Is the Papacy a Legitimate Teaching of Scripture?

[Solo]

Peter and the papacy

The life and lifestyle of the apostle Peter and that of the popes are miles apart. The differences are enormous.

Peter led a normal married life, being accompanied by his wife on his missionary journeys (1 Corinthians 9:1ff). The pope boasts of celibacy while the crass immorality and vile sexual behaviour of many popes is too notorious to even mention.

Peter preached a sound gospel of faith alone in Christ alone. The pope brings a different message of justification by faith plus works upon which rests the anathema of God (Galatians 1:1ff).

Peter lived in relative poverty or at least very decently without extravagances. "Silver and gold have I none..."
(Acts 3). On the other hand the pope is easily accounted today to be head over many peoples and riches and wealth of all sorts.

Peter wore no crown while on earth, though now he is wearing an incorruptible one in heaven. The pope wears the triple tiara, claiming to exercise dominion in heaven, earth and hell itself.

Peter had no army; he trusted in God to deliver him from dangers. The pope up to this day enjoys the protection of the Swiss Guards and an intricate security system.

Peter never received the adulation or worship of men (Acts 10). The pope is carried processionally for the very purpose of being admired by the crowds. He receives worship by the cardinals on his election, and is given blasphemous titles that can only be given to Christ.

Peter never abused his apostolic authority, and he warned other presbyters to feed the flock of God and take good care of it (1 Peter 5:1ff.). The popes makes merchandise of Roman Catholics. John Paul II inaugurated the Jubilee claiming to forgive the punishment of sins in purgatory upon the reception of money.

Peter was a faithful steward of the mysteries of God. The pope invents and disseminates doctrine that is foreign to the pure Word of God.

Peter loved his Lord and even died a martyr's death. The pope seeks to subvert the pre-eminence of Christ by arrogating to himself the role that only Christ, in his deity and humanity, can rightly fulfill. He pretends to love Christ while seeking to hide him from the view of men.

From such undeniable facts I conclude in accordance with the testimony of Scripture that the pope indeed has a succession but it certainly cannot be traced to Peter just as man cannot be traced back to a chimpanzee. The species are distinctly different.

Pope Peter?

Peter's own shortcomings and failures prove that he could not be pope.

The Roman Church can be pictured as an inverted pyramid, resting its whole weight on Matthew 16, "Thou are Peter." But once this is correctly interpreted in the light of the rest of Scripture, then it becomes evident that no-one enjoys the primacy in the church save the Lord Jesus Christ, its head and Saviour, the One whom God the Father wills to have the pre-eminence (Colossians).

Supreme headship?

That Peter is disqualified from supreme headship is clear from the following considerations:

• 1. Peter was, at least once, inconsistent and hypocritical in the confession of the gospel, so much so that he was publicly rebuked by his fellow-apostle (Galatians 2:11). In this instance, out of fear he actually sided with the false brethren in their Jewish legalism, thus virtually denying justification by faith alone (by his actions, though not by his teaching). Obviously Pal did not regard Peter as infallible in faith and morals, neither did he recognize any supremacy on his part.
  
  2. Peter attempted to deter Christ from his holy mission of accomplishing redemption by accepting the cross. This happened immediately after he was illuminated by the Father to confess Jesus as the messiah. Jesus made it clear that his misdirected zeal was motivated by Satan.
  
  3. A number of mistakes were committed by Peter. He is prominent but so are his errors. He thought it wonderful to forgive his brother seven times, but Christ corrected him. (Matthew 18:21).
  
  4. Peter's faith failed so that he denied his Master thrice, knowingly, with oaths and cursings. He boasted he would ever be faithful (Mark 14:29), but his weakness was predicted.
  
  5. Peter resisted the idea of preaching the gospel to Gentiles, so much so that the heavenly vision had to be repeated thrice (Acts 10).

Not primus

That Peter was not the chief of the apostles and their head is evident from the following considerations:

• 1. The church is built on the one foundation, that is Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11); in another sense it is built on the doctrine of the apostles, all of them (Ephesians 2:20).
  
