“Dr. O’Sullivan helps the cause of truth . . .


. . . by his Excursus* on the ‘Adoration’ of the Church of Rome, addressed to Popes, and to Images.”

Baron Alfred Porcelli, The Antichrist: His Portrait and History, The Historicism Research Foundation, pp. 90-91.

*a detailed discussion of a particular point in a book, usually in an appendix; a digression in a written text. Thanks, Bing!


Book cover from Amazon

“Baron Alfred Porcelli, R.E., was born in Palermo, Italy, his father being Colonel Baron A.S.R. Porcelli di S. Andrea, supporter of Garibaldi the Italian liberator. His mother was a Scottish lady. As a young man, Baron Porcelli became a naturalized British subject and served Queen Victoria in the Royal Engineers. He died at Hove, November 4th, 1937, at the advanced age of eighty-eight years.”  AbeBooks.com

The following is a little difficult to read because of the many references within it and some Latin, but is well worth reading for its Biblical insight into Rome’s veneration of images.

I added Scripture links to a Catholic Bible, the 1899 Douay Rheims Version, because Porcelli referenced an edition of the Douay. At the end of the post, you’ll find Strong’s definitions of the two Biblical terms that demonstrate Rome’s error. I’m not a scholar but a wife and a former Catholic, whose Italian grandfather looked somewhat like the picture below. I’m grateful that Grandpop had a very different kind of life.

Pope Pius X


Excerpt:

As Dr Sullivan shows (pp. 390 et seq.), “the affection or reverence which Romanism demands of her votaries for images and saints is adoration.” In the “Pontificale Romanum,” Rome, 1818 (Ordo ad recipiendum processionaliter Imperatorem) it is directed that “the Cross of the legate (i.e., an image), because Latria is due to it, shall be on the right.” She [Rome] gives to the worship which she commands the name of the worship which God forbids and reprobates. The name by which Romanism will have this species of worship known is not inappropriate. It is “douleia,” or, as the word should be presented in an English form, “slavery” or “bondage.” Thus, indeed, the word is translated in Rome’s Scriptures (Douai Bible, Rom. viii. 15Gal. iv. 24v. 1). Both the Romish and the more recently published Versions use the word “bondage” in Gal. iv. 24. The “adoration of bondage” is that which Romanism offers to her saints and images. In Romish Versions, the Second Commandment is rendered, “Thou shalt not adore’ them.” Rome says, “Thou shalt ‘adore’ them.”

The distinction between Latria and Douleia, i.e., the worship offered to God, and the worship offered to images, is not admitted by all Romish writers. Thus the Abbé Bergier says: “To express more clearness in their language, theologians call Latria the worship rendered to God, and Douleia that rendered to saints; but originally these two terms, derived from the Greek, signified equally service without distinction” (“Dictionnaire Théologique,” Art., Culte). We admit that originally and grammatically the terms Douleia and Latria are synonymous” (Ibid., Art., Dulie).

To get out of the difficulty Bergier declares that “the words Latria, Douleia, Cultus, service, etc., change their meaning according to the different objects to which they are applied” (Ibid., Art., Latria); thus pretending that “worship may have two meanings,” and arbitrarily assigning to words the meaning most convenient to Popery – not to Truth, not according to the reality of these things.

For, of course, there is a distinction between the words Douleia and Latria. Popery admits it, by rendering the one “bondage,” and the other “service” 2: the one is slavery, the other freedom. The one, Douleia, is the condition from which the Gospel delivers the redeemed (Rom. viii. 15, 21Gal. iv. 24, v. I; Heb. ii. 15); the other, the reverential acknowledgement made to God – as Deliverer – by the ransomed. [emphasis added]

Popery, therefore, has aptly chosen for its image worship the very name which testifies that while God gives liberty, Rome wishes to bring bondage. Thus is Rome’s opposition to God once more made manifest. She is ho antikeimenos, the Adversary, that sets up a Law opposed to the Will of God. [emphasis added]

