crossing deception

7/27/2019 Crossing Deception

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/crossing-deception 1/68

Crossing The Threshold of

Deception

by

Rosanna J. Evans

February 20th, 1999



Thesis: Many Christians have agreed recently that the Roman Catholic church is simply another Christian sect.

This supposition stems from a lack of knowledge about the doctrinal stance within the structure itself.

This paper will attempt to expose some of the roots of the many non-Christian dogmas to be found within

its structures, in order that Christians will begin to look more closely at the ecumenical trend and the

implications of adopting this organization through this vehicle, in order to evangelize the world.

24 B.) Evidence Compiled . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

235.) Matthew 16:18 Examined . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

23e.) Peter Sent Out, Not The One Sending Out . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

21d.) God Appointed Both Paul and Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20c.) Servanthood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

20b.) The Others Were Not Told Of His Position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

19a.) Peter Never Mentioned He Had Primacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

194.) Various Other Proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

183.) The Jerusalem Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

18b.) Paul Opposes Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17a.) Rebuke By Jesus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

172.) Opposition To Peter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17c.) What About Peter Himself? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

16b.) The Biblical Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

15a.) The Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

151.) Celibacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14 A.) Was Peter Really The First Pope? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

14II.) THE LINE OF THE VICAR OF CHRIST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

145.) How Should One React To The Dogma of Infallibility, Then? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

13b.) Luther Stands Up Against Infallibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

12a.) The Word Of God versus The Vatican . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

124.) What Does All This Mean? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

11b.) What about Peter, the Rock? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

10a.) The Doctrine of Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

103.) Are Pastors Free of Error, Too? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

82.) Are Proclamations Made Through Strife Really Infallible? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

8e.) A Contradiction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

7d.) Is God Double-minded? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7c.) The Doctrine of Hypocrisy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6b.) A Mediator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

6a.) Holiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

61.) Would Infallibility Require Holiness of Life? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 B.) What is Infallibility, Anyway? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

4 A.) Mouthpiece For Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3I.) THE POPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 B.) A Change of Heart? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 A.) Flirting With Peril . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1I NTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .CROSSING THE THRESHOLD OF DECEPTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



55ii.) Canons Concerning Baptism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55i.) Canons on Justification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

55APPENDIX III -- SOME A NATHEMAS OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54iv.) Mary According To The Scriptures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

54iii.) Bodily Assumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53ii.) Theotokos -- Mother of God . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

51i.) Immaculate Conception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

51APPENDIX II. MARY EXAMINED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50APPENDIX I. IS THE POPE R EALLY THAT DEVOTED TO MARY? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

50APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

49CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

48C. Is Ecumenism A Valid Avenue For Evangelism, Then? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

472.) The Roman Catholic Church and Ecumenism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

46c.) Other Notable Evangelicals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

45iii.) The Promise Keepers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

44ii.) Chuck Colson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

42i.) Billy Graham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41b.) The Heavyweights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40a.) Lutherans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

401.) Christendom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40 B.) Proponents of Ecumenism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39 A.) Who Started the Ecumenical Movement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

39V.) ECUMENISM -- WHAT IS IT? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

38C.) So, Has There Been A Change Of Heart? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

374.) Has He Promoted A Positive Change? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

363.) Double-Talk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

36b.) Should The Pope’s Assertion Be Believed Then? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

35a.) Is Marian Worship Christocentric? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .342.) The Pope and Mary -- Totus Tuus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

321.) One of Us? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

32 B.) Who Is He? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30 A.) Who Was He? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30IV.) POPE JOHN PAUL II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

30 E.) Not What Is Portrayed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28 D.) Restored Renaissance Papacy? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

273.) Council of Basle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27c.) Reform of the Church . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

27b.) Extirpation of Heresy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

26a.) Ending the Schism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .262.) Council of Constance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

261.) Council of Pisa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25C.) The Conciliar Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

25 B.) The Papal Schism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24 A.) The Babylonian Exile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

24III.) THE SCHISMATIC CHURCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



63WORKS CONSULTED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

59WORKS CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

58ILLUSTRATION II. PAPAL COAT OF ARMS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57ILLUSTRATION I. WOODCUT OF CHRIST VERSUS THE POPE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

56iii.) Canon Concerning the Veneration of Relics and Saints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .



ABBREVIATIONS

RCC Roman Catholic Church

ECT Evangelicals and Catholics Together



Crossing The Threshold of Deception

Preface

This paper will attempt to identify and expose some of the non-Christian teachings to be found within the

structures of the Roman Catholic Church, through the investigation of the dogmas and doctrines which surround

its most valued appointment - the papal throne. From this springboard, the question of ecumenism will be

couched and investigated.

Although there are many issues which could be addressed, including the practice of the canonization of

individuals, the properties of the mass, purgatory, indulgences, Mariology, and the practice of transubstantiation,

for this paper, the focus will rest upon the office of the Pope itself and the ecumenical move toward unity with the

Roman Catholic Church in recent years.

The Papal office has been chosen as an area of concentration because it is considered by most people,

Roman Catholic and Protestant alike, to be the essence and authority of Roman Catholicism. By investigating the

intricacies of this office, not to mention many of the individuals who have held the position, it is this author’s hope

that God’s people will begin scrutinising all of the deceptive doctrines found within the Roman Catholic Church

itself and will then start calling into question the validity of maintaining unity with this body, without first

summoning them to rectify these errors.1

It must be stressed that this paper is not intended to attack or otherwise undermine individuals 2, but has

been written in order to identify some of the anomalous teachings which have infiltrated the church and have

caused many to stray from the Author and Finisher of their faith.

It is time for God’s people to pick up the mantle which they have been given, and again begin to "study to

shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth”.

(II Timothy 2:15 KJV)

2 The actions of many Popes, especially those of Pope John Paul II will be called into question, but this is, again, a

matter of investigating the validity of these behaviours, in light of scripture and in light of their ascribed positions.

It is not my desire to judge them. However, it is right and good to investigate their fruits (cp. Matthew 7:16, 20;

12:33; Luke 6:44 ) to see the nature of the tree from whence they came.

1 Some would say that this is being done with the ecumenical movement. However, while it appears that there is

movement toward what this author would call ‘orthodox Christianity’, these changes are merely surface and lack

real substance.



Introduction

Deception - it often begins as a seemingly innocuous notion which may even appear to be beneficial.

Before long, it nonetheless begins to wreak havoc upon all who venture anywhere near its path. This is the nature

of deception. It engulfs its victims before they are aware they have been overtaken, or indeed, even in danger.

Scripturally, deception is something which may overtake even those who are considered to be believers of

the Truth, but have become lax in their vigilance. 3

As the millennium draws to a close, many new trends have recently come into vogue. The most alarming

among these modes, is the desire to reenter turbid waters long since polluted by man’s heresies, without first

cleaning them.

Although boundaries have been clearly delineated and plans for cleaning have been proposed by

theologians down the centuries, many believers today have ignored both the plans and the posted warnings on the

shores. In their rush for alliance, many have ventured into waters which are treacherous at best.

A.) Flirting With Peril

Numerous Christians within the “traditional Evangelical” circle have recently begun to ally themselves

with the Roman Catholic Church, in order that they might be able to ‘more successfully evangelize the world for

Christ.’ 4 While this may seem to be perfectly appropriate in light of the daunting task which lies before the

Christian world 5, there are many major issues which have not yet been resolved, but seem to have been

disregarded recently. The concerns which are alluded to, are none other than those raised by people, such as Knox,

Zwingli, and Luther before, during, and after the Reformation. Many individuals literally gave up their lives, so

that the fullness of the Gospel would be available to every man, woman and child without reservation.

Now, in the Post-modern age, where nearly everything 6 is permissible, the great sacrifices men and

women have made for the sake of the purity of Truth, seem to have been in vain. In spite of their heroic stand

2

6 Everything BUT holding Truth above political correctness or above ecumenism, that is.

5 Jesus uttered these words to His believers, when speaking of the events which must precede the end of sin and this

world, as we know it: "And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the

nations, and then the end will come.” (Matthew 24:14). Without a doubt, this responsibility has been one of the

major reasons for this push toward unity.

4 This has been a common cry, even among the circles this author frequents.

3

cf. Luke 21:34 - 37



against accepting the many heretical acts and attitudes of the Roman Catholic Church during their time, the

Christian community today has decided that these issues were either not as ‘bad’ as they were originally perceived

to be or they have since been rectified, and so are no longer problems. 7

B.) A Change of Heart?

The question still remains: what really is the nature of the Roman Catholic Church? Has it really been

transformed from the formidable organization it once was, into the innocuous Christian denomination that many

would have the world believe or has it simply given itself a ‘face-lift’?

When asked, multitudes today point to the Pope of this generation, John Paul II, as evidence of the

efficacy of this purported metamorphosis. Among those within that crowd, are numerous proponents who are

almost completely ignorant of the past and the present requirements or the many inconsistencies between the

doctrine of the Bible and the claims of the Papal office.

Interspersed among the throngs who continue to shower accolades on the Roman Catholic Church, are

others who have reserved judgment until all of the evidence has been compiled and categorized.

It is imperative for all involved, to have this evidence not only uncovered, but also scrutinised, so that an

informed conclusion may be reached and followed through with. This investigation is best served in this case, by

analyzing the history, doctrines, and personalities surrounding the papal office of the Roman Catholic Church

itself.

I.) The Pope

At the apex of the human hierarchy within the Roman Catholic Church, sits the appointed “Vicar of

Christ”, the Pope. According to the Oxford Dictionary of Current English, the term, ‘Vicar’ is derived from the

Latin word, ‘vicarivs’ or ‘substitute’ (Allen 1989) and the word, ‘Pope’, comes from the Latin, ‘papa’ , or the

Greek, papas, which means ‘father’ (Allen 1989) . From his title, the impression one is given, is that he is the

‘substitute father’ within the Church.

8

3

8 Jesus exhorted His disciples, including Peter, regarding this very thing: "Do not call anyone on earth your father;

for One is your F ather , He who is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9)

7This particular stance has been made very clear to the world, in the Document, “Evangelicals and Catholics

Together”.



Even without delving deeper, one may surmise that the man who holds this office, is highly regarded. In

order to maintain the integrity of this paper, however, the time will be invested to research and report the findings

of this postulation, using primarily documents written by the Catholic Church itself.

In the latest Catechism of the Catholic Church, one finds some surprising assertions, with respect to the

Vicar of Christ. Of those, one of the most interesting claims may be found in paragraph 882:

The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of

the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff , by reason

of his office as Vicar of Christ , and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme and universal power

over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered (Canadian Conference of

Catholic Bishops 1994). [my emphases]

Certainly, this is a startling contention. According to this document, the Pope, by virtue of his office, is

the head pastor of the Church Universal and is able to exercise his power over it unhindered .

A.) Mouthpiece For Christ

Although it must be said that the Vatican Council II also asserts that Christ is the Head of the Church

(Flannery 1981), as well as its foundation (Flannery 1981) and the Pope is simply His ‘mouthpiece’ to those things

which Christ taught, the dogmas seem to indicate something altogether different. A case in point; in paragraph

890 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it is said that the job of the Magisterium is to bring the Truth in its

entirety to the faithful:

[I]t is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee

them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error . Thus, the pastoral duty of the

Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this

service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and

morals. . . . . (Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops 1994) . [my emphasis]

While no one would deny that it should be the job of pastors to “preserve God’s people from deviations

and defections”, and to “guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error”, the fact

remains that all pastors are still human and capable of leading their flock astray, regardless of posturing, such as

that found in the quote above. The Catechism in effect, tells its adherents that Jesus Christ gave the gift of

infallibility ‘in matters of faith and morals’ to (presumably) Peter and his line of successors.

B.) What is Infallibility, Anyway?

The Oxford Dictionary of Current English says this about the term, ‘infallible’:

4



[I]ncapable of erring; (of Pope) incapable of erring in matters of doctrine expressed ex-cathedra 9;

infallibility (Allen 1989).

In the Catholic Encyclopedia, it is further expressed that believers are not infallible in their “subjective

interpretation of her [the Church’s] teaching”, but the Church is infallible in “her objective definitive teaching

regarding faith and morals.” It also asserts that neither “is the general or even unanimous consent of the faithful

in believing a distinct and independent organ of infallibility. Such consent indeed, when it can be verified as apart,

is of the highest value as a proof of what has been, or may be, defined by the teaching authority, but, except in so

far as it is thus the subjective counterpart and complement of objective authoritative teaching, it cannot be said to

possess an absolutely decisive dogmatic value” (Toner 1998).

Moreover, it is expressly stated that infallibility is neither inspiration nor Divine revelation. According to

the article, an infallible document is completely human, but the author has the “exemption from liability to error”

(Toner 1998) [my emphasis], whereas an inspired document is one where the human writer essentially becomes an

amanuensis 10 for God Almighty -- the document is God-breathed in this case. The author also notes that an

infallible document is not a revelation, since a revelation is, “the making known by God, supernaturally of some

truth hitherto unknown, or at least not vouched for by Divine authority; whereas infallibility is concerned with the

interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed” (Toner 1998). [my emphasis]

In essence, it is claiming that when a Pope or an Ecumenical Council has defined a doctrine and has

proclaimed it ‘infallible’, they are saying that “its [the doctrine’s] inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to

the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the Fathers of the Council are inspired as

were the writers of the Bible or that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching” (Toner 1998). [my

emphasis]

Finally, in order to ensure that there may be no misunderstanding, they further assert that:

a.) [I]nfallibility means more than exemption from actual error; it means exemption

from the possibility of error; that it does not require holiness of life, much less imply impeccability in itsorgans; [S]inful and wicked men may be God's agents in defining infallibly;

and:

5

10 It must be stated that God generally inspired the authors, but they were permitted to write these revelations in

such a way that their own unique styles shone through.

9 in matters pertaining to the church’s doctrines.



b.) [T]he validity of the Divine guarantee is independent of the fallible arguments upon which a definitive

decision may be based, and of the possibly unworthy human motives that in cases of strife may appear to

have influenced the result. It is the definitive result itself, and it alone, that is guaranteed to be infallible,

not the preliminary stages by which it is reached. (Toner 1998). [my emphasis]

Again, these assertions need to be examined and weighed against the Word of God, in order to ascertain

the integrity of the claims in question.

1.) Would Infallibility Require Holiness of Life?

If the belief of infallibility were valid, would this predicate a holy lifestyle from its benefactors or not?

While one cannot discount the fact that God has and continues to use the actions of unlawful or rebellious men and

women to accomplish His purposes,11 it must also be said that the Bible consistently shows that only men and

women who came to the Lord in obedience, were used to write down and disseminate a doctrine. Not once in

scripture, did God use the pens of those who refused to follow Him, in order to declare one of His teachings.12

Furthermore, while none of the people used to proclaim doctrine in the Bible were perfect or completely free of sin,

(with the notable exception of Jesus Himself, of course), they all had one thing in common; holiness of life.

a.) Holiness

According to the study notes made from the course, “Salvation and Sanctification”, holiness ( agioV) and

sanctification ( agiazo) have a common root word. Persons or things are made holy, by being set apart through a

mediator designated by God. These mediators between man and God have included the Temple, the Torah (The

Law), Prophets, Priests, and Kings, as well as Christ Himself (Mealy 1998).

b.) A Mediator

In the Old Testament, the focus was on the Temple as the mediator. In the New Testament, however,

Jesus became the Mediator. Through Him and His finished work on the cross, believers have become holy, but this

wondrous happening only occurs, once they agree to have a relationship with Him. After that has happened, Jesus

begins to conform His followers to His own image (Mealy 1998). It is at this point - or afterward - that God may

6

12He has often used the actions of the ungodly to teach His people lessons, regarding the things He does not want

them to do, however.

11 i.e.: Samson was a man who did not know God personally, but was, nevertheless, set apart by a mediator in his

life -- his mother, who dedicated him to the service of God prior to his birth. He certainly did not exemplify the

‘walk of faith’, like Samuel, the other Nazarite, did. Nor did Jehu, the evil king who was called to be anointed by

Elijah in I Kings 19: 16 ff.., to obliterate the line of Jezebel entirely.



use a person to begin to teach others about His goodness. (This would include the act of proclaiming an infallible

utterance, should this type of utterance even exist.)

c.) The Doctrine of Hypocrisy

To teach or proclaim a doctrine that one is not personally following is hypocrisy. In countless verses, the

followers of Christ are taught that this is a VERY unacceptable practice. Matthew 7:15-24 is an example of this

teaching:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.

Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every

good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring

forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit . Every tree that bringeth not forth good

fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Not every one

that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my

Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy

name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity. Therefore whosoever

heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house

upon a rock . . . . (Matthew 7:15-24 KJV). [my emphasis]

Here, Jesus admonishes His people not to believe or listen to the counsel of men or women who have not

bothered to live the life they speak about; He tells us we will know them by their ‘fruit’. What ‘fruit’ is He

speaking of? He is referring to the fruit of the Spirit 13 and the many fruits of service, which are borne out of a

relationship with Christ. Ungodly or wicked people are not capable of consistently exhibiting these fruits. The

character of the individual reveals his or her allegiance.

d.) Is God Double-minded?

If then, this is the ‘official’ teaching of the Master Himself, would He change His mind and decide that

the teachings of hypocrites and double-minded people are to be heeded? The resounding answer is, ‘no’.

According to Scripture, the Lord's Nature never changes.

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever (Hebrews 13:8).

And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that he should repent (1

Samuel 15:29).

They will perish, but You will endure; Yes, they will all grow old like a garment; Like a cloak You will

change them, And they will be changed. But You are the same, And Your years will have no end (Psalm

102:26 - 27).

7

13cf. Galatians 5:22 - 26



e.) A Contradiction

The Catholic Encyclopedia maintains that infallibility does not include the revelation of ‘new truths’, but

merely expands on existing truths found in scripture. Nevertheless, it seems to proclaim a ‘revelation of God’, by

virtue of the intimation that the Lord uses wicked men to make infallible proclamations (Toner 1998).

Bearing in mind, God clearly taught that wicked men were not to be heeded AND His nature remains the

same, this would seem to be a bit of a contradiction, at the very least.

2.) Are Proclamations Made Through Strife Really Infallible?

Although the doctrine of infallibility was not formalized until the first Vatican Council in 1870 (McBrien

1996), according to its own documents, the Catholic Church believes that all infallible proclamations are simply

the clarification of existing doctrines that have been taught from Biblical times onward (Canadian Conference of

Catholic Bishops 1994). How then, does this dogma fare, when compared to the actions the Church has taken in

times past?

In order to ascertain whether the statement made by the Church is valid, one must look into the history of

the Church, to see whether it has always applied this rule or whether it has done so only arbitrarily. 14

Throughout the Church’s history, there have been many Councils and synods held. For the most part,

little has transpired in the realm of real strife; assent and ‘harmony’ within the members of these summit-like

meetings occurred, although there were many times of heated disagreement.

However, there was at least one notable exception to this case: The Council of Constance. In this

situation, the participants were trying to control the damage wrought by the schism of the church, through the use

of ‘official’ proclamations 15 and governmental action 16, ratified by the group in question.

During the Council of Constance, the three popes who were serving, were either deposed or coerced to

resign. In their place, a new Pontiff, Martin V, was crowned. Additionally, many who voiced opinions different

8

16 This ‘governmental action’ included the burning of John Huss and the exhumation and burning of John

Wycliffe’s bones, for their stand on the Truth.

15 These were not formally recognized as ‘infallible proclamations’ -- see also section on the papal schism.

14 Because this is not an exhaustive study, this paper will examine only one instance in any depth.



from those of the Holy See, were literally burned at the stake for their trouble. Doubtless, this whole council

experienced a level of discord or strife which few other synods have had to deal with.

Sometime during the Council, a paper was issued,17 which claimed that the Council was called and

approved by Christ and that it had supremacy even over the Popes themselves.18

The Cardinals who were

involved in the Council of Constance managed to bolster the support of the newly elected pope Martin19 in every

action they had performed, including the formation of the document, “Haec Sancta”. Although he was not elected

until November of 1417, he was quoted as saying that he was in agreement with all of the proclamations and

documents drawn up by the Council from the beginning of the convocation of the Council itself.

The aforesaid lord our pope said, in answer to these proposals, protestations, requests and suggestions,

after silence had been imposed on all (since some were saying much and causing a disturbance), and by

way of replying to the aforesaid points, that he wished to hold and inviolably observe, and never to

contravene in any way, each and every thing that had been determined, concluded and decreed in aconciliar way, in matters of faith, by this present sacred general council of Constance. The pope approves

the things done thus in a conciliar way, and he ratifies all things about matters of the faith that were done

in the council in a conciliar way and not otherwise or in some other way (Tanner 1990).

Interestingly, the Vatican II claims that, as long as the Pope is in agreement, the bishops enjoy

infallibility, when they proclaim dogmas during ecumenical councils (Flannery, 1981).20 The question remains,

however -- was this proclamation infallible, in spite of the strife that wrought it? It does, after all, meet the criteria

outlined for a proclamation to be considered infallible. Apparently, it must not have been, in spite of “Haec

Sancta’ or its approval by the then current Pope.

As mentioned before, Pope Martin V declared that there could be no appeal from a Pope to a Council;

Pope Pius II formally condemned this as a grievous error in 1459, along with the entire conciliar movement! In the

meantime, however, one Jean Le Charlier De Gerson, a bishop of France, and a student of D'Ailly, wrote

extensively for the document, and his opinions were greatly received in France. Gerson once wrote that "the

9

20 Here, the infallibility of councils and synods are discussed. It is noted here that the Pope MUST be in agreement

with the proclamations made in a synod; otherwise the proclamation is void. This belief stems from the tradition

that Christ made Peter and his successors the heads of the earthly church.

19 Martin did not go against the Conciliar movement until after the Council of Constance was over; Furthermore,

the Catholic Church still considers Martin to be one of the Pontiffs.

18 According to the Vatican Council II, this type of action would be like those considered to be binding

proclamations. However, it appears the Catholic Church did not make the doctrine of infallibility retroactive, so

this is simply an exercise in theory..

17 “Haec Sancta”



'Articles of Constance' were dogmas and should be carved on the stone of all the churches" (Salembier 1998). If

the ecumenical Council had infallibility, since this doctrine supposedly existed from the first century on, how could

Pope Pius II proclaim that it was heretical? Obviously, one of these two assertions is in error.

3.) Are Pastors Free of Error, Too?

The claim that Jesus Christ “endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters

of faith and morals” (Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops 1994) cannot go unchallenged. It is imperative

that its claims are investigated and either refuted or accepted as truth.

In order to establish whether or not Jesus granted this dubious gift to Pontiffs, bishops, and pastors

throughout the ages, one must find out whether Biblical text evidenced such things undeviatingly, when it came to

matters of ‘faith and morals’. Because the apostles are purported to be the originators of the ’unbroken' line of

succession’, both within the Pontifical and Magisterial rings, both their words and actions should be scrutinized.

From there, one should be able to successfully extrapolate the answer to this question.

a.) The Doctrine of Paul

In the book of Galatians, Paul gives insight in this matter:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another

gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

But though we , or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have

preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any

other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ. But I

certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it

of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:6-13). [my emphasis]

Although Paul was speaking the Truth here, it must be observed that he placed himself among those who

could possibly deceive others. Many would say that he did this, in order to make others feel more comfortable with

the words. However, one must remember that this is a scripture from the Bible -- it is inspired of God. When

speaking to the faithful, Paul said it was possible for even he himself to become a heretic. Further, he instructed

the faithful not to follow his (or even an angel’s) commands, should they contradict the doctrines of God’s word in

any way. This is in direct conflict with the words of the Vatican II, regarding the decrees of the bishops and

indeed, the Pontiff himself (Flannery, 1981). Based on this scripture, at least, one must assume that pastors today

could fall into error when declaring doctrine, written or otherwise.

10



b.) What about Peter, the Rock?

While most non-Catholic people would agree that pastors could fall into error in matters of doctrine,

based on the words of Paul above, those who adhere to the decrees and dogmas of the Roman Catholic faith, would

be quick to point out that Paul was not Peter, the apostle to whom they ascribe the origin of the Papacy and the

foundation of the entire Church.

Interestingly, Peter spoke of the dangers of falling away, but used the pronoun, ‘you’, rather than ‘us’ in II

Peter 3:17, 18. On its own, one could easily surmise that Peter was incapable of error in the area of ‘doctrines and

morals’. However, this is an erroneous conclusion. In Luke 21: 34 - 37, Jesus spoke to all of His apostles about

the possibility of apostasizing and missing out on the provision God had in store for them:

And take heed to yourselves, lest at any time your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness,

and cares of this life, and so that day come upon you unawares. For as a snare shall it come on all themthat dwell on the face of the whole earth. Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted

worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21: 34

- 37) [my emphasis]

In this passage, Jesus admonished all those who came with Him to be careful to keep themselves pure and

to remain diligent at all times, so they would not fall into error. Peter was most certainly one of those adherents

who accompanied Jesus that day. The point this author wants to make with this passage is not that Peter

necessarily fell into error, but that it was possible. If God granted him (and the rest of the apostles) the gift of

infallibility, this conversation would not have had to occur.

Here again, though, many would say that this proves nothing because he only had to be perfect in the

proclamation of doctrines; he did not have to be a perfect person, he simply had to be above reproach in matters of

‘faith and morals’. The question still lingers, then -- was he always above reproach in the proclaiming and / or

teaching of doctrine? The answer may be found within the lines of the Epistle to the Galatians.

In Galatians, Peter was openly admonished by Paul because Peter had chosen to fall into the lie of

preferring the company of those who had been circumcised over the Gentile Christians who had not been.

According to Paul, Peter was heeding the false doctrine of others and fearing those who had been circumcised more

than God Almighty. This would seem to be an act of teaching by ‘example’, at the very least. Regarding this

incident, Paul recounted:

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

11



and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled

likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I

saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel , I said unto Peter before them all,

If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the

Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, Knowing

that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed

in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by theworks of the law shall no flesh be justified. But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves

also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid (Galatians 2:11-19) [my

emphasis].

Without a doubt, Paul considered Peter to have been both ‘deceived’ by others and perpetuating the heresy

he had been deceived by, through the actions he chose to take. These actions even resulted in the temporary

backsliding of Barnabas. This seems to be in opposition to the assertions made, regarding the doctrine of

infallibility because Peter sinned not only on a personal level, but as a ‘Vicar of Christ’, if indeed, he ever was one.

4.) What Does All This Mean?

The Catholic Encyclopedia clearly asserts that “infallibility is concerned with the interpretation and

effective safeguarding of truths alr eady revealed” (Toner 1990) [my emphasis]. However, it has been shown that

the application of this belief appears to be rather capricious, to say the least. Further, many of the suppositions

which have gone into the outlining of this particular dogma, have been in direct opposition to the Word of God.

a.) The Word Of God versus The Vatican

This presents a problem for the follower of the Catholic Church, not to mention the leaders. According to

the Word of God, we are to “let God be true but every man a liar. . .[t]hat You may be justified in Your words, And

may overcome when You are judged" (Romans 3:4b). The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has been taught

that the Pope and the other leaders are capable of making infallible proclamations and that its followers must

accept those proclamations, regardless of what they know to be true. The Second Vatican Council says it this way:

Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine

and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part , are obliged to submit to their bishops ' decision, made in

the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful

allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to theauthentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex-cathedra in such

wise, indeed that his Supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely

adhere to decisions made by him , conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made

known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a

certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated. (Flannery, 1981). [my

emphases]

12



Converse to these declarations, are the stinging words of our Saviour Himself. When confronted by

scribes and Pharisees who wanted to put the traditions and teachings of their elders ahead of what God’s word said,

Jesus replied to them;

Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying, This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me,

teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. (Matthew 15:7-9). [my emphasis]

Paul mirrored his Master’s beliefs:

As ye have therefore received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk ye in him: Rooted and built up in him, and

established in the faith, as ye have been taught, abounding therein with thanksgiving. Beware lest any

man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the

world, and not after Christ. For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. And ye are

complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power . . . . (Colossians 2: 6 - 11). [my

emphasis]

Later, Paul further admonished all believers, by saying;

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing

the word of truth. But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. . . "

(2 Timothy 2:15-17) [my emphasis]

and also . . .

“Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and

doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall

they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth,

and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an

evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry” (2 Timothy 4:2-5). [my emphasis]

b.) Luther Stands Up Against Infallibility

Martin Luther echoes these Biblical ideologies in his writing:21

They assume authority, and juggle before us with impudent words, saying that the Pope cannot err in

matters of faith, whether he be evil or good, albeit they cannot prove it by a single letter. We will quote the

Scriptures. St. Paul says, If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by, let the first hold his peace (1

Cor. 14:30). What would be the use of this commandment, if we were to believe him alone that teaches or

has the highest seat? Christ Himself says, And they shall be all taught of God (John 6:45). Thus it may

come to pass that the Pope and his followers are wicked and not true Christians, and not being taught by

God , have no true understanding, whereas a common man may have true understanding. Why should we

then not follow him? Has not the Pope often erred? Therefore it is a wickedly devised fable and theycannot quote a single letter to confirm it that it is for the Pope alone to interpret the Scriptures or to

confirm the interpretation of them. They have assumed the authority of their own selves. And though they

say that this authority was given to St. Peter when the keys were given to him, it is plain enough that the

keys were not given to St. Peter alone, but to the whole community (Snyder 1958). [my emphasis]

13

21Please take note that the author of this thesis believes that although Luther’s writing is not to be accepted as being

on the same level as the Scriptures, it is, nevertheless, interesting that this man would speak out against infallibility

before it became a dogma in 1870.



5.) How Should One React To The Dogma of Infallibility, Then?

So, what are those who feel bound by the doctrines of men, to do? Reject them

categorically and stand on the Solid Rock of their faith; not Peter, but on the teachings of the Word and His Bible.

Christ taught that if men broke a command and then instructed others to do likewise, He would consider these to be

‘least in the kingdom’, but whoever stood for the Truth and taught it, would be called ‘great in the kingdom of

heaven” (Matthew 5:19).

II.) The Line of the Vicar of Christ

Throughout the past 1700+ years, many have pointed to the entity known as the Catholic Church as the

only truly designated authority over the Body of Christ. They also have believed the Pope is its authority and his

line of succession has been unbroken from Peter to the current Pope, John Paul II. According to the Catholic

Church itself, it has enjoyed an unbroken connection with the first century church, via the Pope’s line of

succession, beginning with Peter. The online Catholic Tract, “Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth”, explains it this way:

Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century,

faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can

be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history

(Keating 1996). [my emphasis]

The Second Vatican Council mirrors this claim:

In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one, and undivided he put Peter at the head of the

other apostles, and in him he set up a lasting and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith

and communion. This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the

sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to

be firmly believed by all faithful, and, proceeding undeviatingly with the same undertaking , it proposes to

proclaim publicly and enunciate clearly the doctrine concerning bishops, successors of the apostles, who

together with Peter’s successor, the Vicar of Christ and the visible head of the whole church, direct the

house of the living God (Flannery 1981). [my emphasis]

While these documents speak of an unbroken succession (as do countless others), the evidence does not

seem to bear out the claim that the Catholic Church has enjoyed an unbroken line from Peter to John Paul II. Over

the next few pages, the evidence that points to the contrary will be presented and examined.

A.) Was Peter Really The First Pope?

Millions of people point to Peter as the first Pope, the head over all of the other apostles and the one who

was given the keys to the kingdom. Much of this belief is based on the way the Catholic Church has interpreted a

14



single verse in the Bible:

And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades

shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18).

It is vitally important to test this claim, though, in order to determine its validity. What follows, are a

group of facts that must not be overlooked, when assessing this declaration. The issues of celibacy, opposition to

Peter, the headship of Peter in the early Church, Paul’s position, with respect to Peter, and the interpretation of

Matthew 16:18 will be explored here.

1. ) Celibacy

a.) The Church’s Stance on Celibacy

One of the markers of the Papacy, and indeed, within the whole priesthood, have included the prerequisite

of celibacy. The belief has been fostered, partly based on what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 19:12:

For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs,

which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the

kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19:12)

This is a wonderful verse which speaks of a person’s willingness to be completely chaste for the kingdom of God.

However, nowhere in the Bible, does it mention that this should be a prerequisite of the service of ‘priesthood’,

while here on earth.

The Second Vatican Council speaks of the issue of celibacy in the lives of those called to the priesthood,

thusly:

Students who follow the venerable tradition of priestly celibacy as laid down by the holy and permanent

regulations of their own right should be very carefully trained for this state. In it they renounce marriage

for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matthew 19:12) and hold fast to their Lord with that undivided

love which is profoundly in harmony with the New Covenant; they bear witness to the resurrection in a

future life (cf. Luke 20:36) and obtain the most useful assistant towards the constant exercise of that

perfect charity by which they can become all things to all men in their priestly ministry. (Flannery 1981).

