in such a manner that it is hard to distinguish the basis of historical fact from the structure of legend and fable which has been raised upon it" (Cath. Dict., 9).
In spite of all these admissions, these forgeries are still taught to Catholics, who rely upon them devoutly. The fact that they re-work them all along through their history, is in keeping with what we have already learned about Catholic forgeries, (Cath. Dic., 9). For instance, the story that "Saint" Ambrose stopped “the Emperor at the porch of the Church and publicly upbraided and humiliated him is shown by modern criticism to have been greatly exaggerated" (Cath. Ency., I, 386).
Why Rome Forged "Traditions"
Rome Lost Her "Traditions" in Fourth Century
NO ONE KNOWS what happened in the first centuries in Rome as the following admission proves: "This seems to be especially true of Rome, which possessed so few authentic Acta (Acts of the Martyrs) in spite of the number and fame of its martyrs; for the Romans had apparently lost the thread of their traditions as early as the second half of the fourth century" (Cath. Ency., IX, 744).
"A tradition (accepted because unexamined)" (Cath. Dic., 41).
Errors In Catholic "Tradition” Must Be Doctored!
Tradition Obscure and Inaccurate!
"WHEN THE Church studies the ancient monuments of her faith, she casts over the past the reflection of her living and present thought, and by some sympathy of the truth, today with that of yesterday, she succeeds in recognizing...the obscurities and inaccuracies of ancient formulas and portion of traditional truth, even though they are mixed with error” (Cath. Ency., XV, 10). When she wants to display her traditions, she invents them!
Catholic Doctrine Erroneous
"AND HISTORY shows only too plainly that the Church, in their sense of the term, has VARIED IN ITS DOCTRINE, taught dogmas at various times and at various places at the same time inconsistent with each other; and therefore to a considerable extent [is] erroneous" (Plain Facts, 34),
"Vagaries of Tradition!” Unreliable!
"THIS INFALLIBILITY is to control the vagaries of Tradition, for [because] Tradition, of its very nature, tends to[wards] exaggeration, as we find in the legends of ancient people. Exaggerated, they destroy themselves, but in the bosom of God's Church, these truths forever retain their character unchanged and unchangeable" (Explanation of Cath. Morals, 69).
Catholicism Assimilates Paganism
"CHURCH ASSIMILATES and sanctifies Roman Civilization—from its foundations, the Church had gradually absorbed the best of the life, the organization, the institutions, the laws, the learning and whatever else of good and worth there was in the Roman Empire. What the Church thus took to herself, she transformed and sanctified so that, though Roman in its source, it was Christian in its form, influence, and tendencies.
To the treasure of ancient civilization, the Church joined the great and luminous truths of God's revelation. Thus, doubly armed with the great legislative and intellectual acquirements of antiquity and the practical and saintly precepts of Christianity, the Church began to build up from Teutonic [Germanic etc.] and Roman elements the most perfect nations, and the grandest civilization that the world has ever known. So numerous were the difficulties of this formidable task that any other institution save God's Church must have lost courage and despaired." (History of the Church of God, B. J. Spalding, 379).
It is easy to see that an institution modeled after the Roman Empire in its laws and governmental machinery, and which is a crazy-quilt patchwork of paganism in its doctrine and beliefs, would have little use for the Bible!
Catholics Adopt “Buddha Legend” (Cath. Ency., IX, 743) [in] Apostolic Canons.
THIS IS a collection of eighty-five canons or laws which really form a part of the Apostolic Constitutions, one of the most important documents of Catholic history, which has never ceased to be used in support of the Catholic hierarchy and its teaching. Its fraudulent nature is best described by [the] Catholic Dictionary:
“A tradition (accepted because un-examined) long prevailed that these canons were dictated by the Apostles to St. Clement of Rome, who committed them to writing. Accurate research has dispelled this notion. Yet although all are agreed that they do not come to us with the weight of Apostolic sanction, their real value and the antiquity that should be assigned to them are still much disputed...The latest German researches tend to the conclusion that, as collections, that of the first fifty canons cannot be dated earlier than the middle of the fourth, while the remainder must be assigned to the sixth century... With regards to their contents, ‘the greater number, 76 out of 85 relate to the clergy, their ordination, their conditions of consecration, their official ministrations, orthodoxy, morality, and subordination, also to their temporalities, and to the relation of the diocese to the province; so that it is clear that the regulation of the discipline effecting ecclesiastical persons was the main object of the collection’” (pp, 41, 42).
This is an admission of several things—none of them reflecting any credit on the Catholic Church. Though they were attributed to the Apostles for sixteen hundred years, CATHOLICS NOW ADMIT THAT THEY WERE REALLY FORGED SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS LATER THAN THE APOSTLES. The hierarchy needed some documents, purporting to be from the Apostles validating its new priesthood. So, according to a practice that has been continuous with Catholics, it invented them! It admits that the forgeries of the fourth century were not adequate to the progressions of the hierarchy two centuries later, so it re-forged them! New ideas needed bolstering, as Catholic Encyclopedia says: “During the same century (fifth), Roman supremacy began to be emphasized as a factor of unity” (Cath. Ency., XIII, 531).
Note how ridiculous the following statement is:
“Even though it must be admitted that the popes benefitted by the forgeries, their good faith is beyond question” (Cath. Ency., V, 778)!!!
Is this not strange reasoning for a church which claims infallibility? JUST SUPPOSE WE TRY TO DETERMINE WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE AUTHORS OF THESE FORGERIES, WOULD NOT THOSE WHO PROFITED BY THEM HAVE BEEN THE MOST PROBABLE CULPRITS? Whichever way we look at it, it reflects disastrously on the Roman Catholic Church. If the popes were the authors or perpetrators, it destroys, at one blow, all her claim to holiness and even honesty, and if she used them for centuries in “good faith,” it demolishes her claim to inerrancy.
