Yes, I’m more concerned about papist “stuff”. lol I don’t see anything wrong with candles and would disagree with any Protestant who did. They would have no grounds under SS to label the use of candles as heresy.
Okay, let’s look at some of those claims. Although arguing for the papacy is not one of my “strong points” I’ll help get the discussion started
From
here Brian’s original link
610 The
Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of
pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas
This he did to spite Bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople, who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius. Gregory 1, then bishop of Rome, refused the title, but his successor, Boniface III, first assumed title “pope.”
Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Lk. 22:24-26; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18; I Cor. 3:11).
Note:-- Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome."
From Church Militant’s (originally
) link
Boettner apparently wishes to give the impression that the office of Pope was invented by the Byzantine Emperor Phocas in 607, and conferred upon Boniface. The actual facts are not so simplistic.
To begin with, the title of the Bishop of Rome—
Pontifex Maximus—is a term meaning “bridge-builder”, which the Popes inherited from governmental functionaries of the pagan Romans. “Pope” is merely a derivation of a Latin word meaning “father”; and use of that term for various clerics is also found in both the Orthodox and Coptic churches.
Tertullian, writing in his treatise
Modesty (written in 220 AD), cites a quote from “a pontiff—sovereign, of course—that is, a bishop of bishops” [21]. This places use and understanding of the term 387 years before Boettner’s claim. Two other instances of the term in the definition of a
patriarch are found applied to the Bishop of Carthage in 250 AD [22], and to the Bishop of Alexandria in 320 AD [23]. However, the Bishop of Rome was always held to be Head of the entire Church, (as attested to by Ignatius, Hermas, Dionysius, Hegesippus, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, and others).
Shortly before Boniface III was elected, a dispute had arisen about the way that Cyriacus, the Patriarch of Constantinople, was using the term “ecumenical patriarch”; the manner in which Cyriacus was employing the title seemed to minimize the proper office of the Pope as universal head of the Church.
Once Boniface had been elected Pope, Emperor Phocas issued a decree—aimed directly at Cyriacus—which stipulated that the See of Rome was the head see of all the churches, and that the title “Universal Bishop” belonged only to the Bishop of Rome [24]. There was imperial precedent for this action, since Emperor Justinian (527-565 AD) had issued a similar acknowledgement some eighty years before [25].
The wrangling over jurisdiction between Rome and Constantinople would continue for another 400 years, and would eventually contribute to the final East-West schism in 1054 AD; but the examples provided here more than dispose of Boettner’s claim that the title of Pope was “invented” by the Byzantine Emperor in 607 AD.
[21] Jurgens, Vol. 1, pg 159.
[22] ibid., pg 227.
[23] ibid., pg 277.
[24]
Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 2; “Boniface III”. pg 600.
J.N.D. Kelly,
The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pg 68.
[25] ibid.
I thought I’d go to a source from someone who knows more than I do. I could have taken the time to go through everything and see if it was accurate but that’d take a while.