  2. Peter was never recognized as the supreme head. The apostles several times, disputed who among them was the greatest. But if Christ had made him head in Matthew 16 then this would be absurd and inconceivable (Mark 9:33-35; 10:34-44).
  
  3. In the exercise of his apostleship, Peter never claimed to be supreme over the others (1 Peter 1:1; 5:1-3). He held himself to be simply "a man" (Acts 10:25,26), contrary to papal claims throughout history up to this day.
  
  4. Paul, in relating his experiences and relationship with the twelve, described the pillars of the church to be James (mentioned first), Cephas and John. Obviously no sole headship is accorded to Peter.
  
  5. The other apostles seem totally unaware of any appointment that made Peter the head of the church. Nowhere do they acknowledge his authority as supreme. And nowhere does he attempt to exercise authority over them. The appointment of Matthias as apostle was not made by Peter, but by prayer, seeking God's guidance through the casting of lots.
  
  6. On another occasion Peter, together with John, was sent by the other apostles to preach the Gospel in Samaria (Acts 8:14). On the principle of Christ, the one sent is not greater than the one who sent him. Can we imagine the pope today being sent by the bishops on any such mission?
  
  7. At the important council at Jerusalem (Acts 15) not Peter but James presided. Peter, together with Paul and others, addressed the assembly but the decision was announced by James, "Wherefore my judgment is..." (v.19). And his judgment was accepted by the apostles and presbyters. Peter was present, but only after there had been "much questioning" (v.7) did he even so much as express an opinion. No infallible pronouncements here! We see infallibility only because the assembly correctly interpreted the scriptures of the prophets, as led by the Spirit!

Submission to the pope

To make matters worse the papal claim of subjection to the pope as necessary for salvation is still unrevoked.

To put it simply this is unheard of in the New Testament. We find many succinct passages telling us what is absolutely necessary for forgiveness of sins and eternal life (John 3:16; Romans 10:10; Mark 16:16, etc.), and that is (repentance and) faith in the Lord Jesus Christ as the Son of God made flesh, who died as substitutionary and penal death to bring about reconciliation of sinners with God.

To introduce new dogmas and pronounce them necessary for salvation is monstrous; it is putting on the necks of the disciples such a yoke that they cannot carry and are not meant to carry. The papacy, especially in medieval times, reached such peaks of arrogance and pride, that many bullas was issued urging total and unreserved subjection to the roman pontiff.

But if any Scripture was fulfilled in such blasphemous acts it was the prediction of Paul concerning the Antichrist (2 Thessalonians 2) who exalts himself above all that is called God. To faithful Christians who adhere to Sola Scriptura, the papal claim reveals the papacy for what it really is.

It is not only heretical (a human invention inspired by hell) but also schismatical, for then Christians are duty-bound to cut all communion with Rome (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

Retrieved from http://www.tecmalta.org/tft306.htm

 

[Solo]

Whence the papacy?

As a former Roman Catholic, when first challenged with the gospel of free grace, I was constrained to submit myself to an intense study concerning the origins and developments of the papacy. It was only when I read Roman Catholic apologists that I became convinced of the antichristian character of the papacy, when I considered their dearth of solid material based on historical facts. The history of the papacy is, to put it mildly, shameful, full of politico-religious intrigue that finally proves how illegitimate power corrupts.

Many factors have contributed to the end result of the papacy as we know it today. These tend to more or less move together, but certainly one of the roots of the papacy is sinful ambition.

Peter, writing by inspiration, forewarned presbyters about this malign tendency in the heart of man to exercise dominion over the souls of others. His antidote was that church leaders should clothe themselves with humility and emulate to serve the brethren with a willing spirit, not for base and worldly gain and prestige, but rather to please their Chief Shepherd who has engaged them into this service.

