|
|
|
J. R. Bronger Pope John Paul II has left the United States after a short visit that some have called a pilgrimage. The aging pontiff has more than likely made his last trip to this country. While in St. Louis he met President and Mrs. Clinton and inspired thousands of Catholics. The Clintons accorded him treatment as if he were a visiting head of state. The media handled him like royalty; they followed him and recorded every word he spoke. Devout Catholics responded like they were in the presence of deity. Most Protestants viewed his visit with interest and wonder. This was a tremendous public relations scheme put on by the Vatican. His visit fired up the loyal Catholic to be true to his faith and it encouraged the indecisive Catholic to re-examine his faith. Additionally, the visit to America by John Paul II will inspire some to convert to the Roman Catholic faith. My response, however, like the response of any other New Testament Christian, is not one of admiration and wonder. Rather I look at this man and see just how far into apostasy a church can descend. This morning I would like to examine the Catholic doctrine of the Pope in view of the teaching of the Bible. This is something that most ministers refuse to do because of the possibility of inciting a backlash from those who believe that one’s religious beliefs are private and do not matter. Also, there is always the chance of appearing to bash Catholics. Therefore I do this with some reservation, not because I believe the Bible might teach the office of the Pope. I know it doesn’t! My reservation is because I do not wish to leave any listener with the belief that I am some religious nut, just out to beat up on Roman Catholicism. My examination of Roman Catholicism has nothing to with anything other than what the Bible teaches. I do not wish any listener to reach the conclusion that I believe there is some great hidden conspiracy by Rome to overthrow the government of the United States, because I don’t. Neither do I accept the popular Protestant notion that the Pope is the end time Antichrist. My opposition to the office of the Pope and to his apostate church is anchored exclusively in scripture. If the office of the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church is revealed in the Bible, then I belie that everyone needs to convert to Catholicism. If, on the other hand, the office of Pope and the Roman Catholic Church is not in the Bible, then both need to be rejected as unscriptural and wrong. Our study this morning will consist of three parts. First, we will examine the claims of the Catholic Church about the Pope. Next, we will see what the Bible has to say about the supremacy of the apostle Peter, and whether he was the first Pope as claimed by Catholicism. We will conclude by giving you a brief history of the rise to power of the bishop of Rome known today as Pope John Paul II. To examine honestly the claims of the Catholic Church about the Pope, it will become necessary to read from their own writings. First, let us note what is said in a booklet published by the Knights of Columbus. Now, just in case you don’t know about the Knights of Columbus I need to tell you that they are a propaganda arm of the Catholic Church. They are more than a social organization scheduling picnics and dances — they are designed to advance Roman Catholicism in what seems to be a harmless and benign way. This K of C book titled The Papacy: Expression of God’s Love has the imprimatur of John J. Carberry, the archbishop of St. Louis. This means it is official Roman Catholic theology. It says on page 7: Primacy is a word meaning first place or first rank. The word is often used by Catholics in reference to St. Peter and his successors, the Popes. It may strike the reader that this kind of talk makes three large assumptions. The first is the assumption that Jesus gave such primacy to Peter; the second is the assumption that it was primacy not simply of place but also of authority; and the third is the assumption that Peter’s primacy was passed on to his successors. Before reading any further, let me observe that I believe that it takes more than just three assumptions to believe this. But note, the Catholic Church says that to accept the office of the Pope, that you must do it by accepting three assumptions. I find this admission short of amazing! Here they admit that the office of Pope is an office born out of assumption. But let us continue reading. They say: It will come as no surprise that Catholics hold these three assumptions to be valid. This is part of our faith tradition, something that has been handed down from generation to generation since the time of the apostles. That is also an interesting admission! They say that belief in the primacy of Peter and his reputed successors is a matter of tradition passed from one generation to another. Next, notice how they say that it is taught in the Bible. They say, “It is reflected in the Scriptures as they are read within the church.” This acknowledgment is saying that it is only taught in the scriptures as the Catholic Church reads and interprets them for Catholics. The Roman Catholic Church admits that the office of Pope is not taught in the scriptures. Instead they say the Roman Catholic Church reads the office of the Pope into the scriptures. The late Cardinal Gibbons sets forth the official Catholic position in his widely read book, Faith of our Fathers: The Catholic Church teaches that our Lord conferred on St. Peter the first place of honor and jurisdiction in the government of His whole church, and that the same spiritual supremacy has always resided in the Popes, or bishops of Rome, as being successors of St. Peter. Consequently, to be true followers of Christ all Christians, both among the clergy and laity, must be in communion with the See of Rome, where Peter rules in the person of his successor. The whole structure of the Roman Catholic Church is built on the assumption that in Matt. 16:13–19 Christ appointed Peter to be the first Pope and so established the papacy. If the scriptures do not establish the primacy of Peter, then the foundation of the papacy is destroyed. Destroy the papacy, and the whole Roman hierarchy topples with it. Pick up your Bible and read with me the words of Christ in Matt. 16:13–19: “When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” Jesus was interested in the public’s perception of Him. Verse 14 continues, “So they said, some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” Upon encountering Jesus of Nazareth, many were forming erroneous views about Him. He wished