posted in → Articles

The Emperor has no (Scriptural) Clothes

Apostolic Succession is the foundation of Roman Catholic Doctrine

Rome’s claim to be the New Testament Church, and the Successor of the Twelve Apostles

With 1.1 billion adherents, the Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious organization in the world existing under the leadership/rule of a single individual. That individual is the Pope, or Bishop of Rome, chosen for life in office through an election by the group from which he comes, “the College of Cardinals.”^*

Roman Catholic doctrine claims that the Pope, acting in his official capacity, is infallible. He is also referred to as “the “Vicar of Christ,” meaning that his official decrees are to be viewed as having come from Jesus Christ himself.

From where in the Biblical record does the Catholic Church claim this papal authority emanates? In a rather skewed fashion, Roman Catholic doctrine mixes tradition with scripture to create what they refer to as “Apostolic Succession.” Here is an excerpt from their Dogmatic Constitution, Vatican Council II, briefly explaining how this works (my emphasis):

Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together….But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church…..This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church, (156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock; (157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter, (158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.¹

In other words, Roman Catholic doctrine lays claim to the power of the keys of the kingdom, given to Peter by the Lord in Matthew 16:19, which endued him with the power to retain or remit sins. Could there be any greater power on earth over men than this, which, in effect, creates a door through which no human can pass without the consent and blessing of the Roman Catholic Pope and the priesthood beneath him? This proposition is the entire foundation upon which Rome’s authority rests. Without it the entire system collapses.

The question is this: Is there any real Biblical authority for this claim? The answer is an unequivocal NO. But, Roman Catholics will argue that; a. Peter did, in fact, get the keys and the power to retain and remit sins, did he not? b. And he was to be the head (mortal human) over the New Testament church, right? c. And since he (and the other Apostles) died before the end of the first century, AD, and we are now existing in the NT(they, and the rest of Christendom, so claim), it stands to reason that there must needs be successors to carry on the ministry of the keys and the governance of the church, right?

The only part of this contention that is correct is, a.; yes, Peter got this power. There is, however, no scriptural evidence whatsoever that it was/is passed on to anyone.

This is all what the apostle Paul referred to in the letter to the Colossians as, “the tradition of men.”² It began with the Roman Catholic myth of Peter’s presence in Rome to establish the Roman Catholic Church and serve as its first Pope:

“The stubbornness of the Jews, and still more an express command of God, had decided the Apostles to go and preach to the Pagans or heathens. Poor and persecuted, they announced the good tidings of salvation amid countless hardships and perils, even of death. Therefore, God visibly blessed their efforts; and thirty years had scarcely elapsed after the descent of the Holy Ghost when there were already Christian communities in all parts of the world. Over these churches the Apostles placed bishops, to whom they communicated their powers by special forms of prayer and the imposition of hands; these they appointed their successors and substitutes. All these communities were most closely united together, and formed, under their common head, St. Peter, the one universal, that is the Catholic Church. St. Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome, where he was bishop during the last years of his life, under Nero, A.D. 67; and then the supreme authority over the whole Church evolved on his successors, the Bishops of Rome, or the Popes.”³

*	The original college of cardinals numbered 12 men, to match up with the number of apostles who will rule over Israel in the kingdom. That number has grown in modern times to over 50.

It is generally accepted that the Protestant Reformation changed all this, but the historical record doesn’t support this belief. The only part of RC apostolic succession doctrine that Luther and Calvin, the two main purveyors of Protestant theology, eliminated was the office of the Pope. Both men retained the apostolic succession doctrine and office of the keys for the ordained clergy. Neither did they refute the above story about Peter, which, as I will now prove, is based on pure presumption.

Fact # 1: Scripture does not support the idea that Peter went to Rome (nor is there even any valid historical evidence of this⁴); in fact, the evidence weighs heavily in favor of him remaining in Palestine until his death, for the following reasons.

A) In Acts 8 (A.D. 34) persecution by Saul (Paul), et. al, of the church at Jerusalem caused a great scattering, it says, “throughout Judea and Samaria, except the apostles,” which would certainly have included Peter. B) In Acts 15 (A.D. 50), in the account of Paul’s meeting with the apostles at Jerusalem, Peter is still there, but curiously acquiesces to the leadership of James. He is never mentioned again in the rest of the book. From chapter 15 on, it is entirely about the apostle Paul and his ministry to the Gentiles. C.) Since the Lord commanded Peter and the eleven other disciples (Matt. 10:22) to “endure unto the end” and “occupy til I come” (Luke 19:13), would it not have been an act of disobedience on Peter’s part to “cut and run” to Rome? Would Peter, to whom the Lord gave the keys to the Kingdom, have done that? I don’t believe he would.

Fact # 2: There is no Scriptural evidence that Peter preached to pagans and heathens.

