Is the Roman Catholic Church in the New Testament

I was recently asked this question by a blogger: Can you trace the Roman Catholic Church back to Jesus and the New Testament.  Show me the Chapter and the Verse.  My answer is an unequivocal YES.

The New Testament is the living witness to the Mystical Body of Christ, His Bride, the Church from it’s beginnings.  The Early Church Fathers are the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th century witnesses to the growing church.  The New Testament is complete.  The living witness, the New Testament, has within it’s pages, letters left by the Apostles to individual churches as well as to the Church at large.

There is one Epistle in particular that does link the Roman Catholic Church to the Apostles.  This Epistle is known as The Epistle to the Romans.

In Matthew 28: 16-20

The Great Commission

16 Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Notice in verse 19-20 that Jesus commissions the Apostles and Disciples to go and make disciples of all nations.  We call this the Great Commission.

St. Paul writes an Epistle to the Church in Rome.  We know from the context of this Epistle that this young church was having difficulties due to being made up of  both Jewish converts and Gentile converts.

We can all say that the Epistle to the Romans is St. Paul’s masterpiece.  It is the most theologically rich piece he ever wrote.  We know from historians such as Eusebius, the first Church Historian, and others that both St. Paul and St. Peter were martyred in Rome; the seat of the Roman empire.  Some deny this, but those denials stem from the Reformation onward.

This Church, that St. Paul writes to, suffered persecution after persecution, as the history books tell us.  At no time did this original Roman Church ever fade into the dust bin of history, only to restart decades or centuries later.  That has never happened because we have the history of this church throughout history.  It survived the tyranny of the emperors, made-made disasters, natural disasters, famines, plagues, and war after war.  Yet, it survived until Constantine converted and legalized the catholic religion.

No annihilation of the Roman Catholic Church ever occurred during it’s 2,000 year old history.  It has existed from before St. Paul wrote to them and continues to exist today.  The Catholic Church of Rome never once was lost and restarted.  It has never known a break in its continuity from the time of these two great Apostles, St. Paul and St. Peter.  This Church continued to exist alongside the Roman Empire even when the seat of the empire was moved to Byzantium.

If you claim the Roman Catholic Church is not the same Church that St. Paul wrote too, then show me the break in its history.  You will not find one, because there isn’t one.  The same holds true for the Alexandrian Church and the Antiochian Church.   These two, as well as the Roman Catholic Church, are the 3 major Holy Sees that are still in existence today.  In his master work, Irenaeus (100-165): Against Heresies, in Book III, Chapter III of this monumental work, he states unambiguously that of all the Churches in existence, only one has the preeminent primacy, The Church of Rome.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

As a commentator asked me, “All denominations claim a link to scripture.  How many have scripture claim a link to them?”  Only 1.  The Roman Catholic Church.

AND THIS IS WHY I CAN SAY THAT THE CATHOLIC CHURCH IS

PREDENOMINATIONAL

The Catholic Church is also Apostolic with an unbroken line of Bishops reaching back to Jesus Christ to St. Peter, St. Paul and the Apostles.  And just as Jesus Christ said to the Apostles, they will receive the Holy Spirit to guide them in all Truth, so it is today.

This article does not contain information on Apostolic Succession, which certainly would be included if I wanted to write an article 20 to 30 pages long.  But that is another issue.

In the Peace of Christ,

Ron Sr.

Thank YouEmail this to someonePrint this pageShare on Google+0Share on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterShare on Reddit0

About Ron Sr.

Just a guy who came to his senses.
This entry was posted in Faith, Roman Catholic Church and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to Is the Roman Catholic Church in the New Testament

  1. Anonymous says:

    Thank you , very interested

  2. R. Zell says:

    Thank you Mr. Anonymous.

  3. Rezurrexion says:

    Hi, I think I will begin our fair end-to-end discussion on The Roman Catholic/Protestant divide here.

    Okay. The usage of the facts and conclusions brought about, is a bit far-fetched to me.

    No Protestant deny the fact that there was a church in Rome. From Holy Scripture, we know that Paul was in Rome. We know that he preached to Jews that he called unto himself, and also unto the Gentiles there, for two years, from his own hired house. The fact that a church was born in Rome, is unquestionable, because we know that some of the people were convinced (Acts 28:23-24)

    “And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening.And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not.”

    It is clear from Holy Scripture that people became Christians over there. So we do not dispute the fact that there were a church in Rome, or that Paul had no link to the Christians there.

