The Roman Catholic Church teaches its followers that she is the true church that Jesus Christ founded through the original apostles. Yet most Roman Catholics are unaware that the Roman Church has so drastically developed her doctrines over the centuries that if the first century apostles of Christ, or even the early Catholic Bishops of the third and fourth centuries could step into the twenty first century to hear her teachings first hand, they would not even recognize her as the same Church. The early Bishops would not have been familiar with the concept of an infallible Pope who heads the Church as the "Vicar of Christ," i.e. "in place of Christ," nor would they have known about the latter Catholic Doctrines of Purgatory, Indulgences, Transubstantiation, Prayers to Mary and other departed saints, veneration of saints, bodily assumption of Mary, veneration of Catholic Tradition on an equal authority with scripture, and many other Catholic doctrines which were formulated after the first few centuries of the Christian era.

Since the Roman Catholic Church cannot vindicate its teachings solely by the use of scripture, both Papal Infallibility and the alleged authority of oral tradition has usurped the authority of New Testament Scripture. Although the Catholic Church may officially state that the New Testament has equal authority with Catholic Tradition, the plain truth lies in the words of Catholic Author John O'Brien: "Great as is our reverence for the Bible, reason and experience compel us to say that it alone is not a competent nor a safe guide as to what we are to believe." Therefore, since Catholic Theologians do not regard the Bible as "a competent," "safe guide" as to what they are to believe, they always revert to their alleged authoritative traditions as formulated over the centuries by the Popes who they claim spoke with infallible inspiration.
The New Catholic Catechism states: "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope..."

The Roman Catholic author, Cardinal Gibbons states that the same spiritual authority as given to the apostle Peter has always resided and still resides in the Popes, or Bishops of Rome:
"The Catholic Church teaches that our Lord conferred on St. Peter the first place of honor and jurisdiction in the government of his whole church, and that same spiritual authority has always resided in the popes, or bishops of Rome, as being the successors of St. Peter. Consequently, to be true followers of Christ all Christians, both among the clergy and laity, must be in communion with the See of Rome, where Peter rules in the person of his successor."
In the year 1302 A.D., Pope Boniface wrote:

"Consequently we declare, state, define, and pronounce that it is altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman Ponfiff."
Most Roman Catholics are unaware that it was this same Roman Pontiff who used "offensive phraseology" in some of his public documents. According to Pope Boniface, "to enjoy oneself and to lie carnally with women or with boys is no more a sin than rubbing one's hands together."
According to Church History, one hundred and ten Bishops of Rome have now ruled (the earliest Roman Bishops were not called Popes ). If the Roman Catholic Doctrine of Papal Infallibility were true, all Roman Catholic Bishops and later Popes would have miraculously agreed with one another over the centuries. Is this really the case? The evidence points overwhelmingly to the contrary.

The Roman Popes repeatedly contradicted each other, anathematized each other, and lived immoral lives. Below are only a few of the many examples. Bishop Liberius signed the Arian Sirmium Creed which denied the Deity of Christ; the next Pope in line ratified the Trinitarian Creed. Pope Honorius contradicted so many Popes that he was anathematized (i.e. accursed) by Councils and Popes for centuries. According to the Catholic Bishop Luitprand of Cremona who lived at the time of Pope John XII 955 A.D., "No honest lady dared to show herself in public, for Pope John had no respect either for single girls, married women, or widows-they were sure to be defiled by him, even on the tombs of the holy apostles, Peter and Paul." Pope Alexander VI (1492-1503) lived in public incest with his two sister and his own daughter, Lucretia, from whom, it is said, he had a child. In 1501 he conducted a sex orgy in the Vatican.
In the ninth century Pope Stephen VI brought former Pope Formosus to trial by digging up his corpse from the grave and placing the body upon a throne. Pope Formosus was judged guilty of heresy, his bright robes were ripped from his rotting flesh, his fingers were hacked off, and his body was dragged through the streets of Rome and thrown into the Tiber River.

