by Matthew A. C. Newsome ©2002

A Protestant acquaintance of mine whom I correspond with on the internet once said, "You know the phrase 'words will never hurt you'? Well, it's not true. I have pointedly asked 'heresy hunters' who make it their mission in life to expose imagined error in others, 'Who is going to reimburse this man for the hurt you are causing his reputation? How can you possibly make restitution for maligning and misrepresenting and causing many to stumble because of your inflammatory comments?'"

With a lot of anti-Catholic propaganda, it is easy to convince ourselves that no one will take it seriously.  Some accusations are just so far fetched, some tracts so poorly written, that it's tempting not to give them a second thought.  It's tempting to think that there is no harm in these words.  But no matter how ill-conceived some accusations are, there are people out there who will swallow it whole.

Then there are other kinds of anti-Catholic material.  There are the essays, the web pages, the booklets, that are well written, have persuasive arguments, and worse of all, actually sound credible.  They achieve this by quoting from Catholic documents, Popes, prominent theologians and Church Fathers, even the Catechism, and twisting these words against the Church.  The person who stumbles upon material like this may easily fall into the trap and mistakenly believe that the Catholic Church truly is as represented by these "heresy hunters," as my friend calls them above.

One such web site is entitled, "Papal Claims to Authority."  You can read it, if you care to, at http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/claims.htm.  The author's name is Michael Schiefler, and this is part of his "Bible Light" web page.  It's not so much an essay as it is a rather large collection of quotes, some from prominent anti-Catholic writers but many from Church documents themselves, designed to make us believe the Catholic Church is both heretical and blasphemous.  Not only does the page deny papal infallibility (as we would expect from a non-Catholic), but it would lead us to believe that Catholics worship the pope as a god, put him in a position above Christ, and that he is the successor of some ancient pagan Babylonian high priest.

Because of the number of actual Catholic documents he quotes from, even a good Catholic who stumbles upon his site may fall prey to his scheme.  By pairing actual Catholic documents with anti-Catholic writings that use similar phraseology, the anti-Catholic rhetoric looks credible.  The reader may fail to realize that the actual context and thrust of the two quotes are entirely different.

Schiefler's web page contains many accusations against the Church, but if we examine a sampling of them, we can begin to unravel his web a bit.  The first thing one notices is that he has apparently scoured various archives to find pictures of popes looking their most regal -- draped in fine robes, sitting on a throne, in processions, depicted on coins, etc. -- all to imply the "worldly" nature of the popes. Of course, such dress in itself means nothing.  In fact, one could argue that such garb is only proper for the office.  Not to mention that many Protestant ministers also wear fine clothing, albeit of a different style.  But Schiefler doesn't actually have to prove anything; he simply arranges things so that we cannot miss his implication.

Schiefler seems to be particularly obsessed with one part of the papal regalia -- the tiara, or triple crown, that adorns the mitre.  His web page contains quote after quote about it, with no particular significance until one reads from the Catholic Encyclopedia that the design of the tiara may have been inspired by Persian royal headpieces.  He adds, by way of suggestion, the single word, "Babylonian?" and then shows us a picture of an 8th century BC statue in present day Iraq wearing a tall, triple horned headpiece.  The implication, though unstated, is that the Papacy is actually a continuation of a pagan Babylonian cult.  He does make mention of the fact that John Paul II, when he took the office of Pope in 1978, was not inducted with the tiara, but he warns, "nothing really prevents the next Pope from returning to the tradition of the coronation and wearing of the triregno crown."  One might get the impression that Schiefler doesn't really have anything against the Pope, per se. He just doesn't like his hat.

Of course such silliness proves nothing about the Pope, or what Catholics believe about the papal office.  Schiefler is only warming up.  His next section deals with the "Keys to the Kingdom."  He shares with us here his re-interpretation of Scripture.  He quotes Matthew 16:18, which reads, "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."  For the benefit of those of us who do not share in Schiefler's level of Biblical scholarship, he gives us this paraphrase so that we can know what Jesus really meant.

Verse 18 - Continuing, Jesus remarks to Peter that upon the rock of His true identity, Jesus as the Son of God, Jesus the long awaited Messiah, Jesus the salvation of all mankind, Jesus the one mediator for mankind, upon this foundation stone of fact the church of faithful believers will surely overcome sin and death (hell).

Did you notice anything missing from Schiefler's re-interpretation?  In his version, Jesus never says those all important words, "thou art Peter (kephas, or rock)."  How can we accept an interpretation of this verse that completely ignores one of the most significant name changes in Biblical history?

He does the same thing for other verses in this passage.  He claims verse 19, "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven," is properly applied to all Christians, despite the fact that Christ was speaking directly to Peter and Peter alone (the "you" in this verse is singular).  So what are these keys that all of us are supposed to possess?  Schiefler has the answer.  "Well, how will any mortal human being enter into the kingdom? By faith. Faith in what? Faith in Jesus Christ, the Rock of our Salvation."  He has managed to completely twist the primary Scripture passage dealing with Peter's primacy into a proof text for the entirely Protestant doctrine of sola fide.  And he does this while claiming, "The word of God is the limiting factor in our authority."  If this is indeed the case, then Mr. Schiefler here has so twisted and misapplied the Word of God as to completely discredit his own authority.

This is not to say that the Catholic Church does not teach that faith in Christ is essential to our salvation.  Just that this is not the significance of this particular passage of Scripture.

Just as Schiefler makes much of little in his tirade against the tiara, in the next section of his web site he makes much over various papal opinions of the use of the word "universal."  He shows us many quotes from the writings of Pope Gregory the Great where he rejects the use of the word "universal" being applied to him in his office of the papacy.  Schiefler contrasts this with the writings of other pontiffs who have used the word in varying contexts to apply to the papacy. Quoting source after source, he takes up much room on his web page saying absolutely nothing.

Because he has a poor understanding of papal doctrines, he does not realize that these examples do not prove anything.  He does not realize that the personal writings of any pope do not carry the weight of infallibility.  To exercise his special grace of infallibility the pope must be teaching on a matter of faith or morals, in his capacity as the head of the Church, to the entire Church.  Writings of individual popes on whether or not they prefer to be called "universal" do not qualify. (Insofar as "catholic" means "universal," every Catholic bishop is a universal bishop, and every Catholic pope is a universal pope.)  This argument, though he spends a lot of energy on it, has no more significance than the fact that Pope John Paul II (and the first) did not choose to have a coronation ceremony as previous popes have.  It absolutely has no bearing on, nor does it alter, any Church teaching about the papacy.

Much of what Schiefler asserts on his web page can be refuted by merely looking at the context of the sources that he relies upon.  For instance, he quotes a nineteenth century Catechism on papal infallibility:

Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to be infallible?
A. This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, by the Bishops of the Church.

His source for this is A Doctrinal Catechism written by Rev. Stephan Keenan in 1848.  It was approved by the archbishop of New York.  But this thing to remember here is that papal infallibility, as a doctrine, was not formally defined until 1870.  Therefore a Catechism written prior to that time would have been amiss to teach that papal infallibility was a doctrine to be held by the faithful.  Papal infallibility has been practiced since the very beginning of the Church, and has always been in effect (that is, no pope has even been fallible in any teaching on faith or morals).  But prior to 1870 it was not formally defined and no Catechism has the authority to teach something that has not been formally proclaimed by the Church.

Plus, to achieve the effect he is going for, Schiefler would have to cite some document more binding than a Catechism.  Catechisms can be very good or very bad, as far as they go.  Some Catechisms, even ones approved by bishops, have actually been condemned by the Church for containing false teachings.  To prove what he is attempting to prove here, that the Church once taught, specifically, that the pope is fallible in teaching the Church on matters of faith and morals, he would need to cite some council document that says that (and nothing short of a council document would suffice, as a papal encyclical would have no weight if issued by a fallible pontiff).

In fact, he immediately afterwards quotes from a papal encyclical, from Pope Pius IX, issued in 1846 -- two years prior to this Catechism, that heavily implies, if not specifically defines, the doctrine of papal infallibility.  The significance of this document is left for the reader to decide.  As usual, Schiefler does not provide us with any text linking his source material together.

The tirade goes on, leading up to the first Vatican council and the official defining of papal infallibility.  Schiefler gives us the reactions of a few Protestants and dissidents to this decision, and makes special note that the Catechism quoted above was "revised" after 1870 (and why should any Catechism not be revised after a an Ecumenical Council?).  He then quotes from many documents with the intent to illustrate that Catholics believe the Pope is a god of some sort, or is equal to Christ.  Of course, he accomplishes this only by taking some of the most flowery and poetic writings about (and by) the popes and isolating them out of context.

One example of his manipulation is the quote he attributes to Pope Pius X.  "The pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ Himself, hidden under the veil of the flesh.."  His source for this is English Protestant publication, Church Review, from 1895.  He does go so far as to also cite Volume 2 of Radio Replies (a very good and worthwhile book) by Fathers Rumble and Carty, who reveal the above to be a misquote.  Pius X's actual statement was:

The Pope represents Jesus Christ Himself, and therefore is a loving father. The life of the Pope is a holocaust of love for the human family. His word is love; love, his weapon; love, the answer he gives to all who hate him; love, his flag, i.e., the Cross, which signed the greatest triumph on earth and in heaven.

I commend him for at least citing this source, but must question his motivation.  If he knows the first quote to be false, why then does he repeat it?  A more ridiculous example is a quote from John Paul II's Crossing the Threshold of Hope, in which the pope writes, "The Pope is considered the man on earth who represents the Son of God, who "takes the place" of the Second Person of the omnipotent God of the Trinity. . . The Pope is not the only one who holds this title. With regard to the Church entrusted to him, each bishop is Vicarius Christi."

Schiefler then shows us the true depths of his scholarship by telling us that if we translate "represents the Son of God" into Latin we get Vicarius Filii Dei, which in Roman numerals is supposed to add up to 666.  And furthermore, according to Latin-by-Schiefler, Vicarius Christi has the same meaning as "anti-Christ."  I suppose his argument here may have weight with those who are convinced by occult numerology, but beyond that, they hardly seem worth refuting.

When a man speaks of living "vicariously" through his son, does it mean he is claiming that he is his son, and vice versa?  Of course not.  It means that he is projecting himself onto his son, that his son represents him.  So when a pope speaks of representing Christ (Vicarius Christi or Vicar of Christ), why would Schiefler assume this to mean Catholics actually think the pope is Christ?  And why would he assume this has the same meaning as "anti-Christ?"

The final argument that Schiefler gives us -- and people typically save their strongest point for last -- comes from the Scriptures.  He quotes Acts 10:25-26, "And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, stand up; I myself also am a man."  He contrasts this with a picture from John Paul II's ordination in which all of the bishops are prostrating themselves before him, saying, "Peter prohibited Cornelius from prostrating himself before him in worship."

Again, Schiefler's argument falls away to nothing with a proper reading of Scripture.  Was Peter prohibiting Cornelius from prostrating himself, or was he prohibiting Cornelius from worshipping him?  The Scripture passage indicates that it is the act of worshipping a mere man that Peter condemned -- not the actual physical act of prostration.

People bow or kneel to each other all the time in different contexts.  In the Middle Ages, one knelt to show fealty or allegiance.  In Japan even today men will bow to each other as a greeting and sign of respect.  When the bishops, or anyone else, prostrate themselves before the pope, it is a sign of respect and honor.  None of this is condemned by Peter.

If Michael Schiefler were interested in what the Catholic Church actually teaches about the papacy, he could easily find out in reference books like the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or the Catholic Encyclopedia, or any one of a number of books written about the papacy by respectable Catholic authors.  In fact, the references cited on his page indicate that he has access to enough resources that he should easily be expected to know better.  But he insists on asserting the worse kind of falsehoods.

By using quotes from actual Catholic documents, either taken out of context or completely misinterpreted, he can appear convincing -- and therein lies the danger.  Web sites like his are geared specifically toward the Catholic who is ignorant enough of his own faith to fall prey to a well presented attack.  The "heresy hunter" can add another notch to his belt.  Ostensibly, another soul saved from the Whore of Babylon.  In reality, another stroke of the hunter's ego.

The best defense against this sort of attack is a strong grounding in the faith, an education in the history and doctrines of the Catholic Church, and at least a basic understanding of logical argument.  But even this is empty and unconvincing without an active faith life and prayer.  Like Peter, we should all heed Christ's call to strengthen our brothers, so that their faith, too, shall not fail.