'Replies from Roman Catholics'

Matt Wykoff - 45

6th February, 2012

From: Matt Wykoff
Received: Monday, 6th February 2012


Subject: URGENT/IMPORTANT

Is it extremely important to become a Traditional Catholic to be saved?


It is extremely important to become a Traditional Catholic to be saved. Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no Salvation. Visit www.vaticancatholic.com Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside the Catholic Church there is no Salvation) is a 2000 year old phrase of the Early Church Fathers.
                                                                                       
visit -
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com

protestants will not enter heaven - for it is man made religion. Only Christians will enter heaven, not protestants. The Pope St. Damasus made the Bible in 400 A.D. He decided which texts were or were not inspired. Before that,  thousands of texts abounded, with Bishops accepting some for their diocese, while other Bishops accepted different texts for their flocks - and never agreed as to the precise makeup of Scripture, even though these writings had nothing in them contrary to docrtine. The monks of the Catholic Church and its Bishops endlessly and painstakingly copied and preserved the numerous texts that were accumulated. The writings of the direct students of the Apostles were considered sacred scripture, and read during public worship.

All the Church Fathers defended Catholic doctrines and adhered to Papal authority in unison. It was the decision of Pope St. Damasus that settled the matter on what made up Sacred Scripture. The Catholic Church is infallible in the person of the Pope.

LORD (YHWH) Jesus Christ only founded one Church, and on Pope St. Peter the Glorious Prince of the Apostles. If a church cannot trace back its history lawfully in an unbroken line step by step to the Apostles, it is not the Church. Apostolicity is easily proved by the facts of history.

'…the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.' (1 Timothy3:15)

Matthew 16:18  And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

==================================================


TCE replies: 22nd February, 2012

Dear Matt

thank you for taking the time to e-mail us.

As made clear on our home page, we no longer respond to all e-mails due to other initiatives (and the very common nature of the attempted 'counters' from respondents).

Please note that our replies depend on the clarity and nature of questions, queries, or material - AND THAT, IN PARTICULAR, WE DO NOT HAVE THE TIME TO FOLLOW CHAINS OF LINKS TO OTHER WEBSITES (ref. 'Please read this before e-mailing' on our home page).

Furthermore, continuing correspondence will also depend on the nature of your response to our first reply.

So this also means that any further mail sent by you to us will also only receive an answer if you have responded adequately to our first reply.

This is to prevent our time being wasted by those who think they can load us with repeated and (often) fatuous or pointless questions while they fail to answer our responses to their early questions.

We have already written extensive replies to refute the kind of points that you bring up in your mail. Since we are still in the lengthy process of compiling those answers into a section entitled:  'Replies from Roman Catholics' (cf. the equivalent sections to 'Christadelphians', 'Mormons' etc.), perhaps you would like to supply details of some of your claims, e.g.:


The Catholic Church is infallible in the person of the Pope?

Apostolicity is easily proved by the facts of history?

We have already adequately refuted the claims made within your e-mail (and can supply those replies if you so desire), so perhaps you would like to concentrate on 'easily proving' the sentences high-lighted in red?

Perhaps you would also like to consider the Scripture you quote:

'…the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.' (1 Timothy 3:15)

If it is the 'church' that is 'the pillar and foundation of the truth' - how can 1 Corinthians 11:18-19 be true?:

'For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.'

Since Romans 16:17-18 informs us:

'Now I beseech you, brethren,
mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. For they that are such serve not our LORD (YHWH) Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple'

Clearly, true believers are not just to 'mark' those who bring in 'divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which [they] learned' - but they are to 'avoid them.'

This is exactly what the early 'Reformers', such as Martin Luther (and many true Bible believers before him!), did after warning the Papacy of the doctrinal issues that were clearly apparent - and had been for many centuries.

We seek your patience and understanding in the interests of the truth that leads to eternal life:

(Titus 1:2)  'In hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised before the world began'.

In the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit,

TCE


==================================================



Matt replies: 23rd February, 2012

You do not have a basic understanding of scripture. According to you, 1 Timothy 3:15 is not true, has to be thrown out, or at least ingnored, since it doesn't fit well with your errant interpretation of scripture. The term 'ecclesia' is used in the Bible with various significations: it is used to designate the Spiritual Kingdom of Christ [His Mystical Body] - The Church (hence, the way it is used in 1 Timothy 3:15), other times it is used to designate the false assemblies of the pagans, and yet other times it is used to designate an assemblage of Christians - usually under a building. It is used in a wide and sometimes in a more restricted sense. In 1 Corinthians 11:18-19 the term 'church' is used in the sense of 'a house of worship'. 'For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.' (1 Corinthians 11:19) This verse points out the Our Lord Jesus Christ allows heresies among those who profess to be Christians such that it is clear among His believers who are with Him or against Him, in accepting His Truths.

It seems you are not aware of the meaning of the biblical term 'heretic' (or how many times the bible uses that specific term). It refers to choice or choosing; choosing something that YOU want to follow, rather than what God decrees that we must follow in His revealed truth. One reference of the bible where it uses the word 'heretic' is Titus 3:10 St. Paul says that we are to avoid the heretic to the second rebuke. And so if the biblical precept is that you must avoid the heretic to the second rebuke, then that proves that you cannot have a heretical individual in the spiritual kingdom of Christ, they are automatically cut off as a branch from His midst - and are to be considered as the heathen and the publican (i.e., pagans). In the way you posed your question, in order to make sense of it, one must presuppose that heretics are Christians - but of course this is a contradiction in terms. You simply do not understand 1 Corinthians 11:19. It is not only talking about the concept of what makes people heretics, its also incorporating the concept of avoiding heretics.

You said you wanted details to be supplied proving the following: 'The Catholic Church is infallible in the person of the Pope,' and 'Apostolicity is easily proved by the facts of history.'

Apostolicity: All Bishops are the linear Apostolic lineage of the Apostles, and their ordinations can be traced all the way back to the Apostles. This is called Apostolic Succession. At every 'particular church'(the term 'particular church' is used to describe the Diocese or range of dominion of a Bishop or other Prelate; in Canon Law) they have a register listing the priests, their ordinations, the Bishops and from whom they received their Orders [consecrations], the dates these occurred, the places, and the history, and the founding of that 'particular church' and it leads all the way back in perfect succession to the 12 Apostles. Archdiocesan Directories which have lengthy and more expansive data, usually thousands of pages long and or Metropolitan areas (Sees that are overseen by a head Prelate, over the others) also contain the information or 'proof' that you requested demonstrating the authenticity of the perfect Apostolic Succession and Chraracter of the Church.