2. Rom. xii. I. Rheimish Version [Douai, Douay Rheims] 1825. Stereotype Edition.


Douleia – Strong’s Number: 1397

1. slavery, bondage, the condition of a slave

Latreia – Strong’s Number: 2999

  1. service rendered for hire
    1. any service or ministration: the service of God
  2. the service and worship of God according to the requirements of the Levitical law
  3. to perform sacred services

http://www.biblestudytools.com/


 

If you want to know what the Early Church believed about tradition and the Word of God, here is a place to start.


1 Thessalonians 2

13 For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.

2 Timothy 3

14 But you must continue in the things which you have learned and been assured of, knowing from whom you have learned them, 15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.


Those who defend Roman Catholic Tradition often refer to men of God of the first few centuries to support their own view that this Tradition is just as authoritative as God’s Word and is one of two sources of divine revelation. So, for Bible Christians it is a joy to discover that these men referred the believers of their own day to Holy Scripture. It is as if we can hear them shouting down the ages, proclaiming that Jesus Christ Alone is Lord and His Word Alone is to be trusted; in this way, they being dead still speak (Hebrews 11:4).

Here are several quotes about Holy Scripture from a few of the “great cloud of witnesses” (Hebrews 11:1-2): 

For all but Jerome’s quote:

William Webster, “The Fathers on the Meaning of Tradition and its Relationship to Scripture,” The Church Of Rome At The Bar Of History, The Banner Of Truth Trust, 2003, pp. 155–161.

For Jerome’s quote:

David T. King, HOLY SCRIPTURE: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume I, A Biblical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura, CHRISTIAN RESOURCES, INC., 2001, p. 130.

I did my best to check these authors’ sources for quotes in order to get to original sources. If I’ve made mistakes in vetting or formatting, please forgive and let me know.

Irenaeus (140–202 A.D.)

We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period by the will of God, handed to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith. . .

Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded he doctrine regarding God. 

Against Heresies

Hippolytus (d. 235 A.D.)

There is, brethren, one God, the knowledge of whom we gain from the Holy Scriptures, and from no other source. For just as a man if he wishes to be skilled in the wisdom of this world, will find himself unable to get at it in any other way than by mastering the dogmas of philosophers, so all of us who wish to practice piety will be unable to learn its practice from any other quarter than the oracles of God. Whatever things then the Scriptures declare, at these let us look; and whatsoever things they teach these let us learn.

Against the Heresy of One Noetus

Clement of Alexandria (c.150–211/216 A.D.)

But those who are ready to toil in the most excellent pursuits, will not desist from the search after truth, till they get the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves. 

The Stromata [Miscellanies], Book VII, Chapter XVI – Scripture the Criterion by Which Truth and Heresy are Distinguished

Origen (c.185–253/254 A.D.)

In proof of all words which we advance in matters of doctrine, we ought to set forth the sense of Scripture as confirming the meaning which we are proposing. For as all gold which was outside of the temple was not sanctified, so every sense which is outside of the divine Scripture, however admirable it may appear to some, is not sacred because it is not limited by the sense of Scripture. Therefore we should not take our own ideas for the confirmation of doctrine, unless someone shows that they are holy because they are contained in the divine Scriptures as in the temples of God.

Philocalia [Philokalia]

Cyril of Jerusalem (315–386 A.D.)

For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures. 

Catechetical Lectures, NPNF2: Vol. VII, Lecture IV:17

Chrysostom (344/354–407 A.D.)

These then are the reasons; but it is necessary to establish them all from the Scriptures, and to show with exactness that all that has been said on this subject is not an invention of human reasoning, but the very sentence of the Scripture.

The Homilies of S. John Chrysostom, 2 Timothy, Homily 9

Hilary of Poitiers (315–367/368 A.D.) 

