The Errors of Romanism

This is the first of four parts regarding the errors of Latin Christianity.

abuGian

Romanism is Latin Christianity that is centered in the great and ancient city of Rome
where the Roman Catholic Church had its root. There are four unbiblical pillars of
Roman Catholicism that we shall try to discuss here and these are:

1. The Papacy
2. Mariology
3. Sacramentalism
4. The Priesthood

The Bible is not silent regarding this politically powerful religion. Daniel (See chapter
7:7-23), Paul (1 Timothy 3, 4; 2 Thessalonians 2) and John (See Revelation 13, 17 and
19) prophesied about it. However, we shall not have the privilege to discuss these
prophecies in this document.

Since we shall be examining these four unbiblical pillars under the light of the Bible, it is
worth mentioning how the Roman hierarchy views the Bible.

It is the Word of God:

The Bible not only contains the word of God; it is the word of God. The primary author is
the Holy Ghost, or, as it is commonly expressed, the human authors wrote under the
influence of Divine inspiration. It was declared by the Vatican Council (Sess. III, c. ii) [1]

But as to its contents:

At the Council of Trent she enumerated the books which must be considered "as sacred
and canonical". They are the seventy-two books found in Catholic editions, forty-five in
the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New. Protestant copies usually lack the seven
books (viz: Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, and I, II Machabees) and
parts of books (viz: Esther 10:4-16:24, and Daniel 3:24-90; 13:1-14:42) which are not
found in the Jewish editions of the Old Testament. [1]

Let's begin with its first unbiblical pillar--

I. The Papacy

Papacy is the Roman system in which a pope (Greek, papa) governs the Latin Church.
Considered the successor of St. Peter, the Pope is regarded as Vicar of Jesus Christ here
on earth; [2] he is believed to be the chief shepherd of the whole Church; he is the Vice
Christ on earth in the sense that he is the acting Christ, in the "absence" of Jesus, thus the
Supreme Head or the visible head of the universal church or [3] His other functions are
as follows:

1. The archbishop of the Roman province

2. The primate of Italy
3. The sole patriarch of the Western Church
4. The head of the State of Vatican

Let's expound on the meaning of Vicar of Christ by quoting it directly from the source:

A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honour and of
jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ. It is founded on the words of the Divine Shepherd
to St. Peter: "Feed my lambs. . . . Feed my sheep" (John 21:16-17), by which He
constituted the Prince of the Apostles guardian of His entire flock in His own place, thus
making him His Vicar and fulfilling the promise made in Matthew 16:18-19. In the
course of the ages other vicarial designations have been used for the pope, as Vicar of St.
Peter and even Vicar of the Apostolic See (Pope Gelasius, I, Ep. vi), but the title Vicar of
Christ is more expressive of his supreme headship of the Church on earth, which he bears
in virtue of the commission of Christ and with vicarial power derived from Him. Thus,
Innocent III appeals for his power to remove bishops to the fact that he is Vicar of Christ
(cap. "Inter corporalia", 2, "De trans. ep."). He also declares that Christ has given such
power only to His Vicar Peter and his successors (cap. "Quanto", 3, ibid.), and states that
it is the Roman Pontiff who is "the successor of Peter and the Vicar of Jesus Christ" (cap.
"Licet", 4, ibid.). The title Vicar of God used for the pope by Nicholas III (c.
"Fundamenta ejus", 17, "De elect.", in 6) is employed as an equivalent for Vicar of Christ.
[4]

Let’s draw the definition of the title Pope from the preceding quote:

= Vicar of Christ
= Supreme/Universal Primacy (honor and jurisdiction) over the Church of Christ
= the Prince from the Apostles
= Guardian of Jesus’ entire flock
= Supreme Headship of the Church on earth

They believe that Christ personally and exclusively conferred the succession of Papacy
on Peter appealing to vague interpretation Matthew 16:17-19 and John 21:15-17.
According to their interpretation of these passages Peter was...:

1. Called the rock on which Christ would build his Church ("upon this rock").
2. Given the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
3. Mandated to be the Chief Shepherd ("feed my sheep").
4. The foundation of the Church ("hell shall not prevail against it").

Let’s examine the above definition, in the light of the Scriptures by...
Refuting the Faulty Romanist Interpretation of Matthew 16:17-19.