Displaying how they used them for centuries to bolster up their presumptuous claims, Catholic Encyclopedia shows they were used four hundred years later: “WE FIND THEM (APOSTOLIC CANONS [KNOWN FORGERIES!]) ADMITTED AT ROME IN THE NINTH CENTURY in ecclesiastical decisions” (Cath. Ency., Ill, 281).
These “Canons” are cited as authority for trine immersion (Summa Part III, third number, 112), in the thirteenth century, finally found their way into Canon Law, the same authority says: “the text passed into Pseudo-Isadore, and eventually Gratian included some excerpts from these canons in his ‘Decretum,’ whereby a universal recognition and use were gained for them in the law schools...whence they made their way into the earlier editions of the ‘Corpus Juris Civils,’ ‘The Corpus Juris Canonici,’ and the large collection of acts and decrees of the councils” (Cath. Ency., Ill, 280).
Let me remind you again of the admission that forgeries are “often met with” in Catholic writings (Outline of Dogmatic Theology, II, 564).
Monks Forged Charters for Catholics!!
IT IS well to remember another admission: “Substituting of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages” (Cath. Ency., VI, 136), and we will be prepared to understand the full import[ance] of the following statement: “The monks had to manufacture charters, utterly false as to form, but true as to substance, or they would have been ousted from their possessions” (Cath. Dic., 338).
Forgeries in England 11th Century
“UNDOUBTEDLY, MANY of the documents upon which Canterbury’s claim to supremacy was based, were forgeries” (Cath. Ency., V, 432).
When they needed history, they fabricated it: when they needed deeds to property, they “manufactured” them!
They Doctor Their Own Forgeries
“WHEN THE Church studies the ancient monuments of her faith, she casts over the past the reflection of her living and present thought and by some sympathy of the truth of today with that of yesterday, she succeeds in recognizing through the obscurities and inaccuracies of ancient formulas the portions of traditional truth, even when they are mixed with error” (Cath. Ency., XV, 10).
THE MASS of forgeries contained in this document has always been used, since its creation in the fifth century, and though it has been recognized and acknowledged to be simply a monstrous forgery for hundreds of years, it is no less popular and useful to Catholic writers in their efforts to validate Catholic innovations today. As an acknowledgment of its character, Catholic Dictionary says “They profess to contain the words of the Apostles written down by St. Clement [Remember...supposedly the first pope, NOTHING is known of him!] of Rome” (p. 43). And again on the same page, Catholic Dictionary says: “Pearson assigns the work as it stands, to middle of the fifth century [WAY AFTER ‘St. Clement’].”
Discover Forgery after 1100 or 1200 Years!
THEY CLAIM that they did not know of the character of the forgery for about eleven hundred years! “The spurious character of the book was soon evident to Catholic scholars, such as Baronias (1538-1607), Bellarmine (1542-1621), and Petavius, who were at one, at least on the main point, with Protestants like Daille and Blondel” (Catholic Dictionary, 43). It was really the Protestants who unmasked them so effectively that Catholics could no longer deny the facts.
Apostolic Constitutions Consist of Eight Books
“THE APOSTOLIC Constitutions consist of eight books purporting to have been written by St. Clement of Rome...The eight books contain a complete liturgy, and the eighty-five Apostolic Canons...It has been suggested that the compiler of the Apostolic Constitutions may be the same person as the author of the six spurious letters of St Ignatius” (Cath. Ency., I, 571).
Apostolic Constitutions Contain Forged Additions to the O.T.!
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA speaks of “mention in the Apostolic Constitutions” of Third Maccabees, and also says of the forged “Prayer of Manasses” that “It is also incorporated in the ancient so-called Apostolic Constitutions” Cath. Ency., 1, 605).
“A fourth century pseudo-Apostolic collection in eight books...It purports to be the work of the Apostles, whose instructions, whether given by them as individuals, or as a body, are supposed to be gathered and handed down by the pretended compiler, St Clement of Rome, the authority of whose name gave fictitious weight to more than one piece of early Christian literature.” “Uncritical Age” (Cath. Ency., I, 636).
Forgeries Used as Authority for Present-day Doctrines!
APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS are cited in the support of Penance (Cath. Ency., XI, 622), Absolution (Cath. Ency., I, 62), “tradition” of Purgatory (Cath. Ency., XII, 576-577), and clerical “Immunity” (Commentary of Canon Law, Augustine, 1, 26).
Dionysius the Areopagite
THIS IS one of the most popular of all forgeries with the hierarchy of the “Middle Ages.” Thomas Aquinas, greatest Catholic teacher, even today, quotes from it 225 times in his Summa! It was useful against “heretics” (Cath. Ency., V, 16) and is still relied upon (Cath. Ency., IV, 721) for that purpose. It was used by popes, such as Vigilius (538-555 A.D.), who is probably the author (Cath. Ency., X, 504), Gregory “the Great” (590-604 A.D.) (Cath. Ency., V, 17), and Paul I (757-767 A.D.) (Cath. Ency., V, 17). Practically all the scholastics, in addition to Thomas Aquinas, (Cath. Ency., XV, 589), and the Oecumenical councils, such as Constantinople (680 A.D.) (Cath. Ency., V, 17) and Nicaea (787 A.D.) (Cath. Ency., V, 17) used it. The Liturgy [or Eucharist] has been influenced greatly by it (Cath. Ency., I, 304).
Dionysius Weaves Paganism into “Genuine Catholic System”—“Unparalleled Reputation”
“ALTHOUGH HE openly wove into the genuine Catholic system Neo-Platonic [modern Plato] thoughts and phrases, nevertheless he enjoyed an unparalleled reputation among the greatest scholastics of the Middle Ages—because he was supposed to have been a disciple of the Apostles” (Cath. Ency., XIV, 589).
Catholic Encyclopedia approves this forger in the following words of praise: “Neither in the West was a voice raised in challenge down to the first half of the fifteenth century; on the contrary, his works were regarded as exceedingly valuable and even sacred” (Cath. Ency., V, 17).