    But now, regarding the Epistle to the Romans, I do not think it is wise or even correct to use it in a way to link Paul to the church at Rome. First and foremost, because it could be done as I just did with Acts 28. Secondly, because at this point, Paul had not been to Rome yet. But thirdly, the Epistle to the Romans, is an epistle written to evangelize the Romans. The fact is, the epistle was written before there were a church in Rome, before Paul went to Rome. The purpose of the epistle is to introduce and expound the Gospel to the Jews and Gentiles in Rome. Which is why this epistle is “is the most theologically rich piece” as you yourself stated. While the epistle details the Christian faith, nothing from the epistle indicates that the recipients of the epistle were Christians, it rather shows that the recipients were Jews/Gentiles that were unfamiliar or partly familiar (through rumors going around). We know that the Roman citizens, especially the Jews heard about this “Christian sect”. We know this, because when Paul finally ended up in Rome, he explains to the Jews (whom he called) why he is in chains, and they had the following to say in (Acts 28:21-22)

    “And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came shewed or spake any harm of thee. But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken against.”

    The Epistle to the Romans, is not useful to prove a link, it actually goes against the thought of a church being there. Acts 28 is stronger, and applicable.

    Regardless of all of this, we do not deny the existence of a church in Rome, or that no Apostle has any link to the Roman church. What we do deny is the claims of the Roman Catholic Church claiming to be the one true visible church of the ages. Which it is not. Furthermore, early Christianity had autonomous churches (the Orthodox churches still function in this way). While the Church at Rome was just one of 100’s of autonomous churches in early Christianity. The primacy of the Roman church developed like all of the controversial doctrines of the Roman church. From a historical basis, the church at Jerusalem has the only claim to being the one original church that was established by Christ, wherein all the Apostles were part of, and where all the Aposteles had met (like at Pentecost), and then also the first council being the Council of Jerusalem.

    So to answer the question:

    Is the Roman Catholic Church in the New Testament?

    The answer is no, if it were, then Protestants would certainly know about it, the Reformed Fathers would have dealt with it extensively, and the Roman Catholic counter-reformers would have made it known.

  4. Ron Sr. says:

    Hi again,

    There is much to answer here. Going over Romans once again, I cannot but think that the Church St. Paul addresses in his Epistle to the Romans, is a church that is established and as St. Paul does say in Romans 1:7 “To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints: …..”

    Nobody knows who started this church; its thought that Jewish pilgrams returning from Jerusalem (Acts 2:10) may have evangelized the capital of the Roman Empire.

    It is clear in the Epistle that this church is made up on both Gentile converts and Jew’s who came to believe that Jesus Christ is the long-promised Messiah. Rome had a growing reputation for its faith by the time Raul worte to this Christian community, Romans 1:8.

    You state that: The fact that a church was born in Rome, is unquestionable, because we know that some of the people were convince, (Acts 28:23-24).” Looking very closely at Acts 28:23-24, St.Paul is doing exactly what St. Paul always does: He goes to the synagogues first to meet with the Jews. Remember that Acts is a summary over a few decades long.

    It is clear that gentiles became Christians in Rome, no doubt. Jews never become Christians, as gentiles do, they believe that the Messiah has finally come. They become followers of Christ. It is acceptable to say Jewish converts with that in mind though. Jesus Christ right now is seated at the Right Hand of God, in the Throne of David. He is still a Jew.

    St. Paul writes to this Church. You claim that these isn’t yet a Church is wrong. Why would St. Paul say that he has heard of their faith. St. Paul is discussing several issues that these Jewish Converts and Gentile converts were having. Example, Judiazing by some Jew’s.

    St. Paul says in Rom 1:11 that should dispell some of your assertions:

    For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, that is, that we bay be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine.

    So you are wrong when you say “The purpose of the epistle is to introduce and expound the Gospel to the Jews and Gentiles in Rome.” St. Paul always went to churches, whether he starded them or others started them. Expound yes and to dispell the Judiazers influence on these Gentile Christians, Rom 2:25 onward.

    You may not be familiar with the History of the Jews in Rome. Claudius expelled the Jew’s from Rome in 49 A.D.. It didn’t matter whether you were a Jew or a Jewish Christian. See Acts 18:2 where Aquila and Priscillia went to Corinth (where they met St. Paul) because they were among the Jews expelled by the Emporor Claudius. It wasn’t until 5 years later that Nero allowed them to return to rome.

    Can you imaging what occurred when both the Jewish Christians and the Gentile converts got back together? St. Paul hints at some of those problems.

    Now, answer the question in the negative that the Catholic Church is the Church that St. Paul writes to in the Epistle to the Romans. I feel I’ve given you enough evidence in scripture to show there is a church in Rome before St. Paul writes to them.

    So, please give me a date, a month, a year, a decade when the Church that St. Paul writes to in the Epistle to the Romans was exterminated, or died, or faded into the dust bin of history. I want your source as well; the History Book you will answer this question with.

    Once that is given, I’ll start to list some evidence that show this church is continuous with today’s Catholic Church, after St. Paul is martyred. I can go into the 4th century or 5th century so that here is no doubt that the Catholic Church is that Church in Rome that St. Paul wrote to.

    In the Love of Christ,

    Ron Sr.

  5. Ron Sr. says:

    You said this:

    The answer is no, if it were, then Protestants would certainly know about it, the Reformed Fathers would have dealt with it extensively, and the Roman Catholic counter-reformers would have made it known.

