Organizational Structure of Roman Catholicism
A Great Return to the Bible
Lesson 14
Introduction
Our study has now carried us through the historical facts associated with the rise of the Roman Catholic Church. The purpose of this lesson will be to examine the foundation of this organization in order to be able to compare it to the church of the Lord Jesus Christ as depicted in the Bible. Some of the basic doctrines of this organization will challenge its claims but also clearly identify it as being something completely different from the church of the Lord Jesus as depicted in primitive New Testament Christianity.
If we are serious about following the Bible as God's divine will for all mankind, we must be willing to examine the principles and practices of existing religious organizations to see what they believe and practice. It is not enough just to ignore these fundamental questions since the truth of God's will for all of us is at issue.
How can this proposition be demonstrated? In the course of this investigation, we will look at its foundation, at its leadership (head), and at its source of authority. In the process, we will be examining its claims.
What was the Foundation?
The Church Built on Whom?
​
​
​
​
Consider: Review again, Lesson 8 on the foundation of the church.
Who is the Head?
Is the Pope the Head of the Church?
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Consider: Review again Lesson 6, regarding the attitudes which Jesus sought to instill in his disciples. Is the idea of rank and position of one above another consistent with Christ's teaching?
Was Peter the First Pope?
​
​
​
​
​
​
Consider:
* Peter never designated himself as a pope, but as "a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ" (II Peter 1:1) and a "fellow-elder" (I Peter 5:1). When he used the term "chief shepherd" (I Peter 5:4), he did not refer to himself, but Christ. Peter probably wrote his letter about 62-63 A.D.
* In Acts 8:14 it is said: "Now when the apostles that were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John." If the apostles had recognized Peter as pope, why did they send?
* At the Council of Jerusalem, the final decision was pronounced by James and not Peter, thus denying the papal authority supposedly belonging to Peter. (Acts 15:13,19).
* Paul corrected Peter for teaching falsely (Gal. 2:11). Is this infallibility ?
* Peter was married (Mark 1:30 and Luke 4:38). Popes are not allowed to marry.
* In his Roman letter, Paul (about 60 A.D.) honors over two dozen Christians mentioning their names, but Peter (whom some suppose was there as pope) is not even mentioned. (See Rom. 16).
* Study Acts 10:24-26 to see if Peter conducted himself in a manner befitting a pope.
Was Peter Ever in Rome?
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Consider: Because of the doctrine of the primacy to the Bishop of Rome -- exalting him above the Bishops of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, etc. - the Catholic church is obligated to prove that Peter was in Rome. Please see again the discussion under Was Peter the First Pope? It cannot be proven conclusively that Peter was ever in the city of Rome. But, even if he did go there, there is no evidence that he was there for twenty-five years (as the Catholic Church asserts) or that he was there in the capacity of pope. Gibbon's statements above are assertions. Did he (Peter) transfer his alleged See to Rome? Evidence? Does Peter support this claim? If so, where? Did his successors support it? While there is some possibility that he may have been there, he would not have been there as the pope. Do Protestant commentators confirm this? Do they believe in the pope?
Are the Popes Peter's Successors?
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Consider: Gibbons says, "The church did not die with Peter. It was destined to continue to the end of time; consequently, whatever official prerogatives were conferred on Peter were not to cease at his death, but were to be handed down to his successors from generation to generation. The church is in all ages as much in need of a Supreme Ruler as it was in the days of the Apostles" (Gibbons, p.89).
These are bold assertions. Who said that Peter had to have someone to succeed him? Where did this idea originate? The Bible? No -- it came from the minds of men. There is not a shred of evidence to support this alleged claim -- a clear example of Catholic dogma. The apostles were eye-witnesses of the risen Christ. See Acts 1:22, II Peter 1:16, Acts 10:41 and Acts 26:16-17. As a witness can testify only to what he has seen, it follows that there were no successors to the apostles.
Even if Peter had been the first pope, and even if he had spent 25 years in Rome as pope (neither of which is true), there is still nothing to support the doctrine of apostolic succession except the bold claims of the Roman Catholic hierarchy.
Are Popes Infallible?
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Consider: Although the Bible knows nothing of this Roman Catholic assumption, history is replete with examples to the contrary.