Now the papacy, being the fulfillment of prophecy (2 Thessalonians 2), whilst claiming to represent Christ, has historically done the very opposite, all in the Saviour's Name, and thus bringing the way of righteousness into disrepute. For Christ told his apostles that they are not to exercise lordship over each other such as is continually done among unbelievers, but rather the greatest in the kingdom of heaven is the one who serves without seeking self-promotion.

The papacy (together with many other metropolitan bishops in the ancient world) has done the reverse. Church history is replete with incidents that makes for very say reading, with the bishop of Rome in sharp competition with the bishop of Constantinople, and so forth.

The whole idea of universal authority, let alone apostolic succession, was far from accepted even some 600 years after the Lord spoke to Peter in Matthew 16 (claimed by Rome to be scriptural proof of the papacy). Gregory the Great, "servant of the servants of God," bishop at Rome (590-604), had some pertinent words on this matter. The patriarch John IV of Constantinople had claimed the title of universal bishop, and Gregory was prompted to declare that such a title was "blasphemous, antichristian and diabolical, by whomsoever assumed." Cyriacus, the successor of John IV, refused to relinquish the title. However, Pope Boniface III (607) did prevail upon the emperor Phocas to take the title of Ecumenical Bishop away from the Bishop of Constantinople and confer it upon the Roman Bishop. Even with the aid of the notorious Phocas, the question of a single bishop possessing authority and jurisdiction over the whole church was by no means settled. And even when the Pope asserted his full authority, his government was recognized by the Western half of Christendom only.

Now such intrigues are totally foreign to the spirit of the New Testament, and certainly Peter would have none of it.

Whereas in the early centuries the Roman bishops appealed to their position in Rome (as an apostolic see) and used political means to attain their ends, later on such popes as Gregory VII (1073-1086) began to appeal to biblical passages to make good their supreme authority.

The apostles enjoyed spiritual authority; as far as anything else, they said that they were the scum of the world, rejected and despised. How then did it come about that the pope now claims to be supreme in all matters religious and political? Certainly not through biblical support.

A cursory reading of church history will confirm how ambition and love for power dominated the hearts of the popes. At first, the early bishops of Rome claimed spiritual power only; later also political. It was no longer simply a matter of the pope's jurisdiction being limited to the clergy and to spiritual matters, for that was generally conceded, but it was that 'omnes subsunt ei jure divine' (everybody is subject to his jurisdiction), 'parem non habet super terram' (nor has he any equal on earth). These claims are meant to be taken literally; the idea of hyperbole was foreign to the canonists.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt these blasphemous claims do not glorify the meek and humble Jesus, to whom alone the Father has granted all authority. And the church acts upon his authority, not the pope's or somebody else's.

Retrieved from http://www.tecmalta.org/tft307.htm

 

[stray bullet]

you really hate Catholics, don't you?

You can't even use your own words, you have to just post the same hate material over and over again.

Again and again solo, post something against what the Church believes in and stop with this silly hatefilled propaganda.

 

[stray bullet]

Truth about the papacy:

" . . . bound in heaven. Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, 'feed My sheep'. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one. And all are pastors, but the flock is shown to be one, which is fed by all the Apostles with one mind and heart. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he think that he holds the faith? He who deserts the chair of Peter, upon whom the Church is founded, is he confident that he is in the Church?" - Cyprian of Carthage, Bishop in North Africa, 251 AD

 

[Solo]

you really hate Catholics, don't you?

You can't even use your own words, you have to just post the same hate material over and over again.

Again and again solo, post something against what the Church believes in and stop with this silly hatefilled propaganda.

I love Roman Catholics, I hate the lies of satan propagated upon the Roman Catholics by the Roman Catholic Church false teachings. Read the posts from former Roman Catholics who have the experience and knowledge to lead you to the truth. Open you eyes to God's freedom in Jesus Christ. Come out of the False Church.

 

[stray bullet]

Name a lie.

That's why it's hate, you just rant and do cut and paste jobs about how awful the Chruch is. That's not speaking in truth or love. To do that, you calmly explain what a Church is teaching that's wrong, you don't do that.