    The first reformers never questioned the authority of the Catholic Church (before the word Roman was added to distinguish it from the Anglican Catholic Church). If the first 3 reformers, Luther, Zwingli and Calvin, had issue with the church not being an Apostolic Church, why would they have debated the Catholic Church. These reformers took it for granted that the Catholic Church was that Church that Jesus Christ established on the faith of His Apostles, with Himself as the cornerstone. Denying this is a later allegation.

    You said this:

    The primacy of the Roman church developed like all of the controversial doctrines of the Roman church. From a historical basis, the church at Jerusalem has the only claim to being the one original church that was established by Christ, wherein all the Apostles were part of, and where all the Aposteles had met (like at Pentecost), and then also the first council being the Council of Jerusalem.

    It’s funny to me that you would actually think that. The Church in Jerusalem is destroyed in 70 A. D. Not one Christian is known to have died during the seige of Jerusalem because they heeded the words of Christ and the Apostles. So where do the Christians go? They are scattered to other areas. Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, to name a few. When the church also made illegal, how could it develop and evolve? It does in a big way after Constantine makes the Church legal.

    And the Council of Jersusalem, proves my point that there is a central church. it’s where St. Paul and St. Barnabus go to get a ruling on the Judiazers and they are given a LETTER to distribute to the Churches.

    I have so much to say on this subject and alas, so little time.

    Blessings,

    Ron Sr.

    • Rezurrexion says:

      Hi

      In the context of the Epistle to the Romans, it is right that you point out Romans 1:7, this is a direct reference to Jews and God-fearing people in Rome. They are called to be saints. Not that they are saints, but they are called to be ones. Could there have been Christians among these people? Certainly. But the question we need to ask is this. Did Paul think there were Christians present? And did he address the epistle to Christians? From the form and content of the epistle, it is very hard to say, yes.

      Compare the introduction of Romans to that of any other epistle.

      Rome.. ” to all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints”
      Corinth.. “Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and Sosthenes our brother, unto the church of God which is at Corinth”
      Galatia.. “unto the churches of Galatia”
      Thessalonika.. “unto the church of the Thessalonians”
      Ephesus… “to the saints which are at Ephesus”
      Philippi… “to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi”
      Colosse … “to the saints and faithful brethren in Christ which are at Colosse”

      Nothing in the Epistle to the Romans would lead me to believe that the recipients were thought to be Christians, and even less an established church.
      From where I can see it, the epistle was written to Jews, and Gentiles who adopted the Jewish faith. The reason why Paul maybe wrote an extensive epistle, could be that he thought he would never go to Rome.

      I think whoever established the Roman church, it is not a matter of importance. Could be Jewish Christians, Gentile Christians, even the Apostles themselves. There could have been a fair amount of Christians in Rome, but when it comes to the epistle, why would Paul want to impart the spiritual gift to the recipients, if they’ve already obtained it. And why would he say that he want fruits (converts) from them that are in Rome?

      The faith that Paul heard of is clearly the Jewish faith, that is spoken of throughout the world. By no stretch of the imagination did the Christian faith have such prominence at the time. About the Judiazing, it is clear that Paul maybe thought to run through everything, since the Judiazers were causing problems in several churches. I think it was an important issue at the time.

      If we take Rom 1:11 in its context, then we certainly come to different conclusions.

      As it is written “For I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you, that is, that we bay be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine.”

      What spiritual gift is Paul talking about? And what faith is he talking about? From the text, there is nothing that indicates a Christian belief in the recipients, but a Jewish faith. And in Rom 1:15 Paul states that he is ready to preach the gospel to them. Why would he need to preach it to them, if they are a church, and already Christian?

      There are several points we can take from all of this.

      1) Nowhere in the text does Paul refer to those at Rome as a church, or as saints.
      2) It is evident from the text that Paul is introducing himself, Jesus Christ and he expounded the Gospel to the recipients.
      3) The recipients were Jews and Gentile converts to Judaism.
      4) It is clear from the text that Paul seeks to bring the recipients to the Christian faith.

      Now, do I think a church was established in the Apostolic age? Of course. I just do not think it is wise to use the Roman epistle to attempt at linking the Roman Catholic Church to Sacred Scripture.

      I would want to keep it focused to the question at hand. Things could get too broad. My point with the Reformers and Counter-Reformers was that, these Counter-Reformers would certainly have held it up against the Protestants, who argue for “church invisible”, as opposed to the Roman Catholic “church visible”. In any case, there are so many doctrinal issues that has to be taken into account.

      Is the Roman Catholic Church in the New Testament?

      I have to say no, as the New Testament does not make any mention of a Roman church, a Catholic church, or a Roman Catholic church.

      • Ron Sr. says:

        I didn’t see this post and I do apologize for not answering you in a timely fashion.

        First off, St. Luke is the only Gospel writer to have a sequel.

