Answering The Roman Catholic Church 16


So far we’ve examined:

  • one needs only the written Bible (Sola Scriptura)
  • If you are saved, you should be able to simply read and understand the Bible. If you cannot understand it, this is a warning sign you may not be saved.
  • The commandments in the NT are so easy, one does not require a Magisterium to understand it
  • The RCC has no proof whatsoever for a Magisterium.
  • The Bible was once delivered to the saints, and at the close of the canon in AD 95, anyone who adds to it is under a curse.
  • The Roman Catholic views of the Bible
  • The laity and the ownership/study/reading of the Bible
  • The Magisterium refuted
  • Salvation by faith alone vs. works
  • infant baptism refuted
  • baptismal regeneration refuted
  • The Apocrypha was never quoted by the New Testament
  • The Apocrypha was not considered scripture by anyone for at least 400 years – after all the official lists of the inspired canon had been done
  • The apocrypha was never quoted by church fathers for at least 2 centuries after the time of Christ
  • The Bible is only the 66 books of the bible
  • Papal Infallibility is unScriptural
  • Papal Infallibility places the Pope in the place of God, elevating him to being God’s “Equal”, a goal that Lucifer desired
  • Papal Infallibility is also patently illogical, as Inerrant Word Ex Cathedra must also imply inerrant thought and inerrant action
  • There is no evidence Peter ever went to Rome, besides the earliest tradition he was brought there to be crucified upside down. That is tradition, not church history.
  • Peter was not given the choice of who goes to heaven or not.
  • There is no evidence Peter was the first Pope
  • The pastor of the Church at Rome at the time of the book of Romans, late in Paul’s career, was either Rufus or Aquila, and history records the name of the first pastor of the Roman Church as Linus.
  • The letter to the Romans does not list Peter’s name as among the church at Rome. Nor do any of Paul’s epistles to the other churches mention him, unless referring to Jerusalem.
  • The practive of dividing the congregation into two classes, clergy and laity, with the clergy exalted over the congregation, is called Nicolaitanism. The Lord Jesus Christ hates this practice (Rev. 2:15)
  • The Catholic priesthood usurps the position of the Born again believer
  • The Catholic priesthood steals the concept of the Levitical priesthood under the erroneous assumption the Church replaces Israel.
  • Pastor, minister, Bishop and elder are synonymous terms for the same job.
  • There is no Scriptural basis for the Roman Catholic priesthood.
  • There is no scriptural basis for a hierarchy of the priesthood
  • There is no Scriptural basis for the Papal office
  • The Cardinal’s hat originates from the Babylonian/Canaanite cult of Dagon worship

I didn’t add any points after yesterday’s post: it wasn’t pointless, but the only thing I could add would be that several popes were morally bankrupt, and that’s simply an ad hominem attack. I posted the information for the simple fact that I’m setting the stage for this last post on the Papal office: simply put, the Papal Office has so many splits, schizms and outages that Roman Catholics, if they are aware of it, have to question now the one thing they thought they’d never have to question: the doctrine of Papal successionism.

Again, I point out Popes are chosen after the death of the preceding Pope. If the Magisterium truly was a real thing, it would necessitate the new pope coming in as apprentice to the older one and studying with him. This doesn’t happen, and as I pointed out is a major flaw in the successionism claim.

This material I’m quoting comes from Dave Hunt’s excellent book, A Woman Rides the Beast. It is highly recommended, although sadly it’s a little disorganized for my mind. As a statement against how far Christianity has slid into apostasy, several Christian bookstores refused to carry the book. You can order a copy from the Berean Call. I’ve confirmed the information in the book by David Cloud’s DVD series on Church History, through history books, and through my own seminary classes.

The first listing of the popes comes from Liber Pontificalis, compiled under Pope Hormisdus between 514-523. This would be like compiling a book in 2013 based upon undocumented information from 1670. It would be highly suspect at best. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia is unsure of its authenticity.

Popes Ursinus and Damasus were both installed as Popes at the same time. The contest was literally decided with violence (see page 101). If there’s an unbroken succession from Pope to Pope, we now have two links in the same spot.

Pope Formosus was exhumed by Stephen the VIIth, and declared a heretic. If the Pope is infallible, we now have a crisis, in that this was the “vicar of Christ” and “Infallible” – but declared a heretic by a later pope!

Pope Benedict IX temporarily abdicated the Papal office, which was assumed by Sylvester III. Pope Benedict then sold the Papal office to his godfather, who became Gregory VI. Poppe benedict then resumed the Papal office… leaving three popes currently holding the office in 1045-1046! Which was the true Pope?

This was repeated in the 15th century, when Gregory XII, Benedict XIII and Alexander V all claimed the office of Pope. Alexander was poisoned by Bladerosse Cosa, who took his place as Pope John XXIII – a pope who murdered to get the office. Really? This is apostolic succession? See page 506 for more details.

And lets not forget the split between Rome and Constantinople – who does the apostolic successionism go through?

At least two Popes received prison sentences. One was murdered in prison.

Pope Adrian denounced Pope Celestine as a heretic. What does that do to Papal successionism?

Every claim connected with the Pope was demolished, and fairly quickly. There is no truth to any claim of apostolic successionism.

Answering The Roman Catholic Church 15


So far we’ve examined:

  • one needs only the written Bible (Sola Scriptura)
  • If you are saved, you should be able to simply read and understand the Bible. If you cannot understand it, this is a warning sign you may not be saved.
  • The commandments in the NT are so easy, one does not require a Magisterium to understand it
  • The RCC has no proof whatsoever for a Magisterium.
  • The Bible was once delivered to the saints, and at the close of the canon in AD 95, anyone who adds to it is under a curse.
  • The Roman Catholic views of the Bible
  • The laity and the ownership/study/reading of the Bible
  • The Magisterium refuted
  • Salvation by faith alone vs. works
  • infant baptism refuted
  • baptismal regeneration refuted
  • The Apocrypha was never quoted by the New Testament
  • The Apocrypha was not considered scripture by anyone for at least 400 years – after all the official lists of the inspired canon had been done
  • The apocrypha was never quoted by church fathers for at least 2 centuries after the time of Christ
  • The Bible is only the 66 books of the bible
  • Papal Infallibility is unScriptural
  • Papal Infallibility places the Pope in the place of God, elevating him to being God’s “Equal”, a goal that Lucifer desired
  • Papal Infallibility is also patently illogical, as Inerrant Word Ex Cathedra must also imply inerrant thought and inerrant action
  • There is no evidence Peter ever went to Rome, besides the earliest tradition he was brought there to be crucified upside down. That is tradition, not church history.
  • Peter was not given the choice of who goes to heaven or not.
  • There is no evidence Peter was the first Pope
  • The pastor of the Church at Rome at the timme of the book of Romans, late in Paul’s career, was either Rufus or Aquila, and history records the name of the first pastor of the Roman Church as Linus.
  • The letter to the Romans does not list Peter’s name as among the church at Rome. Nor do any of Paul’s epistles to the other churches mention him, unless referring to Jerusalem.
  • The practive of dividing the congregation into two classes, clergy and laity, with the clergy exalted over the congregation, is called Nicolaitanism. The Lord Jesus Christ hates this practice (Rev. 2:15)
  • The Catholic priesthood usurps the position of the Born again believer
  • The Catholic priesthood steals the concept of the Levitical priesthood under the erroneos assumption the Church replaces Israel.
  • Pastor, minister, Bishop and elder are synonymous terms for the same job.
  • There is no Scriptural basis for the Roman Catholic priesthood.
  • There is no scriptural basis for a hierarchy of the priesthood
  • There is no Scriptural basis for the Papal office
  • The Cardinal’s hat originates from the Babylonian/Canaanite cult of Dagon worship

We’re making a lot of headway. Alas, I don’t think I can say I’m even close to halfway in refuting and answering the Roman Catholic Church!

