Acknowledgments

There are many people who have helped me in this work, but the two
that have been the most supportive and encouraging are my parents,
Grace and John. They have always been there for me, through the
good and the not so good times. They have been pillars in this
unstable world and when many forsook me - they did not, showing me
the true nature of love. For this I Thank you.
I also thank those who have prayed for me, night and day in
some cases, and those who have helped in every other way. There are
some that need a special thanks, like Kenny and Wendy who where
always just a phone call away and who never shrank from helping me
in anyway they could.
A big show of appreciation must go to Alan for his continual
help with books and research material - without whose help this study
would not have been possible. I must make mention of Carlo with his
help in proof reading and suggestions on writing style, he has been a
great help.
I an indebted to Dr Gordon Beck for his friendship and help
in completing my study, this, I am sure, has been an education for him
as well as my self.
I must also thank my darling Suzanne for always being there
and giving me the strength to go through with everything.

1
 CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS………………………………….3

FOREWORD………………………………………………4

THE PRIMACY OF THE PAPAL SYSTEM………..……10

INTRODUCTION………………………………………....10

ROME’S DEEDS OF DOMINATION……………………11

MATTHEW 16……………………………………………..11
THE FALSE DECRETALS ………………………………..18

THE CHURCH………………………………………........22
WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS …………………………………22
THE PAPACY’S VIEW ……………………………………23

BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………....31

2
FOREWORD

In the ninth century BC, the Bible tells us that the House of Judah
walked in the ways of the House of Ahab. The modern reader might
well be forgiven for not understanding the significance of this
statement and what it actually meant. To understand this, we have to
look at what were the ways of the House of Ahab and what that meant
for the house of Judah? The answer is found in 1st Kings 16: 30-33.
Here we find that Ahab, “…did evil in the sight of the Lord above all
that were before him…(30)” and “… it had been a light thing for him
to walk in the sin of Jeroboam…(31)”. So the way of Ahab was to
walk in the sin of Jeroboam. Well, to find out what the sin of
Jeroboam was, we must look at 1st Kings 14:9, “…for thou hast gone
and made thee other gods, and molten images, to provoke me to anger,
and hast cast me behind thy back.” So Judah had turned from God, set
up idols and disregarded all that Jehovah had done for them. Judah,
like Israel before her, had fallen into great apostasy - forsaking the
laws of God and embracing the gods of those who inhabited the lands
around them.
In or about the year 835 BC, after years of apostasy, Joash
was proclaimed King of Judah. At seven years of age the young
monarch was to be advised by the priest Jehoiada; it was under his
influence that the young king would reinstate the worship of Jehovah.
First, by instigating a building program that brought about the
restoration of the Temple in Jerusalem, which had been almost
destroyed by the sons of Athaliah. Secondly, by bringing back the old
sacrificial system. These events are conveyed to us in the twenty-
fourth chapter of the second book of Chronicles: it tells the reader how
Joash did, “That which was right all the days of Jehoiada the priest (2nd
Chronicles 24:2)”. If this had been the final statement on the king’s
life, it would have been a wonderful testimony, but unfortunately this
is not the case. Soon after the death of Jehoiada, the king bows to
pressure from the princes of Judah and becomes a willing participant
in the nation’s apostasy. So much so, that when prophets are sent by
the Lord so that they, “testified against them”(2nd Chronicles 24: 19),
he had the son of Jehoiada, Zachariah, murdered in the very Temple
that he had restored.
The reader might well have asked, exactly what has this
portion of Holy Scripture got to do with any study of Roman
Catholicism. Well, to understand that we have to take a trip to
Germany in the 1520’s to a place called Spires. It was at this time and
place that Emperor Charles V called a council with the expressed hope
3
that the different factions within the Church would reach a
compromise on their differing beliefs. As the opposing sides
assembled at Spires on the 25th of June 1526, many of the reformed
were in jubilant spirits. As they travelled to Spires they carried banners
with the letters V.D.M.I.AE an abbreviation of the Latin, Verbum Dom
manet in AEternum (The word of the Lord endureth for ever: 1st Peter
1:25).1 The ordinary people of Spires were so influenced by this great
statement of faith that they began to embroider it on the sleeves of
their garments. It was at this first council of Spires in the form of the
Recess Declaration that the reformed nobles won the right to princely
liberty in the proviso: Cuius regio, eius religio (who ever rules has the
right to determine religion).2 This stopped the empire falling into any
further turmoil; as there had already been two critical outbreaks of
civil unrest: the feud of the Imperial Knights (1522-3) and the
Peasants’ War (1524-5).3 In 1529 a second council was called at Spires
and it is as a result of the annulment of the Recess that we have the
word Protestant. The term Protestant is a noun derived from a
compound verb, which originated from Latin – to testify against – pro-
test-ant. This title was taken directly from 2nd Chronicles 24: 19 and
was first used by those calling for reform in the Roman Church in
15294. We can see that this was no new idea – God in his greatness has
always raised up men and women to speak out against error. This is
the way He had worked in the reign of Joash and the way He would
work in 15th century Germany with those calling for reform in the
Roman Church. Then on the 15th of April 1529 after pressure was
placed on the emperor by the pope the gains won at the first Council of
Spires were renounced; this left the reformed princes with no choice
but to make their famous declaration - at which they claimed to be
Protestants (testifiers against error).5 It is in these surroundings that we
first come across the word Protestant.
In the last decades of the twentieth century ecumenism had
made great inroads into the evangelical Protestant community – so
much so, that many Bible believing Christians rejected the name
Protestant. Statements that had been made by supposed Christian
leaders influenced this opinion, undoubtedly. Let us look at some of
those statements:

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

my vocabulary. I’m not protesting anything! It’s time for

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

2 Davies. N. Europe A History. p 485.
3 Ibid. p 485.
4 Ayto. J. Bloomsbury Dictionary of Word Origins. p 416.
5 D’Aubigne. J. H. History of the 16th Century Reformation. p 1253.
4
 Catholics and non- Catholics to come together as one in the
Spirit and one in the Lord.”6

Billy Graham: “I’ve found that my beliefs are

essentially the same as those of orthodox Roman
Catholics.”7

Robert Schuller: “It’s time for Protestants to go to the

shepherd (the pope) and say, “What do we have to do
to come home?”8

John Wimber: “The Pope, who is very responsive to

the Charismatic movement and is himself a
born again evangelical, is preaching the gospel as
clear as anyone in the world today.”9