Hence, one Pope clearly condemned another. Yet to make matters even worse for Roman Catholics who trust the alleged infallibility of the Papal Office, the second successor of Pope Stephen had the body of Formosus, which a monk had drawn from the Tiber River, reinterred with full honors. Formosus' official orders were then declared valid. Then a future Pope, Sergius III turned around and declared that Pope Stephen was correct and Pope Formosus was wrong.
The list goes on. Pope Eugene IV condemned Joan of Arc to be burned alive as a witch. Then a future Pope turned around and declared her to be a saint. Pope Sixtus V had a version of the Bible prepared which he declared to be accurate. Just two years later, Pope Clement VIII declared that this version was full of errors. Even today Evolutionists love to use the argument that it was the Popes of Rome who condemned the astronomer Galileo for his correct view of the Solar System and Universe.

If Papal Infallibility is proved to be an erroneous theory, as the above historical evidence clearly indicates, then all of the added doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church must be called into question. And if Papal Infallibility is proved to be false, then the entire authority of Catholic Tradition that had developed over the centuries by numerous Popes cannot be trusted as truly authoritative or binding upon the Church of God.

All Roman Catholics must seriously examine Catholic Traditions in light of the authoritative scriptures which have been accurately delivered to us by Christ's holy apostles and prophets. The apostle Paul wrote unto the Ephesian Christians in Ephesians 2:20 that the Church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." Nothing is mentioned of Papal Infallibility which would change the Churches beliefs over the millennia. Quite the contrary, the apostle Paul stated as recorded in Acts 20:27 "I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God." Yet the Romish Church today would tell us that the apostles did not declare the whole counsel of God to us in the holy scriptures, nor did they do a competent job. Who are we to believe? The first century apostles of Christ, or the Romish Popes?

Roman Catholic Theologians use Matthew 16:13-19 to assert that the Church was built upon the foundation of Peter as the primary apostle and that all subsequent Bishops of Rome who were appointed after Peter's death were automatically given Peter's authority. Does Christ's words as recorded in Matthew chapter sixteen really prove the Roman Catholic view?
"When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that you are John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He said unto them, But whom do you say that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed are you, Simon Bar jona: for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto you, That you are Peter {Petros=stone}, and upon this rock {Petra=Mass of Rock} I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. (Matthew 16:13-20)

The subject question in the above text is not "who is Peter," but rather, "who is Christ?" Since the subject topic was "Who do you say that I am," the context demands that the revelation Peter received from the Heavenly Father was not about who Peter was, but rather, who was Christ? Verse number twenty proves this interpretation to be accurate, "Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ." Jesus did state that Peter was an important stone in the proclamation of the gospel. It was Peter who used the Kingdom keys to initially unlock the door of salvation to the Jews (Acts 2), to the Samaritans (Acts 8), and to the Gentiles (Acts 10). Paul wrote in Ephesians 2:20 that the true Church is "built upon the foundation of the apostles..." Not "an apostle", but "the apostles." There is absolutely no mention in any other scriptures proving that Peter was the head of the universal Church.

Moreover, Jesus did not say, "you are Petros (a stone) and upon this Petros (stone) I will build my Church..." Jesus clearly stated: "you are Petros (a stone) and upon this Petra (Massive Rock) I will build my Church..." Since there are no parallel passages proving that Peter alone is the rock or foundation upon which the Church is built, yet there are numerous scriptures proving that Jesus Christ is the rock or foundation upon which the Church is built, it is a most logical deduction that the true Church of the living God is built upon Jesus Christ as the "massive rock" or "the chief corner stone."(Ephesians 2:20) May the honest reader prayerfully consider the following scriptures:

"I will publish the name of the LORD: ascribe ye greatness unto our God, He is the Rock.."(Deuteronomy 32:3,4)

"There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God." (1 Samuel 2:2)

"The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer." (2 Samuel 22:2)

"For who is God, save the LORD? And who is a rock, save our God?" (2 Samuel 22:32)

"The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer." (Psalm 18:2)

"Truly my soul waits upon God: from him comes my salvation. He only is my rock and my salvation..." (Psalm 62:1,2)

"And they remembered that God was their rock, and the high God their redeemer." (Psalm 78:35)

"O come, let us sing unto the LORD: and let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation." (Psalm 95:1)