At this point, if you’re honest with yourself, I’ve called into question so much of the Roman Catholic church, you should be seriously questioning yourself about it.

I’m going to quote, verbatim, from a E-Sword Module made public by Mary Ann Collins, a former Nun Novitiate. This information I have verified, as it is confirmed by Church history, by my classes in Church History I had in Seminary, and also by David Cloud’s excellent DVD series on Church history (see www.wayoflife.org). This is all accurate information.

——–

Pope Honorius reigned from 625 to 638 A.D. He was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681). He was also condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II, as well as by every other pope until the eleventh century.1

In 768, Pope Stephen IV came to power with the help of an army. Within one week, he went from being a layman to being a Pope. His papal rival was beaten, blinded, and probably murdered.2

Pope Leo V only reigned for one month (July 903). Cardinal Christopher put Leo in prison and became Pope. Then Christopher was put in prison by Cardinal Sergius. While in prison, Leo and Christopher were murdered.3

Pope John XII reigned from 955 to 963. He was a violent man. He was so lustful that people of his day said that he turned the Lateran Palace into a brothel. When gambling, he invoked pagan gods and goddesses. He was killed by a jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery with the man’s wife.4

In the tenth century, a wealthy Italian noblewoman named Marozia put nine popes into office in eight years. In order to do that, she also had to get rid of reigning popes. Two of them were strangled, one was suffocated, and four disappeared under mysterious circumstances. One of the popes was Marozia’s son; he was fathered by a Pope.5

In 1003, Pope Silvester II was murdered by his successor, Pope John XVII.6 Pope Benedict VIII reigned from 1012 to 1024. He became Pope by winning a military victory. When Benedict VIII died, his brother seized power by means of bribery and/or extortion, becoming Pope John XIX. He had himself ordained a priest, consecrated as a bishop, and crowned as pope, all in the same day.7

Pope Benedict IX reigned from 1032 to 1044, in 1045, and from 1047 to 1048. He became Pope through bribery. He squandered the wealth of the papacy on prostitutes and lavish banquets, and he had people murdered. The citizens of Rome hated Benedict so much that on two occasions, he had to flee from Rome. Benedict sold the papacy to Pope Gregory VI.8

Pope Boniface VIII reigned from 1294 to 1303. He came to power through bribery. He was suspected of having people murdered. Because of his hatred for two cardinals, he had the towns associated with them destroyed.9

Pope Clement VI reigned from 1342 to 1352. He ordered the slaughter of an entire Italian town. He lived a life of luxury and extravagance. He openly admitted that he sold church offices (i.e., men paid him a lot of money to become a bishop or a cardinal). He used threats and bribery to gain power. Clement purchased a French palace, which became famous for its prostitutes.10

Pope Alexander VI (the Borgia Pope) reigned from 1492 to 1503. He was known for murder, bribery, and selling cardinals’ hats (i.e., men paid him a lot of money to become cardinals). He enjoyed luxurious living, and he worked to make the Borgia family more powerful and more wealthy. The art book Treasures of the Vatican shows a portrait of him wearing gold vestments that are covered with jewels. They look like pearls, emeralds, large rubies, and other jewels. His tiara (the papal crown) is gold, with three rows of large jewels on it. Alexander VI had a number of children by several mistresses. His son Cesare was known for the kinds of murderous intrigues that make good opera plots. (Cesare and his papal father are included in a website about serial killers.) According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, Cesare and Pope Alexander VI killed people and seized their property. On two occasions, Alexander had to leave Rome, and he gave his daughter, Lucrezia Borgia, the authority to run the city. The Pope died after having dinner with a cardinal. (He accidentally drank some poisoned wine that was intended for the cardinal.)11

Pope Julius II reigned from 1503 to 1513. He became Pope through bribery. He had a reputation for violence, drunkenness, and rages. The Roman people gave him the nickname “il terribile” (the terrible one).12

Pope Leo X was from the de Medici family which (like the Borgias) was known for ruthless and devious politics, including assassinations. As Pope, he worked to advance the wealth and power of the de Medici family. He reigned from 1513 to 1521. He lived luxuriously and paid for it by selling cardinals’ hats. He filled Rome with statues of Greek gods and goddesses. He also put a statue of himself in Rome’s Capitol, to be saluted by the public. Leo X sold indulgences in order to build St. Peter’s Cathedral. One of Pope Leo’s traveling preachers (indulgence salesmen) was John Tetzel, who sold indulgences in an area of Germany near Martin Luther. Tetzel’s claims of great power and efficacy of the indulgences he was selling angered Luther, and he responded by nailing his famous 95 theses of protest on the Wittenburg church door.13

Pope Gregory VII reigned from 1073 to 1085. He required kings and emperors to kiss his foot. Gregory and his successors used forged documents in order to expand the power of the papacy. Some Roman Catholics tried to expose these forgeries, but they were excommunicated for it. However, the Orthodox Church kept records and wrote detailed information about the forgeries.14

Simony was rampant among clerics. It was commonplace for priests to pay money in order to become bishops and abbots. Some popes took bribes to make men cardinals. Pope Gregory VII said that he knew of more than 40 men who became Pope by means of bribery.15

Pope Innocent III reigned from 1198 to 1216. He said that the Pope is the ruler of the world, and claimed power and authority over kings and emperors. Innocent said that he was above earthly moral laws and standards of ethics, and therefore, clergy and kings must obey him, even if he ordered them to do something that they considered to be evil.16

Would you want any of these men to be your pastor?

Sometimes two or more men would claim to be Pope at the same time. All of these claimants to the papacy had followers. Eventually one contender would be declared to be Pope, and the other would be declared to be an antipope. For centuries, Roman Catholic books differed as to which men they considered to be the genuine popes. However, today there is much more agreement about which men were popes and which men were antipopes. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, there were thirty antipopes.17

——

Under Bishop Silvester, high-ranking clergymen wore purple robes, imitating the purple of Constantine’s court. (Purple dye was so expensive that only royalty could afford it.) The Church also imitated the pomp and authority structure of Rome. Bishops dressed and acted like Roman emperors, and they had the same imperial attitude.19

The power of the Bishops of Rome increased, and they called themselves popes. They lived in luxury, and they wanted to rule over both church and state. Imperial papacy reached its peak during the Middle Ages. Popes were rich and powerful, and they ruled over kings and emperors.

