|
How the Catholic Church Developed
Reprinted from The Spiritual Sword
David R. Pharr
The Catholic Church does not hesitate to
claim its connection with the church of the
New Testament. Their belief is that the
hierarchy of Catholicism is in a line of
succession from the apostles. Though it was
a doctrine not widely accepted until the
third century.[i] Catholics today
claim that a line of ordination continues
from the apostles through each generation of
bishops and that the bishops are, therefore,
in the authoritative position of the
apostles, as their successors. The pope in
particular sits in Peter’s chair. It is
maintained, then, that through this
succession the Roman church is the original
church. This assumption fails, however,
because of two conspicuous facts. Nothing
in the New Testament provides that the
apostolic office would be passed on to
others.[ii] And such
bishops have repeatedly contradicted the
apostles in teaching and practice so that
there is nothing in the entire Catholic
system that identifies it with the church of
the New Testament.
The connection between Catholicism and the
New Testament is not through apostolic
succession, nor is there any connection with
apostolic faith and practice. The only link
between the Scriptures and Romanism is in
the apostles’ prophetic predictions of
apostasy.
Succession of Truth
The church of Christ, which had been
promised by Jesus (Matt. 16:18) and came
into being on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2),
was set in order under the direction of the
Lord’s apostles (Matt. 18:18; 28:19f; I Cor.
4:17; 11:2; 14:37; II Pet. 3:2). So long as
congregations remained faithful to apostolic
instructions, they were churches of Christ.
Paul’s instuctions to Timothy make it clear
that the only way to continue with apostolic
identity is to continue with apostolic
teaching. Consider the following from II
Timothy 2:2 with inserted notations:
| And the things that thou [Timothy,
preacher second generation from the
apostles] hast heard of me [Paul, an
apostle] among many witnesses, the same
[the same teaching that Paul did,
unchanged]commit thou to faithful men
[third generation from the apostles],
who shall be able to teach others also
[fourth generation from the apostles]. |
That such consistency
with the apostolic standard was expected for
the first four “generations” demonstrates
that like consistency would be expected for
all generations (cf. Heb. 13:7-9). The much
vaunted Catholic claims to be the successors
of the apostles fail completely when their
teaching and practice are compared to the
apostolic pattern. The only succession
provided was the succession of truth.
Apostasy Foretold
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in
the latter times some shall depart from the
faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and
doctrines of devils . . . Forbidding to
marry, and commanding to abstain from meats
. . .” (I Tim. 4:1-3). The Spirit
predicted departure from “the faith.” “The
faith” refers to the apostolic system (see
Gal. 1:23; Jude 3; et al.). Whether the
asceticism of Catholicism was directly in
view, it is nonetheless clear that their
clerical celebacy and fasting requirements
are examples of departures from the faith.
“Let
no man deceive you by any means: for that day [day
of Christ’s return, v. 2] shall not come, except
there come a falling away first, and that man of sin
be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and
exalteth himself above all that is called God, or
that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the
temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (II
Thess. 2:3f). “Falling away” means apostasy, coming
from the Greek word apostasia. Clearly this
does not refer to some isolated instance of
digression, but a widespread emergence of an
apostate system, the core of which would be the
exaltation of a man, “the man of sin.” This would
develop gradually, over time, but some elements
“doth already work” (v.7). When in place the
apostate system with its blasphemous head would
continue until destroyed at the coming of Christ (v.8).
Before
political correctness and corresponding compromise
took over, Protestant scholars had no difficulty
identifying this prophecy with the papal system and
its attendant errors.[iii] Matthew
Henry observed:
| . . .
to whom can this better apply than to the bishops of
Rome, to whom the most blasphemous titles have been
given, as Dominus Deus noster papa—Our Lord God
the pope . . . Idem est dominuum Dei et papas—The
dominion of God and the pope is the same?[iv] |
Presbyterian Albert Barnes, as to whether the text
should be applied to the Papacy, comments:
| Protestants believe it must
be so understood, and Papists have not yet
disproved the reasons which they allege for
their belief.
