The Great Imposters

AliveinJesus · The Great Imposters

The Great Imposters
“For other foundation can no man lay than that is layed, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Co 3:11)

It is a key characteristic of religious cults to have one all-powerful individual as their leader who claims to have a special and exclusive anointing from the deity. In this individual resides, as it were, the very oracles of God, and the declarations made by him or her become commandments to which the cult members must adhere. Invariably, this individual inspires in the cult members an unshakeable faith and trust that enables the leader to exercise total mind control over them, thereby directing both their thoughts and actions. Few would have the temerity to call the Roman Catholic Church a cult, but when its leader – the pope – is measured against the foregoing definition, what other conclusion can be drawn? When he speaks ex cathedra – literally, “from his chair” – he is said to be infallible, not subject to error. Therefore, all followers must subordinate themselves to his ex cathedra proclamations whether they agree with them or not. Rome says this authority accrues to the successor of the Apostle Peter on whom our Lord allegedly founded His church. Does history, the early church writings and God’s Word support what Rome says, or not? This chapter will provide the answers.

Rome’s claim – dealt with in chapter 1 – that the Catholic Church is the one and only true Church founded by our Lord, rests largely on the assertion that Jesus ordained the Apostle Peter to be the first pope, and on him the church was founded. In the hodgepodge that is Catholic apologetics, Holy Scripture is cited when it can be interpreted to support doctrine and ignored or manipulated when it cannot. In justifying the existence of the papacy, for example, Rome cites Scriptures from all four of the Gospels. But at the same time, it ignores completely our Lord’s words to two of the seven Asian churches in the Book of Revelation, words that condemn the very priesthood out of which the papacy evolved.

In His letter to the messenger or bishop of the Ephesian church, Jesus has these words of praise: “But this thou hast, that thou hatest the deeds of the Nicolaitanes which I also hate.” (Rev 2:6) But in the letter to the messenger of the church at Pergamos, He has this rebuke: “So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate. (Rev 2:15)

A singularly undesirable trait man has inherited with the Adamic nature is the drive to be a god who makes his own rules, and exercises power over others. This drive is what motivated Satan to challenge God. It was part of the temptation he presented to Adam and Eve. It is the conscious or unconscious motive behind every man’s climb to the top of politics, business, academia, etc. That said, let’s look again at the “Nicolaitanes” whose deeds and doctrine were literally hated by Jesus. It is a composite of two Greek words for sure, possibly three. They are nikao, and laos, and very possibly a contraction of thanatos. The first, nikao, means “power,” the kind that has been seized or usurped as opposed to power that has been granted or freely received. The second Greek word, laos, means the “common folks,” in a religious sense, the laity. Together, nikao and laos describe usurped “power over the laity.” The suffix, tanes, may very well be a contraction of thanatos, which means “destructive,” or “undesirable.”

If that is the case, and the three Greek words are put together, then the word our Lord employed – Nicolaitanes – in the context in which it is twice used, means either, “destructive power over the laity,” or “power over the laity that is undesirable.” The Nicolaitanes, then, were a group – perhaps of Jewish converts – who pressed for reestablishment of a priestly order that was forever eliminated by Christ’s death on Calvary. Their aim of forming a new clergy exercising ecclesiastical authority over converts to Christianity obviously was displeasing to Jesus. In His Revelation letter to their “messenger” – their “bishop” - our Lord commended the Ephesian church for “hating” what the Nicolaitanes were trying to do, the very thing that He, too, hated. But the Pergamos church He rebuked because the Nicolaitanes had been admitted to fellowship, and were in the process of achieving – perhaps already had achieved – their objective.

From our vantage point 2000 years after the fact, Christ’s letters to the Asian churches, beyond their applicability to conditions extant at that time, were prophetic of seven identifiable periods the Church would pass through during this, the dispensation of Grace. The first period, the apostolic period, lasted only until the persecutions began, and is represented by the Ephesian church. This church resisted the Nicolaitanes’ efforts, even “hating” what they were trying to do. Smyrna represented the church of the persecution period that ended early in the 4th century, about 200 years before Roman Catholicism fully accomplished a successful takeover of western Christendom. The third church period or age began later in the 4th century when Christianity was installed as the official state religion of the Roman Empire. This period is represented by the church at Pergamos. Our Lord’s rebukes to this church identify it as a compromising church. And soon after Christianity’s installation as the state-sponsored religion, it began embracing the theology and traditions brought in by unregenerate Jews and the diverse pagan worshipers of false gods.

By His Calvary sacrifice, our Lord did away with the Levitical priesthood of Judaism, setting up in its place a “priesthood of believers.” His Word tells us, “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an HOLY PRIESTHOOD, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” (1 Pet 2:5) And again: “But ye are a chosen generation, a ROYAL PRIESTHOOD, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” (1 Pet 2:9) Christ’s once-for-all and once-for-all-time sacrifice obviated further need for animal sacrifices, doing away with those – the Levitical priests – who were responsible to perform them. That’s why Jesus “hated” the efforts being made even before the end of the 1st century to reestablish a hierarchy that again would separate between man and God. With the 4th century advent of a compromising Church, the Nicolaitanes’ objective was well on its way to fruition; was fully achieved by the start of the 6th century when priests began to dress differently from the common people. A priesthood unwanted by our Lord was endorsed and fostered by the emerging Roman Catholic Church as a means of consolidating its authority over the more than 350 independent Christian fellowships in existence in western Christendom by AD 500.

It should come as no surprise to regular readers of the holy Bible that Jesus never intended to have a clergy lording it over the saints who had placed their faith for salvation in His finished work. For, while on earth, He once called His followers together to explain His organizational plan for the Church He would soon establish. “Ye know that the princes of the gentiles exercise dominion over them and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:” (Mat 20:25-27) Obviously, then, our Lord was clearly opposed to any group (Are you listening, Rome?) claiming ecclesiastical authority or a higher level of spirituality over His blood-bought saints. There would be preachers and teachers, witnesses and workers, bishops and presbyters, but all equal in the sight of God, all employing the gifts bestowed on them by the Holy Spirit for the edification and advancement of the Body of Christ. He who wished to be chief was to subordinate his selfish aim in servitude to all. No individual or group was to lord it over the flock, a theocracy governed by our Lord from heaven itself.

AliveinJesus

The very man Rome claims was ordained as Catholicism’s first pope, confirmed the policy laid out by Jesus, instructing those who would come after as follows: “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” (1 Pet 5:2, 3) Peter’s use of plurals - i.e. “lords” and “examples” – is a clear signal that there were to be multiple overseers, not one supreme monarch or centralized government. But power and control of the lives of others is a mighty motivator. As early as the start of the 4th century, presbyters in some of the large urban fellowships were being called “priests,” and some of the bishops heading up independent fellowships had extended their control to other newer fellowships. Some of the bishops of the Roman fellowship started claiming authority over all other bishops and fellowships. Our Lord’s references to the Nicolaitanes in the Book of Revelation simply cannot be misconstrued. He was opposed to reestablishment of a clergy, a hierarchy, to say nothing of an outright, all-powerful monarchy occupied by an individual given the title “pope.” Nevertheless, the radical changes brought about by Christianity’s installation as the state religion, nurtured the spread of the “new priesthood,” and emboldened ambitious bishops of Rome to intensify their quest for absolute control over all of Christendom. The fact that the city of Rome had been the seat of the Empire for so long aided their cause, and, for the first time, Scriptures from Matthew’s Gospel were cited as proof that Jesus had ordained Peter to be the head of His Church.

It is in the 16th chapter of that Gospel we are informed of an episode that took place in Caesarea Philippi. Our Lord asks His Apostles, “Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?” (Mat 16:13) He is told that the Jewish citizenry believes Him to be John the Baptist, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. This prompts our Lord’s next question, “But whom do ye say that I am?” (Mat 16:15) It is Peter who responds as follows: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Mat 16:16) The Greek word that’s equivalent to Messiah in Hebrew is “Christ.” Therefore, Peter, a Jew, by his confession tells our Lord that the Apostles know Him to be the promised Messiah long awaited by the children of Israel. It is our Lord’s response to Peter’s confession that the Catholic Church has seized upon as proof for the establishment of the papal office.

