By Reese Currie, Compass Distributors

The word pot-pourri, in English, according to the Oxford Dictionary of Current English, means a scented mixture of dried petals and spices, or, a musical or literary medley. In French, it means "rotten pot."

When we English think of pot-pourri, we think of nice, pleasant smells, but the real meaning of the word conveys rottenness. Just like pot-pourri, the word "pope" conveys very different things to different people.

The Roman Catholics see the pope as Christ’s vicar, which means, substitute. The pope’s Latin title is Vicarius Filii Dei, which means "Substitute for the Son of God." This conveys a good thing to Catholics. It means God has not deserted them in this world. To Christians who reject the papacy, however, there is no substitute for Christ, and the claim than anyone can be His substitute indicates that something is "rotten."

I have encountered some small amount of persecution for attempting to show people the truth about the Roman Catholic Church and the pope. I have received statements from Catholics saying that my views are "inaccurate" and my articles are "garbage." To me, this simply shows unwillingness to research and risk coming to the same conclusions. Everything I will tell you in the following article can be verified by you independently if you will diligently pursue the truth with an open mind. If you are a seeker of truth, I believe you will be interested, shocked and surprised by the unsupportable assumptions made about the history of the papacy by its supporters.

The word "Pope" means "Father." To use the word "Father" as a title was forbidden by Jesus Christ, as were some of the practices that characterize the papacy. Matthew 23:5-12 says, "But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, ‘Rabbi, Rabbi.’ But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted."

Peter would never have accepted the title "Father" or "Pope," because Peter believed in Jesus Christ and obeyed His words. I do not think that popes today necessarily recognize that this is disobedience, because like all Catholics, they are conditioned to believe that it is all right for tradition to override Scripture. But Christ’s view was, "Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?" (Matthew 15:3). The Scripture says plainly not to use "Father" in any of its forms as a religious title, because it usurps this title from the real Father, God the Father. So it is impossible that Peter would have occupied a position with a title Christ had forbidden.

Aside from the question of whether Peter would use a religious title that Jesus forbade, we have the question of whether Peter was really the bishop of Rome. From the Bible, we can only be certain that Peter was centered in Jerusalem, visited Antioch, and wrote his first epistle from Babylon. There is of course a massive bank of Roman Catholic tradition that states Peter was in Rome, so much so that most Protestant writers do not question the tradition. Yet, the notion that Peter was bishop of Rome is not in the Bible. The Romanists make the assertion that Babylon is used as a code name for Rome in his first epistle, and so there is Biblical support for their teaching. Was Peter in Rome, or was it really Babylon?

It doesn’t really make sense that Peter was in Rome. Paul was certainly in Rome. This fact is historically verified by the book of Acts, and it is also logical that Paul would be there as the apostle to the Gentiles. Peter, on the other hand, was the apostle not to the Gentiles but to the Jews. Therefore, it is more likely that Peter was literally in Babylon on the Euphrates, which at the time was one of the chief seats of Jewish learning. It would have been the perfect place for labor among the Jews.

The Biblical record of the division of responsibilities between Peter and Paul is found in Galatians 2:7-9. "But on the contrary, when they saw that the gospel for the uncircumcised had been committed to me, as the gospel for the circumcised was to Peter (for He who worked effectively in Peter for the apostleship to the circumcised also worked effectively in me toward the Gentiles), and when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that had been given to me, they gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised."

So, Peter had no Biblical reason to be in Rome; but he had every Biblical reason to end up in Babylon, since his assignment was to the Jews. Statements in 1 Peter further reflect Peter’s mission and location. In 1 Peter 1:1, Peter addresses his letter "To the pilgrims of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia." So, Peter was writing to diaspora Jews (those Jews who had dispersed out of their homeland), and the arrangement of the provinces of Asia Minor is in the order one would see them from Babylon, not from Rome.

The Roman Catholics point to Clement, the bishop of Rome during Domitian’s persecution of the church in the 90’s, as providing the evidence that Peter was the bishop of Rome. However, the authorship of such writings is disputed. In Clement’s epistles to the Corinthians, Peter is never mentioned as having been connected in any way with Rome. Only in another work that is probably not Clement’s, the Recognitions, is Peter mentioned as having connection with Rome. Scripture tells us that Clement was an associate of Paul, not of Peter, in Philippians 4:3.

Jesus’ own testimony is that Peter was unwillingly led to the place of his death. In John 21:18, Jesus said, "Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish." John 21:19 assures us that Jesus was speaking of Peter’s death. If Peter died in Rome during Nero’s persecution, which is pretty much undisputed, then he was led there under guard as Jesus prophesied. He was not already there as their bishop.