The Revolters Luther (a Rosicrucian), Zwingli (a Freemason) and, Calvin (Bnai Brith Freemason), disagreed with each other on core issues of Faith and doctrine. They have their own views on scripture. Since they forsook the Church, they are heretical, and therefore left the Mystical Body of Christ once they imbibed their heresies (assuming if they were even in the Church at some point in their lives in the first place). Lutherans had various factions within their false theology,and Protestantism has evolved. You understand scriptures according to how you want to believe them; and don't even agree and hold in common with the chief opinions of your own Revolter leaders. The Catholic Church, the only and one True Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. These 4 marks of the Church are also called the Unicity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity of the Church - (easily demonstrated by the facts on history).
 
As the Divinely appointed teacher of revealed truth, the Church is infallible. This gift of inerrancy is guaranteed to it by the words of Christ, in which He promised that His Spirit would abide with it forever to guide it unto all truth (John 14:16; 16:13).It is taught also in other passages of Scripture, and asserted by the unanimous testimony of the Fathers. The scope of this infallibility is to preserve the deposit of faith revealed to man by Christ and His Apostles. The Church teaches expressly that it is the guardian only of the revelation, that it can teach nothing which it has not received.

The Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of St. Peter, in order that through His assistance they might religiously guard, and faithfully expound the revelation handed down by the Apostles, or the deposit of the Faith. The obligation of the natural moral law constitutes part of this revelation. The authority of that law is again and again insisted on by Christ and His Apostles. The Church therefore is infallible in matters both of Faith and morals. Moreover, the gift of infallibility in regard to the deposit must, by necessary consequence, carry with it infallibility as to certain matters intimately related to the Faith. There are questions bearing so nearly on the preservation of the Faith that, could the Church err in these, her infallibility would not suffice to guard the flock from false doctrine. Such, for instance, is the decision whether a given book does or does not contain teaching condemned as heretical. Papal Infallibility is inseparable from Papal Supremacy ( St. Luke 22:31-32, St. John 21:15-17, St. Matthew 16:18-19, St. Luke 10:16, St. Matthew 18:17, Isaiah 22:20 -22)

It is needless to point out that if the Christian Faith is indeed a revealed doctrine, which men must believe under pain of eternal loss, the gift of infallibility was necessary to the Church. Could she err at all, she might err in any point. The flock would have no guarantee of the truth of any doctrine. The condition of those bodies which at the time of the Revolt forsook the Church affords us an object-lesson in point. Divided into various sections and parties, they are the scene of never-ending disputes; and by the nature of the case they are cut off from all hope of attaining to certainty. In regard also to the moral law, the need of an infallible guide is hardly less imperative. Though on a few broad principles there may be some consensus of opinion as to what is right and what is wrong, yet, in the application of these principles to concrete facts, it is impossible to obtain agreement. On matters of such practical moment as are, for instance, the questions of the precise nature of justification, the most divergent views are defended by thinkers of specious ability. Amid all this questioning the unerring voice of the Church gives confidence to her children that they are following the right course, and have not been led astray by some specious fallacy. The various modes in which the Church exercises this gift, and the prerogatives of the Holy See in regard to infallibility, are found in the Church's Magisterium .


==================================================



TCE replies: 25th February, 2012
Subject: Which Facts of History?


Dear Matt

thank you for taking the time and effort to respond.

It is refreshing to know that there are Roman Catholics who care enough about the salvation of those they consider to be outside the true faith and are willing to go 'the extra mile' in response.

To try and ensure that misunderstandings concerning the brief exchanges made to this point are not compounded please be assured that we will respond appropriately in the next 2-6 weeks and merely ask for your patience in the meanwhile.

May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit,

TCE


==================================================
What most of the world considers to be the Roman Catholic Church, is not the Roman Catholic Church - but the Novus Ordo Sect?

Antipope John Paul II was The Final AntiChrist himself?

Benedict XVI is the great Beast 666 and False Prophet of the Apocalypse?


Matt replies: 26th February 2012 6:22 AM

In the meantime, in order to prevent some confusion; I should probably tell you that what most of the world considers to be the Roman Catholic Church, is not the Roman Catholic Church - but the Novus Ordo Sect.  This Counterfeit Catholic Sect (also called New Order Church) was founded by the illuminist Antipope John XIII, and its Protestant religion was promoted by his Antipope successors during their Antipontificates. These hijacked what once used to be the infrastructure, real estate, and buildings of the Catholic Church. Adherents to this false religion of the Novus Ordo Church are heretics and apostates. Antipope John Paul II was The Final AnitChrist himself. Benedict XVI is the great Beast 666 and False Prophet of the Apocalypse.

These things were foretold in Catholic Prophecy by the Saints and the Popes - and fulfilled to the letter. We live in the times of the Great Apostasy, consequently, The Church has been in an interregnum for over half a century, and the Chair of St. Peter is empty. The Church of the World, headed by Antipope Benedict XVI, is the One World false religion, for all of its adherents, affiliates, and members do not hold to a belief in the absolute necessity of the Our Lord Jesus Christ and a belief in His Dogmas. The Catholic Church has been reduced to a remnant of Faithful, practicing and maintaining the beliefs and Tradition of the Fathers - faithful to the Magisterium (
www.vaticancatholic.com).


==================================================



TCE replies: 6th March, 2012

Dear Matt

thank you for the additional insight into your viewpoint which is one that we have referred to briefly and obtusely in previous correspondence with those who still cling to the belief that the Roman Catholic Cult of the Vatican has always been - and still remains - the only true representative of God on earth.

We will, in due course, concentrate on your opening comments while bearing in mind this additional information.

In Christ Jesus

TCE


==================================================



TCE replies: 19th April 2012

Dear Matt

we have not forgotten you!

Further to our approximation of 2-8 weeks (before a reply to your e-mail would be assembled) we  regretfully inform you that an additional 2-4 weeks is the most accurate forecast we can promise.

We apologise for the delay which is due to circumstances outside of our control.

TCE


==================================================



TCE replies: 13th May 2012

Dear Matt

we have, out of necessity, included sections from previous replies to Roman Catholics in our replies to your questions.


J.H. Ignaz von Döllinger and the Papal claim to infallibility!

The Church Fathers and Rome's claims for 'apostolic succession'!


You will also find that we have often quoted from Roman Catholic historians - e.g. J.H. Ignaz von Döllinger, one of the most eminent Catholic historians and theologians of his time who was  rewarded for 47 years of teaching Roman Catholic theology and history by being ex-communicated.  His crime was to point out that the Papal claim to infallibility lacked support either from Scripture or from Church tradition. Such was certainly the predominant view of Catholic historians and even of most bishops within the Church of Rome at that time. Von Döllinger's monumental work,
The Pope and the Council, published just prior to Vatican I (in 1869), was immediately placed on the Index of Forbidden Reading, for Pius IX could not afford to have his bishops read the facts from history just before his planned attempt to push through his dogma of infallibility.  Peter de Rosa, also a devout Catholic, just as ably punctures the balloon of claimed papal supremacy and 'unbroken line of succession' back to Peter:

    It may jolt them [Catholics] to hear that the great Fathers of the church saw no connection between it [Mattthew 16:18] and the pope. Not one of them applies 'Thou art Peter' to anyone but Peter. One after another they analyse it: Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine. They are not exactly Protestants.
    Not one of them calls the bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the Keys.
This is as staggering to Catholics as if they were to find no mention in the Fathers of the Holy Spirit or the resurrection of the dead....
    For the Fathers, it is Peter's faith - or the Lord in whom Peter has faith - which is called the Rock, not Peter. All the Councils of the church from Nicaea in the fourth century to Constance in the fifteenth agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the church, that is, the Rock on which the church rests.
   
