Customer Reviews

Heresies of Catholicism The Apostate Church

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

This is an excellent book. It presents as gently as one can the problems with Catholicism and what Christianty is all about. This author is a former Catholic. His life was dramatically changed when he was given a Bible as a gift and READ it, prayed about it and sought guidance. He and his family now have a personal relationship with Christ and shares the joy of that.

We have used this as an outreach effort with much success. Most of our church is former Catholics who rejoice in having a personal relatinship with Christ and ONLY looking to Him for guidance and help. They are no longer spiritually discerned or blind by fallible mortals.

Here are just a few points mentioned in the book by the author and in his own words:

"Of the numerous doctrines Roman Catholics must believe under pain of grievous sin, there are two upon which the entire religion is dependent for its continued existence. Without these two foundational doctrines, the Roman Catholic religion comes crashing down to the ground of irrelevancy. In my Catholic childhood, I learned these two doctrines before I could read or write. To the question, "Which is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ?" I learned as a little shaver to answer, "The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ." To the second question, "And upon what did Jesus found His Church?" my response was, "Jesus founded His Church on the rock of Peter who was the first pope."

When the Lord Jesus saved me at the advanced age of 52, it became obvious very soon thereafter that there is something radically wrong with those two foundational doctrines.

And, since the first - the true Church claim - rests squarely on the allegation that Peter was ordained to be its first pope, it is quite appropriate to seek in the Scriptures proof that Jesus really did give Peter such an assignment. There, in the inerrant Word of God, we have every right to expect to find Peter's appointment clearly set forth, established as a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt. What we do find, though, is what follows.

The English word, "pope," comes from the Latin word, "papa," which means "father."

But our Lord told His disciples, (and us through them), "...call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (Matthew 23:9) This had to be meant in a spiritual sense since we all have earthly fathers, while our heavenly Father is a spirit to be worshiped in spirit and truth. (John 4:24) And based on this admonition from Jesus, there shouldn't even be a Catholic priesthood much less a papacy, for all Catholic priests are addressed as, "Father." More on that later.

On another occasion, when His Apostles were disputing about leadership matters, Our Lord called them together for a disclosure of His organizational plan. He said, "Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall NOT BE SO AMONG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." (Matthew 20:25-27) From this, it is clear Jesus was strongly opposed to any "prince" or "princes" exercising dominion over His flock.

Historically, it was not until the 3rd century, nearly 200 years after our Lord's return to His heavenly throne, that a bishop of Rome - one of hundreds of independent bishops existing at that time - cited Matthew 16:18 as evidence Peter had been appointed bishop of Rome and head of the Church. This was a brazen grab for power by Calixtus 1 whose interpretation of Matthew 16:18 contradicted that of the leading theologians of his day. That grab for power died an ignominious death when Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, and others, called Calixtus 1 a "usurper." From our vantage point 2000 years later, it is unimpeachable proof that Rome lies when it claims the office of the papacy has been in existence from the time of Peter.

Remember, if you will, the episode at Caesarea Philippi. There, Jesus asked His Apostles, "Who do YE say that I am?" It was Peter who responded for the twelve with this statement of FACT: "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Then said our Lord, "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art PETER, and upon this ROCK I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matthew 16:17, 18) In English, Latin, Aramaic, and other languages the words Peter and rock are entirely different. Unfortunately for Roman Catholics whose beliefs rest heavily on the papacy, Greek is a far more precise language.

In Greek, Peter is petros, masculine gender, defined as a small rock, one that can be picked up and skipped across the surface of a pond. It is a derivative of the root word,

petra, feminine gender, defined as massive foundation rock. If we insert Greek definitions for petros and petra, what our Lord said in Matthew 16:18 reads like this: "Thou art Little Rock, and upon this Massive Foundation Rock I will build my Church."

To the most respected theologians of the early Church, the Massive Foundation Rock of Matthew 16:18 was not Peter, but Peter's statement of FACT - "Thou art the Christ, (Jewish Messiah) the Son of the living God." That Jesus was and is the Messiah promised in Genesis, that He was and is the Son of God incarnate, are, in fact, the very foundation of Christianity. And that is exactly what was taught in opposition to Calixtus 1 by Cyril, Hilary, Tertullian, Jerome, (producer of the Latin Vulgate Bible), Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and the much-honored Greek scholar, Chrysostom.