For all those things which are written in the divine Scriptures by Prophets and by Apostles we believe and follow truly and with fear.

On the Councils

Augustine (354–430 A.D.)

What more shall I teach you than what we read in the apostle? For Holy Scripture fixes the rule for our doctrine, lest we dare be wiser than we ought.

The Unity of the Church, chapter 3

*Jerome (c. 27 March 347–30 September 420)

The sword of God smites whatever they draw and forge from a pretended (quasi) apostolic tradition, without the authority and testimony of the Scriptures. 

Jerome’s Commentary on Haggai 1:11, cited in Francis Turretin’s Institutes of Elenctic Theology*

Eusebius (263–340 A.D.)

And I rejoiced over the constancy, sincerity, docility, and intelligence of the brethren, as we considered in order and with moderation the questions and the difficulties and the points of agreement. And we abstained from defending in every manner and contentiously the opinions which we had once held, unless they appeared to be correct. Nor did we evade objections, but we endeavoured as far as possible to hold to and confirm the things which lay before us, and if the reason given satisfied us, we were not ashamed to change our opinions and agree with others; but on the contrary, conscientiously and sincerely, and with hearts laid open before God, we accepted whatever was established by the proofs and teachings of Holy Scriptures. 

Church History, NPNF2–01: Chapter XXIV  – Nepos and his Schism.

Athanasius (295–375 A.D.)

For the true and pious faith in the Lord has become manifest to all, being both ‘known and read’ from the Divine Scriptures.

Athanasius, letter 60.6

John of Damascus (645–749 A.D.) 

Moreover, by the Law and the Prophets in former times, and afterwards by His Only-begotten Son, our Lord and God and Saviour Jesus Christ, He disclosed to us the knowledge of Himself as that was possible for us. All things, therefore, that have been delivered to us by the Law and Prophets and Apostles and Evangelists we receive, and know, and honour, seeking for nothing beyond these. . .As knowing all things, therefore, and providing for what is profitable for each, He revealed that which it was to our profit to know; but what we were unable to bear He kept secret. With these things let us be satisfied, and let us abide by them, not removing everlasting boundaries, nor overpassing the divine tradition.

Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book I, chapter I


FURTHER READING

The Church Fathers and the Authority and Sufficiency of Scripture by William Webster

Church Fathers on Sola Scriptura by Armchair Theologian, WordPress


 

Questionable quotes – Pope John Paul II



Have no fear when people call me the “Vicar of Christ,” when they say to me “Holy Father,” or “Your Holiness,” or use titles similar to these, which seem even inimical to the Gospel. Christ himself declared: “Call no one on earth your father; you have but one Father in heaven. Do not be called ‘Master’; you have but one master, the Messiah” (Mt 23:9-10). These expressions, nevertheless, have evolved out of a long tradition, becoming part of common usage. One must not be afraid of these words either. 

Pope John Paul II from “Crossing the Threshold of Hope,” p. 6

“Call no man your father…”

Tom, excatholic4christ


Sorry but, yes,  I truly am afraid to do this, as all Christians should be. We should be afraid to disobey the Lord. For in addition to not wanting to grieve Him, we know with certainty that we will stand before Him one day. 

Hebrews 12:28-29

28 Therefore, since we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken, let us have grace, by which we may serve God acceptably with reverence and godly fear. 29 For our God is a consuming fire.

Serving God acceptably means acknowledging only One Holy Father, the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.


 

Answering chalcedon451, of All Along the Watchtower, on the Church of Rome

 


Luke 10:21

NASB

At that very time He rejoiced greatly in the Holy Spirit, and said, “I praise You, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants. Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight.”


1 Timothy 3

14 I am writing these things to you, hoping to come to you before long; 15 but in case I am delayed, I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. 


