We're turning to Matthew chapter 16 this evening. We welcome one and all to our meeting here on the Wednesday night, and those who join with us online, we welcome you in our Savior's precious name, Matthew's gospel. Chapter number 16, and let's read from the verse 13 of the chapter together. The Word of God says, When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I, the Son of Man, am? And he said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist, some Elias, and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He said unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ. Amen and we'll end our reading at the end of the verse number 20 of Matthew chapter 16. Now last week we commenced our studies with regard to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and together we considered together what or where the Church of Rome gets her authority with regard to what she believes and what she teaches. Whereas biblical Protestantism appeals to the scriptures alone for its beliefs and practices, Roman Catholicism promotes tradition to a standing that supersedes at times the teaching of Holy Scripture. Last week I drew your attention to some statements within the Catholic Catechism that does suggest that tradition of the Roman Catholic Church is deemed to be as authoritative as the scriptures catholics are told within their catechism that they are to read the scriptures within the living tradition of the whole church and so they are to they are to read a scripture in light of tradition and not tradition in light of the scripture because they go on to say through tradition the church in her doctrine life and worship perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she is herself and all that she believes and so through tradition she communicates what she believes. Now I thought this evening that I would continue within that same vein of thought and consider Again, another aspect of her authority. And this time I want to consider with you the head of the Roman Catholic Church, the Pope. We're going to speak about the Pope this evening. And so tonight our study is going to focus on the papacy. We thought about history. We thought about authority, now we're going to speak about the papacy. And whenever we speak about the papacy, we're really referring to the office and the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome, the Pope who presides over the central government of the Roman Catholic Church. Now as we think about the papacy tonight, and the office of the Pope, I want us to consider first of all, the papacy's claim to supremacy, the papacy's claim to supremacy. After the fourth century when the Roman Empire had fallen, the bishops of Rome stepped into Caesar's shoes. They took to themselves the title of Pontifex Maximus, the supreme high priest of the pagan Roman religion, and they took up their position and they sat upon Caesar's throne, a role that they have continued in ever since. The Church of Rome teaches that the Apostle Peter was given a position of supremacy by the Lord Jesus Christ above the other Apostles and that he was really the first Pope of the Church of Rome or the first head of the Church of Rome. The Catholic Church also teaches that Peter moved to Rome and he became the Bishop of Rome from where he ruled as the head of the world's bishops and therefore whoever succeeds Peter as the Bishop of Rome succeeds him as the Pope. And so we have two claims by the Church of Rome that really need to be considered in light of Scripture, and they need to be considered in light to their validity. Are such claims true? The first claim is that Peter was given a position of supremacy by the Lord Jesus Christ. You see, Rome uses this passage of God's Word to teach that Peter was selected by the Lord to be the leader of the church, We read there in the verses 18 and 19, And I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. One former archbishop set forth Rome's teaching on Peter's standing by stating the following. He said, the Catholic Church teaches that our Lord conferred on Saint Peter the first place of honor and jurisdiction in the government of his whole church. and that the same supreme spiritual supremacy has always resided in the popes or the bishops of Rome as being the successors of St. Peter. Consequently, to be true followers of Christ, all Christians, both among the clergy and the laity, must be in communion with the see of Rome where Peter rules in the person of his successors. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church concerning Peter was set forth in the infallible Declaration of the First Vatican Council. There the statement reads, we teach and declare that according to the gospel evidence, so they're claiming that they've evidence from the gospel, a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole Church of God was immediately and directly promised to the blessed apostle Peter and conferred on him by Christ the Lord. So convinced are they that Peter was the first pope that they have printed in gold letters the words of Matthew 16 verse 18 around the dome of St. Peter's Basilica there in Rome. You'll read there on that large domed the words, there written in Latin, thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my church. You see, the whole structure of the Roman church is built on the assumption that these two verses teach that the Lord Jesus Christ appointed Peter to be the first pope, and so established the papacy. And so if from the scriptures we can disprove the primacy of Peter, then the foundation of the papacy is destroyed. And if the foundation of the papacy is destroyed, then the whole Roman hierarchy topples with it because their system of priesthood depends absolutely upon their claim that Peter was the first pope at Rome. And thus, and all that are his successors are then in line to Peter's succession. So what saith the scriptures? That's our court of appeal. What saith the scriptures? Now, there's no doubt that Peter did play an intimate role and an intimate part in the life of the Lord Jesus Christ, but so did John and