In Matthew 16:17 and 18, Jesus said, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 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.”

From this translation of the original Greek one might well agree with Rome that our Lord intended Peter to be the foundation on which the Christian Church would be built. It certainly can be interpreted that way in our language. But Greek is a far more precise language than ours. It is, in fact, one of the world’s most precise languages in which, for example, the slightest variation in a word ending completely changes the word’s meaning. And, when we look at what Jesus said with two key words written in the Greek, an entirely different interpretation of His statement is demanded.

Our Lord said: “And I say also unto thee, that thou are petros, and upon this petra, I will build my Church,” etc. In the Greek - and Rome knows this – the words petros and petra are as far apart in meaning as are “pebble” and “rock” in English. Petra is a feminine gender root word. It means “huge foundation rock.” Petros, on the other hand, is a masculine gender derivative of the root word petra. It simply means “small stone,” one that can be picked up and skimmed across a pond. So what is the true interpretation of Christ’s statement to Peter? To what or to whom does the word petra refer?

When the entire context of Matthew 16: 16 through 18 is reviewed, the true meaning actually is quite obvious; certainly not open to Rome’s interpretation at all. In verse 16 Peter makes a factual statement – Jesus is the Jew’s promised Messiah, the long awaited Emanuel. In verse 17, our Lord declares that Peter’s knowledge of His identity has been divinely revealed from heaven. Then, in verse 18, paraphrased, Jesus says, “You are petros (a small stone) and upon this petra (the foundational rock of truth that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God) I will build my Church.”

If Jesus had used petros both for Peter’s name and for the foundation of His Church, Rome wins. Jesus is in violation of His own organizational plan, and the office of the pope with Peter as its first occupant is forever established. But, because He used petros and petra, Rome loses, for there is no honest way to harmonize the meanings of these two distinctly different words. Hence, the foundation upon which Christianity is built – and will Rome deny it? – is the truth that Jesus Christ was and is the Jewish Messiah, the Son of the living God, the Savior come down from heaven to reconcile sinful man to holy God.

Another episode quite pertinent to this matter, but ignored by the Vatican, is found in the first chapter of John’s Gospel. This incident has Andrew taking Simon, his brother, to meet our Lord who greets him with these words: “Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.” (John 1:42) Long before the Caesarea Philippi episode, our Lord had changed Simon’s name to a “stone.” That John chose to use the Aramaic word cephas for stone instead of the Greek word petros, in no way changes the facts. John, who was a very close friend and associate of Peter, knew very well that his friend was no foundation rock.

But if these few verses of Scripture were the only ones having to do with the foundation of Christendom, there could remain in the minds of some a conviction that Peter was, in fact, ordained by Jesus to be its first leader, its first “pope.” The biblical evidence, however, is overwhelming in its declaration that Jesus, the promised Messiah, is the one, the only, the true foundation upon which the Christian Church is built. Both symbolically, and by direct reference, Jesus is revealed again and again as the foundation “rock,” in both the Old and New Testaments.

In the Books of Exodus (17:6) and Numbers (20:11) with the children of Israel traversing the wilderness, our Lord is symbolized in the rocks that Moses struck to bring forth water. In the Song of Moses recorded in Deuteronomy 32:1-4, Moses says in verse 4, “He (the Lord) is the Rock.” Verse 15 tells us that Jeshurun (symbolic name for Israel) “…lightly esteemed the rock of his salvation.” In verse 18, “Of the rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten the God that formed thee.” Lastly, in verse 31, Moses says, “For their (the enemy’s) rock is not as our rock.” Jesus, the instrument of creation and salvation, is beyond question the Rock thus referred to in Deuteronomy, chapter 32.

Scripture tells us that our “God is a consuming fire.” (Deut 4:24) In the Book of Judges, chapter 6, fire comes from a Rock, consuming an offering set out by Gideon. Hannah, thanking God for His gift of a man child, prays in First Samuel, chapter 2, “…neither is there any rock like our God.” (1 Sam 2:2) Chapter 22 in Second Samuel finds David – freshly escaped from King Saul – praying as follows: “The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer.” (2 Sam 22:2) Later in the same chapter, David poses these questions: “For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock save our God?” (2 Sam 22:32)

That the Second Person of the blessed Trinity, Jesus, is the Rock always referred to in the cited Scriptures cannot be doubted when David’s words of Second Samuel 22:47 are carefully studied. From the Books of the Law compiled by Moses, devout Hebrews understood that the Godhead was made up of more than one person. The Hebrew word for God found in Genesis is Elohim. It is a remarkable word that is plural in form but is singular in meaning. You would read it “Gods” but with the understanding that it refers to a single deity. Thus, there is one God who is really Gods. Certainly David understood this, for in the cited Scripture he says: “The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation.” What David said can be paraphrased like this: “…the Lord (Jesus) is my Rock. Blessed by my Rock (Jesus); and praised be the Father of (Jesus) my Rock who also is my Savior.”

AliveinJesus

Numerous other Old Testament Scriptures also refer to Jesus as the Rock. He is thusly identified in Psalms 18, 28, 31, 40, 42, 61, 62, 71, 78, 89, 92, 94, and 95. More such references are found in Isaiah as well. Specifically in 8:14, 17:10 and 51:1 there are direct references to Jesus as the rock, and in several other chapters symbolic references are found. Nowhere in the Old Testament is there any indication that someone other than the Lord Jesus is, or will be, the rock upon which humanity may stand redeemed. Great personalities such as Moses, Abraham, Samuel, David, Elijah, Elisha, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and on and on, none of them ever has been referred to as a rock on which to base our faith. Surely Peter was a great Apostle. But a rock on which Christ chose to build His church Peter was not. And the New Testament is not lacking in evidence to support that statement.

In the Gospels of both Matthew (chapter 7) and Luke (chapter 6) our Lord’s parable of the wise and unwise builders is related. The first builder, remember, built his house on a foundation of solid rock. (Petra is the word used for “rock.”) When the storm came, his house was unharmed. But the second builder’s foundation was nothing but sand, and when the storm came the house fell and was utterly ruined. The parable is so obviously symbolic of Christ as the foundation of our faith that it needs no explanation or analysis.

Turning to Matthew, chapter 27, and Mark, chapter 15, we find the Greek word petra is used to describe the kind of material out of which Christ’s tomb had been cut. In both accounts of our Lord’s burial we are told that His tomb had been hewn out of (petra) rock, not (petros) rock. Surely a tomb such as the one described could only have been cut out of solid foundation type rock, (petra), not the kind of rock or stone that can be picked up and thrown, (petros). Is it not also of interest that the Rock of Ages was entombed for three days in solid aged rock?

The Apostle, Paul, writing in the Book of Romans, Chapter 9, left no doubt in anyone’s mind as regards the identity of the rock on whom Christianity is founded. In Romans 9:33, he quotes a familiar Scripture from Isaiah 28:16. Says he, “As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock (petra) of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.” Because the Jews rejected Jesus, their petra, their promised Messiah, God concluded them in unbelief until such time as the dispensation of the gentiles is ended. Doubtless Jesus was the Rock God laid in Zion; Peter was a sturdy chunk off that rock God used to “throw” the Gospel to the Jews in Jerusalem and the diaspora areas of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. (Cf. 1 Pet 1:1)

Chapter 10 in the Book of First Corinthians contains an admonition to Christians to avoid the sinful behavior practiced by the children of Israel. Here, again, we find reference to Jesus, not Peter, as the Church’s foundation Rock. Paul relates that the children of Israel, “…did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” (1 Cor 10:4) Speaking specifically of the foundation upon which the Christian (not the Catholic) Church was to be built, Paul says earlier in First Corinthians, “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (1 Cor 3:11)

From all of this we conclude that when Jesus said “…upon this rock I will build my church,” the pronoun “this” did not refer to Peter (petros) but rather to the statement made by Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This must be the case since Peter himself referred to Jesus as the Church’s foundation rock in 2:8 of his First Epistle.

