The Roman Catholic Controversy Part 10

Prayer.

I won't do it this morning because I'm going to be helping with this later.

I'm going to be talking and singing along.

I'm sorry for you.

I don't know if we're going to have Jesus Christ sing later or not.

I think that you're a good God.

I think that you have given us grace, mercy, peace, and God's will through Jesus Christ.

So I look forward to thinking deeper into these precious truths.

As we examine the agency and the meanings of this authority, we can follow it as a true authority that is

vested within each saint, each member of the living and true Church of Jesus Christ.

This is Father, we pray God that your truth prevail, in these matters and all things, in Jesus' name.

Amen.

Amen.

So we've been out of Lulu for a couple of weeks, and we're still working on the Catholic Conference.

We're going to take a detour as John is traveling.

And then we'll pass it on to other issues.

But just to be sure, we didn't go through Chapter 8 there, right?

Okay, so that's where we left off.

And I want to do an overview of where we've been so far in the Urban

Catholic controversy, and then share with you a recent experience like that, and use that

as a springboard to a conversation on apologetics.

As we're going to do this, we're going to overview it, and then start the chapter on the dating system.

What it really comes down to is that there are some serious distinctions between Protestantism

and Urban Catholicism.

If you ask the average person who is Urban Catholic, and this question is asked often,

you ask Urban Catholic, or someone who I believe learned to be Urban Catholic, are you a Christian

or are you a Catholic?

What is presupposed in that question?

There's a difference.

And you know what?

Almost every Urban Catholic I've spoken to affirms that difference.

Have you noticed that?

They say, no, I'm not a Christian, I'm a Catholic.

Where according to Catholic dogma, they are the true Christian Church, they are the true United

Christian, they are the true Catholic Church, and they are the true Catholic

Church.

And why is it important that we also affirm that distinction?

Should we correct the distinction or should we affirm the distinction?

Why do you think that's the wise thing to do?

You don't believe that in the Gospel.

It's different.

I've heard a gentleman who, it was a

Saturday, and he is a Catholic.

And I spoke to him yesterday actually, and I asked him that question.

Do you consider yourself a Catholic or a Christian?

He says I'm a Catholic.

And you know what his response was?

He says, there's too much hypocrisy within Christianity.

And also some other folks too, and they say, oh yeah, that's right.

It's almost as if he was saying something in the Bible.

Oh, what a brilliant statement.

Yes, you're right.

And I said to him, I haven't met someone who isn't a hypocrite yet.

Because every single person on the face of this earth is a hypocrite in one facet of life or the

other.

And I said, you know, I would stop going to Walmart because there's hypocrites there.

I imagine if you apply that reason, if you apply that logic to every other facet of life, where would you go?

Where would you be?

You'd be left alone if you're on a five -mile island with no one who wants to speak to you because apparently you aren't on that standard

of perfection.

Everyone is a hypocrite in one way or another.

And he has this really interesting conversation.

And he says, my problem with Christianity is that you can live your life how you want to,

sinning, and then the last moment that you say, I'm going to ask you to use my heart, and then all that is wiped away with the end, and

you can go to that.

I don't think that's fair.

And of course, if you could come and say, fair?

Okay.

Can we talk about fair for a moment and justice?

He says, we're just speaking in Spanish.

So he was saying, that's not just.

He uses the word just in Spanish.

It's not justo.

It's not just.

It's not fair.

And I said, okay, let's talk about that for a moment.

In my view, if God were to be just and God were to be fair, we would all

go to hell.

And the gospel according to Roman Catholicism says, no, you can earn salvation, that there are good people,

that there is a way for us to be justified by our works.

And he says, it doesn't seem fair to me that a person can live their whole life doing good things, helping

the poor, doing just causes, and then someone who's been living their lives completely contrary,

and at the last moment they repent, and they get to what happened, while the other one doesn't.

He says, it doesn't seem fair, it doesn't seem just.

And he asked me, what is just to you?

And I said, justice is to me, that they would all go to hell.

And I started to quote a scripture to him, from Romans 3, there's no good or bad in the world.

And he says, no, no, no, no, you're getting ahead of the book.

I'm asking you, what would be just for you?

And I said, but sir, by what standard are we talking about here?

By what standard?

And this is the famous line of apologetics that you hear from Jeff Herman and others as well, but

it's so true.

By what standard are we talking about?

He says, you, what's your standard?

I said, no, no.

Well, my standard is the Bible's standard.

That's my standard.

No, no, no, no, you're getting ahead of the book.

What's your standard?

I said, I can't settle into it.

I believe in this book.

And this is what the book tells me what the standard is.

I can tell you what the standard is.

And quickly all of the folks around started getting really frustrated with me.

They started getting really upset.

They said, well, you know, you just have to accept that not everyone believes in Jesus.

Not everyone has the same, it's not like, yeah, I said that.

That's fine.

But you just said something that is kind of out of hand, which is that all Christians, the reason why

he's not a Christian is because all Christians are hypocrites.

It's kind of an outlandish statement.

You all guys kind of affirmed it.

And that's kind of an ignorant thing to say.

And I don't understand why you're celebrating ignorance.

And when my perspective is shared, you feel attacked.

Interesting how that works, doesn't it?

And I'm telling you, and you know what, in that person's suggestion, that the

world sees ignorance as virtue.

It looks at ignorance as virtue.

If you say something's totally ignorant, but it sounds nice, you are celebrating it.