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

the now infamous document “Evangelicals and Catholics Together”.
Our own land had a local version of this, which was signed by fourteen
group participants who framed the document in question, including
four Presbyterian ministers. Also contained in its pages is a list of
those who were happy to endorse its contents, including the former
Presbyterian Moderator, Alistair Dunlop.10 On page 13, of the
document, it states: “As Evangelicals and Catholics, we thank God for
all that was good in the Reformation and in the Counter-
Reformation.”11 One wonders what exactly Mr Dunlop finds good in
the Counter-Reformation – a time when godly men and women were
ruthlessly murdered for their faith in Christ alone.
It was under this trend, that the new millennium was to be
ushered in. Many ordinary Evangelical Christians looked forward to
encouraging better relationships with what they saw as their sister
Christian Church (the Papacy), but many were to be disappointed with
the unfolding events of the 21st century. The first blow was to come on
the 6th of August 2001 when the one-time member of the Hitler Youth
and modern-day Grand Inquisitor, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, who was
born in Bavaria in 192712, released the Papal Declaration “Dominus
Iesus”. This was formulated by The Congregation for the Doctrine of
6 Said on Trinity Broadcasting Network, 19th October, 1989.
7 From an interview given to McCall’s, January 1978.
8 The Los Angeles Herald, 19th September 1987.
9 Quoted in, Paul and Carolyn Wilde’s A Look inside the Roman
Catholic Church. p 58.
10 S. Neilly. Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Some Quotes And Comments.
11 Ibid.
12 Baigent. M. and Leigh. R. The Inquisition. Page 247.
5
Faith, known at one time as the “Office of the Holy Inquisition.”
Dominus Iesus puts the Protestant Faith on the same level as non-
Christian religions. It also re-iterates the Roman Catholic Church’s
belief in its own supremacy. This is what it has to say on the subjects
of the Church and of Papal primacy:

“The Catholic faithful are required to

profess there is an historical continuity – rooted in the
apostolic succession – between the Church founded
by Christ and the Catholic Church: “This is the single
Church of Christ… which our Saviour, after his
resurrection, entrusted to Peter’s pastoral care…13”

“This Church, constituted and organised as a

society in the present world, subsists in [subsistit in]
the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of
Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him…
That the Church of Christ, despite the divisions which
exist among Christians, continues to exist fully only
in the Catholic Church… ”14

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

being the “true church of God” now propagated once more. The
document also goes on to say that all who do not submit to Rome’s
teachings “…Are not Churches in the proper sense….15” This came as
a great shock to many in the Protestant Faith: had they not been told
that the Roman Church had changed? She may have had some strange
beliefs on her books, but no one actually believes in them- or did
they? The previous statements seem to override or, in fact, reverse
what liberal Catholics thought had been won by the spirit of
ecumenism. British theologian, Adrian Hastings made this comment
on the Papal reign of John Paul II (the same man whom Billy Graham
calls, “The greatest religious leader of the modern world and one of
the greatest moral and spiritual leaders of this century.”): 16

“The great tide powered by Vatican II has, at least

institutionally, spent its force. The old landscape has
once more emerged and Vatican II is now being read

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

quoted in whole in a paper by S. Neilly, entitled, Dominus Iesus and
each section is commented upon by Pastor. Neilly.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid. Part IV, section 17, para 2.
16 The Sunday Evening Post, Volume 252, number 1. February 1980.
6
 in Rome far more in the spirit of Vatican I and within
the context of Pius XII’s model of Catholicism.” 17

Men like Gary Wills and Paul Knitter also hold this
perception. Knitter claims that Pope John Paul II has along with
Cardinal Ratzinger held a bloodless coup in the Vatican.18
We have also heard the proposition that the leadership of the
Church might hold to these dogmas but the laity and the Catholic
people do not accept such teachings. Well, that point of view was to
be blown out of the water by the seventy-five day visit to Ireland of the
relics of St Therese of Lisieux, 1873-97, (The Little Flower). On the
15th of April 2001 it is believed that almost one hundred thousand
people gathered to welcome the bones of the youngest of the three
women to have the title of Doctor of the Church conferred on her. The
remains of this woman were to be paraded throughout the land in a
glass case and with a military guard of honour. This is what the Priest
Gabriel O’Brien had to say:

“We welcome the relics of St Therese…

These relics are what is left of the mortal remains of
this great Saint. They are to be revered and
reverenced…They are also instruments through
which God grants favours to us who are still on our
Pilgrim Way.”19

There was genuine horror and disbelief at the scenes of

hysteria – people were crying as they lined the streets in an attempt to
see or touch the glass encased silver coffin – there was a great out
pouring of emotion at this tour, which lasted until the 28th of June. The
Roman Church declared the visit as an overwhelming sensation.
Bishop Comiskey –the same Bishop Comiskey who only a few years
earlier had come under considerable pressure to resign over the cover-
up of paedophilia in the Roman Church20, and who, after a public
performance of self pity, at which he said, “I was born in a little house
in the middle of nowhere…I never asked for a pedestal,” was shipped
off to the USA to receive treatment for alcoholism.21 He was
eventually to resign on the issue of papal paedophilia. He proclaimed
17 Cornwall. J. Hitler’s Pope. Page 8.
18 Agenda, 6th April 2003.
19 Taken from a commemorative booklet, which was quoted in News
from the Front, September 2001 issue; magazine of Take Heed
Ministries. p 4.
20 M. Tanner, Ireland’s Holy Wars, p 406.
21 Ibid, p 407.
7
this:

“People come in their thousands to touch the remains

of the dead Therese because they wish to be
themselves with the living power of God who works
through her.”22

It was under such circumstances that people in Evangelical

circles were left with no choice but to reconsider what some of their
leaders had been telling them about the Roman Church. This is what
we will be doing in this study; we will look at what the Papacy’s
teachings are and then hold them up to the only standard that can
authenticate or invalidate her claims - the light of God’s Holy
Scripture. In this thesis, we will examine Rome’s words under the
microscope of God’s. Has she changed, or have the people of God
been fed a lie that would compare with Satan’s in the garden of Eden.
Like Satan’s lie, this has a mixture of truth and error. There will be
many, no doubt, who will claim this study was under taken in the spirit
of bigotry and that it is only offending other Christians. Some of this
is true, it could offend those who hold to the Roman Catholic Faith,
but this is not the intention. It is simply asking that, whatever our
faith, we should examine it against God’s Word, and if that upsets
some, may I assure them that this has not been my intention. I hope
that I have not become their enemy because I have told them the truth
(Galatians 4:16). I leave them with the words of Martin Luther:

“Those who boldly stand for the truth will not remain
long on friendly terms with the teachers of error.
Unity with them would be an unmistakable sign that
we have lost the true doctrine. To receive evil
workers as Paul calls them (Phil. 3:3), requires that
we call evil good and good evil (Isa 5:4).23

22 Taken from a commemorative booklet, which was quoted in News

from the Front, September 2001 issue; magazine of Take Heed
Ministries. p 2.
23 Cited in Scottish Protestant View vol 29 number 4, May/June
2002 issue, p6.
8
 THE PRIMACY OF THE PAPAL SYSTEM

INTRODUCTION

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

One True Church”, and that the Roman Pontiff is its supreme head, has
led to centuries of dispute: first with the Eastern Church and then with
the Reformers. For almost seven hundred years in the first millennium
AD the Eastern and Western factions of the Christian Church did battle
for the supremacy of the Christian Religion. The Bishop of Rome and
then the Bishop of Constantinople, would at different times claim to be
the universal bishop of the church. In our study we will look at the
formation, development and the natural conclusion of Papal
supremacy in the Ultramontanist’s teaching of Papal Infallibility.
The Roman Church in its search for papal primacy has used
many tactics: these include the use of the Isidorian Decretals which
contains Donation of Constantine. These claim that the Emperor
Constantine, after he had been cured of leprosy by Pope Sylvester,
gave the city of Rome and all its wealth to the papacy. Even the
Roman Church now sees both of these as forgeries. Then there has
been the infamous papal bull Unam Sanctam with its claims of world
domination and the even stranger Index Lidrorum Prohibitorum (or
Guide to Prohibited Books). This list contained some 4.000 titles,
ranging from Shakespeare’s King Lear to the Bible itself24. The Bible
stayed on this index until the year 1966.

