- The Pope. Already as the Bible was still being written there were people who claimed to be followers of one or the other Apostles, that was itself condemned in the Bible.
(1Co 1:12 NIV) What I mean is this: One of you says, āI follow Paulā; another, āI follow Apollosā; another, āI follow Cephas[1]ā; still another, āI follow Christ.ā
But people continued with that, and you had the major bishophrics develop even though the biblical example was bishops (elders) in each town.
(Tit 1:5 ESV) This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed youā
And the leader in Rome was just that, a bishop or elder. But then it started to develop that it should not just be a bishophric but the ruler of the whole world. And it even came to pass that a series of forgeries were made, the False Decretals, that laid out the doctrine of the Pope. And these False Decretals were followed and the Pope came into being. It came to a head with the Pope then demanding the other Bishops submit to him. When they would not do so, the single bishop ended up splitting from the church and declaring that those who followed him were the one true church. As far as I can tell that was when the word catholic meaning universal really started to be used for the single bishophric in Rome. The one who split thereby claiming to be the church.
Even when the False Decretals were found to be false, their doctrines were not reversed but remain to this day in Rome. Hence the Catholic Tradition that if they believe a lie long enough, it becomes fact to them.
That really bring us to
- Rome will intentionally let people believe falsehoods if it seems helpful to it. The False Decretals were already mentioned and are one example you can research. Hereās another.
It would be the authority of the books called Apochrypha by Protestants.
Catholics with tell you they were declared scripture and hence are authoritative by the Council of Trent. That is a lie. Oh the Catholic people donāt know it, they arenāt lying but simply stating what Rome wants them to believe. Thing is, after all these years, there is a good source proving it to be a lie.
That would be the documentation from the Council of Trent. That has been locked up in the Vatican Secret Archives. No one got to see and study them for hundreds of years. Now, a couple of people have gotten to see them.
Perhaps a quick sidetrack to how the Secret Archives now work in general. There are lots and lots of things that document history hidden there. But in order to see them, first, you must be a supporter of Rome, if you are, then you might get to see them, but it will still be a limited time. Secondly, in order to see something, you must know it exists and ask exactly for it. Say there is some letter that a Pope wrote to someone that has an explanation of an event that is a historical question, unless someone knows of itās existance and specifically asks to see it, it is lost.
Anyway. Jedin a Catholic historian, got to see much of the Council of Trent documentation. And he wrote about some of it in his āA History of the Council of Trentā. And in it he reveals that the Council of Trent specifically voted concerning the authority of the books called Apocrypha and they voted not to decide their authority. Therefore, their authority remains an open question in Catholicism. This would be complete news to Catholics and most wonāt believe you if you tell them.
If you questioned their authority today, and even if you throw out Trent with the truth instead of the widely believed lie, the response at this point would be well since they are accepted as authoritative so widely, they must be since the church as a whole has spoken.
So you get the cycle, create a lie, hide the truth, get people to believe the lie, eventually turn it to who cares about the lie, since āeveryoneā believes it, it must be true, the Holy Spirit wouldnāt let us be wrong, and go on with the lie become accepted as fact in Rome.
That should really give you enough homework. I will stop at 2.
Marv
