|
|
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
|
|
Date Posted:
2/6/1998
|   |
Contents
Introduction
Origins and Nature
Basic Differences
False Doctrines
Mariolatry
Purgatory
Supererogation
Papal Infallibility
Peter the Little Stone
Rome's Monopoly
'Heretics'
Babylon the Great
|
Christ the Rock - Peter the Little Stone
The History and Falsehoods of Romanism
Professor CAM Noble
We are utterly surprised at the ignorance of the average Protestant concerning the teachings of the Roman Church, but we were also surprised to find how many Roman Catholics themselves are totally ignorant concerning many of the doctrines of their own Church.
No one can accuse us of misrepresenting that Church, for all the facts given here are matters of history and thoroughly documented. We are happy these articles are falling into the hands of some Catholics.
The ridiculous dogma of the infallibility of the Pope when he speaks as the Head of the Church is closely associated with another tradition, also entirely without scriptural or historical proof. It is the doctrine of the Succession of the Apostle Peter.
Rome teaches that Peter spent the last years of his life in Rome as the first Pope, that the Church was built upon Peter and began in Rome. From there the Church of Rome goes on to declare that the Popes are the successors to Peter in an un-broken line of authority.
There is no scriptural or historic proof that Peter was ever in Rome at all - much less that he was the first Pope. The Church of Rome bases its claims on the following: (1) that Peter is the rock on which the Church is built; (2) that Peter was empowered to forgive sins, and this power is transmitted to his successors (1); and (3) that Peter was the founder and first Bishop of the Church in Rome.
The claim that Peter is the rock on which the Church is built is based on a passage in Matthew 16:18. After Peter has confessed: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God", Jesus said to him: "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church." On this verse Rome bases her whole doctrine; but Christ would never have built His Church on a human being.
|
|
It was not upon Peter that the church was to be built, but upon "this rock" - Christ Himself.
|
It was not upon Peter that the church was to be built, but upon "this rock" - Christ Himself. The word for "Peter" in the Greek is 'petros', which means 'a little stone', but Christ said He would build His Church upon another rock - in the Greek 'petra', a large rock. What Jesus meant by the contrast between the large and small rock was that Peter was one of the stones in the church (I Peter 2:3-5), but that Christ Himself was the Foundation Stone (I Corinthians 3:11).
The true Church, the true believers, are a spiritual house in which every believer is a living stone and Christ is the chief foundation and cornerstone. Paul unambiguously declares that Jesus is the Rock, not Peter (I Corinthians 3:11); and Peter actually denies that he himself is the rock. Read Peter's testimony in I Peter 2:4-8, where he says that he is not the rock, but with all other believers only a little stone in the building of God's spiritual house - the true Church.
|
|
... and Peter actually denies that he himself is the rock.
|
The doctrine that Peter is the rock on which the Church is built is an outright denial of Jesus Christ as Head of the Church - a usurpation of deity making Jesus only the "fruit of thy (Mary's) womb Jesus" instead of the Son of God.
Hence the Roman Church falsely teaches that Peter was the first Pope and founded the Church at Rome. The present Pope is supposed to be in the line of direct succession to Peter. However, the first mention of a Pope was centuries after Peter was dead!
|
|
The Pope is also supposed to be infallible in matters of doctrine, yet...
|
The Pope is also supposed to be infallible in matters of doctrine, yet the first Pope, Peter, had to be corrected by the Apostle Paul in Antioch. Here Paul publicly rebuked Peter for his double standards (see Galatians 2:11-14).
It is a historical fact that at one time there were three different infallible popes. In the 14th century a division occurred in the Church of Rome, and the two factions vied for superiority. One faction officially elected Pope Urban VI as the 'infallible' Head of the Church, while the other party elected Pope Clement VII as the Head of the Church.
Now there were two Popes opposing each other. Pope Urban VI was succeeded by Boniface IX in 1389 and later Pope Gregory XII. Pope Clement VII, called historically the Anti-Pope, was succeeded by Pope Benedictine XIII in 1394. Then in 1409 a third party of reactionaries, who now claimed to represent the true Church, elected Pope Alexander V as head of the Roman hierarchy. Now there were three infallible Popes. Then, in June, 1409, the infallible Pope Alexander V officially excommunicated the other two infallible Popes, and gradually the incident was resolved. (For an interesting discussion of this historical account see the Encyclopaedia Britannica under the article on "The Papacy").
This, however, was not the only time when the Roman Church had more than one Head. In 1058 Pope Benedict X was elected, but another faction elected Pope Nicholas II. The feud between these two opposing Popes resulted in the expulsion of Pope Benedict and the election of Nicholas II as supreme Head of the Church.
|
|
Catholic Catechism: "How do we know that the Pope is infallible?"
|
With regard to the doctrine of Papal infallibility, the Roman Catechism teaches as follows: "How do we know that the Pope is infallible?" Answer: "Because he is the foundation stone as Peter was, of the Church of Christ, which is infallible." Notice here that Peter is not the only rock on which the church is built. Which Pope, then, is the real rock, and how many stones are there anyway?
The Catechism continues: "If the divinely appointed Head of the Church [the Pope] could teach error in expounding the doctrines of Christ, there would be no security for the members of the Church." Think of it! Their security rests on a mortal man - a sinner like all of us. The Catechism continues: "We are compelled to the teachings of Christ under penalty of damnation and we must have a guide in these teachings who is certain of the truth."
Where is there any room in Romanist doctrine for the Holy Spirit? The Pope becomes our infallible teacher as well as the forgiver of our sins. In accepting the dogmas, interpretations and decrees of a Pope, the members of the Church (so Rome teaches) have absolute security that the doc-trines which they believe are the doctrines of Jesus Christ. Yet no Roman Catholic knows anything about security or assurance. No Roman Catholic is sure he will go to Heaven when he dies, but is faced with the horrible prospect of spending - it may be millions of years - in a flaming purgatory of suffering and torture.
Romanism is thus a religion of fear. It knows nothing about "peace with God". It is a flat denial of the "finished" work of Christ. The iron grip of Rome on its victims is the threat of suffering and punishment, if they dare to disagree.
http://www.ianpaisley.org
Email: eips_info@yahoo.co.uk
|
|
|
