Bones Beads And

8/8/2019 Bones Beads And

1/36

Acknowledgments

There are many people who have helped me in this work, but the two

that have been the most supportive and encouraging are my parents,Grace and John. They have always been there for me, through the

good and the not so good times. They have been pillars in this

unstable world and when many forsook me - they did not, showing me

the true nature of love. For this I Thank you.

I also thank those who have prayed for me, night and day in

some cases, and those who have helped in every other way. There are

some that need a special thanks, like Kenny and Wendy who where

always just a phone call away and who never shrank from helping me

in anyway they could.A big show of appreciation must go to Alan for his continual

help with books and research material - without whose help this study

would not have been possible. I must make mention of Carlo with his

help in proof reading and suggestions on writing style, he has been a

great help.

I an indebted to Dr Gordon Beck for his friendship and help

in completing my study, this, I am sure, has been an education for him

as well as my self.

I must also thank my darling Suzanne for always being there

and giving me the strength to go through with everything.

1


2/36

CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.3

FOREWORD4

THE PRIMACY OF THE PAPAL SYSTEM..10

INTRODUCTION....10

ROMES DEEDS OF DOMINATION11

MATTHEW 16..11THE FALSE DECRETALS..18

THE CHURCH........22

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS22THE PAPACYS VIEW23

BIBLIOGRAPHY....31

2


3/36

FOREWORD

In the ninth century BC, the Bible tells us that the House of Judah

walked in the ways of the House of Ahab. The modern reader mightwell be forgiven for not understanding the significance of this

statement and what it actually meant. To understand this, we have to

look at what were the ways of the House of Ahab and what that meant

for the house of Judah? The answer is found in 1st Kings 16: 30-33.

Here we find that Ahab, did evil in the sight of the Lord above allthat were before him(30) and it had been a light thing for himto walk in the sin of Jeroboam(31). So the way of Ahab was towalk in the sin of Jeroboam. Well, to find out what the sin of

Jeroboam was, we must look at 1st

Kings 14:9, for thou hast goneand made thee other gods, and molten images, to provoke me to anger,and hast cast me behind thy back. So Judah had turned from God, setup idols and disregarded all that Jehovah had done for them. Judah,

like Israel before her, had fallen into great apostasy - forsaking the

laws of God and embracing the gods of those who inhabited the lands

around them.

In or about the year 835 BC, after years of apostasy, Joash

was proclaimed King of Judah. At seven years of age the young

monarch was to be advised by the priest Jehoiada; it was under his

influence that the young king would reinstate the worship of Jehovah.

First, by instigating a building program that brought about the

restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem, which had been almost

destroyed by the sons of Athaliah. Secondly, by bringing back the old

sacrificial system. These events are conveyed to us in the twenty-

fourth chapter of the second book of Chronicles: it tells the reader how

Joash did, That which was right all the days of Jehoiada the priest (2nd

Chronicles 24:2). If this had been the final statement on the kings

life, it would have been a wonderful testimony, but unfortunately this

is not the case. Soon after the death of Jehoiada, the king bows topressure from the princes of Judah and becomes a willing participant

in the nations apostasy. So much so, that when prophets are sent by

the Lord so that they, testified against them(2nd Chronicles 24: 19),he had the son of Jehoiada, Zachariah, murdered in the very Temple

that he had restored.

The reader might well have asked, exactly what has this

portion of Holy Scripture got to do with any study of Roman

Catholicism. Well, to understand that we have to take a trip to

Germany in the 1520s to a place called Spires. It was at this time andplace that Emperor Charles V called a council with the expressed hope

3


4/36

that the different factions within the Church would reach a

compromise on their differing beliefs. As the opposing sides

assembled at Spires on the 25th of June 1526, many of the reformed

were in jubilant spirits. As they travelled to Spires they carried banners

with the letters V.D.M.I.AE an abbreviation of the Latin, Verbum Dom

manet in AEternum (The word of the Lord endureth for ever: 1st Peter1:25).1 The ordinary people of Spires were so influenced by this great

statement of faith that they began to embroider it on the sleeves of

their garments. It was at this first council of Spires in the form of the

Recess Declaration that the reformed nobles won the right to princely

liberty in the proviso: Cuius regio, eius religio (who ever rules has theright to determine religion).2 This stopped the empire falling into any

further turmoil; as there had already been two critical outbreaks of

civil unrest: the feud of the Imperial Knights (1522-3) and the

Peasants War (1524-5).3

In 1529 a second council was called at Spiresand it is as a result of the annulment of the Recess that we have the

word Protestant. The term Protestant is a noun derived from a

compound verb, which originated from Latin to testify against pro-test-ant. This title was taken directly from 2nd Chronicles 24: 19 andwas first used by those calling for reform in the Roman Church in

15294. We can see that this was no new idea God in his greatness has

always raised up men and women to speak out against error. This is

the way He had worked in the reign of Joash and the way He would

work in 15th century Germany with those calling for reform in the

Roman Church. Then on the 15th of April 1529 after pressure was

placed on the emperor by the pope the gains won at the first Council of

Spires were renounced; this left the reformed princes with no choice

but to make their famous declaration - at which they claimed to be

Protestants (testifiers against error).5 It is in these surroundings that we

first come across the word Protestant.

In the last decades of the twentieth century ecumenism had

made great inroads into the evangelical Protestant community so

much so, that many Bible believing Christians rejected the name

Protestant. Statements that had been made by supposed Christianleaders influenced this opinion, undoubtedly. Let us look at some of

those statements:

Paul Crouch: I am eradicating the word Protestant even out of

my vocabulary. Im not protesting anything! Its time for

1 Wylie. J.A. History of Protestantism. p 820.

2 Davies. N.Europe A History. p 485.

3 Ibid. p 485.4 Ayto. J. Bloomsbury Dictionary of Word Origins. p 416.

5 DAubigne. J. H.History of the 16th Century Reformation. p 1253.4


5/36

Catholics and non- Catholics to come together as one in the

Spirit and one in the Lord.6

Billy Graham: Ive found that my beliefs are

essentially the same as those of orthodox Roman

Catholics.7

Robert Schuller: Its time for Protestants to go to the

shepherd (the pope) and say, What do we have to do

to come home?8

John Wimber: The Pope, who is very responsive to

the Charismatic movement and is himself a

born again evangelical, is preaching the gospel as

clear as anyone in the world today.9

It was statements like these that were to be the precursor to

the now infamous document Evangelicals and Catholics Together.Our own land had a local version of this, which was signed by fourteen

group participants who framed the document in question, including

four Presbyterian ministers. Also contained in its pages is a list of

those who were happy to endorse its contents, including the former

Presbyterian Moderator, Alistair Dunlop.10 On page 13, of the

document, it states: As Evangelicals and Catholics, we thank God forall that was good in the Reformation and in the Counter-

Reformation.11 One wonders what exactly Mr Dunlop finds good inthe Counter-Reformation a time when godly men and women were

ruthlessly murdered for their faith in Christ alone.