You are elevating it.

It's like, ah, you know, it's almost as if you said something that's so profound.

All Christians are hypocrites.

Everyone believes in Christians.

Ah, really insane.

But there's really no substance to that.

And things like that are elevated and celebrated as if it's a virtue.

And I'm sorry, I don't think it's virtuous to be ignorant.

I don't think it's virtuous to affirm things that aren't true.

And that was one of the parts of my critique that argument became, what else is out of the truth?

I said, to me, I respect judgment for judgment.

And I affirm your freedom to live by what you believe.

But at the same time, I don't think the truth outweighs all those things.

So is there an objective standard?

Is there an objective truth by which we can delineate between something that is true and something that is false?

And I don't think the objective standard.

And that objective standard is something about the word.

That's the standard.

And so I think when you're speaking to a Catholic,.

You have to bring back to that, by what standard are we affirming things

as true or false?

And so I brought my conversations back to the verses of Jesus.

I said, Jesus is the standard of truth.

He said himself, I am the way, the truth, and life, and no one is his father but by me.

He said of the word of God, in John 17, 17, Father, your word is truth.

And so I said to this gentleman, my early Catholic friend, I said, what are we going to learn here?

Your subjective feeling and your subjective knowledge or the sure

foundation of Christ who is God in heart according to both the Protestant and the early Catholic

doctrine.

What are we going to hold as true?

And I base my life on Christ's teachings.

What do you base yours?

What's your standard?

And what's interesting is that most people who are nominally or culturally Roman Catholic, they don't

live by the standard of the word of God.

They live loosely on traditions and their subject

emotions.

But they're not basing their lives on the authority of the word of God.

Which is why I think it's important that we actually do affirm the distinction between Roman

Catholics and Christians.

And the question is raised, are you a Christian or are you Catholic?

I think that's a good question.

Because it also exposes us to the reality of their

of their whole thought process.

They themselves are understanding that there is a Christian distinction.

And I think we need to to affirm that as well.

And so the first thing I mentioned yesterday was pretty much on justification.

How is a man a God?

How is a man justified by the word of God?

And he says, it's not fair that someone would at the last moment

repent and then all the things.

That they did in their life are absolved.

And I said, what about the human process?

And of course, they don't have an answer to those things.

And especially the average Catholic doesn't know a lot about the human process.

I think it's plain insanity.

It was a man in the process that changed Jesus.

And he came up with that idea.

And what's interesting about the man in the process that the thinking of the process and what he believed, but

what's not, is that in Luke's account of the Gospels, this is where he says, you

know, it says there's a remember me when you're injured in the name of Jesus, especially that he would do it in paradise.

But did you know that Matthew's account of the process, the Mark's account of the process, says that they were

both mocking Jesus?

Think about that for a moment.

Both men, in Matthew's Christ account, were mocking Jesus, including the defeat that they had in the acts of her

forgiveness.

So for the standard of about six dollars, Jesus is going to have the cross.

Then the man goes from a persecuted and what was his parallel, insults to

Christ, to then begging for mercy.

Just at the standard of six dollars.

And what does Jesus do?

He says, you'll be with me in paradise.

So what happened in those six dollars?

Can a person truly repent and give their life over to Jesus on their deathbed?

The answer is yes.

And I know that it frustrates people and their sense of justice, but it is because they have not come to

the true justice of God and grace.

So I said to him, he says, it's not justice, no, it's grace.

It's grace.

And that's a concept that is surely lacking in early Catholic circles.

They do not have a good concept of grace.

Has anyone ever had an experience similar to this or anything to kind of answer that in regards to the conversation so far?

Yes.

Very similar conversation.

Same.

It all goes back to authority, right?

On what standard do you judge?

Okay, so based off your knowledge, your experience and reasoning, you confirm this to be true.

They'd say yes, okay.

Well, let me ask you this.

Would you agree that there are people out there with invalid thoughts and reasoning, like the thought process of a

pedophile or a rapist or a murderer?

Well, me, they're like, well, yeah, I would agree that they're not reasonable.

Well, how do you know you're not one of those people that has an invalid reasoning?

Well, by my own reasoning, I know myself to be valid.

And that's when I point them to the following ways.

So by your own reasoning, you know your reasoning to be correct.

Right?

That's right.

You know, I learned from my conversation yesterday that even I, I've been doing

this for a long time.

I've done moderated debates.

I've spoken to many people in various capacities.

And so I know I'm doing it, definitely.

But I must say, even with my years of experience in apologetics and

ministering to people, I don't think anyone here would accuse me, generally, of

being harsh.

But anytime you're in a worldly context and you're standing up for truth, you may come

across as harsh and uncaring.

Even if you really try to seize the new words of the soul, truth, to a

world that despises truth, is like a sharp knife that cuts.

And so I encourage you to really try and do just as gracefully as possible.

But at the same time, I'm kind of a person that I can be maybe

too blunt, too straightforward.

And it really offends people.

And so I find that sometimes people are more offended with the literary than the truth itself.

And I find that to be ridiculous.

I'm a truth teller, and so I write out here truth.

And it can be blunt or it can be soft.

I already get that truth.

I want the substance of what's being said over the delivery.

And people who have overemphasized the delivery rather than the substance of our argument, right?

And so people often feel, well, maybe the person who was nicer, kinder, or who seemed to

be more open, that's the person who generally is right where we're putting the debate over the person who's more

passionate and delivers a substantive issue,

but maybe not as gracefully as the other person.