If this be the fair interpretation, then we may see
what is the value of the pretended “succession” of
the ministry through that system. If such a regular
“succession” of ministers from the apostles could be
made out what would it be worth?[v]
|
Adam
Clark, the respected Methodist expositor was equally
certain. After citing the position of others that
the text applies in “the whole to the Romish
Church: the apostasy, its defection from the
pure doctrines of Christianity; and the man of
sin, etc., the general succession of the popes
of Rome,” he concludes:
| If the
apostasy be rightly charged upon the Church of Rome,
it follows of consequence that the man of sin
is the pope, not any pope in particular, but the
pope in general, as the chief head and supporter
of this apostasy.[vi] |
The
scholarly Lenski was no less adamant in saying that
the apostasy foretold pointed to the rise of
Catholicism.
| All
that Paul says agrees with the papacy and Romanism
down to the present day. . . . During nineteen
centuries no greater apostasy has ever appeared in
the visible church. Nor can a still greater
one appear. The climax has been reached in the
papal system.[vii] Our
own lamented brother G.C. Brewer did not hesitate
to level the same charges.
If any
man in history or any maker of history should ever
deliberately and designedly set out to fulfill
Paul’s prophecy—to make himself fit the description
both in his names and deeds—he could not possibly do
any better in this than the pope has done and is
doing.[viii]
|
The Development
Various heretical doctrines arose early and demanded
constant vigilance and opposition (II Pet. 2:1ff; I
Jn. 4:1ff; II Cor. 11:13ff; et al). But history
shows that it was the evolution of an unscriptural
hierarchy that most decidedly separated the
post-apostolic church from its roots in truth. It
is significant that Paul recognized that leadership
was fertile ground for departures. To the bishops
of Ephesus he warned, “For I know this, that after
my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among
you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves
shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw
away disciples after them” (Acts 20:29f). John
wrote of a certain Diotrephes, who sought to control
the church (III Jn. 9f). These were local
concerns, but were forerunners of the hierarchal
trends which would eventually engulf the church.
New
Testament church government provided for a plurality
of elders (bishops, pastors) over autonomous
congregations (Acts 14:23; Titus 1:5; I Pet. 5:1ff;
Phil. 1:1). While elders differed in some
responsibilities (I Tim. 5:17), nothing in Scripture
assumes the elevation of one elder above the
others. In time, however, there developed the
practice of having one elder over the others and
restricting to him only the title of “bishop.”
Gradually some of these “bishops” came to rule over
all the congregations in a given area. As would be
expected, the bishops of the more prominent cities
came to have the greater influence. By the third
and fourth centuries the principal cities were Rome
and Constantinople and early competition for supreme
authority in the church arose between these bishops.
Decades of struggle between Constantinople and Rome
finally climaxed in the elevation of the bishop of
Rome as the “universal bishop,” the pope. It was
not an easy victory. No doubt some resisted because
of scripture and conscience, and others out of
jealously and selfish ambition. Thus the earliest
claims for the supremacy of a single bishop were
generally ignored. But by the fifth century the
bishops of Rome had greatly strengthened their
position so that Leo I (bishop from 440-461, called
“the Great”) could assume oversight of the churches
in the West. While Leo is not usually considered
the first pope, he did much to establish precedents
for the office.[ix] On the other
hand, as late as 588 there was still a bishop of
Constantinople, John the Faster, who claimed for
himself title of universal bishop. The Roman bishop
Gregory vigorously opposed what he considered John’s
wicked presumption. And, with the support of the
wicked emperor Phocas, instead established himself
as the universal bishop.[x]
Historians consider Gregory (also called “the
Great”) the first pope. This was 500 years after
the death of the last apostle.
Catholics make much of the papal system’s success
in holding the church together and keeping it free
of heresy, but papal succession through the
centuries has hardly followed a smooth course. The
Eastern churches, represented by the bishops of
Constantinople, continued to chaff under the
presumptions of Rome until a complete break came in
1054, when Pope Leo IX and the Patriarch of
Constantinople excommunicated each other. A bitter
struggle for the papal office in the 14th and 15th
centuries resulted for a time in there being three
popes at the same time, each condemning the others.
Two of these were elected by the very same college
of cardinals.[xi]
Though
earlier emphasis was that all bishops shared in
authority as successors of the apostles, eventually
ultimate and exclusive authority was centered in Roman
pontiff. For a long time the bishop of Rome, would
presume no more than to be the “first among equals
[other bishops].” The emergence of papal power,
however, finally climaxed in the doctrine of papal
infallibility. This is the position that whatever the
pope declares ex cathedra (from his “chair” i.
e., officially) regarding faith and morals must be
totally without error and must be accepted by all.
