DOES ISAIAH 22 SUPPORT THE PAPACY?

 

Ok, what exactly is the papacy?  The papacy is the office and jurisdiction of the pope, who is the human head over the Roman Catholic Church.  The Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ established the New Testament church by building it upon the apostle Peter and He designated Peter as the head over all the other apostles.  Jesus also gave Peter the power of “binding and loosing,” he can forgive people of all their sins and he can even operate infallibly (without error) under certain conditions.  Furthermore, his line of successors after him will also be considered popes with the same power through “Apostolic Succession.”

Of course, we Protestants don’t agree with this, but right now I’d like to recap what Jesus said and to address how Catholics use the Isaiah passage.

In Matthew 16:13-15, Jesus asks His disciples what the public thought about Him, and then He asked them what they (the disciples) thought about Him:

16 – “And Simon Peter answered and said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’

17 – And Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.

18 – And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 – And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’”

This is the main and foundational passage of Scripture that the Catholic Church uses to prove its papacy.  They will emphasize that Jesus gave to Peter the “keys” to the kingdom of Heaven and thus, the authority to “bind” and “loose.”

Enter Shebna and Eliakim

Another passage they use to try and support the idea of a papacy is in the Old Testament in Isaiah 22:15-25.  In this passage, God, through the prophet Isaiah, rebukes the present treasurer/prime minister (Shebna) of Judah for his pride and for abusing his position and tells him that he will be removed from his lofty position and replaced by a righteous man named Eliakim.  Then, in v. 22-23, Shebna is told:

22 – “And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his [Eliakim’s] shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

23 – And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father’s house.”

Catholics believe that there is a connection between Peter in Matthew 16 and Eliakim in Isaiah 22.  They are convinced that the typology of Eliakim points precisely to the person of Peter, and that both these passages point to the Catholic papacy.

Comparison

Ok, I will admit that there are some similarities between the two passages in that they both reference a key or keys, which point to some kind of authority/power.  And I will admit that Isaiah 22:22 is the first passage in all of Scripture that mentions anything about spiritual/metaphorical “keys.”  And the Jews of Jesus’ day more than likely recognized (from Isaiah) the terminology that Jesus used concerning keys.  It is interesting, though, that Isaiah references the “key” (singular) of David, whereas Jesus references the “keys” (plural) of the kingdom of Heaven.

But is this really typology about the papacy?  If it is, and if Eliakim replaced Shebna, then what person did Peter the apostle replace?  If both passages are referring to the papacy, then why is Isaiah’s key about David’s throne and Jesus’ keys about the church?  If Isaiah 22 is really about the papacy (a purely spiritual, non-political authority), then where is this reflected in the office of Shebna and Eliakim? 

If Isaiah was pointing to a modern papacy, where is infallible spiritual authority alluded to in this scenario?  Where is the reference to a human authority having “full, supreme, and universal power” over a religious body? Moreover, neither Isaiah 22 nor Matthew 16 suggests anything about a chain of perpetual and infallible successors (as the modern papacy supposedly has). 

Well, someone may say that typology does not have to match in every detail.  That is true, but the similarities are so few that one has to question if there is enough here to indicate anything about Peter.  It is the amount of details that are missing that are very telling.

Furthermore, it is interesting that Isaiah 22:25 mentions Eliakim’s “peg” breaking off.  So, if this is about the Catholic papacy, when did Peter’s “peg” (authority) break off?  Let’s look a little farther into the passage in Isaiah.

A Better Fulfillment

Isaiah 22:25:

In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the Lord has spoken it.

Notice the term “cut off.”  Now compare this to Daniel 9:26:
“And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself…”

These are both prophecies of the Messiah to come.  They are both using the same Hebrew word for “cut off” (“karath”).  Both Isaiah and Daniel are referring to the Messiah’s death, so Isaiah is NOT speaking about Peter at all!

The name “Shebna” means “vigor” or “youthful strength” or “to grow.”  The name Eliakim means “God will establish” or “my God will arise.”

The character Shebna represents man trusting in his ability/strength/wisdom (Isaiah 22:8-11), but Eliakim represents the Messiah who does not depend on man’s strength or wisdom! 