You just post hatefilled testimonies from bitter ex-Catholics. You post hate articles like this one.

You never address what's wrong with what the Church teaches.

So here's your chance, in your own words, what does the Church actually teach that's so wrong? I ask this and I KNOW you can't answer...
because you HATE Catholics. This isn't about the truth, it's pure, rabid hatred.

 

[Atonement]

I see in this thread there is alot to discuss, and many things should be discussed. However the cut and paste jobs need to stop unless a link is provided, or the source is given.

Also, let's not turn this into a hate thread. Stray bullet being a Catholic take offense to this; Rightly so.. However, let's let Solo redeem himself for the meaning behind this thread..

 

[Atonement]

Solo forgive me.. I stand corrected, the source was given. The rest of my previous post stands

 

[stray bullet]

solo isn't interested in a discussion. I have asked him over and over again to name one thing he disagrees with the Church over, or has a problem with.

He's incapable of actually typing out a single argument about why the Church is wrong. This shows his posts are based purely on hatred and ignorance.

I would love to have a discussion with someone around here capable of actually saying what's wrong with Catholicism, in their own words. The arguments are all based on emotion, not having anything to do with rational thought.

 

[Solo]

Thou art Peter

The majority of Church Fathers know nothing of the Roman church's claim of Petrine supremacy. By the Roman church’s own criteria, its theory of papal supremacy is flawed and cannot stand up to historical examination.

The Roman church claims to introduce no new doctrine but only to develop what lies latent in Scripture and tradition. According to the celebrated maxim of Vincent of Lerins, she claims to believe what always was believed everywhere at all times. And she additionally claims that all her doctrine is in accordance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

When Petrine Supremacy is brought under the light of these their own rules then it becomes evident how false is the whole system, since papal authority comes crushing to the ground immediately. Their prime source in defending papal supremacy is Matthew 16, "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." They claim that Peter was there and then elected to be the first pope, was made infallible and not only him but also his successors, the bishops of Rome.

This absurd interpretation was unheard of in the early centuries, especially in ante-Nicene times. That the papacy and its arrogant claims developed over centuries is well-known but assiduously hid by the Roman church herself. A study of the Church Fathers reveals the following facts:

Interpretation of "rock" no. of Fathers

• Peter 17
  [/*:m:9030e]
• Peter's faith ("Thou are Christ...") 44
  [/*:m:9030e]
• Christ 16
  [/*:m:9030e]
• The Apostles 8[/*:m:9030e]

Augustine, for instance, wrote:

• "So he said, 'Thou are Peter, and upon this rock' that you have confessed, upon the rock that you have recognized', when you said, 'Thou are Christ, the Son of the living God, I will build my church." In another place he wrote: "On this rock which you have confessed I will build my church, since Christ is the rock." In his Retractions, he says: "I acknowledge when I was young, I taught that the rock was Peter, but I know afterwards, in very many places I have said these words must be understood to refer to Him who Peter confessed, when he said: "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God," because it was not said of him, "Thou are the rock" (Petra) but "Thou are Peter" (Petros). But the reader can choose which of these two interpretations appears to him to be the most probable."

The consent of the Fathers is simply lacking in the case of Matthew 16.

History also informs us of the sharp debates between Ultramontanism and Gallicanism; also from the Councils of Constance, Basle, Florence, Pisa (the time of the antipopes) it becomes evident that the Roman church was undecided who held the supremacy, whether it was the pope or an ecumenical council.

Finally the dogma of papal infallibility was promulgated during the first Vatican Council (1870) amidst sharp opposition from historians, theologians, bishops, but on the insistence of Pope Pius.

What can be said of petrine supremacy, a distinctly Romish teaching, can be said also of all other distinctly Romish dogmas. The Roman church acts upon her own authority and nothing else.

