See our playlist “Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary” at http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715 with 170 videos. Larry Wessels, director of Christian Answers of Austin, Texas (YouTube channel: CANSWERSTV at http://www.youtube.com/user/CAnswersTV, see our playlist “Early Church History” at http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9931642C7C8FFEAB&feature=plcp; websites http://www.BIBLEQUERY.ORG, http://www.HISTORYCART.COM & http://www.MUSLIMHOPE.COM) presents his ministry’s radio broadcast entitled, “Christian Answers Live!” hosted by Lee Meckley. The featured guest in this broadcast is former Roman Catholic William Webster. Mr. Webster is author of the books, “The Church of Rome at the Bar of History,” “The Christian: Following Christ as Lord,” “Salvation, The Bible, & Roman Catholicism” & various articles including “Why Scripture & the Facts of History Compel Me, A Former Roman Catholic, to Remain a Committed Evangelical Protestant – A Response to Francis Beckwith’s ‘Return to Rome.'” Mr. Webster is founder & director of CHRISTIAN RESOURCES (website: http://www.CHRISTIANTRUTH.COM).
Numerous Romanist apologists such as Karl Keating, Scott Hahn, Robert Sungenis, Gerry Mataticks & others make a big issue out of the supposed fact that early Christian church history supports their claim that the Roman Church & its Universal Pope are true institutions of Christianity & therefore must be followed as with Christ Himself. Is this Romanist argument true? Do the early Christian church fathers establish the Pope & the Roman Church as the only true Christian Church on the face of the earth? The facts of history prove the Romanist claims to be false. Just as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, New Agers, Campbellites, & a host of other religious movements try to lay claim to Jesus Christ through their invented “histories” the Romanists do the same. This radio program, along with Webster’s well documented book, prove from the early Church fathers & Romanist history itself, that Papist claims & doctrines are a fraud. The testimonies of the early church such as “The Didache,” Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Athanasius, Augustine, Origen, Eusebius, Chrysostom, Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, etc. (see our website http://www.HISTORYCART.COM also), clearly stand in stark contrast to Romanist heresies such as “The Council of Trent,” “Vatican 1,” “Vatican 2,” & Marian Dogmas making the Virgin Mary the “Queen of Heaven & Co-Redemptrix.” The Roman Catholic Church is nothing more than a man-made apostate organization putting tradition over Scripture & thus masquerading as a historic, Biblical church.
Those wishing to see more videos on numerous theological subjects can go to YOUTUBE OR VIMEO VIDEO (type “LARRY WESSELS” in their respective homepage search boxes). Viewers can also find our 16 hour detailed series on Roman Catholicism with former Catholic Rob Zins, Th.M. Dallas Theological Seminary (program #1 is entitled, “NOT REAL CHRISTIANITY BUT OLD TESTAMENT JUDAISM IN DISGUISE”) there.

source

20 Replies to “EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH HISTORY PROVES ROMAN CATHOLICISM FALSE”

  1. A free transcript of this video "EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH HISTORY PROVES ROMAN CATHOLICISM FALSE" is available at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=113161415591. Click on this link & once there scroll down until you see "Sermon Transcription" & then click on the "View Transcript" which is available in multiple languages. William Webster's outstanding book "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History" is available at http://www.CHRISTIANTRUTH.COM or at http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_30/190-7574406-7898107?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+church+of+rome+at+the+bar+of+history&sprefix=the+church+of+rome+at+the+bar+%2Caps%2C177. More of William Webster's lectures on Roman Catholic history & tradition can be found at http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?sortby=added&sourceonly=true&currSection=sermonssource&keyword=gracebiblebg&subsetcat=series&subsetitem=Roman+Catholic+Tradition. See also our playlist "Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary" with 137 videos & counting at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715. 2 Timothy 2:15.

  2. well I came up in a catholic environment and catholic school it's antichrist ..catholics andre oblivious to the regeneration and being bornagain….they are mostly into beer and bars and sports idolotry and don't even know what catholic is…

  3. Does the Roman Catholic religion really have a 2000 year old history as Roman Catholics constantly argue for? Again & again Romanists argue that their Roman church organization & its hierarchy go back to "Pope" Peter in the first century. Our Director of Research Steve Morrison (webmaster for http://www.historycart.com/ – which deals with early Christian church history; http://www.biblequery.org/ – which answers over 8500 Bible questions, & http://www.muslimhope.com/ – which refutes the false religion of Islam created by Muhammad) has the following reply for Roman Catholics who make the ridiculous "2000 year" claim: "Hi, Just a little correction here. It was said, "Yet only the Catholic Church and its 2000 year history can match."
    There was no Roman Catholic church back then. The first person to be called a "Pope" was Heraclas of Alexandria (236-249 A.D.). The Copts trace their popes from him, not Roman Catholics.

    The first Roman bishop to be called a Pope was Siricius (c.384-399 A.D.), after Nicea. So the Copts have prior claim to a pope, not Roman Catholics. A Roman Catholic today cannot consider the Copts as non-Christians, since the Roman Catholic church in more recent times has restored communion with the Coptic church.

    Furthermore the Greek Orthodox church, which orthodox people would argue goes back father than the Roman Catholic church, never needed a pope. The 325 A.D. Council of Nicea established four "central" metropolitan churches, not one. So if you accept the tradition of the church councils, then by church tradition Rome is NOT the center of the church. The orthodox church did not "break away" from the Roman Catholic church; both churches excommunicated each other.

    So if you are a Roman Catholic who wants to follow the truth, you must stop saying things like "Yet only the Catholic Church and its 2000 year history can match" because it is a provable, historical lie, as any Greek Orthodox or Copt will strenuously tell you.

    As Protestants, we want to go back to the Bible, not man-made organizations with their brutal massacres, papal assassinations, anti-popes, forced deposition of popes, a pope tried for heresy after his death, torture and inquisitions, burning their own "saint" at the stake, etc. But that is not my main point here.

    My main point is that if a Roman Catholic brings up "Yet only the Catholic Church and its 2000 year history can match," once they have been shown that it is provably false, they have to now stop saying that, or else they have disqualified yourselves as someone who cares about the truth. "

    For more on the subject of early church history as it pertains to Roman Catholicism see Steve Morrison's 18 part church history video series on YouTube – some of the titles from that series are "EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH HISTORY #3: EARLY CHRISTIANS QUOTED SCRIPTURE WITHOUT A ROMANIST OR KJV BIBLE" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVDOyok6nLo&index=27&list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715, "EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH HISTORY #11: BIBLE IS HISTORICALLY RELIABLE BUT NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC TRADITIONS" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUvINqo-nv8&index=28&list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715, "EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH HISTORY #14: PRE-NICENE (325 A.D.) CHURCH WAS NOT A ROMAN CATHOLIC SYSTEM" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Y2dDQmstZg&list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715&index=83, "EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH HISTORY #15: THERE WAS NO POPE OR CARDINALS; DID HAVE SEX & MONEY RULES" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pawgv6qeQ8U&index=84&list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715 & "EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH HISTORY #16: GOVERNMENT & RULERS; ROMAN CATHOLICISM VEILS TRUE GOSPEL" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15YKczpo2Q8&index=85&list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715. Particularly see Steve's website http://www.HistoryCart.com. Other videos we have on early church history and Roman Catholicism are: "EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH HISTORY PROVES ROMAN CATHOLICISM FALSE" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP9jg2h3xjQ&index=11&list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715, "HISTORICAL SPLIT BETWEEN ROMAN CATHOLICISM & THE CHRIST OF THE SCRIPTURE: MAN'S WORD OR GOD'S WORD?" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUt7rC6a_3s&index=4&list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715, "THE ORIGINAL EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH WAS NOT A ROMAN CATHOLIC SYSTEM OF SALVATION" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ujbtVmZ5wes&index=26&list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715, "Vatican System: List of Murdered Popes, 75 Popes Approved Torture, Murder, Burning at the Stake" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsfuajeJJ_M&list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715&index=134. Further references: http://www.christiantruth.com/, http://www.bereanbeacon.org/ &

    http://www.cwrc-rz.org/. See also our playlist "Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary" with 145 videos and counting at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715.

    2 Timothy 4: 2-5, "Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

    4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.

    5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry."