The key referred to in Isaiah 22:22 is singular, and it is “the key of the house of David,” which can only point to the Messiah, Jesus Christ (Matthew 21:9; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 1:31-33), not to Peter or any type of papacy.  This is confirmed in Revelation 3:7:

“And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write; These things saith He that is holy, He that is true, He that hath the key of David, He that openeth, and no man shutteth, and shutteth, and no man openeth.”

Here, we see the Savior, the One who shuts and opens at will.  Revelation 3:7 seems to be a much better passage to fulfill the typology of Isaiah 22 than the Catholic Church’s attempt to use Peter.  It does not point to Peter, but to Christ.

The Gospel Brings it into Focus

But what is this “opening” and “shutting” that Jesus is speaking of in Revelation 3:7 just above?  I believe it has to do with the gospel and the “doors” of opportunity that are opened or closed by Jesus. 

Note that in 1 Corinthians 16:9, Paul speaks of an “open door” for ministry, and again in 2 Corinthians 2:12.  In other cases, Paul encountered the opposite when he tried to enter Asia, but was hindered by the Holy Spirit (Acts 16:6), i.e., it was a closed door.  And again, he tried to go into Bithynia and the same thing happened (Acts 16:7).  “Doors of ministry” are controlled (open and shut) by Jesus alone. 

Remember, Jesus, who holds the key of David (Isaiah 22 and Revelation 3:7) is not only the One who supernaturally opens and shuts doors of opportunity, but He is also the One who has given us the keys of the kingdom of Heaven in preaching the gospel (Matthew 16).

“Binding and loosing”/“opening and shutting” is NOT about Peter making laws which God is obligated to uphold, or Peter wielding authority over the other apostles!  The keys of Matthew 16 are all about the gospel:

“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” (Romans 1:16)

Note the phrase “power of God.”  This indicates the exceptional, inherent and divine quality within the gospel message itself.  An integral part of the function of the keys is the person’s repentance (or lack thereof) and his acceptance or rejection of the gospel, which will determine his destiny.   

By the way, note that Peter did not receive the keys of Heaven in Matthew 16, because Jesus was speaking of a future event (“…I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven”).  Jesus gave them to all the apostles later, possibly in Matthew 18:18.  We know this because the effects of being given the keys (binding and loosing) were the same in Matthew 18. 

In this way, this authority/power was first given to the apostles themselves, then it was given again in the “Great Commission” (Matthew 28:18-20; Luke 24:46-47) where it was entrusted to all believers.  Even the Catholic Catechism agrees that the “Great Commission” (evangelizing/sharing the gospel) is for all believers (CCC #900).

Conclusion

Therefore, this “binding and loosing” of which Jesus spoke is about sharing the gospel with people, and if the hearers accept its message (“… he that hears you hears Me…” – Luke 10:16), then the gates of Heaven are open to them; and the one who shared the gospel can say with authority, “Since you have accepted the message of Jesus Christ, you have been forgiven – you are saved.” 

But if they reject the gospel (“… and he that despises you despises Me…” – Luke 10:16), they are refused entrance into Heaven.  And he who shared the gospel can say with authority, “Since you have rejected the message, your sins are retained – you are not right with God.”  The keys are for opening and closing the kingdom of Heaven.  The apostles certainly wielded authority, but it is all true believers who have the power of “binding” and “loosing,” not just the apostles and not just church leaders.  Matthew 16:19 is not what the Catholic Church thinks it is. 

So, to answer the question, no, Isaiah 22 does NOT support the doctrine of the Catholic papacy.  But even if Isaiah 22:22 did somehow refer to Peter, that still would not prove the modern concept of the Catholic papacy, with all its unbiblical teachings, its allegedly infallible Magisterium, and its nebulous traditions – not to mention the papacy’s “foundation” which was built on forgeries.

See these links for more information:

LINKS:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/10/matthew-16-keys-binding-and-loosing.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2016/09/matthew-16-who-or-what-is-rock.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2017/10/the-papacy-foundation-of-sand.html

THE INQUISITION (Part 2)

 

In our last article, we dealt with a little history about the Inquisition and pointed out the inconsistencies, the cruelty and the corruption of the Catholic Church – who actually bred and established the environment that gave rise to the Inquisition.  And this is how they did it – the Catholic Church claims to be the “guardian of souls” and they also claim that they were commissioned by Jesus Christ to “root out heresy,” thus, leading up to one of history’s greatest tragedies. 