Retrieved from http://www.tecmalta.org/tft305.htm

 

[stray bullet]

All one has to do is read the truths from former Roman Catholics that have escaped the satanic bondage that they are under in the Roman Catholic Church. The only hate that is spewed on this board is from those who are mixed up in satanic cults. Those that reveal the lies and false teachings within these satanic cults are attacked continuously.

I will continue to reveal the lies of the Roman Catholic Church as I continue my research into the false teachings that Jesus said would come in the latter days. The doctrines of devils is upon us dear folk, and if you get involved, then do so by praying and witnessing to those folks who are in bondage to the lies of the devil.

No you won't because you don't have a single argument. You just say 'lie' over and over against because you so desperately want it to be, and yet you aren't even capable of explaining what's a lie, or what's wrong.

It's no wonder anti-Catholics like you have to cut and paste. You don't even know what it is you hate. You don't even know what Catholics actually believe. All you know about Catholicism is based on mudslinging articles that never address what's actually *wrong* with the Church.

 

[Atonement]

Solo, I must ask if you are going to refer the Catholic Church as a cult. Being an ex-Satanist myself and very familiar with cults and occults. Would you please from this moment forward use Scripture to prove any statements? Thank you brother..

-Atone

 

[Spirit Driven]

We must not forget however that God does actualy have everybody right where he wants them......

I certainly do not have all the answers..... but one thing I do know for sure, the Will of God always prevails in the end for each person.

Lets take a close look at the individual Roman Catholic who attends Church..
He has not and will never achieve right standing with God for, attending Church, confessing Sins, partaking in the Eucharist, or praying long prayers.
Any spiritual experience he may have in the RC Church would be in spite of it, not because of it.

What we must be carefull not to over look however, is the reason why they attend Church, each has faith in Christ Jesus to begin with....... and this is where they attain their right standing with God.... LOL..... before they even walk through the Church door on Sunday....and never relised it.

Remember only God knows the heart of each believer, there is no deception with him, if that individual RC church attender belives in Jesus, then they are justified by God...... it does not matter that the rest of what they do is Cow Chips in the sight of God......those who taught them these ways will be held accountable by God..... not the individual believer.

Jesus told Peter that he would found a Church that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against, ( correct translation would be Gates of the unseen (death))

It is ironic really that what is really preventing the Gates of Death from prevailing over the RC Church, is the Faith of its individual parishioners in Jesus Christ....and for no other reason.


Peace

 

[Solo]

Pope or council?

If Papal Infallibility is a fact, and if it existed from earliest time, this cancels out the necessity of church councils.

The Catholic church (in distinction from the Roman Catholic church, which developed later) resolved its major doctrinal difficulties by convening ecumenical councils (in which church leaders from a good part of Christendom participated). Other minor problems were tackled through provincial councils.

In the first five centuries several important councils were convened to discuss and settle the issue concerning the deity of Christ (against Arius), his two natures in one person (against several heresiarchs), and concerning the nature of free will (against Pelagius), among others.

This was the accepted mode of settling controversies, though it happened that one council led inevitably to another because of further developments. But the pattern for such councils was set by the apostles themselves when they gathered with the presbyters in Jerusalem to settle the issue whether circumcision was necessary for salvation.

At that time the deciding factor was an appeal to the Scriptures. The canonical Scriptures enjoyed the final and supreme authority; though many voiced their opinion and understanding, the deciding Voice was that of Scripture. It was looked upon as a sure guide. On that occasion, Peter spoke but by no means was the final decision his decision. Rather "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit (speaking through Scripture) and to us (the unity of the church in following the truth)...".

Now it is illogical and nonsensical, if Peter really was pope, to convene the council. There would have been no need for it whatsoever. A word from Peter would have been sufficient, and everybody would bow to it in submission.

And if the bishops of Rome are his successors, then why has the catholic church convened council after council to settle doctrinal matters? The very fact, though, that councils were convened proves that no-one at that time had yet dreamed of one person enjoying infallibility and being the supreme spokesman for God.