In a speech by Catholic bishop Joseph Georg Strossmeyer to the prelates assembled for the AD 1869-70 Vatican Council I, it was revealed that the most renowned Church fathers were of the opinion that the rock (petra) referred to by Jesus in Matthew 16:18 was not the Apostle, Peter, but rather the truth he had stated, that Christ is the Messiah, the Son of the living God, the Savior of the world. Among the supporters of this interpretation were Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, (of Vulgate fame), Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and perhaps the most important of all, Chrysostom who, when it came to understanding the precise nuances of the Greek language, was without a peer.

If, in fact, our Lord intended to found His Church upon the “petros” (small stone) of Peter, we should be able to find in the Scriptures that the other Apostles deferred to him as their leader. When the Gospels are consulted, though, we get a strong signal that Christ’s Apostles were totally unaware of any preeminence given by the Lord to Peter. In Matthew 20 – four chapters after the Caesarea Philippi incident – there is an account of Zebedee’s sons seeking a commitment from Jesus to sit, one on His right hand, the other on His left hand, in the kingdom of Heaven. This same incident is related in Mark 10:37. In both accounts, the other 10 Apostles, Peter included, were exceedingly displeased with John and James for seeking such exalted positions above their fellows. It is highly unlikely that these “Sons of Thunder” as the Lord called them, would have aspired to such lofty positions if Christ already had appointed Peter to be their leader.

Elsewhere in the Scriptures, the Apostle Paul - not Peter – is God’s choice to receive the Christian doctrine directly from the risen, ascended, Lord Jesus. “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal 1:11, 12) One is left to ponder the question, if Peter was appointed by Jesus to be the supreme leader of His Church, if Peter was the very foundation on which He planned to build it, why was Paul the only one to enjoy that special privilege? In 2 Peter 3:16, we receive the impression that Peter himself was not privy to at least some of what Paul had been given directly from Jesus. In speaking of Paul’s letters as Scripture, Peter says they contain certain things that are “hard to be understood.” Had Peter been ordained head of the Church, wouldn’t our Lord have made certain that he received the same revelations as were given to Paul?

Equally damaging to Rome’s claim that Peter – as bishop of Rome – was the first in an unbroken chain of popes is the total lack of biblical or historical evidence to support this assertion. The final chapter of Paul’s letter to the Roman church contains greetings to 27 different individuals, not one of which is Peter. Had he been the bishop of Rome, a bishop of Rome, or if he even was just there, it’s hard to believe that Paul wouldn’t have greeted him as well. Peter himself, at the end of his First Epistle, salutes the saints on behalf of the “church that is at Babylon,” (1 Pet 5:13) indicating a later presence in Rome, but only as an “elder” (1 Pet 5:1) and not as bishop of the church. In that same letter, Peter exhorts other “elders” not to act as “Lords over God’s heritage,” (1 Pet 5:3) but to be examples to the flock.

The great early Church historian – Eusebius - writing in the first quarter of the 4th century, provides us with the only evidence we have of Peter’s presence in Rome, and his status while there. In Eusebius Church History, Book 2, Chapter 25:1, we read:

“…and that they both (Paul and Peter) suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans.”

Then Eusebius quotes Dionysius as having said,

"You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth.323 And they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time.”

History places Dionysius as bishop of Corinth after the end of the 1st century, so his word most certainly could be trusted that Peter was, in fact, in Rome and was there martyred. In the very first chapter of Eusebius’ Book 2, the following is recorded.

“But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: ‘Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as is also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just (brother of Jesus) bishop of Jerusalem.’”

Clement lived in the 1st century and was a contemporary of the Apostles. His assertion that Peter, together with the “Sons of Thunder” – James and John – chose Christ’s brother to oversee the Jerusalem church, conveys a couple of interesting points. First, Peter was not seeking any preeminence for himself, preferring to do what Jesus directed him to do, namely, “Feed my lambs; feed my sheep.” (John 21:15, 16) Number two, Peter was not making unilateral decisions like a person having absolute authority.

In his Church History, Book 3, Eusebius has two more entries about Peter that are pertinent to this present study. In chapter 1, he writes:

“Peter appears to have preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews of the dispersion. (Cf. 1 Pet 1:1) And, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this way.”

No mention here that Peter was in Rome for any great length of time or that he held office as the bishop of Rome. In another entry, Eusebius says Linus was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of Rome, but then in chapter 2 of Book 3, he provides this information:

“After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle.”

And, following this contradictory entry that cites Linus as the FIRST bishop of Rome, Eusebius creates a very serious problem for the Roman Catholic apologists with the following blockbuster:

“And at the same time Papias, bishop of the parish of Hierapolis, became well known, as did also Ignatius, who was chosen bishop of Antioch, SECOND IN SUCCESSION TO PETER, and whose fame is still celebrated by a great many.”

In spite of this entry, it is not likely that Peter was a bishop of Antioch any more than a bishop of Rome, for the Apostles and disciples modus operandi was to preach and plant churches, not stick around afterwards to run them. This is borne out by the following Eusebius record:

“Then starting out upon long journeys they (the Apostles and disciples) performed the office of evangelists, being filled with the desire to preach Christ to those who had not yet heard the word of faith, and to deliver to them the divine Gospels. And when they had only laid the foundations of the faith in foreign places, they appointed others as pastors, and entrusted them with the nurture of those that had recently been brought in, while they themselves went on again to other countries and nations, with the grace and the co-operation of God.”

AliveinJesus

This is readily seen from the Scriptures to be a true description of how the Apostles and disciples carried out our Lord’s “Great Commission” in the 1st century. Acts includes accounts of three missionary journeys undertaken by Paul, and the First Epistle of Peter, in its salutation, lists some of the places Peter is said to have preached and planted churches. There is one deliberate connection of Peter to the office of bishop of Rome. It is found in a discredited document – a forgery – that received widespread circulation in the 3rd century, and was used by advocates of a monarchial church government to support their cause. The document in question is known as the pseudo-Clementine Letters and Homilies. There is no longer any doubt, however, about its authenticity. It is a deliberate forgery, falsely claiming Clemens Romanus as its author.

Allegedly written to James, the brother of Jesus, after the death of Peter, its claim is that Jesus made Peter the head of His Church, and Peter – before he died – appointed Clement to be his successor. This spurious document has been identified as the only piece of evidence in all of history that deliberately associates Peter with the title bishop of Rome. The document has been termed a “fiction” by scholars, but one that was treated as authentic in the 3rd and 4th centuries. It was in the 4th century that bishops of Rome began their quest for supremacy over all of Christendom. But by its own list of successors to Peter, the Catholic Church acknowledges the pseudo-Clementine Letters and Homilies to be a forgery. After listing Peter as the first pope, the Vatican lists Linus, then Cletus, and then, long after Peter’s demise, comes Clement. As for Rome’s list of popes, one can never count on tomorrow’s list containing the same names seen on it today, for it is an ever changing list with new names added or old names deleted as the case may be. The so-called unbroken chain of popes stretching back to Peter is, in truth, merely another fiction, and does not exist in reality. That subject is dealt with in depth in chapter 9.

On rare occasions there have been voices of reason raised within Catholicism, vainly striving to liberate the church from the grip of heresy. One such voice was that of bishop Strossmeyer who opposed both the office of the papacy and the doctrine of infallibility. In his historic speech at Vatican Council I he spoke as follows:

“I conclude victoriously, with history, with reason, with logic, with good sense, and with a Christian conscience, that Jesus Christ did not confer any supremacy on St Peter and that the bishops of Rome did not become sovereigns of the church, but only by confiscating one by one all the rights of the episcopate.”