Unfortunately, what the most famous early believers taught is not always considered by the Vatican to be the "Sacred Tradition" on which doctrines are based. For example, the great Augustine, besides opposing Peter as the Church's foundation rock, staunchly opposed the doctrine of Mary's Immaculate Conception which budded in the 5th century. The equally influential Aquinas did the same 800 years later. Hence, as in the Immaculate Conception matter, the Vatican totally disregarded the early theologians' teachings about Matthew 16:18, even though Christ - as recorded in John's Gospel - had given Peter the same name of small rock or stone in Aramaic long before the events at Caesarea Philippi. "when Jesus beheld him, (Peter) he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone." (John 1:42) That Matthew 16:18 can in no way be interpreted as an appointment of Peter to be the first pope is even more evident when other Scriptures from both the Old and New Testament are considered.

Beginning in Exodus, the Old Testament is full of references to Jesus, the coming Messiah, as the foundation rock of saving faith. He it is who is symbolized by the rocks out of which came fresh water in Exodus 17:6 and Numbers 20:10. Moses, in Deuteronomy 32:4, wrote, "He (Jesus) is the ROCK." Rebuking the Nation of Israel in 32:18, he said, "Of the ROCK that begat thee thou art unmindful." And in 32:31, he said, "...their (the enemy's) rock is not as our ROCK." In her prayer for a man child recorded in 1 Samuel 2:2, Hannah says, "...neither is there any ROCK like our God." And David, just escaped from Saul, in 2 Samuel 22:2 gives credit for his safety this way: "The LORD is my ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer."

Clear references to our Lord as the ROCK spoken of throughout the Scriptures, also are found in Psalms 18, 28, 31, 40, 42, 61, 62, 71, 78, 89, 92, 94, and 95. See also Isaiah 8:14, 17:10, and 51:1. In Hebrew, the word for rock is cela, and its definition is "crag, cliff, rock," definitely not the kind of rock or stone one launches at a squirrel on the bird feeder.

In the New Testament, our Lord's parable of the wise and foolish builders, recorded in Matthew 7 and Luke 6, leaves no doubt that Jesus, not Peter, is the foundation rock on which those who are wise establish their faith. Paul recognized Christ was the nation of Israel's rock and the foundation of Christianity as well. "....(they, the Jews) did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them: and that ROCK was Christ." (1 Cor. 10:4) Earlier, in 1 Corinthians 3:11, Paul made absolutely certain there would be no mistaking upon whom Christ's Church was being built. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ."

The foregoing cited Scriptures not only don't support Rome's claim that Peter was ordained a pope, the first in the Vatican's alleged unbroken chain of popes, they actually contradict the claim, and they contradict it most emphatically. Moreover, one comes up "empty" again when trying to find passages that show Peter and the other Apostles, Paul included, were clearly aware of Peter's election to leadership by Jesus. Nor is it obvious from God's Word that Peter spent enough time in Rome to have functioned as that city's first bishop.

In his own first epistle, Peter acknowledges a title far different from bishop or pope. Says he, "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an ELDER." (1 Peter 5:1)

Then he says: "Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as BEING LORDS over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock." From these words in particular, and from the general tenor of both his letters, one concludes that Peter had no idea he had been ordained the first pope of a Church that did not come into existence until the 5th century.

In the account of the Church's first general council reported in Acts 15, it is James, the brother of Jesus, and not Peter, who provides the solution to the problem under discussion. (Cf. Acts 15:13-23.) Even before that council, Peter was not acting like the supreme leader of the flock. Rather than directing the actions of others, he was being directed, as the following attests. "Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, THEY SENT unto them Peter and John." (Acts 8:14) It was the same John, who, along with his brother James, had sought

from Jesus the promise of sitting one on His right hand, and one on His left in the coming kingdom. This, long after Matthew 16:18 had taken place, and a clear indication that the Apostles had no idea Peter had been ordained their leader.

