One of the most refreshing fruits of the Francis I pontificate is that it has awakened Roman Catholics to the truth that apostasy can originate from within the church. Paul warned,

“Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;” (2 Thessalonians 2:3)

Of this “falling away,” or apostasia, Paul included a chilling note. It would begin from within: “the son of perdition … as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4). Indeed, speaking to bishops who could justifiably boast succession from the Apostles, he warned: “of your own selves shall men arise” (Acts 20:30). And Peter warned as well: “there shall be false teachers among you” (2 Peter 2:1). As we have observed repeatedly here, the Great Apostasy occurred in the late 4th century, bursting forth as a veritable font of liturgical, ecclesial and doctrinal novelty and error. It manifested upon the earth as what we now know as Roman Catholicism. It originated from within, for one cannot “fall away” from without.

The historical Roman Catholic objection to such a claim is as predictable as it is banal: “But that would mean Jesus has not kept His promise in Matthew 16. If the church ever fell into apostasy, then that would make Jesus a liar!” We invite the reader’s attention to such examples as this, which claims that “There was no great apostasy of true Christianity” because Jesus promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Or this comment, in which a reader claimed that there could never be a widespread apostasy because Jesus promised that “the gates of hell would not prevail against the church.” Such objections presume first that we are claiming that the “True Church” could apostasize (we are not) and second, that Roman Catholicism is that “True Church” (it is not).

When we cite 2 Thessalonians 2:11 about the “strong delusion” by which God Himself would cause the vast majority to “believe a lie,” the Roman Catholic responds in a similar vein: “That is not possible because that would mean God purposely spread heresy and is the source of heresy.” Such responses again presume that Roman Catholicism is immune to error, and thus immune to an apostasy. Thus, the Roman Catholic historically has ruled out the very thing the Apostles clearly ruled in: that the great falling away would sweep up much of the church in its wake.

But that is all changing now. X (formerly known as Twitter) is abuzz with resentment that Pope Francis has “Magisterialized” error, and that he is about to lead the Church into apostasy. Because of this, Radical Traditionalist Roman Catholic philosopher, Timothy Gordon, no longer believes Matthew 16 actually means what centuries of apologists have claimed: that the Church cannot formally mislead and misfeed the sheep. All that is off the table now that Francis is Pope and has formally taught error:

“So, we could be forced back underground. And that seems to be happening. Except this time it’s not the pre-Constantinian Roman emperors that are forcing us underground. It’s Francis himself.  [World Economic Forum], [United Nations], atheist-loving Francis himself.” (A Heiner Wilmer CDF Promotion Will Disfigure Church, January 23, 2023 (13:00 minute mark))

“Don’t tell me that ‘the gates of hell will not prevail against the church’ means that Francis and Heiner Wilmer will not push through false doctrines. … we can’t rest fastly on the presumption that Matthew chapter 16 means that doctrine is untouchable or that we can’t go back and won’t have to tweak it some.” (A Heiner Wilmer CDF Promotion Will Disfigure Church, January 23, 2023 (15:00 minute mark))

When such men as Gordon no longer claim that Matthew 16 establishes the indefectibility of the Magisterium, and that the Pope himself may be the Chief Apostate, we rejoice for the open door that provides. It means a widespread late fourth century apostasy can no longer be ruled out on the basis of Matthew 16. And if Roman Catholics suddenly realize God can send a strong delusion in the 21st century to cause the majority to wander into damnable error, then the Roman Catholic mind must now be open to the possibility that He could have done so in the 4th. It is a small step, but progress is progress.

We therefore see an opportunity like none we have ever enjoyed before: to speak to Roman Catholics about a widespread apostasy in which the erring majority separates from a small faithful remnant. In the present case, as in the late 4th century, the vast majority of professing Roman Catholic papists will believe with certainty that they cannot possibly be wrong. Because Matthew 16. They will invoke Cardinal Newman on the “development of doctrine” and implore the factious minority to return to the apostolic religion Christ founded. For now, as then, there must be “no room whatever for … private judgment” (John Henry Cardinal Newman, Faith and Private Judgment). Meanwhile the very small, persecuted and vocal Traditional Latin Mass-loving minority will be cast off as a divisive, factious, discontented, heretical group that refused to bend the knee to Peter. Indeed, at this very moment we can hear Ignatius ringing in our ears — “Let no man do anything … without the Bishop”! (Ignatius of Antioch, to the Smyrnæans, 8). So too will that tiny minority be bludgeoned mercilessly with the very words they have used against Protestants for centuries. Ah, but we must first attend to dinner lest we spoil our appetite with the dessert.