... not one of the Fathers speaks of a transference of power from Peter to those who succeed him.... There is no hint of an abiding Petrine office.
    So the early church did not look on Peter as Bishop of Rome, nor, therefore, did it think that each Bishop of Rome succeeded Peter. ... The gospels did not create the papacy; the papacy, once in being, leaned for support on the gospels ... (Peter de Rosa,
Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, Crown Publishers, 1988, pp. 24-25).

Regarding the last six words of the quote, we have dealt with verses that Papists believe support the idea that Matthew 16:18 proves the claimed Papal view and supplied appropriate refutation, as we will continue to do with verses you have quoted.

Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no Salvation


First, regarding your initial e-mail:

You write: 'It is extremely important to become a Traditional Catholic to be saved. Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no Salvation.

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside the Catholic Church there is no Salvation) is a 2000 year old phrase of the Early Church Fathers.'

TCE:  You are stating Papal dogma based on the teachings of the 'Church Fathers' who are easily proven to have held many heretical and un-Biblical teachings.  This emphasis that union with the Roman Catholic Church is essential to salvation came via Cyprian (circa A.D. 200-258) who wrote: 'No one can have God as Father who does not have the Church as Mother.' (Catechism of the Catholic Church, p55).  Try and find this idea stated in the New Testament in any form!  Papal Rome built on this error when the Fourth Lateran Council declared: 'There is only one universal Church of the faithful, outside which none will be saved' and Pope Boniface VIII's Bull, Unam Sanctam, in 1302, built on this error.  It took until 1854 for the massively corrupt Pope Pius IX to declare: 'It is to be held as a matter of faith that no one can be saved outside the Apostolic Roman Church. It is the only ark of salvation and anyone who does not enter it must sink in the flood.'

Since the heresies of the Church Fathers were carried much further by the 'popes' (and 'anti-popes'!), in multiplied heresies, we can easily and logically ignore all of their proclamations.

You advise us to 'visit -
www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com'

If there is anything there that you believe overturns our facts we will rely on you to supply the quotes since we have already stated the conditions under which we reply to e-mails.

Salvation is not based on any organisation but in faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone!


You write:  'protestants will not enter heaven - for it is man made religion. Only Christians will enter heaven, not protestants.'

TCE:  We have proven repeatedly on our pages that Rome is built on the traditions of men and that 'Protestant' belief is based on the Bible alone.  If you choose to detail where you believe we may be in error we will gladly reply but, considering the third mail you sent, you will also have to bear in mind that your attacks on men such as Martin Luther will fail to cut any ice with Bible believers because our beliefs are based on Scripture and not on fallible men such as those who built Papal Rome.  That you fail to recognise that salvation is not based on any organisation but in faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone speaks volumes for your blindness, for the Bible portrays justification as a singular event in which God declares the believing sinner to be righteous.  It is not based on performance or good works.  It involves God's instantaneous pardoning of the sinner, declaring him or her to be absolutely righteous at the moment he or she trusts in Christ for salvation (see John 3:16; Romans 3:25,28,30; 8:33,34; Galatians 4:21-5:12; 1 John 1:7-2:2), hence our confidence that, like the thief on the cross, we can be certain of spending eternity in heaven with Christ.

You write: 'The Pope St. Damasus made the Bible in 400 A.D. He decided which texts were or were not inspired. Before that,  thousands of texts abounded, with Bishops accepting some for their diocese, while other Bishops accepted different texts for their flocks - and never agreed as to the precise makeup of Scripture, even though these writings had nothing in them contrary to docrtine [sic]. The monks of the Catholic Church and its Bishops endlessly and painstakingly copied and preserved the numerous texts that were accumulated. The writings of the direct students of the Apostles were considered sacred scripture, and read during public worship.

All the Church Fathers defended Catholic doctrines and adhered to Papal authority in unison. It was the decision of Pope St. Damasus that settled the matter on what made up Sacred Scripture.'

TCE:  These statements are nothing but fantasy ('The Pope St. Damasus made the Bible ...'?!!!) and, if you really believe 'All the Church Fathers defended Catholic doctrines and adhered to Papal authority in unison,' [emphasis added] we expect you to supply quotes/references!  We repeat - 'Early Church Fathers' made mistakes and were even heretical at times and, if you wish to pursue this point, we will gladly point you to answers we have already compiled to such claims from Papists.

Our
Full Menu has a comprehensive listing of subjects dealt with in answer to the claims or Papal Roman Catholics and under these headings, e.g.:

What does the history of the Bible reveal?

Does the Bible speak against the Catholic Church?

Did the Catholic Church Give Us the Bible?

Catholics decided on the Old Testament Canon?

Catholic bishops decided canonicity of the New Testament?

When was the New Testament Canon Established?

The Sufficiency of Scripture

The Central Issue - A Clear Choice

What is the truth about Rome's treatment of the Bible?


You write: 'The Catholic Church is infallible in the person of the Pope.'

Lord Jesus Christ only founded one Church, and on Pope St. Peter the Glorious Prince of the Apostles. If a church cannot trace back its history lawfully in an unbroken line step by step to the Apostles, it is not the Church. Apostolicity is easily proved by the facts of history.

'…the Church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.' (1 Timothy3:15)

Matthew 16:18  And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

TCE:  concerning these claims we have already thoroughly refuted them - see Full Menu:


Infallible Popes?

Did Peter ever claim to be 'The Rock'?


You write (in your second e-mail): 'You do not have a basic understanding of scripture. According to you, 1 Timothy 3:15 is not true, has to be thrown out, or at least ingnored [sic], since it doesn't fit well with your errant interpretation of scripture. The term 'ecclesia' is used in the Bible with various significations: it is used to designate the Spiritual Kingdom of Christ [His Mystical Body] - The Church (hence, the way it is used in 1 Timothy 3:15), other times it is used to designate the false assemblies of the pagans, and yet other times it is used to designate an assemblage of Christians - usually under a building. It is used in a wide and sometimes in a more restricted sense. In 1 Corinthians 11:18-19 the term 'church' is used in the sense of 'a house of worship'. 'For there must be also heresies: that they also, who are approved, may be manifest among you.' (1 Corinthians 11:19) This verse points out the Our Lord Jesus Christ allows heresies among those who profess to be Christians such that it is clear among His believers who are with Him or against Him, in accepting His Truths.'

TCE:  You will obviously cling to your own false viewpoint of Scripture, but the truth is in the application and our interpretation is entirely consistent with the whole Bible.  We certainly never wrote that this Scripture 'is not true, has to be thrown out, or at least ingnored [sic]' - that is an invention of yours and, as we can easily see at the conclusion of this dialogue, you implicitly admit that your interpretation cannot be true to historical Papal Rome!  Investigation of any branch of Roman Catholicism will lead to an obvious conclusion - it is the origin of massive and continual error of every kind. 

Alternatively, labour directed to any church/fellowship based on the Word of God is service to the one great house of God and each Christian is a 'lively stone' (1 Peter 2:5).  The Church is 'the pillar of the truth,' as the continued existence of the truth rests on it and while it supports and preserves the Word of God.  He who is of the truth belongs by that very fact to the Church. Christ alone is the ground of the truth in the highest sense (1 Corinthians 3:11) - for He is the Word (John 1:1)!  The apostles are foundations in a secondary sense (Ephesians. 2:20; Revelation. 21:14). The Church rests on the truth as it is in Christ; not the truth on the Church.  The importance of Timothy's commission is set forth in this letter reminding him of the excellence of 'the house' in which he serves before making the important warning concerning the coming heresies which Paul presciently forewarns him of immediately after (1 Timothy 4:1).  The Church is to be the stay of the truth and should conserve this truth for the world and be God's instrument for securing its continuance on earth - in opposition to all heresies (Matthew 16:18; 28:20). 
The apostle does not recognize a Church which has not the truth, or has it only in part - as is clearly demonstrated by Galatians 2 where he would not tolerate the error of Peter for one moment.  We have already written about the clear failure of Rome's supposed 'first Pope' to live up to the foolish 'infallibility' test claimed by her adherents - and received only pathetic and immature responses from Roman Catholics.  Rome falsely claims promises for herself that it has never lived up to and proves that it is not historical descent that constitutes a Church, but its ability to withstand the coming heresies - even those that Paul predicted would come from within (Acts 20:26-31):

Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men. For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with His own blood. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

James, Peter, and John - described as 'pillars' - but Paul had to oppose one 'pillar' - Peter!


While the apostle calls the Church 'the house of God,' he also calls it the 'pillar' - which it is as long as it is a pillar upholding the truth. 
Rome emphatically fails this test!  What is the whole meaning of the 'pillar and ground of the truth' (1 Timothy.  3:15)?  Timothy is called to be a pillar, being left there to support and defend the truth of God against false doctrines and false teachers, just as other apostles are so called for the same reason - e.g. Peter, James, and John, are said to be pillars, i.e. supporters of the truth of God in Galatians 2:9:

'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.'

Note that all three disciples are described as 'pillars' (
Greek: stŷlos - a post, pillar) with no distinction between them!  Ironic that - just two verses later - Paul had to oppose one 'pillar' - Peter!  The truth is the important factor - not the titles, robes, finery - or the posing - of any group of men or women!

The full revelation of God's truth is in the Christian Church and the great doctrines of that Church are the truth without error, metaphor, or figure.  Before Christ came in the flesh the truth was partially revealed, much of it being shadowed with types, ceremonies, and prophecies, but then it was made plain, and the full revelation given.  The foundation on which this truth rests are the grand facts detailed in the Gospel, especially those which concern the Incarnation, Miracles, Passion, Death, and Resurrection of Christ, and the mission of the Holy Spirit. 
To claim that Rome - which has thoroughly shrouded and polluted God's Throne of Grace - could possibly be 'the Church' of 1 Timothy 3:15 simply beggars belief.

Although
oikos could be translated 'house,' and refer to a building (even a 'temple'), the rendering household is preferable and means, by implication, a family.  Oikos is so used in 3:4, 5, 12; 2 Timothy 1:16; and Titus 1:11, where Paul's metaphor is not that of a building, but of a family.  Believers are members of God's household, and the responsibility to conduct themselves accordingly is God's mandate to them.  In Ephesians 2:19, Paul emphasizes the same truth: 'So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household.'  The idea of the church as the household of God also appears in Galatians 6:10; Hebrews 3:6; and 1 Peter 4:17.

Hedraioma ('support') appears only here in (1 Timothy.  3:15) the New Testament and refers to the foundation on which a structure rests. Thus in Paul's metaphor the church is the foundation and pillar that holds up the truth.  As the foundation and pillars of the Temple of Diana were a testimony to the error of pagan false religion, so the church is to be a testimony to God's truth. That is its mission in the world - its reason for existing here. For failing to do that, Israel has been temporarily set aside.  But to try and suggest for one moment that the Papal Rome represented by the 'popes' has, at any time in its history, kept the Word of God as found solely in the Bible is simply beyond comprehension and is totally refuted by 'the facts of history'!

God's truth comes by divine revelation and the truth of the gospel is the major thrust of the Christian faith and the solemn responsibility of every true church to solidly, immovably and unshakably uphold.  The church does not invent the truth for it has already been written down and safely recorded and preserved in multiple manuscripts - so to alter it in any way leads to severe judgment. 
We must emphasise here that no Roman Catholic can possibly be allowed to try and ignore the truly despicable attempt by 'Pope' Sixtus V (1585-90) to re-write the Word of God! - see Full Menu under the heading:

What is the truth about Rome's treatment of the Bible? 


The church is to support and safeguard this sacred, saving treasure given to sinners for their forgiveness, and to believers for their sanctification and edification, that they might live for the glory of God. The church has the stewardship of Scripture, the duty to guard it as the most precious possession on earth.  Any church that tampers with Biblical truth, or misrepresents, depreciates, relegates to secondary place, or abandons this truth, destroys their only reason for existing and subsequently will experience impotence and judgment. 
But, whenever and however you personally believe this happened to the 'Rome/Vatican' church of your personal experience, we have already amassed and supplied abundant evidence of the massive proliferation of error that has poured out of her!

As we have already written - see
Full Menu - under the title:

What is 'the church' founded on? 


You write:  'It seems you are not aware of the meaning of the biblical term 'heretic' (or how many times the bible uses that specific term). It refers to choice or choosing; choosing something that YOU want to follow, rather than what God decrees that we must follow in His revealed truth. One reference of the bible where it uses the word 'heretic' is Titus 3:10 St. Paul says that we are to avoid the heretic to the second rebuke. And so if the biblical precept is that you must avoid the heretic to the second rebuke, then that proves that you cannot have a heretical individual in the spiritual kingdom of Christ, they are automatically cut off as a branch from His midst - and are to be considered as the heathen and the publican (i.e., pagans). In the way you posed your question, in order to make sense of it, one must presuppose that heretics are Christians - but of course this is a contradiction in terms. You simply do not understand 1 Corinthians 11:19. It is not only talking about the concept of what makes people heretics, its also incorporating the concept of avoiding heretics.'