In other words, establishment of the papacy was an act of “piracy.” To no one’s surprise, elements within the Roman church now deny that the good bishop made his volatile speech. When all else fails, rewrite history.

Besides claiming Peter as the rock upon which our Lord built Christianity, Rome also has declared that he was given a) exclusive possession of the “keys to the kingdom of heaven,” and b) the authority to make and unmake rules and doctrines here on earth. (Cf. Mat 16:19) In the Scripture verse cited by the Vatican to support these claims, our Lord did not say, “Here are the keys,” while handing Peter a set of keys nicely arranged on a holy keychain. What Jesus said was, “…and I will give unto thee the keys of – not to – the kingdom of heaven.” Obviously, then, the keys were not to be physical since heaven is not a physical place. They were to be spiritual keys. Also, the keys were to be forthcoming at a future unspecified date. Peter did not have them when our Lord finished speaking. And they were keys OF (or about) the kingdom, not keys to OPEN the kingdom, for it was Christ’s Calvary sacrifice that enabled the Old Testament saints who had been waiting in Sheol to ascend with Jesus to a newly opened heaven. So what were these keys; when were they received; how were they used, and was Peter the lone recipient?

Answering the last question first, events subsequent to the Caesarea Philippi incident will show clearly Peter was not the lone recipient of the keys. For now, remember that Peter was not alone with Jesus at Caesarea Philippi. When he responded “Thou art the Christ….” he was speaking for the group to which Christ had addressed the initial question, “Who do men say that I the Son of man am? In ending the episode our Lord admonished all the disciples to keep secret His identity. It is logical, therefore, to conclude he also was speaking to all when he promised the keys and dispensed binding and loosing authority.

For the answers to the other questions we must go back through the halls of history to a time 2000 years ago, before we had both the Old and New Testaments – the complete and finished Word of God. Note, first of all, that the Jews of Peter’s day still were looking for their promised Messiah – in Greek, the Christ. Their prophets foretold His coming. In Daniel the actual time of His coming was accurately predicted. But the Jews were looking for an earthly king who would restore the Davidic throne to its former power and glory. In spite of Isaiah 53 and other prophecies, the idea of a suffering Messiah who would atone with His blood for the sins of the whole world was as foreign to their thinking as China is to America. They were predisposed to believe that Messiah would lead a successful revolution against the ruling regime and thereby re-establish the autonomy of Israel and the throne of David.

Thus, the real purpose of the Messiah was completely hidden from the Jews of that era. It was first referred to as a “mystery” by our Lord Himself, in Mark 4:11, when He told His Apostles, “Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, (the religious Jews) all these things are done in parables.” In the Book of Romans, Paul speaks of the “mystery” in 11:25 and 16:25. In First Corinthians 2:7 it’s revealed that the “mystery” was God-planned even before the world was created; and had the forces of evil understood it, they would not have crucified the Savior. Writing in Ephesians 3:3, Paul says Jesus Himself disclosed to him the “mystery” that had been hidden in past ages from the “sons of men” but is now known to Christ’s Apostles and prophets. Same chapter, verse 9, Paul says he’s been commissioned to “make all men see…” the “mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God…” More references to this “mystery” will be found in Eph 6:19, Col 1:26, 27, 1 Tim 3:9, 16, and in Rev 10:7. Peter, too, in his First Epistle, refers – not by name, but surely by context – to this great “mystery” which even the prophets and God’s angels did not understand. (1 Pet 1:12)

The divine purpose of the Messiah, then, to the Jews and the rest of mankind, was shrouded in mystery 2000 years ago. It was still shrouded in mystery to Christ’s Apostles and followers even after He had suffered and died on Calvary and had risen from the dead. For we are told in Acts, “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, Lord, wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6)

Crucial to the solution of any mystery is possession of the “keys” that can open it to one’s understanding. With respect to the kingdom of God, the keys that would unlock its mystery had been hidden since the fall of Adam. These were the very keys that our Lord promised to give Peter, and the first Pentecost is when His promise was fulfilled. Peter – but not only Peter – received the keys that day when the sound of a rushing mighty wind was heard in the upper room where the 120 had assembled, and all were indwelt and filled with Christ’s Holy Spirit. This cannot be doubted. Prior to Christ’s ascension, Peter and the others did not understand the “mystery” at all. But on the day of Pentecost and the days that followed, Peter and the others clearly grasped its full meaning, clearly understood the “keys” of the kingdom of heaven, and used them to bring at least 8000 souls into a saving relationship with God. These are the “keys” so long hidden, but now known and at the disposal of every born again Christian:

Jesus is the promised Messiah, the Son of God, the Redeemer.
By His shed blood is forgiveness of sins, life everlasting.
Salvation is free to all who believe; all who call on His name.
God raised Him from the dead to affirm these promises.
Repent, believe, be indwelt by the Spirit, be baptized.

These spiritual keys are the ones used by Peter and the other Apostles and disciples to unlock the mystery of the kingdom of heaven for 3000 souls on Pentecost Sunday and another 5000 a few days later. These are the keys to the mystery of redemption that had been hidden even from the prophets and God’s angels since the time of Adam’s fall. They are the only keys to the born again nature that must be experienced for the forgiveness of sins and assurance of eternal life. They reveal the “simplicity” in Christ Jesus spoken of by Paul in his second letter to the Corinthian church. (Cf. 2 Cor 11:3) They are clearly presented to us in God’s divine Word, and are available for use by all who name the name of Jesus as their Savior. Rome’s claims to exclusive ownership of them are exposed as mere boast and bluster by the pronoun, “WHOSOEVER,” found in John 3:16, John 11:26, Acts 2:21, Acts 10:43, Romans 9:33, Romans 10:13, 1 John 4:15, 1 John 5:1, Revelation 22:17. The keys of the kingdom of heaven are not hanging on a solid gold chain suspended above the pope’s opulent throne in the Vatican. They are in the hearts of all believers who have a burden for saving lost souls.

The next claim made by Rome has to do with the binding and loosing authority granted by Jesus during the same Caesarea Philippi episode. “…whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Mat 16:19) Wasn’t this a clear mandate to Peter to make and unmake rules, regulations, doctrines, etc.? Wasn’t it a divine guarantee to Peter of infallibility? On both counts, no. As mentioned above, Peter was not the only Apostle with Jesus on that occasion. Logically the binding/loosing authority was granted to all who were there. And this is confirmed two chapters later.

The setting of Matthew chapter 18 is Capernaum in Galilee. Beginning in verse 15, our Lord instructs His disciples how to deal with a brother who has committed a trespass against another. Our Lord counsels the offended party to pursue redress of the grievance through several specific steps, the last of which – if redress of the grievance still is wonting – is to place the matter before the whole fellowship, the whole church. If this last step also fails, Jesus said, “… if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.” Then, to all His disciples, Jesus said: “Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Mat 18:17, 1 Cool

But our Lord was not yet finished with His lesson. The next two verses following Matthew 18:18 read like this: “Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Mat 18:19, 20)

Clearly, Peter was not the only one given the binding/loosing authority, and neither was it limited to our Lord’s immediate disciples. Verse 20 extends the authority to any two or three individuals who assemble in Christ’s name and in His spiritual presence. These Scriptures deal a fatal blow to Rome’s claim that binding/loosing authority was granted exclusively to Peter, and through him, to the imposter popes of Catholicism. Rather, each Christian fellowship enjoys the right to bind and loose in accordance with sound biblical doctrine and practices.

As a Catholic parochial school student many years ago, I was taught that the binding/loosing authority was granted to Peter, and passed on to all Catholic popes. It was what empowered them to make binding faith and morals declarations such as papal infallibility, the Marian doctrines, indulgences, Purgatory, temporal punishment, etc. We accepted this without question, and felt sorry for the non-Catholics who didn’t have a pope to lead them. Had we studied the Bible, however, instead of Catholic Doctrine, we would have known that the binding/loosing authority has absolutely nothing to do with making or altering doctrine; that it was given corporately to Christianity, not to Peter alone; and that its divine purpose is threefold. First, it is to protect Christians and Christian churches from evil forces. Second, it is to foster peace and tranquility between believers and within fellowships. Third, it is to facilitate achievement of God’s “Great Commission.”