(my emphasis)

While they concede that neither the Early Church nor the Eastern Churches followed this belief, (Flannery 1981) .

they, nevertheless, consider it an ordinance which should be strictly adhered to in the life of a priest:

[B]ased on the mystery of Christ and his mission, celibacy, which at first was recommended to priests, was

afterwards in the Latin church imposed by law on all who were to be promoted to holy Orders. This

sacred Council approves and confirms this legislation so far as it concerns those destined for the

priesthood, and feels confident in the Spirit that the gift of celibacy, so appropriate to the priesthood of the

New Testament, is literally granted by the Father, provided those who share Christ's priesthood through

the sacrament of Order, and indeed the whole Church, ask for that gift humbly and earnestly (Flannery

1981) . [my emphasis]

15



Here, we are told that the Vatican Council approves and confirms the legislation that made this vow a requisite of

priesthood. However, just a little further down in the same section, it is implied that this vow is taken “of their

own free choice” (Flannery 1981) . This is a blatant contradiction, since it is considered to be one of the

prerequisites to entering the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church and it is most certainly a prerequisite for the

Papal Throne. One may not actually enter into the office of priesthood -- especially a higher office, such as that of

the Papacy -- without agreeing to this ordinance.

b.) The Biblical Perspective

Biblically speaking, however, whether one chooses to be celibate or married, seems to be of little

consequence in the overall scheme of things. God has always permitted His people, even priests, to marry while

ministering. Although it is true that Jesus said celibacy was a good practice to consider, as did Paul, never was it

mentioned that it should be enforced as a prerequisite of to those who chose to be full-time ministers of the Gospel.

On the contrary. In the book of 1 Timothy, all are warned that the practice of making it into a legal requisite, is

categorically condemned.

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; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with

a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats 22, which God hath created to be

received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good,

and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and

prayer (I Timothy 4:1-5). [my emphasis]

Scripture seems to be relatively clear on this point. While it is perfectly appropriate to choose abstinence while

doing the work of the Lord, it is by no means, required by law. In fact, when Paul speaks about celibacy, he makes

sure all know these ideas are his and not a direct revelatory commandment of God

I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But

each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried

and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control,

let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion (I Corinthians 7:6-9). [my emphasis]

16

22 Interestingly, both practices have been held within the Church; the vow of celibacy is almost universally

practiced within the Catholic Church, as is the practice of forced abstinence from meats each Friday during Lent.

This is not considered to be a choice for the individual to make, but law for those between the ages of 14 and 57.

For more information, please refer to [http://www.trosch.org/for/ the/abs-clws.htm]; Canon 1251 on the article of

prescribed days of fasting. See also [http://www.webdesk.com/catholic/passages/ lent/rules.html] for a complete

list of the rules to be followed for Lent.



This scripture has [apparently] not been permitted to be applied within the Catholic Church as a rule. Should a

priest (or Pope) decide they need to be married, the only way they may be released to do so, is to step down from

their position as ‘vicar’ or priest. One must realize that this act is looked upon by both the clergy and laity within

this organization, with great disdain.

c.) What About Peter Himself?

Without a doubt, the Church’s stance and the Bible’s doctrines seem to be somewhat in contention. at

least with regard to issues skirting around the Papal throne. In order to determine whether or not celibacy should

have been made into law, (at least from the Catholic perspective), one must look at the issue of Peter’s marital

status. Did Peter choose to be a eunuch “for the kingdom of heaven's sake” (Matthew 19:12)? [my emphasis]

If scripture were the deciding factor in this argument, the answer would again be ‘no’. It is shown in

Matthew 16:18 that Peter had a mother-in-law, who was healed by Jesus. This explicitly shows that the real Peter

was a married man, for it is impossible to have a mother-in-law and not be married. Another reference which

alludes to the marital status of the would-be pope, may be found in I Corinthians 9:5 (Peter is called Cephas here).

If Peter was the first pope, he was also a married man! The next question for the readers of this paper to ponder is:

why then does Catholicism forbid present-day popes to be married, like Peter was? This query has no definitive

answer, since the Catholic Church has never fully addressed it.

2.) Opposition To Peter

The evidence is mounting: not only was Peter a married man, but he was also rebuked by both Jesus and

Paul on at least one occasion. One must ponder the significance of these events, when looking at the claim that

Peter was the Leader of the entire early Church.

a.) Rebuke By Jesus

In the book of Matthew, shortly after Peter was allegedly given the keys of the kingdom,

23

Peter heard his

Lord speak of His death, burial and resurrection:

From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and

suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third

day (Matthew 19:12).

17

23 cf. Matthew 16:18



Believing Jesus was in error, Peter took the Christ off to the side, and began to rebuke Him for His predictions:

Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto

thee (Matthew 16:22).

Jesus’ response was quick and sharp:

But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou

savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men (Matthew 16:23).

The one who was supposed to be the visible head of the newly formed Church was quickly shown that he

had allowed Satan to use him to try and thwart the plans the Father had for the Kingdom. Parenthetically, “Get

thee behind me, Satan”, is the exact phrase as that which Jesus uttered to Satan during the Lord’s forty days in the

desert. 24 This appears to have been a pretty grievous error for the first ‘Vicar if Christ’ to make. At the very least,

it shows that his teaching was not what it should have been. He clearly did not understand the gravity of the job he

was supposed to be carrying out.25

b.) Paul Opposes Peter

In Galatians, Paul openly reprehended Peter in front of others:

"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. And the other Jews dissembled

likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I

saw that they walked not upri ghtly according to the truth of the gospel , I said unto Peter before them

all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou

the Gentiles to live as do the Jews" (Galatians 2: 11-14) [my emphases]

Paul corrected Peter without reserve because Peter was "in the wrong." It is unlikely that Paul would ever

have openly opposed Peter if he was the "visible head of the church." 26 While this incident on its own shows it is

rather unlikely that Peter was the first Pope, there is much more compelling evidence than this, which points to the

same conclusion.

3.) The Jerusalem Council

Among the more compelling arguments, is that of the leadership at the Jerusalem Council. At this

18

26 It is impossible to even conceive the idea of a bishop openly censuring the Pope today.

25 If, indeed, he was chosen as the sole individual to carry this burden.

24 Cf. Luke 4:8 with Matthew 16:23 in Koine Greek .



Council, it was determined that new converts need not worry about becoming circumcised, prior to (or after)

becoming Christians.

What is of interest here, is not necessarily the proclamations made at this Council, but the conspicuous

position (or lack thereof) Peter held. While he was, without doubt, present at this momentous Council, he certainly

did not preside over it; this honor went to James 27, not Peter. Additionally, although Peter had some say in the

procession itself, it was James, not Peter, who decided the outcome of the deliberations:

And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying , Men and brethren, hearken unto me . . .

[w]herefore 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. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being

read in the synagogues every sabbath day (Acts 15:13-21). [my emphasis]

Without a doubt, the man James was the one who presided over the Jerusalem Council.

So then, because Peter did not convoke it or proclaim the doctrine, the assembly should not have been

considered ‘authentic’ by the Holy Catholic See. In The Second Vatican Council, it states that:

[I]t is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to control such councils, to preside over them and to confirm

them (Flannery 1981). [my emphasis]

In this instance, Peter did not perform the duties he was ascribed, when he became the ‘Vicar of Christ’;

James did. Further, the ‘bishops did not “respect the primacy and pre-eminence of their head” (Flannery 1981),

but considered him to be only one of the many ‘witnesses’ who testified, regarding this issue of circumcision.

4.) Various Other Proofs

a.) Peter Never Mentioned He Had Primacy

First of all, while it has been shown that others did not seem to consider him the

‘head’ of the Church, it is important to find out what Peter believed. In I Peter 5:1, his feelings were revealed:

The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ,

and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed . . . . (I Peter 5:1)

In this passage, Peter had written to other ‘elders’ in the church, but never once mentioned that he was supposed to

have been placed in a position of primacy above them. He considered himself ‘also an elder’ not unlike the apostle

John did in II John 1:1.

19

27 Compare with Acts 15:13



b.) The Others Were Not Told Of His Position

Further, if he were supposed to be the head of the visible Church, certainly the other apostles would have

known this, if not immediately following the proclamation purportedly made by Jesus in Matthew 16:18, then at

least afterward, when they were squabbling among themselves about who was the greatest among them.

Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men.

But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared

to ask him of that saying. Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.

And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him, And said unto them,

Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth

him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great (Luke 9:44-48). [my

emphasis]

In This passage, He told them that anyone who did anything in His name would be considered great in the

Kingdom of God.

But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth,

as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! And they began to enquire among

themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. And there was also a strife among them,

which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles

exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye

shall not be so: but he that i s greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he

that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at

meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. Ye are they which have continued with me in my

temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat

and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And 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 art converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said

unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. And he said, I tell thee, Peter,

the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me (Luke 22:21-34).

[my emphasis]

Without a doubt, this passage occurred after the incident mentioned in Matthew and in Jesus’ presence,

yet Jesus did not once correct them by saying that He had appointed Peter to be the ’head’ of the Church. Instead,

He identifies Peter as the one who would betray Him three times before the next dawn. Additionally, He

bequeathed the Kingdom to all of those who were willing to serve, not just Peter. Had Jesus appointed Peter the

‘Head’, He would have cleared up this contention with a clear rebuke to the rest, saying that Peter was the one to

whom He had given the primacy. In reality, this was not an exclusive appointment; it was an inclusive invitation.

c.) Servanthood

While no one would contend that Peter was a servant of the Lord, the issue is whether he was the greatest

servant or not. This would appear to be the main requisite asked for by Christ, in determining who was ‘the

20



greatest’ among them.

Both Paul and John exceeded the venerable Peter, when it came to the quantity they contributed to the

finished work we now know as the Bible. Peter wrote 2 books of the New Testament (or 8 chapters), while John

wrote 5 books (or 50 chapters) and Paul at least 13 books (or at least 87 chapters). Both John and Paul wrote much

more of the eternal Word of God than Peter. While this is by no means the only measuring stick one may use, it is

certainly a compelling one. “Why?”, some may ask. If Peter were the definitive head of the Church, it would stand

to reason that he would have been the one to write the largest portion of scripture, not Paul or even John. When

taking into consideration the structure proposed by the Vatican, one would have to assume that these two men were

but members of the Magesterium -- they were not the Pope. Nevertheless, they were the primary sources of

doctrine in the early church.

In addition, Paul, by his own admission, was by far the most studious worker for the Kingdom, thanks to

the grace of God. He also appeared to be among the most humble:

For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the

church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was

not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with

me (1 Corinthians 15:9-10).

This closely resembles the criteria outlined in Jesus’ speech to the apostles during the Last Supper in Luke

22: 21 - 34. Using those guidelines, Paul, not Peter, was the more suitable candidate for the title (if a title needed

to be conferred) ‘the greatest’ among them.

d.) God Appointed Both Paul and Peter

In the book of Galatians, Paul recounts the day when this commission which had been given to him by

God, was acknowledged by none other than Peter himself:

But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God

accepteth 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; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the

circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles ), And when James, Cephas, 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 (Galatians 2:6-9).

[my emphasis]

One will notice in this passage that he explained that each of them were committed their respective

offices: Paul was committed to the heathens and Peter to the circumcised. Without a doubt, Peter was used of the

21



Holy Spirit very effectively among the Jewish people, whereas Paul was used most effectually among the Gentile

population. Paul goes on to say that Peter (Cephas) , James, and John all blessed Paul’s calling to the preaching of

the Gospel to the heathens and they should continue their ministry to those of the circumcision (2:9).

This actually affirms Peter as the one who was to go out and preach to the circumcised (the Jewish), but

then goes on to also affirm that Paul had been likewise appointed by God to preach to all of the uncircumcised (the

Gentiles).

There are many who would contend with this assertion, however, for a couple of reasons:

a.) Some might say that the evidence in Galatians is 'inadmissible' because it was spoken by Paul, regarding

himself, rather than by Peter. Realistically, though, this letter to the Galatians would have had to have been seen

by Peter and, if not he himself, then by one of his proponents. Should there have been a dispute in this regard, it is

inevitable that this would have been addressed at length by Peter in one of his epistles or indeed, even at another

council, not unlike the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

b.) In Acts 15:7, when Peter addressed the Jerusalem Council, he stated that he had been chosen by God to be His

mouthpiece among the Gentiles:

“And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know

that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the

gospel and believe” (Acts 15:7). (my emphasis]

These two passages seem to be in complete opposition to one another. On one hand, Paul is saying that he

was commissioned not only by God, but also by Peter, to go out and preach to the Gentiles. Peter, on the other

hand, testified that God chose him to speak among the Gentiles. The answer to this dilemma, may be found much

earlier in Acts chapters 10 and 11, when God commissioned Peter to go specifically to the house of Cornelius, in

order that he and his entire household might hear the entirety of the Gospel. This commissioning did not give him

exclusivity in this area of preaching. In fact, from the context of the passage itself, Peter was this commissioned

because he had formerly believed that only the Jewish people were to be preached to. In the traditional Jewish

paradigm, of which Peter was a part, the Gentiles were considered to be filthy and unclean. By using Peter to go to

Cornelius’ household, God succeeded in not only changing Peter’s beliefs about who the Gospel was meant for, but

also afforded other Jewish believers this insight (cf. Acts 11:1 ff.. and Acts 15:7 ff.). The reference in Acts 15:7,

then, is not one pertaining to the lasting commission of Peter to the Gentiles, per se, but is rather the recounting of

22



an extraordinary occurrence, designed to convince those who had formerly disagreed, that the Gospel was meant

for all men, Jews and Gentiles alike.

Logically then, if the Church were to claim any of the apostles as their precursors, both Peter and Paul

should have been chosen. This is because, as it has already been mentioned, Paul was given the same level of

authority as Peter was -- Peter even recognized this fact. As it stands, however, the Church has only accepted

Peter. Because of this, it should logically follow that the RCC should be only reaching out to the Jews even today,

since they have chosen only to follow Peter and not both.

e.) Peter Sent Out, Not The One Sending Out

Furthermore, in the book of Acts, some of the apostles sent Peter and John to Samaria:

"Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they

sent unto them Peter and John . . . . “ (Acts 8:14).

Had Peter been the Head of the visible Church, as the Roman Catholic Church asserts, then Peter would

have been the one to delegate those who were to go on the trip. Further, had he gone, it would have been because

he had appointed himself as one of the delegates. As it stands, however, he was simply told to go by some of the

other apostles.

This assumption is made because historically, the spirit behind the Papal throne, has and continues to be

one of exercising authority in an aggressive, rather than a passive manner, whereas the life and ministry of Christ

consisted of a life of service. Because of this, if nothing else, it is highly unlikely that Peter, were he the first pope,

would have conceded to simply ‘being sent’ by others in a position of lesser authority. 28

5.) Matthew 16:18 Examined

For many centuries, the Catholic Church has essentially ‘hung’ its claim to Primacy on a single scripture.

In regard to Matthew 16:18, The Amplified Bible says:

I tell you that you are Peter [ Petros, mascul ine, a lar ge piece of r ock ], and on this rock [ petra,

femini ne, a huge rock li ke Gibraltar ] I will build My church . . . .

29

(Matthew 16:18) [my emphasis]

23

29Scripture taken from The Amplified Bible. “The Amplified New Testament”. Lockman Foundation, 1987.

28 Some would compare this with the sending of the Christ by God the Father. In the case of Jesus, He was / is the

One who does as the Father wills. As Luther pointed out in a series of wood cuttings, known as “ Passional of

Christ and Antichrist of 1521”, "Christ and the pope are . . . presented opposite each other." (see Illustration I for

graphic depiction of woodcut) .



The name ‘Peter’ is translated as "a large piece of rock," but the Church was to be built on petra which

means "a huge rock like Gibraltar" . Additionally, ‘Petros’ is a masculine, not a feminine derivative, as ‘ petra’ is.

The misapplication of this verse has led people to erroneously believe that the church was built on Peter, who was

reputed to have been "the visible head of the church", not to mention the first Pope. Moreover, the application of

this misguided belief about Peter from Mt. 16:18 has resulted in a misnomer, regarding how one may receive

salvation.

B.) Evidence Compiled

In summary, it is not possible to arrive at the correct interpretation of Mt. 16:18 without considering the

aforementioned facts of Peter's life and doctrines. Sadly, when one considers the sum total of the evidence, it must

be stated that the distortion of Christ’s words found in Matthew 16:18 has led to the spiritual destruction of

multitudes over the centuries.

III.) The Schismatic Church

Notwithstanding the evidence already presented, regarding Peter’s alleged Papacy, the Catholic Church

experienced a schism between the years of 1378 to 1415, which led to nothing less than the sabotage of the

perceived supremacy of the church in the minds of its followers. This momentous event was preceded by the

‘Babylonian Exile’ of the Church in the years 1307 to 1377 AD.

A.) The Babylonian Exile 30

During this period, the Church, under the direction of the new French Pope, Clement V, set-up residence

at Avignon, France, whereupon the papacy appeared to serve the needs of the French government more effectively

than that of God. The Papal States in Italy ceased their monetary support of the Papacy at that point, which forced

the Church to look to other means to raise finances. It was because of this crisis, that the practices of simony31 and

indulgences32 were instituted.