        Second, The Gospel of Luke starts in Galilee and ends in Jerusalem.

        Third: The Acts of the Apostles, starts in Jerusalem and ends in Rome.

        If we look at Acts 23:11, We see Jesus, by divine authority, has drawn a line from the Old Covenant, represented by Jerusalem, to the New Covenant, that will be the seat of Apostolic Authority, which is Rome.

        Jesus predicts the destruction of Jerusalem and instructed the Apostles and Disciples to be ready for this. Once the Temple is destroyed and Jerusalem falls, the universal Church in Jerusalem must move to another location and that location is Rome.

        As I stated in the Article there is already a church there. St. Paul is addressing this Church filled with both Jewish converts and Gentile converts.

        Your claim that there isn’t a church in Rome is a mistake. Acts 28:14-15

        There we found some brethren, and were invited to stay with them for seven days; and thus we came to Rome. And the brethren, when they heard about us, came from there as far as the Market of Appius and Three Inns to meet us; and when Paul saw them, he thanked God and took courage.

        This should convince you that St. Paul is referring to the Church in Rome. If it does not, I can refer your to many Protestant websites that do indeed say St. Paul is referring to the Church in Rome.

        Romans 15:18 For I will not venture to speak of anything except what Christ has accomplished through me to bring the Gentiles to obedience—by word and deed, 19 by the power of signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God—so that from Jerusalem and all the way around to Illyricum I have fulfilled the ministry of the gospel of Christ; 20 and thus I make it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on someone else’s foundation, 21but as it is written,

        “Those who have never been told of him will see,
        and those who have never heard will understand.”

        St. Paul states he doesn’t usually preach Christ Jesus were it has already been proclaimed. And he states that usually doesn’t build on someone else’s foundation. We believe that foundation in Roman was been laid by St. Peter. Where ever the Apostles or disciples go they establish churches. And Rome is no different.

        Again, this Church is still with us today. The Catholic Church.

        May Grace and Peace be multiplied to you.

        Ron Sr.

  6. mike4415 says:

    If you’re at all interested in knowing . . . the Catholic Dogma . . . that we *must believe* to get to Heaven, and which you have *never* seen . . .

    I list it on my website > > http://www.Gods-Catholic-Dogma.com

    And no … the anti-Christ vatican-2 heretic cult (founded in 1965) is not the Catholic Church (founded in 33 A.D.).

    Abjuration of heresy to enter the Catholic Church > http://www.Gods-Catholic-Dogma.com/section_19.1.html

    The Catholic God knows . . . what we think and believe . . .

    Catholic writing of Romans 1:21 >
    “They … became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened.”

    Catholic Faith (pre-fulfillment) writing of Deuteronomy 31:21 >
    “For I know their thoughts, and what they are about to do this day.”

    Catholic Faith (pre-fulfillment) writing of Job 21:27 >
    “Surely I know your thoughts, and your unjust judgments against Me.”

    The group that calls itself “islam” … is not a religion. Fully proven by the fact that the “koran” says the *opposite* of the Old Testament Prophets > Section 113.1 of the site.

    Mike
    Our Lady of Conquest
    Pray for us

  7. mike4415 says:

    The Bible says … 15 TIMES … that the Bible is NOT the authority on Faith … the Bible says the CHURCH is the authority on Faith. The Christian Faith from Heaven … is the Catholic Sources of Dogma … citations of the Pope in union with the Bishops of the world.

    Scriptures that the Bible is NOT the authority > http://www.Gods-Catholic_Dogma.com/section_6.html

    The Dogma is the Faith … citations > http://www.Gods-Catholic-Dogma.com/section_3.3.html