And so substance matters.

And I think substance matters over delivery.

But delivery is still very important in the way that we bring things across to other

leaders.

Any other thoughts or questions or experiences?

Well, I guess.

On the other side, could we also say that we're also Catholic with a little C?

Because we believe in the Apostles' Creed and we've been affected, we've been influenced by Augustine.

And other people.

Yeah, I mean, a good thing to say to a Catholic sometimes is to say, hey, you know, I'm a Catholic.

Do you want to see them like really, like confusing?

I'm a Christian, I'm a Protestant, I'm a Catholic.

And they're like, I don't think those go together.

And you can then explain what the word Catholic means and then it's fine.

That might even actually open up more of an opportunity for there to be some grace and camaraderie in that

conversation when you're coming at them from a place of

seemingly openness and deepening ground.

I've been speaking with Christians when this has started.

I always get in the room with Jews and I tell them, hey, I'm a JW too.

I'm just a Christian.

How did you know that?

I'm a Jesus witness.

And so, in that epitaph, there's always usually a rebuttal conversation between Jehovah's Witnesses as well.

If you've got some questions, we'll move on.

Yes?

You know, the person you're talking to, they're saying, like, by what standard,

but they're saying, like, what's just to you?

Right.

You know, I think a lot of times in these conversations, because the Romans won, right, the law of God is written on everyone's hearts.

If you could probe at any level, you'd find that we don't even live up to our own standards.

That's right.

Everyone's driving faster than you as a maniac, and everyone's driving slower than you because they don't know how to drive.

Right?

And that's why I said, everyone's imperfect.

Everyone's imperfect.

Because I said, if you're not going to church, you're not going to be a Christian.

I said, I haven't met a Christian who isn't.

Because we don't know.

We haven't measured our own standard.

We're all God's standard.

We always give ourselves a pass.

Right.

It's like, yo, if I need to break the sea, I have to raise it.

If he does it, he does not.

That's right.

That's a great point.

We don't even live up to our own standards, all of us.

And that's why I say, we are all imperfect.

It's just so weird.

Jesus is the same imperfect.

Jesus is the same.

It's just interesting.

And just like Jesus is not a little bit of a worm because there's just imperfects there, neither is Jesus not a great church because there's imperfects there.

This is the perfect situation for all of us.

For the Jewish people, because we're refining racism, we're refining truth, we're refining reconciliation, and the peace of God.

And so that's a really, really important thing to call that, to find out that the whole is a notion.

And of course, the Jesuit councils who bring this up ignore, sometimes, the

very hypocrites that are in their own church.

And they give you some awful info.

The papacy itself has an office.

There is no greater hypocrite than the papacy.

The papacy is the greatest hypocrite on the face of the earth, because it claims authority

and representation, but it doesn't belong to it.

It claims to be something that is true or not.

That's the greatest form of hypocrisy, is pretending to be something that you're not.

And there's no greater office of hypocrisy than that of the Lord God, the Pope, which, in

my understanding of scripture and theology, fits the perfect description of the Antichrist and of

all of us.

And so we're going to examine some of the things that's wrong with Catholicism in terms of A,

because you kind of have to work this out for A.

We're going to pick up where we left off a few weeks ago.

And again, I brought up that conversation, I'm not sure if it came out, because this is the first time we're going

to talk about authority and standards.

So what's the standard?

What's the authority?

The process is very clear that the authority, that the power that

we all trust in scripture, that's the standard that we live by.

Roman Catholics will affirm that on the surface, but if you dig deep, it doesn't contain other faults.

And again, one of the controversial things, it's probably the most controversial thing I've said in regards to Catholicism is that I believe this is a

fault.

It's just a very big fault, but it's a fault nonetheless.

And what separates established Orthodox

religion versus a cult is where the authority is vested.

And so the authority within the high majority of these cults are usually vested in one person or one

group.

That fits perfectly with Roman Catholicism.

It is a cult that has invested ultimate authority within the offices of the Catholic system.

Versus a Catholicism, for instance, where there's authority vested in three

places.

Apparently, on all three branches of government, we have three

main branches for the believer in terms of authority.

You know what those are?

What's that?

Well, it's Trinity for sure, certainly.

But let's start to write this Trinity as one of those, as God.

Then he goes to authority, obviously.

What follows from that is Scripture, and then the Church.

So you have these three areas of authority, God, Scripture, and then you have the Church,

meaning all individual believers have authority that is vested in

us by the Lord, through Scripture, for the preservation of truth, in the name of the Kingdom of God.

And so, again, there's three layers to it.

Versus the Roman Catholic way, which they would say is Scripture is apparent, tradition,

and the offices of the Church.

And so I wouldn't say the offices of the Church are the processes.

I'd say the Church, meaning all of us, members of the body of Christ.

Where the Roman Catholic would say the authority is vested in the offices of the Church, not in the Church itself, but in the offices of the Church,

namely, Pope, Cardinals, Bishops, Priests.

And that's a very distinction.

And so what does it mean that Pope, or the Roman Catholics make up the Pope group?

That it's a direct descendant of Peter, and that Christ said that Peter was the last

one that would be in charge.

That's right.

And they call this apostolic presidency.

I want to read to you what it says, in the Riverside Council's document, Constitution of the Master

of Citadels.

This is a quote from the book in chapter eight.