It was under this trend, that the new millennium was to be

ushered in. Many ordinary Evangelical Christians looked forward to

encouraging better relationships with what they saw as their sister

Christian Church (the Papacy), but many were to be disappointed with

the unfolding events of the 21st century. The first blow was to come on

the 6th of August 2001 when the one-time member of the Hitler Youthand modern-day Grand Inquisitor, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was

born in Bavaria in 192712, released the Papal Declaration DominusIesus. This was formulated by The Congregation for the Doctrine of

6 Said on Trinity Broadcasting Network, 19th October, 1989.

7 From an interview given to McCalls, January 1978.

8 The Los Angeles Herald, 19th September 1987.

9 Quoted in, Paul and Carolyn WildesA Look inside the Roman

Catholic Church. p 58.

10 S. Neilly. Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Some Quotes And Comments.11 Ibid.

12 Baigent. M. and Leigh. R. The Inquisition. Page 247.5


6/36

Faith, known at one time as the Office of the Holy Inquisition.

Dominus Iesus puts the Protestant Faith on the same level as non-Christian religions. It also re-iterates the Roman Catholic Churchs

belief in its own supremacy. This is what it has to say on the subjects

of the Church and of Papal primacy:

The Catholic faithful are required to

profess there is an historical continuity rooted in the

apostolic succession between the Church founded

by Christ and the Catholic Church: This is the single

Church of Christ which our Saviour, after his

resurrection, entrusted to Peters pastoral care13

This Church, constituted and organised as a

society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in]the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of

Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him

That the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which

exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only

in the Catholic Church 14

So, we see the old view held by the Roman Church of it

being the true church of God now propagated once more. The

document also goes on to say that all who do not submit to Romes

teachings Are not Churches in the proper sense.15 This came asa great shock to many in the Protestant Faith: had they not been told

that the Roman Church had changed? She may have had some strange

beliefs on her books, but no one actually believes in them- or did

they? The previous statements seem to override or, in fact, reverse

what liberal Catholics thought had been won by the spirit of

ecumenism. British theologian, Adrian Hastings made this comment

on the Papal reign of John Paul II (the same man whom Billy Graham

calls, The greatest religious leader of the modern world and one of

the greatest moral and spiritual leaders of this century.):16

The great tide powered by Vatican II has, at least

institutionally, spent its force. The old landscape has

once more emerged and Vatican II is now being read

13 Dominus Iesus Part IV, section 16, para 3. The Document is

quoted in whole in a paper by S. Neilly, entitled,Dominus Iesus and

each section is commented upon by Pastor. Neilly.

14 Ibid.15 Ibid. Part IV, section 17, para 2.

16 The Sunday Evening Post, Volume 252, number 1. February 1980.6


7/36

in Rome far more in the spirit of Vatican I and within

the context of Pius XIIs model of Catholicism. 17

Men like Gary Wills and Paul Knitter also hold this

perception. Knitter claims that Pope John Paul II has along with

Cardinal Ratzinger held a bloodless coup in the Vatican.18We have also heard the proposition that the leadership of the

Church might hold to these dogmas but the laity and the Catholic

people do not accept such teachings. Well, that point of view was to

be blown out of the water by the seventy-five day visit to Ireland of the

relics of St Therese of Lisieux, 1873-97, (The Little Flower). On the

15th of April 2001 it is believed that almost one hundred thousand

people gathered to welcome the bones of the youngest of the three

women to have the title of Doctor of the Church conferred on her. The

remains of this woman were to be paraded throughout the land in aglass case and with a military guard of honour. This is what the Priest

Gabriel OBrien had to say:

We welcome the relics of St Therese

These relics are what is left of the mortal remains of

this great Saint. They are to be revered and

reverencedThey are also instruments through

which God grants favours to us who are still on our

Pilgrim Way.19

There was genuine horror and disbelief at the scenes of

hysteria people were crying as they lined the streets in an attempt to

see or touch the glass encased silver coffin there was a great out

pouring of emotion at this tour, which lasted until the 28th of June. The

Roman Church declared the visit as an overwhelming sensation.

Bishop Comiskey the same Bishop Comiskey who only a few years

earlier had come under considerable pressure to resign over the cover-

up of paedophilia in the Roman Church20, and who, after a publicperformance of self pity, at which he said, I was born in a little housein the middle of nowhereI never asked for a pedestal, was shippedoff to the USA to receive treatment for alcoholism.21 He was

eventually to resign on the issue of papal paedophilia. He proclaimed

17 Cornwall. J. Hitlers Pope. Page 8.

18 Agenda, 6th April 2003.

19 Taken from a commemorative booklet, which was quoted inNews

from the Front, September 2001 issue; magazine of Take Heed

Ministries. p 4.20 M. Tanner, Irelands Holy Wars, p 406.

21 Ibid, p 407.7


8/36

this:

People come in their thousands to touch the remains

of the dead Therese because they wish to be

themselves with the living power of God who works

through her.22

It was under such circumstances that people in Evangelical

circles were left with no choice but to reconsider what some of their

leaders had been telling them about the Roman Church. This is what

we will be doing in this study; we will look at what the Papacys

teachings are and then hold them up to the only standard that can

authenticate or invalidate her claims - the light of Gods Holy

Scripture. In this thesis, we will examine Romes words under the

microscope of Gods. Has she changed, or have the people of Godbeen fed a lie that would compare with Satans in the garden of Eden.

Like Satans lie, this has a mixture of truth and error. There will be

many, no doubt, who will claim this study was under taken in the spirit

of bigotry and that it is only offending other Christians. Some of this

is true, it could offend those who hold to the Roman Catholic Faith,

but this is not the intention. It is simply asking that, whatever our

faith, we should examine it against Gods Word, and if that upsets

some, may I assure them that this has not been my intention. I hope

that I have not become their enemy because I have told them the truth

(Galatians 4:16). I leave them with the words of Martin Luther:

Those who boldly stand for the truth will not remain

long on friendly terms with the teachers of error.

Unity with them would be an unmistakable sign that

we have lost the true doctrine. To receive evil

workers as Paul calls them (Phil. 3:3), requires that

we call evil good and good evil (Isa 5:4).23

22 Taken from a commemorative booklet, which was quoted inNews

from the Front, September 2001 issue; magazine of Take Heed

Ministries. p 2.23 Cited in Scottish Protestant View vol 29 number 4, May/June

2002 issue, p6.8


9/36

THE PRIMACY OF THE PAPAL SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION

The doctrine formulated by the Roman Catholic Church that it is The

One True Church, and that the Roman Pontiff is its supreme head, has

led to centuries of dispute: first with the Eastern Church and then with

the Reformers. For almost seven hundred years in the first millennium

AD the Eastern and Western factions of the Christian Church did battle

for the supremacy of the Christian Religion. The Bishop of Rome and

then the Bishop of Constantinople, would at different times claim to be

the universal bishop of the church. In our study we will look at the

formation, development and the natural conclusion of Papalsupremacy in the Ultramontanists teaching of Papal Infallibility.

