The speaker on this video is Richard Bennett, a former Roman Catholic priest. He knows what he’s talking about! There is another talk from Richard Bennett already on this website, The Cunning Genius of the Vatican Papal System, Part I

Transcription

Welcome to the program. We are going to address a topic that is quite difficult because it is truly startling. In June 2015, it was announced by the Vatican that it is warning people across the globe of the catastrophic global warming that is taking place and that it calls for an ethical and economic revolution. The Vatican insists that the destruction of the world’s ecological system calls for changes in lifestyle and energy consumption to avert unprecedented destruction of the planet before the end of the century. So the Vatican insists. And this command that goes out by the Vatican that energy is to be conserved and that everything is to be done so the planet is not destroyed by the end of the century is typical of the commands and instructions that the Vatican gives many times throughout history. It’s become so much a fact of life that people don’t notice that this church, which is also a civil system that dictates to the world. It’s become so accepted as it were.

This is not acceptable whatsoever. Actually, the whole system of the Catholic structure is so alarming that an exposure of its system is essential. And thus we have a Biblical and historical analysis of the system today in this video.

In dealing with the Papal System, we must remember that those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Many Christian people, indeed Evangelical churches, are totally ignorant of the genius of the Vatican procedures. And so I ask you to make this video known to your friends and family, and if possible, to have it displayed on Internet web pages. Have it displayed on web pages of friends you know or churches you know.

The world today is enamored by Pope Francis, whether it’s on television, the Internet, YouTube, or whether it’s a news item that you’re listening to on the radio. The world is enamored by Pope Francis. What people do not realize is the platform from which Francis speaks, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, his name when he was in Argentina, would be totally unknown to the world were it not for the Papal System, the platform from which he speaks, or the stage on which he acts.

The Papal System is unrivaled in the world. It’s massive, it’s institutional, it’s a religious system which is also a civil system. Yet it appears friendly and inviting. It’s immensely deceptive. It has immense wealth and worldwide dominion, and it dictates its faith to millions. In fact, on the books, there’s over a billion Catholics alone, besides the influence that the Papal System has on other people of the world. It’s the largest organization on Earth and it shows superb skill in all its endeavors.

The Papal System is an elitist bureaucratic machine. It is so powerful that even the pope himself must conform to what the system says or face consequences. An example of this is the murder of John Paul I in 1978, only 33 days after his election. Cardinal Ratzinger as he was called at the time said on Zenit, the Catholic news agency website, his death was totally unexpected. John Paul I seemed to enjoy good health, and Ratzinger should know because he had known him personally inside the Vatican.

And Ratzinger would have known because he was well versed in church history, he would have known of the abnormal deaths of many other popes. For example, other popes were murdered besides John Paul I, and I would recommend David Yallop’s book, In God’s Name: An Investigation Into the Murder of Pope John Paul I (1984). That book has been well known and still sells very well, even as secondhand copies.

But there are other murders. For example, in history, Stephen VII, in 897 AD, he died, he was strangled to death.
And Stephen IX in 972 AD was mutilated.
And then we have John the XII in 964 AD, he was murdered.
And Benedict VI was strangled in 974.
And John XIV in 984 AD was starved to death.
Gregory V, in 999 AD was poisoned.
Clement II, in 1047 AD also was poisoned.
Damasus II, 1048, murdered.
Pope Pius XI, 1939 was allegedly assassinated.
Later in 2013, Ratzinger then Pope Benedict XVI appears to have been forced to resign or else face the consequences.

So it’s interesting, that even the popes themselves are dictated to by the system. Very few people realize this. These historical deaths of murders and strangulation and poisoning of popes in previous times are quite interesting.

We now must see some more history, we must have an overview of the history of the Papal System.

In the fourth and fifth centuries, great persecutions against Christians were over, and Emperor Constantine made Christianity the religion of the Roman Empire. And thus at this time the Gospel was watered down, and practices were accumulated into what was called the Church that were really Pagan practices and some Gnostic speculations. The true worship of God and the inner conviction of the Holy Spirit, and walking in step with the Holy Spirit, knowing the personal love of the Father in salvation in Christ, these things were replaced by worldliness and a worldly system of externalized rituals. And so gradually what had been Christian became more and more devoid of authentic spiritual experience.

We had true churches at the time such as the Vaudois, quite well known in history. The Vaudois had to flee Rome and go to the Alps to Northern Italy, going into France. The Vaudois, later known as the Waldensians after Peter Waldo, one of the more famous of the Vaudois. They were real Christian people. And they saw that this system that was growing was not Christianity. Later on, they were persecuted by the Church of Rome. And some of those horrific persecutions were the Pope sent forth armies to destroy those people. It is a really sad history.

We also had the Paulician churches at that time, true Christian churches. They realized what was growing in Rome and having its influence on other parts of the world from Rome was not biblical. It was a system that became in time a persecutor of those who were true Christians. And that is the whole story in itself, and we’ll touch on that later on.

At the beginning of the New Testament times the Gospel had produced internal unity. The fellowship of believers is wonderful when you’re in a Christian assembly and you know Christ Jesus the Lord, and you partake of the fellowship of brothers and sisters in the Lord. It’s a wonderful experience. It’s not only an experience of the presence of God in your midst as you praise and worship Him in Christ Jesus by the power of the Spirit, but the fellowship of the believers who are the body of Christ, it is as it were Christ, is as it were tangible as you meet the Believers in the fellowship of the believers. It is just wonderful. But this now was replaced in what was becoming the Roman system by an institutionalized and external unity, but with no internal spiritual experience.

And then there grew up in this system a clergy/laity division. Soon it was that the people the lycos (spelling?), which means the people of God in Greek, they were not just the people of God. One of the people was maybe an elder, learning to lead the people of God. There became a split, there was a ruling class, a clergy, and the lower class, the laity. And so it was that we had men who were later to call themselves priests lording it over the people who were under them. These men calling themselves priests began to mediate between God and the people. And so the fellowship of the believers no longer existed. In the system, it was an external unity. It was now dominated by men who were called bishops and priests. And so it was that this system developed.

In the year 330, those of you who know history know that the emperor Constantine moved the seat of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople. And so Rome no longer had the leadership of the Empire. The emperor, who was as it were the Caesar, going back to the Caesars, the emperor was now taking the place of Caesar, but it no longer had the emperor in Rome. And this created as it were a vacuum, that there was no authority figure in Rome. There was a foothold set as if it were for this system to come in with its head, the bishop of Rome, to become the dictator as it were in Rome. And so it was in the system, the bishop of Rome, and those under him called priests lording over the people underneath them, became the religion of the city of Rome.

If you know anything about history, you know that the barbarians, hordes of barbarians like the Vandals, were coming into Rome. The bishop of Rome would call upon these barbarians not to do vandalism, not to devastate the city, but to be welcomed into the city, and they would be welcomed also into what they called the Christian Church which was not Christian. They were welcomed as they were, just as they were, into the Church. They were baptized and accepted into the System. And so we had many of those barbarians now accepted as if they were Christians with no change of life, baptized by a ritual that was purely symbolic with no inner meaning. The barbarians had their names inscribed in the registers, a custom going back many years and is still in the Catholic Church. They always have a record of the names of those who have been baptized. It’s amazing how far back that goes. Even the barbarians had their names written down that they were accepted into what was becoming the Church of Rome, the Roman System.

And so we have on the ruins of what was the Empire, the emperor himself now being in Constantinople and the bishop of Rome taking authority and acting as if he had not just religious power but civil power.

Beginning then also in the fifth century and developed throughout the succeeding centuries was what is called sacramentalism, that is rituals called sacraments that are believed to have the power to make people Christian. In the first place, baptism is supposed to make you a Christian. When the priest pours water on your head and declares I baptize you in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, he then says that you are a Christian. I know I did that for years when I was a Catholic priest. I did that with adults and of course with babies in Trinidad, West Indies. You declare that the person is a Christian because you poured water on their head. And then you inscribe their name into the registers. This was the beginning of sacramentalism.

It is interesting in the New Testament the glorious message of the Apostle Peter speaks about being born again, not of corruptible seed but of incorruptible, by the Word of God who lives and abides forever. We are born again when we are convicted that we’re sinners by the written Word of Truth in the Scriptures, and the Holy Spirit convicts us, and we’re brought to new birth, and we accept Christ as our Savior by God’s grace alone. That is the wonderful thing, a real change, a spiritual birth being born again in the words of the Apostle Peter. But this (sacramentalism), is a claiming that people are born again to a ritual. And this is the same in modern-day Catholicism.

I’d like you to see on your screen the official teaching of the Catholic church at the present time from the code of canon law. I quote from Canon 849.

Baptism, the gateway to the sacraments and necessary for salvation by actual reception or at least by desire, is validly conferred only by a washing of true water with the proper form of words. Through baptism men and women are freed from sin, are reborn as children of God, and, configured to Christ by an indelible character, are incorporated into the Church.

The system dares to say that men and women are born again by washing of true water. No water, water does not convey the grace of God. It’s directly in Christ by the Spirit of God. It’s not physical water. But this is the teaching of the Catholic Church and is still the teaching and what they did back then with the barbarians as they were accepted in the early centuries into the Catholic church.

And so in the late fifth century, men calling themselves priests presumed to mediate between God and man! The Papal System began to have its sacraments necessary for salvation. The Scripture says there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. In the Scriptures, it’s abundantly clear. But the Papal System claims that it has its mediators the priests, and they operate by the sacraments.

And I’d like you to see again on your screen the exact quotation from the official catechism of the Catholic church, and it’s paragraph 1129:

1129 The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Savior.

And there are actually seven of them mentioned necessary for salvation. You must have these rituals. What did Paul and Silas say to the jailkeeper when he, the jail keeper, said: “What must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe on the Lord Jesus and thou shall be saved, thou and thy family.” It wasn’t any rituals that Paul and Silas recommended, it was believing on the Lord Jesus Christ.

You see how horrific the system is. The present Pope is obedient to obey the Catholic Church to purport that life comes through the sacraments. I’d like to give a recent example of this on Sunday, May 3rd, 2015. Pope Francis obeying the Vatican’s guiding policy regarding the sacraments said the following:

Jesus is the vine, and through Him we are the branches. And through this parable Jesus wants to make us understand the importance of remaining united to Him, grafted by baptism in Christ, we have freely received from him the gift of new life, and are able to remain in vital communion with Christ. We must remain faithful to baptism, and grow in friendship with the Lord through prayer, listening, and docility to His Word, reading the Gospel, and participation in the sacraments, especially the Eucharist and Reconciliation.

The last two sacraments, the Eucharist, which is the Mass, and Reconciliation is the sacrament of forgiveness that used to be called confession. These are necessary for salvation. (According to the Pope.) And there Francis is telling you what sacraments you should do to have life.

No ritual of any church gives life. It’s only trusting on Christ Jesus the Lord praise His name! Praise His name that it works! These rituals don’t work. And it’s so sad to see countries that have the majority of Roman Catholics in them in the system not living Godly lives.

And now we continue to go back in history to the sixth century with the system, just how it was developing. The emperor Justinian I who lived as Emperor from 527 to 565 AD. He was the one more than anyone else to establish the supremacy of the bishop of Rome as the head of the system. He did this in a formal and legal manner by bringing purely ecclesiastical edicts and regulations under civil law, at the time Roman civil law. And this we have from the historian Le Roy Edwin Froom.

