FURTHER READING "An Answer to Sir Thomas More's Dialogue" by William Tyndale MARTYR, 1536 Published (originally) in 1531 From the Parker Society Edition (1850) Hail & Fire REPRINTS "He (Sir Thomas More) believeth that he loveth God, because he is ready to kill a Turk for his sake, that believeth better in God than he; whom God also commandeth us to love, and to leave nothing unsought to win him unto the knowledge of the truth, though with the loss of our lives." William Tyndale

Peter the Rock:
in history, the bible, and the opinion of the Church Fathers

INTRODUCTION: A real world discussion regarding the Catholic doctrine of Peter and the power of the Pope resulted in the following short work on the history, the opinion of the Church Fathers, and biblical evidences against the primacy and tradition of the papacy. The discussion began regarding Jesus' use of the word "tibi" rather than "vobis" in Matthew 16, in declaring the power of the keys of the kingdom: in Catholic thought, Jesus' words in Matthew 16 are singular and confer an all powerful primacy on Peter. In Matthew 18, however, Jesus uses the word "vobis" and confers the power of binding and loosing upon all his disciples. The question then becomes, 'What are the keys and what is bound or loosed?' Either the keys are an ability to define the terms of salvation or the keys are the very method of salvation as established by God before the world began—the binding and loosing referring to the application of that method to any individual through the preaching of the Word either unto repentance and loosing or unto the manifestation of a hardened heart bound in sin and unbelief. When asked for specific proof of the Catholic doctrine, our challenger supplied only general claims: the meaning of Peter's name; a claim that all Protestant arguments had been sufficiently refuted by Catholic apologists. It was, however, the arguments of those apologists that we refuted as not standing the test of history or the teachings of the ancient doctors. Faith, after all, in anything for which there lacks a promise of God, is not faith at all.

Peter the Rock:
in history, the bible, and the opinion of the Church Fathers

"Call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your master, Christ.” Matthew 23:9-10 Douay-Rheims “father" "patrem,” Latin Vulgate, “Pater, Father” “masters" "magistri,” Latin Vulgate, “teachers” “master" “magister,” Latin Vulgate, “Magister, Teacher”

You wrote regarding the verse in Matthew 16 which makes Peter the Rock upon which the church is built. We would like to address your readiness to claim that you have proved your argument and the rather demanding “Prove it. Convert me. (or) Admit it. Convert back.” Did Jesus prove his argument and did he convert all who heard him? Jesus came not in glory but as a man, and he spoke to the crowds in parables and told them hard things because he knew the unbelief that was in them. If Jesus did not convert all his hearers because their hearts were hardened, how do you say, “Prove it. Convert me”? We read in the New Testament that the faith or lack of faith in any man is according to the spirit which he has received. He who comes to the light manifests in himself that his deeds are of God, so that it is said to those who are of a pure and Gospel faith: “Now, we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit that is of God: that we may know the things that are given us from God.” 1 Corinthians 2:12 Douay-Rheims. In the Gospel record of Jesus’ ministry, many came to him in faith, moved by the call to repentance from sin and from the pride and vanity of this world, but who came to him saying “Prove it. Convert me”? Nevertheless, we will certainly try.

Your proof of the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 rests upon the note in the Douay-Rheims and the word “tibi” in the Latin. We are curious why you refer to the Latin as the “original,” because the books and epistles of the New Testament were originally written in Greek from which the Latin, like the English, is only a translation. The Vatican itself possesses one of the oldest extant Greek manuscripts, the “Vaticanus”, from the second or third century. Your priests or teachers may refer to the Latin “original,” but they cannot be unaware that Greek was the lingua franca of the Roman Empire into the 3rd century AD or that all the early Christian writings of that period, including the New Testament and the Apostolic Fathers, were written in Greek. One of the early Latin Fathers, Augustine, who did not know Greek, attests to the fact that Latin translations of the original Greek New Testament scriptures were so numerous he thought that everyone had undertaken to make his own translation.

We hope, as you say, that you also are not disturbed by our questioning of your arguments, because intelligence has little to do with the knowledge of God or salvation. John the Baptist was filled with the Spirit of God while yet in his mother’s womb. Do we not know by this grace that faith and knowledge are according to the motion of the Spirit and not of the will and the intellect? The things of God are known and easy to as many—whether weak or strong, young or old, for a day is as a thousand years to God—as God reveals himself and that no one comes to or is able to believe and follow Jesus Christ in faith, except those who are taught of God. This is the very definition of the New Covenant, even as you can read in your own bible:

“For this is the testament which I will make to the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord: I will give [“dando” Latin Vulgate “grant, impart”] my laws into their mind: and in their heart will I write [“superscribam” Latin Vulgate] them. And I will be their God: and they shall be my people. And they shall not teach [“docebit” Latin Vulgate ”explain, teach”] every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord [“cognosce Dominum” Latin Vulgate]. For all shall know me [“quoniam omnes scient me” Latin Vulgate], from the least [“minore” Latin Vulgate] to the greatest [“maiorem” Latin Vulgate] of them. Because I will be merciful to their iniquities: and their sins I will remember no more.” Hebrews 8:10-12 Douay-Rheims

Note that the word “docebit” in the phrase “they shall not docebit/teach … saying: Know the Lord. For all shall know me a minore ad maiorem eorum (from the least to the greatest of them)… ” is the future form of the Latin “doceo,” which means “to explain, to teach.” Related words include “docilis” (“teachable”), “doctor” (“teacher”), and “doctrina” (“instruction”), from which we have “docile” (“teachable”), “doctor” (as in the title, “Doctor of the Church”), and “doctrine”. How then do you speak of “intelligence” when knowledge and understanding of God is given by God and to know God is to be taught of God and that, from the least/minore to the greatest/maiorem of those who believe? You have certainly heard, “In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father; for so it seemed good in thy sight.” Luke 10:21. Why do you boast yourself against this, as if you did not believe it at all? Those who know God are taught of God, for the New Covenant is a covenant of power unto understanding and godliness. You follow men that you believe are masters and teachers for their learning and titles, their education and access to things which you do not yourself search out or test, and you allow yourself to be instructed by them, yet it is Jesus who said:

“Call none your father [“patrem” Latin Vulgate “Pater, Father”] upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters [“magistri” Latin Vulgate “teachers”]: for one is your master [“magister” Latin Vulgate “Magister, Teacher”], Christ,” Matthew 23:9-10 Douay-Rheims

If you will be obedient to Jesus you cannot be obedient to men who, through disobedience to Christ, have taken these very titles and whose claims and power over you and all whom they designate “laity” rests upon their right to such titles. Will you ignore the commandment of the Son of God in the Gospel of Matthew and attempt to prove from the same Gospel that we are subject to a “Magisterium” and to “Fathers,” indeed, a supreme “Father” upon the earth, the “Pope”? It is God who teaches and he who imparts understanding and grace unto obedience, so that the knowledge of God is not of intelligence or of the titles that men bestow upon one another or of the claims that men make that they may receive honor from others or exercise power over others, for he says, “all shall know me a minore ad maiorem eorum (from the least to the greatest of them).” It is not then of intelligence but of grace.

We will answer your arguments and provide proofs from the scriptures and the Church Fathers, but we wonder at you that you have passed entirely over the following proofs in your research. If you can see the truth of the Gospel and come to the light of it and are drawn to the Word of Christ to be taught of God rather than that “Magisterium” of “Doctors” and “Fathers,” you will see that the church does not rest in men or upon them. The church is not built upon fallible men, but upon that which is incorruptible—the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who is himself the eternal Word of God. Neither is it founded in the traditions of men, but in grace and truth which came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17). If you can see this, you might also believe and be saved, “For by grace you are saved through faith: and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God. Not of works, that no man may glory.” Ephesians 2:8-9 Douay-Rheims. This statement of grace is as plainly and beautifully stated in the Latin Vulgate as it is in the original Greek or in the English of the Douay-Rheims bible: “gratia enim estis salvati per fidem et hoc non ex vobis Dei enim donum est non ex operibus ut ne quis glorietur” Ephesians 2:8-9 Latin Vulgate

