Throwback Thursday: The Dark Side of the Papacy

Welcome to this week’s “Throwback Thursday” installment! Today, we’re revisiting a post that was first published back on September 22nd, 2015 and has been slightly re-edited.


Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy
By Peter De Rosa
Crown Publishing, 1988, 484 pages

3 Stars

The Roman Catholic church presents a fanciful, pollyannaish, idealized version of itself as the “one true church,” perpetually guided by the Holy Spirit through an infallible pope from an unbroken line of apostolic succession all the way back to Peter, the alleged first bishop of Rome. But history tells quite another story.

In “The Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy,” former Jesuit priest, Peter De Rosa, plays the “devil’s advocate” by examining the role of the papacy throughout history. Credulous Catholic readers will be shocked to learn that many popes were devoted only to furthering their political, financial, and ecclesiastical power by whatever means necessary. De Rosa refutes claims to divine guidance and papal infallibility by recalling the early church’s metamorphosis into an all-powerful, authoritarian institution which initiated the Crusades, the Inquisition, the persecution of Galileo (an unbreachable repudiation of infallibility), mandatory clerical celibacy, condemnation of civil democracies and freedom of religion, and the ban on contraceptives. Further historical embarrassments for the papacy and the RCC include:

  • Previous popes were sometimes denounced as heretics by their successors.
  • For centuries, popes reigned over a church that was ferociously anti-Semitic.
  • The Bible was placed on the Catholic church’s Index of Forbidden Books.
  • In their personal affairs, popes were often paragons of avarice and debauchery.

When this book was written, De Rosa was not privy to the pedophile priests and cover-up scandal tsunami that followed and that has rocked Catholicism to its foundations.

De Rosa is not an academic historian (no footnotes), but he credits a lengthy bibliography of scholarly sources. Intransigent Catholic traditionalists have slandered this book, but the muck is just too deep to overcome.* What is liberal Catholic De Rosa’s aim in exposing the papacy’s dark side? By demonstrating that the alleged vicars of Christ were not divinely guided, the author hopes Catholics will realize many of the current controversial dogmas (ban on contraceptives, clerical celibacy, male-only hierarchy, exclusion of remarried divorcees from the sacraments, etc.) are concocted traditions without foundation that the hierarchy perpetuates to its own peril.

De Rosa pines for the liberality of pope John XXIII who “threw open the windows of the church” at Vatican II. But the church is reluctant to abandon its allegedly inspired doctrines for fear of losing credibility, for Rome has always boasted that it never changes. But didn’t Rome once teach that everyone not baptized a Catholic would go to hell? The current pope, Francis, now says even atheists will go to heaven if they lead “good” lives. Of course! If works are the means to salvation as Catholicism teaches then, taken to its logical conclusion, everyone who tries to lead a “good life” will merit heaven. So why should Catholics bother with their scrupulously legalistic religion if even atheists are “good to go”? Recent surveys reveal 75% of Catholics wonder the same thing and no longer bother to attend obligatory Sunday mass. But the house of cards came down decades ago for many Catholics when pope Paul VI forbade all forms of contraception while eagerly endorsing the natural family planning (aka rhythm) method. Most married Catholics legitimately asked, “What’s the difference?”

What is an evangelical Christian to make of the “Vicars of Christ”? Despite exposing the dark side of his church’s history, De Rosa is still an advocate of Rome’s salvation system of sacramental grace and merit with priests as the ordained mediators between God and men. The Catholic church’s story is that of early-Christianity’s transformation into a legalistic, authoritarian institution whose cruelties, depravities, and corruption eventually overshadowed even pagan Rome.

The Reformers abandoned the legalism and ritualism of Catholicism and reclaimed the beliefs of the early church, which were based upon the scriptural Good News of salvation by the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ alone. Unlike pope Francis who preaches Universal salvation for all who are “good,” the Reformers pointed to the Bible, which proclaims that there are none who are good or righteous and can earn their way to heaven (Romans 3:10). But the Good News! is God so loved the world that He gave His Son to die for our sins, and that whoever places their faith in Jesus Christ as Savior by faith alone will not perish, but will have eternal life (John 3:16).


*Since the above post was written four years ago, several conservative Roman Catholics have written books which cite embarrassing and unflattering episodes in their church’s history. An absolutely amazing development! Their strategy? By showing that the church has survived corrupt and/or heretical prelates in the past, the authors contend that the church will also survive the heterodoxy of progressive pope Francis.