"Behold I lay in Zion a stumbling stone and rock of offence: and whosoever believes on him shall not be ashamed." (Rom 9:33)

"Moreover, brethren, I would not that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea. And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; And did all eat the same spiritual food; And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." (1 Corinthians 10:1-4)

"According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise master builder, I have laid the foundation, and another builds thereon. But let every man take heed how he builds thereupon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 3:10,11)

Since the above scriptures prove that the LORD our God alone is "the rock of our salvation," and since the apostle Peter is not God manifest in the flesh, Jesus Christ must be the Rock upon which the Church is built. The True Church of God is the Church that both understands who Jesus is, "the rock of our salvation" in flesh, and that the True Church is built upon Christ as the firm foundation. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

WAS THE APOSTLE PETER THE INFALLIBLE HEAD OF THE EARLY CHURCH?

The New Testament Scriptures are replete with examples of Peters' Fallibility. Remember that it was Peter who stood in the way of the will of God by trying to prevent Jesus from dying on the cross. Jesus rebuked Peter saying, "Get thee behind me Satan..." (Matthew 16:23) It was Peter who impetuously blurted out, "Let us make three tabernacles: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." For Peter did not know what he was saying.(Luke 9:33) And it was Peter who denied the Lord three times prior to his conversion at Pentecost. (Matthew 26:34)

The argument could be made that Peter made these mistakes because he had not yet received the Holy Spirit and Christian baptism as recorded in Acts Chapter two. Yet again the scriptures provide sufficient proof of Peters' fallibility.

"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....But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If you, being a Jew, live after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why do you compel the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Galatians 2:11-14)

If Peter was truly the head Bishop or head Apostle of the entire Church, the scriptures should provide us with some evidence to vindicate his position as the sole ruler of the Church. Does the scripture provide us with this proof? The scriptural evidence totally contradicts the headship of Peter as the governor of the Church:

If Peter was the head Pontiff of the Church, why was he fearful of the Jewish Elders as recorded in Galatians chapter two? Why was Peter called upon to give an account for preaching the gospel to the Gentiles? For the Jewish Elders of the Church at Jerusalem "contended with him, Saying, You went in to men uncircumcised, and did eat with them." (Acts 11:2,3) There is no mention of Peter claiming an infallible Papal Office, nor is there any mention of others in the Early Church who looked to Peter as their infallible Pontiff. The Holy Scriptures prove that Peter was one of the chief apostles (one of several stones as Ephesians 2:20 clearly indicates) but the scriptures also prove that Peter was never the chief apostle of the Universal Church. In fact, other apostles seem to have had even greater influence and even more fruitful ministries than Peter. It was the apostle James, not Peter, who presided over the council at Jerusalem as recorded in Acts Chapter fifteen. The apostle Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 12:11, "...for in nothing am I behind the very chiefest apostles..." And again Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:10 concerning the other apostles, "I labored more abundantly than them all..."

Intellectually honest people who have been raised into Roman Catholicism ought to ask their Priests some very poignant questions: Why was Paul the chief writer of the New Testament if Paul held an inferior position to Peter? Why did the apostle James preside at the council of Jerusalem, as recorded in Acts chapter fifteen, if Peter was suppose to be in charge as the Pope? Why did Paul write in 1 Corinthians 12:28 that God has set in the Church, "first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers...?" According to the Vatican this passage should read, "first the Pope...."

Most people who claim to be Roman Catholics have been raised as Catholics from birth. Hence, they have not seriously questioned the validity of their Denomination, they merely excepted it as a part of their life and culture. But should ones geographical location of birth or particular family tree into which one is born determine ones religious orientation? Does God really support the view that all who are born and baptized as infants into the Roman Catholic Religion must blindly follow this faith, regardless of many serious flaws and numerous unscriptural contradictions?

The serious reader can clearly observe that the Roman Catholic Church must revert to unscriptural traditions in order to promulgate her teachings. Catholic Theologians prefer to believe that the Holy Bible "is not a competent, nor a safe guide as to what they are to believe" because they recognize that they cannot justify their doctrines upon the Words of God found in the Bible.