Pope Gregory VII reigned from 1073 to 1085. He excommunicated the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV. In order to receive forgiveness from the Pope and to have the excommunication be removed, Emperor Henry had to spend three days repenting in front of the castle where the Pope was staying. It was bitter cold (January 1077). Henry spent most of his time kneeling in the ice and snow, weeping and pleading for forgiveness. When Gregory finally allowed Henry to come into the castle, the Pope publicly humiliated the Emperor.20

Pope Gregory VII declared that the Pope has the right to depose kings and emperors, to make laws, and to require secular rulers to kiss his feet. Gregory wanted to make the countries of Europe become feudal estates of the Pope, with all of the kings meekly obeying him. He said that he (and the orders he gave) could not be judged by earthly moral and ethical standards, because no man has the right to judge the Pope. Gregory also declared that, because of the merits of Saint Peter, every duly elected Pope is a saint. Up until the time of Gregory VII, popes referred to themselves as the Vicar (representative) of St. Peter. Gregory changed that, calling himself the Vicar of Christ, a term which has been used by popes since then.21

Pope Innocent III reigned from 1198 to 1216. He wore a gold crown covered with jewels and sat upon a purple throne. His clothes sparkled with gold and jewels, and his horse was covered with scarlet. Kings and clergy kissed his foot. Innocent became the most powerful man in the world. He said that he was “below God but above man.” He also said that God wanted him to govern the entire world.22

Pope Boniface VIII reigned from 1294 to 1303. He said that he was Caesar, the Roman Emperor. He wore a crown which was covered with more than 200 costly jewels, including rubies, emeralds, sapphires, and large pearls.23 Boniface sought to further increase the Pope’s power and authority. In his encyclical Unam Sanctam, he said that no person can be saved unless he or she is subject to the Pope.24

Pope Paul II reigned from 1464 to 1471. He enjoyed luxurious living and had a tiara of gold that was covered with jewels. He had “Bacchanalian parades” that revived the pagan “carnival games” of ancient Rome. After the games, the people gathered in front of the Pope’s palace to eat, and then the Pope stood on his balcony and threw money to the crowd.25

Pope Paul VI reigned from 1963 to 1978. He was the last Pope to wear the papal tiara. This is a triple crown, made of gold and covered with jewels. You can see pictures of the tiara online.26

The Pope is an absolute monarch in the Vatican. He sits on an ornate throne. You can see pictures of the throne online.27

Cardinals are called “princes of the Church.” They are citizens of the Vatican in addition to being citizens of their homelands.28

Popes, cardinals and bishops wear gold and jewels. They wear rings and crosses. The Pope has a special ring known as the “Ring of the Fisherman.” He also has magnificent pontifical rings which he wears on special occasions. Cardinals have rings of sapphire and gold. They often have additional rings of their own choosing.29

For special occasions, popes, cardinals, and bishops wear vestments that are decorated with gold or made of gold cloth. (This is cloth that is actually made of real gold.) Some vestments are studded with jewels. Even the gloves of high-ranking churchmen are decorated with gold. Such imperial splendor was prevalent during the Middle Ages, but it still exists today. During the Middle Ages, gloves were sometimes studded with jewels. But even in recent times, they are decorated with gold. Pope Pius XII reigned from 1939 to 1958. He had gloves and shoes that were decorated with gold. Some of his shoes had jewels on them.30

(Mary Ann Collins, Catholic Concerns: Where does the Road to Rome lead?)

Here are the sources quoted, that you may verify them.

1. William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, pp. 67-68, op. cit. The author is Catholic.

2. Claudio Rendina, The Popes: Histories and Secrets (Santa Ana, CA: Seven Locks Press, 2002), pp. 153-157. There is some confusion as to whether this Pope was Stephen III or Stephen IV. This is because an earlier Stephen (who would have been Stephen II) was elected Pope but he died before he was consecrated.

3. J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), pp. 118-120.

4. Russell Chamberlin, The Bad Popes (Phoenix Mill, England: Sutton Publishing Ltd., 2003), pp. 42-45, 60-61.

5. Ibid., pp. 25-39.

6. Claudio Rendina, The Popes: Histories and Secrets, pp. 243-247, op. cit.

7. Ibid., pp. 248-251.

8. J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, pp. 142-144, op. cit.

9. Claudio Rendina, The Popes: Histories and Secrets, pp. 357-364, op. cit.

10. Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St. Peter to John Paul II (San Francisco, CA: Harper, 2000), pp. 240-242. The author is a Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame.

11. Claudio Rendina, The Popes: Histories and Secrets, pp. 431-436, op. cit. [2] Russell Chamberlin, The Bad Popes, pp. 161-208, op. cit.

In the Vatican, there is a portrait of Pope Alexander VI wearing gold vestments that are covered with jewels. There is a large, full-color picture in Albert Skira, Treasures of the Vatican (Washington, DC: National Geographic Society, 1991), p.86.

“The Borgias,” Serial Killers: Killers from History. (Accessed 10/13/08) http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/history/borgias/6.html

12. J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, pp. 255-256, op. cit.

13. Russell Chamberlin, The Bad Popes, pp. 209-252, op. cit. [2] Claudio Rendina, The Popes: Histories and Secrets, pp. 441-446, op. cit. [3] J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, pp. 256-258, op. cit.

14. Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity (New York: Touchstone, Simon & Schuster, 1995), pp. 161, 194-198. [2] Kans Küng, The Catholic Church: A Short History (translated by John Bowden) (New York: Modern Library, 2001, 2003), pp. 85-92.

William Webster, “Forgeries and the Papacy: The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy.” The author is a former Catholic. (Accessed 10/12/08) http://www.christiantruth.com/forgeries.html

15. Claudio Rendina, The Popes: Histories and Secrets, pp. 309-316, op. cit. “Simony,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, 1912. (Accessed 10/13/08) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14001a.htm

16. Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, pp. 199-201, op. cit.

17. Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes, pp. 466-468, op. cit.

“Antipope,” The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. I, 1907. (Accessed 10/13/08) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01582a.htm

19. Hans Küng, The Catholic Church: A Short History, pp. 33-44, op. cit. [2] Malachi Martin, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1981), pp. 19-38. The author was a Catholic priest.

20. Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, pp. 194-197, op. cit. [2] Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy (Dublin, Ireland: Poolbeg Press, 1988), pp. 62-66. [3] Malachi Martin, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, pp. 137-146, op. cit.

21. Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, pp. 196-197, op. cit. [2] Claudio Rendina, The Popes: Histories and Secrets, pp. 268-274, op. cit. [3] J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, pp. 154-156, op. cit. [4] Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes, pp. 185-188, op. cit. [5] Malachi Martin, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, p. 140, op. cit.