The Greek words translated “bind” and “loose” are deo and luo respectively. Both are root words; the first means to tie, to bind, literally to fasten in or with chains. The second means to loose and set free what was tied up or chained. Simple enough, but how on earth do they apply to Christianity? Good question, but first let’s see how they don’t apply.

AliveinJesus

When Jesus commissioned His disciples to carry the Gospel to all nations, He made it clear that the Gospel they would be preaching was complete; nothing was missing, and nothing else was needed. He told them they would be, “Teaching them (converts) to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you.” (Mat 28:20) Earlier, before His death and Resurrection, He had given them a preview of the end times in the famous Olivet Discourse. During that teaching, He told them, “… THIS gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” (Mat 24:14)

Our Lord commissioned His followers to teach only what He had taught them, and He referred to His teachings as “THIS gospel.” On Calvary’s cross, as He bowed His sacred head for the last time, He uttered these words of triumph: “It is finished.” At that historic moment the work He came to accomplish was completed, as was the Gospel (the good news) that would make what He did known and believed throughout the entire world. Then to spearhead the Gospel’s spread among the gentiles, He called Saul of Tarsus and gave him the Gospel from His own divine lips. “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal 1:11, 12) He then inspired Paul to write: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” (Gal 1:8, 9) Twice in the Old Testament, once again in the New, God admonished mankind to keep hands off His inspired Word. It is not to be added to, altered, or taken from. Together, all of this bespeaks a complete Gospel, and obviates use of the binding/loosing authority for adding doctrines to it, or taking doctrines from it. How, then, does this God-given authority actually apply in Christianity? Several ways.

In the Book of Acts we find a number of examples of the binding/loosing authority in action in the fledgling Church. In Acts 1:15-26, Matthias, in a binding action by the assembled believers, is chosen to fill the “episcopate” vacated by the suicide of Judas Iscariot. Acts 4:32 through 4:37 relates how the believers bound themselves to community ownership, as opposed to private ownership, of lands and property. “neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.” (Act 4:32)

A pressing need that faced the rapidly expanding Jerusalem church was solved by a binding action recorded in Acts 6:1 through 6:6. Gentile widows were being neglected in the daily distribution of food and supplies. This resulted in friction and dissatisfaction that could have produced a serious rift in the Church’s unity of purpose. The problem was identified and quickly solved with the creation of a special group of seven who were “bound” to minister equally to all in need. In the reign of Claudias Caesar there came a great dearth in the Holy Land, which, when the saints of the Asian church at Antioch learned of it, they bound upon themselves the burden of providing sustenance to their Judaean brethren. Everyone contributed according to his ability, and the necessities were conveyed to those in need by Barnabas and Saul. (Cf. Acts 11:28-30)

It is reported in Acts 13:8-11 how, on the Isle of Paphos, a sorcerer named Elymas clashed with Paul and Barnabas until Paul bound blindness upon him and he had to be led about. When Jews in Antioch, jealous of the way Paul and Barnabas were making converts, began contradicting them and blaspheming God, Paul and Barnabas left them bound in their unbelief and directed their ministry exclusively to the gentiles. (Cf. Acts 13:46) When their adversaries forced them out of the city, Paul and Barnabas “shook off the dust of their feet against them, and came unto Iconium.” (Acts 13:51)

The most famous example of the binding/loosing authority is found in Acts chapter 15, beginning in verse 6. A serious disagreement had arisen, caused by Jewish believers who were insisting on a) circumcision for all males among the gentile converts, and b) strict adherence of all gentiles to the Mosaic Law. After much open discussion and input from Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James, the brother of Jesus, it was decided to loose the gentile converts from the rite of circumcision and from keeping the Mosaic Law. Instead, the council bound them to “abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” (Acts 15:20)

In these examples we see the binding/loosing authority being employed to fill a personnel need, to settle disputes within church fellowships, to assist a fellowship in dire straits, to counteract an attack on a Christian ministry, to dispense with confirmed unbelievers whose aim is to hinder God’s work. The binding/loosing authority granted by Jesus to His disciples, and to the Church that grew from their witness, applies also to matters of discipline within the Body of Christ.

In Matthew 18:15-20, our Lord dictates the proper method of dealing with misbehaving believers. After several preliminary steps or warnings, the miscreant who refuses to amend his/her ways, or make required restitution, is to be brought before the assembled church and openly charged. If “guilty” is the assembly’s verdict, it has the authority from Christ to bind the offender under whatever conditions must be met for continued participation in the fellowship. Where those conditions are complied with, the church has the authority to loose the brother from further restrictions. Where they are not complied with the church has the authority to revoke the offender’s membership in the fellowship. The effectiveness of this kind of disciplinary action is clearly shown in Paul’s letters to the Corinthian church.

The entire fifth chapter of 1st Corinthians is devoted to the importance of a church body dealing with immorality within its membership. Specifically, Paul admonishes the Corinthian believers to deal with one individual who was in an openly sinful relationship with his own father’s wife. Paul’s instruction to the church – related in 5:13 – is to “…put away from among yourselves that wicked person.” In short, the Corinthian believers were to issue a binding order expelling the man from their midst. When the church carried out Paul’s instructions, the man repented, but was not restored to his former place of membership in the assembly. This was conveyed to Paul, who then included some additional instructions in 2nd Corinthians 2:5-9.

“But if any have caused grief, he hath not grieved me, but in part: that I may not overcharge you all. Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, which was inflicted of many. So that contrariwise ye ought rather to forgive him, and comfort him, lest perhaps such a one should be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.” No question that the man had repented of his immoral activity and was overcome with remorse, for Paul continues, “Wherefore I beseech you that ye would confirm your love toward him. For to this end also did I write, that I might know the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things.” In other words, the man was to be loosed from the penalty warranted by his former behavior and restored to full fellowship in the congregation of believers.

Binding/loosing authority has nothing to do with adding doctrines to an already complete Gospel. That Catholicism has misrepresented its purposes, in order to justify actions expressly prohibited by the Word of God, is eloquent proof of the extent to which Rome will go in its campaign to underpin the papacy with a semblance of credibility. But the more evidence we examine, the less we see Peter picked to be the rock upon which our Lord would build His Church. Scripture makes it patently clear that Peter received no unique powers or authorities not entrusted to all of our Lord’s disciples. Moreover, all the empowerments Christ left with His disciples have been passed on – not to some illicit hierarchy Jesus Himself opposed – but to all born again Christians and the Bible-directed assemblies to which they belong – the Body of Christ. That this is true cannot be doubted, for, as previously noted, “ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.” (1 Pet 2:9)

All believers in the Body of Christ are priests. When two or more band together into church units meeting in the spiritual presence of Christ Himself, (Mat 18:20), they are empowered to employ the “Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven” to bring lost souls into a saving relationship with the Creator, and declare to them that their sins are forgiven. They also are entitled to use the binding/loosing authority to protect themselves from evil forces and to facilitate achievement of their assigned mission. If they choose to bind themselves to the support of a missionary effort in Uganda, their action will already have been approved in heaven. If they bind themselves to a bus ministry, a home for unwed mothers, a Christian radio outreach, a tract ministry, an association with other Bible-directed assemblies, etc., all already will have been “bound in heaven.” When our Lord said, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” the tense of the Greek verbs dedemena (bound) and lelumena (loosed) gives the following literal translation: dedemena – “shall have been bound,” and lelumena – “shall have been loosed.” Nothing the churches do is a surprise to our Father in heaven. If it is in accordance with the Word of God it has already been pre-approved and settled there before the earthly action is carried out.