There is additional biblical evidence refuting the Vatican's alleged Petrine papacy to be found in Paul's letter to the Roman Churches. At the end of that letter, he salutes 27 named individuals, none of whom is Peter. Why is that if Peter was bishop of Rome? Also, in Acts 23, Paul not knowing it was the High Priest he was addressing, called him a "whited wall." (Acts 23:3) When informed that his epithet had been directed at the High Priest, Paul was instantly repentant. Said he, "I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." But in his

letter to the Galatian churches Paul is openly critical of Peter, saying, "when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." (Acts 2:11) What Paul said directly to Peter in front of many witnesses was this: "...If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Acts 2:14) If Peter had been ordained bishop of Rome and head of the Church, Paul certainly would have been aware of the fact and would not have been openly critical of him in front of others.

Finally, still consulting the Scriptures, we learn that Paul, not Peter, received the Gospel directly from the lips of Jesus. "But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." (Gal 1:11,12) And in 2 Peter 3:16, we get the impression that at least some of what Christ had given to Paul was not known to Peter, for he says that in Paul's letters "are some things hard to be understood." Inevitably comes this question, if Jesus made Peter head of the Church, why was Paul the one chosen to receive the Gospel directly from our Lord?

The binding and loosing authority the Vatican claims exclusively for its popes was given to all of the Apostles, not just Peter; (Matthew 18:18) and, in fact to all believers when

Jesus said, "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven; For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18: 19,20)

When all of the Scriptures having to do with Peter's alleged ordination as pope are reviewed it becomes manifestly clear that he was only one of twelve chosen men, who will sit on twelve thrones in the millennium, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30). A bishop of Rome he was not. A pope he was not. And when historical facts are studied - as will be done in a separate article -they will positively confirm what has already been seen in the divine Scriptures."

Catholic friends - OPEN YOUR EYES. SEE and UNDERSTAND what God is saying through the Bible. Yu will have that "peace that passeth all understanding". It's all about CHRIST. Your spiritual and emotional void will be filled with Christ.

Heresies of Catholicism is no more than a polemic and suffers badly from a lack of any sort of scholarly rigor. There is little documentation to substantiate Schroeder's comments. He says, e.g., "weekly Mass attendance was not mandatory until the 12th century." Whether this is true or not must remain unconfirmed as there is no documentation for the statement. Even when Schroeder quotes the Council of Trent accurately in several places, he fails to cite where in their decrees his quotations are to be found. And, the same occurs even in recent statements attributed to Pope John Paul II. Where do they come from? Readers might like to check his assertions.

Schroeder appears to be unknowledgeable about medieval heresies. He says that the Cathari were exterminated as heretics for their praiseworthy insistence on justification by faith. In fact, they were heretics because they believed that Jesus was an angel whose human suffering and death was an illusion, and believed in a dualistic universe where the God of the New Testament ruled over spiritual things while a parallel evil God ruled over matter. Surely such beliefs are heretical even to fundamentalists.

Furthermore, a serious scholar claiming to have objectively studied Rome's claims and who intends to show the errors in them doesn't say, "since escaping from the Roman Catholic Church." Such subjectivity detracts from his arguments. But, that may not matter as Schroeder is obviously preaching to the choir, to those already convinced that Catholicism is a lie. Who else otherwise would accept a description of Catholics as "unregenerate sinners...so biblically illiterate and so arrogant at the same time"? At a time when so many who witness to Catholics make a differentiation, claiming to love Catholics even as they dislike Catholicism, Schroeder makes no bones about his own feelings!

In sum, no Catholic or even Reformation Protestant will be convinced by a compilation of such overtly anti-Catholic exhortation masquerading as scholarship. This book cannot be recommended in any way as scholarly.

From Schroeder's supposed history of the papacy:

"That is not this writer's opinion or pipedream. That is hard, cold, unyielding history. In his 13th sermon, preserved I believe by divine intent, Augustine made his belief perfectly clear."

"Thou art Peter, and on this Rock - petra - which thou hast confessed, on this rock which thou hast known, saying: `Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my church upon Myself, who am the Son of the living God; I will build it on Me, and not Me on thee."

"Roman Catholic apologists have called this writer some unflattering names for stating that there was no pope and no papacy for more than 500 years after Christ returned to heaven."