The Roman Church in its search for papal primacy has used

many tactics: these include the use of theIsidorian Decretals whichcontainsDonation of Constantine. These claim that the EmperorConstantine, after he had been cured of leprosy by Pope Sylvester,

gave the city of Rome and all its wealth to the papacy. Even the

Roman Church now sees both of these as forgeries. Then there has

been the infamous papal bull Unam Sanctam with its claims of worlddomination and the even strangerIndex Lidrorum Prohibitorum (orGuide to Prohibited Books). This list contained some 4.000 titles,

ranging from Shakespeares King Lear to the Bible itself24. The Bible

stayed on this index until the year 1966.

24 Davies. N.Europe A History. pp 260-1.9


10/36

ROMES DEEDS OF DOMINATION

Any study of Papal primacy must first look at the material the Roman

Church uses to substantiate its claim. So what is the view held by the

Roman Catholic Church concerning Peter and what material do they

use to back up these claims? We will let her speak for her self. In1994 the Roman Church published a new catechism for the first time

in four hundred years so I think we can safely say, that this will be

the Roman Churchs statement of belief for the foreseeable future.

This is what that catechism has to say:

880 When Christ instituted the twelve, he

constituted [them] in the form of a college or

permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed

Peter, chosen from among them. Just as by theLords institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles

constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion

the Roman Pontiff, Peters successor, and the bishops,

the successors of the apostles are related with and

united to one another

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named

Peter, the rock of the church. He gave Him the

keys of his church and instituted him the shepherd of

the whole flock. the office of binding and loosing

which was given to Peter was also assigned to the

college of apostles united to its head. This pastoral

office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the

churchs very foundation and is continued by the

bishops under the primacy of the pope.

882 The pope, Bishop of Rome and Peters successor,

is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of

the unity both of the bishops and the whole companyof the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of

his office as Vicar of Christ, and pastor of the entire

Church has full, supreme, and universal power over

the whole Church, a power which he can always

exercise unhindered.25

25 Catechism of the Catholic Church. Published by GeoffreyChapman.10


11/36

MATTHEW 16

The Papacy puts forward the view that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself

instituted the supremacy of the Papal system. In putting forward this

hypothesis Rome uses several pieces of Holy Scripture. For instance,

it claims that because Peters name is first in various listings of the

apostles (Matthew 10:24; Mark 3: 16-19; Luke 6:14-16) that he is

therefore the chief apostle. Also in the Gospel of Matthew (16:19), the

Roman Church believes that the Lord Jesus indicated Peter was the

Rock, the very foundation of the church. We are also told by the

Romanists, that because Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom

(Matthew 16:19) he has received primacy in all things this in turn,they say, has passed to the modern-day Peter (the Pope).

It is true, the Apostle Peter is named first in the listing of the

apostles names, but what does this prove? Simply, absolutely

nothing! In Matthew 16:23, the Lord Jesus calls Peter Satan. Where

does this fit in with Romes teaching of Peter being the foundation of

the church. In Acts 15: 1-35 we are told that the Apostle James sits at

the head of the Council of Jerusalem. Where is Peters supposed

primacy here? If Peter were the supreme pontiff would he not sit as

the adjudicator at this most important event? In Galatians 2:11-15,Paul says: 11I withstood him to the face, because he was toblame. 14I said unto Peter before them all. Here in HolyScripture and not for the first time, we see Peters compromising spirit

in action, but most importantly, Paul does not see him as the earthly

head of the Church and that Peter was not infallible after all. In fact

Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 12:11, For in nothing am I behind thevery chiefest of the apostles, though I be nothing. So all believers areequal under God.

The main section of Holy Scripture used by the RomanChurch to substantiate its claims of Papal primacy is found in the

Gospel of Matthew. It is upon the Roman Churchs exegesis of

Matthew 16:18, that her affirmation is founded or flounders literally.

It is this section of Scripture that will come under scrutiny here. Let us

look at Matthew 18 and see what exactly we learn from this most

important piece of Gods Word?

13. When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he

asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the

Son man am?

14. And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist:11


12/36

some Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the other

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 artthou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not

revealed it unto you, 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.

Rome claims that the above verses prove the Lord Jesus

Christ bestowed upon the apostle Peter the primacy of the whole

church. They say that in verse 18 of Matthew 16 when the Lord said,thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church He hadmade Peter the earthly head of the Church. This is the base for all of

the Roman Catholic Churchs claims and if their hermeneutics is

found to be faulty on this subject then whatever follows has to be

looked at very carefully.

So, what is Jesus actually saying in this verse? Let us

examine what has been said in the previous few verses. In verse 13 the

Lord asks His disciples who do the people say that he is. They (the

disciples) reply by saying; that some say he is John the Baptist; others

that he is Elijah, Jeremiah or even some other prophet. But in response

to the question, Peter tells the Lord that he is the Son of the Living

God, the Christ. The Lord Jesus confirms this by telling Peter that this

could only be revealed to him by His Father in Heaven. Christ

continues by saying to Peter, that upon this rock I will build myChurch. The main subject for debate here is, who or what is the

Rockupon which the Church is to be built. The Roman Churchpurports that the rock is Peter but this has not always been the case,

there have many in the Roman Catholic Church who did not adhere to

this particular view.The American Archbishop Kenrick prepared this speech for

the First Vatican Council, 1869-70, but was prevented from addressing

the gathering on the subject by the powerful untramontanists. These

are the statistics, which he put forward:

That no less than Five different interpretations of

Matthew 16:18 are given by the Fathers: (1)

That the Church is built on Peter is taught by

seventeen Fathers; (2) that the Rock is the whole bodyof the Apostles is held by eight Fathers; (3) that the

12


13/36

Rock is the Faith confessed by Peter is held by forty-

four Fathers; (4) that the Rock is Christ is held by

sixteen; (5) that the Rock includes all the faithful-

living stones of which the Church is built is held by a

few If we are bound to follow the greater number

of the Fathers, then we must hold for certain that theword PETRA means, not Peter but the Faith professed

by Peter.26

Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger, seen by many as the

most renowned Church historian in Roman Catholic circles during the

19th century, had this to say:

Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the

Gospels (Matt 16:18, John 21:17), not a single one ofthem applies them to the Roman bishops as Peters

successors. How many Fathers have busied

themselves with these texts, yet not one of them

whose commentaries we possess Origen,

Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodorer, and

those whose interpretations are collected in the

catenas has dropped the faintest hint that the

primacy of Rome is the consequence of the

commission and promise to Peter! Not one of them

has explained the rock or the foundation on which

Christ would build His Church of the office given to

Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they

understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peters

confession of faith in Christ; often together. Or else

they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all

the other Apostles, the twelve being together the

foundation stones of the Church (Apoc xxi.14). The

Fathers could less recognise in the power of the keys,

and the power of binding and loosing, any specialprerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop,

inasmuch as what is obvious to any one at first sight

they did not regard a power first given to Peter, and

afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on

all the Apostles, as anything peculiar to him, or

hereditary in the line of the Roman Bishops, and they

held the symbol of the keys as meaning the just the

same as the figurative expression of binding and

26 B. Porcelli.Antichrist. p112.13


14/36

loosing27

So, all within the Roman Catholic Church was not as clear-cut asthey would have us believe. Let us continue with a look at what some

of those Church Fathers made of Matthew 16. We will start with

Augustines observations on the matter of theRock:

Christ, you see, built his Church on no man but

Peters confession. What is Peters confession? You

are the Christ, the Son Living of God. Theres the

rock for you, theres the foundation, theres where the

Church has been built, which the gates of theunderworld cannot conquer.28

Augustine (354-430 AD) is esteemed by the Roman Catholic

Church as its greatest theologian and has been conferred with the title,

Doctor of the Church. He also authored 113 books.

Chrysostom (344-407 AD) was a student of the

Antioch school, who went on to become the Patriarch of

Constantinople. This is his view onRock:

And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this

rock I will build my church; that is, on the faith of his

confession.29

Cyril of Alexandria (375-444 AD) bishop of Alexandria and

Doctor of the Church, he made this comment on Matthew 16:

Now by the word rock, Jesus indicated I think the immovable

faith of the disciple.30

27 J.H. von Dollinger. The Pope and the Council. p 74.

28 The Works of Saint Augustine. Vol 6 p 327.

29 A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church. Homily

54.1. Cited inRoman Catholic Tradition: claims and Contradictions,

William Webster, Christian Resources INC. 1999.30 Commentary on Isaiah. Cited inRoman Catholic Tradition: claims

and Contradictions, William Webster, Christian Resources INC. 1999.14


15/36

Jerome (342-420) a leading Roman Catholic theologian and Doctor

of the Church put it as simply as this:

The Rock is Christ31

Origen (185-254 AD) a pupil of Clement and the

school of Alexandria had this to say:

If we speak as Peter did Thou art the Christ the Son

of the Living God,we become Peters, and to us it

would be said by the Word Thou art Peter and upon this

rock I will build my Church. For every disciple of

Christ is a rock.32

It seems that the teaching of the Church Fathers has more in

common with the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 held by those of the

Reformed faith, than the current view put forward by the Church of

Rome.

Those of the reformed faith convey that theRockis the beliefin Jesus being the Son of God; in other words, Peters statement of

faith is theRockupon which the Church is grounded. ReformedTheologians further point to the word meanings in the original Greek:

in the Greek Peter (petros) can only be interrupted as a small stone.Shleusner defines the meaning as this, Lapidem qui e loco in locummoveri.- A stone that can be moved from place to place.33 It isonly used in the New Testament sense as a proper name a true noun.

But the term Rock (petra) has a meaning of a large rock or moundand is not used anywhere in Scripture in a personal form. In Mark

15:46 the term is used to denote the rock out of which Josephs tomb

has been hewn. In Luke 8:6 it describes where the unfruitful seed fell.

In Matthew 7:24-25 it is the word used as the rock where the wise man

built his house. In Romans 9:33 and 1st Corinthians 10:4, it is used

metaphorically as a symbol of Christ.34 Shleusner comments thus onthese verses, they are, Metaphorice et modo plane singulari.

Metaphorically and in a sense evidently peculiar.35 Nowhere inScripture is the wordpetra used to describe the person of Peter.

31 R. Zins.Romanism. p 134.

32 A. Campbell Was Peter the First Pope..

33 S. Cassels Christ And Antichrist.. p 287, note F.34 Ibid.

35 Ibid.15


16/36

To be fair to the Roman Catholic Church, it has countered the

Reformed view by pointing out that in the Aramaic language there is

only one term for the word rock (kepha). So they claim the Lord saidto Peter you are the rock and upon you I will build my church. Not so,

reply the Reformed theologians; there has never been any evidence to

suggest that any of the New Testament was written in Aramaic. It istrue that we do not know what exactly the Lord Jesus said in Aramaic

but we do know what the Biblical record has laid before us. No Bible

scholar has ever discovered any evidence to suggest that the original

New Testament text was written in any other language but Greek. This

is what the leading New Testament scholar Kurt Aland has to say on

this textual matter:

There is no longer any doubt that Greek was the

language in which all parts of the New Testament wereoriginally written36

We have looked at what the Roman Catholic Church has to

say on the subject of Peters primacy and on him being the supposed

foundation of the Church. We have also looked at what some of the

Early Church Fathers thoughts were on the Matthew 16 controversy.

Then we looked at the Reformed view of these, but what is the Bibles

teaching on who is the Rock, the foundation of the Church? Well let

us see what the following verses have to say:

I will publish the name of the Lord: ascribe ye

greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is

perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth

and without iniquity, just and right is he (Deuteronomy

32:3-4).

There is none holy as the Lord: for there is none

beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God (I

Sam 2:2).

The Lord is my rock, my fortress, and my deliverer

(2nd Samuel 22:2).

For who is God, save the Lord? and who is a rock,

save our God? (2nd Samuel 22:32).

The Lord is my rock, and my fortress, and my

36 K. Aland. The Text of the New Testament. p52.16


17/36

deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust;

my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high

tower (Psalm 18:2).

Unto thee will I cry, O Lord my rock (Psalm 28:1).

He only is my rock and my salvation (Psalm 62:2).

Well, I think from the portions of Scripture quoted here we

can see that the Bible makes it very clear that title of The Rock

belongs to the Lord. Here are some more verses that claim the Lord as

the Rock: Psalm 71:3, 89:26, 92:15, 94:22, 95:1. Of course there is a

verse that should put an end to all of Romes speculation, it is 1st

Corinthians 10:4, and that rock was Christ Jesus. The word here

for rock is in the Greekpetra notpetros.37

This is the only place inScripture that the wordpetra is used to denote a person the person ofChrist. I believe that this answers any questions surrounding Matthew

16.

After reading the inspired Word of God, hearing the words of

the Church Fathers and then comparing it to the current teaching of

Rome we can see that Romes exegesis of Matthew 16 is, indeed,

weighed in the balances and found wanting. Even those, they

designated Doctors of the Church disagree with the Roman Churchs

view on these portions of Scripture. The Bible believer, on this

occasion, might well use the words of Deuteronomy 32:31, For theirrock is not as our Rock

37 Srtrongs Concordance.17


18/36

THE FALSE DECRETALS

Not only has the Roman Catholic Church used, or misused, Holy

Scripture in an attempt to justify Her claims - but She has also used

dubious extra Biblical documents, such as the Isidorian Decretals.This collection of council decrees, popes decretals papal decrees on

church discipline and popes letters, covers a period of almost seven

centuries.