24

Continued on next page...

32 “Originally, indulgences were a way to shorten purgatory and penance. They had been granted to people who

could not go on crusade but were able to pay for someone else to go. This released the sinner from the obligation

31the act of selling church offices, etcetera. Purported to be named after Simon Magus, the magician in Acts who

wanted to buy the gift of the Holy Spirit, presumably for his own gain . (Acts 8:18).

30Called the “Babylonian Exile “ because the duration of the absence from Rome was 70 years, the same period of

time the Israelites were held captive in Babylon from 607 BC to 537 BC. This title was purported to have been

conferred upon this time period by none other than Martin Luther.



B.) The Papal Schism33

The Schism itself began with Gregory XI moving back to Rome from Avignon,

much to the displeasure of the French cardinals.34 Almost immediately after he moved back however, he died.

This occurrence prompted the Roman adherents to demand the election of a new Italian Pope who would remain in

Rome. The College of Cardinals elected Urban VI in 1378, but this Pope lost support very quickly. Many of the

cardinals decided that Urban had been elected under duress, and voted that because of this, the election itself

should be considered null and void. Another election was called and the young Clement VII was throned in

Avignon. Urban excommunicated the other pontiff, as well as the College, then elected his own in retaliation.

Thus began the Schism. For a period of 37 years, there were two pontiffs were acting simultaneously, one in Rome

and the other in Avignon. Each of them had a College of Cardinals, a bureaucracy, and each maintained they had

the right of succession.

For years, Europe fell into two opposing camps: France, Scotland, some German princes, and Iberia

decided to align themselves with Antipope Clement VII from Avignon, while England, the Holy Roman Empire,

and Eastern Europe chose to maintain their allegiance with Pope Urban VI in Italy. The reverberations of this

crisis shook the Church to its very foundations and resulted in nothing less than the breakdown of the entire

medieval world view.

C.) The Conciliar Movement

The church debated for a while about how to solve this conundrum. Out of the four 35 possibilities, they

chose to hold a council or synod, much like that which was done in the early Church, whenever a problem arose.

25


35the four possibilities were :

34Perhaps the withdrawal of the funding and the resulting attempts to raise money, were at the core of the reason

Pope Gregory XI decided to move back to Rome. Certainly, Rome was considered to be the universal seat of the

Church; its tradition, authority, and ancient permanence was recognized by most in the known world of that

period.

33It must be noted here that the Catholic Church refers to this occurrence as the ‘Western Schism’ and accept

Urban and his line as the ‘undisputed’ pope (Brusher 1996).

of temporal penance and a certain time in purgatory, and allowed them to draw upon the treasury of merit built up

by Jesus and the saints. Later, much of the money received from this almsgiving was used to build St. Peter’s

Basilica in the Vatican. However, because it was not more clearly defined, abuse and fraud of indulgences by

greedy clergy who just sold the indulgence without asking for repentance began to occur” (Whitcomb 1986).

32Continued from previous page...



Among the questions tackled during this time, was that of the Pope’s authority over the Church. It was determined

that it was merely bureaucratic in nature and that Christ was the head of the Church.

1.) Council of Pisa 36

The first Council established, was the Council of Pisa. It was attended by both Church clergy and laity.

The attendees of this council decided to depose both Pope Urban VI and Antipope Clement VII and vote in

Antipope Alexander V. However, neither Urban VI nor Clement VII were willing to step down, so the problem

was compounded, rather than rectified; three rivals within the papacy were claiming succession, rather than two.

In order to alleviate the Church’s continuing state of turmoil, the new Holy Roman Emperor, Sigismund, lobbied

for a new council and succeeded in getting the Antipope John XXIII to convoke it37; the Council of Constance

convened in 1414.

2.) Council of Constance 38

Constance, the Sixteenth Ecumenical Council, was assembled in order to accomplish three things: to end

the schism, to extirpate ‘heresy’ from the land and to reform the Church.

a.) Ending the Schism

Immediately after the they gathered, the council, with the help of the Emperor Sigismund, forced John

XXIII to resign. The other two39 abdicated their respective positions after the forced resignation of John XXIII was

26


39Both Urban and Clement’s Colleges of Cardinals named successors to the papacy after the Council of Pisa. By

the time the Council of Constance convened, both Urban and Clement had long since died. The election process

had, in the mean time, continued within each camp, and so, successive pontiffs were chosen, whenever the office

381414 to 1418 AD.

37It must be noted that, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Council of Constance “became legitimate only

when Gregory XI had formally convoked it”, (“The Council of Constance” 1998), even though Encarta names John

XXIII as the one who initiated the convocation. (Encarta “John XXIII Antipope” 1996).

361409 AD

(1) Compromise- this possibility would necessitate the two popes having to allow a

neutral secular arbitrator (like the emperor) to assess and rectify the

problem

(2) Pontifical- in this scenario, one pope would have to get the other to resign

(3) Cessation- in this case, the college was to cease any further elections, until

both popes were dead; then only one would succeed the two

(4) Council- the one everybody finally agreed upon: they were to decide with a

general council or synod, like in the early Church.

35

Continued from previous page...



carried out. Another pontiff was not immediately elected to carry on the papacy; when Martin V was finally

selected, he became a problem as well, because he later rejected the conciliar movement that elected him.

b.) Extirpation of Heresy

Prior to the Council of Constance, a religious movement in Bohemia had risen up and appeared to cause

the Church many problems. John Huss, one of the leaders of this movement, preached to whomever would listen

about the moral decline of the Church and clergy. He and a few others were burned at the stake for their trouble.

According to Encarta, “[i]n 1414 Huss was summoned to appear at the Council of Constance, which had been

convened to resolve the schism in the church and to suppress heresy. Having received a safe conduct from Holy

Roman Emperor Sigismund, Huss thought he might manage successfully to defend his beliefs. On his arrival,

however, his enemies had him imprisoned and tried for heresy. The charges against him falsely stated the doctrines

he had preached. Called upon to recant (and to promise not to teach) his doctrines, Huss refused categorically. He

was condemned by the council and was burned at the stake, dying heroically” (Encarta “Huss” 1996).

c.) Reform of the Church

The final task of this council was to reform the Church. This ‘reformation’ came about, primarily in the

form of two documents. The first one, ‘Haec Sancta’, was drawn up, in order to justify the actions of the council

itself. This document essentially stated that the council had been called lawfully, its authority was from Christ, and

that all men were bound by the decisions made by the council itself, including the Pope. The second paper,

“Frequens”, called for the frequent and regular convening of councils in the future.40

3.) Council of Basle 41

In 1414, in spite of his disregard for the Conciliar Movement, Pope Martin V was forced to convene the

next synod, as per the “Frequens” document. Shortly after the council of Basle was convened, Martin died, leaving

Eugenius IV to reluctantly preside over it.

The main reason this Council was convened, was to try to rectify the problem caused by the entire schism.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, ”[i]n Basle itself it was resolved to depose the pope and in order to

27

411414 - 1418 AD.

40There was to be a synod every 10 years.

became available. Urban’s successor by the time of the Council of Constance, was Benedict XIII and Clement’s

was Gregory XII (Encarta “Council of Constance” 1996).




prepare the way for deposition three articles were drawn up, namely that: a general council is superior to a pope,

the pope can neither prorogue nor dissolve such an assembly, and whoever denies these three articles, is a

heretic” (MacCaffrey 1998).

During its four year course, the Council of Basle reissued the “Haec Sancta”, in order to assure all that

these meetings were ‘God ordained’ and also spoke to the Hussites in Bohemia because they continued to speak out

against the Church, in spite of the fact that many, including Huss himself, were burned at the stake during the last

synod. This proved to be a move that would cause the laity to have an even lower regard for the Church itself,

since they were perceived to be consorting with known heretics.

At one point in time, Eugenius forced the Council to move to Florence over the issue of the reunification

with the East. However, not only did the Council not cooperate, but some delegates stayed in Basle, effectively

causing the council itself to suffer a schism! The delegates who were left from the fractured council of Basle

deposed Eugenius and elected Felix V, which, in effect, created yet another papal schism.

D.) Restored Renaissance Papacy?

All of this confusion was finally put to an end in 1458, when a strong young pope, Pius II, condemned the

Conciliar movement as a mistake and restored the papacy to its old prestige, albeit in a vacuum.

Following the condemnation of the Conciliar movement, the papal throne was consistently occupied by

men who called into question the moral legitimacy of the papacy to lead Christendom. Among these, were

individuals, such as Sixtus IV, Innocent VIII, Alexander VI, the Borgia Pope, Julius II, and Leo X.

Pope Sixtus IV appointed all of his relatives to ecclesiastical positions. He was also purportedly involved

in the Pazzi conspiracy to assassinate the Medici of Florence.

From his vantage point within the College of Cardinals, Innocent VIII used the money he had, to purchase

the papal throne. In addition, he had apparently fathered many illegitimate children, although he kept this fact

pretty quiet.

Conversely, Alexander VI, the Borgia Pope, took great pride in his children. His daughter, Lucrecia, had

been married to many Italian nobles, all of which died mysteriously, leaving her their estates. Alexander’s son,

Cesare, spent Church money to hire an army and become a prince. This particular act was immortalized by

Machiavelli, in the book, Il Principe.

28



Julius II was a ‘warrior pope’; he even had papal armor made for himself. Not much else can be said

about this man, aside from the fact that he was also a patron of the arts -- he commissioned Michaelangelo to redo

the Cistine Chapel, which was originally commissioned by Sixtus.

Leo X, the son of Lorenzo de Medici may have claimed to be a Christian; it was very difficult to tell from

his spiritual walk, however. Among the more infamous words he spoke, were these: “Let us enjoy the papacy

since God has given it to us.” 42 (Löffler 1998).

Steven J Keillor waxes eloquently about this time:

Instead of seeking the salvation of souls and the worship of God as ends, the fifteenth-century Catholic

Church often used people's hunger for salvation and for God for its own profit. Pope Leo X sold two

thousand church offices yearly for five hundred thousand ducats. With the annual income from their

purchased offices, officials hired deputies at much lower salaries to do the spiritual tasks and pocketed the

difference. One cleric often held many offices. Already archbishop of Magdeburg, Albert of Brandenburg

desired another arch bishopric (he had to support several mistresses), for which he owed Leo X aboutthirty-one thousand ducats. To raise the money, he sent the notorious Johann Tetzel to sell indulgences

with the jingle:

As soon as the gold in the basin rings,

Right then the soul to heaven springs.

In saints' relics, the church had another consumer good to sell (Keillor 1996).

Each of these men mentioned lived-out their papal careers as ‘Prince of X’ or ‘Duke of Y’. None of them

seemed concerned with the appropriate governance of the Church, but instead focused on the temporal things of

this life. The allegiances they formed with the world served as sad testimonies to the real ambitions their hearts

enhoused.

When he spoke of the behavior of many within the clergy of the day, Erasmus took on a very bitter tone.

He compared the behavior of the Popes to that of princes and nobility of the time:

“And as to the court lords . . . most of whom though there be nothing more indebted, more servile, more

witless, more contemptible, yet they would seem as they were the most excellent of all others. . . they are

contented to wear about them gold, jewels, purple, and those other marks of virtue and wisdom; but for

the study of the things themselves, they remit it to others . . . but if you look into their manner of life you'll

find them mere sots . . . [t]hey sleep till noon and have their mercenary Levite come to their bedside,

where he chops over his matins before they are half up. Then to breakfast, which is scarce done but

dinner stays for them. From thence they go to dice, tables, cards, or entertain themselves with jesters, fools, gambols, and horse tricks. In the meantime they have one or two beverages, and then supper, and

after that a banquet . . . [a]nd in this manner do their hours, days, months, years, age slide away without

the least irksomeness. . . . Nor are princes by themselves in their manner of life, since popes, cardinals,

and bishops have so dil igentl y fol lowed their steps that they've almost got the start of them . For if any

of them would consider what their alb should put them in mind of, to wit a blameless life . . . these, I say,

29

42 Cf. also Steiner, Rudolph. Mysticism at the Dawn of the Modern Age. 2nd ed. Anthroposophic Press,

1980. Be aware that The Diegesis reports a slightly different version of Leo X's admission: "It was well known

how profitable this fable of Christ has been to us" (footnote, p. 35)



and many of the like kind should anyone truly consider, would he not live a sad and troublesome life?

Whereas now they do well enough wh il e they feed themselves onl y , and for the care of their flock either

put it over to Christ or lay it all on their suffragans, as they call them, or some poor vicars. Nor do they

so much as remember their name, or what the word bishop sign if ies, to wit, labor , care, and trouble .

But in racking to gather money they truly act the part of bishops, and herein acquit themselves to be no

blind seers” (Erasmus 1996).

In reality, based on the historical writings of the time, the restoration of the Papacy appeared to be little

more than a political maneuver, designed to regain some of the former power the Church had wielded prior to the

schism.

E.) Not What Is Portrayed

Without a doubt, neither the unbroken succession of the Papacy nor the ‘Renaissance

restoration’ were periods in history that heralded the ‘truthfulness’ of the doctrine within the Catholic system.

The Schism refutes the claim made by Catholic apologist, Karl Keating, in the Tract, “Pillar of Fire, Pillar

of Truth” that “[t]he line of popes can be traced back , in unbroken succession , to Peter himself ” 43 (Keating

1996). [my emphasis] Moreover, the Pontiffs that occupied the ‘throne of Peter’ as ‘vicars of Christ’ during both

periods of time, shamed the very names they represented and brought into question the need for the existence of

such a system.

IV.) Pope John Paul II

Many will have undoubtedly said by now, “ . . . but that was then. Things have changed -- they have

reformed their beliefs now and are Christians, just like us. Let’s let bygones be bygones.”

While it is true that in this, the last half of the twentieth century, the latest Pope seems to have broached

the proverbial wall and has sent forth conciliatory gestures, little is known about the real nature of this man or his

beliefs. In this next section, these aspects of John Paul II will be looked at.

A.) Who Was He?

Pope John Paul II began his life in Poland as Karol Wojtyla on May 18, 1920 in Wadowice, Poland and

was baptized on June 20 of the same year by a military chaplain, P. Franciszek Zak.

30

43 Recently, another development in the never-ending saga of the Papal Throne emerged. For years, there have

been a faction of Catholics who have believed that there has been no pope, since the death of Pius XII in the

fifties. In their view, every pope since has been an impostor to the line of the Vicar. Because they believe this to

be true, on October 24th, 1998, this schismatic portion of the Church elected another who claims to be the sole

successor to the Throne of Peter. While it has not been officially recognized or responded to by the Vatican, it was,

nonetheless, noteworthy enough to warrant a footnote in this paper.



Later in grade school, he consistently achieved the highest grades, according to the Vatican’s own home page.

During these formative years, both his mother 44 and his brother, Edmund, 45 died, leaving the boy with only his

father.

On December 14, 1935, this future Pontiff was admitted into the Society of Mary and became president of

this Society within his secondary school by 1937.

Before World War II, he studied poetry and drama at the Jagiellonian University. Then, during the war,

while he prepared for the priesthood, he laboured in a stone quarry and in a chemical factory. Around the same

time, Karol’s father died. 46

John Paul II was ordained in 1946, after successfully completing his Ph.D. at the Angelicum Institute in

Rome and obtaining a doctorate in theology at the Catholic University of Lublin. From 1946 until 1958, he served

at Lublin as the university chaplain. In addition, he taught ethics both in Lublin and in Krakow. Then, in 1958,

he was appointed the auxiliary bishop in Krakow. Later, in 1964, Wojtyla became archbishop there, and in 1967,

was appointed cardinal. Karol actively participated in the Second Vatican Council and represented Poland during

five international bishops’ synods between 1967 and 1977. (“Highlights” Holy See 1996)

Wojtyla was elected Pope on October 16th, 1978, succeeding John Paul I. 47 He took the name of his

predecessors (John, Paul, John Paul) to emphasize his desire to continue the reforms of the Vatican II Council and

began his Papal duties with the historic words, “Be not afraid.” This proclamation has become his signature

phrase.48

Clearly, one of the most harrowing experiences he has faced in his life, occurred on May 13th, 1981. As

he entered Saint Peter’s Square in the Vatican on that fateful day, the Pope was fired upon at close range by

Turkish terrorist Mehmet Alì Agca . He recovered completely from his severe injury after being hospitalized for

31

48(cp. Pope John Paul II 1994).

47 It was at this time, that his name was changed from Karol Wojtyla to John Paul II.

46 February 18th, 1941.

45 December 5th, 1932.

44 April 13th, 1929.



77 days and has continued in his work, seemingly undaunted by the experience. 49 To date, Pope John Paul II is the

most traveled pope in the history of the papacy, having visited nearly every country in the world which would

receive him. (“Events” Holy See 1996).