“PETRA”- the Rock

We agree that Jesus does indeed call Peter, “Petros” Greek, “Petrus” Latin, which is a masculine name that means “rock.” But how this makes Peter the Rock upon which the church is built, you have neither shown nor even attempted to prove. It is not enough to merely state that the name Petrus itself, since it means ‘rock,’ is therefore an obvious inference of power, much less of a “potestatis plentitudo” or “fullness of power.” This is the thing that you were to show proof of and the question itself that you must address. Is Peter a “rock” as one who is a “living stone,” even as Peter himself calls all who believe the Gospel, or is Peter made “primus” or “first” in the Gospel in a plentitude of power, so that you may say that Jesus imparted to Peter, through the name “Petros,” a fullness of power and show the proofs which makes him and those who claim to be his successors, the Father upon earth of the ekklesia or church that is Christ’s? It is Peter who called Jesus the “living stone” and us “living stones”:

“Unto whom coming, as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men but chosen and made honourable by God: Be you also as living stones built up, a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.” 1 Peter 2:4-5 Douay-Rheims

You must show that a title of power was prophesied, created and then conferred by the title ‘Petros,’ and that such power is a “fullness of power” and was indeed exercised by Peter and his successors, being understood clearly by the church universal from the beginning—and this you must do through biblical and historical proofs. You must reconcile the succession of Popes or Fathers in a Petrine Primacy with the Gospel itself and then with history and the Church Fathers so that you may be said at least to have shown the proofs of it and not just taken a verse from scripture and composed an interpretation which neither Jesus, the Apostles or prophets bear out, and which all of history proves to be only an interpretation devised by men and rejected—as we will presently show—of the church universal as a betrayal of the Gospel and an interpretation upon which men would establish a throne that they may build an earthly kingdom and gain for themselves great power and riches.

For if, as you say, Jesus plainly made Peter the Rock, and if this was a title or a “See” or seat, as of a succession, then Peter and his immediate successors, or at least those who are claimed to be such, ought to have as clearly and plainly understood the words of Jesus Christ in Matthew 16 as you want others to understand them today. If the Papacy is not a myth and the title and position of “Father” upon earth or “Pope,” or “Maximus” was established and not, in fact, expressly and explicitly denied, by Jesus himself, then the proofs of the power and the seat and the authority of the Bishop of Rome exercising a ministration over the church universal as the very “Rock” itself upon which the church is built, would be so abundant and of so many varieties that its reality would be inescapable. If we find, however, that such a title and seat of power is excluded by the scriptures, cannot be established by common history, or that any proof whatever from the councils, the Church Fathers or Doctors or Saints of the Roman Catholic Church may be brought forth which excludes or denies the interpretation of Matthew 16 which makes Peter the Rock upon which the church is built, or denies the Primacy of Peter and the claim to a “potestatis plentitudo” or even authority over the church at large, you will not be able to maintain that the Papacy or succession of “Fathers” upon earth was founded by Christ.

But we have already shown you the only proof you really need—it is Jesus who commanded:

“Call none your father [“patrem” Latin Vulgate “Pater, Father”] upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters [“magistri” Latin Vulgate “teachers”]: for one is your master [“magister” Latin Vulgate “Magister, Teacher”], Christ” Matthew 23:9-10 Douay-Rheims

How do you believe that any man should be called our “Father” or “Pope,” as he who stands in the place of Christ or of God upon this earth, when it is Jesus himself who taught you and all the world saying, “call no man your Father/Pater upon earth”? Shall we render obedience to God and do the work of faith according to Jesus’ Gospel, “What shall we do, that we may work the works of God? Jesus answered and said to them: This is the work of God, that you believe in him whom he hath sent.” John 6:28-29 Douay-Rheims. Or shall we say with those who will be called “Father” and “Doctor” and “Magister” that disobedience to Christ excels obedience? We were Catholic also and have come out of that church that we may be obedient to God and his Word.

Of the rock upon which the ekklesia was to be built, Jesus says, “the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” We and you admit this, but why do you then make fallible and weak men the foundation of the church? Do you not see that in the same chapter of Matthew, only a few verses after Jesus calls Peter “Petros,” or “Rock,” he also rebukes Peter calling him “Satan”; leaving you irrefutable proof that Peter was only a very fallible man:

“qui conversus dixit Petro vade post me Satana scandalum es mihi quia non sapis ea quae Dei sunt sed ea quae hominem” Matthew 16:23 Latin Vulgate

“Who turning, said to Peter: Go behind me, Satan, thou art a scandal unto me: because thou savourest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men.” Matthew 16:23 Douay-Rheims

Is Peter “Satan”? Jesus himself calls him Satan just after you say that he made him our Father upon this earth and the infallible head of the church and the very “Rock” immovable upon which the church is built. Shall we glory in men who are fallible and call ourselves after men and not the Lord who died for us? Read the full text of Matthew, because what it says is this:

“Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed [“apekalupsen” Greek “disclosed”] it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. lego [I say] oti [that] su [you] ei [is/are] petros [rock (masc.)] kai [and] epi [upon] taute [this] te [the] petra [rock (fem.)] oikodomeso [I will build, construct] mou [my] ekklesian [church, lit. assembly],” Matthew 16-17 Douay-Rheims/Greek TR

The question that you avoid is whether Jesus showed the Rock to be Peter himself or that which Peter confessed of Christ, which is what, as we will momentarily show, the early church held, the medieval Gospel Christians held, the Reformation Protestants held, and what we hold today. The bible shows that Peter was a “rock” indeed as one taught of God, as all are who believe. And it shows that he received the excellent gift of “Apostleship” to which none succeeds another, but receives individually from God (1 Peter 4:10; 1 Corinthians 12:28-29). But it is the revelation of God to Peter—not Peter himself—which is the “Rock”; not “Petros” [rock (masc.)] but “petra” [rock (fem.)], upon which the church is built. The following are the proofs and reasons why we know this is true:

“TIBI” vs. “VOBIS” – you vs. you

While you rest your argument upon Jesus’ use of the word “tibi,” can you also tell us then, how you resolve the words of Jesus two chapters later in Matthew 18:

“At that hour the disciples [“discipuli” Latin Vulgate] came to Jesus, saying: Who, thinkest [“putas” Latin Vulgate “value, reckon”] thou, is the greater [“maior” Latin Vulgate “magnus, maximus”] in the kingdom of heaven?” Matthew 18:1 Douay-Rheims

Jesus does not set Peter before them, although you contend that he has already appointed Peter head of the church and Father and teacher of all men. He does not say to them that he has already named him who will be head and greatest, does he? Neither does he demonstrate that Peter, by suggestion, in the name he had called him, is appointed and is obviously “maior” or “maximus,” does he? What is Jesus’ answer and what does it mean?

“And Jesus, calling unto him a little child, set him in the midst of them. And said: amen I say to you, unless you be converted, and become as little children, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater ["meizon," greater] in the kingdom of heaven. And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me. But he that shall scandalize one of these little ones that believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:2-6 Douay-Rheims

Jesus does not reply that Peter is greatest among either the Apostles and over his ekklesia or church; much less does he demonstrate that Peter stands in his place within the ekklesia. Jesus plainly states the answer to the question of who is reckoned and valued as maior, magnus, and maximus saying: “Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, he is the greater in the kingdom of heaven. And he that shall receive one such little child in my name, receiveth me.” This is Jesus’ answer. Where then is the preeminence of Peter, where is his “Papacy,” and where is the power of Peter as Head and Father upon this earth and, as you declare, “according to all fullness of ecclesiastical power”?

We are not taught to go to men for interpretations of the Words of Jesus Christ. We go to Jesus Christ for the understanding of all that he established and we read and receive his teaching. Shall we go to those who do not comprehend the answer that Jesus gave and give another answer of themselves that is openly contrary to that which Jesus established? The Apostles did not ask Jesus “who is greatest” after Jesus already established Peter as Head and Chief, did they? In fact, they are so utterly unaware that the name “Petros” and the word “tibi” established Peter as greatest or infallible head that they are arguing about who might be greatest and together they actually formulate the question, “Who … is the greater [“maior” Latin Vulgate “magnus, maximus”] in the kingdom of heaven?” Matthew 18:1 Douay-Rheims.

You argue that it is not to the twelve Apostles that Jesus addressed his words in Matthew 16:17—we agree. Yet here, in Matthew 18, it is to not only the Apostles but the broader group of “disciples” [“discipuli” Latin Vulgate] that Jesus addresses using the very word “vobis” against which you argue so carefully:

“At that hour the disciples [“discipuli” Latin Vulgate] came to Jesus … (Matthew 18:1) … Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." Matthew 18:18 Douay-Rheims

Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven." Matthew 18:18 Douay-Rheims

“amen dico vobis quaecumque alligaveritis super terram erunt ligata et in caelo et quaecumque solveritis super terram erunt soluta et in caelo,” Matthew 18:18 Latin Vulgate

Thus, the very thing against which you argue is the plain truth of the Gospel, for, as you note, “vobis” is the dative plural form of “you” so that it is rendered “unto you” or “unto yourselves,” and any Latin dictionary which is in-depth enough to show the multiple declensions of “tu” or “you” will indeed distinguish it from “tibi,” which is the dative form of the singular “you” or “yourself.”

