THE POPE AS VICAR OF CHRIST?
The apostle Peter, the alleged first pope, supposedly wrote 2 Peter in the
Bible. This crazy letter says extraordinary things about the Bible. It stated
that even though Peter actually heard the voice of God when Jesus was
transfigured that this voice was not as certain as what God said and predicted
in the Old Testament. This indicates that the evidence for Jesus Christ should
be gleaned from the Old Testament and that even the apostles should not be
believed when they testify that Jesus rose unless it can be determined that the
Old Testament God forecasted it. Jesus himself according to Luke 16:31 reasoned
that if the Old Testament says something it is right and even a resurrection
miracle has less credibility. He stated that if people don’t believe in the Old
Testament they will not be persuaded even if they see a man rising from the dead
to warn them. This is a deadly sanction for rabid fundamentalism. It has spilled
so much blood in the world.
When the Old Testament is more sure than even the direct voice of God that means
that the Old Testament words must be literally the words of God as
fundamentalists believe – the Old Testament is verbally inspired.
The pope claims to succeed Peter. A real successor of Peter would uphold his
legacy of fundamentalism.
The pope is seen as the earthly head of the true Church. Secular society sees
him as just the head of the Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholic doctrine says
that the apostle Peter was the first pope. Peter was the first bishop of Rome
and so the man who becomes bishop of Rome becomes pope and head of the Church as
he succeeds Peter. The fact that an ossuary has been found on the Mount of
Olives bearing Peter's name Simon Bar Jonah does not faze the Catholic Church.
Peter indeed was probably never bishop of Rome and died and was buried in
Jerusalem.
The pope claims to be the successor of St Peter the apostle on whom Christ built
the one true Church, the Roman Catholic Church and that all Christians have a
duty to obey him. He goes as far as to claim to be infallible. There is no
evidence that if Jesus made Peter the rock that he meant he was to be the head
of the Church. Peter might have been only the chief organiser of the Church
meaning that if the pope is his successor the pope like any organiser may be
rebelled against and broken away from if he does not do his job.
Jesus would have meant that if Peter was the rock he would only be that as long
as he stayed firm so it is a conditional role he got. The pope claims that his
office is unconditional for the Church needs him. So the papacy was not
instituted by Jesus.
The pope sees no evidence for his infallibility and his kingship over the Church
so he has stolen his position. He has stolen the place of Christ and is
antichrist.
Pope John Paul II claimed that the papacy never misleads the Church and yet he
came out against the Bible teaching on the rightness of capital punishment! To
say as he did that capital punishment is evil for the person might be innocent
however unlikely this seems, accuses Jesus of backing up an evil God who
commanded executions by stoning for apostasy, heresy and sexual sins. This is
the man who insists that condoms must not be used even by a married man trying
to avoid giving AIDS to his wife!
The Church says Peter was the rock that is to say the foundation of the Church.
If Peter was the rock the Church was built on, it follows then that Peter and
the pope, if he is really his successor, have to hold the Church together. This
would require one to believe that the Roman Pontiff is infallible or acting
without error when he excommunicates. The Church dares not teach this for
history shows persons and groups being thrown out of the Church by one pope and
this action being apologised for by another pope. If the pope were really the
rock he wouldn’t be able to excommunicate unfairly.
If Jesus promised us popes to be the rock the Church was built on, then he broke
his promise for many of them have been wimps and disasters. They cannot be
described as rocks. At times, two or more men claimed to be pope and nobody knew
for sure who was the real pope. How then could the papacy be rock?
There is no good evidence that Peter was the rock in the Catholic sense. For
example, he doesn't leave any affidavits saying he was head of the Church. Nor
does he mention that bishops of Rome will be his successors. Peter might have
been one of many bishops in Rome - if he died there at all. For all one knows,
maybe the Peter that allegedly died a martyr's death there could have been a
mistaken identity. Peter would need to designate a successor to be the new rock
after his death. None of this happened. The evidence is not convincing enough
then that Peter can be considered to be the rock the Church is built on in the
sense of father, infallible teacher and monarch over the Church. A rock that
leaves inadequate evidence that it is the rock is not a rock at all. Worse, even
if Peter was the rock in the Catholic sense there is still no reason to believe
that the popes, even if they are his successors, are his equals or were meant to
be.