Anyone who might presume to contradict the pope is
declared to be anathema.[xii] In
accepting papal infallibility, therefore, the Catholic
Church has totally surrendered to papal control.[xiii]
It is asserted that no human being can be
saved without submission to the pope.[xiv]
This
claim for the papacy was not officially accepted,
however, until the Vatican Council of 1870—eighteen
centuries after the apostles. Though the then current
pope, Pius IX, insisted that this had always been the
dogma of the church, there was significant opposition
against it among the bishops.[xv]
Notable was opposition by Archbishop Strossmayer, who
showed from scripture and history that the idea of
infallibility was unacceptable and that the entire
papal system was without foundation. He boldly
reminded the council that no uninterrupted line of
succession existed, that there was great wickedness in
the lives of some of the popes, and that there were
numerous examples of popes having contradicted one
another.[xvi] When the vote was taken
two of the bishops present voted against papal
infallibility and nearly 100 of the bishops on hand
simply did not attend that session.[xvii]
In spite of all, however, Catholicism
reverences their pope as the head of their church and
“Vicar [representative of] the Son of God.”
Conclusion
The
Roman Catholic Church is not the church of the New
Testament. It is not even the church of its own
history. It was born out of departures from the faith
and has evolved through the ages with ever more
blatant appendages of error.
The
claim that the popes are the successors of Peter fails
on every count. First, the Bible does not teach the
primacy of Peter (that he was the chief apostle). He
is not the “rock” upon which the church is built
(Matt. 16:18; I Cor. 3:11). There is no conclusive
evidence that he was ever in Rome (where he is alleged
to be the first bishop of Rome). And, most
significant of all, the New Testament does not provide
for any succession of any office, only for the
succession of truth.
Endnotes:
i. F. W. Mattox, The Eternal Kingdom,
(Delight, AR: Gospel Light Pub. Co., 1961), p. 109.
ii. See Everett Ferguson, The Church of
Christ, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1996), p. 306.
iii. The 1611 translators so understood the “Man
of Sin,” as indicated in their statement of dedication to King James.
iv. Matthew Henry, Commentary, loc. cit.
v. Albert Barnes, Commentary, loc. cit.
vi. Adam Clark, Commentary, loc. cit.
vii. R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of
Paul’s Epistles to the Colossians, to the
Thessalonians, to Timothy, to Titus and to
Philemon, (Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House, 1961), p. 434.
viii. G. C. Brewer, “The Man of Sin and Son of
Perdition,” The Spiritual Sword, July 1992,
p. 6 (reprinted from the Voice of Freedom,
April 1953). Cf. J. W. McGarvey in his commentary on the text.
ix. Earle E. Cairns, Christianity Through
the Centuries, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Pub. Co., 1954), pp. 171f.
x. Ibid., p. 182.
xi. Schaff, History of the Christian Church,
Vol. 5, pp. 117-165, cited by Roy H. Lanier, Sr.,
“Review of Guthrie Tract (2),” Firm Foundation, July 20, 1965, p. 457.
xii. Documents of the Christian Church,
edited by Henry Bettenson, (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), pp. 273f.
xiii. See Cardinal Gibbons, as quoted by Paul
Matthews, Basic Errors of Catholicism,
(Rosemead, CA: Old Paths Book Club, 1952), pp. 12f.
xiv. One can hardly imagine a more blasphemous
presumption than declared by Pope Boniface VIII in
his “Bull ‘Unam Sanctam’” (1302). “Futhermore we
declare, state, define and pronounce that it is
altogether necessary to salvation for every human
creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff” (Bettenson, Ibid., p. 116).
xv. In the mid 1800s Keenan’s Catechism,
with the imprimatur of Scotch Roman
Catholic bishops, included the following question and answer:
| Q. Must not Catholics believe the Pope in himself to
be infallible? A.
This is a Protestant invention [untrue accusation
by Protestants]; it is no article of the Catholic
faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain
of heresy, unless it be received and enforced by
the teaching body; that is, by the bishops of the
church.
Quoted in George Salmon, The Infallibility of
the Church, (London: John Murray Pub., 1888,
revised 1952), p. 9f. Salmon further explains
that a later printing (after Vatican Council of
1870) of Keenan’s omitted this question and
answer, though the title page indicated it was of
the same printing as the earlier copy.
|
xvi. For a list of some of the ungodly and ridiculous decrees of popes, see
Roy H. Lanier, Jr., “The Infallibility of the Pope,” Spiritual Sword, July 1992, p. 46.
xvii. Cairns, Ibid., p. 427.
Back to
Articles Menu
Carolina Messenger
Spiritual Sword
|