Justinian’s great achievement was the regulation of ecclesiastical and theological matters crowned the Imperial by the Imperial decretal letter seating the bishop of Rome and the church as the head of all the holy churches, thus laying the legal foundation for papal ecclesiastical supremacy. The emperor Justinian’s decree did not create the office of the pope. Rather, it laid the legal foundation for the advancement of ruling power by the bishop of Rome.

The emperor wished to allay the demise of the Empire. Thus, the ecclesiastical unity was imposed. Consequently, the bishop of Rome, the head of the Roman Empire’s Church, became its head, and the title Pope began to fit the one who sat as the bishop of Rome, and now free to use the civil sword in coercion as did the Emperors before him. All of this was given by Justinian’s decree.

Thus it was that civil power came into the grasp of what was the papacy, the Roman system. The power of the system grew, and so did the immorality of the men and women under the System and under its control. If you read the histories of the church, you see how utterly depraved was not only the man who ran the system, and the popes totally immoral themselves, but also the people under its control. And historically, if you know anything about history, there was a turn and that turn came in the year 1073. It was the turning point in the Papal System.

A man came to power called Gregory VII. He was still known by the name he had before he was elected Pope Hilderbrand, and he’s often called Hilderbrand in history books, he’s well known in history books. And the year 1073 is well known in history books because it was a total turnaround of the System. The immorality was to go, strict laws were imposed on people. Priests were no longer even to be married let alone have many wives, and the same with bishops. They were now commanded to be celibate for their whole life. This was the beginning of celibacy in the Roman Catholic system that still goes to the present day under Pope Gregory VII, Hilderbrand. He was ambitious beyond all who went before him. He was so ambitious that he saw the reign of the Pope as God’s Reign on Earth. Gregory envisaged what was to become the Roman structure in power and authority with a supreme ruler who had civil rule besides religious rule, and has enormous wealth. That’s what he envisaged. It didn’t take place all together under his own rule which just went from 1073 to 1085, but popes afterwards developed it.

The most well-known were Pope Innocent III from 1198 to 1216, and Boniface VIII from 1294 to 1303. They put the final touches to the Pope’s spiritual and temporal power.

Probably the most well-known of all and you’ll see a picture of him on your screen is Pope Innocent III. He proclaimed a crusade, a war against the Albigenses in what now is France. This war was perpetrated with unimaginable cruelty. Thousands were evicted from their cities and towns and slaughtered. Others were burnt at the stake. Others were tortured with horrendous tortures. And so we have the beginning of what was to be the Inquisition. This war that Innocent III perpetrated right across France. And the Albigenses, if you read the history of the early church, you see that they were really truly really truly believers going back to Albi itself, still a city in France to the present day but no semblance at all of Christian Life in Albi. It’s just Romanism. Romanism obliterated true Christianity that had been right across France before that. It is horrific true history.

I have traced that in other videos that I’ve made. I’ve traced all of that horrendous history particularly as I’ll be mentioning later on in the Inquisition video.

And now we have Boniface VIII. He was stubborn, ambitious, intelligent, vain, and unscrupulous. He believed that the pope was literally the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and held extraordinary power, and anyone who opposed the pope opposed God. That was the mindset of Boniface VIII. He is well known for his statement, and you find it easy online if you have a computer, “Unam sanctam” the words of the decree of Boniface the VIII.

“We declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature, that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman pontiff.”

So to be Christian you must be subject to the Roman pontiff. That was the decree of this evil man, Boniface VIII.

And 75 popes one after the other from Innocent III to Pope Pius VII approved of torture, murder, burning at the stake, and confiscation of property of believers through the six centuries. Actually, it was 605 years of the Inquisition. It wasn’t just believers, it was also Jews who were also tortured and burnt at the stake.

The Knight’s Templar was an order within the Catholic church that had rebelled against the Catholic Church. They were also tortured and brought to the stake. But principally, believers were persecuted.

And I ask you to look at the video that we have made on the Inquisition, called the Catholic Inquisition, and the torture tools. It is graphic in showing the actual pictures of torture. You can still find them in museums in Europe, and we got pictures of the actual tortures, and the torture implements, some of them are horrific to look at. And we got some video footage made professionally, with due permission, showing what it was like to be burnt at the stake or tortured by the Church of Rome. And all of that is in that video.

I would ask if you have children watching it that you really get them ready beforehand or you might think it’s not suitable when you see the torture and you see what the believers went through and others, Jews, Knights Templars, it’s horrific. But that’s a video that must be seen, the horrendous System.

The glorious Reformation of the 16th century brought a change, and that you would know. Biblical faith was restored, and the rights of people were restored. It was the first time that nations really became nations. It was after the Reformation that we got the nation-states really set up, and we had great men preaching the true Gospel of Christ. It was amazing what happened at the Reformation, such as Martin Luther at Wittenberg, Erasmus and John Colet at Oxford, Hugh Latimer, Thomas Cartwright at Cambridge, William Farel at Paris and later on John Calvin and leaders of the Reformation were highly trained men such as Bees (?) and Tindale. They ranked as men of letters.

The Reformation was a glorious awakening. And man did it retard the Papal System! The Papal System was for the most part taken out of some of the nations. And it’s amazing when you study how much biblical true faith grew! It was like the time of Pentecost all over again. The true Gospel was preached, and nations were freed so that men and women could live as Christians. It was a wonderful experience for even the children at the time of the Reformation could tell you that faith is based on the truth of Scripture alone. A man or woman is saved by grace alone, through faith alone, and In Christ alone, unto God only be the glory! Even children could give you those five biblical principles of the Reformation! At the time of the Reformation so great was the transformation that men and women and even children could give you the basis for the Gospel message, the five principles of the Reformation.

The known world at the time was changed, and glorious change it was. The remnant of that change comes down to the present day. But there was a horrific response of the System, primarily through the Jesuits. The Jesuits in a uncompromising and sometimes militant manner restored the Roman System to the position it held during the Reformation.

I have made a video on this alone, the horrific success that the Papal System had in Poland, with Peter Samski who is a Polish man. We had a video made showing the history of the Christian church in Poland, and how it was restored at the Reformation. And then the Jesuits come in and they take over the kings and princes of Poland at the time, and the educational facilities. And they totally practically, not 100%, but nearly 100%, wiped out biblical faith in Poland. (The land of my grandparents. If it weren’t for the Jesuits, I might have been raised a Protestant.)

It breaks one’s heart when one sees what Poland is today. To think that it had a religious transformation and then was obliterated by the Jesuits. The Jesuits did similar work, not so horrifically, but in other nations right across Europe. Their design was to undermine people’s confidence in the Bible and to extirpate the effects of the Reformation. The Jesuits were the Papal System’s most forceful tool to bring back Europe under the thumb and rule of the Papal System. And they succeeded in doing that in many of the Christian nations.

And it is really sad to see just how successful they have been as the Jesuits have continued into the present day, evangelicals and Catholics together. The second part of that was a System trying to say that evangelicals and Catholics could work together was diabolical in its intellectual ability to twist the minds of men and women to believe In a System that it was equal to the biblical System. I have a whole video made on that as well. It’s horrific to see what the Jesuits did, but they continue to do it.

On June 1, 2015, again a Jesuit, and the Jesuit is none other than Pope Francis, he was a Jesuit before he ever became Pope and he still is a Jesuit, the man who calls himself Pope Francis.

Now we have definite lessons to learn from these historical facts that we have gone over. With the demise of the Roman empire in the year 537, Justinian I gave legal power to what was to become the Church of Rome. It was very successful for many centuries coming up to the 16th century when it was really cut back by the power of the Gospel as it went forth at the time of the Reformation. But in the 20th century, it has come back strongly again. And through the ecumenical movements joining the Catholic church together with all other so-called Christian churches, it’s beginning to rule again and bring more again into our midst the mystery of iniquity. And so people are accustomed, say on Easter Sunday, to see the pope elevated on St Peter’s Square as if he were the head of Christianity dictating his message to the world. It’s the same on Christmas day. All television stations, and all radio programs go to Rome, and it is as if this is Christianity. When news is to be given, it’s always news of the System. It’s not true Christianity.

The mystery of iniquity in deceivableness of all unrighteousness is seen in the present-day world. You just have to turn on your television on Easter Sunday, or on Christmas Day, or on many Sundays of the world as this man parades his ignorance across the face of the world – Pope Francis claiming that sacraments give life. This is the horrors. It is accepted, and its dictates are accepted even in the secular world. And you find that radio stations and so-called Christian groups accept this System as if this is the archetype of Christianity. It’s the contrary. It’s what’s called the Antichrist in Scripture. And it is horrendous.

So you must know about this. This is why I appeal to you to make this video known because people must know the historical facts that we have presented in this video. You can trace historically exactly what I have said. It is accurate historically and can be verified in the annals of history.

Now the great thing for you and for me is that Christ Jesus Himself still reigns, He reigns in righteousness. Those wonderful words given at the very beginning of the book of Hebrews:

Hebrews 1:1-3 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

You can feel the wonder of that, the reality of the person of Christ Jesus. He is the person who reigns. He is the person who reigns victorious over sin and death. He is the person that Paul and Silas pointed the jailkeeper to in Acts 16, “Believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved, you and your household.” It’s the same message. It is He who purged our sins. It is He who summarizes, in a nutshell, the Gospel message, that He gives life, and life everlasting, that whoever believes on Him has everlasting life as he says, and does not pass in his sins unto the second death, but comes to new life as he believes on Him, the Wonder of it all.

As Scripture says, “Neither is there salvation in any other. There is none other name under Heaven given among men whereby we must be saved.” The Scripture says in the Psalm the wonderful words, “Who have I in heaven but thee? There is none other on earth I desire besides thee.” Ultimately it’s the Lord Jesus Christ. Look to the Lord Jesus Christ, and if you see in His glorious resurrection, in His perfect life, if you see and are convicted by your own sin because we’ve all sin and fall short of the glory of God. Know that many others including myself have seen that before you. And cry out to Him for the faith and the grace and He will give it to you, and you will know what it is truly to be born again by the Spirit! True Life, true life is by the Spirit, and men and women are changed! Go to any Bible-believing church and see men and women praising God, obviously, their lives are changed, and see the fellowship of Believers. It is a glory to His Name. We just thank God for that.

And we have the words of Christ Jesus too, and they are frightening words where Christ Jesus said, “Not every one that says unto me Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven but he who does the will of My Father which is in heaven. It’s not by saying Jesus is my Lord and Jesus is my Savior, and going through the rituals of the Mass and through the rituals of any church that does not know the true Gospel. It’s not by any false message. It’s by the true Gospel message: Believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved. This is the work of God that you believe on Him whom He has sent. Christ Jesus Himself said this is the work of God. It’s God’s work. But it’s you who believe. It’s wonderful, and it works. It changes you and you know that you’re born again, and it is a joy.

I think one of the greatest joys I have is when I hear from people like you watching this video that the Lord has moved in your life. Not just to see this horrendous System and to come out of it, that’s good enough joy, and I thank I’ll thank you for getting that message as you email me and my email address will be given on your screen, but the joy of knowing everlasting life, and the joy of being born again by the Spirit. There’s no greater joy than that. And in this world, there are few joys that warm my own heart when I read the emails that I get from listeners like you, that their lives have been touched, and that they’ve been born again. It is truly in the words of Peter, in First Peter, joy unspeakable and full of glory, praise God! It really is. It is delightful.

And so we say a word of praise at the end, to the praise and glory of his grace whereby He has made us acceptable in the beloved. That is the words of Scripture.