We therefore, for the preservation, safekeeping, and increase of the Catholic law, with the approval of the sacred council,

do judge it necessary to propose a belief and acceptance of all the fables.

So here's a very powerful declaration.

You have to hold this to be part of the universal church in the Roman Catholicism.

In accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal church, the doctrine of the

institution, the virtuity, and nature of the sacred apostolic presidency.

And so in order for you to be within the orthodox Roman Catholicism, you must accept as

well the sacred apostolic presidency, which is the Pope.

Specifically, the Apostolic Presidency.

So it's not just a Pope, but the all -possessive Pope.

And it teaches on a number of goals, as well.

I'll read this in sections here, and then in the next page we'll move forward.

Regarding kind of the scouting of it, it says, we therefore teach in the area that where was the testament, the gospel,

and the primacy and jurisdiction over the universal church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to the blessed

Peter, and also by Christ the Lord.

So here's the thing.

Christ had given primacy, jurisdiction, and authority over

the universal church to St. Peter.

So Matthew 16.

Who do you say that I am?

You remember Christ.

So we got it as an apostolic signifying St. Peter.

And then he says, and you are Peter.

You don't know what Peter means.

It means little rock.

And he says, you are Peter, little rock.

And on this rock, so there's Petro, Petrus, two words for rock.

One means little, one means big.

And that's rock mass versus what we mean as small rock.

He says, you are Peter, small rock.

And on this rock, big rock, I will build my church.

And so it is the Roman Catholic who would say, well, Peter, Peter is called a rock.

That's not true.

According to the Greek, Petrus was Petrus.

Peter is a small rock.

Which is part of the elegance of a heap.

So here it was on the right in 1 Peter 2, that we are all living souls, little

rocks, that are making up what?

This spiritual house for Christ, built on the foundation of Peter, but of

Christ Jesus, who is self -supporting.

And so we are this living temple.

Each of us are little Petrus, little rocks, that make up this Petro, this

rock mass, this house that is the church.

And so St. Peter is not, in scripture, spoken of as being the rock by which

the church is built.

Peter himself affirms in 2 Peter 2, that Christ is the rock.

Christ is the foundation of the church, not himself.

What a perfect opportunity Peter had.

He wrote two letters to declare his supremacy over the people of God.

He didn't.

He doesn't.

Nowhere in scripture is Peter the supreme apostle,

or the supreme pope.

You won't see it, you won't find it, because it's not a scriptural concept.

But here according to what we have for God, St. Peter is the one who is giving his supremacy over, in the premises

of jurisdiction, which is to say, that he has authority

over the church on earth.

It goes on a little further than that.

It says, quoting from the scripture, I will build my church, and as he has

built it, thou art Peter, the small rock, and he became the small rock.

You are Peter, and upon this rock, I will build my church.

I will give you to be the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and wherever thou shalt lie on

earth, it shall be found also heaven.

And wherever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loose also heaven.

It says in scripture to justify the authority, the primacy of St. Peter.

But when we understand correctly, this is not talking about St. Peter as an individual, rather this is talking

about the church having the keys to the kingdom.

Not one individual, but rather the whole church, the whole of the believers,

priestly, kingly, authority in the kingdom of God.

So it's not that the Pope has a supremacy, and it's not even the believers who have a supremacy, it's God who has a supremacy,

and he's a good boss.

He's a good king.

The mind who has this agreement on earth, that everybody would agree on,.

God on earth, what would be the agreement with his own person?

Who would he agree with?

Right?

If the Pope is someone who has this authority alone, where is the agreement?

The agreement, priestly solstice, is harmony.

Priestly solstice is harmony alone.

And so clearly this, the Leviticus, is going to have a vivid understanding of this.

It says, I'll leave it on a haphazard basis, but with the superiority of knowledge and literature,.

As it has been indefinitely registered by the Catholic Church, are there the reverses meaning for those who, while they

disafford the form of government as established by Christ as Lord and His Church, deny that Peter, in his

single person, this is important, for preferably to all the other apostles, whether they be separately or

together, those endowed by Christ to be true and in proper privacy of jurisdiction, or on

those who assert that the same privacy does not absolve any and is directly upon, unless Peter

himself, upon the Church, and through the Church upon Peter as minister.

So they're apologetic and saying, well, there's some people who say that this was given to Peter,

but that it was given to the Church.

And then they try to say, no, that Peter sits above the rest, sits above all the other apostles.

But again, where do you find that?

You don't see it in the Scripture.

You don't see it in the Scripture.

Remember, that all challenges Peter and reproduces in Acts chapter 10,

where Peter's not dining with, this is one of the Gentiles.

And later on in Galatians, he kind of sends another jab

at Peter, which is respectable, but he sends another jab at Peter and those who have that same mentality

of seeing those who are part of the Jewish brethren as superior to those who are Gentile brethren.

And looking at circumcision as an issue, because that was one of the early debates between the Christian Church, between

the Jewish Christians and those who were Gentile believers, was the issue of circumcision.

In Paul's experimentation, one of the main arguments in Galatians is about the issue of circumcision,

really looking past circumcision and really talking about justification, are we justified by the Lord's Law or are we justified through

Jesus Christ?

And so Peter almost affirms justification by faith, affirms justification

through Christ, and not by the Lord's Law, not by, you

know, circumcision.

And we know this because in Acts 15, Peter and James and others

affirm justification by faith.