Peter went to one Gentile, Cornelius, who could hardly have been considered a pagan. Acts10: 2, 35 says that he was a man “who feared God…and…gave much alms to the people (I.e., he blessed Israel)…and worked righteousness” (i.e., observed the Mosaic law). There is no other record in Scripture of him going to Gentiles. In fact, the apostle Paul recounts—of the meeting in Acts 15 in Jerusalem—that Peter, James and John agreed that “we (Paul and his followers) should go unto the heathen (Gentiles), and they unto the circumcision (Jews).” (Galatians 2:9)

Fact # 3: The “Christian communities,” referred to in the Catholic Instructor, “in all parts of the world,” are not in Scripture.

In Peter’s first epistle to those followers who were scattered in Acts 8 (written about A.D. 60?), he locates them “throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia” (1 Peter 1:1). This could scarcely be called “… all parts of the world.” All these provinces are in Asia Minor, and what we now know as Turkey.

Fact # 4: As evident as it is that Peter never went to Rome, it is just as evident that Paul did.

“And when it was determined that we should sail into Italy, they (the Romans) delivered Paul and certain other prisoners unto one named Julius, a centurion of Augustus band … and when we came to Rome the centurion delivered the prisoners to the captain of the guard, but Paul was suffered to dwell by himself with a soldier that kept him … after three days Paul called the chief of the Jews together … And Paul dwelt two whole years in his own hired house, and received all that came unto him.”⁵ Acts 27:1; 28:16, 17, 30 According to Paul’s letter to “all that be in Rome”, (Romans 1:7) he had planned to go to them physically (vs. 11). No such evidence of Peter having this desire can be found in Scripture. Moreover, Paul was personally acquainted with Peter. If Peter had been in Rome at the same time Paul was there—setting up and organizing the Roman Catholic Church—wouldn’t it seem odd that Paul never once mentions him (nor does Luke in the last parts of the Acts)?

Fact # 5: In actuality, the Roman Catholic Church was officially instituted in the fourth century AD by the Emperor Constantine, not the Apostle Peter in AD 67.

Constantine’s own testimony and beliefs make it evident that what he did, more than anything else, was for political reasons, and had nothing to do with anything spiritual. The RC church eventually became the default religion of the Roman Empire. The Roman Empire, from then on, became known as the “Holy” Roman Empire.

In summing up Rome’s claim to being the successor of the 12 apostles, let us consider this fact: Nowhere in Scripture can we find any evidence that anyone will succeed the 12 apostles or inherit their authority. This authority is reserved for them and them alone. They alone are the recipients of the 12 thrones of Matthew 19,⁶and it is they alone who have their names inscribed on the twelve foundations of the heavenly city, New Jerusalem,⁷ which they will be resurrected to rule in in the coming reign of Christ on the earth.

The Failure To Rightly Divide the Word of Truth Drives Rome’s (and Protestantism’s) Error

It is noteworthy that in the entire discourse of VC two’s section^* on the sovereignty of the Pope and apostolic succession, “the apostle of the Gentiles” (Romans 11:13), the revelator of “the mystery,”(Romans 16:25; Eph. 3:3; Col. 1:26) Paul, is not mentioned one time. This obvious exclusion must be because Paul and his gospel simply do not fit in with Rome’s agenda or her doctrine. Paul’s gospel frees people from the bondage of religion by delivering them from the guilt and penalty of their sins, and that’s the last thing the Roman Catholic Church wants their adherents to know. Rome’s goal is to get people under her thumb and keep them there by withholding from them the truth of the gospel, viz.., that their sins are forgiven, and that they don’t need to go through a man-made organization to be saved!. Certainly, this creation of dependency has been a key element in her longevity and growth into the most powerful religious force on earth.

*	The whole discourse on this can be accessed in my book, 85 Pages In The Bible, pages 144-148

The Scriptural Basis of Roman Catholic Authority is Drawn From the Wrong Dispensation.

It isn’t that the Roman Church is basing its authority and existence on completely unscriptural grounds. Their positions are scriptural to some extent; but they are from the wrong dispensation, and thus misapplied. By employing right division (2 Timothy 2:15) we find that:

1. The church Jesus spoke about in the four gospels—that Peter got the keys to—was: A) representative of the “kingdom of heaven” (referred to 32 times in Matthew’s gospel); B) concerned only the Nation Israel and her allies (Matt. 10:6: 15:24; 25:31-46); C) was prophesied of in the Old Testament (Acts 2:16; 3:24,25); in other words, the “gospels” are a part of prophecy; and D) this church was never referred to as the “body of Christ.”

