Studies

Fellowship

E-Mail

"The "Infallibility" of the pope was voted on by the Vatican council of 1870. Per the Catholic Home Encyclopedia, pg 124, they declared 'it to be a dogma of divine revelation that when the Roman Pontiff speaks excathedra - that is, when he, using his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, defines a doctrine of faith or morals to be held by the whole church - he, possesses that infallibility with which the Redeemer was pleased to invest His church in the definition of doctrine on faith and morals, and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable in their own nature and are not because of consent of the church'." - Dr. Fabian S. Reinhart, in "Facts for Roman Catholics", pgs 47-48.

"Priesthood... Christianity... Originally the term presbyter ('elder') and episkopos ('overseer'), current in the New Testament and the early church, were probably identical. From the 2nd century on, however, the sacerdotal hierarchy developed along the lines of the Hebrew priesthood, the title episcopus, or bishop, becoming reserved for those who presided over the presbyterate... In due course the threefold ministry of bishops, priests, and deacons (administrative and liturgical assistants in a parish) became organized on a diocesan basis. This remained the norm in the Western Church until the Reformation in the 16th century when it was repudiated by the Central Reformers..." -Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1984, vol. 14, pg. 1010.

"The early bishops of Rome... Historical evidence... is not exhaustive... That St. Paul preached at Rome.. is not contested... less certain is the claim that St. Peter, too, visited Rome and was martyred there about the same time... None of the evidence indicates anything definite about the nature of Peter's position at Rome... Not much light is shed on the question of the primacy by materials from the early post-apostolic era, either by the first lists of the bishops of Rome or by such important... evidences as I Clement, a letter sent by the church of Rome to the church of Corinth c.96, or the letter that Ignatius of Antioch sent to the Romans c.110... If read in historical context, What they actually state constitutes a less than persuasive witness to the primacy of the Roman bishops in the universal church... By the 3rd century the Roman bishops were claiming for themselves a primacy of authority in the universal church comparable to that of Peter's primacy among the Apostles. This claim... did not go unopposed... ***only in the 4th and 5th centuries was this claim transformed into the more sweeping claim to a primacy of jurisdiction***... Most actively responsible for this development were the popes Damasus I, Siricius, Innocent I, Boniface I, and, above all, Leo I (reigned 440-461). The gap between theory and practice, however, remained immense..." -Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1984, vol. 13, pages 955-956.

"Historical Conceptions of papal authority within the church... before the mid-3rd century... and even after that date, some Western, as well as Eastern, patristic exegetes (Early Church Fathers who in their interpretation of the Bible used critical techniques) understood that by the "rock" Christ meant to refer not to Peter but to Christ himself or to the faith that Peter professed. Nevertheless, in the late 4th and 5th centuries there was an increasing tendency on the part of the Roman bishops... to formulate in theoretical terms the ill-defined pre-eminence... to the Roman church and to its bishop. Thus, Damasus I, despite the existence of other churches of apostolic foundation, began to call the Roman church 'the apostolic see'. About the same time the categories of the Roman law were borrowed to explicate and formulate the prerogatives of the Roman bishop. The process of theoretical elaboration reached a culmination in the views of Leo I and Gelasius I, the former understanding himself not simply as Peter's successor but also as his representative, or vicar... Possessing by analogy with the Roman law of inheritance the full powers Peter himself had wielded, which he interpreted as monarchical..." -Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1984, vol. 13, page 960

"In Roman Catholic belief the Roman pontiff is the successor of Peter... there is no clear assertion of this belief before the conversion of Constantine in 312... It has been noted that in Roman Catholicism the college of bishops is the successor to the college of the Apostles... in spite of certain differences between the two offices... the Apostles had a power that was not defined locally; every Roman Catholic bishop is a bishop of a place... such a monarchical officer does not appear in the new testament." -Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1984, Vol. 15, page 989.

"In the Roman Church the papacy evolved out of the monarchical episcopate... A leading role developed upon the leading bishop of the Roman community... This... organization followed the provincial organization of the Roman Empire. The theological underpinning of this special position was emphasized by Petrine theology, which saw in the words of Jesus, 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church' (Matt. 16:18), a spiritual-legal instituting of the papacy by Jesus Christ himself. In the Greek Church of the East (e.g. Origen) and also in Augustine in the West, however, these words were referred to Peter's confession of faith; (only ) since the time of popes Gelasius I (reigned 492-496), Symmachus (reigned 498-514), and Gregory I (reigned 590-604), these words have served as the foundation for the claim of papal primacy over the entire Christian Church." -Encyclopedia Britannica, 15th edition, 1984, Vol. 4, page 491.

"The keys that the Pope bore were the keys of a 'Peter' well known to the pagans initiated in the Chaldean mysteries. that Peter the Apostle was ever bishop of Rome has been proved again and again to be an arrant fable... His visit to that city rests on no better authority than that of a writer at the end of the second century... who gravely tells us that on the occasion of his visit, finding Simon Magus there, the apostle challenged him to give proof of his miraculous or magical powers, whereupon the sorcerer flew up into the air, and Peter brought him down in such haste that his leg was broken. All historians of repute have at once rejected this story... as being destitute of all contemporary evidence... but, while this is the case with Peter the Christian, it can be shown to be by no means doubtful that before the Christian era, and downwards, there was a 'Peter' at Rome, who occupied the highest place in the pagan priesthood. The priest who explained the Mysteries to the initiated... in primitive Chaldee... his title, as pronounced... was 'Peter'- i.e. 'the Interpreter' (Parkhurst's Hebrew Lexicon, p. 602)... Yea, we have the strongest evidence that, in countries far removed from one another, and far distant from Rome, these keys were known by the initiated Pagans not merely as the 'keys of Peter,' but as the keys of a Peter identified with Rome." -The Two Babylons, By Rev. Alexander Hislop, Loizeaux Brothers, page 208.