Statements Concerning Dionysius the Areopagite
IT IS admitted to be a forgery (Outline of Dogmatic Theology, II, 279). “IT IS PLAINLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECEIVING” (Cath. Ency., V, 13). It was intended to “accentuate...immunity” (Commentary on the Canon Law, Augustine, I, 26). It was intended “To create the impression that the author belonged to the time of the Apostles” (Cath. Ency., V, 14). It was planned as a document to “secure the authority of the Roman Pontiff” (Commentary on the Canon Law, Augustine, I, 25).
“Dionysius the Areopagite” Is Catholic Authority for a Hierarchy
“THE WORD (hierarchy) first occurs in the work of pseudo-Dionysius (a Greek writer of the fifth century) on Celestial and Ecclesiastical Hierarchies...The signification was gradually modified until it came to be what it is at present. A hierarchy now signifies a ‘body of officials disposed organically in ranks and orders, each subordinate to the one above it’” (Catholic Dictionary, 402). According to Augustine, author of the Commentary on the New Code (I, 25), it was fabricated to “Defend the hierarchy.” BY THE FIFTH CENTURY, THEY HAD A HIERARCHY AND NEEDED SOMETHING [forgeries!] TO MAKE THE PEOPLE ACCEPT IT!
Catholic Encyclopedia speaks of later forged additions as “a medieval forgery” (V, 14).
Dionysius the Areopagite—A Forgery
“Universally Acknowledged Authority”
CONCERNING THE importance of this forgery in the Catholic scheme of things, Catholic Encyclopedia says it was an “universally acknowledged authority... lasting till the beginning of the fifteenth century” (V, 15).
Catholic Encyclopedia says that the “Assumption of the Virgin” is largely based on Dionysius, also MANY OTHER CATHOLIC DOCTRINES (I, 608).
“THROUGHOUT THE liturgy, the compiler supposes it was drawn up by the Apostles, and he inserts sentences telling us which Apostles composed each separate part” (Cath. Ency., I, 572).
Canons of Hippolytus
OF THIS work, it is said that it was “freely interpolated” [Def. “Insert words into texts, often falsifying it thereby”], and of the different treatises, the “first two are spurious beyond doubt” (Cath. Ency., VII, 361). It is recognized as being parallel to and related to the Apostolic Constitutions.
It is used to prove the Catholic doctrine concerning [the fictitious Catholic Sacrament of] Penance (Cath. Ency., XI, 622).
SYMMACHUS WAS supposed to have been a bishop of Rome from 498 to 514 A.D. Of him, Catholic Encyclopedia has the following to say: “During the dispute (with Laurentius, Anti-pope), the adherents of Symmachus drew up four apocryphal writings [now] called the ‘Symmachian Forgeries;’...The object of these forgeries was to produce alleged instances from earlier times to support the whole procedure of the adherents of Symmachus, and in particular, the position that the Roman bishop could not be judged by any court composed of other bishops. Still, these forgeries are not the first documents to maintain this later tenet” (XIV, 378).
The fact that this pope supported his usurpations [Def. “Wrongfully seizing and holding (an office or powers) by force”] by forgeries, probably does not shock Catholics, for Externals of the Catholic Church has this explanation concerning the veracity [def. “Unwillingness to tell lies”] of popes: “HE (THE POPE) MAY ADVOCATE HISTORICAL OR SCIENTIFIC VIEWS THAT ARE ABSOLUTELY FALSE. HE MAY WRITE BOOKS WHICH MAY BE FULL OF INACCURACIES AND MISSTATEMENTS” (P. 5).
Forgeries Attributed to Augustine
AUGUSTINE HAS for 1500 years been considered as one of the greatest teachers of the Catholic Church, and so great was his influence that about two hundred years after his death, at least three works were forged in his name; justifying practices that were really unknown in Augustine’s day. These documents were quoted by Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century (six hundred years after they were forged), more often, next to Dionysius the Areopagite, in support of Catholic teaching in that day. Since Thomas is now considered the “greatest teacher of Catholic history,” these forgeries are still exerting their influence. These works are named De Condition Cordis (Summa, Part III, Fourth Number, 119), De Penitentia (Summa, Part III, Third number, 57) and Hypognosticon (Summa, Part III, Third Number, 77).
“The greatest of medieval theologians, St. Thomas Aquinas, was also the Prince of medieval exigetes” [Def. “A person skilled in eisegesis.” Def. of eisegesis, “Personal interpretation of a text (especially of the Bible) using your own ideas.”] (A Catholic Commentary, 4). Since the “greatest Catholic” used these forgeries, we can judge how universally they were used by the “infallible Church!”
Liber Pontificalis—Book of the Popes
ACCORDING TO Catholic Encyclopedia, the author of this forgery “took over” the Liberain Catalogue, and also used Clementine Recognition (IX, 225), both of which are acknowledged forgeries. This is simply a reworking of these earlier forgeries. IT IS ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL SOURCES FOR THE LIST OF POPES, OF WHICH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH BOASTS. Catholic Encyclopedia, contrary to the popular claim of Roman Catholicism, says: “But the chronology of these bishops of Rome cannot be determined with any degree of exactitude by the help of the authorities today” (VII, 593).
Of Evaristus, whose name appears in the list of the popes which Catholic writers hold up to the laity...Catholic Encyclopedia says: “The earlier historical sources offer no authentic data about him” (V, 646).
Of Urban I, another name in the list, we are told that his very existence is improbable! (Cath. Ency., XV, 209).
Concerning Eutychian, another supposed pope, Catholic Encyclopedia says: “We know of no detail of his pontificate” (V, 639).
Of the name, Caius, immediately following Eutychian, Catholic Encyclopedia has the following enlightening information: “NOTHING WHATEVER IS KNOWN OF HIS LIFE” (III, 144).