The largest General Council of the West was that of Constance in 1414-1416. At this Council the three conflicting popes were deposed from the papal seat and Martin V elected - a sure sign that a council had authority over the pope (even according to the Roman Church at that time).

If the pope is really what he claims to be, he could have avoided much hassle and heartache by simply speaking and settling the issue. When Christ was asked questions, he gave the answers. If the pope is his vicar, why doesn't he do the same?

The very fact of councils throughout church history militates against the fable of papal infallibility.

Spotlight on some church councils (vis-a’-vis the papacy) Jerusalem

During the council of Jerusalem a troublesome issue had to be settled. The church was still preponderously Jewish in membership, but since Gentiles were being converted too, they had to decide whether these had to become Jews (by circumcision) before they could be counted true Christians.

The gathered assembly took action by having key personages relate their missionary experiences and making mention of God's choice of them and God's programme to obtain an inheritance from among the Gentiles. This was seen to be in agreement with Amos's declaration that David fallen tabernacle will be rebuilt. They saw it as a fulfillment of prophecy. This council had both orthodox believers and also Pharisees who had believed but who were still intent on observing all the law of Moses, not only they, but also all who repent and trust in the Lord Jesus.

The involvement of the Latin church was virtually nil since we hear of no delegates from anywhere except from Antioch and nearby localities.

Arles

The council of Arles is not considered an ecumenical council and yet it is instructive for us today: it reveals how things still in relation to Rome. The followers of Donatus from North Africa appealed against the decisions of this council, interestingly enough, not to the Bishop of Rome but to the emperor, who convened the council of Arles. They were then condemned the second time.

What is so significant is that during the whole proceedings the bishop of Rome was not appealed to; it is clear that, at least up to that time (AD 314), the final say of the Roman Bishop was still unknown.

This provincial council was convened by the Latin church but without the permission or overseership of the Roman Bishop. Its conclusions settled the matter.

Nicea

The arch-heresiarch Arius was bold in teaching that Jesus has a similar nature to the Father, but was not divine. Alexander rightly opposed this teaching and condemned him in a council held in 320 or 321. Still adamant, Arius continued in the way of perdition, thus leading the organised church to assemble in council at Nicea, as summoned not by the pope (who at that time was not even called pope) but by the emperor Constantine.

An interesting action taken during this council, apart from declaring the full deity of Christ, was to pronounce the areas of jurisdiction that Rome, Antioch and Alexandria were to enjoy. The Bishop of Rome, admittedly, had his area of influence but it was far from a universal sway over all Christendom. These three bishops were forbidden to invade the churches across the borders of their diocese.

During Nicea Rome played its part, but it was certainly not a major role or a decisive role.

Constantinople

The first ecumenical council of Constantinople, once again was convened at the command of the emperor, not the Pope. And, surprise of surprises, the Bishop of Rome was not invited, and neither did he send any delegates. Rome did not acknowledge the patriarch of Antioch, Meletius, who presided over the council.

No wonder that Rome did not consider this as an ecumenical council, but she had to change her mind, by the sheer influence of this council.

Some of the disciples of Mecedonius, bishop of Constantinople, are said to have held that the Holy Spirit was not supreme God. These were condemned by the second General council, which met at Constantinople, AD 381. This council defined and guarded the orthodox faith, by adding definite clauses to the simple reference which the ancient creed had made to the Holy Spirit.

Ephesus

The city of Ephesus hosted the third ecumenical council in 431. It was precipitated by the teachings of Nestorius after Pope Celestine's condemnation. Once again, it was convened by the emperor, Theodosius II. The council, among other things, uttered the orthodox doctrine about Christ, being one person, having two natures (divine and human), not mixed together. Nestorius had said, "God could not be a baby in a manger." The council, while defending Christ's humanity, declared also his deity. Its decision condemned the Nestorians, and affirmed the unity of the Person of Christ.