James. Peter, James, and John, those three close disciples, were found on occasions where the other disciples were not But what saith the Scriptures concerning this claim of Peter's primacy, this prominent place that is conferred upon him by none other than the Lord Jesus Christ? Well, let's look at this text. We've looked at it before. This will be a little refresher course to you, but let's look at those words, especially the verse number 18. You see, the Greek construction of this verse argues against Peter being the rock, that Christ refers to upon which the church is built. You see, if Peter is the foundational rock upon which the church was to be built, the Savior would have said, thou art Peter. Petra would have been the Greek word. Now, Petra means the foundational layer. We would call it the bedrock. The bedrock. That's what the word Petra is, the Greek word Petra. Thou art Petra, the bedrock. Upon this rock, Petra, I will build my church. But Jesus Christ didn't say that. No, he said thou art Peter, Petros. What's Petros? Petros means a stone that can be moved. Petra is a stone that cannot be moved. Petros is a stone that can be moved. Upon this bedrock, this foundational layer, I will build my church. And so Jesus Christ uses entirely different words within the verse. And by using these two different words, petros and petra, the Savior was emphasizing that the rock on which the structure of his church was to be founded upon was not the natural, flimsy, faltering, unstable person that Peter was. And we all know what type of man Peter was. Up one day, down the next. Faithful to the Savior one day, unfaithful to him the next. Loyal to him in his words one day, and in the same night cursing and using oaths to deny the Lord Jesus Christ. The church isn't built upon him, but rather it's built upon the supernatural, the all-powerful, the never failing, the stable person that is the Son of the living God. It was upon this fundamental truth that thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, that God the Son said it is upon that truth that I am the Son of God. Upon that truth and upon me is my church going to be built. You see, elsewhere in Scripture, you always need to confer with other Scriptures. You can't just take a text out of the Word of God and to make it a pretext for teaching dogma or doctrine. There must be a harmonization of the Scriptures. And so we find in other places of God's Word that Jesus Christ is seen to be the foundation of the church. Let me point you to them. Ephesians chapter 2, if you want to turn there. Ephesians chapter 2, verses 19 through 2, verse 22. Ephesians 2, 19 to 22. Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints and of the household of God. and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone, in whom all the building fitly framed together groweth into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom ye also are builded together for inhabitation of God through the Spirit. Now here the Son of God is described as being the chief cornerstone. The cornerstone was also referred to in another way. It was described as the foundation stone, the foundation stone. It was a name that was derived from the first stone that was set in the masonry foundation. And it is from that stone that every other stone is set in reference to, thus determining the position of the entire structure. And Jesus Christ is described here by Paul as being the chief cornerstone, the very foundation stone upon which the church has been built, and whom, speaking of Christ, all the building fitly freeing together groweth into a holy temple in the Lord. There's another verse of Scripture, 1 Corinthians 3, verse 11. Let me read it to you, for other foundations. Can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ? You couldn't get any clearer. Here's a foundation being spoken of. For other foundations can no man lay than that is laid, which... And so he identifies what this foundation is, or who this foundation is, which is Jesus Christ. Peter himself. This is the irony. Peter himself, who the Church of Rome claims that he's the foundation. Peter himself identified Jesus Christ as being the chief cornerstone or the foundation stone in 1 Peter 2 verse number 6. Now I want you to notice what Peter didn't say. Peter didn't say there in 1 Peter chapter 2 verse 6, Because I'm the cornerstone. I'm the foundation stone. He doesn't say he that believeth on me, but rather Peter says that he that believeth on him. Who is the him? Well, the him is the one who's spoken off in the previous verse. He's spoken there as being Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, he that believeth on him, the one that I've been speaking about in the verse number five of 1 Peter chapter two, he that believeth on him, he that believeth on Christ shall not be confounded. Beloved, the church of Jesus Christ is not founded or built upon an unsound, shaky, insecurable, man-made foundation. It's not built on a person as in a human being with regard to ourselves of Adam's fallen race. It's not built on the dogmas, the doctrines of men. It's not built upon the traditions of men. It's not built upon creeds of church councils or senates, but rather the church is founded upon the person and the work of the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church and he is the head of the church. The Westminster divines in the Confession said this, there is no other head of the church but the Lord Jesus Christ. nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof. And those godly men were simply really stating the teaching of scripture with regard to who the head of the church is. Ephesians 1 21, Ephesians 5 23, Colossians 1 18. Let me give you Ephesians 5 23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church and he is the Savior of the body. Now, if Peter was the first pope and was given this role of supremacy by the Lord Jesus Christ, well then, surely his role and its connected supremacy would be borne out in the record of Scripture. You would think that would be the case. But is that the case? Well, it's