I left off addressing an article written by Catholic Answers, which can be found here:

https://www.catholic.com/tract/the-inquisition

The author of that article goes on to ask, “What’s the point?” That is, what is it that Fundamentalists [Protestants] think that the existence of the Inquisition proves?  Does it prove that “Catholics are sinners”?  That “people in positions of authority have used poor judgment”?  Does it prove “that otherwise good Catholics, afire with zeal, sometimes lose their balance”?  And the answer is that all these things could be true (for Catholics and Protestants) even without the Inquisition ever occurring.   

And that’s true, but the problem here is not just about the average Catholic in the pew.  It’s not simply about an authority occasionally using “poor judgment.”  It is about corrupt and power-hungry leaders in the Catholic hierarchy wanting control over the people and not letting the truths of Scripture dictate doctrine and behavior. 

It is possible that some who were punished in those days may have been actual heretics, but I believe the Inquisition was more about suppressing the voices of the faithful common people who questioned the authority of the Church or pointed to the Bible as the ultimate authority (2 Timothy 3:16-17).  This has always made the Catholic Church quite nervous.

Twisting the Scriptures

Toward the end of the article, the author points out that:

“… it is easy to see how those who led the Inquisitions could think their actions were justified.”  And he goes on to point to certain Old Testament passages that encourage the killing of certain offenders in order to purge the evil from their midst (Deuteronomy 17:2-5; 13:6-11; 13:12-18).  

All right then, if Catholic Answers wants to be consistent and continue with this line of thinking, they also need to push for the stoning to death of all gay Church members, gay priests, gay bishops, gay cardinals, etc. (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13).  After all, this is also part of the law in the Old Testament, right?

But of course they would never do that because they know it would be wrong to do today.  They know that we are living under a different and better covenant (Hebrews 8:6) than that of the Old Testament law because Jesus ushered in a system of grace. 

Although homosexuality is wrong, there is no reason today to put gay people to death (or sexually promiscuous straight people, for that matter) unless there are other crimes involved.

Furthermore, Catholic Answers knows very well that the Inquisition occurred under the New Testament period.  So, why would they try to apply a strictly Old Testament law in this case to support it?  I believe that they are just desperate to justify their involvement in the Inquisition.  But, remember, God does not sleep and justice will be done.

Furthermore, the author of this article tries to also use a New Testament verse as a reason to justify the Inquisition:

“But them that are without, God judgeth.  Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” (1 Corinthians 5:13)

But this New Testament passage is obviously not about civilly punishing someone, or putting him to death using the law of the land, as was done in the Inquisition.  Note the context of this passage: “… not to company with fornicators” (v. 9); “… with such an one not to eat” (v. 11).  This context is about not fellowshipping with certain people.  It does not equate to Inquisition tactics.   So we can clearly see that this argument is another good example of Catholics twisting Scripture.    

The author also brings out the fact that some Protestant Reformers also made use of their own Inquisition-type justice.  And this is equally wrong, no matter who’s doing it.  I would certainly not defend Protestants if they did the same evils that the Catholic Church did.

In light of all this, a sensible person might say that this particular article by Catholic Answers is misguided.  But remember, this article is accepted by, and in line with, the teachings of the Church, because it contains the Catholic seals of approval (the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur).  So, if the article is wrong, so is the Church. 

Another Catholic’s Lack of Remorse

One other article by Catholic Answers, written by popular author and speaker Jimmy Akin, once again focused on the Old Testament principle that heresy is a serious sin.  Indeed it is.  But everybody already knows that.  This is not new information. 

Akin states that “Anti-Catholics regularly bash the Church with the Inquisition” to show “how evil the Church truly is.”  He states that Catholics should reply by pointing to the “Mosaic Inquisition.” 

He then refers to Deuteronomy 17:2-7 and Deuteronomy 13:1-11 which speak of the evils of idolatry and Israel’s obligation to investigate the accusations and to purge this evil from their midst.

But, like I said, we already know that idolatry and heresy are horrible sins.  But that’s not the point.  The point is that when we’re talking about heresy, how do we deal with that issue TODAY, in the Christian/New Testament era of grace?  Do we put offenders back on the medieval rack or burn them alive?  Or is there some other, more biblical, avenue that Christians should take?