TCE: many years ago we gave the definition for 'heresy/heretic' etc. on this page and in other places:

'HERESY is derived from the Greek word
HAIRESIS  which denotes (a) a choosing, choice (from haireomai to choose) ; then; that which is chosen, and hence, an opinion, especially a self-willed opinion, which is substituted for submission to the power of truth, and leads to division and the formation of sects, Galatians. 5 : 20 (marg., 'parties') ; such erroneous opinions are frequently the outcome of personal preference or the prospect of advantage....'

HERETICAL is derived from
HAIRETIKOS, akin to the above, primarily denotes capable of choosing (haireomai) ; hence, causing division by a party spirit, factious Tit.  3 : 10, R.V., 'heretical'.

SECT is derived from HAIRESIS, a choosing, is translated 'sect' throughout the Acts except in 24 : 14; A.V. 'heresy' (R.V., 'sect') ; it properly denotes a predilection either for a particular truth, or for a perversion of one, generally with the expectation of personal advantage ; hence, a division and the formation of a party or sect in contrast to the uniting power of 'the truth,' held in toto ; a sect is a division developed and brought to an issue ; the order 'divisions, heresies' (marg.  'parties') in the works of the flesh' in Galatians. 5 : 19-21 is suggestive of this.'

A myriad of Papal heresies!


In response to a similar claim by a Papal writer to
TCE (concerning early Biblical Christians who we know existed long before 'Protestants' appeared) and who claimed: 'If they were true Christians, then they would not have had conflicting beliefs, but would have had unity of doctrine') we wrote (see this page):

This, again, is an astonishing admission of your ignorance, for these groups had doctrines closely in common - in contrast to the myriad of Papal heresies, such as the following: 

Hippolytus (third century writer) recorded that 'Pope' Callistus (221-227 A.D.) was Unitarian. 'Pope' Liberius (358 A.D.) embraced Arianism and anathematised the great Trinitarian defender, Athanasius, 'Pope' Zozimus (417-418 A.D.) embraced the Pelagian heresy, and 'Pope' Honorius (625-638 A.D.) specifically taught the Monothelite heresy (that Christ had only one will & therefore denied either His deity or His humanity) - and he was subsequently anathematised & condemned by Popes and their councils for 800 years!

Papal Rome has always been an enemy of orthodoxy and the mother of heresies!  Simply observing the contradictions of the recent popes shows how they have dramatically veered away from historical Papal Rome to the point of claiming 'all religions lead to God'!

There are many embarrassing aspects to the claims made by Papists who write to us and which have been amply refuted (as shown 'briefly' above) - but perhaps none speaks more clearly than this declaration by one of the 'infallible popes,' Pope Adrian VI (1523 AD):

'It is beyond question that he [the pope] can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman Pontiffs were heretics' (Peter de Rosa,
Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, Crown Publishers, 1988, p204).

As you can surely read (also compare the text following that elaborates on this view), such a declaration makes verses such as 1 Corinthians 11v19 and Titus 3v10 absolutely without value to you or any man or woman embracing Rome and its 'popes' - because you have never separated from your long succession of heretical popes!

You write: In the way you posed your question, in order to make sense of it, one must presuppose that heretics are Christians - but of course this is a contradiction in terms.

TCE: And thus you have immediately admitted that many of your 'popes/anti-popes' (a colossal contradiction in terms in itself!) were/are NOT Christians!  Yet, on the other hand, you try to cling to 'papal infallibility/apostolic succession'!?  To try and pretend that nobody who ever joined the Christian 'church' (however you see it!) ever held a heretical opinion is plain foolishness and we have already proven, in multiple places, that the Apostle Peter was one of the first examples in the New Testament when he was confronted by Paul (Galatians 2!!!).

What does 1 Corinthians 11:19 clearly mean?


You write: You simply do not understand 1 Corinthians 11:19. It is not only talking about the concept of what makes people heretics, its also incorporating the concept of avoiding heretics.

TCE:  Sorry - who doesn't understand this verse!?  The 'concept of avoiding heretics' - when you just wrote 'one must presuppose that heretics are Christians - but of course this is a contradiction in terms'!

First you need to read the verses in context:

1 Corinthians 11:17-22 (NASB) - 17  But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because
you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18  For, in the first place, when you come together as a church [Greek: ekklesía], I hear that divisions [Greek: schísma - a split, literally or figuratively, division, rent, schism] exist among you; and in part I believe it. 19  For there must also be factions [Greek: haíresis - a choice, i.e. (specially) a party or (abstractly) disunion, heresy (which is the Greek word itself), sect] among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you. 20  Therefore when you meet together, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper, 21  for in your eating each one takes his own supper first; and one is hungry and another is drunk. 22  What! Do you not have houses in which to eat and drink? Or do you despise the church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you? In this I will not praise you.

In typically cultic tradition you read a verse without even attempting to grasp the context by reading the verse next to it!  If you had you would have seen the glaring clues:

WHEN YOU COME TOGETHER !!! AS A CHURCH !!! ... AMONG YOU!!! ... For there MUST ALSO BE FACTIONS !!! AMONG YOU!!!, so that those who are approved may become evident AMONG YOU!!! ... WHEN YOU MEET TOGETHER!!!

Surely the words AMONG YOU and TOGETHER trigger the obvious - they met together as a 'church' and the HERESIES were made apparent AMONG YOU so that THOSE ... APPROVED ... BECAME EVIDENT. Why?  Because the APPROVED were following the Word of God given through Paul while a 'party' or 'schism' or 'heretical group' followed their own ideas or the ideas some heretic had spread AMONG THEM!!!

If you spent less time making snide comments about those you deem 'Protestants' and their supposed inability to handle the Word of God accurately you might just learn something!

Obviously, if those found promulgating heresy refuse to believe the Word of God when the truth is pointed out to them, Scriptures such as Titus 3:10 would be applied - as we explained many years ago (see this page), using teaching by a genuine Bible student, Dr Martin Lloyd-Jones (in 1962):

'What are the marks of a true church? An assembly where true doctrine is preached; where the sacraments are faithfully administered and where discipline is exercised. The 'power of the keys' there is to be exercised in admission and excommunication, without which there can be no guarantee whatever of purity of life or doctrine (Matt 18:15 ff; John 20:22-23; 1 Cor 5; Gal 5v12; 2 Thess 3:6; Titus 3:10-11).'


In the time of the 'triple popes' who was to be believed?