2 Corinthians 5:17  Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Praise God! All things are made new! And may that be so for you. And I thank God it will be for many as you listen to this program. And may God be glorified now and forever more. All praise, all glory, all worship, all honor, be to Him now and forever more, amen and amen.

Pope Francis engaging in idol worship.

This article is about the history of errors by the Church of Rome, written by George Burnside. I didn’t agree with one of his points and omitted it, the one about “Sunday worship.” The Bible tells me that the disciples met on the first day of the week – Sunday. The Sabbath was the last day of the week.

Acts 20:7  And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, …

There may be other points in this article you find questionable. If so, please tell me about it in the comments section.

Errors continue to this day. I just read on Facebook of a man speaking as if he were God saying, “I will not cast unbelievers into hell.” He doesn’t read his Bible. My Bible says,

John 3:36  He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

200 AD
Immersion of infants who are dying, but considered sinless. (Tertullian V.12)

250 AD
North Africa region is first to practice infant baptism and reduced the age of baptism from minors to all newborns. This is opposed by other regions.

257 AD
Baptism by sprinkling for adults instead of immersion first used as an exception for those on sick beds, but it caused great dispute.

300 AD
Prayers for the dead.

320 AD
Special dress code of the clergy in worship.

325 AD
At the general council of Nice, 325, it was proposed indeed, probably by the Western bishop Hosius, to forbid entirely the marriage of priests; but the motion met with strong opposition, and was rejected.

325 AD
The date for Easter was set.

379 AD
Praying to Mary & Saints. (prayers of Ephraim Syrus)

385 AD
In the West, the first prohibition of clerical marriage, which laid claim to universal ecclesiastical authority, proceeded in 385 from the Roman church in the form of a decretal letter of the bishop Siricius to Himerius, bishop of Tarragona in Spain.

389 AD
Mariolatry begins with Gregory Nazianzen, who mentions in a eulogy, how Justina had besought the virgin Mary to protect her virginity.

400 AD
Impossibility of apostasy or once saved always saved, (Augustine XII.9).

416 AD
Infant baptism by immersion commanded of all infants (Council Of Mela, Austin was the principal director).

430 AD
Exhalation of Virgin Mary: “Mother of God” first applied by the Council of Ephesus.

502 AD
Special dress code of the Clergy all the time.

500 AD
The “Habit” of Nuns (Black gowns with white tunics).

519 AD
Lent.

526 AD
Extreme Unction.

593 AD
The Doctrine of Purgatory popularized from the Apocrypha by Gregory the Great.

600 AD
First use of Latin in worship (Gregory I) Beginning of the Orthodox/Roman Catholic church as we know it today in its present organization.

607 AD
First Pope: Boniface III is the first person to take the title of “universal Bishop” by decree of Emperor Phocas.

608 AD
Pope Boniface IV. turns the Pantheon in Rome into a temple of Mary ad martyres: the pagan Olympus into a Christian heaven of gods.

709 AD
Kissing of Pope Constantine’s feet.

753 AD
Baptism by sprinkling for those on sick beds officially accepted.

787 AD
Worship of icons and statue approved (2nd council of Nicea).

787 AD
Rome (Latin) and Constantinople (Greek) part ways and begin the drift towards complete split, resulting in two denominations emerging in 1054 AD
.

965 AD
Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII.

850 AD
Burning of Holy Candles.

995 AD
Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV.

998 AD
Good Friday: fish only and the eating-red meat forbidden.

1009 AD
Holy water.

1022 AD
Penance.

1054 AD
Roman Catholic church breaks away from the Orthodox church.

1054 AD
Roman Catholics officially embrace instrumental music, Orthodox reject instrumental music down to the present time.

1079 AD
Celibacy enforced for priests, bishops, presbyters (Pope Gregory VII).

1090 AD
Rosary beads: invented by Peter the Hermit.

1190 AD
Sale of Indulgences or “tickets to sin” (punishment of sin removed).

1215 AD
Transubstantiation by Pope Innocent III, Fourth Lateran Council.

1215 AD
Auricular Confession of sins to priests instituted by Pope Innocent III, (Lateran Council).

1215 AD
Mass a Sacrifice of Christ.

1217 AD
Adoration and Elevation of Host: ie. communion bread (Pope Honrius III).

1230 AD
Ringing bells at Mass.

1251 AD
The Scapular, the brown cloak worn by monks invented by Simon Stock.

1268 AD
Priestly power of absolution.

1311 AD
Baptism by sprinkling accepted as the universal standard instead of immersion for all, not just the sick. (Council of Ravenna)

1414 AD
Laity no longer offered Lord’s cup at communion. (Council of Constance)

1439 AD
Purgatory a dogma by the Council of Florence. (see 593 AD)

1439 AD
Doctrine of Seven Sacraments affirmed.

1480 AD
The Inquisition. (of Spain)

1495 AD
Papal control of marriage rights.

1534 AD
Order of Jesuits founded by Loyola.

1545 AD
Man-made tradition of church made equal to Bible. (Council of Trent)

1545 AD
Apocryphal books added to Bible. (Council of Trent)

1546 AD
Justification by human works of merit.

1546 AD
Mass universally said in Latin. (see 600 AD)

1547 AD
Confirmation.

1560 AD
Personal opinions of Pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed.

1864 AD
Syllabus Errorum [Syllabus of Errors] proclaimed that “Catholic countries” could not tolerate other religions, (no freedom of religion), conscience, separation of church and State condemned, asserted the Pope’s temporal authority over all civil rulers (Ratified by Pope Pius IX and Vatican Council) condemned.

1870 AD
Infallibility of Pope. (Vatican council)

1908 AD
All Catholics should be christened into the church.

1930 AD
Public Schools condemned by Pope Pius XII. (see 1864 AD)

1950 AD
Sinners prayer, invented by Billy Sunday and made popular by Billy Graham. (Some Catholics now use this.)

1950 AD
Assumption of the body of the Virgin Mary into heaven shortly after her death. (Pope Pius XII)

1954 AD
Immaculate conception of Mary proclaimed by Pope Pius XII.

1995 AD
The use of girls in the traditional altar boy duties.

1996 AD
Catholics can believe in Evolution. (Pope John Paul II)

Can Roman Catholics Accept The Bible?

• 1. Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matthew 23:5-6).
• 2. Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
• 3. Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
• 4. Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Galatians 4:9-11).
• 5. Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Corinthians 1:2).
• 6. Why does it condemn the making and adoration of images? (Exodus 20:4-5).
• 7. Why does it teach that baptism is immersion instead of pouring? (Colossians 2:12).
• 8. Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as “father”? (Matthew 23:9).
• 9. Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Corinthians 3:11).
• 10. Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Timothy 2:5).
• 11. Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Timothy 3:2, 4-5).
• 12. Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
• 13. Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
• 14. Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?

Reasons Why The Apocrypha Is Not Inspired:

1. The Roman Catholic Church did not officially canonize the Apocrypha until the Council of Trent (1546 AD). This was in part because the Apocrypha contained material which supported certain Catholic doctrines, such as purgatory, praying for the dead, and the treasury of merit.

2. Not one of them is in the Hebrew language, which was alone used by the inspired historians and poets of the Old Testament.

3. Not one of the writers lays any claim to inspiration.

4. These books were never acknowledged as sacred Scriptures by the Jewish Church, and therefore were never sanctioned by our Lord.

5. They were not allowed a place among the sacred books, during the first four centuries of the Christian Church.

6. They contain fabulous statements, and statements which contradict not only the canonical Scriptures, but themselves; as when, in the two Books of Maccabees, Antiochus Epiphanes is made to die three different deaths in as many different places.

7. The Apocrypha inculcates doctrines at variance with the Bible, such as prayers for the dead and sinless perfection.

8. The apocrypha contains offensive materials unbecoming of God’s authorship.

Ecclesiasticus 25:19 Any iniquity is insignificant compared to a wife’s iniquity.

Ecclesiasticus 25:24 From a woman sin had its beginning. Because of her we all die.

Ecclesiasticus 22:3 It is a disgrace to be the father of an undisciplined, and the birth of a daughter is a loss.

9. It teaches immoral practices, such as lying, suicide, assassination and magical incantation.

10. The apocryphal books themselves make reference to what we call the Silent 400 years, where there was no prophets of God to write inspired materials.

12. The Manual of Discipline in the Dead Sea Scrolls rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

13. The Council of Jamnia held the same view rejected the apocrypha as inspired.

14. Although it was occasionally quoted in early church writings, it was nowhere accepted in a canon. Melito (AD 170) and Origen rejected the Apocrypha, (Eccl. Hist. VI. 25, Eusebius) as does the Muratorian Canon.

15. Jerome vigorously resisted including the Apocrypha in his Latin Vulgate Version (400 AD
), but was overruled. As a result, the standard Roman Catholic Bible throughout the medieval period contained it. Thus, it gradually came to be revered by the average clergyman. Still, many medieval Catholic scholars realized that it was not inspired.

16. The terms “protocanonical” and “deuterocanonical” are used by Catholics to signify respectively those books of Scripture that were received by the entire Church from the beginning as inspired, and those whose inspiration came to be recognized later, after the matter had been disputed by certain Fathers and local churches.

17. Pope Damasus (366-384) authorized Jerome to translate the Latin Vulgate. The Council of Carthage declared this translation as “the infallible and authentic Bible.” Jerome was the first to describe the extra 7 Old Testament books as the “Apocrypha” (doubtful authenticity). Needless to say, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate did not include the Apocrypha.

18. Cyril (born about A.D. 315) – “Read the divine Scriptures – namely, the 22 books of the Old Testament which the 72 interpreters translated” (the Septuagint)

19. The apocrypha wasn’t included at first in the Septuagint, but was appended by the Alexandrian Jews, and was not listed in any of the catalogues of the inspired books till the 4th century.

20. Hilary (bishop of Poictiers, 350 A.D.) rejected the apocrypha (Prologue to the Psalms, Sec. 15)

21. Epiphanius (the great opposer of heresy, 360 A.D.) rejected them all. Referring to Wisdom of Solomon & book of Jesus Sirach, he said “These indeed are useful books & profitable, but they are not placed in the number of the canonical.”

By Jesse C. Stevens, 1923

THE Roman Catholic Church claims that Christ made the apostle Peter His successor, His vicar, or vicegerent, the visible and infallible head of the church, with power to bequeath that office to his successors; that he was given power and authority over all the other apostles and over the entire church; that Christ built His church upon Peter, and delivered unto him the keys of the kingdom of heaven. She claims that Peter was the first bishop of the church in the city of Rome, and that therefore all this privilege and power was handed down in succession to all the bishops or popes of that imperial city.

Scriptural Basis of the Claim

This claim, in so far as the Bible is concerned, is based upon the three following passages of Scripture:

1. “When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that Thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. He said unto them, But whom say you that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven. 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. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:13-19.

2. “The Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou are converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Luke 22:31, 32.

3. “So when they had dined, Jesus said to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, love thou Me more than these? He said unto Him, Yea, Lord; Thou knows that I love Thee. He said unto him, Feed My lambs. He said to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, love thou Met He said unto Him, Yea, Lord; Thou knows that I love Thee. He said unto him, Feed My sheep. He said unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, love thou Met Peter was grieved because He said unto him the third time, Love thou Me? And he said unto Him, Lord, Thou knows all things; Thou knows that I love Thee. Jesus said unto him, Feed My sheep.” John 21:15-17.