Thy Law is the Truth (Psalms 119:142)

Now that the Roman Catholic has come to contemplate the very real possibility of what he once considered impossible, let us return to Paul’s warning. By what means can a “successor of the apostles” oppose and exalt himself “above all that is called God” and above even anything “that is worshipped,” as if He was sitting “as God” in the temple of God, “shewing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4)? Well, that depends on what God magnifies above all else. According to the Scriptures, it is His Word:

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” (John 1:1)

“I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” (Psalms 138:2)

“… He called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35)

“So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.” (Isaiah 55:11)

“Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?” (Jeremiah 23:29)

“For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.” (Psalms 119:89)

“Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever.” (Psalms 119:160)

“… the word of God is not bound.” (2 Timothy 2:9)

There is simply nothing more marvelous, praiseworthy, glorious, magnificent, effectual, merciful, just and eternal than the decrees of the Father. Many a translation has tried to play down the richness of Psalm 138:2, but the literal translations cannot hide it:

“For Thou hast made great Thy saying above all Thy name.” (Young’s Literal Translation)

“For You have made Your saying great above all Your Name.” (Literal Standard Version)

“for thou didst magnify thy word over all thy name.” (Smith’s Literal Translation)

By His “saying,” the universe was brought into being (Genesis 1:3). “All things” are upheld “by the word of his power” (Hebrews 1:3). By His “saying” men are born again to eternal life (1 Peter 1:23). By His “saying” the world is reconciled to Him (2 Corinthians 5:19) and faith cometh to the elect by the hearing of it (Romans 10:17). His Word is a “sweet savour” to “them that are saved” and “the savour of death” to “them that perish” (2 Corinthians 2:15-16). By His just and terrible “saying” the souls of men are condemned (John 12:48), and by His gracious and merciful “saying” men receive an everlasting inheritance (Acts 20:32), passing from death to life (John 5:24). All that has ever occurred, or will ever occur, is by the Word of His “saying,” and nothing can withstand it, thwart it, overcome it or controvert it. There is nothing greater.

“Let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.” (Romans 3:4)

And yet, Roman Catholicism, against all wisdom, against all knowledge, against all discretion, prudence and understanding, has  exalted herself above God’s Holy Word. She repeatedly casts herself as judge, validator, authenticator and certifier of God’s “sayings.” We will first provide a few examples of how her defenders affirm this, and then demonstrate how Rome formally exalts herself against and above the Word of God.

Rome Purifies God’s “Muddy” Water

In a recent ecumenical discussion between a Roman apologist and a Protestant, the dialogue turned to the purity of God’s Word. “Thy word is very pure,” the psalmist wrote, and “therefore thy servant loveth it” (Psalms 119:140). “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times” (Psalms 12:6). Not so, said the Romanist, for God’s word is delivered to us in its raw, unprocessed, muddy condition, and is not purified until it has been refined and filtered for consumption by the Roman Magisterium.

The occasion for such a comment was a Church Militant Mic’d Up episode in which host David Gordon engaged in a Protestants vs. Catholics “Separated Brothers” Dialogue with Dr. Gavin Ortlund. Ortlund questioned whether the development of Roman Catholic doctrine is a true outgrowth of the original deposit of faith, or if it was rather a corruption of that pure deposit. Ortlund had opined, “When you have muddy water in a stream, you have to go back to see where it came in. The pure water will be found before the muddy water started” (29:00).

To this, David Gordon responded in disbelief: “Isn’t that absurd? … Isn’t it the opposite that is the case? That water is muddy at first, and then things have to simmer down and be clarified? Because you get something in its most raw form, and only after time is it purified.” It is noteworthy that Gavin had been speaking of that “unique era in Church history” when the Apostles were delivering the original “apostolic testimony,” a testimony that their hearers received “not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God” (1 Thessalonians 2:13). To the Roman Catholic, that is when the “waters” were the muddiest, and they can only be purified over time by the Magisterium.