not. Would you notice a number of things with me? First of all, Peter never claimed any position of supremacy within the band of apostles. In 1 Peter 1, verse 1, Peter claims only to be an apostle, but he doesn't describe himself as being a chief or the chief apostle. While in 1 Peter 5, verse 1, he speaks of himself as being simply an elder, along with other elders. The elders which are among you, I exhort, who am also an elder and a witness of the suffering of Christ and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed. He sees elders, and then he says, I'm an elder. But he doesn't place himself as being the prominent elder. He just says, I'm an elder, just like you. He sees himself on a power, on the same level as the other elders to whom he was writing to. You see, Peter assumes no ecclesiastical superiority, but with rather profound humility, he puts himself on the same level as those whom he exhorts. And so Peter does not claim the supremacy. James, not Peter, is seen to be the leader of the New Testament church in the book of Acts. When the Jerusalem council met to debate the doctrinal issue of justification and whether circumcision was a requirement for salvation or not, that's what that debate was all about. really based on the great doctrine of justification. We notice there in Acts chapter number 15 that it was James, not Peter, who moderated the gathering and closed the debate. Acts chapter 15, maybe I should I'll read a verse there from Acts chapter 15, and you can read the debates and all that happens there from the verse number 13. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me. Now if you would have thought, surely it should have been Peter. This man is supposed to be the head of the church. Why is James speaking here? It should be Peter. And then you'll notice as you read on down there, right down chapter 15, 13 through now to 21, you'll find that they have this debate and James closes, he closes the debate and then letters are written and it's sent out. It's not sent out in the name of simply an individual, but rather it's sent out with regard to all who were gathered The apostles and elders and brethren, it says, verse 23, send greeting on to the brethren. You would have thought that they would have said, Pope Peter, Pope Peter is speaking here, but it is not revealed as such. It is James who moderates this presbytery meeting. If Peter had been Pope, the supreme head of the church, surely then the other apostles would have referred to him in such a way, and he would have declared himself within his own epistles, for that would have been the place for him to have asserted his authority. Nowhere in Scripture do the other apostles acknowledge Peter's authority, and nowhere does he attempt to exercise authority over them. One of the claims of the Pope is that he is infallible. Well, there wasn't much infallibility about Peter when he denied the Lord, as I said, with oaths and curses. And then remember that occasion whenever Paul withstood him to the face and he openly rebuked him there. In the book of Galatians, Galatians 2 verse 11, speaking of Peter, it says, Paul said about Peter, he was to blame. He was to blame with regard to how others had interacted because of his own example. When the Jews came down from Jerusalem, Peter then took himself away from the Gentile believers and other Jews who were with Peter. They followed him in suit and followed him out of that particular room. And Paul, he said that that shouldn't have happened. And as a result, it says that Paul withstood him to the face because Peter was to blame. One preacher put it like this. With regard to what Paul did on that occasion, he said he gave Peter a dressing down before them all, accusing him of not walking uprightly in the truth of the gospel. Surely, that was no way to talk to a pope. Obviously, Paul did not regard Peter as infallible in faith and morals or recognize any supremacy on his part. The second claim that the Roman Catholic Church with regard to Peter is that Peter moved to Rome. According to the Roman Catholic tradition, Peter is supposedly have been the first bishop of Rome. His tender lasted for about 25 years, AD 42 to AD 67, and ended in his martyrdom there in Rome. And you'll find supposedly his body under the high altar there in Peter's Basilica in the city of Rome. And one of the versions of the Bible that the Roman Catholic has sanctioned They have written the following introduction to the first epistle of St. Peter. This is how it reads. After the resurrection, the primacy was conferred upon Peter. And immediately after the ascension, he began to exercise it. After preaching in Jerusalem and Palestine, he went to Rome, probably after his liberation from prison. Some years later, he was in Jerusalem for the first church council, Acts 15, and shortly afterward at Antioch, in the year 67 AD, he was martyred in Rome. And so we need to ascertain, did the scripture speak about Peter being in Rome? Well, I've read through the Bible quite a number of times, and I've never read about Peter ever going to Rome. There's not a single reference with regard to Peter being in Rome. If you read the scriptures, you'll find that within the record itself, I'm not speaking about the titles and maybe the little end bits that you find at some of Paul's epistles, but in the Word of God itself, you'll find that Rome, the city of Rome, occurs nine times. And never is Peter mentioned in connection with the city. As the apostles, to the Jews, Peter really had no need to go to Rome. Rome was more the natural mission field for Paul because he was the apostle to the Gentiles. And so then it's no wonder that Paul eventually goes to Rome rather than Peter. Instead of going to Rome, it seems from the record of Scripture that instead of going, let me get this right, instead of going west, Peter actually went east. How do I know that? Well, because it says in 1 Peter 5, verse 13, this is how Peter writes, Babylon was to the east of Israel, Palestine, the promised land. Eastward is the direction of travel, it seems for Peter. There is no mention