  4. The apostles traditions would not contradict what they had already written to the churches. Saying that the apostles gave them traditions which contradict the apostles own words is just nonsensical. And yet that is exactly what the Catholic church tries to do. Their official teachings CONTRADICT clear teachings of the Apostles. What? Are they trying to convince us that Jesus and the Apostles had secret teachings that contradict the scriptures like the gnostics do? Ridiculous. If that were the case then the whole idea that Jesus was Messiah would be ludicrous. But He IS Messiah, and the Apostles would not contradict the teachings they had already given and the teachings of Jesus Christ Himself.

    ""Whosoever therefore shall confess (speak in agreement with/assent to) me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. But whosoever shall deny (contradict, be in opposition to) me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven."…….Matthew 10:32

    Confess: Greek word= homologeo:
    to Speak the SAME with. To be in AGREEMENT with

    Deny: Greek word = arneomai: to CONTRADICT,
    to speak in opposition to what He says & who He is.

    Further, Paul said that if even he himself, or an angel of Heaven were to preach any other gospel, than what they had already given us, that one was cursed. The official teachings of the Catholic church (and Greek Orthodox etc) is that they sacrifice Jesus over and over again, and this bloodless sacrifice pays for sins. The Apostles taught that Jesus died ONCE for all sin, and is NOT to be offered over and over again, and the Scriptures, GOD's word, AFFIRMED by the apostles, says that without blood there is no remission of sins. Yet the Catholic official teaching is that they have a bloodless sacrifice on the altar that pays for sins. it's preposterous. Would they have us believe the Apostles told us one thing and then gave them secret understanding that contradicted their own words? If that's the case, it should all be thrown out. Yet that is NOT the case. Jesus Christ IS the Way, Truth and the Life, and the Word of God is exactly that, it is the words of GOD, not man. Let God be true, and every man a liar.

  5. Our YouTube channel CAnswersTV (which stands for Christian Answers Television) features over 639 videos from a Biblical worldview organized according to topics. Our main channel can be accessed at https://www.youtube.com/user/CAnswersTV where all our videos & playlists are on display. Here are our available playlists:
    1. "Popular Uploads" at https://www.youtube.com/user/CAnswersTV/videos?shelf_id=2&view=0&sort=p

    2. "Dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, Watchtower Society" with 25 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCF0ADB29C0EB8C40.

    3. "Dealing with Islam, Muslims: Sunni, Shi'ite, Alawites, Sufis" with 73 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1C7F68B548009FDD.

    4. "Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary" with 140 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715.

    5. "Dealing with Darwin's Metaphysical Evolution Religion" with 21 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0703E78058346A52.

    6. "Dealing with Seventh-day Adventism & Their "Prophetess" with 26 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL5316CC6F66F24283.

    7. "Dealing with Anti Trinitarians (UPC) & Early Church History" with 53 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9931642C7C8FFEAB.

    8. "Dealing with "God Hating" Atheists, Agnostics, Know-It-Alls" with 21 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL640E505B96CD6B39.

    9. "Dealing with Phony TV Preachers (TBN) & King James Onlyites" with 30 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2CDA855486B09128.

    10. "Dealing with UFOs, Ghosts, Magic, Spiritual Warfare, Satan" with 19 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2CF1129D311BF9A6.

    11. "Radio Shows with National Christian Authors & Music Vids" with 52 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLF01B4264276D2990.

    12. "Dealing with Black Muslims, Louis Farrakhan, Nation of Islam" with 25 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD3B79AA00CCF21B7.

    13. "Dealing with Mormonism, The Con Man Religion of Joseph Smith, Jr." with 23 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL11CD0EE613306BB5.

    14. "Dealing with Hell, Lake of Fire, Unpopular Bible Doctrines" with 33 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE04A1D0DFE95B95E.

    15. "Dealing with AntiChrist Cults, "New Age" & World Religions" with 45 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL69A3047B3497590A.

    16. "Dealing with "Saved by Works & Baptism", "Church of Christ" with 75 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLBD55090718DA6D3D.

    17. "Charles H. Spurgeon, Jonathan Edwards, Our Spanish Videos" with 26 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE91032ED05E42487.

    18. "End Times, Supernatural Prophecies, Tough Bible Questions" with 49 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL141F261EEFCFD536.

    19. "Dealing with Predestination, Arminianism & Calvinism" with 82 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLA932903698A56780.

    We also have channels on Sermon Audio at http://www.sermonaudio.com/source_detail.asp?sourceid=christiananswers & http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=Larry_Wessels. Although the 30 plus videos we have posted on http://www.SermonAudio.com are also on YouTube the thing that makes these particular videos of interest is that we have produced written transcripts of many of them which has helped quite a few people. Once you click on one of the transcribed videos scroll down to "Sermon Transcription" & choose your options: "View Transcript!," "Download PDF," or "Send to Kindle." Viewers also have the option of over 20 different languages to get the transcription in by going to the "Google Translation" option. Everything is free with nothing to buy. Here are just a few examples of some of our videos that have free transcriptions available:

    "Early Christian Church History Proves Roman Catholicism False" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=113161415591,

    "Divine Curse of the Hebrew Roots Movement – Replacing Jesus with the Old Testament" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=108151527437,

    "Debate: Larry Wessels Versus Two Jehovah's Witnesses at a University Study Center" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=108141526191,

    "Spiritual Counterfeit: ONENESS PENTECOSTALISM DENIES THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF TRINITY" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=52015115043,

    "Unpopular Bible Doctrines #1: The God No One Wants To Know" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=311141259524,

    "Islam's 1400 Year History of Violent Jihad For Sex Slaves, Money & Jew Hatred" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=324161224286,

    "The Sovereignty of God Versus Man-Made Religions, Petty Emotionalism" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=52015125752,

    "The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity- Part 3 (Answering Common Attacks Against the Trinity)" at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=32416129330.

    There are many more but this is just a small sampling of what is available at no charge.

    Blessings to all. 2 Timothy 2:15, "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