Anyone who claims Peter even visited Rome as a free man does so without a shred of Biblical evidence or verifiable historic evidence. It is interesting that the Roman Catholic Church wishes to associate itself with Babylon in Peter’s epistles but wishes to distance themselves from Babylon in Revelation. 1 Peter would have been written around 30 to 35 years before Revelation, so while Revelation's Babylon does seem to be a codename for Rome (the "harlot" representing false religion sits on seven hills, as does Rome, cf. Rev. 17:9) there is no reason to believe the codename was in use by a different writer 35 years previously.

Why would the Roman Church possibly want to rewrite the history of where Peter served? To grab power, mainly. It happened in a couple of stages. First, when the church fought a life-and-death struggle with the gnostic heretics, the gnostics fabricated a succession of teachers holding gnostic doctrines leading back to the apostles. A Catholic historian named Hegesippus constructed succession lists of bishops going back to the apostles, at least for the churches in Corinth and Rome, and made the same claim as the gnostics, that this succession guaranteed that the same doctrine taught by the apostles was taught by the bishops that had succeeded them. This is in fact a genetic fallacy, in that the current bishop in a church does not necessarily hold the same views as a bishop from 200 years prior and is not necessarily a person the original bishop would have appointed to succeed himself. In any case, later writer Irenaeus, toward the end of the second century, picked up on Hegesippus' approach and was the first to refer to Paul and Peter as the ones who founded the church in Rome, and to the bishops that followed as the "successors" of the apostles.

Originally, the Roman church got its power from being in the city housing the Emperor, being a state church. However, when the Emperor's seat moved to Constantinople, the balance of power in the church began to shift toward Constantinople as well. In a bid to retain the primacy of the Roman church, Pope Leo I was the first to claim that Jesus' statement in Matthew 16:18 was a promise by Christ to build His church on Peter (not on Peter's profession of faith), that Peter was the sole leader of the church (which lacked any New Testament evidence and in fact contradicted Peter's own teaching concerning church leadership (1 Peter 5:3)) and that bishops of Rome inherit that authority (in no way implied by the New Testament text).

Many proponents of Roman Catholicism like to run out Matthew 16:18 as a proof-text for their church. "And also I say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it." We have already established the unlikelihood that Peter ever served as bishop of Rome, and even if he had, the way the popes of Rome conduct their work contradicts Peter's own teachings on leadership (1 Peter 5:3). Furthermore, the way the popes have carried out their office contradicts Jesus' own teaching on church leadership (Matthew 20:25-27). But it may surprise you to learn that the gates of hell, which Catholics say have never prevailed against the Roman Catholic Church, have in fact prevailed against it on a number of occasions.

First, they lost the Crusades and the Jerusalem remained in the hands of the Muslims. One could I suppose argue that the Roman Catholic Church continued to exist, and therefore had not been "prevailed against," even though the word "prevail" simply means, "to be victorious over." The Muslims were victorious over the Roman Catholic Church.

The French government also prevailed over the Roman Catholic Church, and it ceased to exist for a period of 70 years. Boniface VIII asserted his supremacy over the French government. Planning to abduct Boniface, the French accidentally hurt him badly enough to kill him instead in 1303. A French pope was installed (Clement V) in 1305, and the seat of power was moved from Rome to Avignon, France in 1309. The only reason it does not continue as the Avignonian Catholic Church was through the diplomacy of Gregory XI, a French pope who negotiated the return of the papacy to Rome in 1378.

Promptly after accomplishing this lofty objective, Gregory XI died, and the Western Schism took place. Two different streams of popes emerged, the Roman line (Urban VI, Boniface IX, Innocent VII, and Gregory XII) and the Avignon line (Clement VII and Benedict XIII). Both Gregory XII and Benedict XIII were then deposed and a third claimant, Alexander V was put forward. Alexander V died and was succeeded by John XXIII. For a time, the Western Church had three popes simultaneously.

All three popes were then deposed and a new pope, Martin V, was elected on November 11, 1417 at the Council of Constance. There was a brief rumble later when Felix V was elected by the Council of Basel, but Felix abdicated in 1449.

As you can see, the continuity of so-called apostolic succession, at least as far as it concerns the papal office itself, was definitely broken during the Western Schism, so any claims of a lineage for popes back to Peter are purely fictional. This fiction is oft perpetuated on Catholic web sites where the date ranges on these popes have been altered to show consecutive rather than concurrent offices. However, you can easily research the accurate view of history from secular sources such as encyclopedias. Grolier’s article on the Western Schism for instance would be enlightening to you.

The fact that powers have prevailed over the Roman Catholic Church guarantees that it is not the church pointed to by Matthew 16:18.

The first person to refer to himself as pope in the history of the Roman Catholic Church was a man named Siricius, who was the bishop of Rome from 384-398. The title was not used again until Leo I, who reigned the Roman church from 440-461 and as I have mentioned, was the first to link this office to apostle Peter.