The next name after Caius, [is] Marcellinus. The same authority says: “Nothing has been handed down concerning the activities of this pope in his reign of eight years” (IX, 637-638). HOW DO THEY KNOW HE REIGNED EIGHT YEARS? This statement tells us that his name is left out of some lists! HERE, FOUR POPES IN SUCCESSION ARE ADMITTED TO BE MYTHS! But, they are careful not to tell the laity of this.
First 500 Years of Liber Pontificalis a Forgery
WRITER ON THE Liber Pontificalis (Book of the Popes), the Catholic Encyclopedia says: “A GREAT MANY OF THE BIOGRAPHIES OF THE PREDECESSORS OF ANASTASIUS II ARE FULL OF ERRORS AND HISTORICALLY UNTENABLE” (IX, 224).
Anastasius became bishop of Rome, 496 A.D. SO AWAY GOES THE FIRST FIFTY POPES! “Finally, the compiler distributed arbitrarily along his list of popes a number of papal decrees taken from unauthentic sources; he likewise attributed to earlier popes liturgical and disciplinary regulations of the sixth century” (Cath. Ency., IX, 225).
Donation of Constantine
JUST AS monks “manufactured” charters, when they were needed to further the plans of Catholicism (Cath. Dic., 338), so, when the bishops of Rome reached the point in their ambitions that they claimed universal power, they invented the story that Constantine in the fourth century had given the bishop certain dominions and sovereignty. So, in this fashion, about four hundred years after Constantine was dead, a forgery appeared called, “The Donation of Constantine.” Catholic Encyclopedia speaks of “the supposed donation of Emperor Constantine, probably forged in the eighth century” (XIV, 714). In the Lateran [def. “The site in Rome containing the church of Rome and the Lateran Palace”], there is a fresco [wall painting/mural] depicting this as if it were true (Cath. Ency., IX, 14)!
There is another similar forgery called the Deed of Gift to Sylvester, mentioned in Catholic Encyclopedia: “Otto gave the pope eight Italian townships, which had formerly belonged to the States of the Church, by a deed of gift, the genuineness of which, however, is questioned” (XIV, 371). So you see that when “His Holiness” needed a title to a territory, HE INVENTED IT!
“CONSTANTINE’S [SUPPOSED] GIFT formed the historical nucleus (which the Sylvester Legend later surrounded with that network of myth) that gave rise to the forged document known as the ‘Donation of Constantine’” (XIV, 357).
Instead of placing this forgery in the eighth century as above, another writer in the Catholic Encyclopedia places it in the ninth century (V, 118).
“THE STORY about Constantine’s donation of sovereign rights to the pope is a fable” (Short History of the Catholic Church, 82).
Of Lorenzo Valla (1407-1457 A.D.), it is said: “He pointed out the defects of the Vulgate, and declared ‘The Donation of Constantine’ a fable” (Cath. Ency., VII, 539). Catholic Dictionary says: “Here (1459 A.D.) we see the first dawn of historical criticism. Laurentius Valla and Nicolas of Cusa had already pointed out the spurious character of the so-called ‘Donation of Constantine,’ and of other documents accepted in the Middle Ages, and the new epoch of historical literature was soon to begin” (165).
IS IT NOT SILLY FOR CATHOLICS TO INSIST THAT THE POPES ARE INERRANT, AND, AT THE SAME TIME ADMIT THAT FALLIBLE MEN, NOT THE POPES, UNMASKED THE FORGERIES THAT HAD BEEN USED BY POPES FOR CENTURIES? De Montor, in Lives and Times of The Roman Pontiffs, says that there is “no longer any controversy” concerning the “pretended Donation of Constantine” (Cath. Ency., 1,73).
Donation of Constantine an “Invention!”
“IN THE Middle Ages it was long believed that the first Christian Emperor made a solemn ‘Edict of Donation’ conferring on Pope Sylvester I, the city of Rome, the imperial palaces there, and the provinces, places, and cities of all Italy, and the Western regions. This donation was long ago recognized as a forgery; Muratori assigns its invention to the eighth century” (Cath. Dic., 772).
Pius IX makes use of these forgeries in 1860 (Life of Leo, XIII, 202).
Catholic Literature Needed, and Still Needs, Renovating!
Forgery in All Departments
SPEAKING OF the fifteenth century, Catholic Encyclopedia says: “There was need of a revision which is not yet complete, ranging over all that had been handed down from the Middle Ages under the style and title of the Fathers, the Councils, the Roman and other official archives. In all these departments, forgery and interpolation as well as ignorance had wrought mischief on a great scale” (XII, 768).
False Decretals of Isadore
WE HAVE now come to, perhaps the most notorious of all Catholic forgeries. The seventh and eighth centuries are spoken of as “an extremely uncritical period” (Cath. Ency., I, 610), and the ninth century is described as “an age of great ignorance” (Cath. Dic., 105), in fact, the whole Middle Ages are said to have had a “distorted and legendary view of ecclesiastical antiquity” (Cath. Ency., V, 779). The sixth century was so grossly ignorant that the emperor could not read and write (General History of the Catholic Church, Darras, II, 97).
Forged To Beat Down “Opposition”
THIS ELABORATE code, now called the False Decretals of Isadore, was simply a re-working of all the forgeries that had gone before in order to bring them up to date. It is filled with names of popes and others from former centuries, with their supposed decrees, also the supposed canons of synods and councils. It was the most elaborate and pretentious code that had come into being up to this time. Let us note this statement from Catholic Dictionary: “In an age of great ignorance, when criticism was neither in favor nor provided with means, it is not wonderful that this collection which invested with the spurious authority of recorded decisions a system of things existing traditionally indeed, but liable to constant opposition, passed speedily into general recognition and acceptance. Six centuries passed before it was discovered that the ‘Pseudo-Isadorean, or False Decretals,’ as they are now called, were to a great extent a forgery” (Catholic Dictionary, 105).