Gospel, Acts, and Epistles the Only Authorities

This far-reaching claim in behalf of Peter and his successors demands a careful and critical examination; and the first evidence to be considered is naturally found in the New Testament. What, if any thing, was conferred upon Peter by Christ’s words? What privilege, if any, did Peter possess that the other apostles did not have? First of all, the Gospels, the Acts, and the Epistles necessarily contain the means of ascertaining what Peter enjoyed and exercised by virtue of Christ’s words:

“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. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 16:18, 19.

Very shortly after Christ said these words to Peter, the Savior bestowed upon the other apostles, and likewise upon the whole church, the power of binding and loosing. He said:

“Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if lie shall hear thee, thou has gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hour them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to bear the church, lot him be unto thee as a heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matthew 18:15-18.

It is apparent, therefore, that the words in Matthew 18:19, con corning binding and loosing, do not constitute an especial privilege of Peter. They plainly put no difference between him and the other apostles.

Peter Beneath the Other Apostles

The second passage, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren,” seems to place Peter beneath the other apostles. All of them were to be tried, but Peter’s fall and denial of his Lord are alone foretold. The worst sin of the others was that they would be offended because of Christ, and cowardly flee. Peter would therefore stand in greater need of conversion than the others, and when that necessary change should take place, he was to strengthen his brethren who had not fallen as he bad, to save them, no doubt, from filling as he had done. Certainly to strengthen them by confession of his weakness in denying the Lord, is not suggestive of exercising authority over them.

Peter’s Privilege Not Above Other Apostles

The words in the third passage, “Feed My sheep,” most certainly confer no privilege upon Peter above the other apostles. The privilege of feeding the sheep was conferred upon even the local elders of the church. The apostle Paul, addressing, at Miletus, the elders of the church of Ephesus, said, “Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which He hath purchased with His own blood.” Acts 20:28.

And the apostle Peter himself gave a similar exhortation: “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, you shall receive a crown of glory that fades not away.” 1 Peter 5:1-4.

Hence when Christ said to Peter, “Feed My sheep,” these words bestowed upon him no privilege that was not given to the other apostles, and to the elders of all the churches.

The Kingdom of Heaven Defined

Now, in all reason, if Christ, when He said to Peter, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” etc., meant to give Peter primacy over all the other apostles, making Peter His vicar, as the Catholic Church claims, we would certainly be justified in expecting that this fact would be revealed in our Savior’s words and actions after the utterance of these words to Peter, and also in the words and actions of the other apostles. What do we find?

A very little while after these words were spoken, the disciples came to Jesus, asking, “Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” Matthew 18:l. Often in the book of Matthew, the expression, “the kingdom of heaven,” refers, not to the heaven where God’s throne is, but to Christ’s church on earth, in which is represented His kingdom. It is so used several times in the thirteenth of Matthew: “The kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind” (verse 47); “The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a wan which sowed good seed in his field” (verse 24). If Peter had been made the visible head of the church, the vicegerent of Christ, why did the apostles ask this question, “Who is the greatest?” Did they not know that Peter had been made the greatest? Evidently not.

“It Shall Not Be So Among You”

Again, a little later, Peter said to the Master, “Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed Thee; what shall we have therefore?” And Jesus said to them, “You which have followed Me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of His glory, you also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” Matthew 19:27, 28. In these words Christ placed all the apostles on an equality.

There is no intimation here that Peter’s throne would be exalted above those of the others. It was not long after this that John and James came with their mother to the Master, asking that one of them might Bit on His right hand and the other on His left in the kingdom that they thought He was going to establish. In Eastern kingdoms the two principal ministers of state, ranking next in authority to the monarch, were styled the vizier of the right and the vizier of the left. These were the positions for which John and James were asking.

What was Christ’s answer to their request? If the Roman Catholic claim were true, Christ’s answer should have been that He had given the right-hand place to Peter, and that He did not intend creating a left-hand place. But what He did say was to declare in the plainest language that no one of them was to exercise authority over the others. We read: “When the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren. But Jesus called them unto Him, and said, You know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them, but it shall not be so among you.” (See Matthew 20:20-26; Mark 10:35-43.)

There is more evidence of the same kind in our Savior’s words to the disciples, recorded in Matthew 23. Speaking of the Pharisees, He said: “They bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men’s shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers. But all their works they do for to be seen of men: they make broad their phylacteries, and enlarge the borders of their garments, and love the uppermost rooms at feasts, and the chief Heats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi. But be not you called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all you are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be you called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.” Matthew 23:4-10.

Here again the apostles are placed upon an equality. “One is your Master, even Christ; and all you are brethren.” Peter is not to be called father, nor are any of the others. Peter is not exalted above his brethren.

Merely One of the Branches

After eating the Passover Supper with His disciples, the Master walked with them to the garden of Gethsemane, and on the way, probably seeing a grapevine, He drew a lesson there from, saying, “I am the vine, you are the branches.” John 15:5. Here again the Master places all the apostles on an equality; Peter was merely one of the branches, as were John, James, and each of the others. We have further disproof of the papal claim for Peter in Christ’s words to him as recorded in John 21:20-22:

“Peter, turning about, sees the disciple whom Jesus loved following; . . . and said, Lord, and what shall this man do? Jesus said unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to thee? Follow thou Me.” Now, if Peter had received, a little while before this, jurisdiction over John and over all the other apostles, as is claimed, Peter’s question was not improper and unreasonable, and it called for a corresponding reply from the Master. But Christ said, “What is that to thee?” And in these words the Master asserted John’s entire independence of Peter, and gave no hint that He had given Peter jurisdiction over John.

Thus not even once in any of Christ’s words and actions, as recorded in the Gospels, was there given any hint whatever of Peter’s primacy and authority over the other apostles, any hint that He had made Peter His successor, His vicar, or vicegerent, the visible head of the church.

Evidence in the Book of Acts

What evidence does the book of Acts contain with reference to Peter’s primacy? In the first part he is prominent. It is denied by no one that he was a leading apostle. But do we find any evidence that he was looked upon by the other apostles or by the church as the head of the church in Christ’s place, having been appointed so by Christ, as is claimed from Christ’s words in Matthew 16: 18, 19? His prominence is seen in the first chapter. The place of Judas must be filled, and Peter, it seems, was the first one to call the attention of the church to the prophecy in the Psalms that was to be fulfilled in appointing some one in Judas’ place, made vacant by his treachery and suicide.

Now if Peter had been made the head of the church in Christ’s place, he would have had the authority, and it would have been his duty to exercise it, to appoint some one in the place of Judas, as the pope has authority to appoint bishops, cardinals, etc. But nothing of the kind took place. The believers nominated two brethren, and after praying that God would guide them in the selection of the right one, they all voted, as we would now say, and Matthias was elected.

Peter Reports to the Church

There is more very interesting evidence in the eighth chapter. Philip the evangelist had been preaching the gospel in Samaria, and God had wonderfully blessed. In the fourteenth and fifteenth verses we read: “When the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost.”

How plain it is from this narrative that there was in the church at Jerusalem an authority greater than either Peter’s or John’s. This authority was in “the apostles which were at Jerusalem.” It is a true axiom that the sender is greater than the sent, and Peter acknowledged this authority in going down to Samaria. Would it not be inconceivable that the cardinals of the Roman Church would send the pope on some mission? And would any pope allow himself to be sent?

In the tenth chapter we read of Peter’s baptizing Cornelius and other Gentiles, and from the eleventh chapter we learn that the apostles and brethren at Jerusalem called him to account for the innovation. It will be plainly noticed that Peter did not claim any authority for his actions, as the Catholic Church claims he then had, and contend that they should obey him, but practically admitted his accountability to them by defending himself, and thus also showing his accountability to the church. It is therefore very plain that the other apostles and the church, and for that matter Peter himself, did not know that Christ had made Peter the head of the church.

But the strongest proof against the primacy of Peter in the early church is found in the fifteenth chapter of Acts. A council had been called at Jerusalem to consider the teaching of some that Christians were under obligation to observe the whole Mosaic law, even to circumcision. James, and not Peter, acts as chairman of the council, and has a deciding voice, while Peter is merely a delegate, a debater, on a level with Paul and Barnabas. James terminates the discussion with an authoritative ruling, saying, “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.” Acts 15:19, 20.

Paul the Central Figure

This closes the evidence in the book of Acts. Peter is not mentioned again in the entire book after this council. The apostle Paul becomes the central figure, and Peter goes into total eclipse, so far as the Acts is concerned. Like the Gospels, the book of Acts does not contain even a hint of the primacy of Peter, nor an inkling that the other apostles and the church recognized him as Christ’s successor, having authority as the head of the church; but on the contrary, all the evidence shows that there were others possessing and exercising more authority than Peter, for example, James and the apostles at Jerusalem.

The Testimony of the Epistles

What is the testimony of the epistles of the New Testament? The apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthian church concerning divisions therein, said, “Now this I say, that every one of you said, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas [Peter]; and I of Christ.” I Corinthians 1:12.

From this scripture it seems that it was a mark of division in the church for any one to say, “I am of Peter,” but this certainly would not have been true if Peter bad been the head of the church in Christ’s place, as the Roman Church claims. Instead, it would have been a mark of unity for one to say, “I am of Peter.” But Paul teaches here that it was just as wrong to say, “I am of Peter,” as it was to say, “I am of Paul” or Apollos. Again, Paul says, “God bath set some in the church, first apostles,” etc. 1 Corinthians 12:28.

This scripture shows that in the divinely ordered constitution of the church, there was no higher authority in the church than the apostles, and let it be noted that no one of the apostles is singled out as having authority over all the other apostles. So far, then, it is seen that Paul makes no allusion to the so-called privilege of Peter, but on the contrary uses language that shows that no such thing was claimed or known in the days of the apostles.

Paul Withstands Peter

We come next to the book of Galatians. There is some very interesting evidence in the following verses: “Of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it makes no matter to me: God accepts no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: but contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; and when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.” Galatians 2:6-12.

The seventh and ninth verses of this passage show that instead of Peter’s jurisdiction being over the whole church, he was restricted to a division of the church, that is, of the circumcision-converts to the gospel from among the Jews. Paul says that unto him was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, and in another place he calls himself the apostle to the Gentiles. If Peter, then, were ever the head of any church, he was head of only a portion of it, namely, the Jewish; for, as plainly stated in the Scriptures, Paul was head of the Gentiles; and if the pope be his successor, he can claim no more; for it is evident that Peter could not hand down to his successors greater or wider authority than he himself had.

In the ninth verse, Paul speaks of James, Cephas (Peter), and John as pillars in the church. Now this language means that James, Peter, and John were on an equality; or that James (James is mentioned first), as bishop of the church in Jerusalem, was in some degree Peter’s ecclesiastical superior; and this seems to be implied by Peter’s dissembling at Antioch, mentioned in verses 12 and 13. Peter had eaten with the Gentiles, but when a party came “from James,” for fear of them, apparently, he withdrew and separated himself.

The evidence here, as elsewhere, is entirely contrary to the claim that Peter was the head of the church, and most certainly here is clear evidence in disproof of Peter’s infallibility. He decides wrongly on a question of faith (Catholic writers have claimed that Christ promised infallibility to the church in its teaching), for the church ever after took Paul’s view of the matter; and Paul, the younger apostle, withstands Peter to the face, instead of submitting to him, as he would have done without question had Peter been the vicar of Christ, the infallible head of the church.