    1. St. Peter (33-67)
    2. St. Linus (67-76)
    3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
    4. St. Clement I (88-97)
    5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
    6. St. Alexander I (105-115)
    7. St. Sixtus I (115-125)
    8. St. Telesphorus (125-136)
    9. St. Hyginus (136-140)
    10. St. Pius I (140-155)
    11. St. Anicetus (155-166)
    12. St. Soter (166-175)
    13. St. Eleutherius (175-189)
    14. St. Victor I (189-199)
    15. St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
    16. St. Callistus I (217-22)
    17. St. Urban I (222-30)
    18. St. Pontain (230-35)
    19. St. Anterus (235-36)
    20. St. Fabian (236-50)
    21. St. Cornelius (251-53)
    22. St. Lucius I (253-54)
    23. St. Stephen I (254-257)
    24. St. Sixtus II (257-258)
    25. St. Dionysius (260-268)
    26. St. Felix I (269-274)
    27. St. Eutychian (275-283)
    28. St. Caius (283-296)
    29. St. Marcellinus (296-304)
    30. St. Marcellus I (308-309)
    31. St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
    32. St. Miltiades (311-14)
    33. St. Sylvester I (314-35)
    34. St. Marcus (336)
    35. St. Julius I (337-52)
    36. Liberius (352-66)
    37. St. Damasus I (366-83)
    38. St. Siricius (384-99)
    39. St. Anastasius I (399-401)
    40. St. Innocent I (401-17)
    41. St. Zosimus (417-18)
    42. St. Boniface I (418-22)
    43. St. Celestine I (422-32)
    44. St. Sixtus III (432-40)
    45. St. Leo I (the Great) (440-61)
    46. St. Hilarius (461-68)
    47. St. Simplicius (468-83)
    48. St. Felix III (II) (483-92)
    49. St. Gelasius I (492-96)
    50. Anastasius II (496-98)
    51. St. Symmachus (498-514)
    52. St. Hormisdas (514-23)
    53. St. John I (523-26)
    54. St. Felix IV (III) (526-30)
    55. Boniface II (530-32)
    56. John II (533-35)
    57. St. Agapetus I (535-36)
    58. St. Silverius (536-37)
    59. Vigilius (537-55)
    60. Pelagius I (556-61)
    61. John III (561-74)
    62. Benedict I (575-79)
    63. Pelagius II (579-90)
    64. St. Gregory I (590-604)
    65. Sabinian (604-606)
    66. Boniface III (607)
    67. St. Boniface IV (608-15)
    68. St. Deusdedit (615-18)
    69. Boniface V (619-25)
    70. “Honorius I” – fell into heresy
    (625-38) see Constantinople III
    71. Severinus (640)
    72. John IV (640-42)
    73. Theodore I (642-49)
    74. St. Martin I (649-55)
    75. St. Eugene I (655-57)
    76. St. Vitalian (657-72)
    77. Adeodatus (II) (672-76)
    78. Donus (676-78)
    79. St. Agatho (678-81)
    80. St. Leo II (682-83)
    81. St. Benedict II (684-85)
    82. John V (685-86)
    83. Conon (686-87)
    84. St. Sergius I (687-701)
    85. John VI (701-05)
    86. John VII (705-07)
    87. Sisinnius (708)
    88. Constantine (708-15)
    89. St. Gregory II (715-31)
    90. St. Gregory III (731-41)
    91. St. Zachary (741-52)
    92. Stephen II (752)
    93. Stephen III (752-57)
    94. St. Paul I (757-67)
    95. Stephen IV (767-72)
    96. Adrian I (772-95)
    97. St. Leo III (795-816)
    98. Stephen V (816-17)
    99. St. Paschal I (817-24)
    100. Eugene II (824-27)
    101. Valentine (827)
    102. Gregory IV (827-44)
    103. Sergius II (844-47)
    104. St. Leo IV (847-55)
    105. Benedict III (855-58)
    106. St. Nicholas I (the Great)
    (858-67)
    107. Adrian II (867-72)
    108. John VIII (872-82)
    109. Marinus I (882-84)
    110. St. Adrian III (884-85)
    111. Stephen VI (885-91)
    112. Formosus (891-96)
    113. Boniface VI (896)
    114. Stephen VII (896-97)
    115. Romanus (897)
    116. Theodore II (897)
    117. John IX (898-900)
    118. Benedict IV (900-03)
    119. Leo V (903)
    120. Sergius III (904-11)
    121. Anastasius III (911-13)
    122. Lando (913-14)
    123. John X (914-28)
    124. Leo VI (928)
    125. Stephen VIII (929-31)
    126. John XI (931-35)
    127. Leo VII (936-39)
    128. Stephen IX (939-42)
    129. Marinus II (942-46)
    130. Agapetus II (946-55)
    131. John XII (955-63)
    132. Leo VIII (963-64)
    133. Benedict V (964)
    134. John XIII (965-72)
    135. Benedict VI (973-74)
    136. Benedict VII (974-83)
    137. John XIV (983-84)
    138. John XV (985-96)
    139. Gregory V (996-99)
    140. Sylvester II (999-1003)
    141. John XVII (1003)
    142. John XVIII (1003-09)
    143. Sergius IV (1009-12)
    144. Benedict VIII (1012-24)
    145. John XIX (1024-32)
    146. Benedict IX (1032-45)
    Appears three times,
    he was restored twice.
    147. Sylvester III (1045)
    148. Benedict IX (1045)
    149. Gregory VI (1045-46)
    150. Clement II (1046-47)
    151. Benedict IX (1047-1048)
    152. Damasus II (1048)
    153. St. Leo IX (1049-54)
    154. Victor II (1055-57)
    155. Stephen X (1057-58)
    156. Nicholas II (1058-61)
    157. Alexander II (1061-73)
    158. St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
    159. Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
    160. Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
    161. Paschal II (1099-1118)
    162. Gelasius II (1118-19)
    163. Callistus II (1119-24)
    164. Honorius II (1124-30)
    165. Innocent II (1130-43)
    166. Celestine II (1143-44)
    167. Lucius II (1144-45)
    168. Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
    169. Anastasius IV (1153-54)
    170. Adrian IV (1154-59)
    171. Alexander III (1159-81)
    172. Lucius III (1181-85)
    173. Urban III (1185-87)
    174. Gregory VIII (1187)
    175. Clement III (1187-91)
    176. Celestine III (1191-98)
    177. Innocent III (1198-1216)
    178. Honorius III (1216-27)
    179. Gregory IX (1227-41)
    180. Celestine IV (1241)
    181. Innocent IV (1243-54)
    182. Alexander IV (1254-61)
    183. Urban IV (1261-64)
    184. Clement IV (1265-68)
    185. Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
    186. Blessed Innocent V (1276)
    187. Adrian V (1276)
    188. John XXI (1276-77)
    189. Nicholas III (1277-80)
    190. Martin IV (1281-85)
    191. Honorius IV (1285-87)
    192. Nicholas IV (1288-92)
    193. St. Celestine V (1294)
    194. Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
    195. Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
    196. Clement V (1305-14)
    197. John XXII (1316-34)
    198. Benedict XII (1334-42)
    199. Clement VI (1342-52)
    200. Innocent VI (1352-62)
    201. Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
    202. Gregory XI (1370-78)
    203. Urban VI (1378-89)
    204. Boniface IX (1389-1404)
    205. Innocent VII (1404-06)
    206. Gregory XII (1406-15)
    207. Martin V (1417-31)
    208. Eugene IV (1431-47)
    209. Nicholas V (1447-55)
    210. Callistus III (1455-58)
    211. Pius II (1458-64)
    212. Paul II (1464-71)
    213. Sixtus IV (1471-84)
    214. Innocent VIII (1484-92)
    215. Alexander VI (1492-1503)
    216. Pius III (1503)
    217. Julius II (1503-13)
    218. Leo X (1513-21)
    219. Adrian VI (1522-23)
    220. Clement VII (1523-34)
    221. Paul III (1534-49)
    222. Julius III (1550-55)
    223. Marcellus II (1555)
    224. Paul IV (1555-59)
    225. Pius IV (1559-65)
    226. St. Pius V (1566-72)
    227. Gregory XIII (1572-85)
    228. Sixtus V (1585-90)
    229. Urban VII (1590)
    230. Gregory XIV (1590-91)
    231. Innocent IX (1591)
    232. Clement VIII (1592-1605)
    233. Leo XI (1605)
    234. Paul V (1605-21)
    235. Gregory XV (1621-23)
    236. Urban VIII (1623-44)
    237. Innocent X (1644-55)
    238. Alexander VII (1655-67)
    239. Clement IX (1667-69)
    240. Clement X (1670-76)
    241. Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
    242. Alexander VIII (1689-91)
    243. Innocent XII (1691-1700)
    244. Clement XI (1700-21)
    245. Innocent XIII (1721-24)
    246. Benedict XIII (1724-30)
    247. Clement XII (1730-40)
    248. Benedict XIV (1740-58)
    249. Clement XIII (1758-69)
    250. Clement XIV (1769-74)
    251. Pius VI (1775-99)
    252. Pius VII (1800-23)
    253. Leo XII (1823-29)
    254. Pius VIII (1829-30)
    255. Gregory XVI (1831-46)
    256. Pius IX (1846-78)
    257. Leo XIII (1878-1903)
    258. Pius X (1903-14)