That's what the Paul -Jerusalem Council, the councils all coming together on all things of this matter, and they affirm,

in fact, that they are justified by faith.

But the Roman Catholics, again, say that the discrimination was given not to the apostles

as a whole, not to the church as a whole, but rather to the person of St. Peter.

It says, If anyone therefore shall say that the security of the apostles was not with the priests at all,

in the apostles, and in the visible head of the whole church of the militant, or that the same

rarity be these who promote Jesus Christ in primacy of arm only, and not of shrewd and pompous

justification, let him be anathema.

Do you know the word anathema means?

Cursed, separate, cast it off.

That's what they mean by that.

So if you affirm the supremacy of St. Peter, you are an

anathema.

An anathema is not just like a slap of the wrist.

It is a high form of judgment that the Roman Catholic Church can pronounce.

It means that you are outside of the church.

You are a heretic.

You are a boss.

There's no salvation.

So to be anathematized is a pretty big deal in Roman Catholic service.

And if you don't affirm the supremacy of the ecstasy, you are an anathema.

What they don't know, unfortunately, is that Paul did not analyze them in relationship.

Why?

Let's go there for a moment.

He's sharing his

dismay with the church in that they are so quickly following the way and the truth of

the priesthood.

He says in verse 6, I am astonished that you are so quickly deserving of them who called you in the

grace of Christ and are referring to a different gospel.

Not that there is another one, but that there are some who trouble you and want to distort

the gospel of Christ.

It's really important what Paul says here.

He says, you know, some of you may fall to and maybe run away

from the gospel to a different gospel.

Not that there is a different gospel.

That is to say, that surely the gospel needs to be discernible.

It's the only one we can use.

And there are those who are trying to distort the gospel that we can't use at all.

He goes on to say, in verse 8, that even if we or angels of

heaven should preach to you of a gospel called according to the one we preach to you, let that be the first.

But if we probably refer to Daniel and the Apostles or to his

companions, or angels of heaven because these are two authorities,

right?

You have the Apostles authority, and then you have the family authority and the angels.

So even if the Apostles start preaching something different, or if an angel came

from heaven, don't believe it.

Because that which was preached to you first is what was true.

And that is the supreme rule of faith.

It is what was originally preached to you and it's the gospel.

And it says, let him be a first.

That is anathema.

Let him be anathema.

So if anyone comes to you preaching another gospel, a gospel that is outside of the gospel of grace,

outside of justification by grace through grace, outside of death or resurrection of Christ, let that verse be anathema.

So does the Philippine Catholic Church teach justification, salvation, outside of grace?

Yes.

Yes.

Do they affirm, or do they assort the gospel of Christ or of the

church today?

Yes.

So the true ones who are anathemized according to Paul are those who preach the contrary gospel.

Okay?

And how bold of them to assert that the anathemizing

power is vested in Peter and his successors, the Pope,

and that if you are to disagree with his authority, then you are anathemized.

The authority here is different.

Paul is saying, if you assert the gospel of Christ, you're anathemized.

Anything to do with the gospel is free.

But what we have to say, if you even dare talk about dear leader, it's almost like non -freedom.

If you see Dr. Mitchell over for example, you have to have a picture of the dear leader everywhere, you know,

in each room.

And you can't even have a second guess.

You always have to buy into what dear leader says.

And if you don't listen to dear leader, you're going to be cut off.

You're going to be anathemized.

You're going to be sent to their version of the gulag.

And Roman Catholics have a spiritual version of this,

where if you don't agree with your dear leader, you don't agree with our stance of authority.

You're anathemized.

You're outside of the camp.

So quickly, we can see what Roman Catholics believe in regards to the

authority of the

general figure to the Roman Catholic priory department of the Hymns of Supremacy.

This is important.

The Catholic Church teaches that our Lord conferred upon St. Edith the first place of honor in jurisdiction and government of the whole

church that the seeming spiritual authority has always resided in the posts of bishops of Rome.

So the focus was basically the bishop of Rome, the archbishop of Rome, the priory bishop of

that place.

And the success of St. Edith Catholic to be true followers of Christ, all Christians,

both among clergy and laity, must be in the seat of Rome where

Peter rules and in the person of his successor.

So what they've done is they've made a cult surrounding the successor of Peter,

Peter's successor.

Let me ask the same question that James White raises here.

What do these statements mean?

And what is Rome claiming concerning the gates

for the claims that have been made here concerning the

gates?

Does that sound like a cult?

I reflect on this in all circles recalling Roman Catholicism as a cult, because it's a major religion, because there's 1 .2 million.

Adherents to Roman Catholicism who are under cult, under cult.

The angel of Moses is Sir Augustus of Argonaut has 8 million followers.

Does that make them not a cult?

Do you see in regards to the claims being made in

terms

of you're not of Rome, you're not a true follower of Christ?

Is that a kind of terrible new state of salvation?

Yeah.

It says these true followers of Christ, all Christians, will open the clergy at late.

Do you know what clergy means?

The church office and the people.

Yeah, so clergy usually refers to church -oriented priests.

Even people.

Who have been Protestantism, right?

So even people who have been foreign to church, whether it be a pastor, maybe a minister, especially when you look at

the clergy, as a minister, I am a clergy,

and I have clergy privileges, and I have empowerment.

And the laity is usually a reference to the congregation.

There's a distinction between the laity and the

clergy.

There's two classes of Christians, essentially.

We're rather Protestant, so we see a distinction, a very small distinction, in

that we're just simple servants of Christ.