22. Peter de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, pp. 66-69, op. cit. [2] Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, p. 199, op. cit. [3] Claudio Rendina, The Popes: Histories and Secrets, pp. 309-316, op. cit. [4] J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Popes, pp. 209-211, op. cit.

“Innocent III,” Christian History: Rulers. (Accessed 10/13/08) http://www.christianitytoday.com/ch/131christians/rulers/innocentiii.html

23. Bruce L. Shelley, Church History in Plain Language (Nashville, TN: Thomas

Nelson Publishers, 1982, 1995), p. 215. [2] Russell Chamberlin, The Bad Popes, pp. 87-93, op. cit. [3] J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 209, op. cit. [4] Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes, p. 435, op. cit.

24. Russell Chamberlin, The Bad Popes, pp. 93-123, op. cit. [2] Claudio Rendina, The Popes: Histories and Secrets, pp. 357-364, op. cit. [3] J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, pp. 208-210, op. cit. [4] Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes, pp. 229-232, op. cit.

Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam, November 18, 1302. The quotation is near the end. (Accessed 10/13/08) http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_bo08us.htm

25. Claudio Rendina, The Popes: Histories and Secrets, pp. 420-423, op. cit. [2] Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes, pp. 263-264, op. cit.

26. Herbert Norris, Church Vestments: Their Origin & Development (Mineola, NY: Dover Publications, Inc., 2002), pp. 108-115. This discussion of the papal tiara includes several pictures of popes wearing tiaras.

Albert Skira, Treasures of the Vatican (Created by Albert Skira for Horizon Magazine, 1962), p. 86. This shows a portrait of Pope Alexander VI kneeling, with his tiara on the ground in front of him.

Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes, op. cit. Following page 392, there is series of 40 pictures that have numbers. Pictures 13, 19, 20, 23, and 27 show popes seated on thrones.

National Geographic, Inside the Vatican pp. 92-93, op. cit. This photograph shows a life-sized statue of Saint Peter sitting on a papal throne inside Saint Peter’s Basilica. Pages 48-49 show the Pope being carried on a portable throne (the sedia gestatoria).

Six pictures of popes with the papal crown (tiara). Two of them show Popes Pius XII and John XXIII seated on an ornate papal throne. (Accessed 10/13/08) http://www.geocities.com/rexstupormundi/papalcrown.html

28. Eric Convey and Tom Mashberg, “Law Grilled in Deposition” The Boston Herald, May 8, 2002. The third and fourth paragraphs discuss Cardinal Law’s dual citizenship.

29. Herbert Norris, Church Vestments: Their Origin & Development, pp. 8, 183-185, op. cit.

National Geographic, Inside the Vatican, p. 58, op. cit. This shows a ring of Pope Pius IX. It has so many diamonds on it that you can barely see the gold.

“Rings,” Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, 1912. (Accessed 10/13/08) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13059a.htm

“Pectorale,” Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XI, 1911. This is the pectoral cross which is worn by popes, cardinals, bishops, and abbots. It is made of precious metal (gold, silver, and/or platinum) and ornamented with jewels (diamonds, pearls, etc.). It contains a relic of a saint. (Accessed 10/13/08) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13059a.htm

30. Herbert Norris, Church Vestments: Their Origin & Development, op. cit. The entire book describes vestments that, for high-ranking churchmen, are often decorated with gold and jewels. Even their gloves have gold on them, and sometimes jewels as well. This was especially true during the Middle Ages, but it is also true today.

National Geographic, Inside the Vatican, pp. 59, 71, 83, 202, 209, op. cit. Page 59 shows a chalice of Pope Pius X that is solid gold and set with numerous diamonds. (When you look at it, you see more diamonds than gold.) Page 71 shows Pope John Paul II wearing a gold miter and vestments decorated with gold. Page 83 shows Pope John Paul II wearing gold vestments. (They are made of gold cloth, as opposed to just being decorated with gold.) Page 202 shows gloves and shoes of Pope Pius XII. They are decorated with gold. One pair of shoes has jewels on them. (They appear to be rubies and emeralds.) Page 209 shows a miter that was worn by Pope Paul VI and Pope John Paul I. It is decorated with gold and jewels.

In the Vatican, there is a portrait of Pope Alexander VI wearing gold vestments that are covered with jewels. There is a large, full-color picture in Albert Skira, Treasures of the Vatican, p. 86, op. cit.

Answering The Roman Catholic Church 14


So far we’ve examined:

  • one needs only the written Bible (Sola Scriptura)
  • If you are saved, you should be able to simply read and understand the Bible. If you cannot understand it, this is a warning sign you may not be saved.
  • The commandments in the NT are so easy, one does not require a Magisterium to understand it
  • The RCC has no proof whatsoever for a Magisterium.
  • The Bible was once delivered to the saints, and at the close of the canon in AD 95, anyone who adds to it is under a curse.
  • The Roman Catholic views of the Bible
  • The laity and the ownership/study/reading of the Bible
  • The Magisterium refuted
  • Salvation by faith alone vs. works
  • infant baptism refuted
  • baptismal regeneration refuted
  • The Apocrypha was never quoted by the New Testament
  • The Apocrypha was not considered scripture by anyone for at least 400 years – after all the official lists of the inspired canon had been done
  • The apocrypha was never quoted by church fathers for at least 2 centuries after the time of Christ
  • The Bible is only the 66 books of the bible
  • Papal Infallibility is unScriptural
  • Papal Infallibility places the Pope in the place of God, elevating him to being God’s “Equal”, a goal that Lucifer desired
  • Papal Infallibility is also patently illogical, as Inerrant Word Ex Cathedra must also imply inerrant thought and inerrant action
  • There is no evidence Peter ever went to Rome, besides the earliest tradition he was brought there to be crucified upside down. That is tradition, not church history.
  • Peter was not given the choice of who goes to heaven or not.
  • There is no evidence Peter was the first Pope
  • The pastor of the Church at Rome at the timme of the book of Romans, late in Paul’s career, was either Rufus or Aquila, and history records the name of the first pastor of the Roman Church as Linus.
  • The letter to the Romans does not list Peter’s name as among the church at Rome. Nor do any of Paul’s epistles to the other churches mention him, unless referring to Jerusalem.

Moving on to the Pastoral office… According to Rome, the priesthood has several offices. Novitiate, Brother, Father, Bishop, Archbishop, Cardinal, Papal Nuncio. Of these terms, the only ones that can be considered biblical are Bishop, minister, Pastor, and Elder.

5 For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: 6 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. 7 For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; Titus 1:5-7 (KJV)

“Elders” we see from Titus 1 is synonymous with Bhishop.

25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. 1 Peter 2:25 (KJV)

We see that Shepherd (Pastor) and Bishop are synonymous. Incidentally, this also refutes Presbyterianism (a bulwark of Calvinism) – elder boards are therefore unScriptural. If Bishop, Elder, and Pastor are all synonymous, then an elder board would acutally be aboard of trained and ordained pastors – and not prominent members of the congregation.

