Category Archives: Papal Infallibility

As God Sitteth in the Temple

“…he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” — 2 Thessalonians 2:4

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. Continue reading As God Sitteth in the Temple

One Billion Denominations

“Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?” — Job 38:2

A typical accusation made of Protestants by Roman Catholics is that they are so divided. There are ostensibly at least 35,000 Protestant denominations, but only One Holy Roman Catholic Apostolic Church. Such a stark comparison is often sufficient for a wavering Protestant to capitulate in despair. Since his conversion to Roman Catholicism, the subject of our previous series, Mr. Joshua T. Charles, has shouted from the rooftops that the unified Roman religion with its Tradition and teaching Magisterium has finally set him free from the divisions and errors of Protestantism. Protestants constantly disagreed about everything, and at some point, he just could not stand it any more. Here is a small sampling of his Twitter criticism just from last month:

I was protestant until I was 31. As such, the furthest I could get was different interpretations of the Bible. No one could say ‘thus saith the Lord’ as to which one was right. Good, educated people differed on every issue under the sun.” (June 4, 2023)

I’m very, very, very glad I am no longer a protestant. Among all the interpretations, where is the true one? On so many issues that have been long settled in the Catholic Church, protestants continue to divide & fall into more errors, with no one capable of resolving the debate.” (June 10, 2023)

“[That’s] Why I am Catholic today. Interminable, unresolvable debates where the best any of us had was our best guess was unacceptable. I wanted to follow Jesus.” (June 13, 2023)

From this small sampling, which is indeed representative of Mr. Charles’ chronic indignation, we might suppose that the solution he had stumbled upon in Rome was a single authoritative source of clear teachings that removed all doubt, dispute and debate in the interpretation of the Bible, Tradition, the Magisterium. At last, no more error, guesswork, difference and revision, no more heresy, schism, contradiction and division! Nothing but smooth sailing! Continue reading One Billion Denominations

Last to Know, Part 6

“Whose soever sins ye remit … and … retain …” — John 21:23

In our last entry, we demonstrated that the entire exchange between Jesus and Peter in Matthew 16 was centered on the Word of God that Jesus had come to preach, a ministry He would shortly confer on the apostles.  Jesus had been commissioned to “bind up the brokenhearted” and “to proclaim … the opening of the prison to them that are bound” through the preaching of Good Tidings (Isaiah 61:1, Luke 4:18), and had come as the Good Shepherd to “bind up that which was broken” and to loose “the bands of their yoke” (Ezekiel 34:16,27). His preaching ministry was nothing other than a ministry of binding and loosing—binding the wounded and loosing the captives—by delivering the Good Tidings from His Father. He commissioned the disciples to do the same after Him: “as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you” (John 20:21). The disciples, too, therefore received a ministry of binding and loosing — that is, preaching the Good Tidings — and so Jesus sent Peter and the rest off to “bind” and to “loose” (Matthew 16:19, 18:18), just as He had been.

Continue reading Last to Know, Part 6

Last to Know, Part 5

“…and whatsoever thou shalt bind [up] … and … loose on earth…” — Matthew 16:19

When Peter, the last of the apostles to believe, finally confessed that he knew and believed that Jesus is the Son of God, Jesus responded that the information had been revealed to him by His Father. In view of the harmonized Loaves Narrative we compiled in Part 1, Jesus had identified Peter’s response as a fulfillment of Isaiah 54:13 — “all thy children shall be taught of the LORD” — just as his followers throughout the Loaves miracles had also fulfilled that same prophecy (John 6:45). As we noted in Part 3, Jesus’ promise to “build My church” upon “this rock” was plainly a reference to the “stone” foundation of His own Father’s Word, the solid foundation He had identified in Isaiah 54. His next statement — “the gates of hell shall not prevail” — as we showed in Part 4, was just one of many restatements of Jesus’ promise that people who believe His Father’s words would not perish: “He that heareth my word, and believeth … is passed from death unto life” (John 5:24). We also showed that His promise to give the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven—Knowledge and Faith—was a simple reference to the ministry of preaching that Jesus would confer upon the apostles after bestowing the Spirit. In sum, the entire conversation with Peter occurred in the context of Jesus completing His task to preach His Father’s Words, and His plan to commission His disciples to do the same. It is therefore no surprise that Jesus’ next words carried the same meaning: “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 16:19). Roman Catholicism has long desired to apply the power to bind and loose to a carnal, administrative ecclesiastical power to enslave the souls of men. But Jesus’ words mean nothing other than this: that He had received a task from His Father to preach the Good News, and had commissioned His disciples to preach that Good News after Him.