In 1870 the First Vatican Council's Constitution entitled Pastor aeternus declared the latter Roman Catholic position:

"We, therefore, for the preservation, safekeeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the sacred Council, do judge it to be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy."

The vast majority of early Church Bishops believed that Jesus was speaking of Christ as the rock upon which he would build his church, or the revelation of knowing who Jesus really is. Only twenty percent of the Bishops of the first few centuries believed that Peter was the foundation of the Church (Most who held this view were later Bishops). How then can the Catholic Church believe that she is upholding "the ancient and constant faith" of the Church?
The Catholic Encyclopedia states: "We do not find in the New Testament any indication of celibacy being made compulsory either upon the apostles or those whom they ordained."
The scriptures prove that the apostle Peter did not live according to latter Catholic Doctrines: Peter was a married man (See Matthew 8:14). Peter and other apostles were married even while the apostle Paul was ministering to the Gentiles (See 1 Cor. 9:5). Peter would not allow any man to bow to him (See Acts 10:25,26) but Catholic Popes readily receive this homage. Peter wore no crown. Yet Catholic Popes wear a crown. The first Bishop to be called Pope was Demasus in 378 AD because the Emperor Gratian had refused the title due to its Pagan origin. Neither Peter, nor any of the apostles, nor any of the Bishops of Rome had ever claimed this Title prior to Bishop Demasus in 378 AD.

Moreover, Peter both received and preached the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial sign of speaking in tongues as a universal gift offered to "as many as the Lord our God shall call (Acts chapters 2, 8, 10, 11). Catholic Popes today are not filled with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit with the initial sign of tongues, nor do they preach this same scriptural promise. Peter commanded all people to repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ in order to be saved (See Acts 2:38). Yet Catholic Popes today do not adhere to baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, nor do they adhere to water baptism by immersion. Yet all the Bishops of Rome had baptized in the name of Jesus Christ until the time of Bishop Calixtus (223 AD) and all baptized by full body immersion until infant sprinkling was adopted much later.

The Catholic Biblical Encyclopedia states that "Immersion was the oldest method employed. Buried in baptism." The Greek word for baptism used in scripture for water baptism is baptizo which means to "immerse." The Greek word for sprinkle is rantizo which means to "sprinkle." Rantizo is never used in the New Testament for water baptism. Yet Presumptuous Catholic Popes have subsequently changed the early and oldest method of water baptism.
It was not until the time of Bishop Calixtus 218-223 AD that Matthew 16:18 was first used in an attempt to prove that the Church was built upon Peter and that the Bishop of Rome was his successor. When this view slowly emerged to become the prominent view, the Roman Bishops used this alleged authority to promote the widespread infusion of pagan ideas and pagan practices into the Church.

According to the Catholic Jesuit Magazine La Civilta Cattolica: "That some customs and religious observances of the early Christians were closely related to certain pagan practices and ways is known to all scholars nowadays. They were practices too deeply rooted and intertwined in the public and private life of the ancient world. The mother church, kind and wise, did not believe that she had to uproot them; rather, by TRANSFORMING THEM in a Christian sense, raising them to new nobility and new life, she prevailed over them by means that were powerful yet gentle, so as to win to herself without uproar the souls of both the masses and the cultured."
Hence, the Roman Catholic Church admits that their Popes had won to themselves the masses by progressively transforming certain pagan practices that were deeply rooted in the ancient world by mixing them with Christian thought. Thus Pagans did not have to have their pagan practices completely uprooted; they could be transformed into new life by a State Church that was willing to gain numerical strength and power through mixing both Pagan practices and Christian beliefs.

Sadly, Paganism and Christianity cannot be mixed. The resultant admixture produced an apostate Church, a Church far removed from its original doctrines and practices of the first century Christian era. It was this same Catholic Church which formulated the doctrine of a Trinity of Three Divine Persons which has been carelessly embraced by the majority of all Protestant, Evangelical, and even Pentecostal Believers.

Testimony of Steve Ritchie                  The One True Name Of God

      The Origin of the Trinity                     The Outpouring of the Holy Spirit