24 Davies. N. Europe A History. pp 260-1.

9
ROME’S DEEDS OF DOMINATION

Any study of Papal primacy must first look at the material the Roman
Church uses to substantiate its claim. So what is the view held by the
Roman Catholic Church concerning Peter and what material do they
use to back up these claims? We will let her speak for her self. In
1994 the Roman Church published a new catechism for the first time
in four hundred years – so I think we can safely say, that this will be
the Roman Church’s statement of belief for the foreseeable future.
This is what that catechism has to say:

“880 When Christ instituted the twelve, “he

constituted [them] in the form of a college or
permanent assembly, at the head of which he placed
Peter, chosen from among them.” Just as “by the
Lord’s institution, St. Peter and the rest of the apostles
constitute a single apostolic college, so in like fashion
the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, and the bishops,
the successors of the apostles are related with and
united to one another”

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named

Peter, the “rock” of the church. He gave Him the
keys of his church and instituted him the shepherd of
the whole flock. “the office of binding and loosing
which was given to Peter was also assigned to the
college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral
office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the
church’s very foundation and is continued by the
bishops under the primacy of the pope.

882 The pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor,

“is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of
the unity both of the bishops and the whole company
of the faithful.” “ For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of
his office as Vicar of Christ, and pastor of the entire
Church has full, supreme, and universal power over
the whole Church, a power which he can always
exercise unhindered.”25

25 Catechism of the Catholic Church. Published by Geoffrey

Chapman.
10
MATTHEW 16
The Papacy puts forward the view that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself
instituted the supremacy of the Papal system. In putting forward this
hypothesis Rome uses several pieces of Holy Scripture. For instance,
it claims that because Peter’s name is first in various listings of the
apostles (Matthew 10:24; Mark 3: 16-19; Luke 6:14-16) that he is
therefore the chief apostle. Also in the Gospel of Matthew (16:19), the
Roman Church believes that the Lord Jesus indicated Peter was the
“Rock”, the very foundation of the church. We are also told by the
Romanists, that because Christ gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom
(Matthew 16:19) he has received primacy in all things – this in turn,
they say, has passed to the modern-day Peter (the Pope).
It is true, the Apostle Peter is named first in the listing of the
apostles’ names, but what does this prove? Simply, absolutely
nothing! In Matthew 16:23, the Lord Jesus calls Peter Satan. Where
does this fit in with Rome’s teaching of Peter being the foundation of
the church. In Acts 15: 1-35 we are told that the Apostle James sits at
the head of the Council of Jerusalem. Where is Peter’s supposed
primacy here? If Peter were the supreme pontiff would he not sit as
the adjudicator at this most important event? In Galatians 2:11-15,
Paul says: 11“…I withstood him to the face, because he was to
blame…. 14…I said unto Peter before them all….” Here in Holy
Scripture and not for the first time, we see Peter’s compromising spirit
in action, but most importantly, Paul does not see him as the earthly
head of the Church and that Peter was not infallible after all. In fact
Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 12:11,” For in nothing am I behind the
very chiefest of the apostles, though I be nothing.” So all believers are
equal under God.
The main section of Holy Scripture used by the Roman
Church to substantiate its claims of Papal primacy is found in the
Gospel of Matthew. It is upon the Roman Church’s exegesis of
Matthew 16:18, that her affirmation is founded or flounders literally.
It is this section of Scripture that will come under scrutiny here. Let us
look at Matthew 18 and see what exactly we learn from this most
important piece of God’s Word?

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

asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the
Son man am?
14. And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist:
11
 some Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the other
prophets.
15. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the
Christ, the Son of the Living God.
17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art
thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not
revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven.
18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it.”

Rome claims that the above verses prove the Lord Jesus
Christ bestowed upon the apostle Peter the primacy of the whole
church. They say that in verse 18 of Matthew 16 when the Lord said,
“…thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church…” He had
made Peter the earthly head of the Church. This is the base for all of
the Roman Catholic Church’s claims and if their hermeneutics’ is
found to be faulty on this subject then whatever follows has to be
looked at very carefully.
So, what is Jesus actually saying in this verse? Let us
examine what has been said in the previous few verses. In verse 13 the
Lord asks His disciples who do the people say that he is. They (the
disciples) reply by saying; that some say he is John the Baptist; others
that he is Elijah, Jeremiah or even some other prophet. But in response
to the question, Peter tells the Lord that he is the Son of the Living
God, the Christ. The Lord Jesus confirms this by telling Peter that this
could only be revealed to him by His Father in Heaven. Christ
continues by saying to Peter, “…that upon this rock I will build my
Church….” The main subject for debate here is, who or what is the
Rock upon which the Church is to be built. The Roman Church
purports that the rock is Peter but this has not always been the case,
there have many in the Roman Catholic Church who did not adhere to
this particular view.
The American Archbishop Kenrick prepared this speech for
the First Vatican Council, 1869-70, but was prevented from addressing
the gathering on the subject by the powerful untramontanists. These
are the statistics, which he put forward:

“…That no less than Five different interpretations of

Matthew 16:18 are given by “the Fathers”: (1)
That the Church is built on Peter is taught by
seventeen Fathers; (2) that the Rock is the whole body
of the Apostles is held by eight Fathers; (3) that the
12
 Rock is the Faith confessed by Peter is held by forty-
four Fathers; (4) that the Rock is Christ is held by
sixteen; (5) that the Rock includes all the faithful-
living stones of which the Church is built is held by a
few… If we are bound to follow the greater number
of the Fathers, then we must hold for certain that the
word PETRA means, not Peter but the Faith professed
by Peter.”26

Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger, seen by many as the

most renowned Church historian in Roman Catholic circles during the
19th century, had this to say:

“Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the

Gospels (Matt 16:18, John 21:17), not a single one of
them applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s
successors. How many Fathers have busied
themselves with these texts, yet not one of them
whose commentaries we possess – Origen,
Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodorer, and
those whose interpretations are collected in the
catenas – has dropped the faintest hint that the
primacy of Rome is the consequence of the
commission and promise to Peter! Not one of them
has explained the rock or the foundation on which
Christ would build His Church of the office given to
Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they
understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter’s
confession of faith in Christ; often together. Or else
they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all
the other Apostles, the twelve being together the
foundation – stones of the Church (Apoc xxi.14). The
Fathers could less recognise in the power of the keys,
and the power of binding and loosing, any special
prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop,
inasmuch as – what is obvious to any one at first sight
– they did not regard a power first given to Peter, and
afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on
all the Apostles, as anything peculiar to him, or
hereditary in the line of the Roman Bishops, and they
held the symbol of the keys as meaning the just the
same as the figurative expression of binding and

26 B. Porcelli. Antichrist. p112.

13
 loosing”27

So, all within the Roman Catholic Church was not as clear-cut as
they would have us believe. Let us continue with a look at what some
of those Church Fathers made of Matthew 16. We will start with
Augustine’s observations on the matter of the Rock:

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

Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? “You
are the Christ, the Son Living of God.” There’s the
rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the
Church has been built, which the gates of the
underworld cannot conquer.”28

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

Church as its greatest theologian and has been conferred with the title,
Doctor of the Church. He also authored 113 books.

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

Antioch school, who went on to become the Patriarch of
Constantinople. This is his view on Rock:

“And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my church; that is, on the faith of his
confession.”29

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

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

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

faith of the disciple.”30

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

28 The Works of Saint Augustine. Vol 6 p 327.
29 A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church. Homily
54.1. Cited in Roman Catholic Tradition: claims and Contradictions,
William Webster, Christian Resources INC. 1999.
30 Commentary on Isaiah. Cited in Roman Catholic Tradition: claims
and Contradictions, William Webster, Christian Resources INC. 1999.
14
 Jerome (342-420) a leading Roman Catholic theologian and Doctor
of the Church put it as simply as this:

“The Rock is Christ…”31

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

school of Alexandria had this to say:

“If we speak as Peter did – “Thou art the Christ the Son
of the Living God,”…we become Peters, and to us it
would be said by the Word “Thou art Peter and upon this
rock I will build my Church.” For every disciple of
Christ is a rock.”32

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

common with the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 held by those of the
Reformed faith, than the current view put forward by the Church of
Rome.
Those of the reformed faith convey that the Rock is the belief
in Jesus being the Son of God; in other words, Peter’s statement of
faith is the Rock upon which the Church is grounded. Reformed
Theologians further point to the word meanings in the original Greek:
in the Greek “Peter” (petros) can only be interrupted as a small stone.
Shleusner defines the meaning as this, “Lapidem qui e loco in locum
moveri.”- “A stone that can be moved from place to place.” 33 It is
only used in the New Testament sense as a proper name – a true noun.
But the term “Rock” (petra) has a meaning of a large rock or mound
and is not used anywhere in Scripture in a personal form. In Mark
15:46 the term is used to denote the rock out of which Joseph’s tomb
has been hewn. In Luke 8:6 it describes where the unfruitful seed fell.
In Matthew 7:24-25 it is the word used as the rock where the wise man
built his house. In Romans 9:33 and 1st Corinthians 10:4, it is used
metaphorically as a symbol of Christ.34 Shleusner comments thus on
these verses, they are, “Metaphorice et modo plane singulari.” –
“Metaphorically and in a sense evidently peculiar.” 35 Nowhere in
Scripture is the word petra used to describe the person of Peter.

31 R. Zins. Romanism. p 134.

32 A. Campbell Was Peter the First Pope..
33 S. Cassels Christ And Antichrist.. p 287, note F.
34 Ibid.
35 Ibid.
15
 To be fair to the Roman Catholic Church, it has countered the
Reformed view by pointing out that in the Aramaic language there is
only one term for the word rock (kepha). So they claim the Lord said
to Peter you are the rock and upon you I will build my church. Not so,
reply the Reformed theologians; there has never been any evidence to
suggest that any of the New Testament was written in Aramaic. It is
true that we do not know what exactly the Lord Jesus said in Aramaic
but we do know what the Biblical record has laid before us. No Bible
scholar has ever discovered any evidence to suggest that the original
New Testament text was written in any other language but Greek. This
is what the leading New Testament scholar Kurt Aland has to say on
this textual matter:

“There is no longer any doubt that Greek was the

language in which all parts of the New Testament were
originally written…”36

We have looked at what the Roman Catholic Church has to

say on the subject of Peter’s primacy and on him being the supposed
foundation of the Church. We have also looked at what some of the
Early Church Fathers thoughts were on the Matthew 16 controversy.
Then we looked at the Reformed view of these, but what is the Bible’s
teaching on who is the Rock, the foundation of the Church? Well let
us see what the following verses have to say:

“…I will publish the name of the Lord: ascribe ye

greatness unto our God. He is the Rock, his work is
perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth
and without iniquity, just and right is he (Deuteronomy
32:3-4).”

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

beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God (I
Sam 2:2).”

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

(2nd Samuel 22:2)”.

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

save our God? (2nd Samuel 22:32).”

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

36 K. Aland. The Text of the New Testament. p52.
16
 deliverer; my God, my strength, in whom I will trust;
my buckler, and the horn of my salvation, and my high
tower (Psalm 18:2).”

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

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

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

can see that the Bible makes it very clear that title of “The Rock”
belongs to the Lord. Here are some more verses that claim the Lord as
the Rock: Psalm 71:3, 89:26, 92:15, 94:22, 95:1. Of course there is a
verse that should put an end to all of Rome’s speculation, it is 1st
Corinthians 10:4, “…and that rock was Christ Jesus.” The word here
for rock is in the Greek petra not petros.37 This is the only place in
Scripture that the word petra is used to denote a person – the person of
Christ. I believe that this answers any questions surrounding Matthew
16.
After reading the inspired Word of God, hearing the words of
the Church Fathers and then comparing it to the current teaching of
Rome – we can see that Rome’s exegesis of Matthew 16 is, indeed,
weighed in the balances and found wanting. Even those, they
designated Doctors of the Church disagree with the Roman Church’s
view on these portions of Scripture. The Bible believer, on this
occasion, might well use the words of Deuteronomy 32:31, “For their
rock is not as our Rock…”