We are reminded of the Man of God who received instruction from the Lord: “Thou shalt eat no bread nor drink water there, nor turn again to go by the way that thou camest.” Another prophet claimed to have received a more recent “word of the Lord” clarifying that it was acceptable for him to return the way he came, and “that he may eat bread and drink water.” But the second prophet was lying (1 Kings 13:17-18). To the knowledgeable, the first command was pure, and the second was “muddy,” tainted with error. But to the Romanist, the initial “word of the Lord” must have been too muddy to understand, requiring a Magisterial cleansing by the second prophet, to clarify that the Lord really meant the opposite of what He said. Indeed, to the Romanist, the closer one gets to the source, the muddier the water gets. By this way of thinking, Roman Catholicism thinks to revere God’s Word by improving, correcting, refining and purifying it until it says something else. But God claims His Word is “very pure” from the start.

Rome Confers Inerrancy on the Scriptures

Roman Catholic apologist Timothy Gordon recently scheduled a debate with a Protestant on the topic of Sola Scriptura. The Protestant, for personal reasons, was unable to keep the originally scheduled date, so in order to provide material for his listeners, Gordon simply released the video of his argument: Why Sola Scriptura is a SCAM. In sum, God is unable to promulgate the Bible on His own. “The earth is the LORD’s, and the fulness thereof” (Psalms 24:1), sayeth the Lord, but Timothy Gordon disagrees: “God does not have a publishing company or a printing press” (31:30).  Without such advanced infrastructure and technology at His disposal, God is helpless to promulgate His word and must rely on the Roman Catholic Church to do it for Him. Unable to aggregate His Holy Word into a publishable form, God needs an infallible Church to promulgate it, and (!) to confer inerrancy upon the Word He breathed.

Having studied the Scriptures, we have some idea of how divine inspiration works. According to Peter, “the Spirit of Christ which was in” the prophets “testified beforehand” such that the Scriptures — that is, “the things, which are now reported unto you” — were divinely inspired (2 Peter 1:11-12). The Spirit of Christ only speaks what He has heard from the Father (John 16:13), and therefore, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16). What the prophets wrote down was divinely inspired. And because “the scripture cannot be broken” (John 10:35), the God-breathed Scriptures are inerrant. “I AM THAT I AM” (Exodus 3:14) gave them to us.

Nay!, sayeth the Roman Catholic! The way divine inspiration actually works is that the Roman Catholic Magisterium confers inerrancy upon the Word of the Father!

“The way that divine inspiration works is that various folks came forward and claimed that the stories they wrote about Jesus were divinely inspired. Now, four of these men, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were divinely inspired. But all that we know from God’s perspective is that these four men claimed to be divinely inspired. … Individual humans claimed that they were divinely inspired by God and some authority simply had to ratify that claim.” (31:45 – 33:15)

Left with no means by which to promulgate His Word (we speak as a fool!) God required a higher authority than His own Word to ratify it! But Timothy Gordon goes on:

“In the case of Scripture, you cannot give what you don’t have. … Inerrancy cannot have been conferred upon Scripture by a fallible authority, or by an errant authority. … Can the promulgator … exercise fallibility while conferring inerrancy to Scripture? No. He has to be infallible to confer inerrancy upon Scripture.” (37:00-38:15)

We might have imagined that God promulgated His Scriptures infallibly and inerrantly simply by breathing them. Because God’s Word “shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it,” we have every confidence that the Scriptures have come to us as He intended. It was impossible that they not. But Timothy Gordon will not have it. No, God lacking a printing press and publishing company, and therefore is unable to promulgate His Word infallibly even if He wanted to.

We would ask, then, how Ahab’s blood ended up being licked up by dogs at the pool of Samaria when it was spilled 30 miles to the east in Ramothgilead. All of this, of course, was ordained by the Word of the Lord Who not only sent Ahab to Ramothgilead to perish, but also guided an arrow to the joints in his armor so he would bleed out in his chariot, and arranged for soldiers to return the chariot to the pool of Samaria and wash it, whereupon the dogs licked up Ahab’s blood (1 Kings 22:22-38). All this was according to the Word of the Lord: “In the place where dogs licked the blood of Naboth shall dogs lick thy blood, even thine” (1 Kings 21:19). But how is this possible if the Lord has neither bows, arrows, soldiers, dogs, nor chariots to effect His will? The bows, arrows, dogs, chariots and soldiers must have been infallible! It is by just such foolish reasoning that a trained Roman Catholic philosopher concludes that inerrancy can only be “conferred” upon God’s Word by an inerrant, infallible authority. Thus does Roman Catholicism claim to be able to confer on God’s Word something that He Himself cannot!