Forged To Exalt the Bishop
CONCERNING THE purpose of the forger, we read: “So we are driven to conclude that he had a very special object in view in composing this partial code. How are we to discover what his object was? Evidently, by examining the documents [that] he forged. There, if at all, are to be found his dominant ideas. And such an examination is by no means difficult after what we have just said concerning the legal side of the False Decretals. Isadore’s object is so clearly defined that it requires no very labored analysis to discover it. HIS CHIEF AIM IS TO ASSURE THE DIGNITY AND FRUITFULNESS OF THE EPISCOPAL OFFICE. In his view, the diocese is the life-giving centre of the whole ecclesiastical organism, and the vitality of this centre is his chief concern. All his legislation has the same object” (Cath. Ency., V, 777).
We see at this time that the Papacy was only developing. Augustine in his Commentary on the New Code of Canon Law thinks that “Isadore” was providing for a particular bishop—the bishop of Rome—for he speaks thus concerning the purpose: “Purpose of the compiler...to secure the authority of the Roman Pontiff over particular synods, and to defend the hierarchy in all its degrees” (I, 25).
TURNING NOW to the authority which this forgery exercised in the Catholic Church, we read: “The material sway it exerted, we see in the greater dependence of bishops and provinces on the Holy See—more centralization—and in the outspoken tendency of the compiler to accentuate what we comprise by the term ‘immunity,’ and by extending the matrimonial degrees, which was then unheard of” (Commentary on Canon Law, Augustine, I, 28). “Immunity” is a term describing the Catholic claim that the clergy was not to be amenable to civil authority.
“The Hispana (False Decretals) was approved as authentic by Alexander III and enjoyed a great authority in Spain till the thirteenth century" (General Legislation on the New Code of Canon Law, 34).
The Apostolic Canons (Cath. Ency., Ill, 280), and the Donation of Constantine are included in the False Decretals.
The following popes are said to have approved and used the False Decretals: “St.” Nicholas I (probably the author), (Cath. Ency., XI, 55), Alexander III, Adrian II (Cath. Ency., V, 777-778), “St.” Gregory I, (The “Great”) (Lives and Times, I, 31), “St.” Leo IX (Cath. Ency., V, 120, 778), St. Gregory VII (Cath. Ency., V, 778) Stephen V, (Cath. Ency., V, 778), Damasus II (Cath. Ency., V, 778), and, in fact, ALL POPES—since the forgery was made! The False Decretals are now incorporated (or all parts that are not now out of date), in the New Code of Canon Law!
Catholic Church Takes Pride in This Forgery Supplying Documents!
Exalt the Pope!
IT SEEMS to me that seldom is a greater piece of effrontery and unblushing arrogance met with than the following:
“Of the unknown author, Mohler writes: ‘Pseudo-Isadora seized exactly that of his own age which corresponded to the wishes of all the higher and better order of men. Thence, it was that the legislation was so joyfully received. No one suspected anything false, because it contained so much that was weighty and true. If we examine carefully these invented decretals, and try to characterize their composer in accordance with their general import and spirit, we must confess that he was a very learned man, perhaps the most learned man of his time, and at the same time an extremely intelligent and wise man, who knew his age and its wants as few did. Rightly, he perceived that he must exalt the power of the centre—that is of the pope—because in that way only was deliverance possible. Nay, if we would pass an unconstrained judgment, we may venture even to call him a great man.
“Nevertheless, the work is in great part what we now call a forgery; anachronisms and blunders have been discovered in it, which force this conclusion on the mind of every fair critic. But at the time of its appearance, and for many centuries afterwards, it was in such thorough harmony with the prevalent temper of European society, and with the ecclesiastical-political ideas which were held to indicate the true path of human progress, that those who appealed to it, and even those whose actions were thwarted by it, never troubled themselves to question the authenticity of the documents which it contained. Supposing someone of the twelfth century had anticipated the labours of the moderns, and announced the spuriousness of a great part of the decretals; what then? The feeling would have been: ‘what Fabian, Corneleus, Sylvester, etc., are made to say is true and useful; if they did not actually write it, they might have written it; if these are not the genuine letters which they did write, and which would have been to much the same effect as these, have been lost; finally, if the popes of the third century did not command all this, the popes of the twelfth century are ready to command it, because it is true, wholesome, and highly necessary to be observed...To supply ‘documents’ so desirable, and also to provide for the use of the faithful generally a store of authoritative statements on matters affecting Christian life within the Church, seem to have been the principal objects of the writer’” (Cath. Dic., 338). See Pope Innocent III and His Times, (Clayton 27-28).
Catholics Still Use False Decretals!
“THE FIRST certain statement concerning the blessings of liturgical vestments is made by the Pseudo-Isadore and Benedict Levita, both belonging to the middle of the ninth century, but the oldest known formula of blessing which is in the pontifical of Reims, belongs to the end of the ninth century” (Cath. Ency., XV, 391).
According to this ridiculous statement, 142 “infallible” popes used these forgeries and failed to detect them! I am wondering if millions of good people who have been defrauded by their hierarchy, should learn the source of their “traditions,” if they would not turn away from the Roman Catholic Church? These things should deprive the hierarchy of all the respect of decent people. These forgeries are now woven into Canon Law (Cath. Ency., IV, 391, 393). We do not censure the “laity” who have simply been imposed upon.
Apocryphal Acts of Apostles;
Acts of Peter and Paul
Incorporated in Breviaries [Catholic prayer book] Etc.
THERE ARE numerous additional forgeries which, in a way are not so important, but we find that they are often the source of Catholic “traditions” which are highly prized. It is largely conjectural as to when these first appeared. Three different apocryphal Acts of The Apostles were drawn up by Catholic writers, two of which they claim were PROBABLY OF GNOSTIC ORIGIN, but they tell us how they were adopted by Catholics: “Hence most of the Gnostic Acts have come down to us with more or less of a Catholic purification, which, however, was in many cases so superficial as to leave unmistakable traces of their heterodox origin” (Cath. Ency., I, 610). “They abounded in extravagant and highly colored marvels and were interspersed with long pretended discourses of the Apostles” (Cath. Ency., I, 610). Of these documents, Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Much of their apocryphal [questionable] matter was taken up by the offices of the Apostles in the Latin breviaries and lectionaries, composed in the seventh and eighth centuries at an extremely uncritical period” (Cath. Ency., I, 610).