17 Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour, especially they who labour in the word and doctrine. 18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward. 1 Timothy 5:17-18 (KJV)

Again, we see elders described as preaching the word of God. So we see that minister, Bishop, Elder and Pastor are all synonymous.

So there is no hierarchy of clergy Biblically. The pastor is it. You have congregation, deacon, pastor. That’s it. You have certain offices, such as evangelist and teacher – but these are not strictly functions of the clergy. Philip was made a deacon, and yet in Acts 21:8 we see he is called the Evangelist. That was his function, was as an evangelist. But his office in the local church was as a deacon.

There is no Scriptural basis for a hierarchy of clergy. Indeed, the sin of differentiating between clergy and laity as if they were two distinct classes of believers is described by the Lord as Nicolaitanism,and He notes that he hates this sin.

15 So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. 16 Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth. Revelation 2:15-16 (KJV)

A person in the congregation feels he (notice I said he) has the call of God on his life. He goes to the Pastor, who confirms it. He then enrolls in Seminary, and begins his studies. He graduates, is ordained, and goes back to the sending church. He may be given a job right away in the ministry – he may wait (I should point out that Biblically, the senior pastor should train the new pastor while he stays at the church. Seminaries are not Biblical, but neither is there anything in the Bible forbidding it).

During that time, the new Bishop/Minister/Elder/Pastor (all the same thing) is still a member of the congregation. He is under the authority of his sending pastor until such time as he is sent out and commissioned to start a new church, or pastor an existing one. Is he then now “Clergy”, a special class of exalted being over the congregation, ruling with lordly splendor? No, he is the servant of that church, providing leadership and oversight. That’s the Biblical model.

The priesthood is an attempt to hijack (steal would be a better word) the Levitical priesthood of the Old Testament. This is an Augustinian invention, claiming that as the church repalces Israel, which it does not, therefore the Levitical priesthood is abandoned and must be taken up by the Church.

David Cloud writes,

The N.T. gives qualifcations for pastors and deacons, but none for priests. (Is The Roman Catholic Church Changing? David Cloud, Way of Life Publications, pg. 72)

There’s so many problems with this I wouldn’t know where to begin. Let’s just, in the interest of brevity, sum it up with saying that Revelation 1-3 concerns itself with the churches, and after that suddenly concerns itself with Israel. What happened to the churches? Gone. That’s called the Rapture, by the way. So, why Israel? Because the universal Church (a fiction invented by Rome, by the way) does not replace Israel. Israel remains Israel. A cursory reading of the Old Testament confirms this. In depth study will do the same.

So, the Catholic Church is usurping this. They also usurp the position of the born again Christian by assuming the role of the priesthood, when ALL BELIEVERS in the Lord Jesus Christ are a nation of kings and priests unto the Lord.

So if there is no priesthood, and if bishop is another title for pastor… and there is no Sriptural support ffor anything called a Cardinal or an “arch bishop” – then there is no Scriptural basis for the office of a pope. The entire concept is unBiblical, anti-Scriptural, and pagan to its core.

Certainly the wearing of the Dagon fish-head hat of the Cardinals is more Babylonian than Christian. It is Dagon worship, combined with Artemis/Diana/Queen of Heaven worship. Babylon’s pagan religious system is ressurected in the Roman Catholic Church, which is so far removed from Christianity, it cannot be considered Christian. As I go on with this series, this will be abundantly clear.

Answering The Roman Catholic Church 13


So far we’ve examined:

  • one needs only the written Bible (Sola Scriptura)
  • If you are saved, you should be able to simply read and understand the Bible. If you cannot understand it, this is a warning sign you may not be saved.
  • The commandments in the NT are so easy, one does not require a Magisterium to understand it
  • The RCC has no proof whatsoever for a Magisterium.
  • The Bible was once delivered to the saints, and at the close of the canon in AD 95, anyone who adds to it is under a curse.
  • The Roman Catholic views of the Bible
  • The laity and the ownership/study/reading of the Bible
  • The Magisterium refuted
  • Salvation by faith alone vs. works
  • infant baptism refuted
  • baptismal regeneration refuted
  • The Apocrypha was never quoted by the New Testament
  • The Apocrypha was not considered scripture by anyone for at least 400 years – after all the official lists of the inspired canon had been done
  • The apocrypha was never quoted by church fathers for at least 2 centuries after the time of Christ
  • The Bible is only the 66 books of the bible
  • Papal Infallibility is unScriptural
  • Papal Infallibility places the Pope in the place of God, elevating him to being God’s “Equal”, a goal that Lucifer desired
  • Papal Infallibility is also patently illogical, as Inerrant Word Ex Cathedra must also imply inerrant thought and inerrant action

The “Examined” list will grow much, much longer by the time we finish! In future posts, the Roman Catholic (and any regular readers this blog may have…) will probably have to skip down quite a ways to actuallly read the post! I encourage every reader to read the points we’ve settled. If the list seems long, then let me just point out – that says something about how unChristian and unBiblical Roman Catholicism is.

Today, we’re going to deal with the very office of the Pope itself. This one iss the easiest to deal with – and why it absolutely blows my mind that Rick Warren would congratulate RC’s with “We have a Pope!”. Perhaps Rick Warren, champion of Ecumenism, has a pope – I do not. It absolutely blows my mind that Rick Warren, who not only alleges to read and study the Bible to write his weekly sermons (Not just one Bible, but many mis-translations as well), has never noticed the unBiblical nature of Catholicism!

Roman tradition claims that Peter was the first Pope. This, I’m sure, would be news to Peter. A great deal is placed upon Matthew 16, where this is recorded:

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. Matthew 16:18-19 (KJV)

“You see? Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter!”

um… no. Let’s take a minute and examine this in context. This willl require some minor exegesis, the kind you learn in the first month of Homiletics class and Hermaneutics class. It’s a complicated rule of Biblical Hermaneutics called (forgive the complicated term ;-)) “Reading in context.”

You should remember this from 8th grade composition class, English Grammar… “Who what when where how why.” My seminary actually has a template they give out for sermon writing that has a spot for this…

13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? 14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. 15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 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 Barjona: 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. 20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. Matthew 16:13-20 (KJV)

First we see the Lord (please don’t trivialize the Lord Jesus Christ by simply calling Him by first name) asking, “Who do men say that I am?” This is important. We understand the context of the passage. After hearing the answers, the Lord gets to the crux of the passage. “Who do ye say that I am?” Ye means the Apostles, those gathered around them.

Peter answers with an answer only a born again man could give. “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

The Lord’s answer is a play on words in Greek. “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah…” The Lord uses Peter’s Hebrew name, to remind him who he was. It would have been pronounced Shimon, Ben Yonah in Hebrew or Shimon, Bar-Yonah in Aramaic.

