This was a response to John, a devout RC (Roman Catholic) who argued that even though he disagreed with what the Vatican was doing, the mother RC church was the only authentic church and all else are lost.
He was particularly offended by reader Richard commenting on his postings who argued against his position and stated that Jesus did not come to setup a new religion but for all to have direct access to God through Him alone without the need of a religious institution as a mediator in between.
I was a third party to the conversation. The names have been changed to protect their identity. This was my rebuttal:
John, I respect you and your zeal for the faith is admirable but I cannot agree with your stance. Minus the rough language, I have to agree with Richard that Christ did not come to set up a new religious institution to be His appointed mediator between God and man but the government of His church.
And the government shall be upon His shoulders… (Isaiah 9:6).
I too was raised RC but after diligent study of the scriptures, I could no longer bow to Rome. So today, yes, I am catholic, which simply means universal, as part of the universal church of Jesus Christ, but I am no longer a Roman Catholic or subject to Rome or any of its dogmas.
I am now born from above and of the water of the word and of the spirit according to Jesus’ commandments in John 3:3 and 3:5, and His prerequisites to be able to see and to enter the kingdom.
As I was studying the scriptures I had to keep asking myself, what weighs more, RC doctrine and their traditions or scripture? It was a no brainier that I chose for the latter and eventually discovered so many contradictions with and even against scripture that I finally came to the conclusion that I had to “come out of her” (Revelations 18:4 & Jeremiah 51:45) and I did. I have never regretted this decision and it was the beginning of a long journey to where I am today. Now am I a son of God as John confirms in his epistle (1 John 3:2). Here are just a few items from my extensive studies:
Contrary to what RCs believe, Jesus did not make Peter the head of His new church. He called Peter “Petros” which means a stone or a little rock and called the revelation which Peter professed “petra” meaning a big immovable rock which is what Peter’s revelation amounted to. As these are two distinct words with separate meaning, so was Jesus’ meaning in His specific use of each of them, as was Matthew, who was there as an eyewitness, in selecting these specific Greek words for his gospel which he himself heard live from Jesus in Aramaic and wrote them down in Greek.
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter [Greek: Petros], and upon this rock [Greek: petra] I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Matthew 16:18
Jesus was simply using wordplay with Peter’s name since his name meant a rock and his revelation was the rock of truth.
In the original text the Greek even adds the definite article “the” to petra. So literally translated it would be “You are a little rock and on this the big rock, I will build my government (ecclesia).
This was Jesus response to Peter after He asked him “Whom do you say that I am?“, and he said “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” to which Jesus replied that “…flesh and blood has not revealed [it] to you but my Father which is in heaven.” It was upon this rock of revelational truth that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, that Jesus distinctively said “and upon this rock [petra and not petros] I will build my church.“
How could Jesus possibly build His church, the eternal government of the Christ, upon a flesh and blood man when He clearly stated that this truth was not revealed by flesh and blood but by His Father which is in heaven? This was the same apostle that only a few verses later Jesus calls Satan because he was an offense to Him not regarding the things of God but of men.
Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Matthew 16:22-23
Yet this is what the RC institution claims that Jesus built His church on the man Peter and not on the revealed truth of Himself being the anointed Messiah and the Son of the living God. They claim that Peter (Petros) and Cephas (Peter in Aramaic) both have the same meaning of Rock and that only Peter was given the keys to the kingdom. Not true because Jesus was speaking to all of his apostles and every believer has been given the same keys which is the power to loose and to bind (Matthew 18:18) and to do the same works that Jesus did (John 14:12) and even greater works. This is called the priesthood of the believers (1 Peter 2:5, 9). The disciples were specifically instructed to disciple all nations to observe all things whatsoever He had commanded them (Matthew 28:18-20).
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Matthew 16:19
Yes, Peter was to be an important part of Jesus’ church as an apostle and even an elder, but certainly not the head of it as a pope. Christ is solely the head of His own church and no one else and we the believers are his priests. Peter was to be a small rock in the whole configuration and part of the whole while Christ is, and always will be, the cornerstone of this rock of revelation which Peter himself confessed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Jesus never said “I appoint you head of my church” which is only a baseless and false RC assumption. He specifically said “I will build my church“. He did not say that Peter would build His church (government) as the head of it but that He would build His church on the rock of revelation given to Peter that He is the Christ, the son of the living God.
Jesus alone is the rock and our salvation.
He only is my rock and my salvation: he is my defence; I shall not be moved. Psalms 62:6
Bottom line: “the government shall be upon His shoulders…”, Jesus’ shoulders as the immovable rock and not upon Peter’s shoulders (Isaiah 9:6).
Even more surprisingly is why they would even declare Peter to be the head of the church and the very first pope, since he never traveled to Rome, Paul did. There is not one scripture or even one historical anecdote that places Peter in Rome. Whoever is buried in Peter’s tomb in Rome cannot possibly be Peter since he never set foot in Rome. One of the most a embarrassing moments for the RC church was after it was discovered that the bones they had excavated from Peter’s tomb under the main dome of the Vatican basilica and officially declared to be the bones of St. Peter, when after scientific examination. turned out it be the bones of a woman.
Peter in his own epistles, written around 60 AD from Babylon and not from Rome, only calls himself an apostle of Jesus Christ and not the head of any church and certainly not a pope (1 Peter 1:1). The title pope means father. Peter would never have violated Jesus commandment by calling himself the father of Jesus’ church.