  6. Roman Catholicism is the most powerful, widespread and subtle of all un-Biblical religious movements. It claims to be the only "true" church, and everything outside of it is labelled false and branded as heresy. All Protestants are "heretics" according to Romanism (see our playlist "Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary" with 132 videos & counting at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715; particularly see "The Pope in Rome Denounces True Christians & True Christian Churches to Justify His Own Religion" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMs1j3TsInI&list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715&index=128 & "EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH HISTORY PROVES ROMAN CATHOLICISM FALSE" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP9jg2h3xjQ&list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715&index=8; see too: http://www.christiantruth.com/ (particularly on historical matters concerning Roman Catholicism), http://www.BereanBeacon.org & http://www.CWRC-RZ.org).   In reality the Roman Catholic hierarchy is not a church at all, but a gigantic religious, political organization. Because the average Protestant and multitudes of true believers are almost completely ignorant of the facts about Roman Catholicism, it is necessary to expose at the outset some of the most blatant of these. First it must be recognized that the Church of Rome has unscripturally appropriated the name "Catholic" (signifying 'worldwide') to mean only its own church. The true name for the miscalled Catholic Church should be the Roman Church. In the past it was called the Roman Catholic Church. Today, however, particularly in the USA, but also in some other non-Roman-Catholic lands, the name "Roman" has been cunningly dropped and it wishes to be known only as the Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the one true Church, dating back to the beginning, organized by Jesus Christ Himself, with the disciple Peter as the first Pope and Vicar of Christ of earth (see our video "The Pope: False Gospel of Roman Catholicism (Part #2 in Romanist Apostasy Series)" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RBTQcQDqjA). However, while the true "Catholic" Church (the Body of Christ scattered across the earth) was born in eternity in the Mind of God (Ephesians 1:1-11), the Roman Catholic Church was not organized until about 313 AD with the advent of the Roman emperor Constantine. There was a local fellowship of true Christians located in and around Rome at the time but they had no more power than any other local congregation of believers found anywhere else in the world (think of the seven churches mentioned in Revelation chapters 1-3).This was the beginning of the union of Church and State. Constantine, however, did not oppose the old pagan worship of Rome; rather, he superimposed Christianity upon these pagan religions, adopting elements in both; and thus, by allowing the pagans to continue their heathen customs, he made it easy for them to adopt Christianity. The result was the Roman Catholic Church, which is a mixture of about one-third Christianity, one-third Judaism, and one-third paganism. The Roman Catholic Church thus pretends to accept most of the cardinal doctrines of Christendom, plus the holy days and priesthood copied from Judaism, and the superstitions and fetishes of paganism with its charms such as holy water, candles, and images. This only makes sense because Constantine was more of a politician than a real Christian. In fact Constantine did not even bother to get baptized until he was on his deathbed and that by the Arian heretic Eusebius of Nicomedia. Eusebius was a bishop of Berytus (modern-day Beirut) in Phoenicia, then of the See of Nicomedia, where the imperial court resided, and finally of Constantinople from 338 up to his death in 441. If Constantine would have really understood Biblical Christianity he would not have allowed heretics like Eusebius and others to flourish throughout his empire.Question: "What is Arianism?"  Answer: Arianism is named for Arius, a teacher in the early 4th century A.D. One of the earliest and probably the most important item of debate among early Christians was the subject of Christ’s deity. Was Jesus truly God in the flesh or was Jesus a created being? Was Jesus God or just like God? Arius held that Jesus was created by God as the first act of creation, that Jesus was the crowning glory of all creation. Arianism, then, is the view that Jesus was a created being with divine attributes, but was not divine in and of Himself.  Arianism misunderstands references to Jesus’ being tired (John 4:6) and not knowing the date of His return (Matthew 24:36). Yes, it is difficult to understand how God could be tired and/or not know something, but relegating Jesus to a created being is not the answer. Jesus was fully God, but He was also fully human. Jesus did not become a human being until the incarnation. Therefore, Jesus’ limitations as a human being have no impact on His divine nature or eternality.  A second major misinterpretation in Arianism is the meaning of “firstborn” (Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15-20). Arians understand “firstborn” in these verses to mean that Jesus was “born” or “created” as the first act of creation. This is not the case. Jesus Himself proclaimed His self-existence and eternality (John 8:58; 10:30). John 1:1-2 tells us that Jesus was “in the beginning with God.” In Bible times, the firstborn son of a family was held in great honor (Genesis 49:3; Exodus 11:5; 34:19; Numbers 3:40; Psalm 89:27; Jeremiah 31:9). It is in this sense that Jesus is God’s firstborn. Jesus is the preeminent member of God’s family. Jesus is the anointed one, the “Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (Isaiah 9:6). After nearly a century of debate at various early church councils, the Christian church officially denounced Arianism as a false doctrine. Since that time, Arianism has never been accepted as a viable doctrine of the Christian faith. Arianism has not died, however. Arianism has continued throughout the centuries in varying forms. The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons of today hold a very Arian-like position on Christ’s nature. Just as the early church did, we must denounce any and all attacks on the deity of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ (see our playlist "Dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses, Watchtower Society" with 22 videos at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCF0ADB29C0EB8C40).While the pretended adoption of Christianity was hailed as a great victory for the Church, it was also, ironically, the beginning of her ruin. From this date we can trace all the innumerable errors of the Roman Church – Mariolatry, the mass, purgatory, limbo, the celibacy of priesthood, adoration and worship of images, indulgences, the infallibility of the Pope, the immaculate conception of Mary, and all the other unscriptural errors. Instead of a blessing it became the downfall of the organized church. Yet all the time during those dark ages which followed there was as always the body of true believers, members of the true Church, within the framework of the rapidly corrupting hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. Before Constantine the true Church was persecuted and threatened with extermination; after Constantine there emerged the Roman Church, patronized by the State and subsequently seeking temporal powers to rule and govern the State. This was the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church which has lasted until today.From the Day of Pentecost in Acts chapter 2 and throughout the next three centuries, the Church remained comparatively free from the serious errors which have characterized it since the beginning of the fourth century. Error was present even in the days of the Apostles, but the Church, suffering indescribable persecution, remained relatively pure in doctrine. After the wedding of Church and State by Constantine, however, the 'coming out' of the true believers from the apostate system became necessary. During the centuries from Constantine until the days of Luther there were groups which either separated themselves from the political and religious system, or else remained as a violent reaction against the increasing corruption. All of these were persecuted and many were martyred for their faith (see our video, "MARTYRS FOR CHRIST: THE MURDEROUS ROMAN CATHOLIC INQUISITION" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy95g5VhQ7w). The Roman Catholic Church at that time was not only recognized by the Roman Empire, but the State was ultimately compelled to bow to the edicts of the Church.For much more on the first three centuries of Christianity before Constantine listen to the excellent church history review of "Historical Theology" by church historian and scholar William Cunningham at  http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=William_Cunningham; particularly note the first 9 lectures in "Historical Theology Volume #1".2 Timothy 2:15, "Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

  7. See our video "The Homosexual Pope, Priests, Universalists, Evolutionists & Disunited Roman Catholic Apologists" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hThonwrX6QU which shows from Roman Catholic sources themselves that one of their popes was a practicing homosexual, that almost 50% of Roman Catholic priests are homosexuals (for more on this see our video "FORMER ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST SAYS CHURCH OF ROME HAS A FALSE GOSPEL & WIDESPREAD HOMOSEXUALITY" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0y4C-nBQ3mE), that the Roman church buys the theory of evolution which denies the first eleven chapters of Genesis in the Bible, that Pope John Paul II kissed the Muslim Qur'an & said Islam has the same god as Roman Catholics have (see the videos "Top Ten Reasons Muhammad Is Not a Prophet" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MO8sZ1JyP1A, "Ten MORE Reasons Muhammad Is Not a Prophet" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4p7HuuhF8k, "50 Reasons Muhammad Was Not a Prophet (in Under Five Minutes)" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Q3f15NXrLI, "David Wood: Five Reasons the Quran Is Not the Word of God" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvlzlBov9zc, "Who Killed Muhammad?" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6st_tFj6ouM, "Why Did Muhammad Wear Women's Clothing?" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-50CraaniT0; also see http://www.AnsweringMuslims.com & http://www.MuslimHope.com) & how Roman Catholic apologists are at each others' throats because of the vast differences within Romanism itself. There are a wide variety of different types of religionists who still refer to themselves as Roman Catholics. There are types of Romanists who do not accept Vatican II Romanists or their popes since the time of Vatican II (called sedevacantists – for more on this brand of Romanists see the website http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/). To learn more about particular brands of Romanism & which group of Romanists you might belong to if you are Roman Catholic please see our video called The Homosexual Pope, Priests, Universalists, Evolutionists & Disunited Roman Catholic Apologists at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hThonwrX6QU & our video "Theological Debate with a Roman Catholic Monsignor/Review #2: Idolatry Okay?" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwkrtRTtA7g&list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715&index=17. For others wanting to learn about the entire spectrum of Romanist heretical theology please see our playlist, "Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary" with 139 videos & counting at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715. See Rob Zins' website also at http://www.CWRC-RZ.ORG. Also see http://www.BereanBeacon.org. Titus 1: 14-16, "Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. 15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. 16 They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate."

  8. A free transcript of this video "EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH HISTORY PROVES ROMAN CATHOLICISM FALSE" is available at http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=113161415591. Click on this link & once there scroll down until you see "Sermon Transcription" & then click on the "View Transcript" which is available in multiple languages. William Webster's outstanding book "The Church of Rome at the Bar of History" is available at http://www.CHRISTIANTRUTH.COM or at http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_30/190-7574406-7898107?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=the+church+of+rome+at+the+bar+of+history&sprefix=the+church+of+rome+at+the+bar+%2Caps%2C177. More of William Webster's lectures on Roman Catholic history & tradition can be found at http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?sortby=added&sourceonly=true&currSection=sermonssource&keyword=gracebiblebg&subsetcat=series&subsetitem=Roman+Catholic+Tradition. See also our playlist "Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary" with 137 videos & counting at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715. 2 Timothy 2:15.

  9. To those who wish to discuss issues brought up in our video posted here to a greater extent please know that you can email one of our ministry volunteers at certainandsecure@gmail.com. Also realize that we may have an entire playlist of videos on this subject on our YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/CAnswersTV. Besides that know that we have three websites to answer additional questions at http://www.BibleQuery.org (answers over 8500 questions on the Bible & refutes critics of the Bible), http://www.HistoryCart.com (this website deals with an in depth analysis of early Christian church history) and http://www.MuslimHope.com (this website is a documented refutation of Islam, a false religious & political ideology of warlike jihad against all unbelievers invented by Muhammad while he was in Medina for the last 9 years of his life where he averaged one offensive military jihad of pillage, rape & slavery every month to six weeks against his neighbors which eventually led to conquering all of Saudi Arabia- see also http://www.politicalislam.com/, http://www.answeringmuslims.com/, http://answering-islam.org/, http://www.jihadwatch.org/ & our playlist "Dealing with Islam, Muslims: Sunni, Shi'ite, Alawites, Sufis" with 71 videos & counting at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL1C7F68B548009FDD). 1 Peter 3:15

  10. A man in Switzerland was planning on joining the pope's Swiss Guard at the Vatican but he was converted to Christ instead. To learn more about this please click on the "view reply" to this comment below.

