|
|
|
Peter and the Popes of Rome The church of Rome is not apostolic because it does not teach what the apostles taught, it had added to the word of the apostles hundreds and hundreds of years later. Lets make what is now complicated simple…. The successors of the apostles claim the power of the apostles, where? It’s for their control of the people. Why did they decide that their church was to be built upon Peter, contrary to what Jesus said AND meant. Peter was not selected by Christ or the apostles to be the Vicar of Christ on earth (there are no references to this position in the Bible). All the apostles were equals. Paul never mentioned Peter with any special title as the Vicar or Pope, or above any of the other apostles. In fact when Paul rebuked Peter he did not mention any supremacy, Gal. 2:11. Peter never talked about any "successor" to himself. Peter never accepted reverence (Acts 10:25-26); (No man should, because Jesus explained to the apostle this is what the Gentiles do to rule, the unbelievers. Matt. 23:10-11 " Neither be ye called -masters; for one is your Master, Christ. He that is the greatest among you shall be your servant." The apostles were told to appoint another for Judas, NOT for Peter. In fact the application of Judas is more apropos, since he was the BETRAYER of Christ. Which is exactly what the Roman church that claims the name of Christ is doing. Peter himself was not ever called or recognized as a Pope but an elder among the elders, the apostles just one of the 12 apostles (Mt.10:1-2; Mk. 3:13-19; Lk. 6:13-16), he called himself a fellow elder, not THE elder of all, Peter did not consider himself superior to the other apostles (Mt. 18:18; 2 Cor.11:5;12:11). "Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John" (Acts 8:14). Not just Peter and notice they came from Jerusalem. Jesus did not say to Peter, I will build My church on YOU, as the church of Rome CHANGED The Scripture "upon this rock," the word explains to all who have spiritual understanding as the rock is Himself (Jesus) whom Peter confessed when he said, “Thou art Christ, the son of God” When was this so called infallibility given to Peter? He did not have it when he confessed him the on of Go, the Lord, and after the Lord said, "Get thee behind me, Satan!" It wasn’t his when Paul rebuked him for being a hypocrite. The Church of Rome says when he got the keys. He was given the keys first, but not only (Matt. 16:19).That same authority was given to all of the disciples in Matthew 18:18, and in John 20:23, along with pronouncing the forgiveness of sins. Catholics would not know this occurred unless they stop listening to their church and read the Bible on their own. So exactly when did Peter become infallible? What of when Peter put Christ on the same level with Moses and Elias: "Let us make here three tabernacles: one for you, and one for Moses, and one for Elias" (Matthew 17:4). Thinking the kingdom has come, when it was still future. God from heaven rebukes him who is to be called a pope by a counterfeit church, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear ye him " (verse 5). Rome has the church hear the Popes words instead of Gods beloved son, Jesus’ words. The bible teaches Jesus is the head of His church (Eph. 1:22-23; Col.1:19), because HE IS ETERNAL AS God and died to purchase the church. He is the head of the church. The apostle Matthew recorded that " all authority" was given to Him both "in heaven and on earth (Mt. 28:18-20), Not Just in heaven. Giving peter and his successors on earth century after century, this was Rome’s lie for control over a visible church. There is no record of Peter was ever Bishop of Rome, in Scripture or non- scripture., Eusebius of Caesaria, the church historian appointed under Constantine, does not mentions Peter as Bishop of Rome, much less pope he writes that Peter came to Rome "about the end of his days" and was crucified there. Rome made him to be the head of the church, for no other reason than to have a successive men from Rome having control over the church (AKA Constantine), it IS Ironic, that Rome killed him. No Bishop of Rome could possibly be his successor when not APPOINTED BY HIM. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons (178-200 AD), provided a list of the first 12 Bishops of Rome. Peter's name does not appear. Linus was named first. The Peter described in Scripture was a married man (1 Cor. 9:5; Matthew 8:14). Who was at times weak in faith, who denied the Lord Jesus three times (Mt. 26:69-75 was rebuked by the Lord (Mt. 16:23; Jn. 21:20-22). Peter was also rebuked by Paul (Gal. 2:11). Again I ask when did he become infallible? Peter and the other apostles, (not just Peter) wrote letters to preserve God’s -given revelation for the church for all time (2 Pet. 1:12-15; 3:1-2; Eph. 3:3-5.) Both Peter and Paul declared that Jesus was "the chief cornerstone" (Acts 4:12; Eph. 2:20) that the church was built upon. Neither Peter or any other disciple(s) were to be "the greatest in the kingdom" (Mt. 18:1-4; 20:20-28); rather, they were to be equals. Peter is spoken of along with the other apostles are to "sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Mt. 19:28). Why do the other apostles not recognize Peter as their chief apostle and Pope? Peter never had any of the many titles of the modern Popes (2 Peter 3:15) in the Bible he too wrote. The false authority of the Roman Catholic Church was made based on the teachings that Peter was the rock upon which the Church was built, a continuous line of popes through apostolic succession. It is actually built upon Rome’s state judicial and religious order starting with EMPEROR Constantine. Roman Catholic popes have for centuries Called themselves vicar of Christ inheriting both the title and position from Constantine. Yet All the Councils of the church, including Nicaea in the fourth century, before Constantine APPOINTED HIMSELF AS VICAR OF Rome, agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the church, that is, the Rock on which the church rests on. It cannot have two rocks. Why would Popes have the same power as the Apostle Peter, who was with and TAUGHT BY JESUS. Jesus at this time said, "My kingdom is not of this world,” that his servants, followers are not to fight." The popes, fought assembling armies in christ’s name. It is not until He returns does he take claim on earth to rule,but the Popes inserted themselves as ‘Christs’ on earth to claim jurisdiction over nations.If you read all the statements of the Pope’s, their kingdom was of this world. Pope Gregory IX (1227-41) stated the pope was lord and master of everyone and everything. Dave Hunt quotes, Historian R. W. Southern declared: " During the whole medieval period there was in Rome a single spiritual and temporal authority [the papacy] exercising powers which in the end exceeded those that had ever lain within the grasp of a Roman emperor." Ancient Rome only dreamed of such authority of Nations. Eventually an elite priestly order was set up in the church, a new religious system bearing only a small resemblance to the New Testament church THAT WAS first CENTERED IN Jerusalem. Popes, the very ones who forced celibacy on priests had mistresses, were guilty of incest producing innumerable children, some were murdered in the very act of adultery [by jealous husbands who found them in bed with their wives. As former priest Joseph Zachello writes, The church of Rome is not apostolic because it does not teach what the apostles taught, but it has substituted man-made dogmas and decrees for the pure teaching of the gospel. Their church promoters another, a different Jesus Their claim of God given authority gave them control over the nations as earthly rulers. Popes began to call assign to themselves titles as "supreme ruler of the world" and "king of kings." Then they claimed to be "God on earth," even the "redeemer" who "hung on the cross as Christ died for mankinds sin," claiming "Jesus” put them as equals. Later assigning this to Mary.