Originally, the pastors or elders of the Roman Church did not claim to have supremacy over one another. In fact, they were humble enough that their seven deacons ran things! Jerome wrote a polemic against this practice in the church of Rome (Letter 146: About Deacons). It should be noted that Roman Catholics correct Jerome by saying he never intended to imply that bishops and elders had the same rank, but it is precisely what Jerome’s letter actually says.

However, in time, human pride led to the establishment of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. The decision to assign the Roman bishop a higher place than other bishops came at the Council of Constantinople in 381, just before Siricius’ declaration as pope, but this title and position evidently received opposition. The decision to have this bishop understood to be the "Director of All Christendom" was established in 445 by the Edict of Theodosius II. If this was the job of the bishop of Rome all along, why make an edict of it some 400 years after the fact?

What is also interesting is that the Council of Chalcedon in 451, which Roman Catholic apologists continue to misrepresent as the ecumenical council that gave the pope his supremacy, actually made the bishop of Constantinople equal in authority to the bishop of Rome, reversing the Edict of Theodosius II.

The pope at this time was still under the authority of the Byzantine emperor in Constantinople, and did not have authority independent of the state until Gregory I in 590. It was not until this time, at the earliest, that the office of pope began to reflect the form it has today. This office simply did not exist in the New Testament church.

If you are a seeking Catholic visiting my site, you are now wondering whether to be angry with me and call the above work "inaccurate" without checking it out, or you want to know the truth. Everything I have told you can be verified with just a little work on your part, but unfortunately, it cannot be verified from Roman Catholic sources. If you wish to research this, you will have to rely on secular sources that you deem reliable.

I do not wish to insult you, but I would like to present to you a thought on the gospel in a way you may not have had it presented to you before.

Romans 3:23 says, "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." It is this falling short of the glory of God that keeps people out of heaven, and any sin at all makes us fall short of the glory of God, Who is sinless. The Roman Catholic Church, while having a system of "mortal" and "venial" sins, nevertheless through a twist in its theology recognizes this, and provides for methods of payment for sins. Extreme unction is to cleanse you of sins just before death so you will not have to endure purgatory for payment. In the funerals, prayers are given for the dead for the forgiveness of their sins to shorten their time in purgatory, and Masses are sometimes performed as sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins of the dead.

The surprise awaiting you is the fact that there is no means by which you could pay for your own sin. Purgatory does not appear in Scripture, and neither does Extreme Unction. Romans 3:24-25a continues, "being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God set forth as a propitiation by His blood, through faith."

Justification means a believer is declared just. Propitiation means that Christ's blood was a total payment; no more payment is necessary on the believer's part.

Now, you may think, if I have that propitiation anyway, why would you try to stop me from using my works to justify myself just in case? The answer is, because "just in case" is not faith in Christ, and Christ alone, to save you. Romans 3:28 says, "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law."

There are two very important things I want you to understand from this verse. First is the reciprocal relationship between justification and faith. If we do not have faith that we are justified, we do not have saving faith. So, if we are looking for works to add to our justification, we have invalidated our faith, because we have just demonstrated that we do not have faith that we are already justified by the finished work of Jesus Christ.

Second, when Paul says, "For we conclude," who did he mean by "we"? Well, obviously, the church. But the Roman Catholic Church does not maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law. The RCC maintains that a man is justified by faith plus works. Therefore, the Roman Catholic Church is not the same church as that of the apostle Paul. Its claims to first century authenticity are invalidated.

James on first glance appears to have a different view of salvation from Paul, writing, "Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have any works, is dead...You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by faith only" (James 2:17,24). Since the apostles did not contradict one another on such an important doctrine, one must ask what reconciliation of these views is possible. I believe the explanation is that the two men were writing from two different perspectives of God's act of salvation. Paul is looking at it from the heavenly perspective: God justifies us by His own grace and not by our works. James is looking at it from a human point of view: the evidence that we have real faith is that real faith produces works.

The gospel, or good news, is simply this: That Jesus Christ has borne all payment for our sins, and this payment will be applied to our sins if we exercise faith in Him. We must turn to Jesus Christ, turning away from our works and our pitiable attempts to justify ourselves through churches, traditions, and sacraments, and trust Jesus Christ only for our salvation. This is what it means to "repent, and believe in the gospel" (Mark 1:15b). To repent is not to do penance! It is to change our minds and turn to Jesus Christ, believing that He has fully paid the price for our sins and that we may through simple faith receive this blessing.

Do not accept any substitutes, or "vicars," for Christ. Now that you understand what repentance is, do it! For "unless you repent you will all likewise perish" (Luke 13:3b).

Pope-pourri is Copyright © 2000, 2007 by Compass Distributors
All Scripture references taken from The Holy Bible: New King James Version (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, Inc.), 1982.