This is but an admission that they are used extensively by the Catholic Church today!
Acts of St. Peter and Paul
THIS IS said to be the “chief source” for the legend of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul; how that Peter, at his own request was crucified head-down, and that he was buried at “The place called the Vatican.” This also is the chief source of the idea that Peter was ever in Rome.
Prayer of Manasses—Adding to Bible!
THIS IS a prayer put in the mouth of Manasses, King of Juda (Cath. Ency., I, 605), which “is also incorporated in the ancient so-called Apostolic Constitutions. In editions of the Vulgate antedating [preceding] the Council of Trent, it was placed after the books of Paralipomenon [1st and 2nd Chronicles]. The Clementine Vulgate relegated it to the Appendix, where it is still to be found in reprints of the Standard text” (Cath. Ency., I, 605).
Several important matters hinge upon this. In the first place, it completely destroys the myth of Catholic certainty concerning the Canon of the Bible. Acknowledging now its apocryphal character demolishes the claim that the text of the Bible Canon was settled infallibly by the pope in the early centuries. Thomas Aquinas, the greatest Catholic teacher, quotes it from the Latin Bible of the thirteenth century (Summa, Third Part, Third Number, 87). This shows that it was then considered a part of the Bible, and that the Catholic scholars of that period did not know a forgery when they saw one, and did not know what constituted true Scripture.
Mary “Tradition” Based on a Forgery
“IT WAS not until the Middle Ages, when their true origin was forgotten even by most of the learned, that these apocryphal stories began to enter largely into sacred legends, such as the ‘Aura Sacra,’ into miracle plays, Christian art, and poetry” (Cath. Ency., 1, 607.
Immaculate Conception—Joachim and Anna—a Forgery
Forgery “Source of Various Traditions”
CATHOLICS NOW glibly tell you that Mary’s father and mother were named Joachim and Anna. The doctrine of the Immaculate Conception has to do more with the mythical Anna than with Mary herself. They tell that Anna was miraculously born without original sin, that Mary might be born without it, that Christ might be born without it!!! But their authority for the names of Joachim and Anna rests on a clumsy forgery! As per the following:
“Apocryphal Gospels of Catholic Origin.—The Proto-evangelium Jacobi, or Infancy Gospel of James, purports to have been written by ‘James the brother of the Lord,’ i.e. the Apostle James the Less. It is based on the canonical Gospels which it expands with legendary and imaginative elements, which are sometimes puerile and fantastic. The birth, education, and marriage of the Blessed Virgin are described in the first eleven chapters and these are the source of various traditions current among the faithful. They are of value in indicating the veneration paid to Mary at a very early age. For instance, it is the ‘Proto-evangelium’ which first tells that Mary was the miraculous off-spring of Joachim and Anna, previously childless; that when three years old the child was taken to the Temple and dedicated to its service, in fulfilment of her parents’ vow” (Cath. Ency., I. 607).
“ST.” BERNARD, “ST.” THOMAS AND “ST.” AUGUSTINE, DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE DOCTRINE OF THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION. (CATH. DIC., 428, 431). THAT MEANS THAT THEY DID NOT APPROVE OF THESE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE IN COMMON USE AMONG CATHOLICS.
Doubtful Legend Is Approved “Tradition”
“A TRADITION of very doubtful value states that Mary, at the age of three years, was presented in the Temple, and remained there until she attained womanhood. A feast commemorative of this has been observed in various parts of the world since about the twelfth century. It was suppressed by Pius V., but was later permitted by Sixtus V. in 1585 and has been generally kept since the seventeenth century” (Externals of the Catholic Church, 131). THIS IS THE CELEBRATION OF SOMETHING THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. THE FORGERY, THEN, IS STILL USED!
Works of “Fathers” and “Doctors” Part Forgery
IT WOULD be interesting and enlightening if we could have access to the original writings of Catholic authors. She does not deny [that] she “expunges” [def. “Remove by erasing or crossing out or as if by drawing a line”] them of matters that are embarrassing, bringing them more into line with present day Catholic teaching and practice. But, she has never been able to do this, but...at least some things still show through. Particular mention of such practices with reference to the following persons [include]:
Augustine (Cath. Ency., II, 79; Cath. Ency., I, 629; Cath. Ency., XI, 623), Cyprian (Cath. Ency., VII, 268), Origen (Cath. Ency., II, 92), Constantine (Catholic Dictionary, 772; Short History of the Catholic Church 82; Cath. Ency., VII, 539; Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, De Montor I, 73), Ambrose (Cath. Ency., VII, 195; I, 386-7; I, 368-9), Ignatius (Cath. Ency., I, 637; VII, 646-7), Chrysostom (Cath. Ency., II, 92; IV, 782.), Eusebius (De Montor I, 67), Jerome (Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, De Montor I, 863), Thomas Aquinas (Cath. Ency., XIV, 866; Outline of Dogmatic Theology, II, 564), Dun Scotus (Cath. Ency., V, 195), Dominic (Story, Devotion of Holy Rosary, 52; Cath. Ency., XIII, 184-186; Catholic Facts, 86), Bonaventure (Cath. Ency., II, 654), Hilary of Arles (Cath. Ency., VII, 349), Tertullian (Cath. Ency.,VII, 195, 269), Athanaseus (Cath. Ency., II, 92) and many others.
Of Bonaventure it is said that “several works” were in use to which his name was wrongfully attached. In his writings, there are said to be over “2000 variant readings.” We can be certain that few ancient writings have escaped the forger, for remember, “Substituting false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the middle ages” (Cath. Ency., VI, 130).
Story Concerning the Establishment of Rosary a Forgery
“Tradition” Admitted Forgery! Many Popes Approve Lie!