The Scripture Requires Proof (but the Church does not)

So enamored is Rome of her authority that she believes God’s Word must be certified by her, even as she claims that she, herself is self-attestng, requiring no such external authentication! The Roman Catholic Encyclopedia insists that inspiration “by its very nature … is not self-evident,” and so the Church must reveal it to us:

“The unique quality of the Sacred Books is a revealed dogma. Moreover, by its very nature inspiration eludes human observation and is not self-evident, being essentially superphysical and supernatural. Its sole absolute criterion, therefore, is the Holy inspiring Spirit, witnessing decisively to Itself, not in the subjective experience of individual souls, as Calvin maintained, neither in the doctrinal and spiritual tenor of Holy Writ itself, according to Luther, but through the constituted organ and custodian of Its revelations, the Church.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, Canon of the New Testament)

As Peter Kreeft observed in Forty Reasons I am a Catholic, the Church “told us which books did and which books did not belong in the sacred canon, the books that were divinely inspired and religiously infallible and authoritative.” The Church must confirm God’s Word. The Church must certify God’s Word. The Church must declare what is, and what is not, God’s Word. The Scriptures require attestation from a divinely appointed infallible authority. So sayeth Peter Kreeft, who would presume that there is an authority greater than God, that we may know certainly what He has said.

But the Roman religion enjoys a higher privilege, requiring no such attestation. As Fr. Brian W. Harrison wrote in “The Ex Cathedra Status of ‘Humanae Vitae‘,” it is “up to ‘the Church’ to decide ‘how far her infallibility extends: otherwise there could never be any certainty.” If the Church is not self-attesting, “infallibility would be placed in grave peril, and the whole of religion would turn out to be placed in doubt.” It is a fascinating look into the depravity of the Roman mind. God’s Word requires attestation by a third, infallible, inerrant party, but the Roman Magisterium does not.

Similarly for the Pope. When the Pope speaks ex cathedra, he does not require the consent of the Church in order for his teachings to be considered true, for they are “of themselves” infallible:

“… when the Roman Pontiff speaks ex cathedra, … such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable” (Vatican Council I, Pastor Æternus 4.9).

Again, it is a remarkable testimony to the hubris of Rome that she would say that God’s Word, the Scriptures, cannot be self-attesting, but that the Magisterium and the Pope must be, or all certainty and indeed “the whole of religion” is lost. As Justin Martyr observed, the Word of God must be received on its own authority. To require proof of the Word would make the proof greater than what it is alleged to prove:

“The word of truth is free, and carries its own authority, disdaining to fall under any skilful argument, or to endure the logical scrutiny of its hearers. But it would be believed for its own nobility, and for the confidence due to Him who sends it. … For being sent with authority, it were not fit that it should be required to produce proof of what is said; since neither is there any proof beyond itself, which is God. For every proof is more powerful and trustworthy than that which it proves.” (On the Resurrection, 1)

But Rome thinks she is that proof by which the Word of God may be believed with confidence. The teachings of the Magisterium, and the pronouncements of the Pope, are self-attesting. But the Word of God needs Rome’s stamp of approval to be inerrant.

Thy Word is Truth (John 17:17)

The above illustrations serve as witness that Roman Catholics are willing to magnify the word of Roman Catholicism above the Word of God. But it is in the analysis of Matthew 16 that we discover that Roman Catholicism has from the beginning built itself on that very precept: to magnify and exalt and oppose herself against the Word of the Father.

As we explained in our series, Last to Know, Roman Catholicism has constructed its religion upon a flawed reading of Matthew 16:18-19 and John 20:23

“Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18-19)

“Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.” (John 20:23)

Upon Peter’s frail shoulders the whole religion is alleged to be built. As if Peter was the Rock, and against Peter the gates of hell could not prevail, and by the keys of the kingdom Peter could grant or withhold entrance to the kingdom of heaven, and that Peter could bind men in their sins, or loose them, or by Peter’s word the sins of men could be remitted or retained. The Council of Trent linked these two verses together to assign to the priest “the power of binding and of loosing,” such that “priests alone” are given the authority to remit and retain sins. (Council of Trent, 14th Session, November 25, 1551, Canons on Penance, Canon X.)