Why should any of us, who have access to the teachings of Jesus Christ, turn aside to men who do not teach the things plainly spoken by Christ—will it save them or their hearers? And now also, you know what was referred to when you were asked whether you saw that although Jesus gave the keys to Peter in one place, he did so also to all his Apostles and disciples in another, conveying—as you argue—all the authority of those keys to them.

The original Greek reads just as the Latin translation of the Roman Church:

“amen [“truely”] lego [“I say”] humin [“unto you” plural, that is, “unto yourselves”: “humin” being the dative form of “humeis,” “yourselves”]” hosa ean [“whatsoever”] desete [“you shall bind”] epi tes ges [“upon the earth”] estai [“shall be”] dedemena [“having been bound”] en to ourano [“in the heavens”] kai [“and”] hosa ean [“whatsoever”] lusete [“you shall loose”] epi tes ges [“upon the earth”] estai [“shall be”] lelumena [“having been loosed”] en to ourano [“in the heavens”]," Matthew 18:18 Greek TR transliterated

The very proof that you set forward for the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is taken from you, because Jesus did indeed do what you insist that you have proved he did not do in extending the authority of the “keys” or of binding and loosing not only to all the Apostles but to the disciples at large. And he uses the very word that you say he did not use, namely “vobis,” to confer the authority of the keys—of binding and loosing—upon all his disciples. It is a mistake to go only to the verse which the Catholic Church gives you and to obediently think no further than that, not even considering the rest of the scriptures. In the original Greek the word “humin”, is the dative plural of “you”—the exact equivalent of “vobis” in the Latin. The Church Fathers, as we will show, confirm and speak of this, opposing the Church of Rome even before she has wrested such things from the Gospel message.

Jesus’ use of the word “tibi” in Matthew 16 proves no more than that Peter was indeed among those to whom the Word of the Gospel was entrusted, being one of the twelve Apostles and an eyewitness of the ministry and the glory of Jesus Christ. Peter was indeed a man appointed by God and given the “gift” of Apostleship, which is a gift even above the gift of prophecy (1 Corinthians 12:28). How this provides for any other person, even those who claim to be Peter’s successors to have the same “gift” of inspiration or Apostleship you have not even attempted to prove. If this man proclaimed the truth of the Gospel that Jesus first established, confirming Jesus’ Word or Gospel to us who would come later, how do you receive those who annul any portion of that Gospel? It is your salvation that is at stake, according to the Gospel itself: “How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation? Which, having begun to be declared by the Lord, was confirmed unto us by them that heard him.” Hebrews 2:3 Douay-Rheims. You must ask yourself if the Catholic priests confirm the Word of the Gospel or if they teach you to have faith in another gospel, even in a development of doctrine and interpretations that were not taught from the beginning. We believe every Word that Jesus spoke and established while he walked upon this earth and we believe that obedience to his Word is necessary, “For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead.” James 2:26 Douay-Rheims.

Do you not understand that the key of the kingdom of heaven is the Gospel itself and the Word of the Gospel is the very “seed" (“spora” 1 Peter 1:23 Greek) by which we are born again? The key of the kingdom of heaven is the Word of God delivered by his Son, Jesus Christ, to the Apostles whom God had given him for the task of confirming and publishing that Gospel to all the world. That Gospel, which they were entrusted with and set on fire to preach and to write with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they confirm as Christ’s Words to us also who are of the same Spirit—the Spirit bearing witness within us to the truth of their words—and this alone is the rock upon which we stand and upon which the church is built, for it is the doctrine of Christ even as he received it from God. This alone is “incorruptible”, for it is the Gospel which Jesus spoke and of which he said: “He that loveth me not keepeth not my words. And the word which you have heard is not mine; but the Father's who sent me.” John 14:24 Douay-Rheims. We were to learn and to know and to be obedient to Jesus’ Word because his Word is the same which the Father sent him to teach. It is the Word of God delivered by his Son, who is called “the Word” or “logos” (John 1:1). This is the key to the kingdom of heaven and the incorruptible petra upon which the church is built and against which nothing will prevail. Jesus plainly teaches you this in words not difficult to understand:

“And if any man hear my words and keep them not, I do not judge him for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that despiseth me [“qui spernit me” Latin Vulgate] and receiveth not my words [“et non accipit verba mea” Latin Vulgate] hath one that judgeth him. The word that I have spoken [“sermo quem locutus” (“the sermon/word/speech which I have spoken”) Latin Vulgate; “ho logos hon elalesa” Greek TR], the same shall judge him [“ekeinos krinei auton” Greek TR] in the last day.” John 12:47-48 Douay-Rheims.

All things will perish, in both the customs and traditions of men, with the titles that they take to themselves as Magisters and Teachers and Doctors and Fathers, but he who is eternal is he alone whose Word is alive and life-giving and the rock itself upon which the church is built, for it is an eternal Word against which nothing will prevail. Consider the words of Peter, whom you call your Pope, for Peter called all men to obedience to the Gospel alone by the preaching of which men are saved:

“Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but incorruptible, by the word of God who liveth and remaineth for ever. For all flesh is as grass and all the glory thereof as the flower of grass. The grass is withered and the flower thereof is fallen away. But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel hath been preached unto you.” 1 Peter 1:23-25 Douay-Rheims

You have, thus far, turned to your Magisters and Teachers for an understanding of the Words of Jesus and the Gospel, and it is their interpretations which you wish for others also to believe with you, but you are commanded yourself to know the Words of God and understand them. If you have heard them and do not understand them, how then will you say that you are indeed among the children of the light, for Jesus himself shows that it is those who hear and understand his Word that are the children of God and walk in the light. How will you understand unto salvation unless you read God’s Word and take his word to heart:

“Hear you therefore the parable of the sower. When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, there cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart … But he that received the seed upon good ground, is he that heareth the word, and understandeth, and beareth fruit …” Matthew 13:18-23 Douay-Rheims

You say that the primacy of Peter is established in the words of Jesus spoken to Peter and you establish your faith upon this because of the form of the word “tibi” and the known and ancient significance of the name “Petros,” so that you hold that in these two things Christ established an office of such extraordinary power as conferred a primacy of power upon Peter as the Rock upon which the church is built. These things of themselves prove him to be made head of the church and the Vicar of Christ standing, as it were, in the temple of God and in the place of God himself upon this earth. Why then, as we have shown you, does Jesus undeniably and plainly confer the same power upon a loose group of persons identified as “discipuli” Latin Vulgate in Matthew 18? This question you will have to answer, for, yet again, all of your proofs fail upon this verse alone, before we even examine history or the rest of the scriptures. So again we ask if, by the phrase, “et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam,” Jesus is said by you to have made Peter the Rock itself and he who holds the keys of the kingdom as of a singular privilege, how then does Jesus confer the very power of the keys upon the crowd of “discipuli” Latin Vulgate two chapters later in Matthew 18, using the very word that you say he did not use and that you boldly argue against, namely, “vobis” or “to you”?

Pelagius, Bishop of Rome in 560ad

Pelagius states the very thing which you argue against, showing also that his own “see,” however ancient and honored, is equal to the other “sees” or ”sedes” Latin original, the office of bishop, not of “Pope,” being itself the highest (“summa” Latin original) office of the ministry (“sacerdotii” Latin original):

“To whom in like manner as to him, who had received the keys, has the power of binding and loosing been granted? But for this reason he gave first to him alone, what he was about to give also to all, so that, according to the opinion of the blessed Cyprian the martyr … the church might be shown to be one.”