Peter’s Own Words and Actions

We will now consider Peter’s own words and actions. Do they indicate that he understood that the Master had made him His successor, that he was the head of the church, the rock upon which the Master built His church? There are three passages of Scripture that have a bearing on this question:

1. “As Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshiped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.” Acts 10:25, 26.

2. “You also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Zion a chief corner-stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded. . . . And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.” 1 Peter 2:5-8.

3. “The elders which are among you I exhort, which am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, you shall receive a crown of glory that fades not away.” 1 Peter 5:1-4.

In the first passage, Peter seems to be entirely unconscious of his being the vicar of Christ, and his refusal to allow Cornelius to fall down and worship him is very unlike many of his so-called successors, who have been anxious for men to bow down and worship them. If this was on account of his humility, it is a pity that this virtue was not handed down also.

In the second passage, Peter refers to Christ as the rock foundation of the church. He quotes from Isaiah 28:16: “Therefore thus said the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner-stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste.”

“A foundation stone,” “a tried stone,” “a sure foundation,”–these words Peter applied to Christ. Evidently he did not understand that the words of Christ, “Upon this rock I will build My church,” applied to himself. To the apostle Peter, Christ alone was that rock, and no other.

And in the third passage, Peter speaks of himself as an elder, and places himself on a level with the other elders of the church, and admonishes them all not to be lords over God’s heritage—-the very office that is claimed for the pope. If there is any meaning at all in this language, it means that Peter did not understand that he had been made by Christ lord over Christ’s church; and to Peter, Christ was the chief Shepherd. (This title also has been applied to the pope.) It is therefore perfectly plain from Peter’s own words and actions that he (Peter) did not know that Christ had made him His successor, the head of the church, the chief Shepherd, and the rock upon which the church was built.

Peter Eclipsed by Paul

If the Roman Catholic Church had undertaken to prove that either James or Paul, instead of Peter, was the head of the church in apostolic times, a much stronger case could have been made out, particularly as to Paul. However, James was bishop of the church at Jerusalem, and that was the first church of Christian believers. But when Paul comes into the Christian church, Peter especially goes into eclipse so far as leadership is concerned. Even in the early centuries, ecclesiastical writers speak of Paul as the apostle. St. Augustine said, “So when ‘apostle’ is said, if it be not expressed what apostle, none is understood save Paul;” and Chrysostom said, “When you say apostle, at once all think of Paul, just as when you say Baptist they think of John.”

The apostle Paul was the greatest teacher of the apostolic church. Peter was not. Peter’s writings in the New Testament are quite insignificant in comparison with Paul’s. Paul wrote (as they are given in our Bibles) 100 chapters with 2,325 verses. Peter wrote 8 chapters with 166 verses. Paul claimed and exercised apostolic authority in the church, as is seen from the following scriptures:

1. “I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the Gentiles, I magnify mine office.” Romans 11:13. He here claims to be the (not an) apostle of the Gentiles, claiming the Gentile world is peculiarly his.

2. “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do you. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God has prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” 1 Corinthians 16:1-4. Note, he gives orders to the churches.

3. “As God has distributed to every man, as the Lord hath called every one, so let him walk. And so ordain I in all churches.” I Corinthians 7:17. He makes ordinances binding on all the churches.

4. “In nothing am I behind the very chief apostles.” 2 Corinthians 12:11. “I suppose I was not a whit behind the very chief apostles.” 2 Corinthians 11:5. In Galatians 2:9 he spoke of James, Peter, and John as pillars in the Christian church. These doubtless were included in the “chief” of apostles. He says he was not a whit behind the very chief of them, making no exception even in favor of Peter, which he certainly would have done had he understood that Christ had made Peter the head of the church, as claimed by the Catholic Church.

5. “We command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you withdraw yourselves from every brother that walks disorderly.” 2 Thessalonians 3:6. “If any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed.” Verse 14. He here lays down rules to be observed in the ease of one walking disorderly, and commands obedience.

6. “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou should set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee.” Titus 1:5. He sends out ministers with power to act in perfecting the organization of the church.

7. “Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches.” 2 Corinthians 11:28. And besides all these things, he lays down many regulations for the observance of the Christian churches, as, for example:

1. Lawsuits between Christians. 1 Corinthians 6:1-4.
2. The unequal yoking of Christians with unbelievers. 2 Corinthians 6:14-17; 1 Corinthians 7:12-17.
3. Use of unknown tongues in public worship. 1 Corinthians 14:27-40.
4. Weekly offerings for the poor. 1 Corinthians 16:1-4.
5. Dress of women. 1 Timothy 2:9-15.
6. Preparation for the celebration of the Lord’s Supper. 1 Corinthians 11:18-34.
7. Qualifications of elders and deacons. 1 Timothy 3:1-13.
8. Disfellowshipping of heretics. Titus 3:10.

Thus it must be clear to the reader that Paul was the more prominent apostle in the apostolic church.

Who Is the Rock?

What was the meaning of Christ’s words to Peter, “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”

First, let us consider the relationship between type and antitype; for in this there is light. The ceremonial, or Mosaic, dispensation, with its types, shadows, and figures, was a type of the gospel. The old-covenant sanctuary was a type of the new-covenant sanctuary. Hebrews 8:1-5; 9:9-12, 23, 1-5. The service in the first was a type of the service in the second. Hebrews 8:5. The shedding of the blood of innocent beasts, slain at the door of the sanctuary, was a type of Christ’s death upon the cross. Their blood was a type of Christ’s blood. Hebrews 9:15; 10:4; 1 Peter 1:19. The Old Testament church was a type of the New Testament church.

Now the antitype is never lower than the type. This is the law of type and antitype. Who was the rock of the Old Testament church? It was the Lord, as many scriptures testify: “He is the Rock, His work is perfect: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is He.” Deuteronomy 32:4. “The God of Israel said, the Rock of Israel spoke to me, He that rules over men must be just, ruling in the fear of God.” 2 Samuel 23:3. This is confirmed in the New Testament:

“They drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” 1 Corinthians 10:4. Now if Peter be the rock of the Christian church, it follows that the rock of the New Testament church is lower than the rock of the Old Testament church; for there certainly is a very wide gulf between the Lord and Peter. It should give a true Christian a shock to think of the rock of the Old Testament church being God, while the rock of the New Testament church is man. This is impossible in fact, and impossible of belief.

The interpretation that the Catholic Church places upon the words of our Savior in addressing Peter, is contradicted by every bit of evidence in the New Testament, as we have seen in our examination of the evidence, and that interpretation has been disputed by Bible students for centuries.

In Christ’s words to Peter, “I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church,” two entirely different Greek words are used for “Peter” and “rock.” Christ said, “Thou art Peter [petros, stone], and upon this rock [pets, rock] I will build My church.” They are nouns of different genders. Petros is masculine, while pets is feminine. Petros means “stone.” Young defines it as, “A small stone.” Petra is “rock.” Christ said to Peter, “Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.” John 1:42. The Greek word, petros, is here used. Fully to harmonize with the Roman contention, the verse should read, “Thou are Petros, and upon this Pelros I will build my church;” or else Petra in both clauses of the sentence.

Christ the Rock

Christ is the rock upon which the church is built. “Upon this pets” (rock, referring to Himself), He said, “I will build My church,” and this, as we have seen, is the teaching of the entire New Testament. It was taught by Peter himself that Christ was the rock foundation of the church. 1 Peter 2:4-8. The same precious truth was taught by the apostle Paul. He wrote, “Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 3:11.

Under another figure, Peter is merely a stone in the foundation, while Christ is the chief corner-stone. “Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner-stone.” Ephesians 2:19, 20.

In this scripture all the apostles are placed on an equality. Peter is a stone in the foundation. So are James and John, Andrew and Bartholomew, and Matthew and all the other apostles; and likewise are the prophets stones in the foundation. Peter is on an equal footing with them all, but not above his brethren. This is the plain and unequivocal teaching of the Bible on this question.

The Keys of the Kingdom

Nor did the Master give to Peter alone the keys of the kingdom. They were given unto all the apostles, and for that matter, the whole church. What are the keys of the kingdom? The keys are that which unlocks heaven to the sinner. What is it that locks heaven against one? It is sin. The provision to take away sin, that man might not be shut out of heaven, is the key of the kingdom, and that provision is the gospel of our Lord. Now the privilege and commission to preach the gospel were given to all the apostles, and likewise to the whole church. The church really exists for no other work than to preach the gospel in all the world; and if a man accepts it, the kingdom of heaven is unlocked to him.

The Power to Forgive Sins

It is certainly plain from the New Testament that the apostles did not understand that they were given the power to forgive sins, personally, by the words of Christ to them, “Whose so ever sins you remit, they are remitted unto them” (John 20:23); for we do not find a hint in the New Testament that they ever claimed or exercised the power to forgive sins. This they certainly would have done had they so understood it; for the importance of carrying out such a commission, had it been given them, can be seen without argument. On the contrary, we find the apostles, including Peter, directing the people to God for the forgiveness of their sins. To Simon, who desired to buy the gift of the Holy Ghost with money, Peter said, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of your heart may be forgiven thee.” Acts 8:22. And the apostle John said, “If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” 1 John 1:9. Likewise in the book of Hebrews we read the admonition, “Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.” Hebrews 4:16. This throne of grace is in the heavenly sanctuary, and it is the only confessional of the Christian system.

The meaning of Christ’s words to the apostles is made plain by the words of the Lord to the prophet Jeremiah: “Before I formed thee I knew thee; and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. . . See, I have this day set thee over the nations and over the kingdoms, to root out, and to pull down, and to destroy, and to throw down, to build, and to plant.” Jeremiah 1:5-10.

Did this mean that Jeremiah was given the power, as an individual, to uproot nations, to pull down, to destroy, or to up build national Certainly not; no more than Christ’s words gave to the apostles the power, as individuals, to forgive sins. Jeremiah was called of God to be a prophet unto the nation. When God sent a message to a nation through Jeremiah, if that nation accepted and walked in the light of that message, it stood and was built up; but if that nation rejected the message through Jeremiah, it was to be uprooted, pulled down, and destroyed. But Jeremiah was not given such power individually. The power to do this was in the message which he bore. All this is evident from the following verses:

Conditions of Forgiveness

“At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it; if that nation, against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them. And at what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it; if it do evil in My sight, that it obey not My voice, then I will repent of the good, wherewith I said I would benefit them.” Jeremiah 18:7-10.

So with the apostles. They were given the gospel message to proclaim. If a person accepted the message they bore, his sins were remitted, and he was loosed from the bondage of sin; if he rejected it, he was still bound. The forgiveness of sin was in the message that they carried. The priestly confessional is not of God’s ordaining. God alone forgives sin.

Roman Catholic “Fathers”

The Catholic Church contends that her claim that Peter was made Christ’s successor, the rock upon which Christ built His church, is substantiated by tradition and by the testimony of the so-called Fathers of the church. If this were true, it would have no weight with many people, but it is not true. The creed of Pope Pius IV is the authoritative creed of the Roman Catholic Church. In that creed we read:

“I also admit Holy Scripture according to that sense which the holy mother church has held and does hold, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures; neither will I ever take and interpret them otherwise than according to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.”

According, then, to this creed, it must be shown that there is full agreement among the Fathers in their interpretation of Christ’s words to Peter,-that Peter is the rock upon which Christ built His church, in order to be accepted even by Catholics. What does the Catholic Church mean by the “Fathers”? She means the theological teachers and doctors of the church from the age immediately following the days of the apostles down to St. Bernard, who is accounted the last of the Fathers, and who died in 1153. What, then, do the Fathers teach as to the rock of the church4 How do they interpret Christ’s words, “Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church”?