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Matthew 23:9
Peter was the apostle to the Jews while Paul was the apostle to the gentiles as the word confirms in Galatians 2:7. Ironically, Peter started out as the apostle to the first gentile convert Cornelius but then became the apostle to the Jews for which Paul withstood him to the face for his hypocrisy in gathering with the gentiles until the Jewish believers came to town and then being afraid of their possible criticism, he fraternized only with them instead while ignoring the gentile believers (Galatians 2:11).
Peter died in Jerusalem and was buried there and his bones were discovered in an ossuary (stone box containing bones) in a Christian cemetery with his name Simon Bar Jona neatly inscribed on it in Aramaic. It was discovered right next to other ossuaries of his contemporaries in the same cemetery in Jerusalem including the ossuary of Mary the mother of Jesus.
You can read about this in full detail in an excellent dissertation by F. Paul Peterson called Peter’s Tomb Recently Discovered In Jerusalem.
So much for the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Assumption. She was not immaculate since she “did not know her husband Joseph until after Jesus’ birth” which means that she did know her husband after Jesus’ birth because she had 4 more sons James, Joseph, Judas and Simon and at least 3 or more daughters. James the apostle, who wrote the epistle of James, was one of them and Jesus’ half brother. RC doctrine is very adamant that Mary remained an immaculate virgin and never had relations with Joseph in her lifetime and did not die but ascended to heaven in the same manner as Jesus did after his resurrection. There is no scripture to confirm this, of course.
Well, if Joseph already thought of putting her away (divorcing her) after discovering she was pregnant, how much more would he have divorced her if she had refused to have relations with him for the rest of his life? Like most RC doctrines, this is just not natural and totally illogical and completely against the Mosaic law as well as all scripture. Even the Jews, who denied Jesus’ divinity and sought every possible opportunity to discredit Him, recognized all of Mary’s children and publicly testified of them by name (Mark 6:3).
Mary also never was, or is, or could possibly be, the mother of God as they claim (Hail Mary, mother of God,…) but only the natural mother of Jesus as the son of man and not as the Son of God. The seed by the Holy Spirit was divine but Mary’s ovum was not but was of sinful flesh. Jesus blood had 23 chromosomes from his natural mother but only one male chromosome from His Father (See Ron Wyatt’s Discovery of the Ark of the Covenant and Chromosome count in ‘blood’ sample) . God does not have a mother or a wife and Mary is certainly not his wife. Even in the inspired Song of Mary, a.k.a. The Magnificat, cited in Luke 1:46 – 55, Mary herself admits that she is a sinner in need of a savior.
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. Luke 1:47
If she indeed was the mother of God and “immaculate”, she would be sinless and not in need of a savior. And as a sinner in need of a savior herself, she cannot possibly be a “Mediatrix” between man and Jesus. How many Catholics are led astray to actually pray to the “Blessed Mother”, when no such individual exists, instead of directly to Jesus? How many Catholics are actually taught and encouraged to pray to dead “saints” or to lifeless stone statues? Since we are forbidden to pray to anyone other than God the Father, Jesus the Son and the Holy Spirit, this amounts too idolatry which is against the 1st and 2nd Commandments to have no other gods before Him or to make any graven images to bow down to or serve them (pray to them). That is why the RC institution conveniently did away with the 2nd commandment and split the 10th commandment into number 9 and number 10 so they would still have 10 total, since it did not line up with their teachings. The Vatican openly admits to this right on their website. We all know what the word tells us what happens when we take away from the words of scripture, right?
Commandment # 1: I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Exodus 20:2-3
Commandment # 2: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Exodus 20:4-6
Yes, all generations shall call Mary blessed as the word confirms, but that does not elevate her to divinity or any other fallacies invented by the RC institution to indoctrinate their followers.
Paul started out being the apostle to the Jews but then he became the apostle to the gentiles as the Lord directed him (Acts 22:21, Galatians 2:7). The fact that he kept going to the Jews after the Lord directed him to go to the gentiles is what got him into trouble with the Jews every time. The Holy Spirit warned him many times that if he went to Jerusalem, he would be bound and afflicted (Acts 20:22-23, 21:4, 11). He refused to listen and went anyway saying that he was ready to be bound and even to die for the gospel so the Holy Spirit relented and did not prevent or forbid him, as He forbade Him to go to Asia, but let him have his way. Some even say Paul may have had a martyr complex.
The word confirms that had he not appealed to Caesar, he might have been “set at liberty.” as so stated by Agrippa to Festus who sent him to Caesar per his own request (Acts 26:32). But nevertheless God used it all for His glory and revealed to Paul, as per his original desire (Acts 19:21) that it would behoove him also to see Rome, and his steadfast mindset, that he would be sent to Rome to testify of Jesus (Acts 23:11) giving him the confidence to appeal to Caesar.
So if Peter never was the head of the RC institution or even their first pope, then the whole thing crumbles to the ground because that is their sole foundation built on sand upon which the whole Roman Catholic institution stands and falls.
Franciscus M. Dartee
Grow in Faith | Walk in Power
All rights reserved. © 2021
» If you enjoyed this, don’t forget to like, comment and share! If this post has ministered to you and you would like to receive regular updates, please be sure to click on the follow button at the bottom of this page.
5 thoughts on “The Fall of the Catholic Church”
Hell will be overflowing with Catholics. Hosea 4 is when God cursed priesthoods forever. Christians are blinded by greed.
True believers are his royal priesthood today.