B.) Who I s He?

While few have argued that this charismatic man has had a colorful past, even fewer have taken the time

to really get to find out what this enigmatic leader really believes today or whether or not his actions measure up to

their suppositions about him. Who is the man who is said to be the Supreme Pastor 50 and what does he really

believe?

1.) One of Us?

In his book, Crossing The Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II put forth numerous ‘warm fuzzy’

sentiments and ideologies which have endeared him to quite a few of his formerly stolid opponents. Within these

pages, Pope John Paul II said things such as:

I would like to recall the words of Christ together with my first words in St. Peter's Square: "Be not

afraid." Have no fear when people call me the "Vicar of Christ," when they say to me "Holy Father," or

"Your Holiness," or use titles similar to these, which seem even inimical to the Gospel. Christ himself

declared: "Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. Do not be called 'Master';

you have but one master, the Messiah" (Mt. 23:9-10). These expressions, nevertheless, have evolved out of

a long tradition, becoming part of common usage. One must not be afraid of these words either (Pope John

Paul II 1994).

Later in the same chapter, he also said:

[T]he expression "Vicar of Christ" assumes its true meaning. More than dignity, it alludes to service. . .

.The Pope is not the only one who holds this title. With regard to the Church entrusted to him, each

bishop is Vicarius Christi. The Pope is Vicar of Christ with regard to the Church of Rome and, through

that Church, of every Church in communion with it - a communion in faith as well as an institutional and

canonical communion. Thus, if with this title one wants to refer to the dignity of the Bishop of Rome, one

cannot consider it apart from the dignity of the entire college of bishops, with which it is tightly bound, as

it is to the dignity of each bishop, each priest, and each of the baptized (Pope John Paul II 1994). [their

emphasis]

These and similar remarks by the Pontiff have lulled many into believing that he is simply ‘one of us’, no

different from that of the average pastor, lay-minister or believer. However, the latest Catechism, which Pope John

Paul II approved, maintains that the Pope is still considered to be literally supreme in both his position and

authority:

32

50 Catechism of The Catholic Church. paragraph 857.

49 Certainly, the phrase, “be not afraid” was called upon during this time in his life.



[S]he [the church] continues to be taught, sanctified, and guided by the apostles until Christ's return,

through their successors in pastoral office: the college of bishops, "assisted by priests, in union with the

successor of Peter, the Church's supreme pastor" . . . The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is

the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company

of the faithful. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the

entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can

always exercise unhindered” “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with theRoman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head.” As such, this college has "supreme and full authority over

the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff"

(Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops 1994).

The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls

(Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops 1994). 51

Moreover, on October 30th 1998, the Vatican released a nine-page document on Papal Primacy, which

further underlines the sentiments found in the pages of the Catechism. This new paper, signed by Cardinal Joseph

Ratzinger (and presumably approved by Pope John Paul II), explains what the ‘official’ stance is within the

Catholic Church, regarding the Office of the Pope.

According to the EWTN Vatican Update, “New Vatican Document on Papal Primacy”, the Primacy of the

Pope is “a guarantee against arbitrary judgments, and an assurance of the Church's unity and "fidelity to the Word

of God”. This document goes on to reemphasize many of the dogmas found both in the Catechism of the Catholic

Church and in the Second Vatican Council:

The Vatican document points out that the primacy of Peter can be traced directly to the Gospel, and the

Christ's command. Thus "the primacy is different, in its essence and its exercise, from the roles of

government in human society," the Ratzinger document explains. The Pope's role is not one of

coordinating affairs, nor is it merely a place of honor. Rather, "The Successor to Peter is the rock which,

against all arbitrariness and conformism, is the guarantee of a rigorous fidelity to the Word of God." The

document goes on the emphasize that this fidelity must be preserved even to the point of martyrdom.

(EWTNews 1998).

The statements of the Pope in his book seem to be in direct opposition to those of both the Catechism and

this latest Vatican document. Given this contrariety, one is left to decide which of these publications is a more

accurate depiction of the official stance of this man; his personal book or the official Catechism of the Catholic

Church and the paper on Papal Primacy.

Certainly, one would like to say that his personal book is the deciding factor in this argument. If this is

the case, the question needs to be raised: “Why does Pope John Paul II continue to ‘officially’ affirm these

33

51 Because these dogmas have not yet been amended or overturned by Pope John Paul II in an official manner, it

must be assumed that this is still the official stance he and his Church maintain.



particular teachings within the latest Catechism of The Catholic Church and the assertions found within the

Ratzinger document, if he disagrees with them so passionately?”

The answer is, he hasn’t. In essence, he has simply tried to downplay the terminology surrounding his

office. He has not actually abandoned the beliefs; they have been repackaged., in an effort to appear ‘more

personable’ to the world.

2.) The Pope and Mary -- Totus Tuus

Pope John Paul II has written several encyclical letters over the years, designed to further underline the

Church’s official stance (and presumably his own) on a variety of subjects, including the famous, “Ut Unum Sint”

(Pope John Paul II 1995), where he addresses the issues which continue to divide the Roman Catholic Church and

the other churches around the globe. Included in these issues, is the role of the Virgin Mary. (Hennesey 1996).

The role of Mary within the church is an issue which has been a source of contention between the Catholic

and the non-Catholic churches of the world for ages. It is intriguing to note that the latest Pontiff seems to have

somehow diffused this particular bomb, without ever having changed his personal stance or official doctrine.

While in past eras, it was considered idolatry to pray to or otherwise venerate Mary by the non-Catholic

Churches, countless Evangelicals are now saying that the veneration of the ‘Theotokos’ -- the ‘Mother of God’, is

merely a secondary issue and should, therefore, be either overlooked or tolerated as a 'nonessential' of the faith. 52

Ironically, while this pope has been integral in bringing many together under a common banner, Pope

John Paul II is considered by the ‘faithful’ to be the most Marian pope in history. At his coronation, he officially

adopted the Latin phrase, “Totus Tuus ” (I am totally yours) and upon his official coat of arms , a large ‘M’

(Monogram for ‘Mary’) occupies the entire lower right hand quadrant.53 Further, his first official pilgrimage was

made, not to the Holy Land, but to the Shrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary at Mertorella on October 29, 1978 -- just

13 days after his session to the papal throne (Holy See “Events” 1996).

In his book, Crossing The Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II tells his readers:

Totus Tuus (“I am completely yours O Mary”). This phrase is not only an expression of piety, or simply

an expression of devotion. It is more. During the Second World War, while I was employed as a factory

34

53 See Illustration I for graphic depiction of Coat of Arms.

52 There are even some Lutherans ministers who have been quoted as saying that Mary, the Mother of God is the

one who will actually be the catalyst which finally unites the Body of Christ again.



worker, I came to be attracted to Marian devotion.54 .Thanks to Saint Louis of Montfort, I came to

understand that true devotion to the Mother of God is actually Christocentric (Pope John Paul II 1994).

By his own admission, Pope John Paul has devoted his entire being to Mary. This act is then ‘justified’ by

his assertion that ‘true devotion to the Mother of God’ is actually Christocentric in nature. The Pope goes on to

say:

From my earliest years, my own devotion to Mary was deeply joined to my faith in Christ (Pope John Paul

II “Crossing” 1994).55

a.) Is Marian Worship Christocentric?

Whether it is Christocentric or not, remains to be seen. One must concede that, at least, this is the woman

who bore the Christ, and for that, one must certainly call her ‘blessed’. Beyond that, it is questionable, however.

Venerating this woman to the degree that is approved of in the Roman Catholic Church, places her above the other

believers in Christ. In the words of the Vatican Council II, Mary has been ‘exalted above all angels and men,

second only to her Son, as the most holy Mother of God, who was involved in the mysteries of Christ : she is

rightly honored by a special cult in the church” 56 (Flannery, 1981).

The Pope and the Catholic Church not only exalt Mary in a fashion which is not Biblical, but they place

her in a position which actually detracts from the unique position Christ has, due to His eternal nature, His unique

conception and His perfection.

By asserting that Mary was free from the taint of original sin57, as her Son was, one places her on nearly

the same level as God Himself. The Catholic Church (and presumably Karol Wojtyla) asserts that Mary, after she

was assumed into heaven, “did not lay aside this saving office, but by her manifold intercession continues to bring

us the gifts of eternal salvation . . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of

35

57 See Appendix II.

56 In Appendix II, some of the doctrines surrounding Mary have been be examined and it has been determined in

this case, at least, that neither John Paul II nor his Church have basis for their assertions. One must assume, of

course, that the current Pope affirms and believes the doctrines of the Catholic Church. Unless overturned in an

official manner (i.e.: by way of an encyclical or synod, which would bring up other issues, regarding infallibility),

one must assume that these doctrines are still valid.

55 Some may still not be fully convinced that John Paul II is as devoted to Mary as this paper contends. See

Appendix I for a more in-depth discussion of these issues.

54 According to the Vatican’s official biography on the Pope, he was admitted into the Society of Mary on

December 14, 1935 and became its president until 1938. It was also between 1934 and 1938, that he made his first

pilgrimage to Czestochowa, presumably to venerate the ‘Black Madonna’ of Poland. These events seem to have

occurred prior to world War II, which began on September 1st, 1939.



Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix ”. Immediately after this statement, they attempt to assure

everybody that “it neither takes away anything from, nor adds anything to the dignity or efficacy of Christ the one

Mediator”.

Within the paragraph, a grievous error has occurred. While it is stated that Christ is the One Mediator,

Mary is also apparently called upon by the church as a Mediatrix, an Advocate, and a Helper. Both of these things

cannot be true. Either Christ is the One Mediator or Mary is a Helper to Christ, her Son and a Mediatrix in her

own right.

b.) Should The Pope’s Assertion Be Believed Then?

Unequivocally, this author would say, “no”. When reviewing all of the evidence put forth by the Catholic

doctrines and comparing them to those found within the pages of scripture, it is difficult to escape the fact that

these beliefs are neither based on, nor approved by Jesus Christ or His apostles.

Moreover, these teachings often detract from the Person of Jesus Christ and His saving grace in the lives

of believers. Because of these things, one must come to the inescapable conclusion that Marian worship is not, nor

shall it ever be, Christocentric in nature.

Pope John Paul II is promoted by many Evangelicals, as a man who believes in the sound doctrine of

Christ. However, in case after case, this man has chosen to accept the dogmas of the Church over what the Bible

actually says. All of the dogmas surrounding Mary are, in fact, among the most avidly followed by this Pontiff.

Remember that John Paul II has, by his own admission, dedicated his entire being to Mary and her veneration.

Because of this, it follows that he cannot be truly Christocentric in his beliefs. Instead, he has fallen into idolatry

and by virtue of his approval, his actions, and his words, has caused countless others to follow in his own footsteps.

3.) Double-Talk

In addition to Marian Worship and his adherence to the essence of his ascribed role in the Roman

Catholic Church, in spite of his assurances otherwise, the Pope has used carefully crafted statements which have

misled people into a false sense of security and faith in this man. A case in point: although it has appeared that the

Pope has apologized to millions on behalf of the Roman Catholic Church for heinous acts done to Christians in the

past, in reality, this is only part of the truth. Although the Pontiff has uttered to the world that the Catholic Church

has expressed some ‘regret’ and has spoken of ‘harmful acts’ of the past, and referred to some ‘weaknesses’ and

36



“mistakes”, not once has he simply admitted that the Roman Catholic Church had literally murdered millions of

Christians, nor has he truly apologized for these acts.

As J. Beard has mentioned in his “Roman Catholicism: General Notes” page:

He has not acknowledged that the Roman papacy has been one of the bloodiest and most inhumaneinstitutions in human history. . . . . In a 5/96 encyclical 58 , for example, Pope John Paul II refers to

certain "painful recollections" which some Protestants have in regard to the history of the papacy. He then

says, "To the extent that we are responsible for these, I join my predecessor Paul VI in asking

forgiveness." Is that a genuine apology over Rome's bloody history? No, it isn't. He cleverly leaves it up to

his hearers to decide to what extent Rome is responsible for any "painful recollections." (Beard 1997).

[his emphasis]

The motives for this clever wording are not plainly known by any human, with the exception of John Paul

II himself. However, from the indications and the resulting fruition, it appears that this was done, in order to be

able to reconcile with many other denominations in the world, without ever actually asserting that The Roman

Catholic Church was even wrong in these matters.

4.) Has He Promoted A Positive Change?

This paper will now ask a question to its readers: Is Pope John Paul II really the agent of change he is

purported to be?

For the past 35 years or so, there has been a decisive move toward reconciliation with the Roman Catholic

Church by many within Christendom. This shift towards the RCC has occurred primarily because many have

been and continue to be under the impression that it has begun to reform its doctrines and dogmas. The movement

has become especially prevalent since Pope John Paul II was elected back in 1978. Today, multitudes now contend

along with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church for a ‘united body of Christ’.

However, these individuals are either misinformed, ignorant of the truth, or have simply chosen to ignore

the inconsistencies in front of them, in favor of false unity.

In reality, the Pope has completely affirmed all of the official doctrines set forth in both the Vatican

Council II and in the latest Catechism of the Catholic Church

59

, even if it may appear to some, that he has softened

37


59 In the Pope’s “Apostolic Constitution on the Publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church”, he affirms

both the Second Vatican Council and the latest Catechism. Regarding the Second Vatican Council, he said:

“[O]n 25 January 1985, I convoked an extraordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops for the 20th anniversary of

58 The document referred to here by Mr. Beard, is none other than the encyclical, “Ut Unim Sint”, published May

25, 1995.



his stance on a few points. Although Pope John Paul II appears to have come a long way toward what most

non-Catholics believe to be ‘orthodox Christianity’, he has simply reworded old traditions and beliefs into a more

palatable package, in order that he might achieve the goal first set out in the Second Vatican Council -- the goal of

having the rest of Christendom reunite with the Roman Catholic Church.

C.) So, Has There Been A Change Of Heart?

In spite of appearances, neither the Roman Catholic Church nor its leader are any more progressive in

their beliefs, than they were back in the time of the Reformation. The RCC (and its leader) still affirms that the

Pope is the Universal Pastor of the entire Church, that he and the Magesterium enjoy infallibility when it comes to

proclamations of dogma, and that they have enjoyed an unbroken line in the succession of Popes from Peter to John

Paul II. Additionally, it has been shown that they still promote all of the doctrines surrounding Marian worship,

including the doctrine that Mary was literally the Mother of God (Theotokos), that she was Immaculately

conceived, that she is the Queen of Heaven and the Church, and that one should devote him or herself to her with

complete and utter abandonment.

In light of the data already examined, one can only conclude that there has been no real change of heart in

the Roman Catholic Church. Instead, slight adjustments have been made, in order to make people think it is more

progressive than it used to be. In essence, it has given itself a ‘face-lift’. Under its smooth exterior, however, the

same ‘wrinkles’ wait for the right moment to make a reappearance.

Apparently oblivious to these findings, millions of churches still ally themselves with the Roman Catholic

Church, in the hope that they will be able to work with them to ‘spread the Good News’. This act of evangelistic

and theological compromise, is now referred to in the popular vernacular, as ‘ecumenism’.

38

the close of the Council. The purpose of this assembly was to celebrate the graces and spiritual fruits of Vatican II,

to study its teaching in greater depth in order that all the Christian faithful might better adhere to it , and to

promote knowledge and application of it . “ (Pope John Paul II 6). [my emphasis]

Later, regarding this latest Catechism, Pope John Paul II affirmed in this same document:

“The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order

by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of catholic doctrine, attested to or

illumined by Sacred Scripture, the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a sure

norm for teaching the faith and thus a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion. May it serve the

renewal to which the Holy Spirit ceaselessly calls the Church of God, the Body of Christ, on her pilgrimage to the

undiminished light of the Kingdom (Pope John Paul II 8)! [my emphasis]




V.) Ecumenism -- What Is It?

“Ecumenism” is derived from the word "ecumenical". This word comes from the Greek oikoumene ,

which may be translated as "the entire inhabited earth." (Strong 1996)

According to the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ecumenism is "the organized attempt to bring about

the cooperation and unity of all believers in Christ" (Weber 1984). These two ideas have been fused in the official

definition which was coined by the World Council of Churches in 1951:

It is important to insist that the word [ecumenical], which comes from the Greek word for the whole

inhabited earth [oikoumene ], is properly used to describe everything that relates to the whole task of the

whole church to bring the gospel to the whole world (World Council 1998).

A.) Who Started the Ecumenical Movement?

The movement itself was started at the beginning of this century by Protestant missionaries of different

sects. The founders’ main reason for joining forces, was to cultivate a climate of cooperation, in order to

evangelize the non-believers. By combining their energies and overlooking small doctrinal differences, these men

and women were able to focus on the single purpose of bringing the Gospel of Christ to the entire world 60.