If Jesus made a false prophecy or Matthew mistakenly imputed one to him, then we
cannot take Matthew 16 as support for the papacy. It is unreliable.
Infallibility is the power of the Roman Catholic Church and the pope to work out
doctrines and declare them revealed by God while being guarded by God against
error. Most Roman doctrines have come out of this belief in the power to define
what is true doctrine. If the Church is wrong then the doctrines are not binding
for belief and the whole Catholic faith falls apart. The Roman Catholic Church
claims that it is infallible when its bishops meet in an ecumenical council and
when the pope makes an ex cathedra statement. They must intend their teaching to
be infallible and binding on the Church. Jesus is said to have given the Church
this power when he said the gates of Hell would never prevail over his Church
and when he promised the Holy Spirit to the apostles to guide them into all
truth. But at most Jesus promised his Church would be indefectible, never depart
far enough from the faith to block the salvation of its members. And no Church
has all the truth.
The Catholic Church says that infallibility is not inspiration but protection
from error. This is a lie for you must need some inspiration to avoid error. The
Church says that inspiration doesn’t happen since the time God wrote the Bible
and the traditions of the Church for there is no public revelation since the
apostles. This proves that infallibility cannot happen. The Church is totally
incoherent in its claims about the infallibility charism. This being so even if
it has the power to be infallible it cannot use it.
The Church does its homework before declaring a doctrine to be true. The Church
says that the conclusion is infallible but the reasons for the conclusion are
not. So the Holy Spirit protects from making the wrong conclusion when the
research is undertaken but he doesn’t guarantee that the research will be well
done. In that case, the research can’t be very important and so we are talking
about inspiration here. If the research is important, then the reasons for the
conclusion are also infallible.
What infallibility supposedly does is show that a doctrine was taught by the
apostles at least implicitly or by implication for nothing can add to their
teaching. That is why giving an infallible statement is called defining or
making known. First of all it is made known to the pope for example but it is
foolish to think it’s not infallible until he reveals it. Can you believe that
the decision of Pope Pius IX that the Virgin Mary was conceived without sin
wasn’t infallible until he announced it? No way. If God revealed it was already
infallible and the pope merely recognised its infallibility. It is not about his
infallibility but its own.
Don’t say that the pope was infallible during his research for he intended to
define the doctrine and if he didn’t intend that he wouldn’t have any
infallibility. He intends an infallible revelation as a possibility. If Pius IX
had been led to the conclusion that the Immaculate Conception was false then he
would not have made the announcement. We would have a dogma saying that the
Immaculate Conception wasn’t true. Anything a pope says could possibly be turned
into a dogma so everything a pope teaches is open to being made infallible. The
intention idea solves nothing.
Infallibility in itself would only make sense if the pope was infallible all the
time. Even the most extreme Catholics don’t think that he is.
Vatican I was the ecumenical council that made it a dogma or binding belief that
the pope was infallible. Vatican I put limits on papal infallibility. It said
the pope was only infallible when he spoke clearly that he was making any dogma
part of the faith. Despite all that, it is obvious that it makes the pope more
infallible than it looks. The Church only pretends that it accepts papal
infallibility under strict conditions because it knows fine well that popes are
capable of serious error and to go too far with papal infallibility will only
make a laughing stock of the Church. But nevertheless its cover-up doesn’t work
and the pope is still left more infallible than even he would want to be!
Pius IX proclaimed the Immaculate Conception as infallible dogma BEFORE any
definition came from the Church that he was infallible. This proves that the
pope must be regarded as infallible all the time for he is to be obeyed even
without a definition and he can define without being defined infallible. The
pope then is the only thing that is needed if you want infallible teaching and
ecumenical councils aren’t. This gives absolute power, at least potentially, to
the pope! It contradicts the biblical view that the apostles shared authority
with Peter. There was no greatest among them in terms of rank.
Papal infallibility is not a harmless doctrine for the Catholic is asked to die
for it if asked to renounce it or be put to death.