17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood
has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are
Peter {Gk. Petros, Aram. Kephas}, and upon this rock {Gk. petra, Aram. kepha} I will
build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will
give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (NAB [5])

1. Jesus spoke in Aramaic hence Peter (Cephas) is the rock (cephas)?

Historical and cultural background. Jesus lived in a multilingual society He therefore

can probably speak Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin (Luke 23:38; John 19:20), to say
that Jesus spoke in Aramaic in the contested passage is presumptuous hence to be
dogmatic about it leads to even greater error. Most of the Lord's ministry was held in
Galilee. Most of his life, in fact, was lived in Galilee. Peter too was a native of Galilee.
[7] Consider also that this conversation occurred in Caesarea Philippi which is 25 miles
North of Galilee. Why am I saying this? During that time Galilee has more gentile or
Greek influence because of international trading routes there. [6] I am saying this because
with all these evidences it is more probable that Jesus spoke Greek than Aramaic there.

Manuscript evidence. Matthew wrote his gospel account originally in Greek. The
Gospel is inspired ("God-breathed," 2 Timothy 3:16) as it is in Greek. God made Greek
as the language of choice which was available back then to perfectly convey his message
(1 Corinthians 14:33). Therefore we must look into the Greek rather than into Aramaic.

Grammatical Principle. Even if Jesus really spoke in Aramaic. He, the person speaking,
was addressing Cephas in a second person singular (“to you, you are Peter”) using a
personal pronoun, and then there was a sudden shift to the third person (“and upon this
rock”) using a demonstrative pronoun, referring to an object. Now this is even stronger
if Jesus spoke in Greek, petra, the object referred to is feminine in gender making it
really another object referred to not Peter which is a masculine name. Now to be
dogmatic that Peter is the rock upon which Christ built His church leads to even greater
errors!

Remember the following:

“And I…” – in first person singular one who addresses the message.

“to you, you are Peter” – second person singular, using personal pronoun the one who is
being addressed; Petros, masculine in Greek--the Holy Spirit chose Greek so Matthew
wrote this event in Greek

“and upon this rock” – a sudden shift from second person singular to third person using
demonstrative pronoun; petra, feminine in Greek referring to an object.
Will The True Rock, Please Stand up?

With the phrase that Jesus said, “and upon this rock” some translation “this very rock.”
We doubt that it was Peter. He could be pointing to a real rock for all we know. Or, He
may even be pointing to Himself--now isn’t this more consistent with the Scriptures?
Jesus could have just simply said, “and upon you (the rock),” if he was really referring
to Peter.

"And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."
(Matthew 16:16, see the parallel in Mark 8:29; Luke 9:20)

Could the rock be the Christ, the Son of the Living God rather than Peter? Even Paul and
Peter admitted that the Christ is the foundation of the Church

"[F]or no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus
Christ." (1 Corinthians 3:11, NAB)

Therefore, Christ is the founder and Christ is the foundation.

"[A]nd, like living stones, let yourselves be built into a spiritual house to be a holy
priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Peter
2:5, NAB)

As you can see every believer may be called living stones!

Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone,
elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. (1 Peter 2:6.)

"For it says in scripture: "Behold, I am laying a stone in Zion, a cornerstone, chosen and
precious, and whoever believes in it shall not be put to shame." (1 Peter 2:8, NAB)

Isn’t it obvious that Jesus was speaking to Peter (Petros) about the rock (petra)? Still not
convinced?

So we look further for the context of the whole Bible and realize that the God is often
referred to as the Rock, observe the definite article in the following references
Deuteronomy 32:4; 32:15; 32:18; and 2 Samuel 23:3:

"The Rock--how faultless are his deeds, how right all his ways! A faithful God, without
deceit, how just and upright he is!" (Deuteronomy 32:4, NAB)

"(So Jacob ate his fill,) the darling grew fat and frisky; you became fat and gross and
gorged. They spurned the God who made them and scorned their saving Rock."
(Deuteronomy 32:15, NAB. "[T]he Rock of his salvation" in the KJV.)
"The God of Israel spoke; of me the Rock of Israel said, 'He that rules over men in
justice, that rules in the fear of God," (2 Samuel 23:3, NAB)

Note the definite article in the quotes. Remember that Jesus may have called Simon as
Cephas, but Cephas (Peter) was not THE cephas (the rock) which Jesus built his church.