Testimony of the Fathers

Writers who have made a specialty of studying the writings of the Fathers on this question, tell us that very few of the Fathers in the centuries immediately following the days of the apostles, made any comment at all upon our Savior’s words in Matthew 16:18. This seems a bit strange if the church’s claims for Peter were true.

Cyprian, bishop of Cartilage, who lived and wrote during the latter part of the third century, said, in explanation of this passage, that it serves to explain “the honor of a bishop and the order of the church. So that the church is founded upon the bishops.” Epistle 27. And the second time he refers to the text he says: “The Lord that he might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.”

Origen, who lived and wrote in the third century, says, in commenting on the text in question: “The rock is every disciple of Christ from whom they drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them. . . But if thou thinks the whole church is built by God on Peter alone, what dost thou say of John, the son of thunder, and every one of the apostles? Or shall we say that the gates of hell were not to prevail against Peter in particular, but that they were to prevail against the other apostles and perfect ones?” – Comments on Matthew 16:18.

Hilary of Poitiers, called a doctor of the church, said: “Upon this rock of the confession is the building up of the church. This faith is the foundation of the church. Through this faith the gates of hell are powerless against it. This faith hath the keys of the heavenly kingdom.”-De Trinity 6:36, 37.

Jerome, who wrote in the latter part of the fourth century, said: “Christ is the rock, who granted to His apostles that they should be called rocks.”-Comments on Amos 6:12. And in another place, “But thou says that church is founded on Peter, albeit the very same thing is also done upon all of the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the church is established on them all equally.”-Adv. Jovin 2.

And still again in another place he says: “Upon this rock the Lord founded His church; from this rock the apostle Peter derived his name. The foundation which the apostle, as architect, laid in our Lord Jesus Christ alone. On this foundation the church of Christ is built.”-Comments on Matthew 7:24, 35.

John Chrysostom said: “‘I say unto thee, Thou are Peter, and upon this rock, will I build My church;’ that is, on the faith of his confession.” – Comments on Matthew 16:13, paragraph 3, Homily 54.

Augustine, writing in the first past of the fifth century, said, in explaining Christ’s words to Peter: “At the same time while I was a priest, I wrote a book against the letter of Donatus, in which book I said in a certain place of the apostle Peter, that the church was founded on him as on a rock, an interpretation which is also sung by the lips of many in the verses of the blessed Ambrose where he speaks of the cock, Lo! even the very church’s rock melts at the crowing of the cock.’ But I know that afterward I most frequently have thus explained what the Lord said, ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church,’ that it should be understood as upon Him whom Peter confessed, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and that Peter, named from this rock, represented the person of the church, which is built on the rock, and received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For it was not said to him, ‘Thou are the rock’ (petra), but, ‘Thou art Peter (petros). For Christ was the rock whom Simon confessing, as the whole church confesses Him.”-Retractions, 1:21.

Cyril of Alexandria said: “That which He named a rock, referring to his name, was naught else, I think, than the unshaken and most firm faith of the disciple, on which also the church of Christ was founded and established.” Dialogue on the Trinity, 4.

Janus (J. J. Dollinger), himself a Catholic, says on this point: “Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels, 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, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in 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 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 both 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.” – “The Pope and the Council,” page 91.

And it is also well to note the fact that the Fathers give similar testimony with reference to the keys of the kingdom. Origen says: “What, are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only? And shall no others of the blessed receive them?” –Comments on Matthew 16.

Ambrose, another Father of the church, said: “Therefore the Lord gave the apostle that which was previously a part of his own judicial authority. Hear Him saying, ‘I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ What is said to Peter is said to all the apostles.” – Comments on Psalms 38.

Augustine said: “The Lord Jesus, as you know, chose before His passion His disciples, whom He named apostles. Amongst them Peter, almost always alone, was permitted to be the representative person of the whole church. Because of that personification of the whole church which he alone supported, it was his to hear, ‘I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ It was not one man that received these, but the unity of the church, when it was said to him, ‘I will give thee that which is given to all.” – Sermon 295, “On Peter and Paul.”

It must be seen by the reader that a Catholic cannot be loyal to his own creed and at the same time accept such an interpretation of Matthew 16:18 as makes Peter the rock on which Christ built His church; for surely sufficient evidence has been produced to show that the Fathers do not unanimously interpret Matthew 16:18 to mean that Peter is the rock; their interpretation is far from it indeed.

Was Peter Bishop of Rome?

The Roman Church asserts that Peter was the first bishop of the Christian church in the city of Rome, that he actually sat as bishop there for twenty-five years, dying there as a martyr in the year 67 AD; and since, it is claimed, Peter was made Christ’s successor, the head of the church universal, and given power to bequeath his privileges to his successors, the bishops of Rome in succession have been the vicars of Christ, or the heads of the church; and that also, since Peter was the first bishop of Rome, the Roman church became the mother church of all Christendom.

As to Peter’s being the first bishop of that church, the New Testament is silent, and at the outset this seems somewhat strange if the Roman claims for Peter are true. It would seem reasonable to expect that if Christ did make Peter the head of the church and that his first episcopate was in the city of Rome, the fact of his being bishop there would be mentioned not once but many times in the New Testament. The silence, therefore, of the New Testament is one of the weightiest arguments against the belief that he was the first pope of the universal church.

Testimony of Paul’s Letters

The apostle Paul, while he was in Rome, wrote, as every Bible student knows, four or five epistles, namely, Colossians, Ephesians, Philippians, Philemon, and Second Timothy, the last being written just before his martyrdom, as indicated by the language in chapter 4, verses 6-8. This was about 67 AD. It is claimed that Peter was in Rome, occupying the bishop’s seat, during these years that the abovementioned epistles were written from Rome. But in all these epistles there is absolute silence regarding Peter’s leadership over the church.

In Paul’s letter to the Philippians, he sends greetings to the Philippians from “all the saints” at Rome (Philippians 4:22); so if Peter was in Rome at that time, he was reckoned by Paul merely as one of “the saints.” In the second epistle to Timothy, Paul says, “Only Luke is with me” (2 Timothy 4:11), and because of this, he asks Timothy to bring Mark to Rome as a worker. Now if Peter were in Rome all this time as bishop, as is claimed, does it not seem strange that Paul never once refers to the fact? Does it not seem strange that if Peter were sitting at that very time as Christ’s vicar, as head of the church, Paul never mentions that fact. Indeed, Paul’s act of calling for Mark to come to Rome as a worker, would seem to show conclusively that he, rather than Peter, had charge of the work in that city at that time, the very time that it is claimed Peter sat there as head of the whole church.

The Supremacy of the Roman Church

Nor is it true that the church in Rome was recognized as the mother church, holding supremacy and exercising jurisdiction over all the churches of Christendom. Every reader of church history knows that the Roman church had a gradual growth into power, her power becoming greater with the lapse of time, gradually overcoming resistance; and this is one strong proof of her real character.

In the first century there were five leading and influential churches, namely, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome. At the very beginning of Christianity, Jerusalem was the leading church and exercised the most authority, as is plainly seen in the book of Acts (Acts 8:14; 15:2, 22), while for a long time Alexandria and Constantinople shared equal precedence with Rome.

There is evidence of this in the history of some of the councils of the early church. The Council of Nicaea, AD 325, a general council, was called upon to settle the Episcopal jurisdiction of the bishop of Alexandria. It decreed: “Let the ancient customs prevail in Egypt, and Libya, and Pentapolis, that the bishop of Alexandria should have authority over all these, since this is the accustomed practice for the bishop of Rome also; and similarly in Antioch and the other eparchiea (i. e., primatical sees of the first class), let the precedence be preserved to the churches.” – Canon 6.

It is clearly manifest from this decree that at that time, the beginning of the fourth century, Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were on an equality, all of them called “sees of the first class.” History informs us that this decree meant that the patriarch of Alexandria should have the same authority over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis as the bishop of Rome had over the churches of central and southern Italy, with the islands of Sicily, Sardinia, and Corsica. This limitation shows clearly that no universal jurisdiction was than conceded to, or exercised by, the church in Rome.

Testimony of the Church Councils

The fourth general council was held in Chalcedon, 451 AD, and it, too, has a strong disproof of the acknowledged precedence of the church in Rome. Its decrees are weighty in evidence on this point. In Canon 28, the council decreed as follows:

“In all respects following the definitions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon of the 150 God- beloved bishops which has just been read, we likewise make the same definition and decree concerning the precedence of the most holy church of Constantinople, or new Rome. For the Fathers with good reason bestowed precedence on the chair of old Rome, because it was the imperial city, and the 150 God-beloved bishops, moved by the same view, confer equal precedence on the most holy throne of new Rome, rightly judging that the city honored with the empire and the senate should enjoy the same precedence as Rome, the old seat of empire, and should be magnified as it was in ecclesiastical matters also, being second after it.”

Thus in a general council, Constantinople is placed on a level with Rome, and that in the latter part of the fifth century; and every reader of history knows that this rivalry continued between Rome and Constantinople (it began a long time before this council) until Justinian, in the year 533 AD, decreed that the bishop of Rome should be the head of the universal church.

The Roman church had a gradual rise unto her high pinnacle of power. In the earlier centuries, as we have seen, the Roman church was not above other churches, like Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople. But this church was located at the old capital of the great Roman Empire, and gained precedence because of that fact, which is plainly mentioned in the decree of the Council of Chalcedon, which has just been noticed, as being a reason of the exaltation of the Roman church.

The church at the former capital of the empire began to be looked upon as the leading church, and its bishop as the leading bishop. As missionaries went forth, they gladly hailed from the Roman church, and it began to be called the mother church. Disputes arising among the churches or among the bishops were carried to the Roman bishop for settlement, because he was the bishop of the mother church at the ancient capital of the empire. And when the seat of political power was transferred to Constantinople, very naturally the bishop of the mother church of the West became the most prominent figure in Rome.

After the removal of the capital from Rome to Constantinople, in the fourth century, the claim that Peter had been made Christ’s vicar, that he was the first bishop of Rome, and that the popes of Rome were his successors, began to be especially urged, and to substantiate these claims forged and fabricated sayings of earlier popes, and decisions of earlier councils were brought forward. Words were put in the mouths of popes which they never uttered. Decrees of councils were brought forward that were wholly forged and fabricated. Janus says:

“Like the successive strata of the earth covering one another, so layer after layer of forgeries and fabrications was piled up in the church.” – “The Pope and the Council,” page 117. These culminated in the famous Isadorian Decretals of the ninth century, which all scholars today acknowledge as forgeries. Thus the Papacy arose to its height of power and prestige. This will not be denied by any unbiased reader of church history.

The Papal Chain Examined

As a mark of apostolicity, the Catholic Church claims an unbroken succession of popes from St. Peter to the pope elected in 1922, Pius XI.

This claim will not, however, stand the test of history. It seems impossible for the reader of church history not to see that the so-called papal chain has been broken in a number of places; but of course the Roman Catholic Church cannot admit this, no matter how much evidence is produced, as it is the keystone in the arch of all her arrogant and unscriptural claims.

However, from Victor, bishop of Rome in 193 AD, to Clement VII in 1523-1534, there were nine popes who were guilty of heresy, nine whose elections were disputed, nine whose elections were doubtful, fourteen who were guilty of simony (that is, of buying the papal chair), and nineteen who were guilty of intrusion. Yet all of these, excepting three, are counted as links in the papal chain, in spite of the fact that it is contrary to Roman canon law for one to be accounted as pope who secured the papal chair through simony or intrusion. And as to doubtful elections, Bellarmine, a famous Roman Catholic author, says, “A doubtful pope is no pope.” – De Cancil, book 2, chapter 19.