Pope Innocent the third: “He (the pope) judges all and is judged by no one.” Pope Boniface the eighth: “We declare, assert, define and pronounce: To be subject to the Roman pontiff is to every human creature altogether necessary for salvation.” “The Pope is Christ in office, Christ in jurisdiction and power . . . we bow down before thy voice, O Pius, as before the voice o f Christ, the God o f truth; in clinging to thee, we cling to Christ” (During the Vatican Council Jan. 9, 1870.) “The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, he is Jesus Christ himself , hidden under the veil of flesh.” (Catholic NationalJuly 1895.) How is this even possible? If one brings God’s word into this, Jesus is the Word made flesh, no one else. This another who comes in his name. Just as Jesus warned in Matthew 24. In a bull, edict, Sixtus V declares: 'The authority given to St. Peter and his successors, by the immense power of the eternal King, excels all the power of earthly kings and princes .” “Every cleric must obey the Pope, even if he commands what is evil; for no one may judge the Pope. -Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) The First See [Rome/papacy] is judged by no one. It is the right of the Roman Pontiff himself alone to judge... those who hold the highest civil office in a state.... There is neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman Pontiff. How can they be real successors? When they do not endorse or uphold the Word? To call any of these men "His Holiness, Vicar of Christ" is an oxymoron. Some popes were thieves and warmongers, mass murderers; some guilty of the massacre of thousands, even of those who followed Christ. The Popes, Vicars, and Father Questions on history… Why did more than one pope occupied "Peter's Chair" at one time, each claiming to be the one true, an infallible pope, the supreme head of the Church, and each using his alleged power to excommunicate the others. Pope Adrian VI (1522-3), who personally pronounced Pope Celestine III (1191-8) a heretic, declared that John XXII was only one in a long line of papal heretics that disagree with so many of their extra unbiblical doctrines Called traditions, as well as those that were biblical . The TITLE DEED of the Roman Church (list of Popes) is not very convincing especially from Scripture whom the church is based on: see Popes numbers 143, 144, 147, 187, 194, 196, 197, 207, 208 where there are two or three names. Innocent I (401-17) and Gelasius I (492-6) proclaimed that babies went straight to hell (not Purgatory) if they died, though baptized, before receiving communion. God’s “authority” is held by both their “infallible” pope/magisterium. They quote Scripture interpreted by them, so they become a mediator, the Holy Spirit to all their members. Cutting them off from the truth. As the infallible ruler[s] over the Church, extending to the world, not found in the writings of the early Fathers or Scripture. They rewrote history. They manufactured a historical document, The Donation of Constantine, after that it was pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, papal decrees allegedly compiled by Archbishop Isidore (560-636) but most see it produced as a fabrication in the ninth century. These fraudulent documents became the foundation for a "church tradition" that continues to \our day. A hundred concocted decrees allegedly from the earliest popes, along with counterfeit writings of supposed Church authorities and synods. Nicholas I (858-67) justified his claims that the popes "held the place of God on earth" with absolute authority over kings, including even the right to "command massacres" of those who opposed them-all in the name of Christ. Popes afterwards followed Nicholas’ actions to justify their own, building the concept on Infallibility. Dave Hunt points out, Church historian R.W. Thompson, himself a Catholic, writing in the nineteenth century comments: Such times as these were adapted to the practice of any kind of imposture and fraud which the popes and clergy considered necessary to strengthen the authority of the papacy.... the personal interest [and] ambition of Innocent III led him to preserve all these forgeries with care, so that ... the "pious fraud" might become sanctified by time. .. The result he hoped and sought for has been accomplished.... [These] false Decretals, which are now universally considered to have been bold and unblushing forgeries ... constitute the cornerstone of that enormous system of wrong and usurpation which has since been built up by the papacy, to revive which Pope Pius IX has now put forth his Encyclical and Syllabus [of Errors] As one looks deeper into their history of apostolic tradition" we find their TRADTIONS were manufactured, as fraudulent as the Pharisees. This line of traditions added century after century could not be broken for it would have the counterfeit authority of their church crumble. So they made it illegal to question. The list of popes contains numerous heretics who were denounced by councils and by later popes. Popes quarreled against each other, excommunicated one another, and sometimes even killed each other. Popes have anathematized other Popes, which means they are not infallible, not the one anathematizing, nor the one accused of heresy. |
|