AliveinJesus

Rome would have us believe that the Lord reserved these church functions exclusively for the Vatican crowd when there was no such thing as a Vatican crowd in His divine plan. Peter was a “lively stone” like all born again believers, not a foundation rock endowed with infallibility. He sinned, erred, made mistakes as do all who are born with the Adamic nature. His two wonderful epistles show him to be quite satisfied with the Gospel left by our Savior. Nothing in them suggests that he believed the Gospel to be incomplete and in need of “patching.” Thus, papal infallibility is – quite honestly - one more Catholic myth based on misrepresentation of the binding/loosing authority. As indicated by the Keenan Catechism entries quoted in Chapter 1, Rome adamantly denied that popes are infallible prior to Pius IX’s 1870 declaration. The shocking about face of that declaration – from absolutely not infallible to unquestionably infallible – should have had Catholics stampeding to the exits. But it caused scarcely a ripple. And the Keenan Catechism handling of it is one of the all-time classic examples of Vatican “doublespeak.” For purposes of further comment it is reproduced here.

Q. Is the pope infallible?
A. Yes, the pope is infallible.

Q. But some Catholics, before the Vatican Council, denied the infallibility of the pope, which was impugned by this very Catechism.
A. Yes, they did so under the usual reservation, insofar as they then could grasp the mind of the church, and subject to her (the church’s) future definitions, thus implicitly accepting the dogma.

If awards were given for “doublespeak,” that explanation would win the grand prize hands down. Note the beginning of the lie in the second question. It was not “some” Catholics prior to 1870 that denied papal infallibility; it was THE CATHOLIC CHURCH that denied it and called it a protestant invention! In my 52 years as a Catholic I was never made aware that it is necessary to have “usual reservations” about the various doctrines in anticipation that the “mind of the church” might change, causing “future definitions” of those doctrines to be diametrically opposite of what Rome had taught me to believe as the truth. I should have had a clue, though, when the Friday meat fast was eliminated, the Communion fast was done away with, the Mass in Latin was changed to English, and lay people could do what previously only clergy could do.

At Vatican Council I, out of which came Pius IX’s infallibility doctrine, bishop Strossmeyer, a German prelate, tried vainly to convince the assembled delegates to flatly reject the proposed new doctrine. He and Johann J.I. Von Dollinger, were joined by the French delegation in seeking its rejection. Though their efforts were met with defeat, what Strossmeyer feared and foresaw has been a bone in the throat of the Vatican ever since. He predicted that Catholicism’s critics would focus their attacks on the infallibility issue against which the church would have no defense. From his impassioned speech, the following:

“If you decree the dogma of papal infallibility, the Protestants, our adversaries, will mount in the breach, the more bold that they have history on their side, while we have only our own denial against them. What can we say to them when they show up all the bishops of Rome from the days of Luke to his holiness Pius IX?”

In the crass arrogance for which Rome is famous, papal infallibility was declared a must-believe doctrine of the church in spite of the dissenters’ objections, and the prediction of repercussions by Strossmeyer. In Cincinnati, Ohio, my hometown, the repercussions were particularly severe because of a debate that had been held there in 1837. Bishop John Purcell, representing the Roman Catholic Church, was challenged by his opponent, Alexander Campbell, a Christian, on – among other things - the matter of papal infallibility. Bishop Purcell said:

"Appeals were lodged before the bishop of Rome, though he was not believed to be infallible. Neither is he now. No enlightened Catholic holds the Pope's infallibility to be an article of faith. I do not; and none of my brethren that I know of do" (Campbell-Purcell Debate p. 26-27.)

“Infallible” popes themselves denied the infallibility of popes. These included Vigilinus, Innocent III, Clement IV, Gregory XI, Adrian VI, and Paul IV. All of this notwithstanding, Pius IX went ahead with his declaration of papal infallibility, and it was a fitting sequel to the equally heretical Immaculate Conception doctrine that preceded it in 1854. What Strossmeyer feared and foresaw – that Protestants would jump on the infallibility thing with a vengeance - came to pass in a hurry. The high jinx of numerous popes – some of which are reported in chapter nine – came under immediate attack, and continues to command the attention of Vatican apologists to this day. The Catholic faithful who have accepted as their lot “the mind of the Church,” (Cf. Keenan entry above) would assure their place in heavenly bliss by dumping it, and replacing it with what all born again Christians are promised. To wit: “…we have the mind of Christ.” (1 Cor 2:16)

In its never-ending quest to convince of Peter’s ordination as Catholicism’s first pope, Rome is fond of saying the first Church council, the Jerusalem assembly reported in Acts 15, is proof that Peter already was the accepted leader of the Church. Their apologists point out that after Peter spoke, “then all the multitude kept silence.” (Acts 15:12) The inference, of course, is that what Peter said was decisive. And the faithful, who accept without question anything having the Vatican stamp on it, are convinced Peter’s leadership was thus proved, that whatever he said was decisive, final. This, of course, is a deliberate deception of people who are discouraged from reading the Bible.

In the referenced episode, Peter is the first to speak, not the last. Secondly, the multitude kept silent, alright, but to hear Paul and Barnabas relate their experiences among the gentiles. Finally, speaking last, James, the brother of Jesus, presents his judgment of what should be done, and it is his judgment that is ratified and implemented by the whole council. Thus, the gentile converts were “loosed” from any requirement to be circumcised and, at the same time “bound” to refrain from the sins of the pagan idolaters. Peter, a self-professed “elder” was merely a part of the whole Jerusalem church’s binding and loosing exercise. At one point, the Jerusalem church sent Peter and John to Samaria to proclaim the Gospel. Not an action one would expect if Peter was thought to be the supreme head of things.

In his letter to the Galatians Paul at one point calls Peter by his Aramaic name - Cephas (stone) - and, well, let’s read the verse: “And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.” (Gal 2:9) To Paul, Peter was merely one of several who “appeared” to be “pillars;” definitely not a supreme leader. On another occasion, Peter was publicly rebuked by Paul for duplicity in his behavior among the Jews on the one hand and the gentiles on the other. This is hardly what you would expect to happen if Paul were privy to Peter’s appointment by Christ as the supreme head of His Church. We know that Paul was respectful of those in authority by his response in Acts 23 when informed that he had used an epithet in referring to the Jewish High Priest. “Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. (Acts 23:5) It is certain that had Paul known Peter was Christ’s choice to be the foundation rock of His Church, and the first supreme leader of it, he never would have openly rebuked him, then published the fact in a letter. In fact, had the Catholic Church chosen to designate Paul as the first supreme head of Christianity instead of Peter, they could have made a really good case that would have been extremely difficult to refute. For three reasons. First, it was Paul, not Peter, who received his doctrine directly from the Lord Jesus. “For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal 1:12) And in his first letter to the Corinthian Church, “For I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you.” (1 Cor 11:23) Second, Paul, himself, seemed to have greater authority than others by his own admission. “Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.” (2Cor 11:2 Cool

In addition to all of the trials and responsibilities he had enumerated in preceding verses, here Paul indicates that the care or oversight of all the Churches fell upon his shoulders as well. Third, there is no question whatever about Paul’s Roman residency. The Bible tells us he most certainly was there. But Rome has never claimed that Paul was a pope, even though internal Biblical evidence would have more readily supported that claim.

Peter was chosen instead, certainly because of the misinterpretation of Scripture that occurred long ago. And, though Paul indicated in the Scripture cited above that he had responsibility for the Churches, Peter never made such a claim that we know of. “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed.” (1 Pet 5:1) Here, Peter simply classifies himself as one among many Elders, and not the first bishop of Rome or supreme head of Christianity. To have been a bishop of Rome would have required Peter to establish residence there, and to be the leader of one of the churches meeting there. But there is no evidence anywhere in the New Testament that he did this. Nor is there reliable historical evidence for his having lived in Rome and been one of its bishops.