Doubtful Popes

That there have been in the line of papal succession not only several very “doubtful popes,” but desperately immoral and wicked popes, is admitted by Catholics themselves. The early years of the tenth century were what the “The Catholic Encyclopedia,” article, “Christopher, Pope (903-904),” denominates “the darkest [period] ever known in papal Rome, when its barons were making and unmaking popes at their pleasure.”

Further light is thrown upon the uncertainty of the papal succession at that time by the same authority, which says, article “Sergius III:”

“He seems to have ceased to act as a bishop after the death of Formosus, and was put forward as a candidate for the Papacy in 898. Failing to secure election, he retired, apparently to Alberic, Count of Spoleto. Disgusted at the violent usurpation of the papal throne by Christopher, the Romans threw him [Christopher] into prison, and invited Sergius to take his place.”

Both Christopher and Sergius are acknowledged as popes of Rome in the line of succession from St. Peter. Coming down from the tenth to the latter half of the fifteenth century, we find the case of Rodrigo Borgia, Alexander VI, pope from 1492 to 1503. Of this man “The Catholic Encyclopedia” says: “Borgia, by a bare two-thirds majority secured by his own vote, was proclaimed pope on the morning of the 11th August, 1492, and took the name Alexander VI.” “That he obtained the Papacy through simony was the general belief.”-Article, “Alexander VI”

Of Borgia’s character previous to his elevation to the papal throne, but while a priest and occupying high official position in the church, “The Catholic Encyclopedia” says this: “In his twenty-ninth year he drew a scathing letter of reproof from Pope Pius II for misconduct in Sienna, which was so notorious as to shock the whole town and court. Even after his ordination to the priesthood, he continued his evil ways. Toward 1470 began his relations with the Roman lady, Vanozza Catanei, the mother of his four children.”

Such were some of the popes, and such is the line of the boasted “apostolic succession.” Bear in mind, also, that these statements are not from Protestant authors, but from a recognized Roman Catholic authority. Remember that our only object in introducing such evidence is to show that unless Catholics are ready to assume and are able to defend the position that character and regularity of selection have nothing whatever to do with the apostolic succession, they cannot consistently contend that there has been such a succession from Peter’s time down even to our own day. Clearly there has not been, and hence their claim falls to the ground.

Of the events of the period to which “The Catholic Encyclopedia” refers as “the darkest ever known in papal Rome,” Cardinal Baronius, the greatest of all Catholic historians, says: “It is evident that one can scarcely believe, without ocular evidence, what unworthy, base, execrable, and abominable things the holy, apostolical See, which is the pivot upon which the whole Catholic Church revolves, was forced to endure, when the princes of this age, although Christian, yet arrogated to themselves the election of the Roman pontiffs. Alas, the shame! Alas, the grief! What monsters, horrible to behold, were then, by them, intruded on the Holy See, which angels revere! what evils ensued! What tragedies did they perpetrate! With what pollutions was this See, though itself without spot or wrinkle, then stained! With what corruptions infected! with what filthiness defiled! And by these things blackened with perpetual infamy.” “Baronius Annal.,” ad Ann. 900.

And there is another serious break, that of the Great Schism of 1379 to 1417. During this time, two and sometimes three rival popes were claiming to be the pope. It was difficult even then to decide which had the better claim. Gregory XI was pope before the schism, and Martin V was elected at its close. This covered a period of thirty-eight years. But when Martin V was elected, there was only one cardinal living who had been created before the death of Gregory XI. Therefore the majority of votes cast for Martin V in 1417 were void. It must be evident, then, that there are some broken links in the so-called chain of apostolic succession. Blasphemous Claims Growing out of the assumption that Christ made Peter His vicar, some very extravagant, and what some consider blasphemous, claims have been made for the pope. The following is taken from Ferraris’ “Ecclesiastical Dictionary” (Roman Catholic), article “Pope.” The latest edition of this book was issued from the Press of the Propaganda at Rome in 1899, which shows that it has the approval of the Roman Catholic Hierarchy. “The Catholic Encyclopedia” (Volume VI, page 48) speaks of it as “a veritable encyclopedia of religious knowledge,” and “a precious mine of information.”

“The pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God.”

“The pope is of such lofty and supreme dignity that, properly speaking, he has not been established in any rank of dignity, but rather has been placed upon the very summit of all ranks of dignities.”

“Hence the pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions.”

“Moreover the superiority and the power of the Roman pontiff by no means pertain only to heavenly things, to earthly things, and to things under the earth, but are even over angels, than whom he is greater.”

“So that if it were possible that the angels might err in the faith, or might think contrary to the faith, they could be judged and excommunicated by the pope.”

“The pope is as it were God on earth, sole sovereign of the faithful of Christ, chief king of kings, having plenitude of power, to whom has been entrusted by the omnipotent God direction not only of the earthly but also of the heavenly kingdom.”

“The pope can modify divine law, since his power is not of man but of God, and he acts as vicegerent of God upon earth with most ample power of binding and loosing His sheep.”

The following is from the writings of Augustinus de Aneona (Roman Catholic), “On an Appeal from the Decision of the Pope:”

“Therefore the decision of the pope and the decision of God constitute one [i. e., the same] decision, just as the opinion of the pope and of his disciple are the same. Since, therefore, an appeal is always taken from an inferior judge to a superior, as no one is greater than himself, so no appeal holds when made from the pope to God, because there is one consistory of the pope himself and of God Himself.”

“We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.” – Pope Leo XIII, in an encyclical letter dated June 20, 1894, “The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII,” page 304.

The following is from an oration of Christopher Mareellus (Roman Catholic) in the fourth session of the Fifth Lateran Council, 1512 (an address on the pope); “History of the Councils,” by Labbe and Cossart, Volume XIV, column 109:

“For thou art the shepherd, then art the physician, thou art the director, thou art the husbandman; finally, thou art another God on earth.”

And the following gloss on the “Extravagantes Communes,” book l, “On Authority and Obedience,” chapter 1, reads:

“Christ entrusted His office to the chief pontiff; but all power in heaven and in earth had been given to Christ; therefore the chief pontiff, who is His vicar, will have this power.”

When Pope Benedict XV died, his death was officially announced by the papal secretary of state thus: “Our Lord the Pope is dead.”

The Papacy Not Apostolic

Sufficient evidence has been produced, though volumes more could be added, to show any one that the Papacy is not apostolic. Any reader of the New Testament knows there is no likeness between the apostolic church and the papal hierarchy. Instead of the Papacy’s being apostolic, it is the fruitage of a great falling away, or apostasy, that came into the church in the centuries adjoining the age of the apostles. The apostle Paul had a vision of its coming; for it was in embryo in his day. In writing to the Thessalonians, he said:

“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sits in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God,” or as the Revised Version puts it, “setting himself forth as God.” 2 Thessalonians 2: 3, 4.

Every reader of church history knows that this falling away did come, and that it developed a system at the head of which a man set himself forth as God, as seen by the above quotation. In the apostolic church, Christ was the only head of the church, the only High Priest, the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), and the rock foundation of the church. And His one sacrifice upon the cross of Calvary was sufficient to atone for the sins of the whole world. (See Romans 6:9, 10; Hebrews 7:27; 9:25-28; 10:10-12.)

Dr. Richard Day

Dr. Richard Day revealed New World Order plans in 1969. As we enter the new year 2024, let’s count how many of these 55 points in their plans have come to pass. My comments are in parenthesis after some of them.

This article started with a video of the recollections of Dr. Lawrence Dunegan regarding a lecture he attended on March 20, 1969, at a meeting of the Pittsburgh Pediatric Society. Unfortunately, that video was removed from YouTube. 🙁

The lecturer at that gathering of pediatricians was Dr. Richard Day (who died in 1989). At the time Dr. Day was Professor of Pediatrics at Mount Sinai Medical School in New York. Previously he had served as Medical Director of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Dr. Dunegan was formerly a student of Dr. Day at the University of Pittsburgh and was well acquainted with him, though not intimately. He describes Dr. Day as an insider of the “Order” and although Dr. Dunegan’s memory was somewhat dimmed by the intervening years, he is able to provide enough details of the lecture to enable any enlightened person to discern the real purposes behind the trends of our time.

You can also read a transcript of the entire message on this site!

Here are just some of the topics covered in this video created from Dr. Dunegan’s audio tapes about the plans of the New World Order. He revealed this information in 1969! How many predictions can you count that have been fulfilled? Please write your answer in the comments section below.