  11. It has been properly pointed out that many of the early church fathers fell into numerous heresies & in some cases damnable heresies because, after all, they were not writers of inspired scripture. It is also a fact that the further in time the early church got away from the original apostolic age the more the apparent declension or deterioration of scriptural truth is to be found in the writings of the early church writers (for documented evidence of this please review the writings of early church historian & scholar William Cunningham at http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?speakeronly=true&currsection=sermonsspeaker&keyword=William_Cunningham). In fact, the sixteenth century Reformers looked like university presidents compared to the early church fathers who seemed to be mere school boys by contrast when it came to scriptural apostolic understanding (although Martin Luther did suffer some from his heavy Romanist indoctrination & tradition in some regards). Although the early church fathers can be useful they cannot be put on the same level as the Word of God itself (Psalm 138:2). If the early church fathers say anything that contradicts what the apostolic writers have stated in scripture then any anti scriptural teachings of the early church fathers must be rejected completely (Isaiah 8:20, "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.") & the warning of Peter remembered, 2 Peter 3:15-16, "And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction." Water Baptism Under the heading of salvation, it is important at this point to touch on baptism. Although it may seem inconsistent to digress into what may be considered an "ordinance" or "sacrament" of the church after indulging in the metaphysical realities of being "in Christ" and being revealed as a son of God, it is necessary since so many of the early church fathers equated our regeneration with the act of immersion. The actual issue of baptismal regeneration, however, we will only touch on at the end. Instead, we will first investigate the apostolic practice, including what was considered valid and the development of baptismal theology in the early church. Baptism is perhaps the most universal of all Christian ordinances. It is considered the "portal" into the Christian church by many branches of Christianity. The early church fathers put a tremendous amount of emphasis on baptism, which sparked a significant amount of debate. Other than the controversies regarding the deity of Christ, the debates and controversies that raged over baptism and rebaptism stand out as the most intense theological debates of the third and fourth centuries. Some of the questions that are still asked today are : a) Did the early church baptize infants? b) Does baptism wash away "original sin"? c) Is an individual regenerated (ie. "born-again") at baptism? In the beginning of all of the gospels, we find how baptism was the central facet of John the Baptist’s ministry. In Judaism, ritual washing was already a practice, particularly with the Essenes and many ascetic groups, but John’s baptism is distinguished as a "baptism unto repentance" (Mark 1:4; Luke 3:3; Acts 19:4). In this respect John represents the personification of all of the prophets thus far. The highest moral teaching of Judaism can be seen in the prophets in their emphasis of the heart attitude that God seeks, rather than ritual observances (See Amos 5:21-23). Yet even during John’s ministry, there was already a foreshadowing that the pattern of water baptism served as a type for the spiritual baptism that would be introduced by the Messiah. John says in Matthew’s gospel that he baptized with water, but he that comes after me shall "baptize you with fire and the Holy Spirit". For this reason, we should always keep before us the truth that the water has no "magical" properties about it, nor can it be considered an end itself. Infant Baptism It is a common practice among orthodox, Roman Catholic, as well as several Protestant bodies (ie. Lutheran, Covenant, etc.) to baptize individuals when they are infants. The practice is frequently justified on the grounds that, under the Mosaic economy of salvation, God's covenant was extended to even infants through circumcision, which was to be performed on the eighth day after birth. The covenant of circumcision is said to be a type or foreshadowing of baptism, which serves a similar function under the New Covenant. This reasoning appears in the church documents Apostolic Constitutions (ca. 4th Century) "Do not delay to turn to the Lord, for thou knowest not what the day will bring forth." Do you also baptize your infants, and bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. For He says "Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not." (VII:457) as well as Cyprian (V:353) For this reason we think that no one should be hindered from obtaining the grace under the law that was already ordained, and that spiritual circumcision ought not be hindered… and nobody is hindered from baptism and grace how much more should we not hinder an infant, who being lately born, has not sinned, except in being born after the flesh in the nature of Adam. Furthermore, the waters of baptism were thought by many to have a "medicinal" property, and that the water itself was effectual in affecting a rebirth of the spirit of an individual, and they would be regenerated in the act of baptism itself. Are we then to expect that this was the apostolic practice, observed by the apostles and their successors in the apostolic churches? Although the previously mentioned texts demonstrate a belief in an objective and effectual power resident in the waters of baptism, there is even more evidence that would denote the contrary. It can be sufficiently shown that the earliest apostolic teaching on baptism did not make provisions for infants. The primary reason is because faith is an integral element of salvation. Whether one believes in baptismal regeneration or not, it is undeniable that personal faith is the active agent in applying the benefits of Calvary to our lives. Baptism is an ordinance that is entered into only when an individual has made the decision to fully believe in Jesus Christ. We see in the Bible when the apostle Philip was to baptize the Ethiopian eunuch whom he had converted, the eunuch asked "What is to prevent me from being baptized?" Philip answered "If you believe with your whole heart, it is permissible." (Acts 8:36,37) It is interesting that the critical part of verse 37, which clearly implies that one must fully believe in Jesus before being baptized, is missing from many contemporary translations, even though it is found in the majority of original Greek manuscripts. The best evidence for the authenticity of the verse lies in the fact that it is quoted by Scripture by Irenaeus ( Against Heresies XI, 8), and Cyprian (Treatise IX, 2, 43), many, many years before the oldest manuscripts which do not include it were ever written. This fact establishes without question the principle that, according to scripture and church tradition, personal faith is a prerequisite to baptism. Looking through the rest of the New Testament, there are no clear examples of infants being baptized. The inference is that they were not, since such stress in put on repentance, faith and confession of the Lordship of Christ as being intrinsic to the New Birth. Most baptismal texts found in the Patristic church likewise infer that those being baptized are at least old enough to enter into baptism of their own volition. Consider some of the texts from the early church regarding baptism. Didache (ca. 100 A.D.): But before the baptism, let the baptizer fast, and also the baptized, and what ever others can; but thou shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before. Justin Martyr (First Apology; ca 155 A.D.) As many are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to live accordingly, are instructed to entreat God with fasting…then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we ourselves were…For Christ also said :"'Unless you be born-again, you cannot see the kingdom of God". Tertullian (On Baptism) They who are about to enter baptism ought to pray with repeated prayer, fasts, and bendings of the knee, and vigils all the night through, and with the confession of all bygone sins, that they may express the meaning of the baptism of John. Virtually every text from the first two hundred years of Christianity that deal with baptism mention the obligation on the part of those being baptized to be spiritually prepared, usually by repentance and faith, and extended periods of prayer and fasting. This would preclude any possibility of baptism being applicable to infants. Any reference to infants being baptized is conspicuously missing. The whole matter is decisively answered by one text from Tertullian. Tertullian:(On Baptism-III:678) "Unless a man be reborn of water and spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of heaven" has tied to faith the necessity of baptism. Accordingly, all thereafter who became believers used to be baptized…and so according to the disposition, circumstances and even the age of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable, principally, in the case of little children….For the Lord does indeed say "Forbid them not to come to me". Let them come, then, while they are growing up. Let them come while they are learning; while they learn whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period in life hasten to the "remission of sins"? ..Let them know how to "ask" for salvation, that it may seem to have given "to him that asketh". . If this is indeed the unanimous consent of the church, how did it happen that infant baptism became the norm? Although the answer may be somewhat speculative, we need to look to one of the baptismal texts from Irenaeus. Irenaeus, who held to the orthodox position regarding when one should be baptized, wrote a text which supported the common perception that we are born-again when we are baptized. He said in Against Heresies in 180 A.D. We are lepers in sin, we are made clean by means of the sacred water and invocation of the Lord, from our old transgression; being spiritually regenerate as new born babes, even as the Lord has declared "except a man be born again through water and the Spirit, he shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Years later, we see some Christian writings taking Irenaeus' words and interpreting "spiritually regenerate, as newborn babes" as meaning that we are baptized as new-born babes! In the proper historical and textual context however, this is inconceivable. Thus, sometime in the mid 3rd century and in contradiction to the norm, the practice of baptizing infants started, built largely on a misinterpretation of Irenaeus. Baptism and Original Sin One of the most common arguments in favor of the necessity of infant baptism involves the question of original sin. The Roman church today, for example, views baptism as the means that an individual is cleansed from guilt incurred in the original sin of Adam and Eve. It is thought that the effectiveness of the baptism is in no way dependent upon the recipient of the sacrament. Therefore, it was considered expedient to baptize someone as soon as possible, namely, right after their birth. This is quite different from the biblical teaching, which is that baptism is the symbolic ordinance that typifies our identification with the burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. It is a death to our old life, and the beginning of our new life in Christ. Rather than baptizing immediately after birth, it was actually more common to wait late until the twilight of one's years to be baptized. The rationale for this was that baptism was thought by many to be a one shot deal at forgiveness and pardon, so a late baptism would minimize the opportunity for an individual to accrue any damning sins. Even in the Fourth century this mindset was prevalent, witnessed by the fact that Constantine himself would not be baptized until he was on his deathbed. The earliest archeological evidence we have that a child was baptized comes from an epitaph on a young boys tomb in the Lateran. The quote is from the fourth century and it reads: Florentius set up this inscription for his well deserving son Appronianus, who lived one year, nine months and five days. Since he was truly beloved by his grandmother, and she saw that he was destined for death, she asked of the church that he might depart a believer. Many who have pointed to this as evidence for infant baptism have missed the point of the epitaph altogether. It does not support the idea that infants were baptized. On the contrary. The boy was almost two, not yet baptized, and when it was apparent that he was not going to survive to a mature age, the grandmother made a special request (presumably to baptize him) before his death. This epitaph actually supports the view that infants were not baptized as a normal procedure at that point in church history, and that putting off the practice until later in life was still the most common opinion. If it is true that infants were not baptized, then what about the understanding of original sin? What did happen to a child or an infant that was not baptized? Were they damned because of Adam’s guilt? Again, looking closer at the earliest documents, we find that the early church had a vastly different perception of Adam's sin and it's effects. Shepherd of Hermas (ca. 150 A.D) They are as infant children in whose hearts no evil originates; nor did they know what wickedness is, but always remain as children. Such accordingly without doubt, dwell in the kingdom of God, because they defiled in nothing the commandments of God. …all infants are honorable before God, and are first in persons with Him. The Shepherd of Hermas, previously noted, was considered canonical by several fathers of the church. According to him, there is no evil in the heart of an infant, and they dwell in the kingdom of God. Below we have a statement by Justin scolding the Roman dignitaries for allowing their pagan priests to sacrifice children from the womb for the purpose of divination. Justin Martyr, First Apology XVIII, 155 A.D) For you let even necromancy, and the divinations, whom you practice on immaculate children, and the invoking of departed human souls. Notice that he calls the children "immaculate". Tertullian apparently held the same regard for infant children. Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, 204 AD those abodes; if you mean the good why should you judge to be unworthy of such a resting-place the souls of infants and of virgins, and those which, by reason of their condition in life were pure and innocent? In the previously noted text from Tertullian’s On Baptism, he likewise referred to unbaptized infants as "innocent". In addition to these, we have a frequently cited text from the Apocalypse of Peter from the 2nd century, that is quoted by Clement of Alexandria, Theodotus and others, that states emphatically that aborted children are immediately ushered by a guardian angel into paradise, and share in a "better fate". It is understood by these fathers that Adam’s guilt did not extend to one who had not sinned. If it did, then we would all need to concede that every aborted child, miscarriage, stillborn child, or otherwise unbaptized infant that died was in hell. Such an idea would be abhorrent to the early church. The issue is understood biblically in Romans 5:12 which states that "sin entered the world through one man (Adam), and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men for all have sinned". Notice that the actual agent of death to each individual is that individual’s personal sin. Likewise the next verse states that sin is not imputed where there is no law, that is, no understanding of right and wrong, which surely would be the case with an infant. It must be noted, however, that it would be equally wrong to propose that the descendants of Adam were unaffected by his actions. Man was qualitatively changed, now having the potential to know good and evil. Apparently his will was crippled and frustrated from being able to "do as he ought". (Romans 7:12-24) God, by his own sovereignty, has decreed that all man are bound over to disobedience (Romans 11:32; Galatians 3:22). The operation of sin in our lives, likened to a conception and gestational period in the book of James, "brings forth death ( James 1:14-15). To summarize the issue, then, we could fairly say that the early church taught that infants are guilt free, yet, the due to the fall we know that no natural mortal, upon being able to distinguish right from wrong, can stay guilt free, but instead is prone to sin. When Cyprian of Carthage started promoting infant baptism as a cure from Adam’s sin. He immediately had to defend it against the charge of novelty. As shown, it was not the church’s understanding that infants were in need of cleansing from sin. At the time, however, no major theological counter-thesis was offered. It was not until Pelegius started preaching in the early 5th century that the orthodox church was forced to define the doctrine of "Original Sin". Pelegius, who up to this point had been an orthodox bishop and writer, propounded that Adam’s sin had absolutely no effect on his offspring, and that every individual had the potential to live a perfect and holy life. Pelegius asserted that man was by nature good, and could, by his own will and accord, live pleasingly before God. This extreme position, threatened the very necessity for the sacrifice and atonement of Christ. If justification was by the law, then Christ died in vain (Galatians 2:21). St. Augustine, through a number of polemical writings and Councils, refuted and condemned the teaching of Pelegius. Unfortunately, as is with many conflicts of ideas and words throughout history, the rhetoric and polemic overstated the orthodox position. In order to counter the inherent goodness of all, as taught by Pelegius, Augustine championed the inherent depravity of all, including infants. As a result, he held to the position that all infants are in a state of damnation before God, not because of their sin, but Adam’s. According to Augustine, unbaptized infants go to suffer in hell. Some Roman Catholic theologians have attempted to soften this somewhat, hypothesizing a place called "limbo" which is more humane then hell, so as to deflect the obvious charge of injustice that would come with consigning newborn babies to eternal torment. This has never been officially defined by the Roman church, however. The Augustinian concept of Original Sin, then, must be rejected as a departure from the apostolic rule of faith. Another viewpoint of infant baptism is one which equates the baptismal act with the sign and seal of the New Covenant, akin to circumcision of the Old Covenant. Some of the later texts which support infant baptism suggest that the baptism should be done on the eighth day, as was the circumcision of the Old Covenant. It must be kept in mind, however, that the New Testament frequently mentions circumcision, but never as a type for baptism. Instead, it says "neither circumcision nor uncircumscision means anything, but what counts is a new creation" (Galatians 6:15) which subordinates any "sign or seal" of a covenant to the spiritual reality of being born-again by trust in Christ. Likewise, Paul also points out that even Abraham was justified by believing God, before and independently of the sign of circumcision. (Romans 4:9-11). Consequently, since the New Testament minimizes the alleged typology of circumcision, it is not likely that we would find any apostolic teaching that would equate baptism with the same function of sealing an individual into God’s New Covenant. Instead, we find that both circumcision and baptism both serve as types for the spiritual reality of putting off our flesh and being washed of the impurities of the old nature. The spiritual reality, of course, is most applicable to an adult. Baptismal Regeneration The belief in baptismal regeneration was apparently held by the majority of the early church fathers. Although one could debate writer by writer through the first few centuries as to whether this was indeed an apostolic teaching, in brief, the larger question would be as to whether an individual is saved (regenerated) by faith alone or by faith and baptism. The answer to that question is simply found by examining the scriptures to see whether salvation is imputed to those who believe and are baptized, or to those who merely believe. If the baptismal waters are indeed necessary for salvation, as even some writers proposed, then we should not find any cases in scripture where individuals are "saved" apart from baptism. There are, of course several glaring examples. The thief on the cross (Luke 23:40-43), as well as those in the household of Cornelius who believed and were filled with the Holy Spirit before they were baptized with water (Acts 10:43-48) are two clear examples. There are also numerous examples of Paul’s missionary endeavors, where he preaches and many believe, yet there is no reference to water baptism. With this being the case, we must conclude that water baptism cannot be equally an agent to salvation, since there are cases of individuals being saved by faith apart from the waters of baptism. Neither can the act of baptism carry salvific power in and of it’s self, since there are scriptural examples of individuals receiving baptism at the hand of the apostles, yet that individual still declared to be perishing because there heart was not right with God (cf. The Story of Simon Magus, Acts 8:9-24). Why then did so many early church fathers attribute regeneration at the point of water baptism? We could speculate that the hostile anti-Christian culture may have had a role to play. In the early church, baptism was the public profession before all that the individual was joining themselves to the Christian community. They were declaring that they were dead to their old life of idolatry and paganism. For many, it was the act that destined them to a martyr’s fate. Culturally, there was also the de-emphasis of such rites with many of the Gnostics. Those Gnostics that did have a baptismal ritual (Sethians and Valentians) had it so "super-spiritualized" that it would be construed by many to be a polemic against the normal, orthodox baptismal practice. We would consequently expect an increased emphasis on the act of baptism itself, certainly far more than our culture would remit. It could also be that the significance of water baptism is not derived so much from the agency of the water, but from the agency of faith and public profession of the Lordship of Christ. "If you confess me before men, I will confess you before my heavenly Father" (Matthew 10:32). In any respect, I would deduce that the emphasis on the ritual of baptism with respect to regeneration by the fathers was more a product of these cultural forces than actual apostolic teaching. In summary of the issue, we can see that the post-apostolic church may have had a deeper awareness of the mechanics of salvation, without the burdens of some of today's debates. This is not to say that everyone in the first three centuries understood the magnitude and glorious liberty of salvation in Christ. On the contrary; salvation by faith was one of, if not, the first foundational tenet to fall prey to the apostasy. Very early in the third century, because of the necessity of bearing up under persecution, we can see references to good works (ie. public profession) being necessary for salvation. By the middle of the third century, the regeneration of the believer was ascribed most commonly to happen at baptism. Ultimately, as the Roman Empire broke apart in the fifth century, and the church assumed the role of maintaining order in that civilization, eternal salvation was joined to the reception of the sacraments. Later in western history, this would give the papacy exceptional control over the princes, barons and kings throughout Europe. If a certain ruler would not side with the demands of the Pope, the Pope could vow to withhold the sacraments from that ruler and his subjects. Although that might not have struck fear into the ruler, the prospect of eternal damnation for an entire duchy or kingdom would create a panic and terror among the masses, and the ruler's hand would be forced to reconcile with the Pope. Today there is need to renew the original apostolic understanding of salvation. The gospel message, as typified by the Pauline revelation of grace, righteousness and adoption, is forever coupled to the truths borne by the act of baptism, that of self-abandonment and death to the old life, so as to fully serve God in the newness of life. So many have tried to reinterpret the gospels as merely a means to the end of raising one’s self-esteem, or instilling dignity and human worth. For others, it is a "feel good" message, brimming with warm snugglies of how much God loves us. All though there is truth in both views, we cheat ourselves of the fullness of our common salvation when we see it as less than a total redemption, of the total man, to be fully adopted into Gods’ family as a true child of God. Likewise, we cheat God when we respond with anything less than laying down every aspect of our old life and being, in complete service to God, for His glory alone. For more on the issue of water baptism see our videos: "IS WATER BAPTISM NECESSARY TO ESCAPE HELL & BE SAVED & ARE YOU "BORN AGAIN" (JOHN 3:3-8) BY IT?" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYJtMV9qrWg & "THE EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN ROMANCE WITH APOSTATE ROMAN CATHOLICISM (PART 1): WATER BAPTISM SALVATION?" at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XobZCIzK-Zo. See our website http://www.BibleQuery.org & the article posted there called "Water Baptism Not Essential for Salvation." See also our newsletter posted there called "Church of Christ." The following link concerning water baptism is very useful at http://www.gotquestions.org/baptism-salvation.html. 2 Timothy 2:15