We are under service of Christ.

We are under service of people, and that pastors, clergy, we are simply

under service of so we are under

service of and we are under

service of and we are simply

service of people in church.

That is the only facet within the Seat of Rome.

Anyone know what that phrase means, the Seat of Rome?

S -E -E -I -S -E -A, the Seat of Rome.

This is a historical phrase that I think has been used for hundreds of years in reference to this extreme

indignity of a Roman proficient of Rome.

Now, when it comes to the Seat of Rome, it's referred to as, he's the final

pastor.

So the focus of his life is as an extreme pastor.

He's the one who sees what's happening here.

So I'm thinking of someone who's as high as a point.

This is what the word arc means.

I assume you've heard the term archbishop.

Arc is supposed to be a Greek word, arcane, meaning sheath, stone, and there's a, what are these,

archvases on the roof, archvases.

And there's a stone there that kind of connects the two, and that's where we get the word arcane.

It means this is created in that whole, all things together.

And Christ is actually referred to in 1 John 1 as the arcane of creation.

He's the arcane of creation.

Also, in Revelation chapter 14, Christ is referred to as the arcane of all creation, meaning that he

is the center of all.

He's this thing that's holding all things together in creation.

And yet, they use this as a description of the pope.

He's the arcane of the church.

He's the one who sees everything.

He's the primal authority of the invisible church.

That is blasphemous, amen?

Yes.

That's blasphemous.

This is another subtle way in which they are claiming the, well, truly the most prized office,

and they're claiming it for the pope himself.

So that is literally the definition of the pope.

It's literally the definition of the pope.

So in other words, it's kind of saying that with the sea of Rome, you need to be in communion with the sea of

Rome, meaning that your vision must be the vision of the pope in regards to all the

state of Rome and all those who are outside of Rome.

Your vision must be aligned with the pope's vision, right?

Yeah, he's the vision of the Roman Catholic church.

He's the one who oversees everything.

He's the primal, he's the arcane of the church.

So pretty dangerous things here, obviously.

And so this is a clear teaching in Roman Catholicism.

And I'm not going to go into it today, because I'm a little loud.

But I have got so many resources and quotes in regards to some of the

claims that are made about the papacy.

From their old, my mind goes, from their old Catholicism,

for instance, that I think is a claim regarding the pope.

And so one of the things that's important here is dissecting the remaining texts.

So let's go to Matthew chapter 16 for a moment.

This is a verse of scripture that we use often in this church, because I think it's one that

is often misunderstood.

And I'm going to read it to you in a second,.

Because it's a little bit of a juxtaposition for more clarity.

It says in verse 15, Jesus asked the king's question.

He said to them, but whom do you say that I am?

Said a few who replied, you are what the Christ is, a son of the living God.

And Jesus answered him and said, are you so large in your profession?

But as in the reality, when my father was in heaven, I tell you, you are Petros,

meaning small walk.

But in on this walk, meaning Petros is the

walk mass.

A good translation is it would be an actual walk mass, not just walk.

It means something that's bigger.

And on this walk, or this walk mass, I will build my church.

And it needs to tell.

It needs to show up and go against it.

And I will give you the keys of the kingdom.

But the question is, who is the you?

Because Roman Catholics say the you is Peter, meaning that Peter

secretly has, it says, you.

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Whatever you buy on a purse should be found in heaven.

And whatever you lose on a purse should be loosed in heaven.

And so the question is, who's he?

I think the you is clearly the church that he just spoke of.

I will give, he says, I will build my church on this walk, the walk mass.

So it's not just the little walk, the Peter, but it's rather on this grand walk,

the singular church of Christ.

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Whatever you buy on a purse should be found in heaven, meaning that there is a priestly, kingly employee that is

vested in the people of God, collectively, collectively.

Which is why here in this church, we have a pretty serious view in terms of membership.

If you're out of the last membership, we have a very robust discussion on this subject as well.

And we're going to continue to have that discussion, because it is very relevant.

Not just to the people who are Roman Catholics, but where we come to the right understanding of our rightful place as the people of God.

And so when we come together, we share this authority that we find and lose.

This is not something that's left to Peter, simply as an individual, as all, for Brahman,

to hold the people of God.

And we know this is to be true.

So I want you to turn now to 1 Peter.

And here, this is not a verb, this is a parenthesis.

But Brahman, notice what he says in 1 Peter chapter 2, verse 3, verse 4.

He says, as you come to him, a living stone, he's clearly referring back

to Matthew 16, when the Lord spoke of him and says, you are our Peter,

small stone, you know, this is a big stone, this is a big rock.

But with my church, he says, as you come to him, a living stone, reject that man, and the Son of God shows him to the precious.

You yourselves, like a living stone, are being built up as a spiritual house,

to be a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifice and the Son of God through Jesus Christ.

What is the stark difference between what Peter's saying and what the papacy is saying?

The papacy says that the Pope is that one God, that God has chosen as precious, and

that the Pope is that living stone, that the Pope is that spiritual house, that the Pope is that holy

priesthood.

That's what Peter says.

Peter says, you are that living stone.

You are that chosen and precious nation.

You are that living stone that is being built as a spiritual house.

You are that holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifice to the Son of God through Jesus Christ.

He goes on to quote scripture, to work standing in scripture, he goes, I lay my hands on a stone, a cornerstone chosen

and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.