Continue reading Last to Know, Part 5

Last to Know, Part 4

“…the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven…” — Matthew 16:18

As we noted in our previous entry, it is assumed by Roman Catholics that Jesus promised to build His Church upon “this rock,” Peter. When that invalid assumption is allowed, Jesus’ next words — “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” — are infused with Petrine significance, as if the perseverance of the Church rested upon the shoulders of Peter and his successors.  And when that assumption is allowed, His next words about “the keys of the kingdom” and binding and loosing, are infused with Magisterial authority. However, as we demonstrated in our harmonization of the Loaves Narratives, Jesus’ response to Peter’s confession was made in the context of Isaiah 54, a context established by the Johannine account: “It is written in the prophets [Isaiah 54:13), ‘And they shall be all taught of God'” (John 6:45). In Matthew, Jesus confirms that context, explaining that Peter had converted because the Father had taught him (Matthew 16:17). The benefit of harmonizing the Loaves Narratives is that we need not wonder what Jesus was thinking when He responded to Peter’s confession. He was thinking about the preaching ministry described Isaiah 54. Isaiah 54 not only identifies upon which “rock” Jesus  would build His church, but also why the the gates of hell would not prevail against it. And when we see that the Apostles were commissioned, as Jesus had been, to preach the Word of the Father, we see plainly what Jesus meant by the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Continue reading Last to Know, Part 4

Last to Know, Part 3

” … I will build my church … ” — Matthew 16:18

It is commonly assumed by Roman Catholics that Jesus changed Simon’s name to “Peter” because He planned to build His Church upon “this rock.” Catholic Answers, for example, says Jesus did this to assign to him “a particular powerful role” as “the foundation stone of the Church.” And yet, the Scriptures nowhere say why Jesus changed his name. Where the Scriptures do give reasons for assigning or changing names, we safely grasp the meanings. Where the Scriptures do not give the reason, we are not at liberty to assign a meaning on our own. The fact is, as with several other name changes and assignments in the Bible, the Scriptures provide no explicit reason for calling Simon “Peter.” Context, however, provides the information we need.

Continue reading Last to Know, Part 3

Last to Know, Part 2

“… upon this rock …” — Matthew 16:18

We left off last time with a harmonized account of the loaves narratives, in which the Feeding of the 5,000 and the Feeding of the 4,000 were integrated into a single harmonized narrative using information from all four Gospels, beginning with the death of John the Baptist and ending with Peter’s confession of faith. That confession is typically taken to mean Peter was the first to believe, but in reality he was clearly the last. Jesus’ response to him should be understood in that context. From this harmonized account we understand statements that have confounded Roman Catholics, but are clear in the light of God’s revelation to us in the Scriptures. We understand what it means to eat “the true bread from heaven”, to “eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood”, why the loaves miracles were the antidote to the leaven of the Pharisees, upon which “rock” Jesus promised to “build My church,” why “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”; and what it means to receive the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose on earth that which has been bound or loosed in heaven.

Continue reading Last to Know, Part 2

Last to Know, Part 1

“… thou art Peter…” — Matthew 16:18

The scriptural argument that Jesus built His Church upon Peter is itself built upon a single Bible verse without context: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matthew 16:18). What is lost in the argument, whether from Patristic writers in antiquity or medieval theologians or modern Roman apologists—and yes, even some Protestants—is that Jesus said this to Peter in the aftermath of the two miracles of the loaves: the Feeding of the 5,000 and the Feeding of the 4,000. The events immediately following those miracles concluded with Jesus posing two different but related questions to the apostles: “Whom do men say that I am?” and “Will ye also go away?” Peter’s answers to those questions revealed that he had finally believed Who Jesus was, and in fact was the last of the apostles to do so. Only then did Jesus utter those famous words, “and upon this rock I will build my church.” By studying and harmonizing the loaves narratives, it becomes clear that the two questions Jesus asked arose concurrently and were answered at once. By understanding those questions, Peter’s answers, and Jesus’ response, we may also understand that “the rock” upon which Jesus would build His church was neither Peter, nor his confession, but something else entirely.