2. If that is true how come Abraham was called “rock” in Isaiah 51:1?

Let’s read the cited passage:

"Listen to me, you who pursue justice, who seek the LORD; Look to the rock (tsur,
Heb.) from which you were hewn, to the pit from which you were quarried." (Isaiah
51:1, NAB)

It doesn’t sound like Abraham was called “rock” here? Historically speaking, God may
even be referring to “the idolatrous family in Ur of the Chaldees, out of which Abraham
was taken, the generation of slaves which the heads and fathers of their tribes were in
Egypt” (MHC). But we can be definite from the passage that Abraham was not called
“rock”

So it seems more consistent with the Scriptures that the proper interpretation should be:

"Thou art Peter, thou hast the name of a stone, but upon this rock, pointing to himself, I
will build my church." (Matthew Henry, 1706)

Now in the light of all of these to think that it was Peter, the rock on which the Christ
built his church would be a great error. Just consider the following points.

1. What did Christ do such that he was able to build his church on that rock? (Luke
9:22; John 2:19)
2. Who is more involved with planting churches among the Gentiles? It was Paul as
recorded in the Scriptures.
3. Who has been to Rome? It was Paul as recorded into Scriptures.
4. Who founded the Church in Rome, was it Peter? Nope.
5. Were there a Church father (in the 1st century) who interpreted this passage
(Matthew 16:18) to mean the rock was Peter? None.
6. Was there ever a hint in the Scriptures that Peter was to be supreme among the
apostles? None. They even admitted he was a fellow elder (1 Peter 5:1 which was
written in AD 64), and all are co-pillars (Galatians 2:9 which was written in AD
48). He was even confronted by Paul in Galatians 2:11). Lastly, "shepherdship" is
commanded to be in plurality (Acts 20:28).

3. This humble greeting "fellow elder" does not diminish Peter's Authoritative office
anymore than the President's words "My fellow Filipino" denies Presidential authority,
or the Popes' greeting "my fellow bishops" denies Papal authority.
Observe: Peter described himself as fellow elder (now this is a title, isn’t it?) My fellow
Filipino (this is just who the president is, a Filipino) My fellow bishop (well, I wouldn’t
contest this if I know he is a Pope, acting in humility).

But in the case of Peter, we have not established his papacy yet we considered him as the
Pope—now this is forcing an interpretation upon the Scriptures not to mention that the
argument is circular in nature.

Who should be the Head of the Church?

He is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead,
that in all things he himself might be preeminent. (Colossians 1:18, NAB)

Who has the preeminence on all things including the Church? Jesus Christ. If Jesus is the
head of the Church and he still has the preeminence, Who has the Supreme/Universal
primacy (in honor and jurisdiction) over the [Roman] Church of Christ?

"May the God of peace, who brought up from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep
by the blood of the eternal covenant, Jesus our Lord." (Hebrews 13:20, NAB)

Who is the guardian or overseer of the Sheep? Jesus Christ. If Jesus is still the guardian
of the Sheep, who is now the guardian or the overseer of Jesus' flock (in the RCC)?

"Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has
appointed you overseers {Gr., "episkopous"}, in which you tend the church of God that
he acquired with his own blood." (Acts 20:28, NAB)

Take note shepherds (plural) while Jesus is Chief Shepherd. Also,

"[A]nd all drank the same spiritual drink, for they drank from a spiritual rock (Petra) that
followed them, 2 and the rock (Petra) was the Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:4, NAB)

What could be more explicit than these passages? Petra = Christ!

First Century Patriarchs

The only first century patriarch the Romanist can find support is Tertullian:

Tertullian "Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called 'the rock
on which the Church would be built' [Matt. 16:18] with the power of 'loosing and binding
in heaven and on earth' [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian "[T]he Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church, I have given
you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on
earth will be bound or loosed in heaven' [Matt. 16:18-19] . . . What kind of man are you,
subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this
personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you
the keys" (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

But what can we learn about Tertulian?

“Sometime before 210 Tertullian left the orthodox church to join a new prophetic
sectarian movement known as Montanism (founded by the 2nd-century Phrygian prophet
Montanus), which had spread from Asia Minor to Africa. His own dissatisfaction with the
laxity of contemporary Christians was congenial with the Montanist message of the
imminent end of the world combined with a stringent and demanding moralism.
Montanism stood in judgment on any compromise with the ways of the world, and
Tertullian gave himself fully to the defense of the new movement as its most articulate
spokesman. Even the Montanists, however, were not rigorous enough for Tertullian. He
eventually broke with them to found his own sect, a group that existed until the 5th
century in Africa. According to tradition, he lived to be an old man. His last writings date
from approximately 220, but the date of his death is unknown.” ENCYCLOPÆDIA
BRITANNICA

It is obvious that Tertullian (145-220 AD) was unorthodox himself. Besides, did he have
contact with the Apostles? The fact that he left the orthodox Catholic Church and formed
his own sect in 200 AD gives us enough reason to question his writings in 220 AD.