to know if the apostles were also confused. Therefore, He continues in verse 15, “He said to them, But who do you say that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Peter’s answer was absolutely correct, he stated the truth of the matter. So, verse 17 continues, “Jesus answered and said to him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” Peter did not form his opinion like those who were mistaken. Instead, he received his information from God — how, we aren’t told — but it was from God. Now we come to the verse that Catholics quote with glee, as they place their own interpretation upon it in an effort to claim papal authority. Jesus says in verses 18–19: And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. Here is how the Catholic Church understands the words of Christ. I am now reading from the comments found in the footnotes of the Confraternity Version of the Bible, an official version produced by and approved by the Roman Catholic Church. They say, “The rock [upon which the church was built] was Peter . . . Peter has the power to admit into the church and to exclude therefrom . . . In heaven God ratifies the decisions which Peter makes on the earth, in the name of Christ.” The Catholic Church believes and teaches that Peter is the foundation of the church built by Christ and that he was given the role of making decisions and forming official doctrines. They further teach that once Peter forms doctrines, God will validate and confirm them. Furthermore, the Catholic Church says that this special supreme role of Peter as head of the Church is passed on to his successors, the unbroken line of Popes, and that the man who recently departed these shores to return to Rome is the Vicar of Christ. The title “Vicar of Christ” means that he is the personal representative of Jesus on earth. Let’s return to the words of Jesus to Peter in Matt. 16:18–19 briefly: “And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church.” The controversy that surrounds the foundation upon which Jesus built His church focuses on the Greek words that have been translated into the English as Peter and rock. Both words, in the original language, mean rock. Therefore, the Catholic position is that Peter is the rock upon which Christ built his church. That is, they conclude that Jesus was confessing, And I say unto you, you are Peter and upon YOU I will build my church. However, this is being dishonest with the words of Jesus. The words Jesus used, both do mean rock, but they are as different as they can be. First Jesus said you are Peter, and the word Jesus used that is translated Peter is petros. This word means a piece of rock — that is, a pebble, a small segment of rock. Furthermore, the Lord uses a word that is in the masculine gender. He is saying to Peter, “You are a petros — a small piece of rock, a pebble.” The Lord then says, after identifying Peter as a small piece of rock, a pebble; that upon this rock I will build my church. Now if the Lord was building His church upon Peter, we will find Him saying upon this petros (small shifting pebble) I will build my church. That is not what Jesus says at all. Instead, the Lord uses the word petra. This word is feminine in its gender — and instead of meaning a small piece of rock, it means a mass of rock. Jesus is not building His church upon a small shifting pebble like Peter. Rather, He is building His church on the firm foundation (the massive un-shifting rock) that Peter confessed. Remember Peter had just told Jesus, “you are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” It was the foundation of Christ, as the Son of the living God, upon which the church was built. Now, if you doubt this, Paul makes its clear in 1 Cor. 3:11 when he says, “For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” The Roman Catholic Church makes a big deal of what Jesus tells Peter in verse 19: “And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” They forget, however, that the same thing is said to all His apostles in Matt. 18:18: “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” If what Christ said to Peter gave him primacy, then why didn’t all the apostles have this primacy? Jesus is promising that all the apostles would receive the guiding power of the Holy Spirit, enabling them to preach the will of Heaven on earth. This is what they did beginning in Acts 2. Paul would later write of the work of all the apostles in 2 Cor. 5:18-20: “Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation.” Notice Paul said Christ has given us (all the apostles) the ministry of reconciliation. Verse 19 continues, “That is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us [note us again, all the apostles have] the word of reconciliation. Therefore we [all the apostles] are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us [not pleading through Peter, as the head of the church, but through us, the apostles, and): we (we, not Peter, all the apostles) implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God.” Peter was not given any primacy, and he certainly was not made the head of the church. Furthermore, Peter never claimed papal authority while he lived. Listen to what he said in 1 Pet. 5:1: “The elders who are among you I exhort, I who am a fellow elder.” Peter did not say that he is the chief elder, or the head elder. Peter did not say that he was the primary bishop; he said that he was a fellow elder. Also, Peter did not accept worship like the Pope does. Once, when a man fell down to offer worship unto Peter, Peter responded in a different way than Pope John Paul II responds. Notice Acts 10:25-26: “As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him and fell down at his feet and worshiped him. But Peter lifted him up, saying, stand up; I myself am also a man.” The Roman Popes willingly accept worship and receive honors that belong to God alone. Not only do they accept the title Holy Father, they demand this and other titles be conferred upon them. Also the official position of the Catholic Church is that whenever the Pope speaks from Peter’s Chair, then he is speaking with infallibility. The New York Catechism says: The Pope takes the place of Jesus Christ on earth . . . By divine right the Pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each and every pastor and his flock. He is the true Vicar of Christ, the head of the entire church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of dogmas, the author of and judge of councils; the universal ruler of truth... There you have the Catholic position pertaining to the infallibility of the Pope. Whenever