    > Papacy falls vacant … by heresy in 1914 it is still vacant
    Fully proven > http://www.Gods-Catholic-Dogma.com/section_20.html

    – – – heretic “Benedict XV” (1914-22)
    – – – heretic “Pius XI” (1922-39)
    – – – heretic “Pius XII” (1939-58)
    – – – heretic “John XXIII” (1958-63)
    – – – heretic “Paul VI” (1963-78)
    – – – heretic “John Paul I” (1978)
    – – – heretic “John Paul II” (1978-2005)
    – – – heretic “Benedict XVI” (2005-2013)
    – – – heretic “Francis” (2013 – )

    • Ron Sr. says:

      Interesting Mike and I apologize for not seeing this post earlier. I did have a virus attack.

      Are you a member of a schismatic Catholic Church. Don’t be offended by the term schismatic, please.

      I’ve met someone who goes by Mona Lisa on the youtube.com video comments threads who has the same as you.

      Please explain in Charity to a brother.

      In Christ,

      Ron Sr.

  8. m.k. says:

    As a staunch Protestant, I found your article ridiculous to the maxx. There is not one blessed word in the book of Romans which points to its superiority over all the others, and neither is there a peep that Jesus gave the RCC the gift of infallibility. So let’s cut off the head of the Goliath of infallibility right here and now, shall we?

    Truly, all it took for David was one stone to bring down Goliath. In like manner, the word “truly” has the potential to … truly … bring down the Roman Catholic Church when it comes to their claim of infallibility. If it can be shown that they made even one factual error, then truly, any notion of their infallibility falls to the ground, and like a stack of dominoes, all of her other doctrines fall right along with it. Here is what we mean: the catechism quotes the Council of Trent…

    “Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly His body He was offering under the species of bread” (CCC 1376).