.4. We believe that there is one holy church, comprising the whole assembly of the elect and faithful, that have existed from the beginning of the world, or that shall be to the end thereof. Of this church the Lord Jesus Christ is the head – it is governed by His word and guided by the Holy Spirit. In the church it behooves all Christians to have fellowship. For her He [Christ] prays incessantly, and His prayer for it is most acceptable to God, without which indeed there could be no salvation.

Waldenses Confession of 1544


chalcedon451, all that I know about you is that you are a convert to Catholicism, a father, and that you write about the early Church. I’m a former Catholic who after being raised a Catholic and educated in Catholic schools came to the Lord Jesus Christ in repentance and faith in 1979.

A few weeks ago I wrote in a comment at your blog, All Along the Watchtower, that Jesus did not found the Church of Rome. You replied that this was merely an assertion without proof. Below is a link to the post where our discussion happened, followed by some comments for context, and after these I’ve given reasons for my assertion. As a scholar you’ve heard these before, but contending for the faith is worth the best effort of every Christian. My desire is to warn God’s sheep, protecting them from harm. (Hopefully too, please, our discussion doesn’t have to be continued.)

The Miracle at Fatima: the centenary

chalcedon451: “Jesus did not leave us without a guide. He founded a Church that is with us still. Do you believe he founded a Church, Maria?”

Maria, a gentle iconoclast: “The Lord gave us His Holy Spirit to guide us. Yes, He built His Church and it is still with us. It is not the Church of Rome.”

chalcedon451: “Maria, I think such a statement requires an argument with some evidence, otherwise it remains an assertion without any evidence.”

Maria, a gentle iconoclast: “I agree with you and will attempt to give a reason for the hope that is in me at my own blog.”

This what I believe: It is impossible for the Church of Rome to be “the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:1). The Word of God, Rome’s fruits, and history disprove her claim to be the Church founded by Jesus.

To begin, Rome believes and promotes deceptions such as the Fatima Apparitions. I say this upfront because we began this discussion on your post about the Centenary of the apparitions. The Apparitions often contradict the Bible and glorify Mary.

Words spoken by Mary at Fatima

“Are you willing to offer yourselves to God and bear all the sufferings He wills to send you, as an act of reparation for the conversion of sinners?”

Jesus wants to use you to make Me known and loved. He wishes to establish the devotion to My Immaculate Heart throughout the world. I promise salvation to whoever embraces it; these souls will be dear to God, like flowers put by Me to adorn his throne.”

“No, my daughter. Are you suffering a great deal? Don’t lose heart. I will never forsake you. My Immaculate Heart will be your refuge and the way that will lead you to God.”

Sacrifice yourselves for sinners, and say many times, especially when you make some sacrifice: O Jesus, it is for love of You, for the conversion of sinners, and in reparation for the sins committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary.”

Theotokos Catholic Books: Fatima Books and Information: Nine Major Approved Apparitions

But the chief reason that I and many other Christians believe that Rome is not the Church Jesus founded is that Rome does not preach the Gospel. For, though she seems to offer Christ, it is the Christ of the Eucharist not of the Bible, and in this way she actually keeps people from coming to the Lord. Additionally, Rome’s focus on “mystery” acts as a smokescreen under which errors are brought forward. Here are errors Rome teaches.

Transubstantiation. Among the many problems with this doctrine is that Jesus Christ – the Son of God, God in the flesh – has a human body, and although it is a glorified body it cannot be in multiple places simultaneously. The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is Omnipresent for He is Spirit, but Jesus cannot be at the same time at the right hand of the Father, waiting until His enemies be made His footstool (Hebrews 10:12-14), and present on every Catholic altar in the world. You will say, But this is a Mystery, Maria, but I must answer that the Lord Who is the Truth desires truth in our innermost being (Psalm 51:6). chalcedon451, you realize, don’t you, that men and women have been killed for refusing to worship “the Host”? 

Rome’s teachings about Mary, Jesus’ Mother, aren’t Biblical. For example, Divine titles have been given to her, such as, Mediatrix of all graces (Mediator), Conciliatrix (Conciliator, Counselor), Co-Redemptorix (Co-Redeemer), Advocate, Helper. Also, to encourage Catholics to come to the Lord through her because she is His mother (and therefore more approachable) contradicts and undermines:

The Lord’s testimony that He is “the only way to the Father” (John 14:6),

Paul’s teaching that Jesus is “the only Mediator between God and man” (1 Timothy 2:5), 

And, the true comfort found in the Lord’s promise to sinners recorded in Matthew 11:

28 “Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. 30 For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.”

We do not need a mediator to bring us to Him.

The dogma of Mary’s “Immaculate Conception”:

In the constitution Ineffabilis Deus of 8 December, 1854, Pius IX pronounced and defined that the Blessed Virgin Mary “in the first instance of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace granted by God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved exempt from all stain of original sin.”

Society of Saint Pius X

But Mary the mother of Jesus testified to her own need for a Savior: 

Luke 1:47

“And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.”

The Sacrifice of the Mass: Since Jesus died for sins, “once for all,” why would further sacrifice be needed? I realize that Rome claims that the Mass is in reality the same sacrifice, but if so then still why would it be needed? Here is Rome’s answer, with an important admission upfront:

“It is a notable fact that the Divine institution of the Mass can be established, one might almost say, with greater certainty by means of the Old Testament than by means of the New. . .

“. . .Since sacrifice is thus essential to religion, it is all the more necessary for Christianity, which cannot otherwise fulfil its duty of showing outward honour to God in the most perfect way. Thus, the Church, as the mystical Christ, desires and must have her own permanent sacrifice, which surely cannot be either an independent addition to that of Golgotha or its intrinsic complement; it can only be the one self-same sacrifice of the Cross, whose fruits, by an unbloody offering, are daily made available for believers and unbelievers and sacrificially applied to them.”

New Advent

Also, among the many difficulties with the Mass are the teachings that it is an “unbloody sacrifice,” which contradicts the truth that “without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness” (Hebrews 9:22); and, that it actually deals with sin (is expiatory) beyond what the Lord did “once for all” on the Cross, contradicting His declaration from the Cross,

John 19

28 After this, Jesus, knowing that all things had already been accomplished, to fulfill the Scripture, said, “I am thirsty.” 29 A jar full of sour wine was standing there; so they put a sponge full of the sour wine upon a branch of hyssop and brought it up to His mouth. 30 Therefore when Jesus had received the sour wine, He said, “It is finished!” And He bowed His head and gave up His spirit.

Rome believes and teaches that “The Sacrifice of the Mass” was not only instituted on the night before He died, but that Christ’s sacrifice of Himself began then (“the mystical shedding of blood in the chalice”), and that not only was it a true  and real sacrifice but that “the ‘shedding of blood’ spoken of in the text took place there and then and not for the first time on the cross,” that,

“. . .Christ, therefore, at the Last Supper offered up His Body as an unbloody sacrifice. Finally, that He commanded the renewal for all time of the Eucharistic sacrifice through the Church is clear from the addition: ‘Do this for a commemoration of me’ (Luke 32:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24).”

New Advent

This view contradicts the Epistle to the Hebrews:

Chapter 9:15-17

 15 For this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, so that, since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. 16 For where a covenant is, there must of necessity be the death of the one who made it. 17 For a covenant is valid only when men are dead, for it is never in force while the one who made it lives.

These verses prove that the New Testament in His blood could never have been inaugurated on the night before He died, because He had not died yet.

Rome’s teachings about the Sacrifice of the Mass also contradict Hebrews 9: 

24 For Christ did not enter a holy place made with hands, a mere copy of the true one, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; 25 nor was it that He would offer Himself often, as the high priest enters the holy place year by year with blood that is not his own. 26 Otherwise, He would have needed to suffer often since the foundation of the world; but now once at the consummation of the ages He has been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself. 27 And inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment, 28 so Christ also, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time for salvation without reference to sin, to those who eagerly await Him.

One death, one sacrifice, was all that was needed, chalcedon451! 

The Temple sacrifices (God-ordained sacrifices) ended with Christ’s atoning death for sins. The Temple was then destroyed. Why is Rome continuing to sacrifice? Rome and pagans continue to sacrifice.

The priesthood. Here is the testimony of Hebrews 7 about the Lord, our great High Priest, Who holds His priesthood eternally in contrast to the Aaronic priesthood (human priesthood), followed by John’s statement in Revelation 1 about Christians being a kingdom of priests, that is, that Christ’s kingdom is comprised of priests (“the priesthood of all believers”).

23 The former priests [Aaron and his descendants], on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, 24 but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. 25 Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.

(Please notice that it is the Lord Jesus Christ Who “always lives to make intercession” for us, not Mary.)

Revelation 1

4 John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace, from Him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven Spirits who are before His throne, 5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth. To Him who loves us and released us from our sins by His blood— 6 and He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father—to Him be the glory and the dominion forever and ever. Amen

We need no other priest than Jesus Christ! chalcedon451, God’s Word is clear. You believe you need a priesthood because you believe that you must continue to offer sacrifice, when:

Psalm 51:17

The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit;
A broken and a contrite heart, O God, You will not despise.

And when, the “pure oblation” of Malachi 1 is not the Sacrifice of the Mass, as Rome claims:

10 “Oh that there were one among you who would shut the gates, that you might not uselessly kindle fire on My altar! I am not pleased with you,” says the Lord of hosts, “nor will I accept an offering from you. 11 For from the rising of the sun even to its setting, My name will be great among the nations, and in every place incense is going to be offered to My name, and a grain offering that is pure; for My name will be great among the nations,” says the Lord of hosts

As a kingdom of priests, Christians offer the incense of prayer and thanksgiving, not the body and blood of the Lord Jesus. I’m not a scholar but know that the origin of the word “eucharist” has to do with feeling and being joyful and thankful. I’m not going to convince you, I know, if the wisdom of Christians through the ages can’t convince you that we need no priest to mediate for us with God, only Jesus Christ, Who offered Himself “once for all.”

Rome teaches that we are justified by Baptism. We are justified by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 2:4-10

4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

Rome’s teaching on Baptism: 

1227 . . .Through the Holy Spirit, Baptism is a bath that purifies, justifies, and sanctifies.31

1266 . . .The Most Holy Trinity gives the baptized sanctifying grace, the grace of justification

1271 Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: “For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church.”81 “Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.”82

The Catechism of The Catholic Church, The Sacrament of Baptism

Under the headship of “Peter”, the history of the Papacy is one of scandal, treachery, and immorality. For example, contrary to the teaching of God’s Word, Rome insists that the great majority of her clergy be celibate, when marriage is the God-ordained remedy for sexual immorality.

1 Corinthians 7:2

Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 

The Office of the Papacy robs God of His glory by, among many other things, usurping His Names, one of the most tragic usurpations being “Holy Father” (John 17:11). 

Rome’s rationalization of her use of images of God and of Christ demonstrates that she delights in what God has forbidden. Please take this link to view the lengths to which her idolatry goes, stripping an image of “Jesus” nearly bare:

Portrait of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI 
“The Truth, The Way and The Life”
Collection:  Vatican, Rome ©Studio Babailov 

Again, we Christians affirm that it is impossible for the Church of Rome to be “the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). 


 

Because confessions of faith are truly helpful, and because no individual should try to reinvent the wheel, I’m including the following links on the Church from Protestant or Evangelical confessions:

Westminster Confession of Faith.

Savoy Declaration (1658), Chapter 26, Of The Church

London Baptist Confession of Faith 1689

The Augsburg Confession

..

Here is a video about Fatima with which I agree:

.

.