The Isidorian Deretals take their name from the Spanish St

Isidore (560-636 A.D.), whom they purport as their compiler. They

begin with the words: Isidorus Mercator, servus Christi lectorisalutem, (Isidore the merchant, a servant of Christ, salutes thereader)38. Isidore was to become Bishop of Seville in or around the

600 A.D39, succeeding his brother and was to sit as principal at theFourth Council of Toledo (633 A.D). 40 Isidore was to author many

books on subjects such as history, linguistics and theology. His

greatest literary work was the Etymologiae, a comprehensive work that

contained twenty sections and covered a range of topics from

cosmology to architecture41. Isidore is also attributed with having

formed the canon law of the Spanish church,Hispana collectio,42 andwas officially canonized 1598, by Pope Clement VIII. He was to be

declared a doctor of the church in 1722 by Pope Innocent XIII.

Isidore is seen as one of the most prolific writers andchronologers of the Dark Ages. He is also attributed with great

knowledge. A fact that led Pope Gregory to call him the second

Daniel43. Although seen as some of the greatest work of his time,

Isidores work is scattered with errors44. Nevertheless, he added greatly

to the intellect of Europe in those trying times. This might be the

reason that the forger hid behind the name of Isidore.

The Decretals contain a large amount of documentation, some

of which is genuine while the rest is of questionable origin. This is

what the renowned Encyclopaedia Britannica has to say on the makeup of the Decretals:

The collection contains (1) the letters of the popes

preceding the Council of Nicaea (325) from Clement I

38 Encyclopaedia Britannica.

39 R.C.Wetzel. A Chronology of Biblical Christianity.40 Encyclopaedia Britannica.

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid.43 Thomas M`Crie. Refromation in Spain. p 27.

44 Ibid, p 27.18


19/36

to the Miltades, all of which are forgeries; (2) a

collection of the decrees of the councils, most of which

are genuine, though the forged Donation of

Constantine (q.v.) is included; (3) a large collection of

letters of popes from Sylvester I (died 335) to Gregory

II (died 731), among which there are more than 40falsifications.45

We can see from the above, that the Decetals did indeed

incorporate a large quantity of erroneous material. The most

damaging, or the most beneficial to the papacy is the Donation of

Constatine, for it is on this, that Rome based her claim of temporal

power. The Donation was first used at the Council of Soissons (853)46

and then during the Great Schism of 1054, Pope Leo IX quoted it in a

letter to the patriarch of Constantinople, Michel Cerularius, as thelinchpin of Roman supremacy47. Let us look at what the Donation

actually says:

And when I had learned these things at the mouth of

the blessed Silvester, and found that I was wholly

restored to health by the beneficence of blessed Peter

himself, we-together with all our satraps and the whole

senate, and the magnates and all the Roman people,

which is subject to the glory of our rule-considered that,

since he is seen to be set up as the vicar of Gods Son onearth, the apostles should receive from us and our

empire a greater power of government than the earthly

clemency of our imperial serenity is seen to have

conceded to them.48

The Donation puts forward the concept that the Emperor

Constantine was the author of this work and, that after he was healed

of leprosy by Pope Sylvester I (314-3350 ceded all his power and

belongings to the papacy. What more could the pope have asked for,the city of Rome and all its riches, even the empire were to become the

property of the papacy. The papacy used this fraudulent piece of

deception up until the eighteen-hundreds, although Lorenzo Valla had

first cast doubts on its legitimacy in 1440, it was not until David

Blondel, a prominent Protestant Theologian refuted all the claims that


46 Ibid.47 J.N.D. Kelly. The Oxford book of Popes, pp 28, 148.

48 T.F. Kauffman. Graven Bread, p 172.19


20/36

it contained, that it was written off as a complete falsehood49. Henry

Bettenson has this to say about the influence of the Donation of

Constantine:

This document, which purports to be a deed of gift

from Constantine to Pope Sylvester, was included in theForged Decretals, and it played a great part in

subsequent controversies. Its authority was

unquestioned till the fifteenth century, when its

authenticity was impugned by many eminent

churchmen and its falsity finally proved by Lorenzo

Valla. It is now completely discredited.50

Romanists now say that the Donation of Constantine was of

little importance as the papacys power comes from God51

, but foralmost a thousand years Rome used it as its title deed in the battle for

supremacy of the Christian Church. Again, I am afraid to say, she has

been weighed in the balances and found wanting.

We have seen that in the struggle for over all supremacy of

the Church, and for the coveted title of Universal Bishop, the Roman

Church has corrupted Gods Holy Writ and put to use documents that

She knew were forged. This has shown us that the whole foundation

of papal primacy is based on deceitfulness and lies. In this battle for

the ownership of the Church the Bishop of Constantinople at first

espoused that the rightful seat of the head of the Church was to be the

new capitol of the Roman Empire. This led to the following statement

by Pope Gregory the Great (590-604 AD):

Now I confidently say that whoever calls himself, or

desires to be called Universal Priest, is in elation the

precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself

above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is

into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as

God above all men, so whoever this one is who covets being called solo priest, he extols himself above all

other priestsCertainly Peter, the first of the apostles,

himself a member of the holy and universal church,

Paul, Andrew, John-what were they but the heads of

particular communities? And yet all members under

one head. And to bind together in a short girth of


50 Henry. S Bettenson.Documents of the Christian Church, p135.

51 J Hardon. The Modern Catholic Dictionary, p170.20


21/36

speech the saints before the law, the saints under the

law, the saints under grace, all these making up the

Lords Body, were constituted as members of the

Church, and not one of them wished himself to be

called universal. Now let your holiness acknowledge to

what extent you swell within yourself in desiring to becalled by which no one presumed to be called who was

truly holy.52

The reader can see from the above quote that Pope Gregory

did not recognise the office of universal bishop or earthly head of the

church; in fact, he calls anyone who might claim such an office as the

precursor of Antichrist. He then warns the Bishop of Constantiople

that he is swollen with pride and no one who is truly holy, would claim

that title.Gregorys successor, Pope Boniface III, after much

underhandedness and political manipulation had the title of Universal

Bishop conferred on him by the Eastern Emperor Phocas a mere two

years after Gregorys death, in 606 AD53. The term catholic meaning

universal; the Roman Church then became the Roman Catholic Church

or the Universal Church. To many of the Reformed faith the very term

Roman Catholic is an oxymoron. How can a church claim to be

universal in nature, like the True Church of Christ, and tell all those

that are not conscriptees to Her form of belief system, that they are

destined to eternal torment. This is what we will look at in the next

section of our thesis the supposed catholicity of the Rome Church

and whether this stands-up to the universalism held by the True

Church.