1. Girls would be discouraged from playing with dolls so they wouldn’t think about babies. They would be encouraged to get out on the soccer field instead.
2. Guns would be eliminated almost entirely and the few that were allowed to have them for hunting would have to check them out from officials. (The public in Canada, Australia and New Zealand have been disarmed. This is the reason, in my opinion, government repression during the Covid plandemic was much harsher in those nations than in America.)
3. They already could cure over 98% of all cancers – they had the cures at the Rockefeller Institute. But they would not be released because there were too many people in the world and they had to die of something.
4. Homosexuality will be encouraged – anything goes. (Since the Obama administration, gay rights have been promoted, and now under Biden, the LGBTQ agenda is given priority over fixing the southern border crisis and fixing other serious problems America is facing today.)
5. Families will diminish in importance. People would be encouraged to live alone.
6. Euthanasia will be encouraged – they will use “the demise pill” to kill themselves.
7. Births will be strictly controlled and you could not simply have children because you wanted them.
8. “Stupid” people would not eat correctly and exercise so they would die much earlier and that’s what they wanted.
9. Private doctors will be eliminated – doctors make too much money.
10. They will make health care so expensive that you must have insurance or be financially destroyed. Limiting access to affordable medical care will make eliminating the elderly easier. They would stop hospitals from giving any charity care.
11. New difficult-to-treat and diagnose diseases will come about as a means of population control. (SARS, Covid-19, laboratory engineered viruses.)
12. Running shoes and sports equipment will be made glamorous to make the “smart” people get into exercise.
13. Romantic music will not be put out anymore. All the old music will be brought back on certain “oldies” radio stations and the young people will have their own radio stations. Old movies will be put on again for the old people.
14. Entertainment will be used to mainly change and program young people. The old people are not important anyway so they don’t care much about them.
15. Entire meals will be made and put in grocery stores. Convenience foods will be made unhealthy. They wanted people who were too lazy to fix their own meals or exercise to die early.
16. Inducing heart attacks as a means of assassination. (Heart attacks among young people have indeed dramatically increased since the Covid-19 pandemic. Did the Covid vaccines cause it? I believe it did.)
17. They will blend all religions but Christianity had to go especially! Once the Roman Catholic Church is brought down then the rest will go next. Then they will create a new religion. (Many traditional Catholics are alarmed at the way Pope Francis is leading the church. I believe that even if the RCC is destroyed as an institution, those who controlled it will lead the new world religion. And if end-time events do not go the way dispensational evangelicals think they will, some have actually said they will throw their Bible away!)
18. They will change the Bible over time – churches would help them! (False doctrines abound in churches today.
19. The education system will be restructured as a tool of indoctrination. Kids will spend more time in school but won’t learn anything. Kids will have to specialize early on in their education and changing their plans will be very difficult.(Many Americans cannot find major countries such as Japan on a map.
20. ID will be required for all travel. They will implant IDs inside the skin so that nobody can say they lost their IDs.
21. They will control who has access to information. Some books will just disappear or be changed. They will even have thieves steal certain books from the library. (It’s much harder for them to control Information now unless Internet providers start to charge more money to access websites like mine which are not sanctioned by the government.
22. Drug use will be encouraged to create a “Jungle” atmosphere. Meanwhile, police enforcement to put people in prison for drugs will be drastically increased.
23. Food will be strictly controlled and people would be not allowed to grow their own. They only would give you enough food to give you what you needed but hoarding food or growing food would be criminal activities. They didn’t want anybody to be able to support those outside their system.
24. Travel will be first made cheaper to encourage people to spread out their families but then made very expensive so few people can afford it.
25. Crime will be increased as a way to control society.
26. More jails would be made and they would even use hospitals as jails.
27. America would lose its manufacturing base. Other countries would be making the products America was making now. (This is sure true of manufacturing in Asian countries.)
28. Sports would be used as a tool for social change – Soccer was being encouraged since it was a global game. They wanted to do away with anything like football and baseball that were created in the United States. National pride of any type would be discouraged.
29. Sex and violence would be programmed through entertainment.
30. All television sets would have secret cameras that would watch everybody in the room.
31. They would implant IDs in everybody.
32. They would control what was in our food.
33. They already controlled the weather. They would stop rain in certain areas to bring them under their control. They would make rain during harvest to make it harder to get the food from the fields.
34. There were always two reasons for all their actions. The public reason they give everybody and the REAL reason.
35. People don’t ask the right questions – they are too trusting.
36. Scientific research would be falsified to push their agendas.
37. Terrorism would be used to control the people.
38. Home ownership will be a thing of the past.
39. The new system would be either brought by peaceful means if possible or by bringing the nation to the brink of nuclear war. People would give up their national sovereignty to keep the peace.
40. If too many people resisted their plans, there might be a need to use one, two or more nuclear weapons to show that “we mean business”.
41. War was justified as a way to control the population. They were happy that World Wars had killed millions so they couldn’t keep having babies. But now with nuclear weapons, they would not allow wars to be fought with nuclear weapons on a wide scale.
42. Americans have had it too good so nuclear terrorism might need to be used in order to implement the new world order system.
43. Inflation is a tool of control. Money would be turned into credit. Cash would be done away with. People would carry money only for small items such as chewing gun. All else is done electronically. They would ultimately have a single bank system but might appear as several banks.
44. All purchases would be tracked. If you bought too much of an item or a particular item, an official would be alerted to investigate. The ability to save would be curtailed so they would not be able to accumulate wealth. Wealth in the hands of the people is not good for those in charge.
45. If you saved too much, your pay would be cut in the future so you could not accumulate any wealth.
46. Credit would be encouraged so people would get in debt and get in trouble so authorities could come down hard on them.
47. Eventually there would only be one credit card and then after that, there would be a skin implant located in your right hand or your forehead. He was told to not worry about what the Bible said about this because this was just the logical place for the implant.
48. Implants would also be used for surveillance. Every citizen could be identified by their own signal through tooth fillings etc.
49. You’ll be watching television and somebody will be watching you at a central station. The TV could be off and still monitor you. They could tell what you are watching and how you are reacting to what you are watching. The signals for monitoring you will go down the cable for your Cable TV and telephone wires.
50. Audio monitors would also be used in other rooms. Any wires that come into the home will be used to monitor you such as telephone wires.
51. There would be service trucks everywhere putting in the monitoring equipment.
52. People who already owned houses would be allowed to keep them but young people would never be able to afford a home. The cost of homes would not come down even with all the empty houses. They would control the price of homes to turn more and more people into renters.
53. People would be assigned where they would live and they would assign non-family members to live with you. That’s why the census asks how many bedrooms you have in the home.
54. When the new system comes out, they would be required to sign allegiance to it. There would be no room for people who would not sign their allegiance to the new system. They would be secretly taken to special places where they would not live very long. People will just disappear so they can’t be martyrs.
55. The new system will come in over a weekend in the winter. They would announce the new system was in place on a Monday. Everybody will have less leisure time after the new system was brought in so they couldn’t figure out what was going on.

Introduction by the webmaster

The full title of this book is, “The Rapture Theory. Should We Trust THE RAPTURE THEORY? by Paul Benson. I got the text from a 84 page PDF file but I’m posting only the first 15 pages of it. At first, I thought to post all of it but Paul Benson started to talk about the Great Tribulation of Matthew 24 as an endtime event, something the regular readers of this website know I don’t agree with. In other articles on this website, I explained by comparing the other two synoptic Gospels of Mark 13 and Luke 21 that the Great Tribulation Jesus talked about in Matthew 24 was the destruction of Jerusalem, the Temple, and the killing of Jews by the Roman army. It was not talking about persecution of Christians as many seem to believe today! No true follower of Jesus Christ was in Jerusalem when it was destroyed as the Romans were murdering the Jews! How do I know that?

All true followers of Jesus obeyed those words of Jesus, fled Jerusalem and Judaea when they saw the Roman army coming and were saved! If anyone who called himself a Christian did not heed that prophecy, they certainly were not a true follower of Jesus.

This doesn’t mean I don’t think Christians will face persecution before Jesus returns. It only means we shouldn’t think of the great tribulation of Matthew 24 as an endtime event.

Mr. Benson makes some very good points in the first 15 pages, things I have written about before, such as we should read the prophecy in 1 Thessalonians chapter 4 as it continues into chapter 5 as if there is no chapter break. We should read it all as the Second Coming of Christ and events that happen all on the same day!

Should We Trust
THE
RAPTURE
THEORY
?

Is it True or False?
by Paul Benson

Copyright © 2016

This publication may be reproduced in part or whole for purposes of free distribution, or excerpts for review or quotation. The copyright is merely a safeguard against improper usage.

PREFACE

The promise of the Resurrection of the Dead and the ‘catching away’ of the Church is at the very heart of our Christian faith. It is our blessed hope which the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross has purchased for us. Teaching on this amazing promise Paul wrote that we should ‘comfort one another with these words’. I hope you know the peace and comfort received from a confidence in our future joining together with Jesus to live forever as the Redeemed.

The purpose of these writings is not to discourage folk from looking for the ‘catching away’ of the Church, but to encourage them to look for it in a fashion and time-frame which is in accord with the truth of the Scriptures; and not be turned aside to follow any of the deceptive teachings which have grown so prevalent in our generation.

The Scriptures foretold of a progressive increase in the warfare against the Church in the area of false doctrine, There have always been falsehoods trying to seduce the Church. Even from the first century the Gnostics, Nicolaitanes, and money hungry Balaams were at work to pollute the beliefs of the early Church.

But whereas in those days the watchmen were fighting at the wall to keep the enemy out, in our day the battle rages on the streets of a city whose walls have crumbled from neglect. And these defenders of the truth must now contend with not just the enemy, but with many who have been so inundated with falsehood they now wage war against their own watchmen, and against the very truth itself.

Paul told Timothy the Scriptures were for, among other things, administering correction. My aim in writing this booklet is not so much to win others over to my doctrinal view-point; but that they would adopt a pattern of critical examination of what is preached and taught, and effective study habits which root out error and put it to flight. It is my hope people would realize how deceived we have been by the teachings of man; and thus be convinced of the need to embrace the corrective apparatus of proper Bible study; looking for the true meaning of verses of Scripture through studying them in the passages of their origin. I believe this will ultimately lead to a similar belief structure as I have; for that has been the source of mine. And so much better to get there on efforts of your own, and not just because of what others have taught. I am definitely fallible; but God’s Word is not.

We need to verify whether people are preaching the same meaning for Bible verses as what you get reading them in context. This practice of critical appraisal destroys the majority of false teaching; and will prove to be a valuable defense.

‘Proof texts’ that are snippets of Scripture taken out of context are the basic building blocks of all pseudo-Christian false teaching. And these false teachings are not only damaging and defiling, but also divisive.

The introduction of the rapture theory into the belief system of the Body of Christ in the 1800’s, and its rise to extraordinary popularity in the last 6 to 8 decades, has produced a schism among us. A unified belief in proper doctrine concerning end-time events would help heal that damage. It is toward that end I write these words.

INTRODUCTION

I can’t help but notice a trend in today’s preaching that does not mirror a ratio of emphasis we see in the Bible. What I mean by that is: How many times do the Scriptures mention the ‘catching away’ of the Church? Not many. One clear description we find in 1Thessalonians 4 and a few references to it elsewhere. But the coming Resurrection of the Dead and the transformation of the living Saints, which is going to be such an indescribably awesome phenomenon, is either vividly described or plainly referred to dozens of times in the Bible. It is a theme thoroughly woven into the fabric of Scripture.

How old is the teaching of the coming Resurrection of the Dead? Many claim Job to be possibly the earliest writings of the Scriptures; even he spoke of the event:

Throughout the books of the Bible we see people speaking of their hope of the Resurrection. Martha said she knew her brother Lazarus would rise someday:

Paul cited the hope of the Resurrection:

The Pharisees trying to trap Jesus in his words asked:

Jesus spoke often of the blessedness of those who will be counted worthy of the Resurrection:

David voiced his hope in the Resurrection:

Isaiah joins the crowd marveling at this wonderful promise:

But not one of these people, or any others in the Bible, referred to their ‘blessed hope’ as that short trip from earth to the clouds known as the ‘Rapture’, ‘Harpazo’, ‘catching away’, or whatever you want to name it. Their hope was in, and their focus upon, the Resurrection of the Dead. Other than its popularized mention in 1 Thessalonians 4 where do you see in the Bible any notable emphasis placed on the ‘catching away’? I surely do not.

So I ask again, why all this modern day focus on the ‘caught up to meet him’ aspect of Christ’s Coming? Does the Bible put any emphasis there? If you stop and think about it the ‘caught away’ part of what we experience that day is relatively minor compared to the Resurrection aspect. How did things get so turned around to the point where a brief journey from earth to the clouds overshadows what transpires in the Resurrection? The dead awake with the image of Christ. The mortal has put on immortality (1 Corinthians 15:54). No more sickness, disease, or dying! We’ve carried the earnest (down-payment) of our inheritance all these years and now we have the fullness of that promise. We have now entered eternity in a glorified body and death can never touch us. Why minimize that and maximize being carried up into the sky?

I realize rapture folk believe that the Resurrection and the ‘catching away’ all take place in the same micro-second (a false belief discussed later). But my point is why carry on and on about the catching away and say so very little, or nothing at all, about our resurrection/transformation and what that accomplishes. You might hear it mentioned in the reading of a text, but the preaching or teaching rarely touches on it. Usually the brunt of the message deals with avoiding the time of great tribulation; which they incorrectly state is the wrath of God (a false notion we will also discuss later).

In all false teaching there is found an appeal to the flesh; some allure or benefit to the carnal nature. I find it telling that the rapture teaching is usually couched in the context of escaping the time of tribulation and the mark of the beast. While the focus there is on escapism and personal well-being, the teachings of the Bible concerning the Resurrection don’t carry the same focus. Our anticipation of resurrection centers on laying aside concern for your own life to, thru faith in his death on the Cross, follow in the footsteps of Christ; and identify with his sufferings, death, burial, and rising from the dead, in the hope of inheriting eternal life.

We’ll look a little more at identifying with his sufferings and death later. Let’s see if our beliefs fit this Parable of the Tares: