More food for thought

It stands to logic that since Peter did not take upon himself this primacy or jurisdiction, he could not possibly have transmitted it to others. Consequently, the theory that all the prerogatives conferred upon Peter were not to cease upon his death but were to be handed down to his successors from generation to generation is without foundation. Even if admitting that Peter resided in Rome and ordained a plurality of elders as was the practices throughout all the churches of Christ ( which has no basis or support since this church existed long before Peter ever got there and was ministered to by Auilia and Prisca), it cannot follow that only one was elected pope. In this respect, the testimony of Clement, supposed to have been the fourth pope from Peter is unquestionable. Writing to the Corinthians, in fact, at the close of the first century he clearly implies that the church at Rome as well as that in Corinth had still a plurality of elders as their guides.

While Leo I may have succeeded to insure papal primacy over most of the churches, still no Roman bishop ever claimed the title of universal bishop until the 6th century nor was Rome to have a monarchical bishop until the late second century). And when John, bishop of Constantinople in 588 AD assumed for the first time this title, the presumptuous pretension was denounced by Gregory of Rome as vain, execrable, anti-Christian, blasphemous, infernal and diabolical. Writing to John he says in part, you know it my brother, has not the venerable council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of universal upon the bishops of the apostolic see, whereof I am, by Gods will, the servant? And yet none of us has permitted this title to be given him; none has assumed this bold title, lest by assuming this special episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all brethrenbut far from Christians be this blasphemous name by which all honor is taken away from all other priests, while it is foolishly arrogated by one

And to the Emperor Mauritius he writes, I am bold to say, that whoever adopts or affects the title of universal bishop has the pride and character of anti-Christ, and is in some manner his forerunner in this haughty quality of elevating himself above the rest of his order. And indeed both the one and the other seem to split upon the same rock; for as pride makes anti-Christ strain his pretensions upon the Godhead, so whoever is ambitious to be called the only or universal prelate, arrogates to himself a distinguished superiority and rises as it were upon the ruins of the rest.

Nevertheless what Gregory condemned as a crime was accomplished 2 years after his death by a less scrupulous man, Boniface III, who obtained from the Emperor Phocas, a most cruel and bloodthirsty tyrant, the title with the priviledge of handing it down to successors. Thus Boniface III became the first recognized universal bishop of Rome and the man of sin predicted by Paul and the anti-Christ suggested by Gregory, was fully developed and revealed in the year AD 606 and continues to this day.

Since everything surrounding this despotic office seems questionable it should come as no surprise that the dogma of infallibility was not decreed until so late a date as 1870 in the Vatican council. This did not state that the popes were sinless or that even everything they said was infallible but only in defining doctrines of faith and morals in interpreting what has already been given to us in the scriptures and sacred tradition from the apostles.

John B. Harney in stating the Roman Catholic position states as follows:
We do not believe the pope is infallible in discussing other questions which might have a slight bearing on religious truths, or even a direct and intimate relation with them, except under the conditions and circumstances which have already been specified (interpreting and defining what was already received from the apostles)
We do not believe the pope can make known new truths or proclaim new revelations
We do not believe that the infallibility of the pope is due in any way shape or form to himself or any other man. It is not the product of his abilities, his studious researches, or his keen vision.
Finally infallibility does not allow the pope to invent new doctrines, to break divine law or to alter the revealed word of God which surpasses all other teachings.

Since we are left with this infallibility only being valid if the pope speaks ex-cathedra from the chair and in matters of defining what was already handed down apostolically, one must ask where the assumption of Mary comes in, Mary ever sinless, Mary a perpetual Virgin, Mary co-redemptrix, transubstantiation, the new economy of images, and even infallibility itself. None of which were handed down by apostles but were later teachings with no apostolic evidence whatsoever. It is all simply late and in some cases very late corruption and abuse of the shepherding Christ has bestowed upon men to tend his flocks in humility and love.


Brother John
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16)