52 P. Schaff, H. Walce.Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, p 226.

53 A Campbell. Was Peter the First Pope.21


22/36

THE CHURCH

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS

The Church in the biblical sense is a body of people made up of those

that are united in their faith through the Lord Jesus Christ. This is not

affected by geographical or ecclesiastical differences, all who have a

saving Faith in Jesus Christ are as one with God. In hisInstitutes ofthe Christian Religion, John Calvin quotes the following from Cyprianof Carthage (200-258) on his view of the Church. I think that its

comments are quite appropriate on what the attributes of a true church

are:

The church is one, which is spread abroad far and

wide into a multitude by increase of fruitfulness. As

there are many rays of the sun but one light, and many

branches of a tree but one strong trunk grounded in its

tenacious root, and since from one spring flow many

streams, although a goodly number seem outpoured

from their bounty and superabundance, still, at the

source unity abides. Take a ray from the body of the

sun; its unity undergoes no division. Break a branch

from a tree; the severed branch cannot sprout. Cut off

a stream from its source; cut off, it dries up. So also

the church, bathed in the light of the Lord, extends

over the whole earth: yet there is one light diffused

everywhere.54

The Church is referred to in both the Old Testament and the

New Testament in the same terms. In the Old Testament the Church is

called by the Hebrew word qahal(to call) it is this word, which is

translated in our English Bible as assembly or congregation. The NewTestament uses the Greek word ekklesia (to call out). The meaning isin both cases the same, a group of people called together as one in

God. This can be in a small gathering, where the two and three are

gathered to gather - such as, in a believers home (Romans 16:23, 1st

Corinthians 16:19, Colossians 4:15 and Philemon 2). The Church can

also be a combined group of congregations in any geographical area.

As can be seen in 2nd Corinthians 8:1(the churches of Macedonia),

Galatians 1:2 (the churches of Galatia) and Galatians 1:2 (the churches

of Judea). The Church is also a worldwide grouping, embracing all

54 J Calvin.Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book IV, p 39.22


23/36

those that are truly Spirit-filled believers (1st Corinthians 10:31, 11:22,

12:28). The Church is seen in the final sense as encompassing all of

those who are in Christ, whether they be in glory, or who may not as

yet have been made perfect (Ephesians 1:22, 3:10, 21, 5:23-32 and

Colossians 1:18,24).

The Church of God consists of all true believers, no matterwhat their belief or view is on church government or on secondary

issues, such as tongues, healing and the like. What holds them

together is their simple Faith in Christ Jesus as the Way the Truth and

the Light (John 14:6). This belief makes them One under God. This

is the true Catholic Church, a Church that embraces all denominations

and races under the Headship of Christ.

The Westminster Divines agreed this on the subject:

The catholic or universal church, which is invisible,consists of the whole number of the elect, that have

been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ

the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the

fullness of Him that filleth all in all (XXV: 1).

The visible Church, which is also catholic or

universal under the Gospel (not confined to one

nation, as before under the law), consists of all those

throughout the world that profess the true religion

(XXV: 2).55

THE PAPACYS VIEW

55 The Westminster Confession of Faith. Para XXV:1-2.23


24/36

This, however, is not the Papal view of the church. Her

proposition is that all who wish to be saved can only do so by adhering

to the system of belief that She espouses. If that was all that the

Roman Church believed and taught one could not really argue withHer. One may well disagree with that teaching but a lot of religious

systems assert that they have the only true path to Heaven. But the

Roman Church claims much more than that, e.g. She as the Church has

power over temporal matters and that those who even reject its belief

are still subject to Her. We will now look at how this totalitarian

system developed starting with the Athanasian Creed:

Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold

the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this wholeand inviolate, he will without doubt perish in eternity,56

We will now move on and look at what some of the bishops

of Rome say about the so-called Catholic Church. Well begin with

the words of Pope Pelagius II (579-90):

If anyone, however, either suggests or believes or

presumes to teach contrary to this faith, let him know

that he is condemned and anathematised according to

the opinion of the same FathersConsider (therefore)

the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and

unity of the Church, cannot have the Lord, (Galations

3:7)57

We can see from Pope Pelagiuss statement, that he puts

forward the view that anyone who does not adhere to the teaching of

the Church of Rome is not one of the saved of God.

By the ninth century the whole of Christendom was in

turmoil: the gulf between the Roman and Byzantine Churches waseventually to lead to the two churches formal split in 1054 AD on

their differing views on the Eucharist, although they had already been

estranged from the sixth century. In 1059 Pope Nicholas II made a

decree, that the College of Cardinals should only conduct papal

elections in the future. This supposedly put an end to the interference

of emperors in church affairs. Then in 1075, Pope Gregory VII

proclaimedDitatus Papae (The Popes Supremacy). Within this

proclamation Gregory VII put forward twenty seven points, these

56 H. Denzinger. The Source Of Catholic Dogma. p 15.

57 Ibid. p 95.24


25/36

ranged from the right to depose earthly rulers to the claim of having

supreme legislative power. Despite theDitatuslegal and theologicallanguage, it was nothing more than a mere power struggle between

Gregory VII (the pope) and Henry IV (the emperor). The propositions

contained in theDictatus Papae were some of the most forceful ever

put forward by the papal system:

2. The Roman Pontiff alone merits the Catholic or

. Universal title

3. The Pontiff alone can depose and absolve bishops.

4. The Pontiff is permitted to depose emperors.

16. The Pontiff alone can convene a General Synod.

20. No one can condemn a decision of the Holy See.

22. The Church of Rome has never erred, and as

Scripture attests, can never err in the future23. No one who opposes the Church of Rome can be

considered a Catholic.

24. The Pontiff can release the vassals of unjust men

from their oath of

Loyalty58

Although there had been many such claims made by the

papacy, none of those were as detailed or as wide as Gregorys. The

Church and state were to remain in a virtual state of war until the

Concordat of Worms in 1122, when Pope and emperor were given the

hand of investiture. This document gave warning to all that would

question pope or papacy that they faced the torment of hell.

In 1208, Pope Innocent III expanded the belief that all who

did not submit to the teaching of the Church of Rome, were assured of

eternal damnation. This is what he had to say:

The heart we believe and by the mouth we confess

the one Church, not of the heretics but Holy Roman,

Catholic and Apostolic (Church) outside which webelieve no one is saved.59

The Fourth Latern Council in 1215 was to continue along this

theme, with its proclamation of only one Church, outside of which no

one is saved:

One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside of

which no one at all is saved60

58 N..Davies.Europe A History.pp 339-342.59 H. DenzingerThe Source Of Catholic Dogma.. pp 166-167.

60 Ibid. Page 169.25


26/36

The view of one Church, of which any who do not fully

comply with her doctrines, or recognise the authority of the Roman

Pontiff are damned, is by the Middle Ages the main force behind

Roman dogma.