Really? So Catholic apologists would insult a CATHOLIC SAINT? No, I don't think so. This is getting nuttier all the time. One must remember that Augustine also said:

"Peter, who had confessed Him the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built." (Augustine, In Ps. lxix. n. 4, Tom. iv. p. 1020, ed. Bened. 1836) in Charles F. B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri -- the Titles abd Perogatives of St. Peter, (London: Burns and Oates, 1879), 23.

or how about:

"These miserable wretches, refusing to acknowledge the Rock as Peter, and to believe that the Church has received the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, have lost these very keys from their own hands." (Augustine, Christian Combat, in J. P. Migne, ed., Patrologiae Cursus Completus: Series Latina, 40:289), in Michael Malone, ed., The Apostolic Digest, (Irving, TX: Sacred Heart, 1987), 246.

Interesting that Schroeder failed to mention any of this huh?

"But history is history, and all the name calling in the world will not alter the fact that Augustine spoke the previously quoted words during his years in Africa as bishop of Hippo - get this, now - in the first third of the FIFTH CENTURY. Moreover, Augustine's conviction - based on a correct interpretation of the Scriptures - that Jesus Himself was the foundation rock of Christianity, was shared almost 100% by the churches existing at that time."

There are several problems with the above paragraph. First of all, where is the proof that any Catholic calls Augustine names? Secondly, why would anyone call Augustine names when the idea Schroeder says he espoused was not what he, in fact, espoused? And was Schroeder merely ignorant of these facts? Or was Schroeder deliberately deceiving his readers?

Thus we see that Schroeder is simply wrong -- but he warbles on anyway:

"Constantine, who is not listed as a pope in Rome's papal lineage, himself assumed the leadership of the churches and took the title Pontifex Maximus - highest priest."

Incorrect. The Pontifex Maximus title at the time of Constantine was a title held exclusively BY THE PAGAN ROMAN EMPERORS and had nothing to do with Christianity. It was only later that the title was passed on, by a Christian emperor (Gratian, in AD 375), to the pope in acknowledgement of the fact that Roman paganism was abandoned in favor of Christianity. Clearly Schroeder has no idea of what he is talking about.

"Inasmuch as the Pontifex Maximus title is one of the many applied to Roman Catholic popes, Sylvester, bishop of Rome at the time, should have had that title if he was the reigning pope. He was not the pope or a pope, and he was not even in attendance at the AD 325 Council of Nicaea."

Clearly Schroeder is wrong again. How could Sylvester have the title when it had not been given up by the emperors yet? Did Schroeder do any research at all?

"What amazes about all this is how the Vatican has been able to obliterate the actual early Church history, successfully replacing it with the fairytales of "apostolic succession" and an "unbroken chain of popes" stretching all the way back to Peter."

What amazes me is that Schroeder tried to obliterate all of history and of course he failed. Anyone could have done some simple research and discovered what I posted here today. Did Schroeder? No. So apparently Schroeder doesn't know how to research or doesn't care to research.

An easy, easy read but the most comprehensive coverage of the subject I have ever seen. Loaded with KJV Scriptures and documented historical data that exposes the Roman church heresis one after the other. The Patchwork Gospel thing effectively wipes out Rome's antiquity claims. Mariology and the Romish popes are left "without a leg to stand on." The eighth chapter flabbergasted me. Read this book and you'll know more about the Roman Catholic Church than a lot of Catholics. Sunday school teachers couldn't find a better textbook to teach folks how to witness to Catholics. I tell you, I LIKED this book.

John Schroeder, has concocted a fanciful story based on shoddy research and very weak arguments that have long ago been refuted by real history. The author's only credential seems to be his status as an "ex-Catholic" with a very big ax to grind. This may explain why Mr. Schroeder omits so much information. Thankfully we are able to read what the Church Fathers actually wrote and as is always the case the truth offers a much better picture. For those who believe in make-believe rather than factual truth Mr. Schroeder has written a masterpiece.

John Schroeder presents a treasure trove of information regarding the history of Catholicism's slide from the orthodoxy of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Replete with scripture and Catholic source quotations, Schroeder presents his main points in a logical order and supports them extensively. This book is an excellent resource for those interested in the historical and scriptural argument that the Roman Catholic Church is far removed from the first century apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ. Contrary to the opinions of another reviewer, I found it easy to see that Mr. Schroeder maintains a passion and love for the Catholic people, and only wishes for them to escape the heretical trappings and come to a personal and saving relationship with Christ. I highly recommend this book for Catholics, and for Bible-believing Christians who wish to fearlessly and earnestly CONTEND for the faith!