he speaks and acts in the area of faith and morals, he is infallible. This is so inconsistent with the teaching of the Bible that it is irrational. First: consider what Paul said in Gal. 2:11–14: But when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. Paul said that in this thing Peter was a hypocrite, and by his actions he was encouraging others to be hypocritical. Paul continues in verse 14, “But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel.” Peter was, not only fallible, but he was involved in sin. Now, I ask you, are hypocrisy and sin matters of faith or morals? If so, then Peter certainly was not infallible in these or any other areas. Then, secondly, Peter did not preside over the conference that took place in Jerusalem about circumcision. It is true, he was one of several speakers, but when the decision was reached, James reached it, and it was James who wrote the decree to be sent to the Gentiles, not Peter. After a lengthy discussion, the Bible says in Acts 15:13, “And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, listen to me.” James, not Peter, took charge and said listen to me. He didn’t say, let’s all keep silent and listen to Pope Peter. This would be unheard of in the Catholic Church. Do you think a council would be held with some subordinate usurping the authority of the Pope? Notice what James said in verses 19–20, “Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood.” James said that he, not Peter, made the judgment. Does this sound like the modern pontiff? Then, thirdly, there is no scriptural evidence that Peter ever set foot in Rome. How could he have been the first bishop of Rome if he was never in Rome? The last known abode of Peter is found in the conclusion of his first letter. He writes: “She who is in Babylon, elect together with you, greets you; and so does Mark my son” (1 Pet. 5:13). Babylon is not Rome in 1 Pet. 5, even though in the book of Revelation, Babylon may be used to indicate Rome. Then there is the matter of Peter being a married man, something disallowed by the Catholic Church for all clergy, including the Pope. Paul wrote in 1 Cor. 9:5, “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” Cephas was one of the names by which Peter was known. When Andrew brought Simon Peter to the Lord in Jn. 1:42, the Bible says, “Now when Jesus looked at him, He said, You are Simon the son of Jonah. You shall be called Cephas (which is translated, A Stone).” According to Paul in 1 Cor. 9:5, Peter had a wife, furthermore he, as an elder, would have had believing children according to 1 Tim. 3 and Titus 1. This is something that is prohibited by the Catholic Church as it relates to the Pope. Well, you might ask, if this is so, what does the Catholic Church have to say about this verse? Well, let’s take a look at what they say about Peter being a married man. The Confraternity Version of the Bible, an accepted Catholic version, has Paul asking: “Have we not a right to take about with us a woman, a sister . . . as does Cephas?” They changed Peter’s wife to his sister. Now, I ask you, to what lengths will this church go to pervert the teaching of scriptures? They make Peter’s wife into his sister. Have they forgotten that Jesus healed the mother of Peter’s wife in Lk. 4:38–39? These verses tell us, “But Simon’s wife’s mother was sick with a high fever, and they made request of Him concerning her. So He stood over her and rebuked the fever, and it left her. And immediately she arose and served them.” The apostle Peter was a married man. He had a wife, children and a mother-in-law, and all the denials of the Catholic Church will not change that Bible truth. The conclusion is obvious: The tradition that Peter was the first Pope is fiction. There is no hint of this being taught in the New Testament. Also, there is no historical evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, let alone called the bishop of Rome. He never claimed this for himself, and he never was considered to be the Vicar of Christ by any of his contemporaries. The first real Pope was Gregory the Great in 606 AD, and it is commonly accepted that he was the first ever to wear the title of Pope. This means that for six centuries after Christ there was none who wore the title of Pope. The Roman Catholic writer Philip Hughes, in his book A Popular History of the Catholic Church, says on page 75: [Gregory] is generally regarded as the greatest of all his line...It was to him that Rome turned at every crisis where the Lombards (the invaders from the north) were concerned...In 598 he secured a thirty years’ truce. It was St. Gregory who, in these years, was the real ruler of Rome and in a very real sense he is the founder of the papal monarchy. It was Gregory I — and not Peter — who founded the papal monarchy. The church built by Christ has no earthly head, and certainly does not have an earthly monarchy. Jesus, alone, is the ruler and head of the church. Consider Eph. 1:22–23: “And He put all things under His feet, and gave Him to be head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.” In Eph. 5:23 Paul wrote, “Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.” Jesus did not confer upon Peter or anyone else the role of earthly head of his church. Christ did not designate anyone to have preeminence upon this earth. Paul said in Col. 1:18 that Christ “is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.” To Christ belongs all preeminence or the greatness. The Lord teaches that importance among believers belongs to those who are willing to be humble and to serve, not ride in motorcades and wear pompous clothing, and have people bow and worship them. Jesus said in Matt. 20:26–27, “Whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave.” On the other hand, the Bible warns us about those who seek to be elevated to the position of taking the place of God upon this earth. Paul writes in 2 Thess. 2:3–4: Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come [The day to which Paul refers is the return of Christ. Paul is assuring those who were being taught that Christ had already returned, that He was not coming the second time until] the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Notice Paul links the falling away (the apostasy)
with the man of sin. He said the man of sin is exalted and worshiped as
God. Additionally, he said that this man honors himself as God. Now I
ask you who does it sound like Paul is describing? I know of only one
man who claims to sits as God and exalts himself as God on this earth.
This can only refer to the office that we have discussed this morning. |