By 1294 the Papacy was to enter a new phase ofexpansionism with Boniface VIII. First he forced Pope Celestine V

(the hermit) to abdicate and imprisoned him for life declaring

himself pope. In his continued crusade for power, Boniface fought the

War of the Vespers, which restored the rule of his allies theAngevins to Sicily. Next he turned his attention to France; this would

lead to him being taken hostage by the French King in whose

custody he died. Bonifaces Papal Bull (Unum Sanctum) of 1302 wasframed expressly for the French. It leaves us in no doubt of the

Roman Churchs belief in its complete primacy in all matters and ofthe importance of the Papal office. It states:

With faith urging us we are forced to believe and

to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that,

apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply

confess this (Church) outside which there is no

salvation nor remission of sinFurther more we

declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is

altogether necessary to salvation for every human

creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.61

This Papal Bull has been retained up until the present day

there has never been any attempt to rescind it. We can see from the

words of Rome herself, that membership and abidance of the Roman

Catholic Church is no longer the only requisite in order to obtain

salvation, but a new theory, one of total submission to the pope has

been injected into papal doctrine. This trend of ever-increasing the

individuals subjection to one man was to continue. This is of course

completely contrary to the teachings of Holy Scripture (Matthew10:32, John 6:40, Acts 4:12, Romans 10:8-10, 1st Timothy 2:5, 1st John

5:11-13 and Revelation 3:20), which affirms that submission to the

Lord Jesus Christ is the only way to attain salvation.

Let us look at the conclusions of The Council of Florence (1438)

about those it sees as outside the Roman Catholic fold:

61 H. Bettenson.Documents of the Christian Church. p 116.26


27/36

It (The Council) firmly believes, professes, and

proclaims that those not living within the Catholic

Church, not only pagans, but also the Jews and heretics

and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal

life, but will depart into everlasting fire which wasprepared for the devil and his angels (MATT 24:21).62

We can see, that so far, the Church of Romes teaching

on the matter of salvation is at odds with what the Bible has to

say on this most important issue.

As a response to gains made by the Reformers, the

Roman Catholic Church instituted the Counter-Reformation. At

the forefront of this movement, were to be found the Jesuits

(The Society of Jesus), which has been called corps de`lite ofthe Roman Catholic Church.63 The Jesuits were founded by the

Basque, Inidgo L`opez de Recalde (St Ignatius Loyola, 1491-

1556), who after he had been seriously injured in the siege of the

fortress Pamplona, took to fervent prayer and embarked on a

pilgrimage to Montserrat. Once there he hung his weapons on

the shrine and retreated to live in a cave for a year.64 In the cave

he fasted and prayed. In these intercessions he was to receive

visits from both the Virgin Mary and Satan.65 It was during one

of these visions that he decided to dedicate his life to the cause

of the Holy Father. On the 13th August 1534, at the crypt of

Notre-Dame de Montmarte, Loyola and six others formed the

Society of Jesus66. Loyolas aim was to:

Raise a mighty army of holy knights whose sole aim

and thought should be devoted to overthrow all

enemies of Rome under the banner of the Saviour.67

The Jesuits were to gain Papal approval in 1540 with Pope

Paul IIIs Bull,Regimini Militantis Ecclesiae. It was to answer only tothe Pope and was structured into companies under the leadership of a

General also known as the Black Pope. They were told that they

were companions of Jesus and that their goal was to convert,

reconvert and educate in the ways of Rome. They were seen as the

62 H. Denzinger. The Source Of Catholic Dogma. p 230.

63 ,N. Davies. Europe A History. p496.

64 M. Baigent and R. Leigh, The Inquisition, p 126.

65 , H. MacPherson The Jesuits in History. p 2.66 Ibid. p 4.

67 Ibid. p 5.27


28/36

Vaticans thought police and were later expelled from many countries

after the finding of the now disputed Monita Secreta.68 Loyolaauthored Spiritual Exercises (1523)69 and has left us with these words:

I have never left the army. I have only been seconded to the serviceofGod., and Give me a boy at the age of seven, and he will be mine

for ever.70 At the canonisation of Loyola in 1622 it was stated by PopeGregory XV, that, Ignatius had a heart large enough tohold theuniverse.71

The very pinnacle of the Counter Reformation was the

Council of Trent, which sat in three sessions, 1545-7, 1551-2,

and1563-5. This is what many in the Roman Catholic Church had

been waiting for - a chance they believed to make reforms. But those

who had hope for a new era, one of men and women being able to

enjoy Gods Holy Word and of a more moral church were to be

disappointed. Instead of reform, the Jesuits used the Council of Trentto reassert the old Roman values - transubstantiation in the mass; the

view that the church alone can interpret scripture; and of course the

primacy of the Roman Church. Trent has left us with these

uncompromising words:

We define that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman

Pontiff hold the Primacy of the whole world, and the

Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of the blessed

Peter, Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Christ.

The head of the whole church, the Father of all

Christians; and that to him in the person of blessed Peter

was given by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed,

rule and govern the universal church, as is contained

also in the edicts of the ecumenical councils and sacred

canons.72

Not only were the councils findings a disappointment to

those who hoped for reform; but also because of its reaffirmation of

papal world domination, Catholic kings like Philip II of Spain hadsuch a fear of the Tridentine decrees that they even censured their

publication.

With the Vatican Council of 1870, the papacy was to continue

with its assertion that it held power over all in Christendom and that

68 N. Davies.Europe A History, p 496.

69 Ibib.

70 Ibid.71 Ibid.

72 A. Campbell. Was Peter the First Pope.28


29/36

any who did not accept this were lost. It stated the following:

The Primacy of Peter over the whole Churchthis

is the teaching of the Truth from which no one can

depart without loss of faith and salvation.73

We can see from the above that not only does the Roman

Church continue to subscribe to the theory she is the One True

Church, but that all those who would call themselves Christians (this

can be seen in the term the Whole Church) are under the Primacy of

Peter (Romes authority). This was to cause a lot tension in the Europe

of the late nineteen hundreds.

In a reply to the German Emperors inquiry as to who is

actually under papal control, Pope Pius IX in August 1873, conveyed

the following:

Everyone who has been baptized belongsto the

Pope.74

The author believes that the current trend in papal

ecumenisms is fuelled by the sense that the papacy holds the view that

those of the Reformed Faith are not Christians in the true sense and are

in need of being restored to the True Church. They no longer put

Protestants to the stake in an effort to convert them; they woo them

back instead. She is putting the old adage in to action, You can catch

more bees with honey than you can with vinegar.

Pope Piuss successor and names sake, Pope Pius X was to

convey the following thoughts on the Reformed Faith in his

Compendium of Christian Doctrine, published by Vatican Press in1906. I think you will find them very interesting:

Heretics are the baptized who pertinaciously refuse

to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as

of faith by the Catholic Church, the various sectsof Protestants.75

Pius then continues to expand on what he sees as the vices of

Protestantism:

Protestantism or the Reformed Religionis the sum

of all heresies, which existed before it, which have

73 Ibid.74 B. Porcelli.Antichrist. p 67.

75 Ibid p 64.29


30/36

since arisen, and which can still arise to destroy

soulsthe most monstrous congeries of private and

individual errors, embraces all heresies and represents

all forms of rebellion against the holy Catholic

Church.76

Some will say that all this changed with the Second Vatican

Council and that Rome now sees that such teaching is no longer

expedient in the modern world. They say that the papacy now

recognises that other Christian denominations are part of the Christs

Church, and as such we are all one, although we still differ on some

issues. Is this the case? Vatican II might well have opened up the

debate, but it held firm on the fundamentals of papal primacy, i.e.