37 Srtrong’s Concordance.
17
THE FALSE DECRETALS

Not only has the Roman Catholic Church used, or misused, Holy
Scripture in an attempt to justify Her claims - but She has also used
dubious extra Biblical documents, such as the Isidorian Decretals.
This collection of council decrees, popes’ decretals – papal decrees on
church discipline – and popes’ letters, covers a period of almost seven
centuries.
The Isidorian Deretals take their name from the Spanish St
Isidore (560-636 A.D.), whom they purport as their compiler. They
begin with the words: “Isidorus Mercator, servus Christi lectori
salutem,” (Isidore the merchant, a servant of Christ, salutes the
reader)38. Isidore was to become Bishop of Seville in or around the
600 A.D39, succeeding his brother and was to sit as principal at the
Fourth Council of Toledo (633 A.D). 40 Isidore was to author many
books on subjects such as history, linguistics and theology. His
greatest literary work was the Etymologiae, a comprehensive work that
contained twenty sections and covered a range of topics – from
cosmology to architecture41. Isidore is also attributed with having
formed the canon law of the Spanish church, Hispana collectio,42 and
was officially canonized 1598, by Pope Clement VIII. He was to be
declared a doctor of the church in 1722 by Pope Innocent XIII.
Isidore is seen as one of the most prolific writers and
chronologers of the Dark Ages. He is also attributed with great
knowledge. A fact that led Pope Gregory to call him the “second
Daniel”43. Although seen as some of the greatest work of his time,
Isidore’s work is scattered with errors44. Nevertheless, he added greatly
to the intellect of Europe in those trying times. This might be the
reason that the forger hid behind the name of Isidore.
The Decretals contain a large amount of documentation, some
of which is genuine while the rest is of questionable origin. This is
what the renowned Encyclopaedia Britannica has to say on the make
up of the Decretals:

“The collection contains (1) the letters of the popes

preceding the Council of Nicaea (325) from Clement I

38 Encyclopaedia Britannica.
39 R.C.Wetzel. A Chronology of Biblical Christianity.
40 Encyclopaedia Britannica.
41 Ibid.
42 Ibid.
43 Thomas M`Crie. Refromation in Spain. p 27.
44 Ibid, p 27.
18
 to the Miltades, all of which are forgeries; (2) a
collection of the decrees of the councils, most of which
are genuine, though the forged Donation of
Constantine (q.v.) is included; (3) a large collection of
letters of popes from Sylvester I (died 335) to Gregory
II (died 731), among which there are more than 40
falsifications.”45

We can see from the above, that the Decetals did indeed
incorporate a large quantity of erroneous material. The most
damaging, or the most beneficial to the papacy is the Donation of
Constatine, for it is on this, that Rome based her claim of temporal
power. The Donation was first used at the Council of Soissons (853)46
and then during the Great Schism of 1054, Pope Leo IX quoted it in a
letter to the patriarch of Constantinople, Michel Cerularius, as the
linchpin of Roman supremacy47. Let us look at what the Donation
actually says:

“And when I had learned these things at the mouth of

the blessed Silvester, and found that I was wholly
restored to health by the beneficence of blessed Peter
himself, we-together with all our satraps and the whole
senate, and the magnates and all the Roman people,
which is subject to the glory of our rule-considered that,
since he is seen to be set up as the vicar of God’s Son on
earth, the apostles should receive from us and our
empire a greater power of government than the earthly
clemency of our imperial serenity is seen to have
conceded to them.”48

The Donation puts forward the concept that the Emperor

Constantine was the author of this work and, that after he was healed
of leprosy by Pope Sylvester I (314-3350 ceded all his power and
belongings to the papacy. What more could the pope have asked for,
the city of Rome and all its riches, even the empire were to become the
property of the papacy. The papacy used this fraudulent piece of
deception up until the eighteen-hundreds, although Lorenzo Valla had
first cast doubts on its legitimacy in 1440, it was not until David
Blondel, a prominent Protestant Theologian refuted all the claims that

45 Encyclopaedia Britannica.
46 Ibid.
47 J.N.D. Kelly. The Oxford book of Popes, pp 28, 148.
48 T.F. Kauffman. Graven Bread, p 172.
19
it contained, that it was written off as a complete falsehood49. Henry
Bettenson has this to say about the influence of the Donation of
Constantine:

“ This document, which purports to be a deed of gift

from Constantine to Pope Sylvester, was included in the
“Forged Decretals,” and it played a great part in
subsequent controversies. Its authority was
unquestioned till the fifteenth century, when its
authenticity was impugned by many eminent
churchmen and its falsity finally proved by Lorenzo
Valla. It is now completely discredited.”50

Romanists now say that the Donation of Constantine was of

little importance as the papacy’s power comes from God51, but for
almost a thousand years Rome used it as its title deed in the battle for
supremacy of the Christian Church. Again, I am afraid to say, she has
been weighed in the balances and found wanting.
We have seen that in the struggle for over all supremacy of
the Church, and for the coveted title of “Universal Bishop”, the Roman
Church has corrupted God’s Holy Writ and put to use documents that
She knew were forged. This has shown us that the whole foundation
of papal primacy is based on deceitfulness and lies. In this battle for
the ownership of the Church the Bishop of Constantinople at first
espoused that the rightful seat of the head of the Church was to be the
new capitol of the Roman Empire. This led to the following statement
by Pope Gregory the Great (590-604 AD):

“Now I confidently say that whoever calls himself, or

desires to be called Universal Priest, is in elation the
precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself
above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is
into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as
God above all men, so whoever this one is who covets
being called solo priest, he extols himself above all
other priests…Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles,
himself a member of the holy and universal church,
Paul, Andrew, John-what were they but the heads of
particular communities? And yet all members under
one head. And to bind together in a short girth of

49 Encyclopaedia Britannica.
50 Henry. S Bettenson. Documents of the Christian Church, p
135.
51 J Hardon. The Modern Catholic Dictionary, p170.
20
 speech – the saints before the law, the saints under the
law, the saints under grace, all these making up the
Lord’s Body, were constituted as members of the
Church, and not one of them wished himself to be
called universal. Now let your holiness acknowledge to
what extent you swell within yourself in desiring to be
called by which no one presumed to be called who was
truly holy.”52

The reader can see from the above quote that Pope Gregory
did not recognise the office of universal bishop or earthly head of the
church; in fact, he calls anyone who might claim such an office as the
precursor of Antichrist. He then warns the Bishop of Constantiople
that he is swollen with pride and no one who is truly holy, would claim
that title.
Gregory’s successor, Pope Boniface III, after much
underhandedness and political manipulation had the title of “Universal
Bishop” conferred on him by the Eastern Emperor Phocas a mere two
years after Gregory’s death, in 606 AD53. The term catholic meaning
universal; the Roman Church then became the Roman Catholic Church
or the Universal Church. To many of the Reformed faith the very term
Roman Catholic is an oxymoron. How can a church claim to be
universal in nature, like the True Church of Christ, and tell all those
that are not conscriptees to Her form of belief system, that they are
destined to eternal torment. This is what we will look at in the next
section of our thesis – the supposed catholicity of the Rome Church
and whether this stands-up to the universalism held by the True
Church.