At this moment the Lord does something that prophecy never explicitly revealed to the prophets – He starts His Church. After this moment, he refers to Peter by his new name, a Greek one – Πέτρος Petros. Petros is a small rock. Strong’s points out that a Petros is a larger rock that a λίθος lithos, stone in Greek. However, the play on words done here is to show that Peter is not as big as the statement he just made. Petros is a smaller stone than a Petra, which was a large mass of rock, and of course would be familiar to the Hebrew listener also as referring to the city Petra, made completely of carved stone.

Thus the use Petra, referring to a stone building, ties in and supports the use of the phrase Kingdom of heaven used in 19. The Lord’s Church is started in verse 18 – not in Acts 2 – and is the focus of verse 19. A loose paraphrase of it could be “what you permit, you permit, and what you allow you allow.” the context here is not who gets into heaven, as we see the church started in verse 18.

Catch that? Verse 16 connect to 17, which connect to 18, and verse 19. Does this seem forced or far fetched? No. notice how verse 20 is connected to Peter’s proclamation in verse 16. If verses 16 and 20 are linked, then verses 17-19 are as well.

So what is the Petra, the rock? The confession that all men must make to be born again, a statement of the Lord Jesus Christ’s divinity. “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This is why the Lord would not permit them to tell anyone in verse 20 He was Jesus the Christ.

It is not an elevation of something greater, a new position. Peter was not being rewarded with allowing who goes into heaven and who does not. The Lord frequently used the phrase “The Kingdom of God” and “The Kingdom of Heaven” to refer to a gathering of born again believers. We have come to (rightly or wrongly, we won’t get into) calling this assembly of called out ones “The church”. Biblically, this is always addressed to a local assembly.

Notice that we see the local Church started in verse 18, and in 19 we see talk of binding and loosing. Adam Clarke writes,

That binding and loosing were terms in frequent use among the Jews, and that they meant bidding and forbidding, granting and refusing, declaring lawful or unlawful, etc., (Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible)

With a clear understanding of what these verses mean, it’s often amusing to see Papal processions preceded by a Cardinal carrying a cartoonishly oversized key. Yes, that massive ornate gold key is the very key that opens the door to heaven, one supposes! In which case, Heaven would need it back, as there’s quite a crowd standing outside the door!

Having studied the Talmud for a few years, I can say indeed that Adam Clarke is correct in his application of Binding and Loosing.

So, Peter here is not pronounced Pope. Later, in John 21, Peter is made shepherd of the fist church.

15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. John 21:15-17 (KJV)

Peter is made a pastor – nothing more. And eventually, as any cursory reading of Acts will show, is eventually outshined by Paul. Peter was the Apostle of the Jews, Paul the Apostle to the Gentiles. Techincally, Rome should be following Paul, as the overwhelming majority of Roman Catholics are gentile in heritage.

Peter is never recorded in the Bible as going to Rome – Paul did. The Catholics technically should have made the claim to Paul, not Peter.

Peter was the pastor of the Jerusalem church. Paul started the church in Rome. Again, the Catholics probably should have tried claiming Paul there, again.

Turning to Romans 16, we see a list of people attending the Roman Church.

  • Phebe
  • Priscilla and Aquila
  • Epaenetus
  • Mary
  • Andronicus and Junia
  • Amplias
  • Urbane
  • Apelles
  • them which are of Aristobulus’ household
  • Herodion
  • the household of Narcissus
  • Tryphena and Tryphosa
  • Persis
  • Rufus
  • his mother and mine.
  • Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, and the brethren which are with them.
  • Philologus, and Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints which are with them

What name do you not see?

Peter. That would be very odd, if he was the Pope, and Arch-Bishop of Rome! That would be quite a slight. It is very probable that the persons left in charge of the Roman Church until the church could train its own pastor was either Aquila, or Rufus, as both were established Christians who’d spent time with the Apostles, and had learned sound doctrine from them.

There is no evidence whatsoever linking the Papal office to Peter at all. There is nothing in Scripture to suggest it. And according to the earliest Church Fathers, the first Pastor of the Roman church was Linus. Peter is not named being there. Tradition has Peter going to Rome long enough to be crucified upside down, but that’s the only mention of him there.

Mary Ann Collins, a former Nun novitiate, writes

Paul wrote five letters from a Roman prison (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy, and Philemon). He never mentioned Peter. The man who stayed with Paul in Rome, to help him and encourage him, was Luke—not Peter. (Col_4:14; 2Ti_4:11) (Catholic Concerns – Where does the Road to Rome lead, E-Sword module)

There is no proof of Rome’s Claim to Peter bring the first Pope.

Answering The Roman Catholic Church 12


So far, we’ve examined:

  • one needs only the written Bible
  • If you are saved, you should be able to simply read and understand the Bible. If you cannot understand it, this is a warning sign you may not be saved.
  • The commandments in the NT are so easy, one does not require a Magisterium to understand it
  • The RCC has no proof whatsoever for a Magisterium.
  • The Bible was once delivered to the saints, and at the close of the canon in AD 95, anyone who adds to it is under a curse.
  • The Roman Catholic views of the Bible
  • The laity and the ownership/study/reading of the Bible
  • The Magisterium refuted
  • Salvation by faith alone vs. works
  • infant baptism refuted
  • baptismal regeneration refuted
  • The Apocrypha was never quoted by the New Testament
  • The Apocrypha was not considered scripture by anyone for at least 400 years – after all the official lists of the inspired canon had been done
  • The apocrypha was never quoted by church fathers for at least 2 centuries after the time of Christ
  • The Bible is only the 66 books of the bible

the next thing we examine is Papal infallibility. An anonymous woman, who had left the Roman Catholic Church to briefly join a protestant church, commented upon learning her Pastor read several commentaries and choosing which one sounded most right to him, “He put himself in the place of the Pope.”

 

Huh?

 

This shows the depth of the programming that Roman Catholics get, viewing a difference between the laity (non clergy) and the priesthood. The Priest is the supreme holder of knowledge, and the Pope infallible.

 

On the contrary, there’s no evidence from Scripture for the priesthood, or for the Pope. Or for Pala infallibility.

Here’s the test: cite me ONE verse from the Bible upholding Papal infallibility.

There are none.

As a matter of fact, of the various Catholic councils, there is no mention of Papal Infallibility until the 19th Century. And as I mentioned before… it was put to a vote. And there were Bishops and Cardinals who voted against it. If this were a teaching of God not set in writing (the supposed basis of the Magisterium, already refuted at length…) why did they vote against it? Were these supposedly Godly men opposing God?

If this were a Scriptural mandate… why was there a vote? Why not just cite the Scripture and get on with it? There was a vote simply because it wasn’t a Scriptural mandate.

What, then, shall we say of the Pope who was murdered by a jealous husband, who caught him sleeping with his wife? If the Papal infallibility is a fact, then are we saying the jealous husband was wrong? That the Pope was correct and infallible for committing adultery?

What about the popes who kept their prostitutes housed in the Vatican itself? Were they correct and infallible for comitting fornication with harlots?

The Roman Catholic will object, and say the Pope is infallible only when speaking Ex Cathedra.