More than this, Bousset says: "It was fixed (during this council) that all was in suspense once the authority of the universal synod was invoked, even though the sentence of the Roman Pontiff about doctrine, and about persons accused of heresy had been uttered and promulgated."

Chalcedon

The fourth General council was called by the emperor Marcian, after the emperor Theodosius refused to convene one in Italy at the entreaty of Pope Leo.

This council at Chalcedon was held in spite of the opposition of Leo the Great, who protested against the new council defining any doctrine. His protest was ignored! The emperor presided for the sake of order. This was in 451.

Up to this time it is undeniable that the supreme authority for the church at large was the council. It is all too obvious that the pope did not enjoy the supreme and infallible power he boasts of today.

The jurisdiction of the various patriarchates was once against decided on the basis of political influence. No mention of Scripture, such as Matthew 16, was made in favour of Rome. Rome held the place of honour, as the imperial city, but New Rome (Constantinople) came second. The reasoning here is not scriptural; it is merely political. During the whole argument the delegates from Rome did not advance the pre-eminence of Rome on the basis of a God-given authority.

The issue at this council was the person of Christ; the result was what is known today as the Chalcedonian Creed, upheld to this day by all conservative believers. This was formulated against Eutyches, who mixed the two natures of Christ together.

Constantinople again

The second council of Constantinople (553) proved to be another backlash from the pretensions of the papacy. Pope Leo's Tome was rejected. Vigilius excommunicated deacons and clergy and was excommunicated in turn by the patriarch of Constantinople and the African church.

In spite of this Rome recognises this council as legal and ecumenical. 165 bishops attended, only 12 of whom were Western.

The council made far-reaching decisions in the area of Christology. It affirmed that the single person of the incarnate Lord was not other than the divine Logos, a point not made explicit by Chalcedon. The council went on to give its approval to Cyril of Alexandria's statement that "One of the Holy Trinity suffered in the flesh."

The West failed to offer whole-hearted support to the council. Pope Vigilius boldly refused to give his consent, but changed his mind after Justinian banished him to a small island for six months. Large sections of the Western church disowned their fickle-minded pope's action, as they had done in 548 when he approved the Three Chapters. Milan and Aquileia broke off communion with Rome (the schism lasted for years).

Even so, the West did come to recognise this council as the firth ecumenical council, mostly through the sweeping use of papal authority by pope Pelagius I (556-61), chosen by Justinian as Vigilius's successor.

The verdict of history

In respect to the pretensions of Rome, my conclusion as I study church history, is that her pretensions are haughty, illegitimate and baseless. When brought at the bar of history, Rome must plead guilty of usurpation of power. The church at large conducted her affairs through councils; the appeal to the pope became normal practice during the Middle Ages, and even then councils (especially Constance, 15th century) vied with the popes for power and authority.

Retrieved from http://www.tecmalta.org/tft308.htm

 

[Solo]

The petrine heresy

The term "pope" by which the head of the Roman Catholic church is known, is derived from the Latin papa, meaning father. But Jesus forbade his followers to call any man father in a spiritual sense (Matthew 23:9). In ancient times, several patriarchs were called pope, but eventually as the claims of Rome rose higher and higher, the bishop of Rome came to hold this title exclusively to himself. Gregory I was the first one to be given the title of universal bishop by the wicked emperor Phocas, in the year 604. This he did to spite the bishop of Constantinople. Gregory, knowing that this was a novel idea, refused the title, but his second successor, Boniface III (607) assumed the title, and it has been the designation of the bishops of Rome ever since.

Again, the term "Pontiff," referring to the pope, means a bridge builder. It comes from pagan Rome, where the emperor, as the high priest of the heathen religion, was called "Pontifex Maximus." The title was lifted from paganism and applied to the head of the Roman Catholic church. Thus the pope claims to be the mediator between God and men, in flat contradiction to 1 Timothy 2:5. He claims to be the head, whereas Christ is clearly given this position in Colossians 2:9 and 1:18.