    No, he did not say any such thing.
    Let’s unpack this statement. We notice that there are three distinct errors in this one sentence alone! Jesus did not “say” that he was “offering” anything, let alone that the bread was “truly” his body.
    Trent’s first error was the brazen lie of telling us Jesus said something, when he didn’t.
    The second offense was alleging that Jesus was offering himself in sacrifice right there at table before he went to the cross. Trent teaches, “At the Last Supper, on the night He was betrayed [He] offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the form of bread and wine…”
    NO! Jesus offered his body one time and only one time (1 Peter 2:24) …i.e., at the cross, and certainly not at the Last Supper, and definitely not at any Mass going on today. Jesus said he desired to eat the Passover “before I suffer” (Luke 22:15). That being so, he did not suffer and offer himself in sacrifice to God the Father at the dinner table before he went to the cross!
    The Bible strictly and emphatically denies any repeated offerings whatsoever (Hebrews 7:27, 9:12, 9:25-26, 9:28, 10:10, 10:12, 10:14, 10:18), making the Pope a liar when he teaches that, “Christ daily offers himself upon our altars for our redemption” (Mediator Dei, #73).
    Trent’s third offense was stealing the word “truly” from John 6:53, (“Truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man…”)
    and transplanting that word into the mouth of Christ at the Last Supper, where he did not “truly” affirm that at all. Trent was responding to the Reformers, and classified any opposing view as, “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”. In their decree on the Eucharist, they maintained they were being guided by the Holy Spirit, but in their zeal to counter-attack the Reformers, they showed they were guided only by their emotions. No Bible on Earth records Jesus saying the bread was “truly” his body, and so Trent was wrong to claim that he did. The Bible says, “When a prophet speaks in the name of the Lord, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the Lord has not spoken” (Deut 18:22). The same principle applies here in evaluating the claim of infallibility.

    OBJECTION: The Council of Trent was not wrong by claiming Jesus said the bread was truly his body because that is what he meant!
    ANSWER: Trent is perfectly free to think Transubstantiation is what Jesus meant by, “This is my body”, as are we free to think that he meant no such literal thing. However, Trent is not free to teach that he said the bread was truly his body to justify their belief that Transubstantiation is a literal fact, any more than we are free to teach that he said the bread was not his literal body, to justify our opinion that Transubstantiation is false. Each of our respective cases must be based predominantly on the biblical criteria without the need to put words in the mouth of our Savior (2 Tim 3:15-17).

    The biblical axiom is, “Let your yes be yes and your no be no; for whatever is more than this comes from evil” (Matt 5:37). Trent did not do this and so they are, by biblical definition, “evil”, when it comes to infallibility.

    OBJECTION: The word “truly” is there to paraphrase that Christ was not speaking symbolically, but is part of the Church’s interpretation that Christ meant what he said, literally.
    ANSWER: Anyone who knowingly paraphrases is obligated to reveal their intention at the get-go to prepare the reader for what follows. Otherwise, we are to, “Let your yes be yes and your no be no; for whatever is more than this comes from evil” (Matt 5:37).

    OBJECTION: Let’s say you tell me that you disagree with the Pope’s stand on the death penalty. The next day I tell someone you… “said” … that you “completely” disagree with the Pope on the death penalty. Would you consider that a dishonest paraphrase of what you meant?

    ANSWER: No. It would be fair to report that although I didn’t actually say “completely”, that you paraphrased my thoughts accurately. No harm done. On the other hand, Trent planted a very bad seed that germinated and burst forth into a flat-out lie. The fact that, “God is not a man that he should lie” (Numbers 23:19), demands both arguments be represented fairly so the better of the two shines forth (1 Kings 18:24; Proverbs 18:17; 1 Cor 11:19). Trent overstates their case by demanding Jesus “said” the bread was “truly” his body, when in fact, he did not “truly” say that at all.
    In John 21:22, we read of a rumor that was going around based on something Jesus supposedly said. But in the next breath, the Text reports that Jesus did not actually say that at all. It is conclusive therefore, that this essay is in perfect harmony with the Spirit of Truth who is in favor of what Jesus actually said, rather than what he supposedly said. Hence, the controlling factor behind the Council of Trent was certainly not Spirit-driven.