So the one thing here that the scripture points to is is it the Pope or is it Christ?

It's Christ.

Christ is that precious cornerstone, by which we place our faith in him, we will not be put to shame.

This is our contrast from putting our faith in the Pope.

Because if you put your faith in one Pope, another Pope may come later, come quickly, and you will be put to shame.

Or rather, you are given credit, you're not put to shame.

It says in verse seven, for the honor is for you to believe.

And for those who do not believe, the stone that the pilgrim should become a cornerstone, and a stone stumbling,

and a rock of offense.

No wonder, as I opened up this morning, we've had the discussion on the Roman Catholic, they quickly make an offense.

Why?

Because it's Christ, it is that rock of offense, and people will be offended.

People will be offended.

And they stumble, so why do people stumble?

They do not accept the gospel.

Because they disobeyed the word, those who are to this,

as they were destined to do.

So here you have a perfect dichotomy that shows the

truth of Catholicism, for instance.

You have your personal responsibility, you disobeyed the word, you were

destined to.

So they stumbled because they disobeyed the word.

So it's a personal objection, personal agency there.

But they were destined to do this, why?

Because the reality is, brothers and sisters, we, according to our fallen nature, are all humble.

Every single person.

But it's only in the gospel, it's only through faith in Jesus Christ, it's only through God's song of work of redemption and

His grace that He pulls us out of that path of destruction that He grants us to get to the

cross of life.

It is the total work of God.

You are totally deprived, and the only thing that will save you of your total depravity

is the total work of Christ.

It's not your work, but it is His work.

And it says, it continues to say in verse nine, that you are a chosen race of a royal creed that is of a holy nation,

of a people who are in total possession that you have been forgiven of the excellencies of sin and with all which are

regardless, came to do marvelous light.

That's the true priesthood of Christ, is the believer.

We are the priesthood of Christ.

Not the pastor's seed.

Nowhere in here do you see the supremacy of Peter, but around here do you see the supremacy of Christ

and His people.

That's where the authority lies today.

And so I think Peter is actually, he knows it's very clear that he's exegeting Matthew 16 for us.

He's showing the ministry who is that priestly nation, who has the authority, who can bind and

loose things on heaven and on earth, it's the people of God.

He's saying it here.

And what an opportunity he had to say otherwise, to say that he has that authority.

But Peter never claims that authority himself.

Rather, he makes it clear that this is for the church, that this is for the whole people of God.

So again, this is not teaching the supremacy of the gates.

Pretty clear.

And again, we're in trust here, if Peter is that first of all, we should probably listen to him, right?

Nowhere does he teach anything opposite to what we just said.

So I think that fills the agency, the idea of the agency right away, because the agency does not

have any veritable proof.

Does not have any exegetical or historical proof of the mercy of the church that showed that

Peter's successors were that great in those three months.

The idea of the agency really starts coalescing.

Coalescing on them is the fall of Rome, the weekend,

and where will the anger of Rome dwell and reign on them?

Yes, but also, that is your intention.

But for Rome, Rome is the exegetical system that we're freeing

from, and as the political system of Rome started to deteriorate, what started to come into

place was the spiritual institution and political institution of Rome, which is what we have today.

So as the emperor began losing political power, the spiritual head of Rome started

gaining more power.

And so what essentially happens is a swap between the political emperor and now the

spiritual emperor of Rome.

But it's the same office, it's the same thing.

The Vatican is the ancient place where

literally the emperor reigned.

So if you ever look at St. Peter's Basilica, St. Peter's Basilica is actually finished,.

Maybe completely, I don't remember the location.

It took several hundred years for St. Peter's Basilica.

To be built, and in fact, Martin Luther, one of the reasons that he

got very upset was because they were trying to sell the gold to pay for St. Peter's Basilica's completion.

But if you ever look at St. Peter's Basilica, which is at the place where the Pope gives mass, which is something in front of that famous place

where there's this huge pope elected, that's where everyone gathers, there's this huge obelisk in the middle.

You know who right at

the bottom of St. Peter's Obelisk was to celebrate what was called the,

when the budget was a lot, but it was a huge tradition, the Nero Circus.

Circus Neuronius, I think that's what it was called.

And so you have these games, these circuses, not circuses like we do today,

where it's all nice and fun and family -friendly.

Circuses in ancient Rome were very barbaric, and in Nero's Circus, Christians were

being murdered and martyred.

So the very place in which Christians were martyred and their blood was spilled, and the very

obelisk that was erected to commemorate such a thing, is now the center of the

authority and the seat of the Pope of Rome.

Pretty interesting stuff, huh?

These are one of many reasons why I believe that the Pope is the son of tradition,

metapolitanism, the antichrist, and what he doesn't praise, because as Charles Berger

puts it, if the Pope is the antichrist, no one else could be, because it's so clear from

history and scripture that it's all the criteria for this

center of tradition.

Any thoughts or questions?

We're going through the halls of Rome to demonstrate something other than what the scripture says and what the names

of the Pope.

There are no names, maybe in the scripture of one unilateral office, other than the office of Christ.

And how do we know this?

If you've read the book of Hebrews, Christ is, one of the things that is emphasized in the book of

Hebrews, is the grand supremacy of Christ as a whole.

A couple of times in the book of Evanescence, Christ is supreme over creation, he's supreme over the angels, and then there's

also in chapter five through eight of Hebrews, Christ is

also shown to have this supreme office, in that he is supreme over all the offices ever

spoken of in scripture.