What a fabulous superstition has been created out of these passages! But what is more pitiful than the superstition, more pathetic than the gall of such a strange and proud religion, is that the passages, in context, speak rather of the magnificence of the Word of the Father than of the ministry of Peter, and of the effectual power of His Word than of the office of a Pope. By this means, Rome has managed to erect a universal throne before which God Himself must submit His Word for authentication to have inerrancy conferred upon it, while claiming for itself all the power and prerogatives that belong to the Word of God alone.

“Upon this Rock”

We covered this in some detail in Last to Know and then again briefly in Apostle to the Jews. To our point here, Jesus’ response to Peter in Matthew 16:17 was that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.” In the parallel passage leading up to Peter’s confession, Jesus tells the pharisees that the conversions they witnessed were a fulfillment of prophecy: “It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God” (John 6:45). Peter, as it turns out, had been taught by the Father. It is a reference to Isaiah 54:13, to which the Lord’s own preamble is “I will lay thy stones with fair colours, and lay thy foundations with sapphires” (Isaiah 54:11). It is a reference to building His Church upon the Word of His Father. But Rome has built a different religion upon Peter.

“The Gates of Hell shall not Prevail”

Peter refers to Isaiah 28:16, “I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone,” when he writes, “he that believeth on him shall not be confounded” (1 Peter 2:6). And what is that “stone”? Peter tells us: It is “a stone of stumbling … even to them which stumble at the word” (1 Peter 2:8). The stone foundation is the Word of the Father, the power of which the Lord Himself testifies: “your covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your agreement with hell shall not stand” (Isaiah 28:18). It is a reference to the power of the Word of God to nullify the gates of death and hell. “Go … speak in the temple to the people,” the angel says, “all the words of this life” (Acts 5:20). “He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation” (John 5:24). It is the Word of the Father against which the gates of hell cannot prevail. But Rome thinks that power resides in the person of Peter.

“The Keys of the Kingdom”

Jesus identifies one of the keys in Matthew and Luke when He says that the Pharisees “shut up the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 23:13) because “ye have taken away the key of knowledge” (Luke 11:52). Knowledge, therefore, is one of the keys. The other key must be faith, for God has “locked up” all in unbelief (Romans 11:32) and in sin (Galatians 3:22), and in both passages “faith” is the means by which one is set free from that prison. According Proverbs 2:6, “out of His mouth cometh knowledge” and according to Romans 10:19 “faith cometh by hearing” the knowledge that cometh out of His mouth. Knowledge and Faith come by the Word of the Father, and by these keys men gain access to the kingdom of heaven. To be granted the “keys of the kingdom” is to be granted a ministry of preaching. But Rome thinks that access to the kingdom of heaven is granted by Peter.

“Whatsoever Thou shalt Bind …and … Loose”

The typical commentary understands Jesus to be referring to Jewish rabbinical legal theory when He says these words to Peter. Bind is understood by the rabbis to mean “forbid,” and loose is understood to mean “allow.” Thus, Peter is ostensibly imbued with some legislative authority. No justification is given for turning to the rabbis to understand Jesus’ meaning, except perhaps for the sheer semantic resonance of those words.

But if we are to understand “bind” and “loose” by their semantic resonance, we ought rather understand how they resonate with the Word of God than with the rabbis. Jesus’ use of those terms relates to His first public sermon (Luke 4:18) in which He cited Isaiah 61:1, “the LORD hath anointed me to preach good tidings … to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound.” The binding and loosing refer to the ministry of the Word in the lives of the elect, for their wounds are bound up and their shackles loosed by the preaching of Good News. The Good Shepherd was to effect that very same ministry: “I will … bind up that which was broken … and they shall be safe in their land … when I have broken the bands of their yoke” (Ezekiel 34:16,27). Both passages use the metaphors of “bind” and “loose” to refer to the preaching ministry of the Good Shepherd: “he shall feed them” (Ezekiel 34:23), and “the LORD hath anointed me to preach” (Isaiah 61:1). The binding and loosing refer to “the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe” (1 Thessalonians 2:13). The Good News binds up our broken hearts and looses the captives from the prison of unbelief.