“THE ROSARY, says the Roman Breviary, is a certain form of prayer wherein we say fifteen decades or tens of Hail Marys with an Our Father between each ten, while at each of the fifteen decades we recall successively in pious meditation one of the mysteries of our Redemption. The same lesson of the Feast of the Holy Rosary informs us that when the Albigensian heresy was devastating the country of Toulouse, St. Dominic earnestly besought the help of Our Lady and was instructed by her, ‘so tradition asserts,’ to preach the Rosary among the people as an antidote to heresy and sin. From that time forward, this manner of prayer was ‘most wonderfully published abroad and developed by St. Dominic whom different Supreme Pontiffs have in various passages of their apostolic letters declared to be the institutor and author of the same devotion.’ That many popes have so spoken is undoubtedly true, and amongst the rest we have a series of encyclicals, beginning in 1883, issued by Pope Leo XIII, which, while commending this devotion to the faithful in the most earnest terms, assumes the institution of the Rosary by St. Dominic to be a fact historically established ...”
“Impressed by this conspiracy of silence, the Bolandists, on trying to trace to its source the origin of the current tradition, found that all the clues converged upon one point, the preaching of the Dominican Alan De Rupe about the year 1470-75. He it undoubtedly was who first suggested the idea that the devotion of ‘Our Lady’s Psalter’ (a hundred and fifty Hail Marys) was instituted or revived by Dominic. Alan was a very earnest and devout man, but, as the highest authorities admit, he was full of delusions, and based his revelations on the imaginary testimony of writers that never existed. His preaching, however, was attended with much success. The Rosary Confraternities, organized by him and his colleagues at Douai, Cologne, and elsewhere had great vogue, and led to the printing of many books, all more or less impregnated with the ideas of Alan. Indulgences were granted for the good work that was thus being done and the documents conceding these indulgences accepted and repeated, as was natural in that uncritical age, the historical data which had been inspired by Alan’s writings, and which were submitted according to the usual practice by the promoters of the confraternities themselves. It was in this way that the tradition of the Dominican authorship grew up...”
“IT IS NOW ADMITTED BY DOMINICAN AUTHORITIES TO BE A FORGERY” (Cath. Ency., XIII, 184-186).
There are a number of interesting and characteristic things about this story. In that way, practically everything now reverently believed and devoutly practiced by Catholics came into being. You will note the word “tradition” several times in this short quotation, which shows how much reliance can be placed in Catholic “tradition.” PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING CHARACTERISTIC OF CATHOLICISM ORIGINATED IN “DELUSIONS,” AND IS BASED UPON “TESTIMONY OF WRITERS WHO NEVER EXISTED!” IT SHOWS, TOO, HOW LITTLE RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED IN THE TEACHING OF THE “INFALLIBLE” POPES! When they want “tradition,” they INVENT IT!
Catholic Writers Admit Relics Are Fakes
“NEVERTHELESS, it remains true that many of the more ancient relics duly exhibited for veneration in the great sanctuaries of Christendom, or even at Rome itself must now be pronounced to be either certainly spurious or open to grave suspicions” (Cath. Ency., XII, 737).
IMAGINE AN “INFALLIBLE,” “HOLY” CHURCH PERPETRATING THESE THOUSANDS OF FRAUDS FOR CENTURIES; and to add insult to injury, they continue to encourage the worship of these things and enrich the Catholic Church thereby, and at the same time admit them to be spurious. No wonder the Scriptures speak of them as having “their conscience seared with a hot iron” (1 Tim. 4:1, 3).
“He bows and kisses the altar praying to God to forgive his sins through the merits of the saints whose relics are there” (Teachings of the Catholic Church, 58).
Though they now admit these relics to be fraudulent, no one is allowed to tell the laity so! “But they should not permit the public discussion of these questions and let anyone raise doubt about the authenticity of sacred relics” (Administrative Legislation in the New Code of Canon Law, 158). The poor deluded worshipper must not be allowed to know the truth!
Catholics Have No Correct Copy of the Bible!
NOT ONLY have Catholic authorities used every artifice to discredit the Bible in the minds of the laity, and did for hundreds of years forbid them to read it, they admit that they have never had a correct copy of the Bible, either English or Latin! In all their learned works, they are continually pointing out the blunders of their Bibles, and that, after they have been revised countless times!
Mental Reservation a Convenient Doctrine
THE CASUAL reader may wonder how they can admit to so much untruth with so little apparent embarrassment. The answer is to be found in the Catholic doctrine of Mental Reservation. It is a general law permitting Catholics to lie, if by so doing they can further Catholicism. With them such lying is not sinful.
Catholics Accuse Christ of Lying (Mental Reservation;)
Do Not Choose To Tell the Truth!
“HE SAID again that He knew not the day of the judgment, implying that He was not at liberty to disclose it” (Mark iii, 32, Question Box, 167)!!!
“When impertinent people, either maliciously or stupidly, endeavor to wrest these secrets from us, we are perfectly justified in using mental reservation, to meet their rude and ill-bred questioning...MENTAL RESERVATION IS ALLOWABLE only when we are driven into a corner by captious questions about a matter which we have a grave reason and a right to keep secret, and when we have no other escape” (Question Box, 1929 Ed., 433-434).
“So that a false statement knowingly made to one who has not a right to the truth will not be a lie” (Cath. Ency., IX, 471).
“However, we are also under an obligation to KEEP SECRETS FAITHFULLY, and sometimes the easiest way of fulfilling that duty is to say what is false, or to TELL A LIE” (Cath. Ency., X, 195).
(Under Article on Perjury): “When mental reservation is permissible it is lawful to corroborate one’s utterances by an oath, if there be an adequate cause” (Cath. Ency., XI, 696).
“A Catholic who, on being asked, denies that he is one, does not necessarily deny the faith. Such answer might merely be a fitting reply to an impertinent question” (Man. of Mor. Theol. I, 171-172).