But notice that in Jimmy Akin’s article, there is not one word about what we should do about heresy today, and absolutely no hint of remorse for what the Catholic Church has done in the past.  Instead of defending the Inquisition, he, like many other Catholics, is simply trying to justify those horrible things that were done to (supposed) heretics.  Notice that there is far more focus on trying to cover for Mother Church for the evils she has done, than on any concern for the multitude of innocent victims she destroyed.  Akin’s “Mosaic Inquisition” argument is just a disgusting diversion from the real topic and more twisting of Sacred Scripture.  It doesn’t relieve the Catholic Church’s guilt.  See Akin’s article here:

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/nobody-expects-the-mosaic-inquisition

The Pope Apologizes for the Church’s Sins

According to an article in The Guardian (March 13, 2000), Pope John Paul II, as leader of the Catholic Church, had apologized for “2,000 years of violence, persecution and blunders.”  He also sought forgiveness for “sins committed against Jews, heretics, women, Gypsies and Native peoples.”

But if the Inquisition was ever a good thing, then why apologize for “sins against heretics”?  Doesn’t this also prove that the Inquisition was wrong, after all?  Otherwise, there’d be no need for an apology.  But, practically speaking, Pope John Paul II’s “apology” amounts to “too little… too late.”  See his apology here:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/mar/13/catholicism.religion

“Physician, Heal Thyself”

It is interesting that the Catholic Church was so greatly focused on the sin of heresy.  And they were willing to kill those who committed such a sin.

But what about the multitude of wicked sins that existed WITHIN the hierarchy of the Church itself during this very same time?  The Inquisition lasted from roughly the early 1200’s up until about the middle of the 1500’s.  During that time there was much sin, corruption and heresy that was happening within the Catholic Church in very high places.  Just to name a few:

Pope Leo X made Johann Tetzel an inquisitor (an officer in the Inquisition) in 1509.  Tetzel then duped the poor by selling indulgences and tricking the people into believing they could get family members out of Purgatory earlier than “scheduled.”  By the way, the lavish St. Peter’s Basilica (Catholic Church) was mainly funded by the already-burdened poor, who felt obligated to pay for the indulgences because they anguished over the eternal fate of their beloved relatives.  Note that Pope Leo apparently agreed with Tetzel’s tactics and the doctrine of indulgences.

Simony in the Catholic Church was also a major problem for many, many years.  Simony is the buying and selling of a church office – yes, even the papacy (the “Vicar of Christ’s” office) was bought and sold a number of times like a piece of common merchandise!  This is a wonderful example of the Catholic Church’s version of “apostolic succession,” which still claims a “lawful and unbroken chain of successors.”  Indeed!

The papacy was also infested with fornication, adultery, corruption and extreme greed for material goods and power.

And all this was happening, not only during this same Inquisition period, but throughout much of the Catholic Church’s history.

Jesus gave us an example of this type of hypocrisy:

“And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?  Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?  Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:3-5)

There was so much wickedness and corruption that was going on within the Catholic leadership (including the papacy) that it would be hard for most Catholics to believe.  So, Catholic Church, before you started burning people at the stake for “heresy,” why didn’t you get your act together first?

Conclusion

The first Catholic Answers article mentioned above claims that the Inquisition is “a handy stick for Catholic-bashing, simply because most Catholics seem at a loss for a sensible reply.”  But there is a reason for that.  And it is because there IS no sensible reply – the Inquisition’s method of dealing with heresy was absolutely unbiblical and demonically inspired.  There is no excuse for it.  The Catholic Church needs to quit whining and playing the martyr (no pun intended) when people complain about the Inquisition.  The blame directed at the Church is deserved, and you Catholic apologists need to stop defending it!

The Inquisition was an opportunistic power grab and a convenient way to rid the Church of her detractors which was disguised as an attempt to “cleanse” the Church.  In my opinion, the Inquisition was an exercise in absolute control, an example of man trying to take the place of God. 

Even if they would show genuine repentance for the past, the Catholic Church should still be concerned about the heresy that yet remains within her own borders today.  If any biblical church sees heresy in others, they should then reach out to those heretics by preaching the Word of God to them (like Jesus did – Matthew 4:23) and reasoning with them (like the apostles did – Acts 17:2).  If you preach the gospel to them and they are still unrepentant, apply Matthew 18:15-17 and let God deal with their hearts. 