Pelagius, Epistle 26, “Adeone Te,” 560ad

We were to be taught of God—we were not left to derive our own interpretations of the words of Jesus Christ or to make of his words whatever we wish, nor yet, to allow men devoid of the Spirit to teach us what the Word of God means, who manifestly do not receive or understand it. Are you not taught of God according to the Word and the power of the New Covenant (Hebrews 8:8-11)? Because the word that Jesus uses of Peter’s “revelation” in Matthew 16:17 he also uses of all the children of God in another chapter of the same Gospel:

“Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed [“apekalupsen” Greek “disclosed”] it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to 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 16:16-17 Douay-Rheims

You want the revelation of the knowledge that Jesus is the Son of God given by God to Peter in Matthew 16 to be such a great and exceeding thing as to make him first and greatest and the revealer of all dogma and truth. Consider the word that Jesus uses here: it is “apokalupto” Greek, which means literally “to take the cover off, disclose, reveal.” Turn now to Matthew 11 and learn the meaning and significance of this word, because in Matthew 11 Jesus is upbraiding the unbelief of those who do not receive the message of the Gospel which God sent him to speak, and amidst his reproof he bursts into prayer to God saying:

“I confess [“exomologeo” Greek “confess, acknowledge, assent, agree fully”] to thee, O Father, Lord of Heaven and earth, because thou hast hid [“apekrupsas” Greek “concealed”] these things from the wise [“sophos” Greek; “sapientibus” Latin Vulgate] and prudent [“sunetos” Greek “sagacious”; “prudentibus” Latin Vulgate “skilled, sensible, experienced”], and hast revealed [“apekalupsas” Greek “disclosed”] them to little ones.” Matthew 11:25 Douay-Rheims

Consider the number of people who had confessed Jesus to be the Christ, the Son of the living God long before Peter: did not Nathanial recognize him as the Son of God when he met him? Did not John the Baptist leap for joy before he was born and preach him during his life? Did not the Canaanite woman and many others confess him to be the Son of David, which is to say, the promised Messiah? What of the wise men? What of Simeon and the prophetess Anna when he was brought to the temple? What of so many, many more that knew him for the Christ, the Son of God?

It is not Peter but the Gospel that he was entrusted to preach by inspiration greater than that of the prophets, the original teaching of Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ himself, the Rock and the cornerstone of our faith, which is the foundation of the church. It is Jesus Christ and his Gospel, not Peter, who is preached by the prophets and the Apostles alike:

“Now therefore you are no more strangers and foreigners: but you are fellow citizens with the saints and the domestics [“oikeios” Greek (from “oikos”, meaning, ”house”) “household”] of God, Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone: In whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord. In whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the Spirit,” Ephesians 2: 19-22 Douay-Rheims

Surely in your research you have read Paul’s epistles to the Corinthians—but why have you not believed:

“for other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus” 1 Corinthians 3:11 Douay-Rheims

And in your research did you never happen across the teaching of your own saints or delve into the sermons, the doctrine, and the history of the early church?

St Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354–430ad)

Augustine unhesitatingly explains the verse in Matthew 16 and records for us the opinion of the Apostolic Church and the faith of the Apostolic Fathers:

“Let us be saved by Him, let us walk in Him. This it is to ‘believe that Jesus is the Christ,’ as Christians believe, who are not Christians only in name, but in deeds and in life, not as the devils believe. For ‘the devils also believe and tremble,’ as the Scripture tells us. What more could the devils believe, than that they should say, ‘We know who thou art, the Son of God?’ What the devils said, the same said Peter also. When the Lord asked them who He was, and whom did men say that He was, the disciples made answer to Him, ‘Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.’ And this he heard from the Lord: ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.’ See what praises follow this faith. ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ What meaneth, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock,’ saith He, ‘I will build my Church.’”

Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. VII, Augustine, The Epistle of John, Homily X

And again:

“when the Lord Jesus Christ asked, whom men said that He was, and when the disciples gave the various opinions of men, and the Lord asked again and said, ‘But whom say ye that I am?’ Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ … Then said the Lord to Him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;’ I also say unto thee, ‘Thou art Peter.’’ … ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee.

For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.

… For then we shall not totter, then shall we be founded on the Rock.”

Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. VI, Augustine, Sermon XXVI

Why does Augustine, that great pillar of the early Catholic Church, the Cattolica, not show Peter as the Rock and show that Christ himself established him so? Why does he say nothing in defense of Peter the Rock? And why are you, as Augustine says, among those “who wish to be built upon men,” for you say that you are of Peter as of those in whom alone is hope of salvation for your communion with him who claims to be Peter’s successor, and you hold this to be the Apostolic faith practiced for several hundred years before the sermons here by Augustine. You want to teach others that anyone who is not in communion with him who stands in the place of Father upon this earth, the Pope, is outside the community of the saved: “We declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Unum Sanctum, Boniface VIII, 1302. If Paul and Augustine are of the true faith, then those whose doctrine has deviated from theirs cannot be. And if Augustine himself confesses the very faith of those today who are called Protestant and Christian—who cannot be made to confess that the ekklesia of Christ is founded upon men but upon Christ and the Word of the Gospel alone—and Augustine shows that this is his opinion and the opinion of the Catholic Christians as late as the 5th century—how do you explain that you have joined yourself to a church which has anathematized the Apostolic and true faith in favor of an interpretation which makes Peter himself the Rock upon which the church is built? Augustine does not teach that interpretation which became life itself to the Roman Catholics. He plainly and explicitly denies the interpretation which you hold as true and have been taught to believe is Apostolic and the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers.

But let us refer to another Saint and Doctor of the Catholic Church, John Chrysostom. Chrysostom, like Augustine, was a prolific preacher and writer. Six of the 42 volumes of what is commonly published of the Church Fathers are the homilies and expositions of John Chrysostom. In fact, he went through almost half of the New Testament verse by verse and expounded for us the beliefs and exhortations of the visible church in 400ad.

St John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople (349-407ad)

Chrysostom wrote the following in his Homilies on the Gospel of St Matthew:

“Seest thou how the Father reveals the Son, how the Son the Father? For ‘neither knoweth any man the Father,’ saith He, ‘save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him. It cannot therefore be that one should learn the Son of any other than of the Father; neither that one should learn the Father of any other than of the Son. So that even hereby, their sameness of honor and of substance is manifest.

What then saith Christ? ‘Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas. Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;’ all but saying, ‘As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father.’ Else it were superfluous to say, ‘Thou art Son of Jonas;’ but since he had said, ‘Son of God,’ to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, ‘And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;’ that is, on the faith of his confession.’”

Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. X, Chrysostom, Homily on Matthew, Homily LIV

If you cannot receive us or the correction which we offer you, will you receive correction from your own Doctors of the Church, Augustine and Chrysostom, who deny that faith which you place in the person and succession of Peter? And if you will not be corrected even by them, how do you answer for the fact that the very opinion expressed by Augustine and Chrysostom was later anathematized by the Roman Catholic Church? How is the faith and the explanation plainly and unequivocally stated by both Augustine and Chrysostom decried as heresy and even as a novel doctrine of the Reformation by those who claim that they alone are of the Apostolic faith? What the Catholic Church teaches you to recite as the “unanimous opinion of the Fathers” is not found among even the most outspoken Doctors and Magisters among the Catholic Christians of the 5th century.

That which was believed in the beginning—that Christ alone is head of the church and the Rock and foundation of our faith—was maintained throughout the Medieval era, not by the Roman Catholic Church, whose leaders and teachers, having not the Spirit and influence of God, and having long before modeled themselves after the world; but by the bible-believing Christians known as Waldenses, Gospelers, and Vaudois, and was brought to light, not by the Roman Catholic Church or her theologians, but by the Reformers of the Scholastic Era or High Middle Ages and the outspoken Protestants of the 16th century Reformation. Augustine teaches you the doctrine that we, not you, hold; for we cling to the testimony of Jesus Christ and we know that no one can lay any other foundation than that which was laid, which is Jesus Christ.

But we must look further and inquire where and at what time the interpretation of the verse in Matthew 16, which you hold, was first promulgated:

It was Stephen, Bishop of Rome, in about 250ad, who first ‘discovered’ and tried to promote this interpretation, wresting the words of Jesus, “and upon this rock I will build my church,” Matthew 16:18 Douay-Rheims, to indicate Peter himself, and thus, his own seat of power and authority, rather than the immovable truth upon which the church is founded, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God” Matthew 16:16 Douay-Rheims. This is recorded in the writings of the Church Fathers and it remains for us today to find and to know in confirmation of our faith and our hope in Christ himself.

Cyprian, a Saint of the Roman Catholic Church, carries on a conversation with Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea, regarding the new teaching promoted by Stephen, Bishop of Rome, in which Firmilian decried Stephen to Cyprian as being cut off from “God’s unity”. Then he goes on to say that Stephen, with all “heretics”, teaches many things that “no one is so foolish to believe that the apostles delivered.”