How can you speak infallibility, and not think it? How can you think it and not do it?

This begs the question, then. When is he speaking Ex Cathedra and when is he not? We have logical issues here. If the Pope is the mouth of God, and is infallible, what if he gets so caught in the ecstasy of speaking for God he forgets to let someone know he is speaking Ex Cathedra?

There remains the issue that at no time did God command the office of a Pope, or an Arch Bishop, or a Cardinal, or even a priesthood. The Roman Catholic priesthood is usurping the rightful place of the believer, which is appointed a nation of kings and priests before God.

Any person who says they are without sin is a liar. The Pope cannot be infallible if he is a sinner. Infallibility means one is God.

So, to paraphrase the Catholic woman I quoted earlier in ths post, “He (the Pope) puts himself in the place of God.” This is essentially what she is saying.

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. 7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Psalm 82:6-7 (KJV)

11 Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. 12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. Isaiah 14:11-15 (KJV)

1 The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, 2 Son of man, say unto the prince of Tyrus, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thine heart is lifted up, and thou hast said, I am a God, I sit in the seat of God, in the midst of the seas; yet thou art a man, and not God, though thou set thine heart as the heart of God: 3 Behold, thou art wiser than Daniel; there is no secret that they can hide from thee: 4 With thy wisdom and with thine understanding thou hast gotten thee riches, and hast gotten gold and silver into thy treasures: 5 By thy great wisdom and by thy traffick hast thou increased thy riches, and thine heart is lifted up because of thy riches: 6 Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; 7 Behold, therefore I will bring strangers upon thee, the terrible of the nations: and they shall draw their swords against the beauty of thy wisdom, and they shall defile thy brightness. 8 They shall bring thee down to the pit, and thou shalt die the deaths of them that are slain in the midst of the seas. 9 Wilt thou yet say before him that slayeth thee, I am God? but thou shalt be a man, and no God, in the hand of him that slayeth thee. 10 Thou shalt die the deaths of the uncircumcised by the hand of strangers: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord GOD. Ezekiel 28:1-10 (KJV)

11 Moreover the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 12 Son of man, take up a lamentation upon the king of Tyrus, and say unto him, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Thou sealest up the sum, full of wisdom, and perfect in beauty. 13 Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created. 14 Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire. 15 Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee. 16 By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire. 17 Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee. 18 Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee. 19 All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more. Ezekiel 28:11-19 (KJV)

Finally, from Mary Ann Collin’s book “Catholic Concerns: Where does the Road to Rome lead?”

The history of the early Church shows that the Bishop of Rome was considered to be just another bishop. For example, Pope Gregory (590-604 A.D.) explicitly stated that all of the bishops were equal. He specifically repudiated the idea that any one bishop could be the supreme ruler of the Church.

The claim for papal infallibility does not stand up to the test of history. For example, Pope Zosimus (417-418 A.D.) reversed the pronouncement of a previous pope. He also retracted a doctrinal pronouncement that he himself had previously made. Pope Honorious was condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680-681 A.D.). He was also condemned as a heretic by Pope Leo II, as well as by every other pope until the eleventh century. So here we have “infallible” popes condemning another “infallible” pope as a heretic. In 1870, the First Vatican Council abolished “infallible” papal decrees and the decrees of two previous “infallible” councils.5

The doctrine of Assumption of Mary was officially declared to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic faith in 1950. This means that every Roman Catholic is required to believe this doctrine without questioning it. However, as we will see, the teaching of the Assumption originated with heretical writings which were officially condemned by the early Church.

In 495 A.D., Pope Gelasius issued a decree which rejected this teaching as heresy and its proponents as heretics. In the sixth century, Pope Hormisdas also condemned as heretics those authors who taught the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. The early Church clearly considered the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary to be a heresy worthy of condemnation. Here we have “infallible” popes declaring something to be a heresy. Then in 1950, Pope Pius XII, another “infallible” pope, declared it to be official Roman Catholic doctrine.

Answering The Roman Catholic Church 11


So far, we’ve examined:

  • one needs only the written Bible
  • If you are saved, you should be able to simply read and understand the Bible. If you cannot understand it, this is a warning sign you may not be saved.
  • The commandments in the NT are so easy, one does not require a Magisterium to understand it
  • The RCc has no proof whatsoever for a Magisterium.
  • The Bible was once delivered to the saints, and at the close of the canon in AD 95, anyone who adds to it is under a curse.
  • The Roman Catholic views of the Bible
  • The laity and the ownership/study/reading of the Bible
  • The Magisterium refuted
  • Salvation by faith alone vs. works
  • infant baptism refuted
  • baptismal regeneration refuted
  • The Apocrypha was never quoted by the New Testament
  • The Apocrypha was not considered scripture by anyone for at least 400 years – after all the official lists of the inspired canon had been done
  • The apocrypha was never quoted by church fathers for at least 2 centuries after the time of Christ
  • The Bible is only the 66 books of the bible

Now, we’re done with the subject of the word of God. We’ve settled that the Magisterium is not the word of God, but the traditions of the church given equal or higher weight than the word of God. We’ve settled that the Apocrypha is not inspired or part of the Bible. We’ve settled that we are to be guided by the Bible alone, or as the Roman Catholics like to call it, “Sola Scriptura” – a subject they enjoy belittling.

Let’s deal with all the verses on the saints.

….

Done.

There is no verses on special people, holy men and women who can do miraculous powers and have the ability to intercede for our sakes on behalf of God. Indeed, it’s amazing such a doctrine exists in the Roman Catholic church, as it has absolutely zero scriptural support. Like most Roman Catholic teachings.

Who then are the saints? The New Testament makes numerous references to them.

If you are born again, you are a saint.

That probably sounds like blasphemy to a Roman Catholic.

the word Saint is not Greek, but Latin. It has the origin in Sanctus, meaning “made holy, set apart for holy use”. The Greek word is ἅγιος, Hagios (“Holy”), and the Hebrew is ‏חָסִיד Hassid, meaning righteous, holy, consecrated. Again, we need to remember that all believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are Sanctified, set apart for Holy Use, separated from the world. I had to give you the Greek and Hebrew – after all, I spent two years learning it!

With this in mind, it becomes clear that all believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are saints. So I am just as much a saint as St. John of the Cross, or St. Francis, or even Padre Pia – probably more so, as I’ve been born again, and I see no testimony of faith or a born again experience from any of the aforementioned.

David Cloud did a study of the life of Mother Theresa, and concluded that as she had no testimony, no evidence of being born again, showed none of the Biblical evidence of being born again (changed life, desire for God’s Holy Bible, a desire to evangelize) – she was most likely not born again. And this may shock you, but the Bible says in the strongest language that…

“Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” John 3:3 (KJV)

If you cannot enter the kingdom of God, where are you?