While this movement was originally designed to evangelize 61, the group’s impetus began to change.

Soon after its inception, people such as Charles Brent began to invite the RCC to join, in spite of the fact that many

of the doctrines and dogmas were in direct opposition to the beliefs of the Christian community 62.

Ironically, in the early days of the ecumenical movement, the Catholic Church did not desire to

participate at all. 63 It was not until much later that ecumenism was considered by the RCC. In the IHSV article

reproduced from “Voice Crying in The Wilderness”, the traditional Roman Catholic perspective of these events are

discussed:

“It was during this time 64 that Charles Brent, an American Episcopal Bishop of the Philippines conceived

the idea of assembling a great conference of delegates from all Christian confessions. A second conference

was formed shortly after by Brent called the ‘Conference on Faith and Order.’ In 1919, the Holy See

being invited to send delegates, politely declined. Pope Benedict XV explained that although his earnest

39

64The same time the ecumenical movement was first birthed.

63 Later, it will be established that the Roman Catholic Church is at the forefront of this movement today.

62The validation for this statement has already been established within the pages of this document.

61 This movement was not originally conceived to promote unity at the expense of truth.

60 cf. Khoo 1997.



desire was one fold and one shepherd, it would be impossible for the Catholic Church to join with others

in search of unity. As for the Church of Christ, it is already one and could not give the appearance of

searching for itself or for its own unity. It is reported that the Holy Father did not disapprove of the

movement as something outside the Catholic Church, but by his own words it is obvious he knew it was

not only futile, but dangerous and even scandalous to the Catholic Faithful to participate in seeking unity

in such a manner” (IHSV 1997) [my emphasis].

This has traditionally been the stance of the RCC, when it came to collaborating with anyone who did not

affirm all of the beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church.

For hundreds of years, adherents of the Roman Catholic belief system have been in bitter dispute with

those who have chosen to follow in the footsteps of men such as John Huss, John Knox and Martin Luther, when it

came to matters of doctrine.65 The desire for the Catholic Church to reform its beliefs, remained strong among the

followers of these and other men.

B.) Proponents of Ecumenism

1.) Christendom

Recently, however, the wind has changed. Literally millions of Christians have decided to begin to ally

themselves with the Roman Catholic Church, through the vehicle of the ecumenical movement. Evangelical

‘giants’ and ‘midgets’ alike have jumped on the ecumenical bandwagon and have either joined or are in the

process of joining forces with the Roman Catholic Church, even though the bulk of these individuals and groups

are not fully comprised of the Catholic Church’s official stance on many issues.

a.) Lutherans

Although not necessarily at the forefront of this movement, even the Lutherans -- those who have

traditionally agreed with the teachings of Martin Luther -- have chosen to wade into the uncertain waters of an

ecumenically based unity.

Intriguingly, this change of heart has not come about for the reasons which Luther would have wanted

them to. Martin Luther would have desired to have the Catholic Church recognize that Jesus is Lord and that

justification is through faith alone, not only in theory, but in reality. Alas, this has not occurred.

While many are mouthing the ‘right words’, the doctrines which have traditionally set Catholics and

Protestants at odds, remain canon within the Roman Catholic Church itself. Indeed, in the document, “Final

40

65 None of these men desired to destroy the Catholic Church, per se, but wanted to reform it, in order that it would

once again represent the Orthodox (right thinking) position. This ‘orthodoxy’ was not new. Rather, it was based

on the writings of the Bible and on the writings of the early church fathers.



Proposal Of The Joint Declaration On The Doctrine Of Justification”, the Lutheran World Federation declared that

there was now a “consensus on basic truths of the doctrine of justification” and have said that this consensus

“shows that the remaining differences in its explication are no longer the occasion for doctrinal condemnations”

(Akin Lutheran - Catholic Joint Declaration” 1997).66

These statements stand alone, however. While the Catholic Church readily agrees that they have the

beginnings of a basis for consensus and even venture to say that salvation is sola fide (by faith alone), they also

state that there are still some issues which separate them from the Lutheran Church. These differences were the

essence of Luther’s argument to begin with. In their official response to the “Final Proposal”, the Roman Catholic

Church said this:

The Catholic Church maintains . . . that the good works of the justified are always the fruit of grace. But

at the same time, and without in any way diminishing the totally divine initiative, they are also the fruitof man, justified and interiorly transformed. We can therefore say that eternal life is, at one and the same

time, grace and the reward given by God for good works and merits. (Akins “Response of The

Catholic Church” 1997).

The issue which divided Luther from the Roman Catholics, is still tenaciously defended by the Catholic Church.

In spite of this, the Lutheran World Federation has chosen to continue across the threshold, towards unity.

This is far from the type of unity pictured by Christ and His followers within the pages of the Bible.

While the Body of Christ must exhibit love at all times, that love must be based on the Truth. Anything less is not

love at all, but simple deception, designed to destroy, rather than unite the people who purport to believe in God

and want to live their lives out in a manner which will be glorifying to Him.

b.) The Heavyweights

Even the most influential among Christ’s body have decided to unite with the RCC. Among the list are

41

66 The individuals representing the Catholic side have agreed in this document that salvation comes sola fide.

Having said that, it must also be said that “this is not the first time Roman Catholics have agreed with the language

of sola fide, even though the Council of Trent condemned the terminology. At Regensburg, or Ratisbon, in 1541,

the Emperor Charles V invited three Lutheran evangelicals and three Roman Catholic theologians to consider away for healing the breach in the German church. Cardinal Gasparo Contarini, the papal legate in Germany at the

time, openly expressed his belief "that the Lutheran concern for justification by faith was in fact the essence of the

Catholic faith also." What Contarini meant was that Protestantism was essentially Catholic! His argument, made

by many then and since, was that the Protestant schism had been caused principally "by a misunderstanding of

Catholicism.” (Peter Matheson, Cardinal Contarini at Regensburg , London: Oxford University Press, 1972, 49.)

Before this sixteenth century ecumenical meeting took place Luther was suspicious of the whole effort. The six

men who met did reach an agreement. They issued a statement and mutually agreed to sola fide. Luther was aghast

with their statement. He had previously warned that to go back one iota on the wording of the Augsburg

Confession would invite catastrophe” (Armstrong 1998).



Evangelist Billy Graham and Chuck Colson, not to mention the leaders of the highly acclaimed movement, known

as the Promise Keepers. These men are looked upon by believers today, with the same faith and conviction as the

members of the Catholic Church look toward the Pope. Although sola scriptura (by the scriptures alone) has been

touted among non-Catholics as the measuring stick by which they conduct themselves, often the utterances of these

men are taken over those of God’s Word.

In any case, although one cannot deny that these men have each made a sizable impact in the world for

Christ, their choice of allegiance with the Roman Catholic Church must be questioned, in light of the information

brought forth previously in this paper. 67

i.) Billy Graham

Undoubtedly looked upon as the Evangelistic giant of our time, Billy Graham has managed to use pulpits,

television stations, the radio, and even newspapers and periodicals to disseminate the message of the Gospel to

millions. With the notable exception of Pope John Paul II, Billy has, without a doubt, become the most recognized

and respected religious leader of the world.

However, for the past 40 years or so, he has also advocated a joint ministry with both the traditional and

not so traditional 68 elements of the Roman Catholic Church. This has not always been the case. In the forties,

when he first made an appearance on the scene, young Graham sported a doctrinal stance which agreed without

question, with even the most ‘fundamental’ denominations. His beliefs were, in the truest sense of the word,

‘orthodox’ (Ashbrook 1992).

In addition to his conviction that Scripture was inerrant and his belief that all men were in need of Jesus’

saving Blood to rescue them from their profound condition of being lost, Billy Graham was known for his stand

42

68 While many of the men and women from the Roman Catholic Church are speaking of the movement of the Holy

Spirit and having ‘charismatic’ experiences, continued adherence to the many doctrines which are within the

structures of the Church, again, shows the fruition of the tree from whence they have come.

It cannot be stressed enough, that there are, without a doubt, Christians within this organization. However, those

who have come to a saving faith in Christ, will begin to do one of two things; either they will begin to evangelize

their friends and neighbors within the Church itself, in order to bring them to a saving faith, or they will leave the

Church entirely. In either case, the adherence to the many dogmas should invariably begin to dissipate. They are

most certainly not going to be perpetuated, once God’s word divides the Truth from the error.

67 There are undoubtedly Christians within the Roman Catholic Church. Many of these men and women contend

for the truth and evangelize within the Church, not unlike Luther did. However, these do not appear to be the

individuals with which these men are dealing. For the most part, the faction which is being dealt with, is the more

‘traditional’ element -- those which adhere to traditional doctrine of the RCC, including, but not limited to, the

Pope himself.



against the Roman Catholic Church, even in 1950. It was in this year, that Dr. Robert Ketcham from the General

Association of Regular Baptist Churches, happened across an article which implied that Graham was in favor of

both Jewish and Roman Catholic participation in a revival in Oregon. This article also mentioned that Billy had

apparently allowed a Roman Catholic Church to deal with some of the response cards turned in at a crusade. In

reply to the report, Dr. Ketcham wrote Mr. Graham’s executive secretary, Jerry Bevan. What follows, is an excerpt

from the response Dr. Ketcham received, regarding his concerns:

For example, you asked if Billy Graham had invited Roman Catholics and Jews to cooperate in the

evangelistic meetings. Such a thought, even if the reporter did suggest it as having come from Mr.

Graham, seems ridiculous to me. Surely you must know that it is not true... Further that you should give

any credence to the idea that Mr. Graham would ever turn over any decision cards to the Roman Catholic

Church seems inconceivable (Ashbrook 1992).

Today, an entirely different picture of this man may be seen. Not only has he praised the current pope . . . "He'll go

down in history as the greatest of our modern Popes," says the Rev. Billy Graham. "He's been the strong conscience

of the whole Christian world" (Gray 1994) . . . but he has even encouraged people who have just professed Christ,

to be discipled by the Roman Catholic Church.

In his book, The New Neutralism II, John Ashbrook investigates the man, Graham. What he has come

across, is truly astounding. In his words:

In September of 1979, The Christian Courier of Milwaukee, Wisconsin published the following report on

the recent Milwaukee Crusade:

Sister Maureen Hopkins, Director of the Ecumenical and Interfaith Commission of the Milwaukee Roman

Catholic Archdiocese, and a liaison member of the Crusade committee, reported that 120 people have

volunteered within the Catholic community to help her with the task of contacting each of the 3,500

inquiries. Sr. Maureen received the names and telephone numbers from the Crusade Committee, based

upon the inquirers indication of leaving a Catholic background on his inquiry card ... All 7,500 were

immediately invited to a Eucharistic celebration which was held on August 16 at St. Theresa's Church in

Milwaukee. The mass was attended by more than 400 people. The primary purpose for the mass was to

remind the inquirers that their commitments to Christ should be nurtured within the sacramental

framework of the church.

Christianity Today’s September 7, 1979 edition pointed out that Graham had sent a team member almost

a year before the Crusade to conduct a seminar on the working of the Crusade for Milwaukee priests andlay workers. It is a tragedy that 3500 decision cards were turned over to the Roman Catholic Church, but,

it is a worse tragedy when you realize that it did not "happen," It was planned by the world's best-known

evangelist (Ashbrook 1992).

Without a doubt, this man has become an avid proponent of the Pope and The Catholic Church. He has,

by virtue of his actions, been able to convince many Christians that it is all right to ally themselves with Rome and

43



its Pope, in spite of the fact that it has not appeared to even change its essential stance on justification, let alone

any other major error.

ii.) Chuck Colson

However, Billy Graham is not the only one who has managed to convey this message to the masses, by

virtue of his words and actions. In his book, The Body, Chuck Colson recounts a story which may reveal his own

lack of knowledge about the true doctrine to be found in the Roman Catholic Church:

A few years ago an international group of evangelical leaders met to prepare for a large conference in a

country which happened to be predominantly Catholic. Since the conference was on a universal subject --

evangelism -- I urged that Catholic evangelicals 69 be invited (Colson 1992).

This man, who is looked upon by many as the epitome of Christianity, clearly believes that evangelism is a burden

which should be shared without reserve with the Roman Catholic Church. Either Colson is willing to simply

ignore the many colossal differences between traditional Catholicism and Christianity, in favor of unity, or he has

not taken the time out to fully investigate this entity before making such a bold statement.

One is wise to note that this is not an isolated incident, either. Two years prior to having The Body

published, Charles Colson promoted Evangelical Catholics, a book which was penned by Keith Fournier, a noted

Catholic ‘Evangelical’ and avid proponent of ecumenism. In the forward to the text of the book itself, Colson

admonishes,

“It is high time that all of us who are Christians come together, regardless of the difference of our

confessions and our traditions and make [it our] common cause to bring Christian values to bear in our

society. . . . Keith Fournier stands in the breach -- truly orthodox in his adherence to Catholic doctrine

and fully evangelical in his relationship to Christ and His creation. . . . Without compromising or diluting

his faith, without any false ecumenism, he calls all of us as Christians to our common heritage and

mission” 70 (Colson for Fournier 1990).

The fact that Colson mentions that Fournier is ‘truly orthodox’ in his Catholic belief and uncompromising

in his Catholic faith, disqualifies Fournier as being ‘truly Christian’, as the Bible defines it, at least.

44

70 See previous two notes.

69It must be pointed out that Mr. Colson chose the term, ‘Catholic evangelicals’, to identify the group he wanted to

invite to the conference. The term, ‘evangelical’ is one which is used in close association to the ecumenical

movement. It is also one which is often used so loosely that it can include anyone who preaches anything about

Jesus Christ. In such cases, it may embrace groups as Mormons and, indeed, even Jehovah’s Witnesses. After all,

they also consider themselves to be Christians and VERY evangelical.



Further, while Colson’s statement appears to uphold the essence of Christian love, he glosses over the real

doctrinal divergences between Catholics and non-Catholics, in order to win both camps over to his belief that we

need to ‘make it our common cause to bring Christian values to bear in our society’. Because of this, he actually

nullifies love, because true love ‘rejoices in the truth’.

The same may be said about Mr. Fournier, the man whose book Colson foreworded. Although both men

assert without reserve that they are indeed brothers in the Lord, neither one tackles the reality which remains clear

in the light of the doctrine of infallibility; the fact that all of the anathemas (curses) mentioned in the Council of

Trent71 still stand officially (it is affirmed in the Vatican Council II and referenced many times in the 1994 edition

of the Catechism of the Catholic Church). These ‘traditions’ which have separated us have never been recanted,

nor could they really ever be, since the doctrine of infallibility prevents this document from being ever perceived as

‘wrong’.

Sadly, many continue to believe that Colson is one of the many truly ‘progressive’ Christian believers who

are doing the work of God. He does this ‘work’, however, by ignoring the glaring doctrinal faults within the

Roman Catholic Church, in favor of completing evangelism a few years ahead of schedule.

iii.) The Promise Keepers

Here, in the closing days of the millennium, a force which has apparently taken the world by storm, is that

of the internationally acclaimed movement, the Promise Keepers. The founder of this movement, Bill McCartney,

has made it very clear that he is in agreement with the assertions of the Billy Grahams and the Chuck Colsons of

the Christian world. During the 1994 National Conference, he stated to the entire world what his intentions are,

with respect to unity of the Church, even at the expense of the Truth. Jim Kirksey, a Denver Post Staff writer

quoted McCartney recently:

‘It has become clear to me what God has in mind for Promise Keepers’, McCartney said. The answer, he

said, was found in the Sermon on the Mount: ‘Blessed are the peacekeepers, for they are the sons of God.’

A peace-maker is one who brings warring factions together, he said. The reason there isn't a Catholicmen's group filling stadiums around the country ‘is because God wants us together,’ he suggested. . . . In

his talk, McCartney said Promise Keepers has set Jan. l, 2000, as the date for ’men of God...across the

United States to stand up for Jesus Christ.’ He said he envisions 650,000 men in every state capitol

gathering at the same time (Kirksey 1998).

45

71 See Appendix III for The anathemas of the Council of Trent.



These overtures have not only been observed by outsiders, either. Many within the Roman Catholic

Church recognize this movement’s move toward unity with it, as well. On their web page, the New England

Catholic Men’s Conference answered some key questions with respect to the relationship it had with the Promise

Keepers movement:

What does the NECMC think of the Promise Keeper's movement? Of course, as Catholic Christians

we are always happy to see other Christians growing in faith and building unity among other Christians.

The US Bishops released in statement called "A Perspective on Promise Keepers" in June of 1996 which

expressed cautious optimism, especially where we may have doctrinal differences (i.e. a greater emphasis

on the literal sense of the Bible, uncertainty about the role of women, and a different understanding of

ecclesiology -- the structure of the Christian church). At that time there was also some concern that PK

was emphasizing Christian unity, but they had not involved any Catholics as speakers or board members.