The papal system has been in process of development over a long period of time, with error encroaching upon error so that the end result is something diametrically opposite to apostolic Christianity. Romanists claim an unbroken line of succession from the alleged first pope. But the list itself is quite doubtful; it was revised several times, with a number who formerly were listed as popes now listed as anti-popes. The existence of an unbroken succession from the apostles to the present can neither be proved nor disproved.

For a period of six centuries after the time of Christ none of the regional churches attempted to exercise authority over any of the other churches. The early ecumenical councils were composed of delegates from the various churches who met as equals.

The first six centuries of the Christian era know nothing of any spiritual supremacy on the part of the bishops of Rome. Gregory the First is the one who consolidated the power of the bishopric of Rome and started that church on a new course.

The papal cause was much aided by forgery and blatant lies which were exposed during the Renaissance through such critical studies as those of Valla on the "Donation of Constantine" and the "Isidorian Decretals."

The pope boasts of exercising the power of the keys. But as early as the second century, Tertullian writes that "every one who confesses Christ, as Peter did, has the keys of the kingdom of heaven, as did Peter" (Scorpiaca).

It is also well-known that in post-Constantine times the Roman empire was Christianized but the far majority of the people were Christian only in name. Numberless pagan customs were brought in the church. One of them was the role of the emperor as patron and high priest of the religious system.

With the downfall of Rome and the removal of the seat of the emperor from Rome to Constantinople, the way was paved for the Antichrist to be raised up and assume his blasphemous role, thus fulfilling 2 Thessalonians 2, eventually coming to the position where the pope was called God on earth. For instance, Leo X was addressed thus by John Capito Aretinus (1513-21): "If to serve God is truly to reign, you are reigning if you serve Leo, for Leo is God on earth."

Eminent scholars, such as A.Hislop, have also traced the pagan origins of the papacy. We read about a Peter Roma, the interpreter of the pagan mysteries (cf. papal infallibility), we read about the keys of Cybele and Janus, the power of which is now vested in the Bishop of Rome.

The Sancta Sede has nothing to do with the New Testament; actually it is traced back to paganism. When seated on this chair, the pope is now said to be infallible in the doctrines and decrees he makes, exactly the same fables that were popular in paganism. The popes of Rome are in fact direct successors of the ancient pontiffs of the Babylonian religion having a very thin disguise of Christianity.

The true origins of the papacy, therefore, however shocking it might be to many, is from crass paganism.

Retrieved from http://www.tecmalta.org/tft309.htm

 

[Proximity]

I personally don't think that the RC church has it right. I think that there is far too many man-inspired things about it, and i don't buy into the pope being the representative of God on earth.

But,

I don't agree with the way Solo is approaching this. I think that he should use his own words and some scripture rather than recycling someone elses work that is so long and drawn out that no one is going to bother reading it...

 

[Atonement]

Yes very understandable.

 

[Solo]

I personally don't think that the RC church has it right. I think that there is far too many man-inspired things about it, and i don't buy into the pope being the representative of God on earth.

But,

I don't agree with the way Solo is approaching this. I think that he should use his own words and some scripture rather than recycling someone elses work that is so long and drawn out that no one is going to bother reading it...

It is unnecessary to re-invent the wheel. These points made by the authors that I post have done the research necessary to make the points, and they are Ex-Roman Catholics. Their perspective is much more illuminating than mine would be. I propose that those who are interested in the topics will read the posts, and those who are not interested will not. I happen to be an individual who enjoys reading documented researched items, instead of opinions of individuals. I suspect others enjoy reading the researched works of others as I do.

 

[Atonement]

Is there already a thread for Ex-Roman Catholics?

 

[Solo]

Is there already a thread for Ex-Roman Catholics?

There is a thread for testimonies of ex-Roman Catholics. This thread is started to convey the differences between the Roman Catholic teachings and the Scriptures. The articles that I have posted thus far are from a gentleman that was a Roman Catholic. This thread is not a thread about the testimonies of Ex-Roman Catholics.