    As if the first exaggeration were not bad enough, they compound their error with this: “For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless Himself affirmed with truth, that to be his own body which he presented [to them]”.
    The student of the Bible will notice at once that Jesus most certainly did not “affirm with truth” that the elements were actually his body and blood. He simply said, “This is my body”! An affirmation of truth conveys something to the effect of, “Truly, truly I say unto you”, or something similar in the way of, “Listen up, this is important!”. But our Host at the Last Supper did not do this, and therefore, Trent was over-reacting and subsequently misrepresented Jesus a second time.
    If the grandiose claim of Transubstantiation is on course, it should stand out like a ship in the night with the floodlights of Scripture to guide it without misquoting Christ. Those of us in life rafts looking for salvation would then be more than happy to anchor our soul in the ocean of its truth. As it stands, the stormy ship in which Roman Catholics are sailing is taking in so much water, there doesn’t seem to be enough hands below deck with buckets to bail them out. Typically, all hands on deck refuse to even interact with the voluminous evidence against them, and throws it overboard. Trent’s decree simply dismisses the opposition as, “satanic, godless, contentious and evil”. But it is beyond ridiculous to suppose someone is downright “godless” when they attempt to compare Scripture with Scripture (Acts 17:11, 1 Cor 2:13). Is it “godless” to assert that, “This is my body” falls into the same metaphorical category as, “The Lord is my shepherd” (Psalm 23), or , “You are the salt of the earth” (Matt 5:13) or, “All flesh is as grass”? (1 Peter 1:24). Since all the world agrees that the object in each verse symbolizes or represents the subject, we are not out of order, let alone godless, to insist that the bread represents Christ’s body.
    The point is this: By not allowing “This is my body” to breathe on its own, Trent sinned by… “truly”… adding to the word of God, which is prohibited (Deut 4:2, Prov 30:6, Rev 22:18). Therefore, because we know the sanctity of God’s word is endorsed down to the last “jot and tittle” (Matt 5:18), the Holy Spirit would never inspire Trent to misquote Jesus, even just a “tittle”. That said, the gift of infallibility was no more given to the church of Rome than there is a man in the moon, and that being so, the entire Roman Catholic faith is to be rejected per Deuteronomy 18:22 and Jeremiah 23:30-40. It is promised in those passages that all false prophets who recklessly wag their tongues by asserting, “The Lord says”, (when the Lord did not say), will be cast out of his presence (cf. Jeremiah 14:14, 23:16-21).

    OBJECTION: Only the actual canons that have an anathema attached to them, are infallible (i.e., “If anyone says…” — and ends with, “let him be anathema”). The two places you quote from are in the decree “introduction” and “chapter” 4, not the actual “canon” themselves. “Introductions” and “chapters” are not infallible.

    ANSWER: You are forgetting that Trent professed to be guided by the Holy Spirit at both the beginning and end of their decree introduction, and not in a “canon with an attached anathema.” Shall we, according to your logic, conclude that whenever a council claims infallible guidance in a “decree” — and not in an actual “canon”, it may not be necessarily true after all? While that would be fine with us, we doubt the Pope would agree. He actually prefaces the error-filled paragraph 1376, by telling us, “The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith [by saying]…”

    Think of it! The very essence of the Roman Catholic religion is built upon and summarized by the dark shadows contained in one, single and solitary error-filled sentence! Furthermore, neither Trent, nor any of the three popes who presided over the long-run of that council, nor any of the modern Popes, let alone the current catechism, make any distinction whatsoever between the supposedly infallible and non-infallible portions of a council’s decree. Instead, Trent made itself perfectly clear that everything contained in their decree is to be “preserved until the end of time”.

    What is a decree?

    A. By definition, a “decree” is an official order issued by a higher authority that is unbreakable. Trent’s document is entitled, “Decree Concerning The Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist”, and the introduction and chapters which follow are naturally a part of that decree which cannot be broken.
    B. Code of Canon Law says, “All Christ’s faithful are obligated to observe the constitutions and decrees…(#754), and the catechism confirms these decrees (CCC 9).
    C. “A council’s decrees approved by the Pope are infallible” (on-line, New Advent article, “General Councils”).
    D. “The infallible sacred magisterium includes the extraordinary declarations of…ecumenical councils traditionally expressed in conciliar creeds, canons and decrees” (on-line, Wiki article, “Infallibility of the Church”). Pope John XXIII confirms, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent” .
    E. A second Pope, quoting Trent from chapter 4 (and not a “canon” with an anathema attached) says: “This sets forth once more the perennially [permanently!] valid teaching of the Council of Trent [which the] Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called…transubstantiation” (Ecclesia de Eucharistia: 15)

    Thus, Trent was unambiguous, intending the entire decree, to the letter, be preserved till kingdom come. They, “forbid all the faithful of Christ henceforth to believe, teach, or preach anything about the most Holy Eucharist that is different from what is explained and defined in this present decree”.
    Instead of letting the Bible breathe on its own, Trent has essentially quoted Jesus out of context. Even if Transubstantiation were true, we are quite sure the Lord would not take kindly to putting words in his mouth. Neither would he take kindly to taking words out of his mouth, for Catholics contravene the original command to partake of both bread and wine, and instead teach Jesus would be pleased we take either one! However, the Lord said the Scriptures cannot be broken (John 10:35). Therefore, no reasons whatsoever can justify breaking the Scriptures by haphazardly adding and subtracting to his word (Rev 22:18-19).

    I challenge you to refute this argument.

Leave a Reply