SWORD OF THE SPIRIT
And The Holy Scriptures
Interpreting the Scriptures"
Ex-Priest, Rev. Charles Chiniquy
There are several imposing ceremonies at the ordination of a priest; and I will never forget the joy I felt when the
Roman Pontiff, presenting to me the Bible, ordered me, with a solemn voice, to study and preach it. That order
passed through my soul as a beam of light. When holding the sacred column, I accepted the command with
unspeakable joy but I felt as if a thunderbolt had fallen upon me when I pronounced the awful oath which is required
from every priest:
"I will never interpret the Holy Scriptures except according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers
Roman Pontiff, presenting to me the Bible, ordered me, with a solemn voice, to study and preach it. That order
passed through my soul as a beam of light. When holding the sacred column, I accepted the command with
unspeakable joy but I felt as if a thunderbolt had fallen upon me when I pronounced the awful oath which is required
from every priest:
"I will never interpret the Holy Scriptures except according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers
Many times the other students and I had discussed that strange oath. Alone in the presence of God, my conscience
had shrunk in terror from its consequences. But I was not the only one who contemplated its evidently blasphemous
nature. About six months before, Stephen Baillargeon, one of my fellow theological students, had said to our superior
, the Rev. Mr. Raimbault: "One of the things which my conscience cannot reconcile is the solemn oath we will have
to take never to interpret the Scriptures except according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers! We have
not given a single hour yet to the serious study of the Holy Fathers. I know many priests and none of them has ever
studied the Holy Fathers!
had shrunk in terror from its consequences. But I was not the only one who contemplated its evidently blasphemous
nature. About six months before, Stephen Baillargeon, one of my fellow theological students, had said to our superior
, the Rev. Mr. Raimbault: "One of the things which my conscience cannot reconcile is the solemn oath we will have
to take never to interpret the Scriptures except according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers! We have
not given a single hour yet to the serious study of the Holy Fathers. I know many priests and none of them has ever
studied the Holy Fathers!
"In the name of common sense, how can we swear that we will follow the sentiments of men of whom we know
absolutely nothing, and about whom, it is more probable, we will never know anything, except by mere vague
hearsay?"
absolutely nothing, and about whom, it is more probable, we will never know anything, except by mere vague
hearsay?"
Our superior gave a weak answer, but his embarrassment grew when I said: "If you will allow me, Mr. Superior,
I have some more formidable objections. Would to God that I could say, with Baillargeon, I know nothing of the
Holy Fathers. But my regret is that we know already too much of the Holy Fathers to be exempt from perjuring
ourselves, when we swear that we will not interpret the Holy Scriptures except according to their unanimous consent.
I have some more formidable objections. Would to God that I could say, with Baillargeon, I know nothing of the
Holy Fathers. But my regret is that we know already too much of the Holy Fathers to be exempt from perjuring
ourselves, when we swear that we will not interpret the Holy Scriptures except according to their unanimous consent.
"Please, Mr. Superior, tell us what are the texts of Scripture on which the Holy Fathers are unanimous? You respect
yourself too much to answer. And if you, one of the most learned men of France, cannot put your finger on the texts
of the Holy Bible and say, 'The Holy Fathers are perfectly unanimous on these texts!' how can we dare to swear
before God and men to interpret every text of the Scriptures only according to the unanimous consent of those
Holy Fathers
yourself too much to answer. And if you, one of the most learned men of France, cannot put your finger on the texts
of the Holy Bible and say, 'The Holy Fathers are perfectly unanimous on these texts!' how can we dare to swear
before God and men to interpret every text of the Scriptures only according to the unanimous consent of those
Holy Fathers
"The consequences of that oath are legion, and every one of them seems to me the death of our ministry, the
damnation of our souls! Henrion, Berrault, Bell, Costel, and Fleury all testify that the Church has constantly been
filled with the noise of the controversies of Holy Fathers with Holy Fathers. Some say, with our best modern
theologians, St. Thomas, Bellarmine and Liquori, that we must kill heretics as we kill wild beasts; while many
others say that we must tolerate them! You all know the name of the Holy Father who sends to hell all the widows
who marry a second time, while other Holy Fathers disagree.
"Some had very different notions about purgatory. Others in Africa and Asia refused to accept the supreme
jurisdiction of the pope over all churches. Several have laughed at the excommunications of the popes, and gladly
died without doing anything to reconcile themselves to him! And have you not concluded that St. Jerome and St.
Augustine agreed on only one thing, which was to disagree on every subject they treated? St. Augustine, at the
end of his life, even agreed with the Protestants of our day, that 'upon that rock' means only Christ, and not Peter.
jurisdiction of the pope over all churches. Several have laughed at the excommunications of the popes, and gladly
died without doing anything to reconcile themselves to him! And have you not concluded that St. Jerome and St.
Augustine agreed on only one thing, which was to disagree on every subject they treated? St. Augustine, at the
end of his life, even agreed with the Protestants of our day, that 'upon that rock' means only Christ, and not Peter.
And now we are gravely asked, in the name of the God of Truth, to swear that we will interpret the Holy Scriptures
only according to the unanimous consent of those Holy Fathers, who have been unanimous but in one thing, which
was never to agree with each other, and sometimes not even with themselves...If I cannot rely upon my private
judgment when studying, with the help of God, the Holy Scriptures, how can I rely on my private judgment when
studying the Holy Fathers?"
only according to the unanimous consent of those Holy Fathers, who have been unanimous but in one thing, which
was never to agree with each other, and sometimes not even with themselves...If I cannot rely upon my private
judgment when studying, with the help of God, the Holy Scriptures, how can I rely on my private judgment when
studying the Holy Fathers?"
Copyright © 2001 Bible Baptist Ministries
Romanism-Build Upon Forgeries!
by Ex-Jesuit Priest, Peter Doeswyck
The entire structure of the Roman Church is built on forgeries, spurious epistles, spurious sermons, spurious
miracles, spurious relics, spurious councils, and spurious papal bulls. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits the
existence of thousands of forgeries and divides the works of nearly every Father into (1) genuine, (2) dubious,
and (3) spurious. Roman inventions as Peter's martyrdom at Rome (2nd cent.), Assumption of Mary (6th cent.),
Temporal power of the bishop of Rome (8th cent.), Primacy of Rome (11th cent.), Seven Sacraments (13th cent.),
etc., can only be proved by forgeries. Example: Cyprian (d. 258), like his predecessor, Tertullian, ridiculed the
pagan system of a Supreme Pontiff, a Pope (pater patrum, bishop of bishops), a primacy, etc. Where his oldest
MSS read: "The other apostles were indeed what Peter was: endowed with the same share of honor and jurisdiction
," we now have texts which read: "The other apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the Primacy is given to Peter."
The Catholic Encyclopedia comments that this conflated form is, of course, spurious (C. E. 4, 585).
miracles, spurious relics, spurious councils, and spurious papal bulls. The Catholic Encyclopedia admits the
existence of thousands of forgeries and divides the works of nearly every Father into (1) genuine, (2) dubious,
and (3) spurious. Roman inventions as Peter's martyrdom at Rome (2nd cent.), Assumption of Mary (6th cent.),
Temporal power of the bishop of Rome (8th cent.), Primacy of Rome (11th cent.), Seven Sacraments (13th cent.),
etc., can only be proved by forgeries. Example: Cyprian (d. 258), like his predecessor, Tertullian, ridiculed the
pagan system of a Supreme Pontiff, a Pope (pater patrum, bishop of bishops), a primacy, etc. Where his oldest
MSS read: "The other apostles were indeed what Peter was: endowed with the same share of honor and jurisdiction
," we now have texts which read: "The other apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the Primacy is given to Peter."
The Catholic Encyclopedia comments that this conflated form is, of course, spurious (C. E. 4, 585).
Catholic theologians claim that with the development of the primacy in the Middle Ages, the papal letters grew
enormously in number (C.E. 6, 202). "There can be no doubt that during a great part of the Middle Ages papal
and other documents were fabricated in a very unscrupulous fashion" (C.E. 3, 57). Speaking of the thousands
of miraculous relics of Rome, the same scholars admit that "the majority of which no doubt were fraudulent," a
"multitude of unquestionably spurious relics" (C.E. 12, 737). The same scholars admit the following Roman frauds:
the origin of the Rosary and the apparition of Mary to St. Dominic, the Scapular and the apparition of Mary to
Simon Stock, the Santa Scala, the legends and relics of Veronica, the Holy Lance, and St. Longinus, the Robe,
the Sabbatine Privilege, etc. Yet these same scholars are bound to confess that the written Word of God is not
superior to these Roman traditions. The life stories and writings of the early popes are spurious, as the Catholic
Encyclopedia often admits under their names. The earliest Roman rituals (8th cent.) are spurious, falsely attributed
to Popes Leo, Gelasius, and Gregory (Migne P.L. 55 & 74 & 78).
enormously in number (C.E. 6, 202). "There can be no doubt that during a great part of the Middle Ages papal
and other documents were fabricated in a very unscrupulous fashion" (C.E. 3, 57). Speaking of the thousands
of miraculous relics of Rome, the same scholars admit that "the majority of which no doubt were fraudulent," a
"multitude of unquestionably spurious relics" (C.E. 12, 737). The same scholars admit the following Roman frauds:
the origin of the Rosary and the apparition of Mary to St. Dominic, the Scapular and the apparition of Mary to
Simon Stock, the Santa Scala, the legends and relics of Veronica, the Holy Lance, and St. Longinus, the Robe,
the Sabbatine Privilege, etc. Yet these same scholars are bound to confess that the written Word of God is not
superior to these Roman traditions. The life stories and writings of the early popes are spurious, as the Catholic
Encyclopedia often admits under their names. The earliest Roman rituals (8th cent.) are spurious, falsely attributed
to Popes Leo, Gelasius, and Gregory (Migne P.L. 55 & 74 & 78).
When scholars speak of an authentic work they do not imply that the text has come to us in its original form.
Manuscripts were seldom copied for the sake of preservation, but rather for use as textbooks. Obsolete teachings
and expressions were altered, while so-called "heretical" teachings were allowed to become extinct.
Manuscripts were seldom copied for the sake of preservation, but rather for use as textbooks. Obsolete teachings
and expressions were altered, while so-called "heretical" teachings were allowed to become extinct.
As early as the fifth century Augustine accused and convicted Pope Zosiums for having falsified the 5th canon
of the Council of Nice (Mansi 4, 515; Migne, P. L. 50, 422). Canon laws of the Roman Church are based on
"The Apostolic Constitutions," a 4th century forgery purported to be a collection of apostolic writings collected
by Clement I. When Protestants exposed this fraud, the fallible Church of Rome admitted the errors: "The
Apostolic Constitutions were held generally in high esteem and served as the basis for much ecclesiastical
legislation . . .As late as 1563. . .it was contended that it was the genuine work of the apostles" (C.E. 1, 636).
Framing "divine" laws and falsifying the Word of God is not the work of innocent Christian leaders. Example:
"We, the twelve Apostles of the Lord, who are now together, give you in charge these Divine Constitutions
concerning every ecclesiastical form, there being present with us Paul, the chosen vessel, our fellow apostle,
and James the Bishop and the rest of the Elders and the seven Deacons" (Migne, P.G. 1, 1070).
"The Donation of Constantine" was originally an 8th-century forgery which gave the pope temporal power and
possessions, and regal honors and privileges. Pope Sylvester (1000 A.D.) declared it a forgery. Pope Leo IV
(1054) rewrote the text and used it to prove his primacy. . .As early as the fifteenth century its falsity was known.
Yet, the document was further used to authenticate the papacy.
possessions, and regal honors and privileges. Pope Sylvester (1000 A.D.) declared it a forgery. Pope Leo IV
(1054) rewrote the text and used it to prove his primacy. . .As early as the fifteenth century its falsity was known.
Yet, the document was further used to authenticate the papacy.
The Apostolic Constitutions, The Donation of Constantine, The Clementine Forgeries, The Liber Pontificals
(Biographical book of the popes), The Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore, and hundreds of other works are either
spurious or have been mutilated. It is upon these that the bulk of Roman traditions originated. Catholic scholars
admit one forgery after the other, but the Council of Trent upheld these forgeries as genuine "traditions"
to which the written Word of God is not superior. Roman Catholic theologians even admit that they themselves
falsified the sacred books of other religions in order to win converts. As neither the majority of the people nor
the lower clergy could read or write in the early Middle Ages, it is clear that the Roman hierarchy itself corrupted
and falsified the true traditions. It is clear that Rome's traditions did not originate from the lips of Christ or the apostles!
(Biographical book of the popes), The Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore, and hundreds of other works are either
spurious or have been mutilated. It is upon these that the bulk of Roman traditions originated. Catholic scholars
admit one forgery after the other, but the Council of Trent upheld these forgeries as genuine "traditions"
to which the written Word of God is not superior. Roman Catholic theologians even admit that they themselves
falsified the sacred books of other religions in order to win converts. As neither the majority of the people nor
the lower clergy could read or write in the early Middle Ages, it is clear that the Roman hierarchy itself corrupted
and falsified the true traditions. It is clear that Rome's traditions did not originate from the lips of Christ or the apostles!
Adapted from an article entitled "Medieval Forgeries."