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. V, The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle LXXIV, Firmilian to Cyprian

Foolish? We were told, as Catholics, that the Apostles delivered to us through their successors, the very truth of the church in the Primacy of Rome, which was established when Jesus called Peter “the Rock.” And yet the Church Fathers witness of themselves that such things, when first proclaimed, were things that “no one is so foolish to believe that the apostles delivered.” We were made by the priests to place the very hope of our eternal salvation in the authority of the head of the church, he who is Father upon this earth, even as the church had at all times and in all places done. And we were made to recite the creed that states that we alone are of the true faith because our faith was the “unanimous opinion” of the Fathers and of the Apostolic Church, which it manifestly is not:

St Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (200-258ad)

In communicating with Cyprian regarding Stephen, Firmilian wrote that Stephen, like Judas, had, by his “audacity and pride,” been the cause of great benefit to the church by bringing churches so far separated by distance, into discussion regarding obedience in Christ. Firmilian agrees with Cyprian’s words regarding Stephen, for Cyprian had said that Stephen had in the manner of all “heretics” introduced “traditions against God long after the apostles, and after long lapse of time from them,” as some, he says, “who are called Cataphrygians, and endeavour to claim to themselves new prophecies”

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. V, The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle LXXIV, Firmilian to Cyprian

Firmilian adds:

“But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles … many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make … Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics, when he concedes to them … with respect to the refutation of custom which they seem to oppose to the truth, who is so foolish as to prefer custom to truth, or when he sees the light, not to forsake the darkness? … you Africans are able to say against Stephen, that when you knew the truth you forsook the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans' custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles”

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. V, The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle LXXIV, Firmilian to Cyprian

St Cyprian, referring to Stephen, Bishop of Rome, and his ‘party’ in Rome, says:

“but this these men are now doing who divide the church, and, as rebels against the peace and unity of Christ, attempt to establish a throne for themselves, and to assume the primacy … How can they complete what they do, or obtain anything by lawless endeavours from God … And, moreover, that it may be better understood what is the divine judgment against audacity of the like kind, we find that in such wickedness, not only the leaders and originators, but also the partakers, are destined to punishment, unless they have separated themselves from the communion of the wicked … That is to be wondered at, yea, rather to be indignant and aggrieved at, that Christians should support antichrists; and that prevaricators of the faith, and betrayers of the church, should stand within the church itself.”

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. V, The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle LXXV

Cyprian counsels that the only right course is to separate from the “communion of the wicked,” that is, from those at Rome who, “as rebels against the peace and unity of Christ, attempt to establish a throne for themselves, and to assume the primacy,” which was a thing “heretics” tried to establish among other “traditions against God long after the apostles, and after long lapse of time from them,” things which, at that time, “no one is so foolish to believe that the apostles delivered.”

Your message is that this primacy is from the Gospel and is a tradition held from the beginning, as established by Jesus Christ, so that none has a hope of salvation who separates himself from the primacy of Rome. You have before you the origin, the date, and the person through whom this heresy of a succession, a throne, and a primacy was first announced. And you have before you the unanimous opinion of the Church Fathers against—not in defense of—the “heresy” of the Bishop of Rome who thought to “announce” a succession and establish a throne and a primacy “long” after the Apostles. In fact, you have the witness of Augustine, Chrysostom, and Cyprian, pillars of the early church and of the budding Catholic faith. Both you and we know that this heresy seated itself over the next 400 years fully and firmly in what became the all powerful Catholic Church and faith.

Add to these the witness of Tertullian, another of the Apostolic writers and Church Fathers, who also attests to the general opinion of the early church as one of amazement at the self-elevation of the those who began first to call themselves after Peter that they might exercise authority over others:

Tertullian (145-240ad)

“I now inquire into your opinion, (to see) from what source you usurp this right to ‘the Church.’

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock will I build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?’ On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My Church;’ and, ‘I will give to thee the keys,’ not to the Church; and, ‘Whatsoever thou shall have loosed or bound,’ not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ's baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation … Moreover, in that dispute about the observance or non-observance of the Law, Peter was the first of all to be endued with the Spirit, and, after making preface touching the calling of the nations, to say, ‘And now why are ye tempting the Lord, concerning the imposition upon the brethren of a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to support? But however, through the grace of Jesus we believe that we shall be saved in the same way as they.’ This sentence both ‘loosed’ those parts of the law which were abandoned, and ‘bound’ those which were reserved. Hence the power of loosing and of binding committed to Peter had nothing to do with the capital sins of believers; and if the Lord had given him a precept that he must grant pardon to a brother sinning against him even ‘seventy times sevenfold,’ of course He would have commanded him to ‘bind’-that is, to ‘retain’ - nothing subsequently …

What, now, (has this to do) with the Church, and your (church) …? For, in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet. For the very Church itself is, properly and principally, the Spirit Himself … And thus, from that time forward, every number (of persons) who may have combined together into this faith is accounted ‘a Church,’ from the Author and Consecrator (of the Church). And accordingly ‘the Church,’ it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops.”

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV, Tertullian, On Modesty, Chapter XXI

The “gift,” Tertullian shows, is the “the keys of the heavenly kingdom,” given to Peter personally as one upon whom “the Church was reared.“ but the keys, he says, were not given to the church at large, “not to the Church,” that is, “not the Church which consists of a number of bishops.” For the keys are given to those men called prophets and Apostles, upon whom the church is founded, or “in accordance with the person of Peter, it is to spiritual men that this power will correspondently appertain, either to an apostle or else to a prophet.” This is a point blank denial that the successors of the early bishops were necessarily “spiritual men” or were ever thought of or received as “Apostles” or held to wield the power of the keys or of binding and loosing—a point absolutely necessary to Catholic faith. It is a denial that this “gift” passes by succession to others or was given to the church, or rather, the “bishops” of the church. It is not then a possession of any because he claims it today any more than it was the possession of those who first began to claim it in Tertullian’s day who “presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter.”

To clarify the situation, consider what another Church Father, Ignatius, said so that you may understand what was originally believed by the bishops about their own place and position in the early church. Ignatius, who lived during the same period as the Apostles, exhorts the church just before his martyrdom:

St Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (30-107ad)

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles of Jesus Christ”

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, Ignatius, The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, Ch IV

The successors of the early bishops were not considered “Apostles” neither did they claim to be—how then do you receive men today as bishops and Popes, believing that they are somehow also “Apostles” with power to bind and loose doctrine and sins? If we regard them such or allow them such power, we only embrace an error and a thing which was never taught in the Gospel or believed from the beginning. Do you not regard your own salvation in this? That which the Apostles and prophets and Jesus originally taught is itself the foundation of the church—the preaching of salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ. Any who do not embrace the Gospel or who teach another doctrine, are not to be received, not even if it is one of the Apostles themselves or an angel from heaven:

“I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another: only there are some that trouble you and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema” Galatians 1:6-9 Douay-Rheims

You see how we were not to deviate from the Gospel and you see how the Gospel is itself separate from the person of angels and Apostles.

Like the witness of Gregory the Great in 600ad (which we will momentarily show), the early church was not without witness against the arrogance of men who would establish themselves in a “primacy” and upon a “throne” of authority by wresting the meaning and the intention of the words of Jesus Christ. The Bishop of Rome was called a “rebel” and “antichrist” when he first sought to establish a “primacy” and a “throne” over the church universal and he was sited as one who, by this novel claim, was destroying the “unity” of the church: “but this these men are now doing who divide the church, and, as rebels against the peace and unity of Christ, attempt to establish a throne for themselves, and to assume the primacy”.

How does it come to be that you now believe that the “unity” of the church is established in the very claim to a “throne” and a “primacy” of power made by the Bishop of Rome, who was previously condemned as “antichrist” when he first sought to establish a “throne” and “primacy”? And how does that ‘party’ in Rome and the interpretation first condemned as “new prophecy,” at length become the only legitimate faith of those called “Catholic” Christians? Will you believe that the title “Father upon earth” and “Pope” is now the very “unity” of the church that is Christ’s?

It is not the Protestants who broke unity with Rome in the 16th century, but the Catholic sect of Christians of the early Medieval era who made use of Stephen’s novel interpretation of Matthew 16, who destroyed the unity of the Apostolic Church and severed their connections with it and with all who had in all places remained faithful to Christ. We reject the usurpation of power and authority which is the heritage of the Bishop of Rome and the Catholic Church, and we do so even as the church did when the claim was first made. As Cyprian teaches you, it is they “who divide the church, and, as rebels against the peace and unity of Christ, attempt to establish a throne for themselves, and to assume the primacy”, who are also antichrists and betrayers of the church. This is the work of the Bishop of Rome and all who continue to adhere to him—not those who were never a part of his church, including the Vaudois, or who have withdrawn from him, as we have.