"...Now... understand... the college of Cardinals. The term Cardinal is derived from Cardo, a hinge. Janus, whose key the Pope bears, was the god of doors and hinges, and was called Patulcius, and Clusius 'the opener and the shutter.' This had a blasphemous meaning, for he was worshipped at Rome as the grand mediator... Whatever deity was to be invoked, an invocation first of all must be addressed to Janus... and without that no prayer could be heard- the 'door of heaven' could not be opened... Now to this Janus, as mediator... belonged all the government of the world... the Pope, therefore, when he set up as the high-priest of Janus, assumed also the... 'power of turning the hinge,'- of opening and shutting in the blasphemous pagan sense... The Pagans, who saw what strides, under Papal directions, Christianity, as professed in Rome, was making towards Paganism, were more than content to recognize the Pope as possessing this power; they gladly encouraged him to rise, step by step, to the full height of the blasphemous pretensions befitting the representative of Janus..." -The Two Babylons, By Rev. Alexander Hislop, Loizeaux Brothers, pages 210-211.

Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;

"The now well-known title of 'Cardinals'... had been previously borne by the high officials of the Roman emperor, who, as Pontifex Maximus, had been himself the representative of Janus, and who delegated his powers to servants of his own... I have said that the Pope became the representative of Janus, who... was none other than the Babylonian Messiah... In the countries where the Babylonian system was most thoroughly developed, we find the sovereign pontiff of the babylonian god invested with the very attributes now ascribed to the Pope... 'god upon earth,' the 'vice-god' and 'vicar of Christ.' The King in Egypt, who was Sovereign-Pontiff, was... regarded with the highest reverence as 'the representative of the divinity on earth'. is the Pope 'infallible,' and does the church of Rome, in consequence, boast that it has always been 'unchanged and unchangeable'? The same was the case with the Chaldean pontiff, and... was believed to be 'incapable of error'... are kings and ambassadors required to kiss the Pope's slipper? This, too, is copied from the same pattern... is the Pope addressed by the title of 'your Holiness'? So also was the pagan pontiff of Rome." -The Two Babylons, By Rev. Alexander Hislop, Loizeaux Brothers, page 211.

"The Pope... assumes the right of wielding the lightning's of Jehovah, and of blasting by his fulmination's whoever offends him. Kings, and whole nations... have trembled and bowed before him... the priests of paganism assumed the very same power..." -The Two Babylons, By Rev. Alexander Hislop, Loizeaux Brothers, page 259.

Was Peter the "head" of the original and true Christian church?

The apostle Paul wrote: "...I was not a whit behind the very chiefest Apostles." -2 Corinthians 11:5, "...I ought to have been commended of you: for in nothing am i behind the very chiefest Apostles, though I be nothing." -2 Corinthians 12:11.

And- "(...He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:) And... when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." Galatians 2:8-11.

If Peter was Paul's Pope, imagine Paul's audacity to speak these words. I would think that the Catholic church would have to excommunicate Paul for his disrespect to an "infallible" pope!

Contrary to Catholic actions of popery, did Peter "act" like a pope?

Peter was married- "Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" -1 Corinthians 9:5.

Peter was the apostle to the circumcision, and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles-

"But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me (Paul), as the gospel of the circumcision (Jews) was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)" -Galatians 2:7-8. (If Catholic tradition is correct, Peter must have forsaken his Christ-given apostolic calling to preach to the Jews. If Peter denied his calling from God to preach to the Jews, how can he be trusted to lead the church- unless that church was also disobedient to God's word and will?)

Peter did not claim himself to be the Rock. Peter himself claimed the Rock, which is the Head of the church, to be Jesus-

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Petros: a piece of rock), and upon this rock (petra: A mass of rock) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Never is Peter referred to in scripture as the Petra. This title is reserved for Jesus Christ Himself. Even by Peter...

"...The Lord is... a living stone,... and a rock (petra: a mass of rock) of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed." -1 Peter 2:3-7.

"...And that Rock (petra: a mass of rock) was Christ." -1 Corinthians 10:4.

"As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed." -Romans 9:33.

Jesus says obedience to His Word is to be building on the rock-

Mat 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock (petra: a mass of rock)"

Luk 8:13 They on the rock (petra: a mass of rock) are they, which, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, which for a while believe, and in time of temptation fall away.

Where did Roman Catholicism receive the doctrine of "pope" from, if not from the scriptures, and the apostles?

"it is certain that the title 'supreme pontiff' of 'Pontifex Maximus' which the Pope bears is not a Christian designation, for it was the title used by Roman emperors before the Christian Era. The word pontiff... means bridge-maker. The priest-king emperors of pagan days were regarded as the makers and guardians of the bridges of Rome. Each of them served as high priest and claimed to be the bridge or connecting link between this life and the next. That branch of the mysteries known as Mithraism grew in Rome until it became- at one time- almost the only faith of the empire. The head priest was called the Pater Patrum, that is, the father of fathers. The 'Father' of Mithraism had his seat at Rome then, and the 'Father' of Catholicism has his their now." -From Babylon Mystery Religion, by Ralph Woodrow, page 75.

Please continue with 2) The papal institution in Rome is by NO means the true Church of Christ, nor does it practice the "one faith" as it was once delivered by the apostles as Jesus commanded them.