  12. See our video "EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH HISTORY PROVES ROMAN CATHOLICISM FALSE" at  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP9jg2h3xjQ&index=8&list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715. Also see the anti Vatican 2 Romanist website http://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/. Has a Roman Catholic Pope made a wrong statement when speaking "ex-Cathedra and infallible" thereby destroying the Romanist claim that the pope is infallible? Today's post Vatican 2 Romanists being led by the likes of John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis & others might claim that Pope Eugene IV blew it by agreeing with the Council of Florence held in 1438-1439 A.D. What did Pope Eugene say that today's ecumenical & all inclusive Romanists would not like? Here's what he declared in approval of the Council of Florence – "Pope Eugene IV, Council of Florence (ex-Cathedra and infallible): “The Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the Church before the end of their lives; that the unity of this ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the Church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church” (“Cantate Domino,” 1441, ex cathedra)." If Eugene was wrong in what he said according to today's Romanists then papal infallibility is a lie & a sham. If today's popes are wrong on this issue in regard to popes of the past then their infallibility is a lie & a sham. The Roman Catholic church did not teach universal salvation of all religious beliefs like it does now (see our videos: "Roman Catholicism Series #16: Old Romanism Contradicts Vatican 2 New Romanism – Shifting Doctrines" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h953sZHCmAk & "Roman Catholicism Series #15: Rome Says Even Atheists Will Be Saved Because of Their Sincerity!" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYa8g-FLeqQ). The Roman Catholic inquisition proved Roman Catholicism throughout the centuries did not hold to a Vatican 2 type of universal salvation as it does now (see "MARTYRS FOR CHRIST: THE MURDEROUS ROMAN CATHOLIC INQUISITION" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iy95g5VhQ7w).  Pope Honorius I (died 12 October 638) reigned from 27 October 625 to his death in 638[1] proves that the infallibility of the pope is a sham because he can be totally wrong whether he speaks "from the chair" or not & only someone willingly blind cannot see it for what it is. Honorius, according to the Liber Pontificalis, came from Campania and was the son of the consul Petronius. He became pope two days after the death of his predecessor, Boniface V. The festival of the Elevation of the Cross is said to have been instituted during the pontificate of Honorius, which was marked also by considerable missionary enterprise. Much of this was centered on England, especially Wessex. He also succeeded in bringing the Irish Easter celebrations in line with the rest of the Catholic Church.Although Honorius never issued a dogmatic (ex cathedra) decree in regard to the controversy of Christ's wills,[1] he favoured Monothelitism. He supported a formula proposed by the Byzantine Emperor Heraclius with the design of bringing about a reconciliation between Monothelites and the rest of the Catholic Church. Monothelitism is the teaching that Christ has only one will, the divine will, in contrast with the teaching that He has both a divine will and a human will. To this end, Honorius "sent his deacon Gaios" to a synod in Cyprus in 634 hosted by Archbishop Arkadios II with additional representatives from Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople. The anti-Monothelite side in Jerusalem, championed by Maximus the Confessor and Sophronius of Jerusalem, sent to this synod Anastasius (a pupil of Maximus), George of Reshaina (a pupil of Sophronius), two of George of Raishana's own pupils, and eight bishops from Palestine. When the two sides were presented to the Emperor, the Emperor persisted with Monothelitism and so did Honorius. (George of Reshaina, "An Early Life of Maximus the Confessor", 316–7)He was apparently aware of the rise of Islam.[2]AnathematizationMore than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, "and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things".Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, "And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines." The Sixteenth Session adds: "To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!"This condemnation was subsequently confirmed by Leo II (a fact disputed by such persons as Cesare Baronio and Bellarmine,[3] but which has since become commonly accepted) in the form, "and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted". The New Catholic Encyclopedia notes: "It is in this sense of guilty negligence that the papacy ratified the condemnation of Honorius." That is, the papacy condemned Honorius not for teaching a heresy ex cathedra, but for negligently permitting heretical positions to stand alongside orthodox ones.This anathema against Honorius was later one of the main arguments against Papal infallibility in the discussions surrounding the First Vatican Council of 1870, where the episode was not ultimately regarded as contrary to the proposed dogma. This was because Honorius was not considered by the supporters of infallibility to be speaking ex cathedra in the letters in question (although the Roman historian Hefele and opponents of the definition believed that Honorius had spoken ex cathedra),[1] and he was alleged to have never been condemned as a Monothelite, nor, asserted the proponents of infallibility, was he condemned for teaching heresy, but rather for gross negligence and a lax leadership at a time when his letters and guidance were in a position to quash the heresy at its roots.Historian Jaroslav Pelikan notes: "It is evident, as Maximus noted in exoneration of Honorius, that his opposition to the idea of 'two wills' was based on the interpretation of 'two wills' as 'two contrary wills.' He did not mean that Christ was an incomplete human being, devoid of a human will, but that as a human being he did not have any action in his body nor any will in his soul that could be contrary to the action and will of God, that is, to the action and will of his own divine nature." References: 1. Chapman, John (1910). "Pope Honorius I". Catholic Encyclopedia 7. New York: Robert Appleton Company.  2. Muhammad Ata Ur-Rahim; Ahmad Thomson (2003). Jesus: Prophet of Islam. TTQ, INC. p. 148. ISBN 9781879402737.  3. Perlant, M. Jean-Andre (June 1994). "The Sullied Reputation of a Holy Pope". The Francinta Messenger. 4. Pelikan, Jaroslav. "The Spirit of Eastern Christendom (600-1700)". The Christian Tradition 2. University of Chicago Press. p. 151. ISBN 0-226-65373-0. The Roman Catholic Council of Vatican I in 1870 is renowned for its dogmatic teaching that the Bishops of Rome, when teaching ex cathedra, are infallible. This teaching was stated to be consistent with the belief and practice the Church from its inception and throughout its long history. In other words it taught that this doctrine was not a doctrine that developed over time. The Council declared this teaching to be a dogma necessary to be believed for salvation and it anathematizes all who dare to disagree with or who oppose these assertions. The official teaching of Vatican I is as follows:Therefore faithfully adhering to the  tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith,  for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Christian  religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the sacred Council  approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed:  that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra,  that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor  of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority,  he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by  the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him  in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which  the divine redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed  for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore  such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves,  and not from the consent of the Church. But if anyone—which  may God avert—presume to contradict this our definition:  let him be anathema…This is the teaching of Catholic truth,  from which no one can deviate without loss of faith and salvation…The  first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of the true  faith (Philip Schaff,   The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper, 1877),   Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, Chp. 4, pp. 266-71).Though Vatican I appeals to history as a valdation for its claims, it is the very facts of history which prove them to be spurious. Historically, papal infallibility was never part of the teaching or practice of the early Church, nor was it ever part of the doctrinal content of saving faith as taught by it. This is well illustrated by the actions of the 6th Ecumenical Council (III Constantinople) held in 680-681 A.D. This Council is well known in Church history for its official condemnation of a number of leading Eastern Bishops as well as a Bishop of Rome for embracing and promoting heretical teachings. The particular Pope who was posthumously excommunicated from the Church and forever branded a heretic was Pope Honorius, who reigned as bishop of Rome from 625 to 638 A.D. In a number of letters written to Sergius I, patriarch of Constantinople, and several other individuals, Honorius officially embraced the heresy of montheletism, which teaches that Christ had only one will, the divine. The orthodox position is that Christ, though one person, possesses two wills because he is divine and human. There is absolutely no doubt that he held to the teaching of one will in Christ. Jaroslav Pelikan makes these comments:In the controversy between East and  West…the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the  popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were  fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy  of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited  the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the  pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers  of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop  of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian  Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago:  University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151).There are many past and present Roman apologists who downplay the importance of Pope Honorius. It is typical in Roman Catholic writings to find the issue of Honorius dealt with in a very superficial way. For example the following comments by Karl Keating are representative:Actually, Honorius elected to teach  nothing at all. Ronald Knox, in a letter to Arnold Lunn reprinted  in their book Difficulties, put the matter like this:  And Honorius, so far from pronouncing an infallible opinion in  the Monothelite controversy, was quite extraordinarily not (as  Gore used to say) pronouncing a decision at all. To the best  of his human wisdom, he thought the controversy ought to be left  unsettled, for the greater peace of the Church. In fact, he was  an opportunist. We, wise after the event, say that he was wrong.  