You might refer to the decrees of the First Council of Nicea in 325ad to discover that the Emperor himself was at the helm, as a “Pope” or “Universal Bishop” did not yet exist even among the “Catholic” Christians. At this time an equal distribution of governing authority resided in all bishops alike, hence the outcry from the great bishops at the “announcement” of a primacy. This equality reigned for several centuries after Stephen’s “new revelation” or novel interpretation of Jesus’ words to Peter in Matthew 16. Authority in the church resided in the bishops collectively without any preeminence of power among them. The words “episkopos” means literally, “overseer,” and “presbuteros” means literally, “elder,” and these are the offices and appointments known and words used of the gifted “diakonos,” “ministers,” of the New Testament church, and this existed even among the Catholic sect, without rank or distinction and without any notion of preeminence among those who first held such offices.

Jerome, another Doctor and Saint of the Roman Catholic Church, shows the same in his writings. Jerome himself specifically denied the supremacy and rule of the Roman Church, whom he loved and honored dearly and knew well, but not as head or ruler of the Church:

St Jerome (340–420ad)

“The church at Rome is not to be considered as one thing and the rest of the churches throughout the world as another. Those of Gaul and Britain, Africa, Persia, and India, as well as the various barbarous nations, adore one Christ and observe a single rule of truth. If you are looking for authority, the world is surely greater than the city of Rome. Wherever there is a bishop, whether at Rome or Eugubium, at Constantinople, Rhegium, or Alexandria, his rank and priesthood are the same. Neither the power that riches bring nor the humility of poverty makes a bishop higher or lower in rank. All are successors of the apostles. … Why urge the custom of a single city?”

Hendrickson, Readings in European History, Vol 1

Jerome knew no more than the equitable distribution of government within the church in the office and authority of the bishops. These men had begun to be called “Fathers” at this time, even against the express complaint of Jerome. But Jerome lived at the time when the Roman party first began to express a desire to capitalize on the fame and honor it had already attained by claiming to be the church founded by Peter. Some supported and others, such as Jerome, demurred, showing Peter to be honored and even he who would strengthen others, while yet explicitly declaring even the same which the Gospel plainly teaches, that all are equal in Jesus Christ and that the keys of the kingdom were delivered to all the disciples:

Jerome argues:

“But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike.”

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. VI, Jerome, Against Jovinianus, Book I

The fact that the church was ruled by the bishops together and that no such person as a “Pope” or “Universal Bishop” existed in the church or over the church is witnessed in all writings prior to 600ad. To this even an honest Catholic Apologist will admit – refer for example to Jurgens, who has published translations of excerpts of the Church Fathers, and who himself shows that such titles as “Pontiff,” “Pope” and “Universal Bishop” appear—not at first—but much later in the development of that which became Catholicism.

But I do not need the Catholic apologist’s admission of this for proof. We all have access to the original writings and documents of the early church so that I may, for example, refer directly to Gregory the Great to expose the apostasy of the Catholic Christians in the course by which the Bishop of Rome is elevated to an actual and real primacy of power and rule over the church. In fact, before 600ad all church councils, all theologians, all personal letters and ecclesiastical epistles, all histories, and all that exists of the Roman Empire itself, even all things that might be brought forth from that era, divulge only that the Catholic sect of professed Christians had turned aside into heresy from the faith once delivered by Jesus Christ: it is they who desired and sought power and authority and rule over their brethren, even over the consciences of all men, who also attained a “throne” and a “primacy”. It is the Catholic Christians who began to promote themselves as rulers and judges over the church, where from the beginning we were taught by Christ that none was head but Christ, and none lawgiver or judge but God. History divulges to you and to all men that not Christ but the Roman Emperors elevated and empowered the Catholic sect and the Catholic Bishops to a real position of power over doctrine, tradition, men and their consciences. This fact should not be hidden from you, especially in the research that you have done.

You also know that Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world” John 18:36 Douay-Rheims. You, however, promote the Roman Catholic Church as the very kingdom itself of Christ upon this earth and the Pope as he who stands in the very place of Christ. The Catholics had no “Pope” or “Universal Bishop” either from the beginning or for the first 600 years of the Christian era. From the fourth century, the Roman Emperor acted as mediator and keeper of peace and unity among the Catholic Bishops who began an accelerated rise to power from that time. It is only in the late 4th century that Emperor Theodosius decrees that all peoples will abstain from all opinions other than those held by the “Catholic” Bishops—there being no “Pope” to refer to among them:

Theodosius

“It is our desire that all the various nations which are subject to our clemency and moderation, should continue to the profession of that religion which was delivered to the Romans by the divine Apostle Peter, as it has been preserved by faithful tradition and which is now professed by the Pontiff Damasus and by Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the apostolic teaching and the doctrine of the Gospel, let us believe in the one deity of the father, Son and Holy Spirit, in equal majesty and in a holy Trinity.

We authorize the followers of this law to assume the title Catholic Christians [“Hanc legem sequentes christianorum catholicorum nomen iubemus amplecti” transliterated: “this law the followers christians catholic the name appointed to embrace”]; but as for the others, since in our judgment they are foolish madmen [“dementes”], we decree that they shall be branded with the ignominious name of heretics, and shall not presume to give their conventicles the name of churches. They will suffer in the first place the chastisement of divine condemnation and the second the punishment of our authority, in accordance with the will of heaven shall decide to inflict.”

Theodosian Code, XVI.I.2

The right to do business, own property or write a will is taken from all who are declared “heretics” from the “Catholic” form of Christianity from this time:

“It is necessary that the privileges which are bestowed for the cultivation of religion should be given only to followers of the Catholic faith [“legis” Latin “law, principles, statutes”]. We desire that heretics and schismatics be not only kept from these privileges, but be subjected to various fines [“muneribus”].”

Theodosian Code, XVI.V.1

It was more than 200 years after Theodosius made “Catholic” Christianity the only legal religion of the Roman Empire that St Gregory the Great denied the title of “Universal Bishop” as “new” and “wicked,” identifying anyone who would assume such a title as the “harbinger of antichrist.” Gregory the Great believed and most certainly held that the Bishop of Rome was a man of great and distinguished authority, even holding a primacy of great honor due to a claim to the See or ‘Seat’ of Peter, yet a man who may not only change his mind but may speak one thing and a better thing may be shown against him. Gregory did not leave this earth without writing his mind and thoughts and his writings may be freely read, so that no person who is seeking the truth may not at least stumble across it and discover the truth of such claims and titles as “Universal Bishop.”

It is Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, who himself teaches you that if authority resided in one man as “Universal Bishop” and that man were to err, then the whole church will be compelled into error. He is utterly ignorant of the primacy, the history of the church, and the universality and infallibility of his own bishopric, succession, primacy, and throne:

St Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome (540–604ad)

“the proud and pestiferous title of oecumenical, that is to say, universal” is deserving of the “most severe rebuke.” He applauded wholeheartedly those who warned all persons from “that new and temerarious name of superstition” and decried those who would bring “so great a wickedness” as “that name of pride” into the church.

Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol XIII, Gregory the Great, Epistle LXVIII, To Eusebius of Thessalonica

“Pope” St Gregory the Great teaches you himself that the title “Universal Bishop” or “Ecumenical Bishop” was “new” even among the Catholic Christians in 600ad—almost 600 years after Christ:

“as we see, now that the end of this world is near at hand, that the enemy of the human race has already appeared in his harbingers, so as to have as his precursors, through this title of pride, the very priests who ought to have opposed him by living well and humbly, I exhort and entreat that not one of you ever accept this name, that not one consent to it, that not one write it, that not one admit it wherever it may have been written, or add his subscription to it; but, as becomes ministers of Almighty God, that each keep himself from this kind of poisoned infection, and give no place to the cunning lier-in-wait, since this thing is being done to the injury and rendering asunder of the whole Church, and, as we have said, to the contemning of all of you. For if one, as he supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops. … we once more admonish you before God and His Saints, that you observe all these things with the utmost attention, and with the entire bent of your minds.”

Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol XIII, Gregory the Great, Epistle LXVIII, To Eusebius of Thessalonica

Why should you attempt to teach, at the prompting of the Catholic priests, that Peter was “Universal Bishop,” much less, “the first Pope” or “Father” upon the earth, much less, the “Rock” itself upon which the church was built, as being a throne of supreme power or a “potestatis plentitudo,” and much less “Vicar of Christ,” when St Cyprian in the 3rd century, with St Chrysostom, St Augustine and St Jerome in the 5th century, and St Gregory the Great in the 7th century—all Church Fathers, Saints and Doctors of the Roman Catholic Church—plainly address every aspect of that heresy which allowed the Bishop of Rome to slowly and steadily rise to power and to a primacy over all others? It is not until after 600ad that a “Pope” and “Universal Bishop” is found among even the Catholic Christians. Do you believe St Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, “Pope,” “Universal Bishop” and infallible head of the church? How is he who denied such titles also made the bearer of the same titles? You are bound by creed to confess St Gregory the Great as a true “Pope” even against his own teaching and exhortation, and history itself. Why? What lie or what myth or what fable is of the truth?

“THE PRIMACY” of the CHURCH

You are face to face with a myth called the “Primacy of Peter” and the “Papacy”—and may God open your eyes that you may receive and understand the truth of the Gospel against the interpretations of those who have made themselves “Fathers” upon this earth against the express command of Jesus Christ (Matthew 23:9-10). Because the Gospel does indeed mention a “primacy” and a preeminence and that, in him alone who is our salvation himself - Jesus Christ:

“And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he may hold the primacy [“proteuon” Greek “first place, preeminence”; “primatum” Latin Vulgate rendered, “peeminence” in 3 John 1:9 in the Douay-Rheims]: Because in him, it hath well pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell: And through him to reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth and the things that are in heaven.” Colossians 1: 18 Douay-Rheims

Study carefully why the “primacy” and the preeminence belong to Christ alone:

It is Jesus Christ alone “who is the beginning.”

It is Christ alone “who is … the firstborn from the dead.”

And to what end is he made by God all these things?

“That” he who alone is from the beginning and firstborn from the dead, “may hold the primacy.”

And why—as if these were not enough to show that Christ alone is head and teacher of the church?

“Because” in him alone it pleased the Father “that all fulness should dwell.” And that through Christ alone did God “reconcile all things unto himself, making peace through the blood of his cross.”

Did Peter die for you or was he crucified to reconcile you to God? All the scriptures show you what Paul says plainly: that no man was given for your redemption but Christ alone, for it “pleased” God “through him to reconcile all things unto himself.” And because he was worthy, he was appointed, and he died and was resurrected, it is he who has a singular primacy and power. So we ask you again with the Apostle Paul:

“Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I am of Apollo; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul then crucified for you?” 1 Corinthians 1:12-13 Douay-Rheims

Neither is any baptized in the name of Paul or of Peter or any man, but of Christ—even you agree to this. Because in Christ alone is the fullness of power and grace and in him alone is the Spirit, the Wisdom, and the Word of God. How then will you found yourselves upon men and not upon the Rock that is eternal, which is the Word of God:

“For, whereas there is among you envying and contention, are you not carnal and walk you not according to man? For while one saith: I indeed am of Paul: and another: I am of Apollo: are you not men? What then is Apollo and what is Paul? The ministers of him whom you have believed: and to every one as the Lord hath given. I have planted, Apollo watered: but God gave the increase. Therefore, neither he that planteth is any thing, nor he that watereth: but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth, are one. And every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour. For we are God's coadjutors. You are God's husbandry: you are God's building. According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation: and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon. For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus.” 1 Corinthians 3:3-11 Douay-Rheims

Jesus holds the primacy and preeminence and no other can—this is plainly taught by the Apostles themselves. We are taught just as plainly that all hope or expectation of a primacy among the Apostles, even the notion itself of a “first place” or “preeminence” or “primacy” among the Apostles is hope misplaced, for Christ himself cut off all such hope in an open rebuke to the very Apostles whom you wish to promote under the guise of the Catholic priests and prelates:

“And they came to Capharnaum. And when they were in the house, he asked them: What did you treat of in the way? But they held their peace, for in the way they had disputed among themselves, which of them should be the greatest [“meidzon” Greek “greater, stronger, elder”; “maior” Latin Vulgate “magnus, maximus: great, powerful”]. And sitting down, he called the twelve and saith to them: ei [“if”] tis [“any”] thelei [“wills, desires”] protos [“first”] einai [“to be”] (he, that one) estai [“shall be”] panton [“of all”] eschatos [“last”] kai [“and”] panton [“of all”] diakonos [“minister, servant, deacon”]. And taking a child, he set him in the midst of them. Whom when he had embraced, he saith to them: Whosoever shall receive one such child as this in my name receiveth me. And whosoever shall receive me receiveth not me but him that sent me.” Mark 9:33-37 Douay-Rheims

The Apostles were too ashamed, having disputed—“dialegomai“Greek ;“disputaverant” Latin Vulgate—among themselves “which of them should be the greatest”—“maior” or “magnus”—to even repeat the matter to Jesus. And Jesus does not do as you do, pressing Peter forward as the “greatest“ or “maximus” or head among them or over us: this he denies altogether and shows the truth of God in a little child. Far from calling attention to Peter as chosen head, “Father” upon this earth or “Pope,” or him who holds “first place” or a “primacy” or a “throne” or “preeminence,” or demonstrating that he had already conferred upon Peter, according to your interpretation, the title of “Rock” and “Prince of the Apostles,” Jesus shows that anyone who receives even a child in his name, that is, a child who knows the Gospel, receives Jesus and the Father who sent him, and whoever will be first must be last. If then we receive “one such child” in Jesus’ name, who believes in Jesus Christ, it is Christ and the Father whom we have received. What then is it to us who are Christian to receive and to honor men who wear rich vestments and golden tiaras of their own making, seat themselves upon thrones which Christ did not set up, live in palaces that Jesus did not build, have provided an earthly kingdom for themselves from which they rule over their brethren, and deny that it is the Gospel of Jesus Christ that is the “Rock” and the eternal Word by which all men, even they, shall in that day be judged? Such men honor themselves but Christ they do not honor; but to even “receive one of such children” who believes in Jesus’ name redounds to the glory of the Son and of the Father who himself teaches all that are his a minore ad maiorem eorum (from the least to the greatest of them), even according to the promise of the New Covenant:

“And they shall not teach [“docebit” Latin Vulgate ”explain, teach”] every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying: Know the Lord [“cognosce Dominum” Latin Vulgate]. For all shall know me [“quoniam omnes scient me” Latin Vulgate], from the least [“minore” Latin Vulgate] to the greatest [“maiorem” Latin Vulgate] of them. Because I will be merciful to their iniquities: and their sins I will remember no more.” Hebrews 8:10-12 Douay-Rheims

Who then is “greatest“ or ”maior”? Jesus gave the answer to the “dispute” several times in the Gospel: why do you dispute with us today regarding who is “greatest“ or “maior” or “maximus,“ and why do you give the answer which Paul, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 3:3-11), shows that natural or carnal men give? Why do you not show the plain answer that Jesus gave? Jesus showed the proof in one little child who believes in him and this he did against all such exaltation of men and glorying in men. You must discover for yourself then how and at what time the “Catholic” Christians developed their doctrine so far from the teaching of Christ as to establish a “Primacy” upon the Apostle Peter which Peter never knew or exercised and which even “Pope” St Gregory the Great in 600ad shows was not yet even his office, who did not even exercise the power of “Universal Bishop” over the church much less a fullness of power or preeminence or primacy over all men, even the kings of the earth, as that which only the Medieval Popes did at length establish.

But hear also the words of another of the Church Fathers, St Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, who wrote before Tertullian or Cyprian or Stephen or Augustine or Gregory the Great, and centuries before the Catholic Christians began to deflect every blow of scriptural truth by claiming for themselves a secret and hidden tradition delivered hand-to-hand by the Bishops as the “living voice” of the church:

St Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon (120-202ad)

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

If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics. …

When, however, they [the heretics] are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce … It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to ‘the perfect’ apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. …

Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God, pointing out that our Lord Jesus Christ is the truth, and that no lie is in Him.”

Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol I, Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III, Ch I-V

If anyone “do not agree to these truths,” he says, “he despises the companions of the Lord; nay more, he despises Christ Himself the Lord; yea, he despises the Father also, and stands self-condemned, resisting and opposing his own salvation, as is the case with all heretics.” Do you believe for a moment that Peter and Paul were not subject themselves to Christ and the Gospel which he taught? How then do men who claim to be their successors also interpret Christ’s words in a manner which the Apostles and the Apostolic Church never held or even knew? You want the church itself in its presbytery to be the foundation upon which you may rest, thinking that you stand, but all men were warned by the Apostle Paul himself regarding the presbytery of the church:

“I know that after my departure ravening wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. And of your own selves shall arise men speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.” Acts 20:29-30 Douay-Rheims

Jesus also himself said:

“I know thy works and thy labour and thy patience and how thou canst not bear them that are evil. And thou hast tried them who say they are Apostles and are not: and hast found them liars” Revelations2:2 Douay-Rheims

Have you, according to the Word of Jesus Christ, tested those who say they are Apostles? If you confess that the Gospel is an unchangeable and eternal Gospel, even the very Word by which we all will be judged (“He that despiseth me and receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him. The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.” John 12:48 Douay-Rheims), why do you not follow the commandment of God, “not in bread alone doth man live, but in every word that proceedeth from the mouth of God.” Deuteronomy 8:3 Douay-Rheims?