If you really recognised the truth of the Gospel in the Word of God you would also have to admit that all members of the Papal Roman Catholic Church would have had to 'avoid' their own popes many times in the history of your horrendous cult.  And how do you suggest the people who lived in the time of the 'triple popes' mentioned earlier would have had to behave?  From one 'reign' to the next they would not have known which of the (utter) impostors God wanted them to take notice of!  No wonder the ludicrous doctrine enunciated by Pope Adrian VI (1523 AD) came about (''It is beyond question that he [the pope] can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgment or decretal. In truth, many Roman Pontiffs were heretics').

We have also written on these matters under other headings - see
Full Menu - under these titles:

The Heretical Heritage


Roman Pontiffs were - and are - heretics!


'Pope' John XXII exposed the scam


Since, by your own definition given above, some of your 'popes' were not Christian (and yet 'infallible popes'?!) we will leave it to you to try and sift the 'popes' from the 'antipopes'!

You write: 'You said you wanted details to be supplied proving the following: 'The Catholic Church is infallible in the person of the Pope,' and 'Apostolicity is easily proved by the facts of history.'

Apostolicity: All Bishops are the linear Apostolic lineage of the Apostles, and their ordinations can be traced all the way back to the Apostles. This is called Apostolic Succession. At every 'particular church'(the term 'particular church' is used to describe the Diocese or range of dominion of a Bishop or other Prelate; in Canon Law) they have a register listing the priests, their ordinations, the Bishops and from whom they received their Orders [consecrations], the dates these occurred, the places, and the history, and the founding of that 'particular church' and it leads all the way back in perfect succession to the 12 Apostles. Archdiocesan Directories which have lengthy and more expansive data, usually thousands of pages long and or Metropolitan areas (Sees that are overseen by a head Prelate, over the others) also contain the information or 'proof' that you requested demonstrating the authenticity of the perfect Apostolic Succession and Chraracter [sic] of the Church.

The Revolters Luther (a Rosicrucian), Zwingli (a Freemason) and, Calvin (Bnai Brith Freemason),
disagreed with each other on core issues of Faith and doctrine. They have their own views on scripture. Since they forsook the Church, they are heretical, and therefore left the Mystical Body of Christ once they imbibed their heresies (assuming if they were even in the Church at some point in their lives in the first place). Lutherans had various factions within their false theology,and Protestantism has evolved. You understand scriptures according to how you want to believe them; and don't even agree and hold in common with the chief opinions of your own Revolter leaders.The Catholic Church, the only and one True Church is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. These 4 marks of the Church are also called the Unicity, Sanctity, Catholicity, and Apostolicity of the Church - (easily demonstrated by the facts on history).

As
the Divinely appointed teacher of revealed truth, the Church is infallible. This gift of inerrancy is guaranteed to it by the words of Christ, in which He promised that His Spirit would abide with it forever to guide it unto all truth (John 14:16; 16:13).It is taught also in other passages of Scripture, and asserted by the unanimous testimony of the Fathers. The scope of this infallibility is to preserve the deposit of faith revealed to man by Christ and His Apostles. The Church teaches expressly that it is the guardian only of the revelation, that it can teach nothing which it has not received.

The Holy Ghost was promised to the successors of St. Peter, in order that through His assistance they might religiously guard, and faithfully expound the revelation handed down by the Apostles, or the deposit of the Faith. The obligation of the natural moral law constitutes part of this revelation. The authority of that law is again and again insisted on by Christ and His Apostles. The Church therefore is infallible in matters both of Faith and morals. Moreover, the gift of infallibility in regard to the deposit must, by necessary consequence, carry with it infallibility as to certain matters intimately related to the Faith. There are questions bearing so nearly on the preservation of the Faith that, could the Church err in these, her infallibility would not suffice to guard the flock from false doctrine. Such, for instance, is the decision whether a given book does or does not contain teaching condemned as heretical. Papal Infallibility is inseparable from Papal Supremacy ( St. Luke 22:31-32, St. John 21:15-17, St. Matthew 16:18-19, St. Luke 10:16, St. Matthew 18:17, Isaiah 22:20 -22)

It is needless to point out that if the Christian Faith is indeed a revealed doctrine, which men must believe under pain of eternal loss, the gift of infallibility was necessary to the Church. Could she err at all, she might err in any point. The flock would have no guarantee of the truth of any doctrine. The condition of those bodies which at the time of the Revolt forsook the Church affords us an object-lesson in point. Divided into various sections and parties, they are the scene of never-ending disputes; and by the nature of the case they are cut off from all hope of attaining to certainty. In regard also to the moral law, the need of an infallible guide is hardly less imperative. Though on a few broad principles there may be some consensus of opinion as to what is right and what is wrong, yet, in the application of these principles to concrete facts, it is impossible to obtain agreement. On matters of such practical moment as are, for instance, the questions of the precise nature of justification, the most divergent views are defended by thinkers of specious ability. Amid all this questioning the unerring voice of the Church gives confidence to her children that they are following the right course, and have not been led astray by some specious fallacy. The various modes in which the Church exercises this gift, and the prerogatives of the Holy See in regard to infallibility, are found in the Church's Magisterium.'

TCE: As we have just seen, far from '... understand[ing] scriptures according to how you want to believe them', anyone reading the Word of God without the heretical influences of a cult such as Papal Rome is able to come to a far more accurate understanding of the verses and chapters than any Papist could hope to achieve!  And we have already shown how your popes 'wrest Scripture' (2 Peter 3:16) in their attempts to arrive at their desired heretical interpretations!  So when you claim that those outside of Papal Rome '... don't even agree and hold in common with the chief opinions of your own Revolter leaders' you are 'whistling in a graveyard' - as the old saying goes.  We doubt that you would ever be capable of distinguishing between 'Christian cults', such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, who certainly do not hold the same doctrinal beliefs as 'Protestants', or those such as ourselves who did not rush to join any denomination after discovering the Biblical truth, but would join with the many Bible-believers who still exist outside of the Cult of Papal Rome.

Just as it is easy to prove (see our references) that the 'infallibility' claim is a sick joke, it is also impossible for Papists to prove 'Apostolic succession' or all the other claims you make (we have only
high-lighted in red the major parts of the claims made by you which we have already refuted) and which, far from being 'easily demonstrated by the facts on history', are totally destroyed by the REAL 'facts of history!'

When you claim 'Apostolicity: All Bishops are the linear Apostolic lineage of the Apostles, and their ordinations can be traced all the way back to the Apostles. This is called Apostolic Succession' you are, again, whistling in a graveyard of pretension.  Your claim that 'a register listing the priests, their ordinations, the Bishops and from whom they received their Orders [consecrations], the dates these occurred, the places, and the history, and the founding of that 'particular church' ... leads all the way back in perfect succession to the 12 Apostles' are false, for it is a known fact that it was not until the time of the Emperor Constantine that records of councils began to be kept and records before that time have never been shown to the world - simply because they do not exist.