*Most reliable sources list 196 popes since Boniface III (606 A.D.) the first one yet.
**There was a period of 70 years when no one ruled as pope.
**"At one stage, from 1044 to 1046, there were three very unworthy men each claiming to be the pontiff. They were Benedict IX, Sylvester III, and Gregory VI." (Renwick, p. 87).
**There have been no less than 29 controversies among them as to whom was pope.
**In the 9th century, Pope Joan, a woman disguised as a man, rules for two and one-half years. (Moshelm, p. 186).
*Popes have actually endorsed error.
**Calixtus tuaght the Patripassion heresy.
Liberius supported the Arian heresy.
**Zozimus defended Pelagianism, but his predecessor, Innocent I, had condemned it as heresy.
**Honorius was condemned as a heretic by the 6th Ecumenical Council in 681 by Leo II.
**Sixtus V translation of the Latin Vulgate in 1590 had over 2,000 errors in it - after he had pronounced it true and authentic. (All references, Matthews, p. 59-62).
*Popes have condemned scientific knowledge as heresy.
**Galileo was condemned to silence for putting forth his Copernican theory of the sun as the center of our solar system. In 1704, this was called heresy by the pope. Today, it is unquestionably accepted by scientists. Infallibility? (Matthews, p. 65).
*Some of the world's most depraved and immoral creatures were popes.
**Their names and the extent of their crimes are too numerous to mention. Any church history will give the sordid details (See Halley, pp. 881-883).
**In 1873, an American Bishop by the name of Purcell stated in public debate: "Some of the bad popes of Rome are expiating their sins in the penal fires of hell."
**Is this infallibility? Can an immoral person be expected to render infallible decisions in religious matters? If he is immoral and pretends to be religious, he is hypocritical. If he is hypocritical, how could his judgment be reliable?
Are Popes Equal to God?
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Consider: To assert a thing is NOT to prove it.
What is its Source of Authority?
Is the Bible the Only Source of Authority?
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Consider: This statement is taken from an address by the cardinals of the church to Pope Pius III, which is preserved in the National Library of Paris, Vol. 2; pages 650, 651. Quote: "The Bible is the book which more than any other thing has raised against us the tumults and tempests by which we have almost perished. In fact, if one compares the teachings of the Bible with what takes place in our churches, he will soon find discord, and will realize that our teachings are often different from the Bible, and often still, contrary to it" (Howard, p.17).
Need more be said? One wonders what Jesus would ask of them if He were on earth again -- perhaps something along the same line as the question He put to the Pharisees about following the "traditions of men" and ignoring the Bible.
Objection: Sometimes people will say that they realize the history of Catholicism has been very bad, but that things are different today. Are they? Have the designs and purposes of Catholicism been changed? Has the pope renounced his infallibility? Do they still practice the doctrines and laws herein described? Do they follow the Bible as their source of authority? Except for the fact that her armies were destroyed and her earthly territory reduced to a few acres of land, what has been altered? She still has command of vast financial resources. She still makes every claim she has ever made. Her aims are still the same -- complete and utter control of the religious and secular lives of men. (See Cox, pages 44 and 45).
Conclusion: As regards her foundation, her head, and her source of authority, it appears that the Roman Catholic church seeks by her claims to justify the existence of a church that they wish they could say Christ built but which is so unlike what Jesus described in the Bible as His church.
VOCABULARY
apostolic succession - successors to Peter.
assertion - claim with no basis, or proof.
dogma - assertion, or claim without evidence.
fraudulent- fake, false.
imminent- prominent.
infallible - impossible to be wrong.
irreformable- unchangeable.
See - pope, pontiff in office.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Fisher, G.P., History of the Christian Church
Gibbons, J.C., The Faith of our Fathers, P.J.Lenedy and Sons, New York, 1917.
Halley, H.H., Bible Handbook
Howard, V.E., Tract, "The Bible from God or Catholic Church?"
Matthews, Paul, Basic Errors of Catholicism Dehoff Publications, Murfreesboro, Tenn., 1952.
Mosheim, John L., An Ecclesiastical History
Miller, Waymon P., A Survey of Church History
Newman, A.H., A Manual of Church History
Renwick, A.M., The Story of the Church