How are you a member of a church that teaches that it may interpret the Word of Christ even against the express command or meaning given by Christ? Does the church which is Christ’s teach that Christ is not to be obeyed or that the people cannot understand the Word of Christ because they are “least” and must be taught by those who are “greatest”? In this you freely choose to depart from that spoken by Jesus. If you hear the Word of Christ and live in defiance to it, as, for example, to name men “Fathers” and “Magisters” and “Doctors” over you, will you ask others to walk with you against the plain teaching of Christ, as if disobedience was reckoned as obedience to you? The church that is Christ’s is subject to the Word of Christ.

Consider and change your heart, for you have subjected yourselves to mere men and those whom the Church Fathers identified as heretics, rebels and antichrists from the moment that they arose in the church, and it is their interpretations that you follow—the very thing that you have been taught to accuse us of. It is Jesus who commanded, centuries before men began to confer the title of “Father” and “Pope” and “Magister” and “Doctor” and “Universal Bishop” upon one another that they might rule the flock and suppress the truth:

“vos autem nolite vocari rabbi unus enim est magister vester omnes autem vos fratres estis. et patrem nolite vocare vobis super terram unus enim est Pater vester qui in caelis est. nec vocemini magistri quia magister vester unus est Christus” Matthew 23: 8-10 Latin Vulgate

"you however, refuse to be called (or “call, or name”) rabbi for one is teacher yours, while you all brothers are, and father refuse to be called (or “call, or name”) yours on earth for one is father yours who in heaven is. Neither be called (or “call, or name”) magister (teacher) because magister (teacher) yours one is Christ” Matthew 23: 8-10 Latin Vulgate Dictionary

Men who take such titles and bestow upon one another such offices were said from the beginning to introduce “traditions against God long after the apostles, and after long lapse of time from them.” Will you stand with those who from the beginning were called “betrayers” and “antichrists” of whom it was said, “but this these men are now doing who divide the church, and, as rebels against the peace and unity of Christ, attempt to establish a throne for themselves, and to assume the primacy”? Or will you come out from among them even as Cyprian counseled so that you might not be a partaker in their sins? Will you believe that “the primacy,” which the Bishop of Rome went on to establish, has become the very “unity” of the church that is Christ’s? Will you believe that the title “Father upon the earth” and “Pope” has, since men were forced to use it, become the very “unity” of the church that is Christ’s?

Remember the words of St Cyprian, referring to Stephen, Bishop of Rome when this bishop first began to exalt his position as a seat of authority over others:

“but this these men are now doing who divide the church, and, as rebels against the peace and unity of Christ, attempt to establish a throne for themselves, and to assume the primacy … How can they complete what they do, or obtain anything by lawless endeavours from God … And, moreover, that it may be better understood what is the divine judgment against audacity of the like kind, we find that in such wickedness, not only the leaders and originators, but also the partakers, are destined to punishment , unless they have separated themselves from the communion of the wicked … That is to be wondered at, yea, rather to be indignant and aggrieved at, that Christians should support antichrists; and that prevaricators of the faith, and betrayers of the church, should stand within the church itself.”

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. V, The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle LXXV

And remember the words of St Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome (540–604ad):

“as we see, now that the end of this world is near at hand, that the enemy of the human race has already appeared in his harbingers, so as to have as his precursors, through this title of pride, the very priests who ought to have opposed him by living well and humbly, I exhort and entreat that not one of you ever accept this name, that not one consent to it, that not one write it, that not one admit it wherever it may have been written, or add his subscription to it; but, as becomes ministers of Almighty God, that each keep himself from this kind of poisoned infection, and give no place to the cunning lier-in-wait, since this thing is being done to the injury and rendering asunder of the whole Church, and, as we have said, to the contemning of all of you. For if one, as he supposes, is universal bishop, it remains that you are not bishops. … we once more admonish you before God and His Saints, that you observe all these things with the utmost attention, and with the entire bent of your minds.”

Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol XIII, Gregory the Great, Epistle LXVIII, To Eusebius of Thessalonica

And meditate upon the words of Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354–430ad), who unhesitatingly explains the verse in Matthew 16:

“What meaneth, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock,’ saith He, ‘I will build my Church.’”

Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. VII, Augustine, The Epistle of John, Homily X

“For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ … was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.

… For then we shall not totter, then shall we be founded on the Rock”

Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, Series I, Vol. VI, Augustine, Sermon XXVI

And above all consider the words of Jesus Christ who commanded that you not so much as name anyone “Father” or “Pope” or “patrem vobis super terram” (“your father upon earth), for if you had been obedient to this one commandment, you would not have received those who made themselves “Fathers,” “Popes,” “Magisters,” or the “magisterium of the church,” or “Doctors” of the church as those whose learning and anointing is exalted, but you would comprehend with all who believe Christ, that we are all brethren. The Pope’s dogma and laws and power rest entirely upon the authority he wields as “the Rock” and as the Head and “Father upon earth,” and his doctrines stand or fall utterly according to the veracity of this claim … but we know the Word of God and the mind of Christ:

“And call none your father [“patrem” Latin Vulgate “Pater, Father”] upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters [“magistri” Latin Vulgate “teachers”]: for one is your master [“magister” Latin Vulgate “Magister, Teacher”], Christ” Matthew 23:9-10 Douay-Rheims

Why have you been willing—of your own free-will—to disobey Christ and to call men your “Fathers upon earth,” even naming one “Pope” as supreme among all the Fathers? And why are you willing to call the priests of the Roman Church the “teaching magisterium” of the ekklesia? Why are you taught to call disobedience to Christ “faith”? Why are you not taught to fear disobedience to Christ and to God who will judge you—not according to the doctrines of men called “Fathers,” but according to the Word first spoken by Jesus?

Jesus told you and me and every child born into this world to name no man our “Father upon earth.” Why do you think he said this? Did he not say this to us lest we despise the Word of our Father who is in heaven and refuse to read his Word or to learn his Word or to live by every Word of God? Lest we begin to follow men into error. Lest we, having learned the respect due to our own fathers according to the flesh, then also lend to men the respect that is due to God alone who is our heavenly Father, so that under a pretense of authority over us they take advantage of us, make merchandise of us (2 Peter 2:3), and lead us freely into error. Lest we allow men, by the titles of ”Magister“ and ”Father,” to exercise power over us even in contradiction to God who alone is our Father and Christ who alone is our Magister. This name of “Father” is God’s name and we are taught the meaning of it through the example of our own fleshly existence while we are children under our own fathers who care and nurture and instruct us according to the flesh.

Why should you refuse the knowledge of God and why should you not even know the Gospel so that no one can teach you to repeat error against it? Jesus died for your sins, even “all offenses” (Colossians 2:13), and God chose to save us through the “foolishness of preaching” 1 Corinthians 1:21 Douay-Rheims, which God ordained by his own will even before the world began:

“qui nos liberavit [“who us freed, acquitted, liberated”] et vocavit [“and called”] vocatione sancta [“to (a) calling holy”] non secundum opera nostra [“not according to work, service, effort ours”] sed secundum propositum suum [“but according to intention, purpose, design, decree his”] et gratiam [“and grace”] quae data est nobis [“which given was to us”] in Christo Iesu [“in Christ Jesus”] ante tempora saecularia [“before time of (the) world”]” 2 Timothy 1:9 Latin Vulgate

It is not the teachings and dogmas of those who style themselves Popes and Fathers that will judge you or me on the last day, but that Word which was established before the foundation of the world—the Gospel which Jesus preached—and by his Word we will all be judged according to the very manner in which Jesus first delivered it:

“He that despiseth me and receiveth not my words hath one that judgeth him. The word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself: but the Father who sent me, he gave me commandment what I should say and what I should speak. And I know that his commandment is life everlasting. The things therefore that I speak, even as the Father said unto me, so do I speak” John 12:48-50 Douay-Rheims