They also find secondary support from a quote allegedly from Clement of Alexandria:

The Letter of Clement to James "Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who,
for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to
be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful
mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221])

The Clementine Homilies "[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] For you now
stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church [Matt.
16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

Was the quote really from Clement of Alexandria? Or was it just a pseudo- clementine
literature?

4. Peter (exclusively) was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

What keys? Are they literal keys? Were they just metaphorical keys for binding and
loosing? Let's revisit Matthew 16:19 using a Roman Catholic Bible: "I will give you the
keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven;
and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." (NAB) The key here is for
"binding and loosing." And we can be sure that it was also equally extended to the other
apostles. Please read on:
"I say to you, whatever you (the disciples) bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and
whatever you (the disciples) loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 18:18,
NAB).

And in John 20:23,

"Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."
(NAB)

Furthermore, the key can be taken to mean Jesus Christ Himself, “THE Way to the
Father” and “THE ONLY mediator between man and God” (again we must not ignore the
definite articles). See also Revelation 3:7,

"To the angel of the church in Philadelphia, 5 write this: " 'The holy one, the true, who
holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall
open, says this." (Revelation 3:7, NAB)

The key does not belong to Peter alone, it is made available to all believers in Christ.

"These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons,
they will speak new languages. They will pick up serpents (with their hands), and if they
drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them. They will lay hands on the sick, and they
will recover." (Mark 16:17-18, NAB)

Is the Office of Papacy ever mentioned in the Bible?

Never, however, the Bible speaks of the following offices:

1. Apostles (Ephesians 4:11; Matthew 10:2-4; and Luke 6:13-16. Qualifications:

Acts 1:21-26; 2 Corinthians 12:11,12. Duties: Ephesians 3:3-5; Acts 10:39-41)
2. Elders/Bishops (Phil. 1:1; Acts 14:23; Eph. 4:11. Qualifications: 1 Tim. 3:1-7;
Titus 1:5-9. Duties: Acts 20:28; 1 Peter 5:1-3)
3. Deacons (Phil. 1:1. Qualifications: 1 Tim. 3:8-13. Duties: Acts 6:1-6)

The Bible never mentioned about any thing related to Papacy as defined by modern-day
Romanists. Furthermore Paul wrote an authoritative letter to the Romans why was there
no special mention to any Pope there?

Conclusion:

1. The Roman papacy has no Biblical foundation.

2. It's a concept that goes against the doctrines of the Scriptures.
 3. It's a system that usurps the title and office of Jesus Christ.
4. The Papacy is historically unjustifiable.

Recommended Links:

WHAT THINK YE OF ROME? by Christian Research Institute (C.R.I.)

(http://www.equip.org/)

• Part 1 & Part 2: An Evangelical Appraisal of Contemporary Catholicism: by

Kenneth R. Samples.
• Part 3: The Catholic-Protestant Debate on Biblical Authority by Norman L.
Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie
• Part 4: The Catholic-Protestant Debate on Papal Infallibility by Norman L.
Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie
• Part 5: The Catholic-Protestant Debate on Justification by Norman L. Geisler, and
Ralph E. MacKenzie, with Elliot Miller

Top Ten Reasons why Peter is not the rock on which Christ Jesus built his church
(Matthew 16:18).

Notes
[1] "The Bible" by Francis E. Gigot. New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02543a.htm)
[2] "Papacy" by G. H. Joyce. New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11451b.htm)
[3] "The Pope" by G. H. Joyce. New Advent: Catholic Encyclopedia
(http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm).
[4] "Vicar of Christ" by William H. W. Fanning. New Advent: Catholic
Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15403b.htm).
[5] New American Bible (NAB). United States Conference of Catholic Bishops,
3211 4th Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20017-1194 (202) 541-3000.
(http://www.nccbuscc.org/nab/).
[6] What Is The Rock of Matt 16:18? Pastor Chris Bayack. Copperfield Bible
Church Houston, TX. September 28, 1997
(http://www.bbfhouston.org/Sermons/970928.html)
[7] Easton's Bible Dictionary. M.G. Easton M.A., D.D., Illustrated Bible
Dictionary, Third Edition, published by Thomas Nelson, 1897.
(http://www.ccel.org/e/easton/ebd/ebd.html)