33 thoughts on “Throwback Thursday: The Dark Side of the Papacy

  1. Re: Peter, the alleged first bishop of Rome

    In discoursing with Romanists, they always boast of being the first Christian Church and *THE* Church that Christ founded.

    I always point out Acts 11:26, where it was at Antioch the disciples were first called “Christians”. On top of that, the Church of Antioch also boast that Peter was their first “Bishop”.

    Whom to believe?? LOL

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thanks, SB. Yes, and Paul referred to Peter as the apostle to the Jews in Galatians 2:8. Also, Paul didn’t mention Peter in his “prison epistles” written in Rome – Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and Philemon – at a time when Catholics claim Peter was bishop of Rome, even though Paul does mention many other believers who were in that city.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. There’s an almost unanimous consensus among scholars, including Romanists, that there was no monarchical Bishop of Rome until the mid to late 2nd century. Only the most deluded Romanists believe otherwise.

        Even if one reads 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas, one can see that there was a plurality of Presbytyrs.

        Peter Lampe’s book “From Paul to Valentinus” reconstructs early Roman Christianity and proves that it was fractionated. It is an interesting read.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Thanks for the good comments and book recommendation. I checked our library and they don’t have a copy, but I’m going to keep it in mind.


    1. Thanks, sister! Besides the fact that the author still held to the RCC’s false gospel of sacramental grace and merit at the end, it’s still a FASCINATING book! I’d welcome the opportunity to discuss more aspects of the RCC and ecumenism if you ever wish to follow up. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thanks, sister! I’ll send off an email tomorrow a.m. I have a basic outline in my head of how ecumenism developed within evangelicalism, from Billy Graham in the 50s to Chuck Colson in the 90s with other significant players in between. I just revised an old post about Colson for next week’s Throwback Thursday and that helped me recall many of the names and details.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. That’s awesome, brother, I think that’s going to be a very helpful discussion for those who are unaware of ecumenism and the dangers it posses. When I learned the history of Pentecostalism it was immediately obvious to me that speaking in tongues in Scripture is not what they’re doing today. So, hopefully, the history of that will do the same for others.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Just landed here; was up on the roof slowly putting more coating on it and was a moment to pray to God so I prayed today for the prayer requests from WordPress including praying for your wife’s health

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you for your prayers, Jimmy! Much appreciated! I’m way behind on WordPress today because I had to go through the process of filing the insurance claims for the plane tickets. Looking forward to getting to your post from this morning very soon.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Wow I think I need to also start using flight insurance given my travels to certain parts of the world and recently hearing about cancellation because of geo-political realities

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Yeah, I would never buy tickets again without insurance. We filed claims twice in only 8 months. I know we’re older and my wife has her health problems but there’s so many uncontrollable circumstances that could come up for anyone.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Thank you for this review; did De Rosa leave Catholicism or just remain liberal and former priest but is somehow a “recovering Catholic?” Interesting to see the problem of the Popes being mentioned

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thanks for reading! De Rosa remained in the RCC as a liberal member. He wrote many novels with Catholic themes and wrote the scripts for a British TV series called “Bless me, Father” (1978-1981).

      Liked by 1 person

      1. It’s puzzling, isn’t it? The very dark history of the papacy contrasted with the fallacious claims of the RCC SHOULD have prompted De Rosa to leave the corrupt institution behind, but he still clung to it.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. I know what you mean. I prefer talking with a Catholic like Anders because at least he believes in something. A liberal Catholic is so loosey goosey that they’re OK with just about everything except for “doctrinalism.”

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Re:I know what you mean. I prefer talking with a Catholic like Anders 

        Whether “liberal” or “conservative”, it doesn’t matter. Both sides don’t hold to the true Gospel message of grace.

        I’d rather the “liberals” like Francis and his allies take over the Roman Church and completely turn it upside down, so that the apostasy is so visible that even naive ecumenical evangelicals can’t deny it.


      4. RE: Whether “liberal” or “conservative”, it doesn’t matter.

        Right. I know it doesn’t matter, but an evangelical apologist can’t even mention the Trent anathemas in a debate with a liberal Catholic because they will completely disavow them.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s