7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: 9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9 (KJV)

I say this to awaken the Roman Catholic that God led here for the purpose of reading this. I say this not to criticize, but rather to wake you. If a person that acts righteous and feeds the poor, takes care of those with leprosy and cares for orphans cannot save themselves of their own righteousness – neither can you. I urge you to be born again as soon as possible. Recognizing you may not ave read everything I’ve written on the subject, being born again is not confirmation, baptism, or accepting the Host at the Mass. Please read all of the pages on Roman Catholicism, as in the beginning I explain how to be born again spiritually, what that is and what it does and does not mean.

“But I thought the saints make intercession for us before the throne of God!!!”

Nope.

22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament. 23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. 26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; 27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. Hebrews 7:22-27 (KJV)

9 Then said he, Lo, I come to do thy will, O God. He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. 10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: 12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; 13 From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. 14 For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Hebrews 10:9-14 (KJV)

It is the Lord Jesus Christ who maketh intercession for us. Remember these verses, as they will get important when we discuss the Mass.

“So the Saints don’t make intercession for us?”

That was dealt with once and for all in the parable of Lazarus. By the way, the Parable of Lazarus is not a parable, but a real event recounted by the Lord. In the parables, they are always “A certain man” or “There was a king”. The Lord does not mention names in parables. Only the Rich Man is unnamed.

19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: 20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, 21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; 23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. 24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. 25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. 26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. 27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father’s house: 28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. 29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. 30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. 31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. Luke 16:19-31 (KJV)

Notice neither Abraham nor Lazarus are able to help the Rich Man. They do not speak to God on his behalf, nor make intercession for him. Abraham talks about the “great gulf fixed”, how he is unable to leave, to come or go. And thus it was until Christ brought forth the captives. The righteous no longer are in Abraham’s bosom, but rather now in heaven.

There is no scriptural support for the saints making intercession to God. Again, if this were a doctrine of God, He would have had it placed in Scripture in plain words, and not by some allegorical mystical interpretation, the kind that Augustine extolled and Origen advocated. That kind of Bible interpretation is the deeds of unSaved men, forced to interpret the Bible in this manner because they do not have the Holy Spirit to bring understanding.

The Bible concludes this discussion in Hebrews by explaining it is the Lord who maketh intercession for us.

Answering The Roman Catholic Church 10


So far, we’ve examined:

  • one needs only the written Bible
  • If you are saved, you should be able to simply read and understand the Bible. If you cannot understand it, this is a warning sign you may not be saved.
  • The commandments in the NT are so easy, one does not require a Magisterium to understand it
  • The RCc has no proof whatsoever for a Magisterium.
  • The Bible was once delivered to the saints, and at the close of the canon in AD 95, anyone who adds to it is under a curse.
  • The Roman Catholic views of the Bible
  • The laity and the ownership/study/reading of the Bible
  • The Magisterium refuted
  • Salvation by faith alone vs. works
  • infant baptism refuted
  • baptismal regeneration refuted

It’s been quite the survey, and we’ve just barely gotten started! There’s so many areas to cover, such as Maryolatry, Papal Infallibility, the Apocrypha, the Sacraments, purgatory, oricular confession, penance, the priesthood, the mass, transubstantiation and the host, indulgences – I think the first problem I ran into is this:

Roman Catholicism is so unScriptural in so many areas, I hardly know where to start!

Since I started by dealing with the Magisterium (probably in more depth than my readers wanted to know), I’ll turn next to the issues of the Apocrypha.

Back in the ’90’s, I worked very briefly with a Catholic, who was very aggressive in his outlook and demeanor. He demanded to know, triumphantly, that “If the Bible says cursed is he who takes away from the Bible – why did Protestants remove the Apocrypha from the Bible???”

I think he was a little at a loss when I explained that the Apocrypha was never part of the canon. Indeed, in the earliest lists of canon from the pre-Nicean fathers, they are not mentioned.

Nor are they quoted by any of the Pre-Nicean church fathers – at least, those before AD 200.

In addition, the apocryphal books are not accepted as Scripture by the Jewish people. They are indeed ignored in all lists of canon. It’s possible they were accepted by a few fringe groups of Jews (such as the Qumran scribes) but mainstream Judaism never accepted them. They were always considered extra-canonical, and the writings of men as opposed to Scripture which was the writing of God.

In addition, David Cloud writes in his Way of Life Encyclopedia of Christianity and the Bible:

“They were not received as inspired Scripture by the churches during the first four centuries after Christ.” (WOL Encyclopedia, Pg. 32)

he also writes,

“They were not written in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and prophets of the O.T.” (WOL Encyclopedia, Pg. 32)

Another, and more telling point, is that the Apocrypha, much of it written before the New Testament was written, is never quoted once in the New Testament.

So, to answer my Roman Catholic co-worker – we didn’t take them away. You added them. When?

it wasn’t until 1546, at the Council of Trent, that the Apocrypha was added, in conjunction to an Anathema pronounced against anyone who does not accept them as Scripture. Literally, a damning to Hell.

Not to beat a dead horse – but again, why nothing mentioned of the apocrypha in the lists of Scripture until over four centuries later? Why did it take 1500 years to pronounce them Scripture, if they were?

Finally, the Apocrypha does not have a single incident of “Thus sayeth the Lord.” You can read the Bible and know it is the Bible, the word of God. However, the Apocrypha reads like what it is, the writings of various Jewish apocalyptic groups. The time of the Maccabees was a time of the organizing of many apocalyptic groups of Jews, such as the Essenes, the Qumran scribes, the various groups described in the Gospels such as the Pharisees, the Saducees, the Herodians, the disciples of John the Baptist, The zealotes, the Hellenists, the Alexandrians, and the sons of Light (possibly a reference to the Essenes).

Many rose, wrote spurious literature to support their claims, and quickly withered away and vanished, leaving only a few copies of their works. The Pseudopigrapha contains many examples of their works. A cursory study of the Pseudopigrapha compared to the apocrypha presents the same general feeling and impression – these are the works of fallible men. And returning to the Bible gives an unmistakeable feel of – the Bible is the preserved, inerrant word of God.

Notice also that they teach many unScriptural things, such as magic.

Then the angel said unto him, Dost thou not remember the precepts which thy father gave thee, that thou shouldest marry a wife of thine own kindred? wherefore hear me, O my brother; for she shall be given thee to wife; and make thou no reckoning of the evil spirit; for this same night shall she be given thee in marriage. And when thou shalt come into the marriage chamber, thou shalt take the ashes of perfume, and shalt lay upon them some of the heart and liver of the fish, and shalt make a smoke with it: And the devil shall smell it, and flee away, and never come again any more: but when thou shalt come to her, rise up both of you, and pray to God which is merciful, who will have pity on you, and save you: fear not, for she is appointed unto thee from the beginning; and thou shalt preserve her, and she shall go with thee. Moreover I suppose that she shall bear thee children. Now when Tobias had heard these things, he loved her, and his heart was effectually joined to her. Tobit 6:15-17 (KJVApocrypha)

Does this sound like Scripture? Does this sound like “Thus sayeth the Lord”? Obviously not.