He was a Galilean fisherman; his wife was there; he may have had a son named Marcus. His wife accompanied him in his travels. These are the Biblical bits of information we have about Peter, certainly not enough on which to base a key doctrine. As has been pointed out previously, at the end of Paul’s letter to the Romans, he addresses greetings and accolades to thirty people, twenty-seven of them by name. Peter is not one of the twenty-seven. Since the three unnamed are women, we can conclude Peter was not yet in Rome when Paul wrote that letter. Why, if he was chosen head of Christ’s church and the first bishop of Rome, does Paul not acknowledge him in the last chapter of Romans? He, Peter, should have been there governing the Roman church and Paul should have known it. Only the spurious forgery previously mentioned - the pseudo Clementine Letters and Homilies - specifically declare Peter was a bishop of Rome. Strangely, although the Clementine Homilies long ago were admitted by Rome to be spurious forgeries, they are still being quoted by Catholic sources in conjunction with Rome’s doctrines of papal sovereignty and “binding/loosing” authority. An internet page named the ETW — Eternal Word Television, Global CATHOLIC Network — on the date of February 4, 2002, published the following which is quoted verbatim with the alleged words of Peter in italics.

“In the same sense the second epistle of Clement to James II (Homilies, Introduction [ 221]), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: ‘I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the Church .”(3:215). Thus Jesus invested the leaders of this church with the…..etc.”

Is it not shameful that a document known to be a forgery and a falsehood is still being quoted (by those who know it to be a forgery and a falsehood) to prove that certain of their man-made doctrines are true and were originated by our Lord Jesus? Who can believe anything at all that such a shameless church says must be believed? On the one hand they say bishop Strossmeyer’s speech at the 1869-70 Vatican I never happened, while at the same time quoting from a proven, admitted forged document to justify the office of the papacy. Who can trust anything that has Rome’s stamp on it?

If all the facts that we have cited to show that Peter was 1) not the Rock on which the Church was to be built, 2) not endowed with authority to make or alter doctrine, 3) not appointed the first bishop of Rome...if all these facts are true.. .and they are…where on earth did all this stuff about bishops of Rome and Popes and infallibility come from? The forged pseudo-Clementine Letters and Homilies of the third century certainly originated the idea of a monarchial church ruler, and even though Augustine (AD 354-430) taught that the “Rock” in Matthew 16:18 was Jesus, not Peter, his monumental work - “The City of God” - helped the movement along.

AliveinJesus

History shows that the first bishop of Rome to base a claim for preeminence on Matthew 16:18 was Calixtus I in the 3rd century. And it is instantly obvious that his misinterpretation of that Scripture set the tone for the papacy program from then on. Had he been accomplished in the Greek language, and known the Pauline Scriptures cited above, he could have claimed descent from Paul as supreme overseer of the Church, and who could have said “nay”? But the famous Tertullian, bishop of Carthage at the time, referred to Calixtus I as a “usurper” for speaking of himself as “bishop of bishops.” Then, midway through the same century, Stephen I, bishop of Rome from AD 253-257, admonished the North African church about its baptismal practices. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, refused to yield to Stephen I. He said each bishop had the preeminence in his own jurisdiction. Even when Constantine, early in the 4th century, issued his edict of toleration and convoked the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, headship of the Church was not centralized in the bishop of Rome.

By the end of the 4th century there were five bishoprics each operating independently from the others, and headquartered in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome. The bishops were called Patriarchs or “Papa” which translated into English is “pope.” They enjoyed equal status one with another. Each had complete control in his own jurisdiction. In AD 385, Siricius became bishop of Rome and shortly thereafter claimed absolute authority over all of Christendom. His claim went unheeded and ten years later the Roman Empire split into two separate divisions - east and west. This resulted in a gradual centralization of authority over the eastern churches in the bishopric of Constantinople, and henceforth Rome’s struggle for total control of Christendom found an implacable enemy in Constantinople and the Eastern Churches.

Innocent I was bishop of Rome early in the 5th century. (402-417) He referred to himself as “Ruler of the Church of God.” He sought to become the arbiter of all major disputes within all of Christendom but was unsuccessful. An Eastern Church council (whose secretary was Augustine) decreed that anyone appealing to Rome for a decision of any kind was to be excommunicated from the African church.

Midway through the 5th century, the Huns, theVisigoths and theVandals were cutting the once-invincible Roman Empire to pieces. It was the perfect time for a strong man to arrive on the scene and that man turned out to be Leo I, bishop of Rome from AD 440-461.There still was no “papacy” at the time, but Leo took unto himself the title of “Primate of all Bishops.” To get this claim validated he appealed to a secular source, Valentinian III, ruler of the Western Roman Empire. Imagine, the self-styled Vicar of Christ having to receive from a secular source approval to be the Vicar of Christ. The lust for power makes for strange bedfellows.

It was Leo I who persuaded both Attila the Hun and, a few years later, the Vandal Geneseric, to spare the city of Rome from destruction. Apparently emboldened by these successes, Leo proclaimed himself the “Lord of the whole Church.” He declared that to resist his authority would result in condemnation to hell. (Cf. Rom 8:34) He promoted the death penalty as punishment for heresy, directly contradicting Christ’s instructions to His church: “But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.” (Mat 5:44) It was Leo I who first introduced the idea of an exclusive universal papacy, but the assemblage of bishops from all over the world who came to the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451) denied Leo’s claim. Thus, contrary to all of Rome’s claims that the papacy has been in existence since Peter, there still was no pope at the end of the 5th century. In fact, to find the first bishop of Rome who established absolute unopposed control over the western churches, it is necessary to jump ahead 100 years to the very end of the 6th century.

Gregory I, bishop of Rome from AD 590-604 has been called by historians the first pope even though he refused to so identify himself. With absolute control established over all of the Western churches - Italy, Spain, Gaul, and the newly converted England, Gregory I functioned as, and exercised the powers of, what shortly thereafter would become known as the papacy. In spite of this, he adamantly refused to be called “Universal Bishop,” and when the bishop of Constantinople applied this title to himself an irritated Gregory said it was haughty and vicious to do so. Because of his attitude toward the pretensions that seem always to accompany the assumption of great power, Gregory must be judged as one who stepped forward to fulfill the needs of the time in which he lived, without any intention of establishing a precedent that would affect all future generations.

His were turbulent times; actually the beginning of the dark ages. Rome had fallen in AD 476 to the Goths. Anarchy was the rule. The Lombards were pillaging and plundering out of control. It was Gregory I who was able to exercise a positive influence over the various warring factions and bring a semblance of order out of the chaos that marked those dark days. Yet he never claimed to be the Vicar of Christ, the supreme authority of the Church, or gifted with infallibility. In a letter to the emperor, Maurice, Gregory wrote:

“I confidently affirm that who so calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, (Pontifex Maximus), in his pride goes before anti-Christ……St. Peter is not called Universal Apostle ….Far from CHRISTIAN (not Catholic) hearts be that blasphemous name.”

In another of his letters, this one to the bishop of Antioch, Gregory wrote that the title Universal Bishop was, “Profane, superstitious, haughty, and invented by the first apostate.” I think it can be safely said that Gregory I would have been opposed to establishment of the office of the papacy as it evolved over the years after his death.

To give an entire history of the development of the Roman Catholic papacy after the reign of Gregory I, how it became a powerful temporal kingdom that lasted for 1100 years, would fill several books. It has been our purpose here simply to show that Rome’s insistence that the office of the papacy has always existed and been a known entity since the days of Peter is utter nonsense without any foundation in Biblical or historical fact. The only evidence that supports Rome’s claim - documents known as a) the pseudo Clementine Letters and Homilies from the 3rd century, and b) the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals dated AD 857 - have been proven to be deliberate forgeries produced to convey the belief that the papacy existed right from the beginning of Christianity. Thus the only evidence to support such a claim - because of their proven corrupt nature - is no evidence at all.