Continue reading Last to Know, Part 1

It’s extremely complex

Roman Catholics are forced to rely on private interpretation in order to avoid the pitfalls of private interpretation.
Roman Catholics are forced to rely on private interpretation in order to avoid the pitfalls of private interpretation.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “revelation,” or the “deposit of faith,” is that “which has been committed” to the Roman Catholic church, “and which she proposes to all her members for their acceptance.” As Catholic Answers helpfully defines, the “doctrines of the Catholic Church are the deposit of faith revealed by Jesus Christ, taught by the apostles, and handed down in their entirety by the apostles to their successors.” Having been entrusted with “the faith which was once delivered” (Jude 3), the  Roman Catholic church is alleged to be the only authorized custodian and teacher of that deposit (Catholic Encyclopedia, Revelation). Continue reading It’s extremely complex

“A significant turning point…”

The conception of Mary occurred 400 years before Rome even dreamed of its immaculacy.
Mary’s conception was understood by the Early Church to be no different than ours, until “a significant turning point” occurred toward the end of the 4th century.

Readers who have been following this blog are familiar with our position that Roman Catholicism as a religion originated in the latter part of the 4th century A.D. The religion of Rome is not of apostolic origin. As we explained in The Rise of Roman Catholicism, distinctively Roman Catholic dogma can be traced to the late 300s A.D., no earlier. In that article, we touched briefly on the late development of the immaculacy of Mary in the imagination of Rome. This week, we explore the magnitude of Rome’s historical revisionism in its attempt to prove the apostolicity of the dogma of her “Immaculate Conception.” Continue reading “A significant turning point…”

If the Light that is in Thee be Darkness (the Bowls, part 5)

"When the Church makes something infallible, I wish they would just do it plainly and clearly." — Robert Sungenis, August 5, 2008
“When the Church makes something infallible, I wish they would just do it plainly and clearly.” — Robert Sungenis, August 5, 2008

This week we continue our series on the Bowls of Judgment in Revelation 16. The first four Bowls thus far are:

The First Bowl: The Stigmata (1224 A.D. – present)
The Second Bowl: The Plague of Scurvy (1453 – late 1700s A.D.)
The Third Bowl: The Dogma of Papal Infallibility (1870 A.D.)
The Fourth Bowl: Scorching by the Sun at Fátima (1917 A.D.)

The First Bowl was poured out “upon the earth” (Revelation 16:2), the Second “upon the sea” (Revelation 16:3), the Third “upon the rivers and fountains of waters” (Revelation 16:4) and the Fourth “upon the sun” (Revelation 16:8).

This Fifth Bowl is poured out directly “upon the seat of the beast” and the people “gnawed their tongues for pain” because of it (Revelation 16:10). We therefore note with no small interest that at the Third Bowl, when the Dogma of Papal Infallibility was proclaimed, the Pope was said to be infallible “when he speaks [with his tongue] ex cathedra [from his seat]”  (Vatican Council I, Pastor Æternus, chapter IV). The Pope’s seat, from which he claims to speak infallibly, is the target of this Fifth Bowl, and his kingdom is thereby plunged into darkness. Continue reading If the Light that is in Thee be Darkness (the Bowls, part 5)

They Hewed Out Broken Cisterns (The Bowls, part 3)

"...they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." (Jeremiah 2:13)
“…they have forsaken me the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.” (Jeremiah 2:13)

This is our third week in the series on the Bowls of Revelation. Thus far, we have covered,

The First Bowl: The Stigmata (1226 A.D. – present)
The Second Bowl: The Plague of Scurvy (1453 – late 1700s A.D.)

As we have progressed through the Seals, the Trumpets and Bowls of Revelation, we notice that there are aids to interpretation provided within the text, aids that assist in the identification of each Seal, Trumpet and Bowl. It is our conviction that each Seal, Trumpet and Bowl is sufficiently described in Revelation that it is possible to identify each particular one particularly. Whereas there have been interpretations in the past that identify the Trumpets generally as a series of calamities, we believe each calamity can be identified. The same is true of each Seal and each Bowl, and even the fractions matter (i.e., 1/3 of the trees (Revelation 8:7), 1/4 of the earth (Revelation 6:8), etc…). Continue reading They Hewed Out Broken Cisterns (The Bowls, part 3)

Mother Mary Speaks to Me (part 2)

John Paul II and Mary
The visions of Mary have a long-standing, two-way, verbal relationship with the Papacy.