As the Father sent Jesus into the world to bind and to loose by the preaching of the Word of the Father, so Jesus sends the apostles into the world to bind and to loose by the preaching of the Word of the Father: “thy word is truth. As thou hast sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world” (John 17:17-18). It is a remarkable fact that the effectual power the Scriptures assign to the Word of the Father — both to bind up the broken hearted and to loose the captives — the Roman religion would assign to Peter and his successors.

“Whose soever sins ye remit … and … retain”

While Rome would presume to interpret “remit” and “retain” as synonyms of “bind” and “loose,” Jesus does not use them that way. Bind and loose refer to the effectual and particular ministry of the Word of the Father to the elect, such that their wounds are bound up and their shackles loosed. This is the ministry of “the good tidings” to the elect (Isaiah 61:1). It is good news to have one’s broken heart bound up and to be loosed from one’s prison. But it is not “good news” to have one’s sins retained. Remit and retain do not carry the same semantic content as bind and loose.

We may understand how Jesus used remit and retain by studying His words. How are sins retained? They are retained not by Jesus, but by the Word of the Father. If a man hears and does not believe, Jesus Himself does not retain his sins, for “I judge him not.” Nay, it is the Word itself that retains them: “He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day” (John 12:47-48). Jesus did not speak on His own, but only what His Father commanded Him to say (John 12:49), so sins are retained by the Word of the Father.

Sin are remitted by that same Word. When Jesus informs Mary Magdalene that her sins were forgiven, He expresses it not as an absolution of her sins, but rather as an announcement of an accomplished fact. He had already informed Simon the Pharisee that “Her sins, which are many, are forgiven” (Luke 7:47). Only then does He turn and announce that good news to Mary: “Thy sins are forgiven” (Luke 7:48). Indeed, Jesus Himself had earlier proclaimed “He that heareth my word, and believeth … shall not come into condemnation” (John 5:24). Jesus did not speak on His own, but only what His Father commanded Him to say (John 12:49), so sins are remitted by the Word of the Father.

It is that same ministry that Jesus confers on the Apostles: “as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you” (John 20:21), and the Father had sent Him to preach. It is a remarkable fact that the effectual power Jesus assigned to the Word of the Father — either to remit the sins of the elect or to retain the sins of the reprobate — the Roman religion would assign to Peter and to his successors!

“Shewing himself that he is God”

It will be helpful to aggregate such proud boasting in tabular form so the reader may grasp what stratospheric presumption must have inebriated the Magisterium of Rome to arrive where she has. Only a divinely ordained “strong delusion” can account for such a preposterously inflated view of one’s self-importance. The power of the Word of God, which He Himself has magnified above all, a power that Jesus would not even claim as His own, Rome has assigned to the priests of her own Magisterium, all while standing in judgment of God’s Word — as the arbiter of what He said, and the authority by which “inerrancy” is conferred upon what He breathed!

God has magnified only one thing, His Word, above His Name (Psalms 138:2). And Roman Catholicism has managed to magnify herself above even that.

Our few Roman Catholic readers are for this reason invited to ponder more deeply the circumstances that have led them to believe the Great Apostasy may soon come upon their precious Rock — the very rock which, only years ago, they believed could not by any means apostasize or promulgate error. Only a short time ago, in very recent memory, the very idea was unthinkable to them — “that would make Jesus a liar!”

Well, if Romanists are finally open to the possibility that the Great Apostasy has finally come upon them — and has originated from within, at the very top — there is a Scriptural reality even they cannot avoid: the cause of the disaster about which Paul warned in 2 Thessalonians 2:3 — “there [shall] come a falling away first” — is revealed in the next verse: He that “opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God” (2 Thessalonians 2:4).

And that means they are one step closer to understanding that their very own Pope is that Man of Sin, the Son of Perdition (2 Thessalonians 2:3), that Wicked one (2 Thessalonians 2:8) by whom the Great Apostasy is effected. One step closer to understanding a prophecy that already manifested nearly 1,700 years before our time.

It is a baby step, we admit. But progress is progress.