There is, and was, no godly justification for the Inquisition, so Catholics need to stop pretending that it was a necessary event, and they need to stop pretending that the Catholic Church is the “guardian of souls.”  A closer look at Scripture will prove otherwise.

 

THE PAPACY – A FOUNDATION OF SAND

“… likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand… and it fell: and great was the fall of it.” (Matthew 7:26-27)

“Except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it…” (Psalm 127:1)

This article has a lot to do with precedent.  Precedent can be a good thing or a very bad thing.  What is a “precedent”?  According to dictionary.com, it is:

“Any act, decision, or case that serves as a guide or justification for subsequent situations.”

The Merriam-Webster dictionary describes it as:

“Something done or said that may serve as an example or rule to authorize or justify a subsequent act of the same or an analogous kind.”

You get the picture.  What happens today will be the example, teaching, or law of tomorrow.  

But as you may know, some terrible things have developed in our world due to bad precedents.  For example, the Roe v. Wade decision to legalize abortion in 1973 was definitely an evil precedent.  Every Catholic knows this.  Another tragic example of a bad precedent is the reversing of our First Amendment right to freedom of religion in America.  It is a shame that some of our highest courts have betrayed us.  See this article:

https://theresurrectionstillspeaks.blogspot.com/2017/10/hijacking-first-amendment-separation-of.html

But there is another bad precedent that we find within the Catholic Church, and it has to do with its teachings on the papacy (i.e., the office of the pope).  This precedent has disturbing implications for Catholics.  The truth is that there have been some forgeries of documents in history that have greatly affected the shape of the modern day papacy, and they have made it what it is today.  One of those forgeries is called the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, to which later were added other forgeries (the Donation of Constantine and the Liber Pontificalis).  These were later mixed with yet another forgery provided by a monk named John Gratian.  These, taken all together, came to be known as Gratian’s Decretum, which created a historical precedent, greatly influencing the Catholic teaching of “papal primacy.”  See this article for details:

https://www.christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html

Now, Catholics will admit that these documents we mentioned (and some others) were indeed forgeries.  But some Catholics will try to downplay the effects of these forgeries.  They’ll say yes, these were forgeries, but it’s not a big deal, since they didn’t have much of an influence or impact on the Catholic teaching on papal authority.  They’ll say that the earliest church taught this same thing, but in seed form, and that it just naturally “developed” into what we see in the papacy today.

But there are others who are painting a very different historical picture.  Please carefully read these accounts of Protestant, Orthodox, and Catholic historians, scholars, and theologians who have a different take on the influence that these forgeries had on the doctrine of the papacy...

Richard W. Thompson

Former teacher, lawyer, judge, and U.S. Secretary of the Navy, Richard W. Thompson (who was reported to be Catholic, but we have not been able to confirm this) in his study of Catholic forgeries and their influence on the papacy, observed:

“Such times as these were adapted to the practice of any kind of imposture and fraud which the popes and clergy considered necessary to strengthen the authority of the papacy… But they were unsuited to these times, in that they did not furnish a sufficient shelter for the corruption and imperialism of the popes, and did not sufficiently lay the foundation for their claim of dominion over the world.  Something more was necessary; and the means for supplying this were not wanting.  It consisted of the False Decretals, which are now universally considered to have been bold and unblushing forgeries.  Yet, forgeries as they were, they constitute the cornerstone of that enormous system of wrong and usurpation which has since been built up by the papacy…” (The Papacy and the Civil Power, Page 372 – emphasis added)

He further stated:

“… but all that he [Pope Innocent III] did was prompted by but one motive – that of raising the papacy above all the thrones and governments of earth.  This, with him, was an all-absorbing and controlling passion.  The canon law, founded, as it then stood, mainly upon the pseudo-Isidorian, Gregorian, and Gracian forgeries, had already been constructed and construed with this end in view; and, therefore, the personal interest, no less than the ambition of Innocent III., led him to preserve all these forgeries with care, so that, in the course of time, the ‘pious fraud’ might become sanctified by time, because perpetrated in the name of St. Peter!  The result he hoped and sought for has been accomplished.” (Ibid. page 419, emphasis added)

Philip Schaff (Protestant)

Well known historian and theologian, Philip Schaff, wrote:

“… and the later notorious Pseudo-Isidorian decretals.  The popes, to be sure, were not the original authors of these falsifications, but they used them freely and repeatedly for their own purposes.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Volume 2, page 288)

And also:

“… in the middle of the ninth century, a mysterious book made its appearance, which gave legal expression to the popular opinion of the papacy, raised and strengthened its power more than any other agency, and forms to a large extent the basis of the canon law of the church of Rome.  This is a collection of ecclesiastical laws under the false name of bishop Isidor of Seville… hence called the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals’.” (Ibid., Volume 4, page 268, emphasis added)

Everett Ferguson (Protestant)

Author, scholar, historian, and Professor emeritus at Harvard, Everett Ferguson, writes concerning the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals:

“There were other forgeries of a similar kind at this time, but this collection became the most influential forgery in the history of the Roman Catholic Church.  It became the basis of the claims for the papal monarchy in the later Middle Ages.” (Church History, Volume One: From Christ to the Pre-Reformation: The Rise and Growth of the Church in its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context – pages 379-380 – emphasis added)

And also:

“The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals had been firmly woven into canon law by the eleventh century…” (Ibid. page 403 – emphasis added)

Aristeides Papadakis (Orthodox)

This Orthodox historian and Professor of Byzantine history writes:

“Although the Orthodox may not have known that
Gregorian teaching was in part drawn from the forged decretals of pseudo-Isidore (850’s), they were quite certain that it was not based on catholic tradition in either its historical or canonical form.” (The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy, page 166)

Abbe Guette (Orthodox)

Former Catholic priest, Abbe (Rene-Francois) Guettee who converted to the Orthodox faith, wrote about the impact of the false decretals and the change they caused in the Catholic papacy in his book, The Papacy:

“The false decretals make as it were the dividing point between the Papacy of the first eight and that of the succeeding centuries.  At this date, the pretentions of the Popes begin to develop and take each day a more distinct character.”

See here:

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/guettee_thepapacy.pdf

[Note:  This was a major reason that the Eastern (Orthodox) Church split from the Western (Roman Catholic) Church in 1054 A.D.  According to Protestant historian William Webster, “The Eastern [Orthodox] Church never accepted the false claims of the Roman Church and refused to submit to its insistence that the Bishop of Rome was supreme ruler of the Church.  This they knew was not true to the historical record and was a perversion of the true teaching of Scripture, the papal exegesis of which was not taught by the Church fathers.”]

See here:

https://www.christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html

Paul Bede Johnson (Catholic)

Paul Johnson, author, journalist and church historian writes:

“Pseudo-Isidorian forgeries played a major role in the evolution of the related ‘Power of the Keys’ theory.” (A History of Christianity, emphasis added)  

See the online version here:

https://books.google.com/books?id=e4XMZjLAUv8C&pg=PT266&dq=isidorian+decretals,+Paul+johnson&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjZqMa1j4PXAhUDxYMKHZduDEQQ6AEINTAD#v=snippet&q=forgeries%20played%20a%20major%20role&f=false

Richard McBrien (Catholic)

Catholic priest, professor of theology, scholar, and author, McBrien, says:

“The ‘Donation of Constantine’ was included in the False Decretals… and Gratian’s Decretals… compiled by the monk John Gratian.  By the middle of the fifteenth century, the document’s authenticity was questioned… but in the meantime this document and the other spurious sources exercised enormous influence on medieval thought.” (Lives of the Popes, page 58 – emphasis added)

Peter De Rosa (Catholic)

A former Catholic priest who had access to the Vatican’s library records, De Rosa had this to say in his book:

 

“… the documents forged in Rome at this time were systematized in the mid-1100s at Bologna by Gratian, a Benedictine monk.  His Decretum, or Code of Canon Law, was easily the most influential book ever written by a Catholic.  It was peppered with three centuries of forgeries and conclusions drawn from them, with his own fictional additions.  Of the 324 passages he quotes from popes of the first four centuries, only eleven are genuine.” (Vicars of Christ, The Dark Side of the Papacy, page 60 – emphasis added)

Concerning the “Index of Forbidden Books,” De Rosa writes:

“The forgeries which had contributed to creating the papal system, such as the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, the fabricated texts that fooled Gratian and Thomas Aquinas, were protected by the Index, at least until 1660 when a French scholar started telling the truth about them.  Naturally, he, too, was put on the Index.” (Ibid., page 174 – emphasis added)