However, in 1997 they added a Catholic board member and had Catholic speakers at their events.

Are the Promise Keepers supportive of what you are doing? Yes. Promise Keepers has consistently

affirmed efforts of individual churches or denominations to start men's ministry. Brian Doyle, the New

England Promise Keeper's field representative, has continually offered help to Catholics, and any other denominational group throughout New England . He has also offered to promote our conference to the

Catholic men he works with and has told us that he will avoid planning any events around the time of

our conference. (NECMC n.d.). [my emphasis]

There is little need to delve further in this instance because it is clear that the new evangelism -- ecumenism -- is

on the menu within the Promise Keepers organization.

c.) Other Notable Evangelicals

In addition to these ‘heavyweights’, there are a host of others who have jumped on the ecumenical

bandwagon. Of these, many have chosen to reveal their alliance through their approval of the notorious document

now commonly referred to as ECT. Included among the Evangelicals who have signed or have participated in the

making of the “Evangelicals and Catholics Together” document, are men such as Bill Bright (Campus Crusade For

Christ), as well as Mr. Charles Colson (Prison Fellowship), Pat Robertson (President of CBN), Dr. Os Guinness

(Trinity Forum), Rev. Max Lucado (Oak Hills Church of Christ ), Dr. James J. I. Packer (Regent College, British

Columbia), Dr. Robert A. Seiple (World Vision U.S.), and of course, Dr. John Woodbridge (Trinity Evangelical

Divinity School), to name but a few. (“Evangelicals and Catholics Together” 1994).

Other proponents of the new ecumenism are men like Dr. Jack Van Impe and James Dobson, both highly

acclaimed in the Christian world.

Again, while this author does not want to take away the contributions made to the cause of Christ by any

of the men mentioned in the previous pages, nor does this writer desire to paint a picture which does not include

46



this major error of judgment they have made. By virtue of agreeing with the ECT document or by stating in some

way that they approve of ‘Evangelicals’ and ‘Catholics’ coming together, each of these men are guilty of leading

many others astray.

2.) The Roman Catholic Church and Ecumenism

One must remember that this is not, however, a one sided romance. The Pope and the organization he

represents are looking for a renewal in their church which would bring about a renewed unity with the

non-Catholic world. However, neither he, nor the RCC is willing to recant their position on justification,

Mariology, purgatory, or any other dogma to accomplish this. Instead, some small adjustments have been made

within the church itself, in order to have it appear more palatable to most people 72.

In chapter 22 of his book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Pope John Paul II speaks candidly about the

RCC’s plans, ecumenically speaking:

Before speaking about disappointments it is appropriate to speak briefly on the Second Vatican Council's

initiative once more to set the Church on the path of ecumenism. This path is very dear to me. . . .

Good will is needed in order to realize how various interpretations and ways of practicing the faith can

come together and complement each other. There is also the need to determine where genuine divisions

start, the point beyond which the faith is compromised. It is legitimate to affirm that the gap between the

Catholic and the Orthodox Church is not very wide. On the other hand, with regard to the Churches and

the communities originating in the Reformation, we must recognize that the gap is considerably wider,

since several fundamental elements established by Christ were not respected 73.

Clearly, the disappointments to which you referred were bound to arise in the case of individuals or

groups that viewed the problem of Christian unity in too casual and superficial a way. Many enthusiastic

people, sustained by great optimism, were ready to believe that the Second Vatican Council had already

resolved the problem. But the Council only opened the road to unity, committing first of all the Catholic

Church; but that road itself is a process, which must gradually overcome many obstacles-whether of a

doctrinal or a cultural or a social nature-that have accumulated over the course of centuries. It is

necessary, therefore, to rid ourselves of stereotypes, of old habits. And above all, it is necessary to

recognize the unity that already exists.

47

73 Without going into much detail, the Pope has managed to place the entire burden of the Reformation upon the

churches which broke away from Rome.

72 Some of those ‘adjustments’ have included other belief systems and have become so inclusive that they smack of

universalism. Compare Crossing the Threshold of Hope, Chapter 12, Catechism of the Catholic Church, article460, and “Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian Religions” in the Vatican Council II (pp.

739 ff.). Additionally, in a letter written to “my beloved Muslim brothers and sisters” John Paul II said, "I close

my greeting to you with the words of one of my predecessors Pope Gregory VII, who in 1076 wrote to Al-Nasir, the

Muslim ruler of Bijaya, present day Algeria: "We believe in and confess one God, admittedly in a different way,

and daily praise and venerate him, the creator of the world and the ruler of this world." (Beard 1997; The Vatican

Homepage 1991).



Taking all this into consideration, it is difficult not to acknowledge that the Catholic Church has

enthusiastically embraced ecumenism in all its complexity and carries it out day after day with great

seriousness. Naturally, real unity is not and cannot be the fruit of human forces alone.

By the year 2000 we need to be more united, more willing to advance along the path toward the unity for

which Christ prayed on the eve of His Passion. This unity is enormously precious. In a certain sense, the

future of the world is at stake. The future of the Kingdom of God in the world is at stake. Humanweaknesses and prejudices cannot destroy God's plan for the world and for humanity. If we appreciate

this, we can look to the future with a certain optimism. We can trust that "the one who began this good

work in us will bring it to completion" (cf. Phil 1:6) (Pope John Paul II 1994). [his emphasis]

While Pope John Paul II is undoubtedly passionate about the idea of reuniting for ‘the cause of Christ’, in

reality, the fundamental differences make it very difficult, at best, to truly spread the whole counsel of God. One

would have to relegate oneself to preaching nothing more than a watered-down version of the Truth, which is not

Truth at all.

What is very interesting, is the fact that the Pope is unwilling to relinquish even an iota of power, in order

to accomplish his task. In myriads of documents, the Pontiff agrees with and upholds the doctrine of Papal

Primacy within the Church. One such document, is the latest release from the Vatican itself on the subject. In it,

Cardinal Ratzinger says this about the future of Christendom, should the RCC and the non-Catholics unite under

one banner:

[I]t is only the Pope-- or the Pope with an ecumenical council-- who can make a final judgment on how

the papal ministry should be exercised. On the other hand, it notes that the papal primacy is not a matter

of absolute power, since the Pope, like Peter, makes his decisions in a collegial setting, after consultingwith the bishops of the world. Against that background, the document suggests that all Christians should

pray for a favorable resolution of the discussion on papal primacy-- a resolution that would allow Church

unity and the exercise of papal primacy as Christ intended it (ETWNews 1998). [my emphasis]

The path is clear, as far as the RCC is concerned. Should the non-Catholic churches ever fully rejoin

forces with the RCC, it is almost certain that they would be forced to accept the Headship of the Pope, rather than

remaining under the Headship of Christ, where they belong. This would be a tragedy of the nth degree, were it

ever to occur.

C. Is Ecumenism A Valid Avenue For Evangelism, Then?

Without hesitation, based on all of the evidence compiled, this author would answer, “No, it is not a valid

avenue to effect the Great Commission, given to us by our Master. On the contrary. It would be better to remain

utterly SILENT to the world than to be like the people to whom this warning was addressed:

48



Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and

when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves. (Matthew 23: 15 ) [my

emphasis]

By continuing to participate in the lie of the ‘new evangelism’, ecumenism, the Body of Christ is choosing

to sacrifice doctrinal purity for the sake of numbers and appearances. Anything less than the whole Gospel is not

the Gospel at all but is a lie from the pit of hell. As such, then, it ought not to be spread, lest the converts of

this half-truth end up becoming sons of hell in the process. The stakes are just too high. Souls hang in the balance

and this author is one who is not willing to take that kind of a chance with someone else’s eternal destiny.

Conclusion

When the journey for truth began within this paper, the statement was made that many within

Christendom have desired to “reenter turbid waters long since polluted by man’s heresies, without first cleaning

them,” in the hopes that they might “more successfully evangelize the world for Christ.” This thesis was put forth,

in order to challenge the beliefs held by the bulk of Christendom today, that many of the heretical acts and attitudes

of the Roman Catholic Church in times past have either been purged from its organization or were never as

horrendous as they were made out to be.

These presuppositions were challenged, through the examination of the history, doctrines, and

personalities surrounding the papal office of the Roman Catholic Church itself. Once it was shown that the Roman

Catholic Church has not really changed the essence of its teachings, in spite of the outward appearances, the

subject of ecumenism was broached and its history and present state were looked at. From there, the question

regarding the validity of the Ecumenical movement was tabled and answered.

In conclusion, this author would like to warn her brothers and sisters in Christ not to ally themselves with

the Roman Catholic Church, even though it may appear to be innocuous in nature. Until a real change is effected

within its structures, this organization and its leader should be avoided, rather than joined; it should be

evangelized, rather than encouraged. Biblical separation should be practiced by believers. Anything less would be

tantamount to attempting to serve two masters.

49



Appendices

Appendix I. Is The Pope Really That Devoted To Mary?

On The Pope’s closing statement in the chapter titled, “The Mother of God,” he clears up any misgivings people

may have, regarding his personal devotion to Mary:

I think what I have said sufficiently explains the Marian devotion of the present Pope and, above all, his

attitude of total abandonment to Mary -- his Totus Tuus (Pope John Paul II 1994).

This man also truly believes that Mary is the key to the salvation of the Church today and that Jesus wants

all victories to be inextricably linked to her:

After my election as Pope, as I became more involved in the problems of the universal Church, I came to

have a similar conviction: On this universal level, if victory comes it will be brought by Mary. Christ will

conquer through her, because He wants the Church’s victories now and in the future to be linked to her

(Pope John Paul II 1994). [my emphasis]

Because of this conviction, he has even dedicated all of mankind to her. In his official biography, on

March 25th, 1984, the Vatican asserts that John Paul II, “[i]n spiritual union with all the bishops of the world . . .

repeats the act of entrustment of mankind and all peoples to Mary Most Holy, at Fatima on May 13th (Holy See

“Events” 1996).

One must realize that he has not only entrusted the human race to her; he has also on many occasions,

encouraged those of the Catholic faith, especially those in the clergy, to devote themselves to her, either implicitly

or by inference. In his “Pastoral Guide for Diocesan Priests in Churches dependent on the Congregation for the

Evangelization of Peoples”, Pope John Paul II says:

Thus, priests should renew every day their total dedication to Christ; they should ask in prayer for the gift

of fidelity and perseverance; they should entrust their heart to Mary, Queen of virgins; and they should

have recourse to mortification, which increases self-control and helps overcome obstacles ( Pope John

Paul II. 1989).

He has also been known to say comparable things to the masses. On the 24th of May, 1998, in Turin, Pope John

Paul told the crowd that “Mary watchfully accompanies believers on their journey, and your city bears many signs

of her special protection. . . . Mary is our Mother and a true help for every Christian” (Pope John Paul II 1998).

Earlier, in 1994, in his letter on the occasion of the IV Centenary of the Death of St. Philip, he said to the

members of the Confederation of the Oratory :

In this regard, how can we forget his [St. Phillip’s] wise and efficacious warning: "My children, be

devoted to Mary: I know what I am saying! Be devoted to Mary!" (Pope John Paul II 1994).

50



If there was some area of reservation in the minds of readers up until now, this has hopefully been

removed. Wojtyla has and continues to not only devote himself to Marian worship, but also encourages all who

follow the Roman Catholic faith, to do the same.

While many will have decided by now that Pope John Paul is not the man who they thought he was, others

may still be holding onto the hope that he and the Roman Catholic Church are still basically sound, doctrinally

speaking, with, of course, the exceptions put forth previously in this paper.

Appendix II. Mary Examined

i.) Immaculate Conception

As already mentioned, Mary has been granted a special place within the doctrine of the Catholic Church

itself. The latest Pope has even gone as far as dedicating his entire being to her. This attitude of extreme

veneration is, by no means new, however. For almost 1700 years, the Catholic Church has been endowing this

handmaid of God with attributes which have little or no basis in Scripture. One of these qualities is commonly

referred to as her ‘Immaculate Conception’.

This author would like to caution the reader not to mistake this dogma with the Biblical Truth that Jesus

was conceived without the aid of a man. In the case of the ‘Immaculate Conception’, Mary herself is purported to

have been given the fulness of grace that most believers get only ‘upon baptism’ (Holweck 1998) and remained

‘preserved free from all stain of original sin’ (Flannery, 1981) throughout her entire life. Here is a portion of the

original infallible declaration, ‘Ineffibilis Deux’, as declared by Pius IX:

“Above all creatures did God so love her [Mary] that truly in her was the Father well pleased with

singular delight. Therefore, far above all the angels and all the saints so wondrously did God endow her

with the abundance of all heavenly gifts poured from the treasury of his divinity that this mother, ever

absolutely free of all stain of sin, all fair and perfect , would possess that fullness of holy innocence and

sanctity than which, under God, one cannot even imagine anything greater, and which, outside of God, no

mind can succeed in comprehending fully. And indeed it was wholly fitting that so wonderful a mother

should be ever resplendent with the glory of most sublime holiness and so completely free from all taint of

original sin that she would triumph utterly over the ancient serpent. . . (Pius IX 1854). [my emphasis]

The Catholic Encyclopedia explains how this could possibly occur, even though she was supposed to be

conceived in the ‘normal’ way.

Mary was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin at the first moment of her animation, and

sanctifying grace was given to her before sin could have taken effect in her soul . The formal active

essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was

51



excluded, it never was simultaneously with the exclusion of sin. The state of original sanctity, innocence,

and justice, as opposed to original sin, was conferred upon her, by which gift every stain and fault, all

depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, essentially pertaining in her soul to original sin, were

excluded (Holweck 1998). [my emphasis]

Holweck was very careful to discern the difference between Mary’s exemption from the temporal penalties

of sin and the cleansing of sin in a man’s life, ‘through baptism’.

[S]he was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and

death. The immunity from original sin was given to Mary by a singular exemption from a universal law

through the same merits of Christ, by which other men are cleansed from sin by baptism . Mary needed the

redeeming Saviour to obtain this exemption, and to be delivered from the universal necessity and debt

(debitum) of being subject to original sin. The person of Mary, in consequence of her origin from Adam,

should have been subject to sin, but, being the new Eve 74 who was to be the mother of the new Adam, she

was, by the eternal counsel of God and by the merits of Christ, withdrawn from the general law of original

sin. Her redemption was the very masterpiece of Christ's redeeming wisdom. He is a greater redeemer

who pays the debt that it may not be incurred than he who pays after it has fallen on the debtor. Such is

the meaning of the term "Immaculate Conception (Holweck 1998). [my emphasis]

This doctrine appeared to have been proposed, in order to assure the masses that Jesus was ‘free from all

taint of original sin’. However, it is neither necessary, nor accurate. Jesus was not conceived in the conventional

fashion. To begin with, He was placed in the womb of Mary. This very obedient young woman did not contribute

any portion of her own genes in the process, from all indications. She was simply a willing vessel for an

inestimable cargo.

Further, in the Magnificat, Mary said “My spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour" (Luke 1:47). By her

own admission, a Savior was something she (still) needed. Had she received full exemption from her sins from

birth, she would not have uttered the words in such a manner. If she had already received this exemption, she

more likely would have said something like, “Thanks be to God, who has already granted me freedom from my

sins, through this Saviour, whom my spirit rejoices in.” One can bend silence in a variety of ways. In truth, all

she said, was what is written; nothing more. Nowhere is it mentioned that she was ‘free from sin’ or ‘incapable of

sinning’ within her entire lifetime.

One may see that this doctrine is completely unfounded and without merit, so should not be included

along with the Truth. Based on this information, the doctrine of Immaculate Conception is heretical and has no

place within the Gospel.

52

74 One might have noticed that the title, ‘new Eve’ was conferred upon this servant of the Lord. This title is

actually unmerited; although Jesus was clearly considered the ‘second Adam’ (Cf. I Corinthians 15:45) , Mary was

not likewise mentioned. Further, Mary was Jesus’ earthly mother, not his mate.



ii.) Theotokos -- Mother of God.

It is likely the dogma of the ‘Immaculate Conception’ arose from that of an earlier one, ‘Theotokos’ --

that is, the idea that Mary is literally the Mother of God. This particular dogma arose in 433 AD, through Pope

Celestine, in response to Nestorius’ denial of her ‘divine nature’. The Catholic Encyclopedia speaks of this

particular teaching thusly:

Mary's Divine motherhood is based on the teaching of the Gospels, on the writings of the Fathers, and on

the express definition of the Church. St. Matthew (1:25) testifies that Mary "brought forth her first-born

son" and that He was called Jesus. According to St. John (I:15) Jesus is the Word made flesh, the Word

Who assumed human nature in the womb of Mary. As Mary was truly the mother of Jesus, and as Jesus

was truly God from the first moment of His conception, Mary is truly the mother of God. Even the earliest

Fathers did not hesitate to draw this conclusion as may be seen in the writings of St. Ignatius 75, St.