As has been clearly shown heretofore, the church (ekklesia), which is extant in the world today was not in the prophetic scriptures The body of Christ is a part of Paul’s “mystery”, and exclusive to his revelation, and therefore cannot be the “church“ the Lord established in Matthew 16. (Ref. Romans 16:25: Ephesians 2:15,16; 3:3,8; Colossians 1:26)

2. The contention that Peter was the “rock^”⁸ the kingdom church would be built upon becomes nonsensical when one considers Peter’s response to the Lord’s revelation that he must suffer and be killed:

“Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” Matt 16:22-23

Did anyone notice what the Lord called Peter in verse 23? This is the “rock” the Church will be built on? No. That “rock” was Jesus Christ according to Peter’s confession in verse 16:

“He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answeredand said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Matt 16:15-16

The fact is, Jesus Christ—almighty God come in the flesh—the Son of the living God (the “gospel of God”-Rom. 1:1-4), is the foundation (the “rock”) of all gospels and churches throughout Scripture. This fact shows up in Acts 2 with Peter preaching:

“Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.” Acts 2:36

Is Peter speaking to Gentiles here about being saved into a “body,” by simply believing Christ died for their sins? Not on a bet. He is addressing “all the house of Israel,” and tells them in verse 38 to “repent (of the sin of killing their Messiah), and be baptized for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.” No mention of Christ dying for sins, or sins being forgiven. Why? Because this isn’t the body of Christ, and none of these people’s sins were forgiven! Their sins were remitted. They had to continue “steadfastly in the apostle’s doctrine” (vs. 42), i.e., keep the commandments (Matt. 5:18,19). They were still under the law! This was not a permanent condition! What did Paul say to the body of Christ concerning this? “For ye are not under the law, but under grace” (Rom. 6:14).

These Acts 2 believers Peter is preaching to, therefore, cannot be the body of Christ. Who, then, are they? New Testament Israel! This is who Rome is claiming she is. By doing this she can place and keep her adherents under the bondage of their sins, keeping them in a position of “hoping they’ve been faithful enough” to someday “arrive at salvation” (Ref. 1 Peter 1:9). If you have individually trusted Christ–believing that he died for your sins–my friend you are in Christ’s body, you have been forgiven “all trespasses” (Col. 2:13), and have already arrived at salvation! You therefore don’t need any man or man-made institution to intercede for you, or “absolve” you of your sins.

3. What the Bishop of Rome, the “Pope,” is claiming in power and authority through Peter is far more than the apostle ever claimed for himself. In Acts 10, Peter enters the houseof the Gentile, Cornelius, and…

“Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, stand up; I myself also am a man.” Acts 10:25,26

“I am just a man! Don’t be falling down at my feet! I’m not a god!” Isn’t that what Peter is saying here? Is that what the Pope says when people fall down in front of him and kiss his ring? Hardly. Why? Because he believes he is more than just the chief apostle. He believes—if he is in accord with Roman Catholic doctrine—that he is infallible, indeed, that he is more than just a mere mortal. Peter was hardly infallible. Heis reproved in Acts 11 for going to a Gentile, and again in Acts 15 by Paul (see Galatians2:11), where he apparently relinquishes the leadership of the Jerusalem church to James.

There is a lot more to this (Rome’s claims) than simple apostolic succession, and this is made evident in section 21, Para 2, of Vatican II, where it says,“For from tradition … Bishops (“Popes”) themselves sustain the role of Christ himself …”

Indeed, Paul refers to himself and his followers as “ambassador for Christ”, in possession of the “ministry of reconciliation”, but this, by no means, confired upon them the power now claimed for the pope by the RC church. An ambassador is merely an emissary delivering a message given him by his master.

Conclusion

The doctrine of apostolic succession is a farce that has been perpetrated on the Christian world for seventeen centuries. It is supposed that it is true on the singular basis that it has been around for this long period of time and followed by so many people . But “what saith the scripture? The scripture, rightly divided, says, no way. majority rule does not apply here.

“Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.” (Eccl 7:29)

Apostolic Succession certainly qualifies as one of the most egregious, unscriptural and damnable of man’s religious inventions.

Mike Schroeder

Please feel free to re-print and/or distribute this to whomever you wish. All Scripture references and quotations are from the King James Bible.

Post Script

Are you saved? Jesus Christ—“who knew no sin”—and his sacrificial death on the Cross, has made the way for “everyone that believeth…to be reconciled to God. History has shown that whatever peace man has achieved in the world can only be temporary. The Bible says that individual men and women can know, beyond a doubt, that they are saved and bound for heaven, and therefore have absolute and permanent peace, regardless of what is going on in the world, by trusting Jesus Christ and his death on the cross for their eternal salvation. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved.” Have you done this? If not, why not now?

Notes

1	Vatican Council II of the Roman Catholic Church; “Lumen Gentium”; Chapter III, Sec. 22
2	Colossi ans 2:8
3	The Catholic Instructor, page 234, paragraph 31
4	Flavius Josephus, a Roman citizen living in Rome, whose first century writings are considered to be the most authoritative historical statements of that time, outside of holy writ, never mentions Peter’s presence in Rome.
5	Please note that Peter, one of the chief apostles, is never mentioned in any of this.
6	Matt 19:28: And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regenerationwhen the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
7	Rev 21:14: And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.
8	To set the record straight, while Protestant theologians retained apostolic succession as a viable doctrine, they generally rejected the idea of Peter being the “rock” referred to in Matthew 16.