[NOTE: for those wishing to subscribe, the subscription function at the lower right of your browser has been fixed and is now active]

Last week, we discussed the propensity of Roman Catholics to rely on visions of Mary “to improve or complete Christ’s definitive Revelation” despite the clear instructions of the Catechism of the Catholic Church not to do so (paragraph 67). Taylor Marshall relied on several visions of Mary to bolster his argument that Jesus was born on December 25th, and Fr. Livius relied on a private revelation to help him determine the meaning of the writings of several Church Fathers. But as apologist Fr. William Most has said, “In public revelation, the Church has the promise of divine protection in teaching,” while on the content of private revelation, including apparitions, “the Church does not have such a commission.” Thus it is true that while Roman apologists cite apparitions of Mary to bolster their arguments, it is also true that Roman Catholics “can refuse assent to such revelations … provided this is done … for good reasons.” It is not uncommon (in our experience) for a Roman Catholic on the one hand to cite the many examples of apparitions as evidence that Roman Catholicism is the true church, and then, on the other hand—when the actual content of the visions is brought forward—to dismiss those same apparitions “because we are not required to believe them anyway.”

But the freedom to reject the teachings of the apparitions as “private revelation” is not so simple as that. Continue reading Mother Mary Speaks to Me (part 2)

How to resolve an historical paradox

Escher's Drawing Hands
Escher’s Drawing Hands is illustrative of Rome’s self-validating Tradition.

M. C. Escher’s Drawing Hands shows two drawn hands drawing each other, each hand getting its power to draw from the other. True to Escher’s style, a paradox is presented to the eye of the beholder, and the paradox is never resolved—the eye must continually move from one object to the other. Each time the eye settles on an apparently solid 3-dimensional object that can make sense of the rest of the picture, the paradox reappears. The search for the original, “authoritative” hand never ends.

We believe this is a good illustration of Roman Catholicism’s view of Tradition because Tradition is based on what Rome teaches, and what Rome teaches is based on Tradition. We gave an example of this in our recent post, All the Way Back. In that post, Roman priest and Marian devotee, Fr. Thomas Livius, showed the origins of Marian doctrines from the Fathers of the first six centuries. When he arrived at the teachings of Origen, Basil and Cyril—that the sword that pierced Mary’s soul (Luke 2:35) was the sword of doubt and unbelief—rather than accept that the early church understood that Mary was sinful, Livius spends his next three pages correcting Origen, as well as Basil and Cyril who agreed with him.

This raises the obvious question: Continue reading How to resolve an historical paradox

Why “Infallibility” Doesn’t Work

Serpent
Roman Catholics believe that it is an infallible fallible infallible fallible teaching of the Church that Mary is the one who crushes the serpent’s head.

Last week, we highlighted the attempts by Fr. William G. Most to extract an infallible teaching from the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church. (The Magisterium is essentially the pope and the bishops who are in communion with him.) By studying the teachings of the Magisterium, William Most thought he had discovered how to arrive at an infallible teaching. By way of example, to prove that it is an infallible teaching of the Roman Catholic Church that Mary’s physical virginity was uncompromised when Christ was born, all Most had to do was demonstrate repetition by popes and councils. Surely, Fr. Most thought, repetition is evidence of an intent to teach infallibly:

A doctrine taught with multiple papal approval plus that of Vatican II should be called infallible, for these texts show the intention to make it definitive by their repetition.

By this standard, we can conclude that it is an infallible doctrine of the Roman Church that it is Mary who will crush the head of the serpent in Genesis 3:15. After all, multiple popes and at least one council have confirmed this. The Council of Trent made Jerome’s translation of the Vulgate the official translation of the Roman Catholic Church. Jerome’s translation of Genesis 3:15 indicates that it is Mary who will crush the head of the serpent. Here is the English rendering of the Roman Catholic translation of that verse: Continue reading Why “Infallibility” Doesn’t Work

Infallibility’s Fatal Flaw

Trial of Pope Formosa's Cadaver
The cadaver of infallible Pope Formosus was put on trial in 897 AD, and found guilty of perjury, among other charges.

In 897 AD, Pope Stephen VII had Pope Formosus’ body exhumed and put on trial at the infamous Cadaver Synod, during which the corpse was found guilty, and stripped of his papal vestments. Pope Theodore II later convened a synod and overturned Pope Stephen’s findings, as did Pope John IX after him. But later, Pope Sergius III overturned the rulings of Theodore II and John IX, and reaffirmed the conviction of Formosus. Perhaps Formosus’ corpse will find some little comfort in the knowledge that it is still—at least for now—listed on Rome’s “unbroken line of popes” currently on display at the Vatican.

We find a papal corpse a particularly fitting background image for this post on infallibility’s fatal flaw. The Roman Pontiff, in order that the Church may share in Christ’s infallibility, says the Catechism, “enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 891). But there is one problem: nobody knows when the Pope is speaking infallibly, nobody knows how often a pope has spoken infallibly, and nobody knows what the criteria are for when a pope is speaking infallibly. Continue reading Infallibility’s Fatal Flaw