Peter was not the first Pope. Historically and biblically, he was not even the first bishop, or a bishop of Rome. Christ did not establish the office of the papacy, nor appoint one to be the supreme leader of His Church. There are a number of church offices mentioned in the New Testament, none of which would apply to a supreme leader. People identified by title include Apostles, disciples, evangelists, and prophets (preachers), pastors, and teachers; (Eph. 4:11) offices listed are bishops, deacons, and elders. (I Tim. 3 and 5) The title pope is from the Latin “papa” which means father, and the only time it receives the specific attention of our Lord further diminishes Rome’s claim to the office of the papacy.

Matthew Chapter 23 contains a strong message from our Lord about who should and who should not be called “father” in a spiritual sense. The chapter records an episode in which Jesus is speaking to both His disciples and the “multitudes.” Beginning in Verse 8, Jesus says: “But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth for One is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for One is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. and whosoever shall exalt himself shall be abased; and he that shall humble himself shall be exalted.” (Mat 23:8-12)

On several occasions, one of them briefly mentioned earlier, our Lord had great opportunities to confirm the fact that He had selected Peter to be the first supreme leader of His church, the “Rock” upon which it would be built. In Mark 9:33-37, in Mark 10:37-44, in Luke 9:46-48, in Luke 22:24-30 and in Matthew 20:21-27, accounts are given of the Apostles disputing among themselves who was to be “greatest” (read that, “leader”) among them. Our Lord never said, “Look, gentlemen, I have already appointed Peter at Caesarea Philippi to be your supreme leader.” In Luke 20, he said there would be not one throne for Peter, but 12 thrones, - one for each Apostle - on which they would sit to judge the tribes of Israel. Repeating what was pointed out earlier, our Lord clearly stated His wishes regarding organization of His church as follows: “But Jesus called them to him, and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all” (Mar 10:42-44)

AliveinJesus

Jesus could not have made it any clearer that His Church was not to concentrate power in a central source. He Himself was to be with the Church always until the end of the age. His Holy Spirit indwelling believers was to be the power that would keep His church free from the influx of heresy. His hatred of the Nicolaitanes, expressed in two of His Revelation letters to the Asian churches, reveals his profound opposition to a priesthood of any kind, much less a ruling monarch called “papa” - father.

Following our Lord’s ascension into heaven, the Apostle John was given the final cap to the New Testament -The Revelation of Jesus Christ. By His letters to the messengers (bishops) of seven Asian Churches, (Rev Chapters 2, 3), our Lord strongly endorses their independence from each other. Each of the letters concludes with the following a admonition: “He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches. (Rev 2:29) Notice two things here. First, Christians are to pay attention to and be guided by the Holy Spirit. Second, our Lord’s admonitions were not to the Church singular, (i.e. the Catholic Church), but to the independent Churches making up the visible Body of Christ on earth. Nor was a single letter addressed to the bishop of Rome as it would have been had Christ established the office of the pope.

That the churches in Apostolic times and immediately thereafter were independent of each other and existed in small groups is further evidenced in Paul’s various epistles. Seven different times Paul addresses greetings to named individuals in whose houses the church assembled and worshiped. Those named individuals are: Priscilla and Aquila twice (Rom 16:3, 5 and 1 Cor 16:19), Chloe (1 Cor 1:1 1), Stephanos (1 Cor 16:15), Nymphas (Col 4:15), Onesiphorus (2 Tim 1:16), and Archippus. (Philemon 1:2)

In the 10th century, largely because of Rome’s insistence that the bishop of Rome - the pope - was the absolute Christ-appointed head of Christendom, the eastern Christian churches (Eastern Orthodox) split from Rome and have remained a separate entity to this day. Prior to that time, though Rome and Constantinople jockeyed continually for supremacy, representatives from both eastern and western churches had attended all of the convocations and councils. But thereafter, and since then, the western churches under Rome have held their councils and the eastern churches have held theirs. As a result, the eastern churches do not subscribe to the doctrines of the papacy, infallibility, nor the Assumption of Mary bodily into heaven.

For half a century I believed that Peter was the “Rock” upon which Christ built His church. I believed that he was the first pope and that the papacy was traceable all the way back to the time of the Apostles. I believed that doctrines such as the Immaculate Conception, Papal Infallibility, Mary’s Assumption, etc., were from old time; and I never questioned their Biblical validity. I believed that the Catholic Church was established on Pentecost and was the one and only true church. In all of this I was terribly wrong; terribly mistaken, totally deceived by nuns, priests, and scholastics who were, themselves, deceived. Had I died during those years, my soul would have been condemned to hell for all eternity, for I was not “born again.” (Cf. Joh 3:3) I did not know that my awful sins had been expiated on Calvary; that I could not atone for a single one myself here on earth, or after death in a purgatorial fire.

I was not indwelt by the Holy Spirit, and knew not the warning in the book of Romans: “Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.” (Rom 8:9) There are millions of Catholics whose souls are in the same jeopardy mine was during those years I believed the doctrines and commandments of men. And they are just as ignorant of God’s precious Word as I was. But they don’t have to remain ignorant. The holy Bible is the most available book in all the world. Its message of salvation is easily grasped; no interpreter required. All it takes is a desire to know what God says instead of what men say. Catholics who are intimidated by fears they will be excommunicated for going against Rome’s dictates really have nothing to fear. The pope is a great imposter; his infallibility is a fantasy; and if the Apostle Peter were to return tomorrow and be told of Rome’s teachings about himself, he most likely would tear his tunic and cry out ‘Nay, nay, brethren! I am but a man of like passions with you!”

Of a certainty Peter would vehemently deny being given the gift of infallibility, recalling how the first thing he did after Christ’s ascension was disobey what he had been told to do. “And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.” (Luke 24:29) The Apostles were to take NO action of any kind until Our Lord’s promise of the Holy Spirit had been fulfilled. They were to wait. Period. Just before His ascension, Jesus reiterated the promise: “...ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence. (Acts 1:5) “But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.” (Acts 1: Cool

Instead of merely waiting for the power of the Holy Spirit as Christ had instructed, Peter spearheaded the election of Mathias to replace the traitor Judas Iscariot. Had Peter been infallible, there is little likelihood he would have acted contrary to what Jesus had ordered. Inasmuch as God allowed the appointment of Mathias, we conclude that he became a 13th Apostle, because Saul of Tarsus - Paul - was God’s choice to be the 12th Apostle, replacing Judas Iscariot. It is a “given” that the Holy Spirit would not have allowed an “infallible” Peter to err as he did.

Rome claims Peter was the first pope, and on him Jesus founded His church. Does history, the early church writings, and the Word of God substantiate these claims? No; emphatically, no. Peter was not a pope or even a bishop of Rome. He was not the foundation “rock” on which Christ was to build His church. And, he was not infallible. None of the men claiming to be Peter’s successors have been, either. Moreover, Rome, Catholicism’s headquarters, is not the “eternal city,” as the faithful have been led to believe. Jerusalem enjoys that singular honor. (Rev 21:1)

Before leaving this subject of Peter’s alleged selection by Christ to head His church, the following Scripture begs a rational explanation from the Catholic theologians who feel “so sorry” for those of us who believe God’s Word instead of tradition-bound Vatican rhetoric. “And the night following the Lord stood by him, and said, Be of good cheer, Paul for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome. (Acts 23:11) If Peter was a bishop, or the bishop, of Rome - God’s choice to lead His church - why assign the job of witnessing at Rome to the Apostle Paul? Let’s face it, Peter was no slouch as a preacher. His “track record” in Jerusalem, Samaria, Caesarea, - wherever he preached – was every bit as good as Paul’s. Why would Peter have needed Paul’s help? The answer, or course, is that Peter was every bit as effective as Paul; he just wasn’t the one God chose to plant the fellowship at Rome. Paul was not a pope. Neither was Peter. All who have claimed that title were, and are, THE GREAT IMPOSTERS.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is taken from the book "Heresies of Catholicism...The Apostate Church" authored by John Schroeder, a former Roman Catholic. The book may be purchased from Amazon and iUniverse
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos...7510-6963920?v=glance&s=books