And it says that he is that Lopezan king, he's that Lopezan

priest, that we're looking forward to.

So there is no office that's greater than Christ.

If he fails to mention any of the offices that serve Christ.

Last lecture, in chapter 13, in Hebrews, it talks about shepherds, bishops,

which is the office of an elder.

And so, though the action of Hebrews is between the halls of the shepherds of Christ.

So they're honored with the authority of Christ.

No matter is there a vicar, no matter is there a primal, or

supreme apostle, it is all Christ.

Christ is that supreme apostle.

The action of scripture of Hebrews is chapter three verse one.

Christ is called an apostle of none other.

He is called an apostle.

He is that very apostle that is pointed to in scripture.

So, pretty fascinating things in there.

And here's also questions in regard to some of the theories that have been offered.

The rest of this chapter is essentially just doing this analysis of scripture, which is

essentially what we just did now, in regard to the fallacies and the claims of the fall of Rome.

And so, again, nowhere in the scriptures is it normally pointed to such a figure that

our own publics do in Peter and in the Pope.

And for us, it's almost like, it's almost too obvious, isn't it?

It's almost too obvious, isn't it?

And it's almost like, oh, I haven't spent a lot of time there.

But I would encourage you to look at some debates that I've had with James

White and Father Michael Poplar, I think his name is,

where they go deep and have a three -hour debate on the pagan society.

And this is really old.

This was probably in the mid -90s.

So James White had hair back then, and he's a little bit bigger than he is now.

But a really great debate between him and I think it was...

Mitch Peckl?

No, Mitch Peckl wasn't one of them.

I think it's a scientist.

He's not the Asian guy with the pink hair.

But he might be.

But I think Poplar was the last to name him.

And they have a great three -hour debate on the issue.

And there's certain things that the previous speakers have said that almost sound like they're on the onset,

but quickly deteriorate when the waiting is over.

Quickly deteriorates.

And it's almost too obvious.

But I still think we should just

dismiss it altogether.

And I think the reason why we shouldn't dismiss it is because I think there's just pathetic significance here.

Again, I made my position known pretty clearly.

I alluded to the philopathy of the anthrax, the philopathy of the asystemic disease, the cessation of the physician, and the philopathy of the prescription and the analysis.

And I think there's lots of significance to this.

I don't want to just say,.

Oh, we're going to do it all wrong.

There's really a colorful reason it's not right or wrong.

It's because there's a surge of perception.

Of the second facility that's at work here that is blinding in my mind to what we can do to just accept this authority

as being true.

There's a surge of perception that's at work here.

And because there's a surge of perception that's at work here, I don't think we should too quickly

dismiss some of the things that are being made.

Does that make sense?

Mm -hmm.

So, yeah.

We'll be like, we'll almost be in regards to like Eastern orthodoxy because like,

you know, Eastern orthodoxy would be more sort of closer to Rome compared to us as Protestants.

So, like, what's kind of like going to be in regards to the theater and like Eastern orthodoxy and so forth?

Yeah, I mean, there's fascinating similarities between the Orthodox Church, depending on the package you ask,

because I think that Roman Catholicism has already made it an anathemized, you know, the

Eastern Church.

Yeah.

But more recent discussion around Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism is that, you know, what

I see Rome doing is that they're really trying to reel it back in.

And you're seeing the return of the Protestants, right?

So you have the Pope come along, like Christian organizers, and say, oh, we just don't want to come together again.

And there's like a softer tone from the atheists in regards to kind of welcoming the

people back into the love of the Pope, is what they call it.

And so, the main distinction between Orthodoxism and Catholicism is the

thing with authority.

So, in Orthodox and Eastern Orthodoxism, they don't have a pope, they don't have a bishop, which

is not just because they don't have a pope, because it doesn't quite claim all the powers and authority that the pope would,

but it's still very similar.

And so, Roman Catholicism sees them as, I think, I've heard the use of the term sister church,

that they came from the same vein, that they departed on the Orthodox, and the Roman Catholic church

departed, and they're actually more right than that.

And that really, you can see the Roman Catholic church with some more power and agency.

Versus the Orthodox church, more of a maintainable, seems to be the government of the ancient church,

which was bishops, and pastors,

having authority, and I think the Orthodox, Eastern Orthodox church, I think

their main bishop was the bishop of Egypt, to

be honest with you.

So, that's how it was in ancient times, and it didn't change, because it kept going around.

But yeah, they would, in some sort of way, refer to the Orthodox church as the sister church, that needs to be brought

back into the system.

So, any last thoughts or questions.

On this material?

What I do want to do,.

Is I just want to spend a little bit more time in this chapter, because there's some scripture that I want us to examine.

And so, kind of starting first in page 113, we're gonna come back to that next week,

and look at some more of the scriptures, and some more of the things that we've made.

So, let me close with a prayer, and then we can get ready to start.

Father, we thank you that you are a God that has given us clarity through your word.

You've given us this truth and scripture that we should hold on to.

No longer that we are that truth, that precious song, that people of God, that

you have spoken of in the scripture, that we are indeed a holy nation, and a

loyal priesthood, that offers spiritual sacrifices through Jesus Christ.

Father, help us to recognize who you are in Jesus, and also lovingly,

but boldly proclaim the truth of the gospel to those who are parishioners.

We pray this in Jesus' name, amen.

Amen.

All right, see you guys.