Irenaeus76 , and Tertullian 77. The contention of Nestorius denying to Mary the title "Mother of God"78 was

followed by the teaching of the Council of Ephesus proclaiming Mary to be Theotokos in the true sense of

the word . . . (Maas 1998).

While one cannot deny that Mary carried and cared for the Messiah as a mother would or that Mary was

called ‘the mother of Jesus’, the lack of information available in the Bible still makes it very difficult to justify

such a doctrine as Theotokos. The information is not there; neither is it alluded to anywhere in the text. The

Biblical account tells us she was simply his earthly mother, not the immaculately conceived, perfect specimen of

woman that is purported to have taken an active part in the conception of God. 79

Because Jesus has always existed, it is asinine, to say the least, to attribute the forming of His Divine body

to a woman who was just as sinful as the rest of humanity.80 The only fathomable way it would have been

acceptable for Mary to contribute her genes, would have been if she was, indeed, immaculately conceived herself.

Because this does not bear out in scripture, however, one cannot but assume Mary was a willing vessel of a

precious cargo which was perfectly conceived without the implementation of her tainted ovum.

53

80That is not to say that she was not justified by her faith, but that she was a member of humanity, as we all are.

79 She certainly carried and bore the Child. However, she could not have given him anything more than

nourishment from her body. Had she contributed her own DNA, the Christ would have been tainted with original

sin, as was Mary.

78(Serm. I, 6, 7, P.G., XLVIII, 760-761).

77(adv. Prax. 27, P.L., II, 190).

76(adv. haer., III, 19, P.G., VIII, 940, 941).

75(ad Ephes., 7, P.G., V, 652).



iii.) Bodily Assumption

According to the Second Vatican Council, Mary was not only the Theotokos and Immaculately conceived,

but when her life was over, she was apparently whisked into heaven, body and soul. Page 417, paragraph 59 says

this:

The Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, was take up body and soul into

heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, that she

might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords and conqueror of sin and death (Flannery,

1981). [my emphasis]

If this dogma is to be believed, God has become a ‘respecter of persons’ -- he has shown partiality 81. In

essence, He would have had to have said that this mortal, fallible woman is better than all other women or men in

the world. Because of this, she has received, not simply the honor of being a son or a daughter and a co-heir of

Christ, but has, indeed become Queen over all other believers.

It directly contradicts scripture, which asserts that all men and women who have believed in faith, will

become sons and heirs of God. It has never asserted that the woman who bore and cared for Jesus would, even by

grace, receive a position above all (or even any) others. (Galatians 4:4 - 7)

Again, Pope John Paul II agrees with every assertion put forth in the documents of the Roman Catholic

Church, regarding Mary, including that of her bodily assumption. This places even more doubt on the efficacy of

this man as one with whom the Body of Christ should now begin to forge close relationships and evangelize the

world alongside of.

iv.) Mary According To The Scriptures

Within the pages of the Bible, a more realistic portrait of the woman Mary, is revealed -- this picture is

completely different from that painted by the many infallible proclamations made through the Catholic Church or

the assertions made by its current leader. Unlike the Mary of Catholicism, Mary, the mother of our Savior, was in

need of a Savior herself, as is recorded in Luke 1: 47.

Secondly, it never mentions her ‘immaculate conception’, but there are many verses which pertain to the

miracle of the Holy Spirit overshadowing Mary and causing her to become pregnant with Jesus, even though she

54

81 Compare Deuteronomy 10:17, II Chronicles 19:7; Job 37:24; Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Ephesians 6:9 and I

Peter 1:17 with the dogma of Mary being exalted to Queen.



had never ‘known’ a man 82.

Thirdly, as was already demonstrated, there is not even a shred of scriptural evidence that Mary was taken

up bodily into heaven and exalted as Queen over all of creation. Neither has she been affirmed within Biblical

text, as a Mediatrix, an Advocate or a Helper for the people of God. These titles have always been ascribed (in

masculine form, of course), to either God the Father, God the Son, or God the Holy Spirit. The thundering silence

of the Bible on these issues, with regard to Mary, serves as a silent testimony of what is acceptable and what is not.

Appendix III -- Some Anathemas of the Council of Trent

i.) Canons on Justification

"If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to

cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be

prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema" (Canon 9). [my emphasis]

"If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for

Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema" (Canon 12).

"If anyone says that man is absolved from his sins and justified because he firmly believes that he is

absolved and justified, or that no one is truly justified except him who believes himself justified, and that

by his faith alone absolution and justification are effected, let him be anathema" (Canon 14).

"If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good

works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its

increase, let him be anathema” (Canon 24).

"If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present

decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and doesnot rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Christ Jesus, let him be

anathema” (Canon 33).

ii.) Canons Concerning Baptism

"If anyone says that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not

the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism, let him be anathema" (Canon 3).

"If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, let him be anathema" (Canon

5).

"If anyone says that children, because they have not the act of believing, are not after having received baptism to be numbered among the faithful, and that for this reason are to be rebaptized when they have

reached the years of discretion; or that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted than that, while not

believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith of the Church alone, let him be anathema"

(Canon 13).

55

82 Luke 1:34.



iii.) Canon Concerning the Veneration of Relics and Saints

"The holy council commands all bishops and others who hold the office of teaching and have charge of the cura

animarum, that in accordance with the usage of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive

times of the Christian religion, and with the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers and the decrees of sacred

councils, they above all instruct the faithful diligently in matters relating to intercession and invocation of the

saints, the veneration of relics, and the legitimate use of images, teaching them that the saints who reign together with Christ offer up their prayers to God for men, that it is good and beneficial suppliantly to invoke them and to

have recourse to their prayers, assistance and support in order to obtain favors from God through His Son, Jesus

Christ our Lord, who alone is our redeemer and savior; and that they think impiously who deny that the saints who

enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, or who assert that they do not pray for men, or that our

invocation of them to pray for each of us individually is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the word of God and

inconsistent with the honor of the one mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ, or that it is foolish to pray vocally or

mentally to those who reign in heaven."

56



Illustration I. Woodcut of Christ versus the Pope

Christ washes his disciples feet. The Pope demands his feet be kissed.

Martin Luther summarized in a later edition of Passional of Christ and Antichrist:

"Christ and the pope are here presented opposite each other. Please note the case of each. It will

not be difficult for you to decide whether or not the pope is the Antichrist, who is against our

Lord Jesus Christ" (Schiefler 1998).

57



Illustration II. Papal Coat of Arms 83

58

83 source: The Official Vatican Website. [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/ape_jp_ii.htm] 1998.



Works Cited

Abbott, Walter M., S.J. ed. The Documents of Vatican II. New York: Guild Press, 1966.

Akin, James, (webmaster). “Final Proposal: Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification”. Internet

Document. [http://www.cin.org/ users/james/ files/jddj.htm]. 1997.

Akin, James (webmaster). “Response of the Catholic Church to the Joint Declaration of the Catholic Church and

the

Lutheran World Federation on the Doctrine of Justification.” [http://www.cin.org/users/james/files/

just_response_of_the_catholic_church_.htm]. 1997.

Allen, R. E. Ed. “Pope”. The Oxford Dictionary of Current English. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

(pp. 376, 572, 841).

---. “Vicar”. The Oxford Dictionary of Current English. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.

Armstrong, John. “Evangelicals and Catholics Together: A New Initiative or Further Confusion?" Reformation

and Revival Ministries, Inc. Article. [http://www.randr.org/v2n1evan.htm]. Caroll Streams, Ill:

Reformation and Revival Ministries, Jan - Feb. 1998.

Ashbrook, John E. “Billy Graham’s Catholic Connection” Excerpted from The New Neutralism II: Exposing the

Gray of Compromise. Painsville OH: Here I Stand Books, 1992. Online Version: [http://cnview.com/

on_line_ resources/billy_graham_catholic_ connection.htm]

Beard, J. “Roman Catholicism: General Notes”. Bible Discernment Ministries Home page.

[http://rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/Catholicism/general.htm], Bedford, IN: Bible Discernment

Ministries, 1997.

Brusher, Joseph Popes Through the Ages: Boniface IX. [http://www.knight.org/advent/Popes/ppbo09.htm ]. New

Advent Inc, 1996.

“Council of Constance, The”. Catholic Encyclopedia. [http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/ 04423f.htm] New

Advent Inc., 1998.

Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops. Catechism Of The Catholic Church. Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian

Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1994. (pp. 193 195, 857, 882 - 883, 937)

Colson, Charles. The Body: Being Light in the Darkness. Dallas, Texas: Word Publishing, 1992. (pg. 93).

---. Foreword in book by Fournier, Keith. Evangelical Catholics. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers,

1990. (pg. vi).

“Council of Constance”. Microsoft Encarta ‘97 Encyclopedia. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 1996.

Erasmus. Praise Of Folly trans. John Wilson (1688) [http://smith2.sewanee.edu/ Erasmus/pof.html] Sewanee,

Tennessee: University of the South, 1996.

“Evangelicals and Catholics Together: The Christian Mission in the Third Millennium”. [http://www.onebody.org

/ect2.htm]. 1994.

“Events in the Pontificate of His Holiness Pope John Paul II”. The Official Vatican Web site.

[http://www.vatican.va/

59



holy_father/john_paul_ii/biography/john-paul-ii_biography_1-june-1996_pontificate_english.shtml]

Vatican, VA: Holy See, 1996.

EWTNews. “New Vatican Document on Papal Primacy”. [http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewrec.cfm?

RefNum=8761] EWTNews - Newsline Archives, 1998.

Flannery, Austin ed. Vatican Council II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. O.P. Northport, NewYork: Costello Publishing Company, 1981. (pp. 128, 352, 370, 375 - 376, 379- 380, 417, 421, 715, 892,

893)

Gray, Paul. “Empire of the Spirit”. Time Magazine. Volume 144, No. 26. December 26, 1994.

Hennesey, James. “John Paul II”. Microsoft Encarta ‘97 Encyclopedia. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation,

1996.

“Highlights on the Life of His Holiness Pope John Paul II.” The Official Vatican Web site.

[http://www.vatican.va/

holy_father/john_paul_ii/biography/john-paul-ii_biography_1-june-1996_pre-pontificate_english.shtml]

Vatican, VA: Holy See, 1996.

Holweck, Fredrick G. “Immaculate Conception”. Catholic Encyclopedia. [http://www.csn.net/advent/

cathen/07674d.htm] New Advent, 1998.

Holy Bible, The. King James Version. God’s Word For Windows ver. 2.0a. Kevin Rintoul, 1996.

“Huss, John”. Microsoft Encarta ‘97 Encyclopedia. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 1996.

IHSV. “Modern Ecumenism is A Fraud: A Noven and Deadly Force Ravages the Church.” The Catholic

Website! Internet. [http://www.bardstown.com/~ihsv/ecumenism.html] 1997.

“John XXIII Antipope”. Microsoft Encarta ‘97 Encyclopedia. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Corporation, 1996.

“Joint Declaration Passed”. Lutheran World Federation. [http://www.lutheranworld.org/news/ jdpassed.html] .

Geneva, Switzerland: Lutheran World Foundation, June 16, 1998.

Joyce, G. H. “Pope”. Catholic Encyclopedia. [http://www.csn.net/advent/cathen/ 12260a.htm] New Advent,

1998.

Keating, Carl. “Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth”. (revised second edition). Catholic Answers.

[http://www.catholic.com/ answers/OTHER/pillar.htm]. San Diego, Ca: Catholic Answers,1996.

Keillor, Steven J. This Rebellious House: American History & the Truth of Christianity. Madison, WI:

Intervarsity Press, 1996. (pg. 22).

Khoo, Dr. Jeffrey. “Biblical Separation”. Far Eastern Bible College. Internet . [http://www.lifefebc.com/FEBC/LectureNotes/BiblicalSeparation-2.htm]. Singapore: Far Eastern Bible College, 1997.

Kirksey, Mark. “Promise Keepers Woos Catholics”. The Denver Post. March 3, 1998.

Löffler, Klemens. “Pope Leo X”. Catholic Encyclopedia. [http://www.csn.net/advent/Popes/ pple10.htm] New

Advent, 1998.

60



Maas, A. J. “The Blessed Virgin Mary”. Catholic Encyclopedia. [http://www.knight.org/advent/cathen/

15464b.htm] New Advent Inc., 1998.

MacCaffrey, James. “The Council of Basle”. Catholic Encyclopedia. [http://www.knight.org/advent/ cathen/

04423f.htm] New Advent Inc., 1998.

McBrian, Richard P. “Infallibility”. The 1996 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia. Grolier Electronic PublishingCompany, 1996.

Mealy, Mark. Lecture. Salvation and Sanctification. Calgary. Rocky Mountain College, April 1998.

NECMC Official Home page. [http://www.diocesemanch.org/NECMC/page2.html.] no date listed.

Pius IX. “Ineffabilis Deux”. Apostolic Constitution issued by Pope Pius IX on December 8, 1854.

Pope John Paul II. “Apostolic Constitution on the Publication of the Catechism of the Catholic Church”.

Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops, 1994.

---. Crossing The Threshold of Hope. New York, N.Y.: Random House, Inc., 1994. Internet Version:

[http://www.catholic.net/RCC/POPE/HopeBook/toc.html]. (Chapters 1, 32, 34 online)

---. “Mary is True Help of Every Christian”. The Official Vatican Web site. Internet. [http://www.vatican.va/

news_services/or/viag_ap/tord_eng.htm]. Rome, Italy: L'Osservatore Romano, 1998.

---. “Pastoral Guide for Diocesan Priests in Churches dependent on the Congregation for the Evangelization of

Peoples”. The Official Vatican Web site. Internet. [http://www.vatican.va/ roman_curia/congregations/

cevang/documents/rc_con_cevang_doc_01101997_priests_en.shtml ]. Rome, Italy: Vatican, June, 1989.

---. “Ut Unim Sint”. The Official Vatican Web site. Internet. [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/

encyclicals/john-paul-ii_encyclical_25-may-1995_ut-unum-sint_english.shtml]. Rome, Italy: Vatican,

1995.

Salembier, Canon Louis. "Gerson". Catholic Encyclopedia. [http://www.knight.org/advent/ cathen/] New

Advent Inc., 1998.

Scheifler, Michael. “Papal Claims To Authority.” Bible Light Homepage. [http://ourworld.compuserve.com/

homepages/MScheifler/claims.htm ] 1998.

Snyder, Louis L. Ed., Documents of German History. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1958. (pp.

69-70).

Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. CD-ROM. God’s Word For Windows ver.2.0. ed.

Kevin Rintoul. Vancouver, BC: Timnathserah Inc., 1996.

Tanner, Norman P. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. , ed. 2 vols. Sheed & Ward, 1990.

“The Amplified New Testament”. The Amplified Bible. LaHabra, CA: Lockman Foundation, 1987.

Thurston, Herbert. “Celibacy of The Clergy”. Catholic Encyclopedia. [http://www.csn.net/advent/cathen/

03481a.htm]. New Advent Inc., 1998.

Toner, P. J. “Infallibility”. Catholic Encyclopedia. [http://www.csn.net/advent/cathen/ 07790a.htm]. New

Advent Inc., 1998.

61



Weber, T. P. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Ed. Walter A. Elwell. Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing House,

1984.

Whitcomb, Paul. The Catholic Church Has the Answer. Rockford, IL: TAN Publishers, 1986. (booklet; question

5).

World Council of Churches. “Towards a Common Understanding and Vision of the World Council of Churches”.Internet. [http://www.wcc-coe.org/wcc/who/cuv-e.html]. Geneva, Switzerland: World Council of Churches,

1998.

62



Works Consulted

Official Vatican Page, The [http://www.vatican.va]. Rome, Italy: Vatican, 1999.

Pickering, Ernest D. Christian News and Views: Newsletter and Resource Page. “Holding Hands With the Pope.”

[http://cnview.com/on_line_resources/holding_hands_with_the _pope.htm] n.d.

Pope John Paul II. “Homily of the Holy Father: Consecration of the Church of Our Lady of Fatima Zakopane”.

The Official Vatican Website. Internet. [http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/travels/

hf_jp-ii_hom_ 07061997_en.shtml]. Rome, Italy: L'Osservatore Romano, June 7,1997.

---. “Redemptionis Donum”. The Official Vatican Website. Internet. [http://www.vatican.va/

holy_father/john_paul_ii/apostolic_exhortations/john-paul-ii_exhortation_25-march-1984_redemptionis

-donum_english.shtml] Vatican, Va: Vatican, March 25, 1984.

63