And further:

“[Pope] Gregory [VII] went way beyond the Donation of Constantine.  He had a whole school of forgers under his very nose, turning out document after document, with the papal seal of approval, to cater for his every need… Many earlier documents were touched up to make them say the opposite of what they said originally.  Some of these earlier documents were themselves forgeries.  Hildebrand’s school treated all papers, forged or genuine, with a completely impartial dishonesty… This instant method of inventing history was marvellously successful, especially as the forgeries were at once inserted into canon law.  By innumerable subtle changes, they made Catholicism seem changeless.  They turned ‘today’ into ‘always was and always will be’, which even now, contrary to the findings of history, is the peculiar stamp of Catholicism.” (Ibid., page 59 – emphasis added)

Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger (Catholic)

Outspoken Catholic priest, theologian, and church historian, von Dollinger was a brilliant and gifted speaker.  In his book on the papacy, he writes:

“But in the middle of that century – about 845 – arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals, which had results far beyond what its author contemplated, and gradually, but surely, changed the whole constitution and government of the church.  It would be difficult to find in all history a second instance of so successful, and yet so clumsy a forgery.” (The Pope and the Council, page 94 – emphasis added)

And also:

“But that the Pseudo-Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old,-- on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians.” (Ibid. page 97-98 – emphasis added)

And further:

“The pseudo-Isidorian forgery of the middle of the ninth century has been already mentioned.  Rome, as we have seen, had no part in that, though she afterwards took full advantage of it for extending her power, the substance of these forgeries being incorporated into the canonical collections of the Gregorian party.” (Ibid. page 142 – emphasis added)

And again:

“The most potent instrument of the new Papal system was Gratian’s Decretum… His work displaced all the older collections of canon law, and became the manual and repertory, not for canonists only, but for the scholastic theologians, who, for the most part, derived all their knowledge of Fathers and Councils from it.  No book has ever come near it in its influence in the Church, although there is scarcely another so chokefull of gross errors, both intentional and unintentional. (Ibid. page 142-143 – emphasis added) 

And here:

“Up to the time of the Isidorian decretals no serious attempt was made anywhere to introduce the neo-Roman theory of Infallibility.  The popes did not dream of laying claim to such a privilege.  Their relation to the Church had to be fundamentally revolutionized, and the idea of the Primacy altered, before there could be any room for this doctrine to grow up; after that it developed itself by a sort of logical sequence, but very slowly, being at issue with notorious historical facts.” (Ibid. page 76-77 – emphasis added)

And this:

“For the first thousand years no pope ever issued a doctrinal decision intended for and addressed to the whole Church… They only became a standard of faith after being read, examined, and approved at an Ecumenical Council.” (Ibid. page 78)

And of Thomas Aquinas, von Dollinger wrote:

“St. Thomas, who knew no Greek, and, being educated in the Gregorian system, derived all his knowledge of ecclesiastical antiquity from Gratian, found himself at once in possession of this treasure of most weighty testimonies from the early centuries, which left no doubt in his mind that the great Councils and most influential bishops and theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries had recognized in the Pope an infallible monarch, who ruled the whole Church with absolute power.  He therefore did what the scholastics had never done before: he introduced the doctrine of the Pope and his infallibility, as he got it from these spurious passages, and often in the same words, into the dogmatic system of the Schola, - a step the gravity and momentous results of which can hardly be exaggerated.” (Ibid. page 265-266 – emphasis added)

Conclusion

In all these quotes from historians, scholars, theologians, priests and teachers, there is a common thread - and it is that these forgeries have greatly affected the evolution of the papacy.  

Much, much more can be said about individual popes and the wicked and corrupt lifestyles that some lived, and their power-hungry endeavors.  But that is not the purpose of this article.  Our purpose here is not to expose individual popes, but rather to demonstrate the effects and the impact that these forgeries had on the papacy.  And these forgeries have indeed caused the worldwide church’s view of Catholicism in general (and the papacy, in particular), to be far too exalted.  But the modern day concept of the papacy is not supported by Scripture, and now we can see that history is not on their side, either.

With all the Catholic talk about Peter being the solid “foundation” of the church and its “rock,” the papacy is actually built upon years of forgeries and lies; it is built upon a foundation of sand. (Matthew 7:24-27)