“There is a difference between a religious and a legal oath...If he pronounces a formula that expresses an oath, without the intention of swearing, then he has sworn nothing” (Explanation of Catholic Morals, 129).
“THE TRUTH WE PROCLAIM UNDER OATH IS RELATIVE, NOT ABSOLUTE” (Explanation of Catholic Morals, 130).
“Intention” is required in matrimony. How does anyone know he is really married (Cath. Ency., VIII, 70)?
Catholics are not to be expected to tell the truth “absolutely.” Catholic writers say a Catholic maid may say “My mistress is not in,” when in reality she is at home, but does not wish to see her caller. The guilty Catholic at the bar may plead “Not guilty.” A Catholic may say to a beggar “I wish I had it,” when he has a pocket full of money! Naturally, if they can lie about those smaller things, they feel good after forging all the documents which we have mentioned. So, it develops that you cannot believe a real Catholic on oath!...
Lying and Forgery of Pope Clement VIII and “St.” Bellarmine
Popes Tampering with Bible!
THE COMBINED pontificates of the three predecessors of Clement VIII (Urban VII, Gregory XIV, and Innocent IX) was twelve months! This indicates the bitter rivalries of different aspirants to the papacy, and would certainly suggest that these men were probably murdered, as was so often the case with these unholy fellows. Catholic Encyclopedia says: “Most of the papal elections during the sixteenth century were influenced by political conditions” (VII, 5).
The successor of Clement VIII was pope for only 27 days. That meant that the combined time that four men occupied the papal throne was thirteen months! This prepares us to understand the bitter enmity that existed between Clement VIII and Sixtus V, his recent predecessor. Von Ranke says that Sixtus had helped to burn Archbishop Carranza (Von Ranke’s History of the Popes, I, 306) which ought to show how little fitted this pope was to make changes in the Bible. HE EXCOMMUNICATED ROBERT BELLARMINE and placed his works on the Index Expurgatorius (Catholic Encyclopedia, II, 411), and this man, BELLARMINE, BECAME THE CHIEF ADVISER TO CLEMENT VIII, and was later made “St.” Robert Bellarmine (Pageant of the Popes, 275).
Sixtus V revised the Vulgate—the Latin official Bible—making more than two thousand changes in it, but before he had hardly gotten it out among the people, he died, or probably was killed, then three popes came and went in rapid succession, as we have already noted, and in about one year after the death of Sixtus V, Clement VIll became pope. But let Catholic Encyclopedia tell the story; “Sixtus V though unskilled in this branch of criticism, had introduced alterations of his own, all for the worse. He had gone so far as to have an impression of the vitiated [def. “Ruined in character or quality”] edition printed and partially distributed, together with the proposed Bull enforcing its use. He died, however, before the actual promulgation, and his immediate successors proceeded at once to remove the blunder and call in the defective impressions. The difficulty was as to how to substitute a more correct edition without affixing a stigma to the name of Sixtus, and Bellarmine proposed that the new edition should continue in the name of Sixtus, with a prefatory explanation that, on account of aliqua vitia typographorum vel aliorum (typographical errors) which had crept in, Sixtus had himself resolved that a new impression should be undertaken. The suggestion was accepted, and Bellarmine wrote the preface, still affixed to the Clementine edition ever since in use...It cannot be impugned without casting a slur on the character of his fellow commissioners, and of Clement VIII, who with full knowledge of the facts gave his sanction to Bellarmine’s Preface being affixed to the new edition” (II, 412).
Here, one pope, Sixtus V, blundered, and Bellarmine, who was not an “infallible pope,” corrected it! Here is an admission by an “infallible” pope, Sixtus V, that the Latin Bible had over two thousand mistakes in it! Bellarmine, later “St.” Robert Bellarmine, lied in order to try to preserve the illusion that the pope is infallible! Since the new version was called the Sixtine, when it was not at all, and the lie of “His Holiness,” Clement VIII, and “Saint” Robert Bellarmine has been allowed to continue in the Catholic Bible for more than three hundred and fifty years, it means that all popes are liars!
Clement VlII’s Fraud Falsifies History
A Woman Transformed into a Man 850 Years after Her Death!
“IN THE fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, this popess was already counted as an historical personage, whose existence no one doubted. She had her place among the carved busts [def. “A sculpture of the head and shoulders of a person”] which stood in the Siena Cathedral. Under Clement VIII (1592-1595) and at his request, she was transformed into Pope Zacherias. The heretic Huss in the defence of his false doctrine before the Council of Constance, referred to the popess and no one offered to question her existence...Since the sixteenth century, Catholic historians began to deny the existence of the popess” (Catholic Encyclopedia, VIII, 408).
How could any good Catholic ever believe a “pope” or a “saint” after that sort of thing?
Lives of the Saints Medieval Forgeries—64 Volumes!
“IT IS a poor Catholic who leaves devotions entirely alone, and a rare one. He may not feel inclined to enlist in favor of this or that particular saint, but he usually has a rosary hidden away somewhere in his vest pocket and a scapular around his neck, or in his pocket, as a last extreme. If he scorns this, then the chances are that he is a Catholic only in name, for the tree of faith is such a fertile one that it rarely fails to yield fruit and flowers of exquisite fragrance.
“Of course, the lives of all the saints are not history in the strictest sense of the word. But what has that to do with the communion of Saints? If simplicity and naivete have woven around some names an unlikely tale, a fable, or a myth, it requires some effort to see how that could effect their standing with God, or their disposition to help us in our needs.”
“Devotions are not based on historical facts, although in certain facts, events or happenings, real or alleged, they may have been furnished with occasions for coming into existence. The authenticity of these facts is not guaranteed by the doctrinal authority of the Church, but she may, and does, approve the devotions that spring therefrom. Independently of the truth of private and individual revelations, visions, and miracles which she investigates as to their probability, she makes sure that there is nothing contrary to the deposit of faith and morals, and then she gives these devotions the stamp of her approval as a security to the faithful who wish to practice them” (Explanation of Catholic Morals, 115, 116).