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

53 A Campbell. Was Peter the First Pope.
21
 THE CHURCH

WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS

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

that are united in their faith through the Lord Jesus Christ. This is not
affected by geographical or ecclesiastical differences, all who have a
saving Faith in Jesus Christ are as one with God. In his Institutes of
the Christian Religion, John Calvin quotes the following from Cyprian
of Carthage (200-258) on his view of the Church. I think that its
comments are quite appropriate on what the attributes of a true church
are:

“The church is one, which is spread abroad far and

wide into a multitude by increase of fruitfulness. As
there are many rays of the sun but one light, and many
branches of a tree but one strong trunk grounded in its
tenacious root, and since from one spring flow many
streams, although a goodly number seem outpoured
from their bounty and superabundance, still, at the
source unity abides. Take a ray from the body of the
sun; its unity undergoes no division. Break a branch
from a tree; the severed branch cannot sprout. Cut off
a stream from its source; cut off, it dries up. So also
the church, bathed in the light of the Lord, extends
over the whole earth: yet there is one light diffused
everywhere.”54

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

New Testament in the same terms. In the Old Testament the Church is
called by the Hebrew word qahal (to call) it is this word, which is
translated in our English Bible as assembly or congregation. The New
Testament uses the Greek word ekklesia (to call out). The meaning is
in both cases the same, a group of people called together as one in
God. This can be in a small gathering, where the two and three are
gathered to gather - such as, in a believers home (Romans 16:23, 1st
Corinthians 16:19, Colossians 4:15 and Philemon 2). The Church can
also be a combined group of congregations in any geographical area.
As can be seen in 2nd Corinthians 8:1(the churches of Macedonia),
Galatians 1:2 (the churches of Galatia) and Galatians 1:2 (the churches
of Judea). The Church is also a worldwide grouping, embracing all
54 J Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book IV, p 39.
22
those that are truly Spirit-filled believers (1st Corinthians 10:31, 11:22,
12:28). The Church is seen in the final sense as encompassing all of
those who are in Christ, whether they be in glory, or who may not as
yet have been made perfect (Ephesians 1:22, 3:10, 21, 5:23-32 and
Colossians 1:18,24).
The Church of God consists of all true believers, no matter
what their belief or view is on church government or on secondary
issues, such as tongues, healing and the like. What holds them
together is their simple Faith in Christ Jesus as the Way the Truth and
the Light (John 14:6). This belief makes them “One” under God. This
is the true Catholic Church, a Church that embraces all denominations
and races under the Headship of Christ.
The Westminster Divines agreed this on the subject:

“The catholic or universal church, which is invisible,

consists of the whole number of the elect, that have
been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ
the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the
fullness of Him that filleth all in all (XXV: 1).

The visible Church, which is also catholic or

universal under the Gospel (not confined to one
nation, as before under the law), consists of all those
throughout the world that profess the true religion
(XXV: 2).”55

THE PAPACY’S VIEW

55 The Westminster Confession of Faith. Para XXV:1-2.

23
 This, however, is not the Papal view of the church. Her
proposition is that all who wish to be saved can only do so by adhering
to the system of belief that She espouses. If that was all that the
Roman Church believed and taught one could not really argue with
Her. One may well disagree with that teaching but a lot of religious
systems assert that they have the only true path to Heaven. But the
Roman Church claims much more than that, e.g. She as the Church has
power over temporal matters and that those who even reject its belief
are still subject to Her. We will now look at how this totalitarian
system developed – starting with the Athanasian Creed:

“Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold

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

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

of Rome say about the so-called Catholic Church. We’ll begin with
the words of Pope Pelagius II (579-90):

“If anyone, however, either suggests or believes or

presumes to teach contrary to this faith, let him know
that he is condemned and anathematised according to
the opinion of the same Fathers…Consider (therefore)
the fact that whoever has not been in the peace and
unity of the Church, cannot have the Lord, (Galations
3:7)…”57

We can see from Pope Pelagius’s statement, that he puts

forward the view that anyone who does not adhere to the teaching of
the Church of Rome is not one of the saved of God.
By the ninth century the whole of Christendom was in
turmoil: the gulf between the Roman and Byzantine Churches was
eventually to lead to the two churches formal split in 1054 AD – on
their differing views on the Eucharist, although they had already been
estranged from the sixth century. In 1059 Pope Nicholas II made a
decree, that the College of Cardinals should only conduct papal
elections in the future. This supposedly put an end to the interference
of emperors in church affairs. Then in 1075, Pope Gregory VII
proclaimed Ditatus Papae (The Pope’s Supremacy). Within this
proclamation Gregory VII put forward twenty seven points, these
56 H. Denzinger. The Source Of Catholic Dogma. p 15.
57 Ibid. p 95.
24
ranged from the right to depose earthly rulers to the claim of having
supreme legislative power. Despite the Ditatus’ legal and theological
language, it was nothing more than a mere power struggle between
Gregory VII (the pope) and Henry IV (the emperor). The propositions
contained in the Dictatus Papae were some of the most forceful ever
put forward by the papal system:

“2. The Roman Pontiff alone merits the Catholic or

. “Universal” title
3. The Pontiff alone can depose and absolve bishops.
4. The Pontiff is permitted to depose emperors.
16. The Pontiff alone can convene a General Synod.
20. No one can condemn a decision of the Holy See.
22. The Church of Rome has never erred, and as
Scripture attests, can never err in the future…
23. No one who opposes the Church of Rome can be
considered a Catholic.
24. The Pontiff can release the vassals of unjust men
from their oath of
Loyalty…”58

Although there had been many such claims made by the

papacy, none of those were as detailed or as wide as Gregory’s. The
Church and state were to remain in a virtual state of war until the
Concordat of Worms in 1122, when Pope and emperor were given the
hand of investiture. This document gave warning to all that would
question pope or papacy that they faced the torment of hell.
In 1208, Pope Innocent III expanded the belief that all who
did not submit to the teaching of the Church of Rome, were assured of
eternal damnation. This is what he had to say:

“ The heart we believe and by the mouth we confess

the one Church, not of the heretics but Holy Roman,
Catholic and Apostolic (Church) outside which we
believe no one is saved.”59

The Fourth Latern Council in 1215 was to continue along this

theme, with its proclamation of only one Church, outside of which no
one is saved:
“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside of
which no one at all is saved…”60

58 N..Davies. Europe A History. pp 339-342.

59 H. Denzinger The Source Of Catholic Dogma.. pp 166-167.
60 Ibid. Page 169.
25
 The view of one Church, of which any who do not fully
comply with her doctrines, or recognise the authority of the Roman
Pontiff are damned, is by the Middle Ages the main force behind
Roman dogma.
By 1294 the Papacy was to enter a new phase of
expansionism with Boniface VIII. First he forced Pope Celestine V
(the hermit) to abdicate and imprisoned him for life – declaring
himself pope. In his continued crusade for power, Boniface fought the
“War of the Vespers”, which restored the rule of his allies the
Angevins to Sicily. Next he turned his attention to France; this would
lead to him being taken hostage by the French King – in whose
custody he died. Boniface’s Papal Bull (Unum Sanctum) of 1302 was
framed expressly for the French. It leaves us in no doubt of the
Roman Church’s belief in its complete primacy in all matters and of
the importance of the Papal office. It states:

“ With faith urging us we are forced to believe and

to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that,
apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply
confess this (Church) outside which there is no
salvation nor remission of sin…Further more we
declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is
altogether necessary to salvation for every human
creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff.”61

This Papal Bull has been retained up until the present day –
there has never been any attempt to rescind it. We can see from the
words of Rome herself, that membership and abidance of the Roman
Catholic Church is no longer the only requisite in order to obtain
salvation, but a new theory, one of total submission to the pope has
been injected into papal doctrine. This trend of ever-increasing the
individual’s subjection to one man was to continue. This is of course
completely contrary to the teachings of Holy Scripture (Matthew
10:32, John 6:40, Acts 4:12, Romans 10:8-10, 1st Timothy 2:5, 1st John
5:11-13 and Revelation 3:20), which affirms that submission to the
Lord Jesus Christ is the only way to attain salvation.

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

about those it sees as outside the Roman Catholic fold:
61 H. Bettenson. Documents of the Christian Church. p 116.
26
 “It (The Council) firmly believes, professes, and
proclaims that those not living within the Catholic
Church, not only pagans, but also the Jews and heretics
and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal
life, but will depart into everlasting fire which was
prepared for the devil and his angels (MATT 24:21).”62

We can see, that so far, the Church of Rome’s teaching

on the matter of salvation is at odds with what the Bible has to
say on this most important issue.
As a response to gains made by the Reformers, the
Roman Catholic Church instituted the Counter-Reformation. At
the forefront of this movement, were to be found the Jesuits
(The Society of Jesus), which has been called corps d’e`lite of
the Roman Catholic Church.63 The Jesuits were founded by the
Basque, Inidgo L`opez de Recalde (St Ignatius Loyola, 1491-
1556), who after he had been seriously injured in the siege of the
fortress Pamplona, took to fervent prayer and embarked on a
pilgrimage to Montserrat. Once there he hung his weapons on
the shrine and retreated to live in a cave for a year.64 In the cave
he fasted and prayed. In these intercessions he was to receive
visits from both the Virgin Mary and Satan.65 It was during one
of these visions that he decided to dedicate his life to the cause
of the Holy Father. On the 13th August 1534, at the crypt of
Notre-Dame de Montmarte, Loyola and six others formed the
Society of Jesus66. Loyola’s aim was to:

“Raise a mighty army of holy knights whose sole aim

and thought should be devoted to overthrow all
enemies of Rome under the banner of the Saviour.”67

The Jesuits were to gain Papal approval in 1540 with Pope

Paul III’s Bull, Regimini Militantis Ecclesiae. It was to answer only to
the Pope and was structured into companies under the leadership of a
“General” also known as the Black Pope. They were told that they
were “companions of Jesus” and that their goal was to convert,
reconvert and educate in the ways of Rome. They were seen as the

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

63 ,N. Davies. Europe A History. p496.
64 M. Baigent and R. Leigh, The Inquisition, p 126.
65 , H. MacPherson The Jesuits in History. p 2.
66 Ibid. p 4.
67 Ibid. p 5.
27
Vatican’s thought police and were later expelled from many countries
after the finding of the now disputed Monita Secreta.68 Loyola
authored Spiritual Exercises (1523)69 and has left us with these words:
“I have never left the army. I have only been seconded to the service
of God.”, and “Give me a boy at the age of seven, and he will be mine
for ever.”70 At the canonisation of Loyola in 1622 it was stated by Pope
Gregory XV, that, “ Ignatius had a heart large enough to hold the
universe.”71
The very pinnacle of the Counter –Reformation was the
Council of Trent, which sat in three sessions, 1545-7, 1551-2,
and1563-5. This is what many in the Roman Catholic Church had
been waiting for - a chance they believed to make reforms. But those
who had hope for a new era, one of men and women being able to
enjoy God’s Holy Word and of a more moral church were to be
disappointed. Instead of reform, the Jesuits used the Council of Trent
to reassert the old Roman values - transubstantiation in the mass; the
view that the church alone can interpret scripture; and of course the
primacy of the Roman Church. Trent has left us with these
uncompromising words:

“We define that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman
Pontiff hold the Primacy of the whole world, and the
Roman Pontiff himself is the successor of the blessed
Peter, Prince of the Apostles and the Vicar of Christ.
The head of the whole church, the Father of all
Christians; and that to him in the person of blessed Peter
was given by our Lord Jesus Christ, full power to feed,
rule and govern the universal church, as is contained
also in the edicts of the ecumenical councils and sacred
canons.”72

Not only were the council’s findings a disappointment to

those who hoped for reform; but also because of its reaffirmation of
papal world domination, Catholic kings like Philip II of Spain had
such a fear of the Tridentine decrees that they even censured their
publication.

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

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

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

69 Ibib.
70 Ibid.
71 Ibid.
72 A. Campbell. Was Peter the First Pope.
28
any who did not accept this were lost. It stated the following:

“…The Primacy of Peter over the whole Church…this

is the teaching of the Truth from which no one can
depart without loss of faith and salvation.”73

We can see from the above that not only does the Roman
Church continue to subscribe to the theory she is the “One True
Church”, but that all those who would call themselves Christians (this
can be seen in the term the “Whole Church”) are under the Primacy of
Peter (Rome’s authority). This was to cause a lot tension in the Europe
of the late nineteen hundreds.
In a reply to the German Emperor’s inquiry as to who is
actually under papal control, Pope Pius IX in August 1873, conveyed
the following:

“Everyone who has been baptized belongs…to the

Pope.”74

The author believes that the current trend in papal

ecumenisms is fuelled by the sense that the papacy holds the view that
those of the Reformed Faith are not Christians in the true sense and are
in need of being restored to the “True Church”. They no longer put
Protestants to the stake in an effort to convert them; they woo them
back instead. She is putting the old adage in to action, “You can catch
more bees with honey than you can with vinegar.”
Pope Pius’s successor and name’s sake, Pope Pius X was to
convey the following thoughts on the Reformed Faith in his
Compendium of Christian Doctrine, published by Vatican Press in
1906. I think you will find them very interesting:

“Heretics are the baptized who pertinaciously refuse

to believe some truth revealed by God and taught as
of faith by the Catholic Church, …the various sects
of Protestants.”75

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

Protestantism:

“Protestantism or the Reformed Religion…is the sum

of all heresies, which existed before it, which have

73 Ibid.
74 B. Porcelli. Antichrist. p 67.
75 Ibid p 64.
29
 since arisen, and which can still arise to destroy
souls…the most monstrous congeries of private and
individual errors, embraces all heresies and represents
all forms of rebellion against the holy Catholic
Church.”76