But nobody, I think, has ever claimed that the Pope is infallible  in not defining a doctrine (Karl  Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism (San Francisco:  Ignatius, 1988), p. 229).In one paragraph Keating dismisses this whole issue as trivial and Protestant objections as nothing more than a misrepresentation of the true facts. But one thing Mr. Keating does not do is to give the judgment of the Council itself in its own words. He simply states that Honorius did not teach anything and is therefore not guilty of heresy. Is this how the Council understood the situation? Absolutely not! To allow the Council to speak for itself is enough to dispel Keating and Knox's assertions. The facts speak for themselves. Honorius was personally condemned as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council. This was ratified by two succeeding Ecumenical Councils. He was also condemned by name by Pope Leo II, and by every pope up through the eleventh century who took the oath of papal office. In his classic and authoritative series on the history of the Councils, Roman Catholic historian Charles Joseph Hefele affirms this verdict in relating the following irrefutable facts regarding Honorius and the Sixth Ecumenical Council:It is in the highest degree startling,  even scarcely credible, that an Ecumenical Council should punish  with anathema a Pope as a heretic!…That, however, the sixth  Ecumenical Synod actually condemned Honorius on account of heresy,  is clear beyond all doubt, when we consider the following collection  of the sentences of the Synod against him:   At the entrance of the thirteenth session, on March 28, 681,  the Synod says: "After reading the doctrinal letter of Sergius  of Constantinople to Cyrus of Phasis (afterwards of Alexandria)  and to Pope Honorius, and also the letter of the latter to Sergius,  we found that these documents were quite foreign…to the apostolic  doctrines, and to the declarations of the holy Councils and all  the Fathers of note, and follow the false doctrines of heretics.  Therefore we reject them completely, and abhor…them as hurtful  to the soul. But also the names of these men must be thrust out  of the Church, namely, that of Sergius, the first who wrote on  this impious doctrine. Further, that of Cyrus of Alexandria,  of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter of Constantinople, and of Theodore  of Pharan, all of whom also Pope Agatho rejected in his letter  to the Emperor. We punish them all with anathema. But along with  them, it is our universal decision that there shall also be shut  out from the Church and anathematized the former Pope Honorius  of Old Rome, because we found in his letter to Sergius, that  in everything he followed his view and confirmed his impious  doctrine."   Towards the end of the same session the second letter of Pope  Honorius to Sergius was presented for examination, and it was  ordered that all the documents brought by George, the keeper  of the archives in Constantinople, and among them the two letters  of Honorius, should immediately be burnt, as hurtful to the soul.   Again, the sixth Ecumenical Council referred to Honorius in the  sixteenth session, on August 9, 681, at the acclamations and  exclamations with which the transactions of this day were closed.  The bishops exclaimed: "Anathema to the heretic Sergius,  to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic  Pyrrhus"   Still more important is that which took place at the eighteenth  and last session, on September 16, 681. In the decree of the  faith which was now published, and forms the principal document  of the Synod, we read: "The creeds (of the earlier Ecumenical  Synods) would have sufficed for knowledge and confirmation of  the orthodox faith. Because, however, the originator of all evil  still always finds a helping serpent, by which he may diffuse  his poison, and therewith finds fit tools for his will, we mean  Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, former bishops  of Constantinople, also Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, Cyrus of  Alexandria, etc., so he failed not, by them, to cause trouble  in the Church by the scattering of the heretical doctrine of  one will and one energy of the two natures of the one Christ.   After the papal legates, all the bishops, and the Emperor had  received and subscribed this decree of the faith, the Synod published  the usual (logos prosphoneticos), which, addressed to  the Emperor, says, among other things: "Therefore we punish  with exclusion and anathema, Theodore of Pharan, Sergius, Paul,  Pyrrhus, and Peter; also Cyrus, and with them Honorius, formerly  bishop of Rome, as he followed them."   In the same session the Synod also put forth a letter to Pope  Agatho, and says therein: '91We have destroyed the effort of  the heretics, and slain them with anathema, in accordance with  the sentence spoken before in your holy letter, namely, Theodore  of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius.   In closest connection with the Acts of the sixth Ecumenical Council  stands the imperial decree confirming their resolutions. The  Emperor writes: "With this sickness (as it came out from  Apollinaris, Eutyches, Themistius, etc.) did those unholy priests  afterwards again infect the Church, who before our times falsely  governed several churches. These are Theodore of Pharan, Sergius  the former bishop of this chief city; also Honorius, the Pope  of old Rome…the strengthener (confirmer) of the heresy who  contradicted himself…We anathematise all heresy from Simon  (Magus) to this present…besides, we anathematise and reject  the originators and patrons of the false and new doctrines, namely,  Theodore of Pharan, Sergius…also Honorius, who was Pope of  Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them,  and strengthened the heresy."   It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized Honorius…in  a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees of the sixth  Ecumenical Council…in his letter to the Spanish bishops…and  in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig. Of the fact that Pope  Honorius had been anathematized by the sixth Ecumenical Synod,  mention is made by…the Trullan Synod, which was held only twelve  years after…Like testimony is also given repeatedly by the  seventh Ecumenical Synod; especially does it declare, in its  principal document, the decree of the faith: "We declare  at once two wills and energies according to the natures in Christ,  just as the sixth Synod in Constantinople taught, condemning…Sergius,  Honorius, Cyrus, etc." The like is asserted by the Synod  or its members in several other places…To the same effect the  eighth Ecumenical Synod expresses itself. In the Liber Diurnus  the Formulary of the Roman Chancery (from the fifth to the eleventh  century), there is found the old formula for the papal oath…according  to which every new Pope, on entering upon his office, had to  swear that "he recognised the sixth Ecumenical Council,  which smote with eternal anathema the originators of the heresy  (Monotheletism), Sergius, Pyrrhus, etc., together with Honorius"   (Charles Joseph Hefele,   A History of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark,  1896), Volume V, pp. 181-187).These facts are highly significant. Von Dollinger was the leading Roman Catholic historian of the last century who taught Church history for 47 years. He makes these comments:This one fact, that a Great Council,  universally received afterwards without hesitation throughout  the Church, and presided over by Papal legates, pronounced the  dogmatic decision of a Pope heretical, and anathematized him  by name as a heretic is a proof, clear as the sun at noonday,  that the notion of any peculiar enlightenment or in errancy of  the Popes was then utterly unknown to the whole Church (Janus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger),   The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), p.  61).Roman Catholic apologists generally attempt to salvage the dogma of papal infallibility from the case with Honorius by saying that he was not giving an ex cathedra statement but merely his opinion as a private theologian. Therefore he was not condemned in his official capacity as the pope. According to the Roman Catholic Church there are certain conditions which must be met for the teaching of the pope to fall within the overall guidelines of that which is considered to be. He must be teaching in his official capacity as the pope and he must be defining doctrine for the entire Church. The claim is made that Honorius did not meet these conditions. However, a careful reading of the official acts of the Council prove that it thought otherwise. The reader can judge for himself from the Council's own statements how the situation with Honorius was viewed and whether it would have agreed with the assertions of Keating and Knox that Honorius did not actively teach anything. The Council makes the following statements:Session XIII: The holy council said:  After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we  had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius,  at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus,  who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope  of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same  Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the  apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and  to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings  of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate  them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose  doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy  Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this  God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious  doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul,  and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were  like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of  Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho,  Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God  preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were  minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define  are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that  there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized  Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what  we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed  his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.   Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To  Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema!  To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic,  anathema! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!…   Session XVIII: But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning,  availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought  the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but  in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working  out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius,  Pyrrhus…and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome…),  has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church  the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two  natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus  disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an  heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious  Apollinaris (Philip Schaff  and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand  Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical  Councils, pp. 342-344).The above statements prove that the condemnation of Honorius meets the basic criteria for ex cathedra statements. The following points show this to be the case:The Council condemns him specifically  as a heretic and anathematized him in his official capacity as  pope and not as a private theologian.   He is condemned for following after and confirming the heresy  of montheletism.   He is condemned for actively disseminating and propagating heretical  teachings in his official capacity as pope which affected the  whole Church.To suggest that the Sixth Ecumenical Council does not invalidate the teaching of papal infallibility because Honorius did not make an ex cathedra statement is historically absurd. This is to erect arbitrary conditions which were not existent at the time to save oneself the embarrassment of a historical fact which undermines one's position. The issue is not what do individual Roman Catholic apologists say, but what did the Sixth Ecumenical Council say. On what basis did it condemn Pope Honorius? By its own words it condemned him in his official capacity as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian, for advancing heretical teachings which it says were Satanically inspired and would affect the entire Church. It specifically states that Honorius advanced these teachings, approved of them, and in a positive sense was responsible for disseminating them. And it condemns him by name as a heretic, anathematizing him as such. According to both Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology an Ecumenical Council is infallible so all the arguments which attempt to dismiss the judgment of this Council saying that it was mistaken or that it rushed to judgment or whatever, are simply erroneous and empty, on the basis of their own theology. So an infallible Ecumenical Council (from a Roman Catholic perspective) has condemned as a heretic a bishop of Rome for teaching heresy. It is quite obvious that these Eastern fathers did not view the bishops of Rome as infallible.John Meyendorff states that, contrary to the assertions of many Roman Catholics that Honorius did in fact teach the doctrine of monotheletism in a positive sense and helped confirm Sergius in the heresy. Meyendorff gives this summary:This step into Monotheletism, which  he was first to make, is the famous fall of Honorius, for which  the Sixth ecumenical council condemned him (681) a condemnation  which, until the early Middle Ages, would be repeated by all  popes at their installation, since on such occasions they had  to confess the faith of the ecumenmical councils. It is understandable,  therefore, that all the critics of the doctrine of papal infallibility  in later centuries. Protestants, Orthodox and antiinfallibilists  at Vatican I in 1870 would refer to this case. Some Roman Catholic  apologists try to show that the expressions used by Honorius  could be understood in an orthodox way, and that there is no  evidence that he deliberately wished to proclaim anything else  than the traditional faith of the Church. They also point out  quite anachronistically that the letter to Sergius was not a  formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using  his charisma of infallibility, as if such a concept existed in  the seventh century. Without denying the pope's good intentions  which can be claimed in favor of any heresiarch of history, it  is quite obvious that his confession of one will, at a crucial  moment and as Sergius himself was somewhat backing out before  the objections of Sophronius, not only condoned the mistakes  of others, but actually coined a heretical formula, the beginning  of a tragedy from which the Church (including the orthodox successors  of Honorius on the papal throne) would suffer greatly (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity  and Christian Division (Crestwood:St. Vladimir's, 1989),  p. 353).Jaroslav Pelikan affirms the same thing in these comments:In the controversy between East and  West…the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the  popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were  fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy  of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited  the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the  pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers  of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop  of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian  Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago:  University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151)Charles Hefele affirms the fact that Leo II also condemned Honorius as a heretic and confirmed the decrees of the Council:It is clear that Pope Leo II also anathematized  Honorius…in a letter to the Emperor, confirming the decrees  of the sixth Ecumenical Council…in his letter to the Spanish  bishops…and in his letter to the Spanish King Ervig (Charles Joseph Hefele, A History  of the Councils of the Church (Edinburgh: Clark, 1896), Volume  V, pp. 181-187).The condemnation by Pope Leo II is significant. He affirmed the condemnation of Honorius as a heretic, confirming by this that Honorius had actively undermined the orthodox faith. W.J. Sparrow Simpson summarizes Leo's viewpoint in these comments:Leo accepted the decisions of Constantinople.  He has carefully examined the Acts of the Council and found them  in harmony with the declarations of faith of his predecessor,  Agatho, and of the Synod of the Lateran. He anathematized all  the heretics, including his predecessor, Honorius, who so far  from aiding the Apostolic See with the doctrine of the Apostolic  Tradition, attempted to subvert the faith by a profane betrayal   (W.J. Sparrow Simpson,   Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (London:  John Murray, 1909), p. 35).It is significant that the letter of Honorius to Sergius was used in the East by the proponents of the Monothelite heresy as justification for their position. As Sparrow Simpson observes: "This letter of Honorius was utilised in the East to justify the Monothelite heresy the existence of one will in Christ (W.J. Sparrow Simpson, Roman Catholic Opposition to Papal Infallibility (London: John Murray, 1909), p. 33). The definition of what the Roman Catholic Church refers to as ex cathedra teaching was not enunciated and defined until 1870. One needs to keep this in mind when applying this test to the case of Honorius and the judgment of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. In the mind of this "infallible" Council the pope was a heretic. In its official condemnation of him, he is judged on the basis of the criteria for ex cathedra statements which was defined some 1200 years later. One simply cannot avoid the historical facts. An "infallible" Ecumenical Council has condemned an "infallible" pope, in his official capacity, for heresy. No redefining of terms can erase the simple facts of history or the implications of those facts for the dogma of papal infallibility. This has direct bearing upon the issue of authority and jurisdiction. If an Ecumenical Council can excommunicate a bishop of Rome then the ultimate authority in the early Church was not the bishop of Rome but the Council. The fact of this condemnation clearly demonstrates that contrary to the claims of Vatican I, the early Church never viewed the bishops of Rome to be infallible. No Church father has ever taught such a doctrine and it is contradicted by the practice of the early Church fathers and Councils, III Constantinople being but one example. See also our video "The Homosexual Pope, Priests, Universalists, Evolutionists & Disunited Roman Catholic Apologists" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hThonwrX6QU&index=2&list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715. See our playlist "Dealing with Roman Catholicism, Idolatry & the Virgin Mary" with 131 videos & counting at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFFA8D69D1B914715.

Leave a Reply