Your continuing claim that '
Archdiocesan Directories ...and or Metropolitan areas ... also contain the information or 'proof' that you requested demonstrating the authenticity of the perfect Apostolic Succession and Chraracter [sic] of the Church' is equally hopeful.

Of course, if Papal Rome did hold such records they would have been shown to the world just as the tomb of 'Pope Peter I' would be displayed - if it was not for the fact that many bones have been found at the site of the 2nd-century shrine and 'infalllible' Pope Pius XII stated (December 1950) that none could be confirmed to be Saint Peter's with absolute certainty.

We have already written of the astonishing frauds of Papal Rome and how, whenever exigencies required support by fraudulent documents they could be selected and produced - just as the '
Donation of Constantine' (see this page) was concocted, Decretals were used to build up fictitious sayings of the popes (which thereafter became the law) and to put false tradition on a par with Scripture. Moreover, unlike the Bible, which is readily available in one volume, tradition is contained in many volumes of the alleged writings of the Church fathers and the decrees of the Councils. Voluminous and inaccessible to the average person, at least 35 volumes of the supposed writings of Greek and Latin church fathers, usually ending with Gregory I in A.D. 604, another 35 volumes of Church council decrees, about 25 volumes of the popes' sayings and decrees, about 55 volumes of the alleged sayings and deeds of the saints (some 150 volumes in all) are said to exist.  But few are ever given access to such material because far too many Papal historians have exposed the frauds of Papal Rome so that you have more chance of proving the whereabouts of 'Pope Peter' than finding the evidence you claim exists and which we know you have never seen!

The ordinary bishop or priest of Papal Rome, let alone the ordinary Catholic, can never even find all of the 'Tradition', or read it, since it is in many dead and foreign languages. Even if all were available in translation, a person could never master the 150 volumes in such a way as to be as familiar with it as one should be with the Bible. To declare, therefore, that 'the Bible plus sacred tradition' forms a single deposit of Scripture is simply absurd. Clearly, the average Catholic doesn't have access to the greater part of what Papal Rome calls "the Word of God."  Moreover, unlike the Bible (which much of Papal Rome's 'Tradition' contradicts), this material and official dogma of the Church have frequently changed, even propounding contradictory ideas on such important topics as abortion. 'Infallible popes' change their minds several times on this and other topics?  Our pages amply demonstrate this to be a fact!

We have amply refuted the claims for 'Apostolic Succession' - see
Full Menu - under these titles:

Genuine Apostolic Succession?

How many 'popes' are missing?


To claim that the popes are the successors of the apostle Peter is the cornerstone of Roman Catholicism - and we are aware of the claim to an unbroken line of 262 popes succeeding Peter.  But what it the truth?  Firstly, for apostolic succession to occur, each pope must choose his own successor and personally lay hands on him and ordain him since this pattern is seen when Paul and Barnabas were sent forth by the church at Antioch on their first missionary journey (Acts 13:3). Timothy's appointment to the ministry was also by the elders laying hands upon him (1 Timothy 4:14) - and we see the same when Paul imparted a special spiritual gift to Timothy (2 Timothy 1:6).  This Biblical procedure has not been followed with regard to successors of the bishops of Rome or the popes, for the world has witnessed a pope's successor being chosen -  not by him but after his death by others.  History also reveals that it has most often been done in a disgraceful and ungodly manner - as examples prove!

Despite the claims of Papists it is a fact that there is no record that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome, and therefore no Bishop of Rome could possibly be his successor.  Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (178-200 AD), provided a list of the first 12 Bishops of Rome.  Linus was the first - and Peter's name does not appear.  Eusebius of Caesaria, the Father of church history, also never mentions Peter as Bishop of Rome and he writes that Peter came to Rome 'about the end of his days' and was crucified there.  Paul, in writing his epistle to the Romans, greets many people by name, but not Peter - which would be a very strange omission if Peter had been living in Rome, and especially if he were its bishop!

Impossible to determine whether the claimants were popes or anti-popes! 


While it is true that the Vatican has an official list of the popes, it is a fact that it arbitrarily begins with Peter and continues to the present without reference to any strong proof.  It is also a fact that there have been previous lists which were once claimed to be accurate but they had to be revised later and they clearly conflict with each other. The earliest lists come from Liber Pontificalis (Book of Popes) which is presumed to have been composed under Pope Hormisdus (514-23 AD). 
But even the Catholic Encyclopaedia casts doubt upon its authenticity.  Most contemporary scholars now agree that this book mixed fact with fiction and the early Bishops of Rome cannot possibly be identified; thus even the New Catholic Encyclopedia, published by the Catholic University of America, acknowledges this fact:

But it must be frankly admitted that bias or deficiencies in the sources make it impossible to determine in certain cases whether the claimants were popes or anti-popes.  (New Catholic Encyclopedia, Catholic University of America, 1967, vol. 1, p. 632, s.v. '
Antipopes.')

So it is clear that the Roman Catholic Church cannot verify an accurate and complete list of the popes and therefore any alleged 'unbroken line of succession back to Peter' is a hopeful fiction.  The Roman Church has obviously fabricated an official list of popes in order to justify the papacy and its pretensions.  It is also a fact that the Bishop of Rome was not even under consideration as 'pope' of the universal Church until about a thousand years after Pentecost!

We have also previously written- see Full Menu - under these titles:

Was Papal authority ever claimed by Peter?

Paul's attitude toward Peter?

Attitude of the other apostles toward Peter?

Was Peter ever in Rome?

Genuine Apostolic Succession?

How many 'popes' are missing?


One would think the Roman Catholic Church would be ashamed of the many fiascos which litter her history and would blot out the memory of evil popes and their fraudulent and often violent means of gaining, losing, and sometimes recovering the papal throne. Yet in spite of such godless rivalry and the fact that their papacies overlapped (at times three individuals claimed to be pope - see references!), even the most fraudulent and adversarial claimants to Peter's throne are found on the Vatican's official list of popes today.

Not even once did Augustine suggest that the Bishop of Rome should be consulted at all!


'Papal Infallibility' and 'Apostolic Succession' are mere figments of Papal-controlled imagination without factual, historical or Biblical support.  Every attempt to find support for these false doctrines, whether it is to appeal to the writings of Augustine (who never came close to suggesting that the Bishop of Rome had the final say on issues of faith or morals) or any other supposedly authoritative figure is simply to build on sand. 
Augustine even agreed that the African Church had been correct in rejecting Roman Bishop Stephen's (254-7 AD) opinion on settling a baptismal dispute and, not even once, in all the arguments he proposed on many issues, did Augustine suggest that the Bishop of Rome should be consulted as the final arbiter of orthodoxy - or even that he should be consulted at all.