Peters succession and the Roman Church being the true church. Thisis what it said:

This is the sole Church of Christ which is the creed

we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic

The Roman Pontiff, as successor of Peter, is the

perpetual and visible source and foundation of the

unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of

the faithful.77

The papacy might well fit the criteria of what is called a

church, in that it is made-up of group of individuals who hold to

certain beliefs and practices, but most certainly, it is not a church in the

Biblical sense of the meaning. Nowhere in Scripture are we taught

that Church holds power over any civil authority not only in one

country, never mind the whole world. To claim such a thing as in

Ditatus Papae and in Unum Sanctum is a complete corruption of theChristian Church. The Word of God tells us that worldly power is in

essence evil (Ephesians 6:12). It also tells us that to be a friend of this

world is to be an enemy of God (James 4:4). We as the Church ofChrist are in the world but not of the world (John 17:11, 16, 18). It is

also wrong to assert that the church can in any way hold authority over

those who are not in Christ Jesus, because they will hate the true

Christian and reject them (John 15:18-19).

The Reformers view of the Papacy

76 Ibid.77 Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents,

Costello Pub, vol. 1, pp 357, 376.30


31/36

The Reformers most certainly did not view the papacy as the Biblical

Church. Martin Luther in his Thirty principles lays this charge to the

papacys claim:

We do not concede to them that they are the Church, and (in

truth) they are not (the Church); nor will we listen to thosethings which, under the name of Church, they enjoin or forbid.

For, thank God, (today) a child seven years old knows what the

Church is, namely, the holy believers and lambs who hear the

voice of their Shepherd. For the children pray thus: I believe in

one holy (catholic or) Christian Church. This holiness does not

consist in albs, tonsures, long gowns, and other of their

ceremonies devised by them beyond Holy Scripture, but in the

Word of God and true faith.

The great Reformer and Bible commentator John Calvin, in

hisInstitutes, commented in the following manner on whether theRoman Church could indeed claim the title church:

However, when we categorically deny to the papists

the title of church, we do not for this reason impugn

the existence of churches among them. Rather, we are

only contending about the true and lawful constitution

of the church, required in the communion not only of

the sacraments (which are the signs of profession) butalso especially of doctrine, Daniel [Daniel 9:27] and

Paul [2nd Thessalonians 2:4] foretold that Antichrist

would sit in the Temple of God. With us, it is the

Roman pontiff we make the leader and standard bearer

of that wicked and abominable kingdom. The fact that

his seat is placed in the Temple of God signifies that

his reign was not to be such as to wipe out either the

name of Christ or the churchBut these he has

profaned by his sacrilegious impietycorrupted andwell-nigh killed by his evil and deadly doctrinesIn

them Christ lies hidden, half buried, the gospel

overthrownI say that every one of their

congregations and their whole body lack the lawful

form of a Church. 78

The great historian Rev. J. Wylie made this quite lucid observation on

the papacys assertion on being the Church of Christ, It looks like a

church; it professes to have all that a church ought to have; and yet it is

78 J Calvin.Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book IV,page 45.31


32/36

not a church. And he went on to further state that it was nothing more

than a, Grand deception; it is the all deceivableness of

unrighteousness.

The Roman Papacys idea of the Church is contrary to that of

the True Church a Church that embraces all believers eschews

worldly power and holds to the teachings of the Bible; it does not formbeliefs completely at odds with doctrine that it claims as its very

foundation. But this is not the only subject on which the Roman

Church and the Bible disagree, there are many, and we will look at

them each in turn later in this thesis. One of those will be our next

subject - that of papal infallibility and whether it is consistent with

Gods Holy Writ.

32


33/36

Bibliography

Aland, Kurt and Barbara. The Text of the New Testament. Eerdmans,Grand Rapids, 1987.

Augustine. The Works of. NewRochelle, New City Press, 1993.Ayto. J. Bloomsbury Dictionary of Word Origins. BloomsburyPublishing, London, 2001.

Baigent. M. and Leigh. L. The Inquisition, Viking, London, 1999.

Bettenson. H. Documents of the Christian Church. OxfordUniversity Press Oxford, 1963.

Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2002 DeluxeEdition.

Calvin. J. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ages Software,Albany, 1998.

Campbell, Alan. Was Peter the First Pope. Open Bible Ministries,Belfast, 1989.

Cassels. S. Christ And Antichrist. Ages Software, Albany, 1998.Catechism of the Catholic Church: Complete and Unabridged.Geoffrey Chapman, London, 1994.

Cornwall. J. Hitlers Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII. Penguin,London, 1999.

Davies, Norman. Europe a History. Oxford University Press, Oxford,1987.

DAubigne. J. H.History of the 16th Century Reformation. AgesSoftware, Albany, 1998

Denzinger. H. The Source Of Catholic Dogma. Herder Book Co, StLouis, 1954.

Hardon. J. A. The Modern Catholic Dictionary, Doubleday & Co,New York, 1966.

Kelly. J. The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford University Press,Oxford, 1986.

Kauffman. T.F. Graven Bread. White Horse Publications, Huntsville,1994.

MacPherson. H. The Jesuits in History. Open Bible Ministries,Belfast, 1997.

M`Crie. T. Reformation in Spain. Ages Software, Albany, 1998 Neilly. S.Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Some Quotes AndCommentsPorcelli. B. Antichrist. Lamp Trimmers, El Paso, 2001.Schaff. P. Walce H.Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers. HendricksonPublishers, Peabody, Massachusetts,1995.

Strong. J. Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Hendrickson

Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts.Tanner. M. Irelands Holy Wars. Yale University Press, London, 2001.

33


34/36

Webster. W. Roman Catholic Tradition: claims and Contradictions,Christian Resources INC. 1999.

Wetzel. R. C. A Chronology of Biblical Christianity. Ages Software,Albany, 1998

Wilde. Paul and Carolyn. A Look inside the Roman Catholic Church.

Heartfelt Ministries, Foley, 1999.Williamson. G. I. Westminster Confession of Faith: For StudyClasses. The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company,Philadelphia, 1964.

Wylie. J.A. History of Protestantism. Ages Software, Albany, 1998.R.Zins.Romanism. White Horse Publications, Huntsville, 1994.Vatican II : The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Costello

Publishing, 1988.

Von Dollinger.J. H. The Pope and the Council. London, 1869.

34


35/36

35


36/36