- 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.