Some will say that all this changed with the Second Vatican
Council and that Rome now sees that such teaching is no longer
expedient in the modern world. They say that the papacy now
recognises that other Christian denominations are part of the Christ’s
Church, and as such we are all one, although we still differ on some
issues. Is this the case? Vatican II might well have opened up the
debate, but it held firm on the fundamentals of papal primacy, i.e.
Peter’s succession and the Roman Church being the true church. This
is what it said:

“This is the sole Church of Christ which is the creed

we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic…
The Roman Pontiff, as successor of Peter, is the
perpetual and visible source and foundation of the
unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of
the faithful.”77

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

church, in that it is made-up of group of individuals who hold to
certain beliefs and practices, but most certainly, it is not a church in the
Biblical sense of the meaning. Nowhere in Scripture are we taught
that Church holds power over any civil authority not only in one
country, never mind the whole world. To claim such a thing as in
Ditatus Papae and in Unum Sanctum is a complete corruption of the
Christian Church. The Word of God tells us that worldly power is in
essence evil (Ephesians 6:12). It also tells us that to be a friend of this
world is to be an enemy of God (James 4:4). We as the Church of
Christ are in the world but not of the world (John 17:11, 16, 18). It is
also wrong to assert that the church can in any way hold authority over
those who are not in Christ Jesus, because they will hate the true
Christian and reject them (John 15:18-19).

The Reformer’s view of the Papacy

76 Ibid.
77 Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents,
Costello Pub, vol. 1, pp 357, 376.
30
The Reformers most certainly did not view the papacy as the Biblical
Church. Martin Luther in his Thirty principles lays this charge to the
papacy’s claim:

“We do not concede to them that they are the Church, and (in
truth) they are not (the Church); nor will we listen to those
things which, under the name of Church, they enjoin or forbid.
For, thank God, (today) a child seven years old knows what the
Church is, namely, the holy believers and lambs who hear the
voice of their Shepherd. For the children pray thus: I believe in
one holy (catholic or) Christian Church. This holiness does not
consist in albs, tonsures, long gowns, and other of their
ceremonies devised by them beyond Holy Scripture, but in the
Word of God and true faith.”
The great Reformer and Bible commentator John Calvin, in
his Institutes, commented in the following manner on whether the
Roman Church could indeed claim the title church:

“However, when we categorically deny to the papists

the title of church, we do not for this reason impugn
the existence of churches among them. Rather, we are
only contending about the true and lawful constitution
of the church, required in the communion not only of
the sacraments (which are the signs of profession) but
also especially of doctrine, Daniel [Daniel 9:27] and
Paul [2nd Thessalonians 2:4] foretold that Antichrist
would sit in the Temple of God. With us, it is the
Roman pontiff we make the leader and standard bearer
of that wicked and abominable kingdom. The fact that
his seat is placed in the Temple of God signifies that
his reign was not to be such as to wipe out either the
name of Christ or the church…But these he has
profaned by his sacrilegious impiety…corrupted and
well-nigh killed by his evil and deadly doctrines…In
them Christ lies hidden, half buried, the gospel
overthrown…I say that every one of their
congregations and their whole body lack the lawful
form of a Church.” 78

The great historian Rev. J. Wylie made this quite lucid observation on
the papacy’s assertion on being the Church of Christ, “It looks like a
church; it professes to have all that a church ought to have; and yet it is

78 J Calvin. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Book IV,page 45.

31
not a church.” And he went on to further state that it was nothing more
than a, “Grand deception; it is ‘the all deceivableness of
unrighteousness’.”
The Roman Papacy’s idea of the Church is contrary to that of
the True Church – a Church that embraces all believers eschews
worldly power and holds to the teachings of the Bible; it does not form
beliefs completely at odds with doctrine that it claims as its very
foundation. But this is not the only subject on which the Roman
Church and the Bible disagree, there are many, and we will look at
them each in turn later in this thesis. One of those will be our next
subject - that of papal infallibility and whether it is consistent with
God’s Holy Writ.

32
 Bibliography

Aland, Kurt and Barbara. The Text of the New Testament. Eerdmans,
Grand Rapids, 1987.
Augustine. The Works of. New Rochelle, New City Press, 1993.
Ayto. J. Bloomsbury Dictionary of Word Origins. Bloomsbury
Publishing, London, 2001.
Baigent. M. and Leigh. L. The Inquisition, Viking, London, 1999.
Bettenson. H. Documents of the Christian Church. Oxford
University Press Oxford, 1963.
Encyclopaedia Britannica. 2002 Deluxe Edition.
Calvin. J. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Ages Software,
Albany, 1998.
Campbell, Alan. Was Peter the First Pope. Open Bible Ministries,
Belfast, 1989.
Cassels. S. Christ And Antichrist. Ages Software, Albany, 1998.
Catechism of the Catholic Church: Complete and Unabridged.
Geoffrey Chapman, London, 1994.
Cornwall. J. Hitler’s Pope: The Secret History of Pius XII. Penguin,
London, 1999.
Davies, Norman. Europe a History. Oxford University Press, Oxford,
1987.
D’Aubigne. J. H. History of the 16th Century Reformation. Ages
Software, Albany, 1998
Denzinger. H. The Source Of Catholic Dogma. Herder Book Co, St
Louis, 1954.
Hardon. J. A. The Modern Catholic Dictionary, Doubleday & Co,
New York, 1966.
Kelly. J. The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford University Press,
Oxford, 1986.
Kauffman. T.F. Graven Bread. White Horse Publications, Huntsville,
1994.
MacPherson. H. The Jesuits in History. Open Bible Ministries,
Belfast, 1997.
M`Crie. T. Reformation in Spain. Ages Software, Albany, 1998
Neilly. S. Evangelicals and Catholics Together: Some Quotes And
Comments
Porcelli. B. Antichrist. Lamp Trimmers, El Paso, 2001.
Schaff. P. Walce H. Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers. Hendrickson
Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts,1995.
Strong. J. Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Hendrickson
Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts.
Tanner. M. Ireland’s Holy Wars. Yale University Press, London, 2001.
33
Webster. W. Roman Catholic Tradition: claims and Contradictions,
Christian Resources INC. 1999.
Wetzel. R. C. A Chronology of Biblical Christianity. Ages Software,
Albany, 1998
Wilde. Paul and Carolyn. A Look inside the Roman Catholic Church.
Heartfelt Ministries, Foley, 1999.
Williamson. G. I. Westminster Confession of Faith: For Study
Classes. The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company,
Philadelphia, 1964.
Wylie. J.A. History of Protestantism. Ages Software, Albany, 1998.
R.Zins. Romanism. White Horse Publications, Huntsville, 1994.
Vatican II : The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. Costello
Publishing, 1988.
Von Dollinger. J. H. The Pope and the Council. London, 1869.

34
35
36