Interestingly enough, though the Council of Nicea (in 325 decreed that the three Bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch (the concept of a 'pope' was still unknown) be designated as 'superior' to other bishops of less important Christian centres,
the Bishop of Rome at the time refused to accept such a distinction for himself.

It was, in fact, secular 'emperors' - not from an ecumenical council representing the Church - who declared the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over the Western Church (but not over the Church universal) and installed 'the Roman Pope' when an edict of the Emperors Valentinian III and Theodosius II (in 445 AD) stated: 'We decree by this perpetual Edict that it will not be lawful for the bishops of Gaul or of other provinces to attempt anything contrary to ancient custom without the authority of that venerable man the Pope of the Eternal City.'  (Sidney Z. Ehler, John B. Morrall, trans. and eds.,
Church and State Through the Centuries, London, 1954, pp. 7-9).

The intention of the emperors was not to conform to Scripture but to maintain unity in the empire - and unity among the rival bishops and their followers was essential to that end.  Their intention was that Rome, being the capital, had to be the centre of ecclesiastical authority even as it was of civil authority.  At the same time that the emperors honoured the Bishop of Rome's authority they made it clear that they were above him, for Emperor Justinian (in an edict of April 17, 535,
Relations between Church and State) declared: 'There is, indeed, a recognition of the distinction between the clerical and lay elements in Christian society; but, for all practical purposes, the Emperor is to be the controller of both, exercising, as he apparently is to do, a supervision over the 'moral well-being' of the clergy.' (ibid., p9-10).

It took centuries for the popes to flex their muscles and demand authority over emperors and kings - and even longer to try and force papal infallibility and dominion over the entire Church.  Before then councils asserted their authority over popes and even deposed rival claimants to Peter's throne, who were simultaneously insisting that each was the one true vicar of Christ.  Hopefully it will be obvious to you by now that considerable material exists in regard to these matters too?

(Continued on page 311)

Full Menu

Topics discussed on pages responding to Roman Catholics
Section 45-52

Is it extremely important to become a Traditional Catholic to be saved?

The Catholic Church is infallible in the person of the Pope?

Apostolicity is easily proved by the facts of history?

'Traditional Roman Catholic' Matt Wykoff makes the following THREE claims:

What most of the world considers to be the Roman Catholic Church, is not the Roman Catholic Church - but the Novus Ordo Sect?

Antipope John Paul II was The Final AntiChrist himself?

Benedict XVI is the great Beast 666 and False Prophet of the Apocalypse?

J.H. Ignaz von Döllinger and the Papal claim to infallibility!

The Church Fathers and Rome's claims for 'apostolic succession'!

Outside the Catholic Church there is absolutely no Salvation!

Salvation is not based on any organisation but in faith in the Lord Jesus Christ alone!

The inaccuracy of Jerome's 'Vulgate' and the sloppiness of Papal Rome's copyists!

James, Peter, and John - described as 'pillars' - but Paul had to oppose one 'pillar' - Peter! 

A myriad of Papal heresies!

What does 1 Corinthians 11:19 clearly mean?

In the time of the 'triple popes' who was to be believed?

Impossible to determine whether the claimants were popes or anti-popes!

Not even once did Augustine suggest that the Bishop of Rome should be consulted at all!

How many popes 'self ex-communicated' by becoming Freemasons?

Three 'popes' - but only Gregory XII is now an official pope - the other two are now 'anti-popes'!

Scripture warns not to 'lord it over others' while Popes have been 'lording it over' their sheep for centuries!

Find kissing the foot of the 'pope' in Scripture if you can!

Papal Rome insults Jesus, the Everlasting High-priest, by installing a fake priesthood!

Did Peter ever claim to be 'The Rock'?

Antipope John Paul II was The Final AntiChrist?!

Benedict XVI is the great Beast 666 and False Prophet of the Apocalypse?!

Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church) originated in St. Cyprian

Papal Rome declared Döllinger 'a heretic' - after he exposed the heretic Pope Pius IX

newadvent.org can only use the ad hominem method of Papal Rome to try and smear Döllinger 

Early writings reveal no mention of a special role for the Bishop of Rome, or the title 'Pope'!

That Christ passed on to Peter such pomp and luxuries, which neither of them knew, is both ludicrous and blasphemous!

Genuine apostolic powers do not exist in Papal Rome!

What do the writings of the 'Church Fathers' and 'St. Augustine' prove?

What do 'The Letters of St Augustine' prove?

Opinions on 'Peter the rock' from flabby Protestants!

More Scriptural views on Jesus the Rock of Scripture!

Early councils were not called by the Bishop of Rome, but by the Emperor!

Early writings reveal no mention of a special role for the Bishop of Rome, or the title 'Pope'!

Why should anyone believe that Christ - the Servant King -  passed pomp and luxuries to Peter!

Questions on Matthew 16:16-18 that Rome never answers!

Genuine apostolic powers do not exist in Papal Rome!

What do 'The Letters of St Augustine' prove?

Opinions on 'Peter the rock' from flabby Protestants!

More Scriptural views on Jesus the Rock of Scripture!

More truth about the so-called 'Church Fathers'!

More false Papal views on 'Protestants'!

Origin of the claim of 'No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church'?

Why call them 'Church Fathers' in rebellion against Jesus?!

Serious flaws in the work of C.S. Lewis - an apologist for Papal Rome!

No early council of Papal Rome can be found to have ruled on what was canonical!

Jesus, Great High Priest after the order of Melchizedek, proves Rome's priesthood is blasphemous!

Circular reasoning chooses to abandon logic and is often all Papists have in their attempts to avoid the truth!

Indulgences and the myth of the 'vast reservoir of merit called the treasury of the Church'!

The Biblical truth of Salvation by the FREE gift of grace shows the clear Satanic source of Rome's doctrines!

Pope Honorius declared a heretic by Councils and Popes!

More on Fallible Popes and their blatant heresies!

'Popes' insist that they should be followed - even when they teach heresy and evil!

'Papal infallibility' stands or falls by a single official error and the principle: Is falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

'Protestants are idolaters that worship a book that is a counterfeit construct of the Bible'?

'At the commands of Mary all obey - even God'?!

What brought about the worshipful adoration of Mary?

Why do Papal Roman Catholics appeal to heretics rather than to the truth?

The Bible clearly reveals many autonomous ekklesia - and not 'one Church (of Rome!)'

Only fully Scriptural and irrefutable historical support for a doctrine can enable anyone to make a point!

PRIESTS AND SCHOLARS CHARGE POPE FRANCIS WITH HERESY - October 2017

Know the reality of eternity in heaven by believing on Jesus Christ as your Lord & Saviour!

Go to the following link to discover eternal life is
A Free Gift for You

Home Page   |   Expositor History   |   'Orthodox' Heretics   |   Other Religions   |   Cults  |   Occult   |   New Age Movement  |   Rome & Ecumenism

christian.expositor@ntlworld.com