of him going west to the city of Rome. And so there is no biblical warrant to Rome's claim that Peter went to the capital city of the Roman Empire at any stage of his life, never mind becoming the Bishop of Rome. And so, with regard to the record of Scripture, we can throw out that claim. We can throw out the claim with regard to supremacy over the other apostles, and we can throw out the claim with regard to Peter ever being in Rome. Having mentioned just a little bit about the papacy's claim to supremacy, I want you to think about the papacy's titles. The leader of the Roman Catholic Church is known to English speakers as the Pope. The Latin equivalent term is Papa. Papa, that's the name. And that name is simply an endearing term that means father. And Catholics refer to their leader as Holy Father. Holy Father, that's how they refer to him. Now whenever I open my Bible, I do find that title, but I don't find it given to any human being. Rather, I find that that title is given to God the Father. Because in Christ's high priestly prayer in John 17 verse 11, when Jesus Christ was praying, He addressed His Father in this way, And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to Thee, Holy Father. keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are." And so this title is a title that is exclusively given to God the Father. He is the Holy Father. We have a Holy Father, God the Father. We can address Him as such. Holy Father, our Father who art in heaven. Now, you and I know the history of the popes, and there's certainly not much holiness about them. Just there recently, the previous pope had to apologize for covering up scandal with regard to abuse whenever he was, I think it was in the city of Munich, There wasn't much holiness about him then, not much holiness about the Church of Rome. Holy Father is a title that should be addressed only to God the Father. And in addition to the title being exclusively used to speak of God the Father, to call the Pope or any priest Father is to violate the clear command of Holy Scripture. The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 23 verse 9, and call no man your father upon the earth, for one is your father, which is in heaven. Dr. Martin Lloyd-Jones said, the scripture tells us specifically not to call any man father on earth, because there is only one father, the father who is in heaven is the Holy Father. I'm not speaking about your earthly Father. I'm not speaking of that, but with regard to authority and ecclesiastical matters and spiritual matters, there is only one whom we address as Father, our Father who art in heaven. Whenever the triple crown, and I'm not speaking about Rabbi, whenever the triple crown is placed on the head of the new Pope at his coronation ceremony, the ritual prescribes the following declaration to be made by the officiating cardinal. Receive the tiara adorned with three crowns, and know that thou art the father of princes and kings, ruler of the world, and vicar of our savior, Jesus Christ. The ruler of the world. Supposed to be the Pope. Well, I only know one ruler of the world, and that is my God. He rules the nations. He rules the kingdoms. The papal tiara presented to Pius IX by Belgium in 1871 had the following inscription, to the infallible vicar of Jesus Christ, to the supreme governor of the world on earth, to the father of nations and kings. According to the Catholic Church, the Pope is crowned with a triple crown to denote that he is the king of heaven and of earth and of the lower regions. Where does that sit with Scripture that states that the Son of God is the king of kings and he is the Lord of lords? Other titles attributed to Christ alone in Scripture have been claimed by popes. For example, Pope Pius IX again said the following on the 24th of March, 1866, I am the way, the truth, and the life. And they who are with me are with the church, and they who are not with me are out of the church. They are out of the way, the truth, and the life. All who know the Scripture know that Jesus Christ said, I am the way, the truth, and the life. Now, if Christ is the way, the truth, and the life, well, how could the Pope also be the way, the truth, and the life? These are some of the papacy's titles that he claims and he takes to himself. A quick note about, people say, the papacy's infallibility. People infallibility, was not an official doctrine in the Church of Rome until the First Vatican Council of 1870. Prior to Vatican I, the Church considered itself to be infallible in matters of relating to doctrine and had not defined where that infallibility actually lay. Some held that it was vested in the Pope alone, the successor Peter, others in the bishops of the council under the leadership of the Pope. Well, subsequent to Vatican I, Although the magistratum acting in council was still considered infallible, the Pope now also had authority to proclaim infallible teachings of his own will without the formal approval of the bishops. Anathema was pronounced in all that would not submit to this degree. Rome's claim of papal infallibility relates to instances of the Pope's teaching relating to faith and morals when he acts ex cathedra from the chair. In those rare occasions, the Pope chooses to have the final word on a disputed doctrinal issue. According to one source that I read, these acts are said to be rare. And indeed, there are only two such recognized teachings, apart from the teaching of papal infallibility itself, for which there is universal agreement within the bounds of the Church that they were actual instances of papal infallibility. These are the teachings of Pope Pius IX, in 1857 regarding the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and in 1954, the teaching of Pius XII about the Assumption of Mary, that Mary was conceived without sin and that Mary was raised and ascended to heaven without dying. The Assumption, the Immaculate Conception, and the Assumption of Mary. These are supposed infallible pronouncements by the Pope. And if you don't believe them, then anathema, the curse of God on you. You know, brethren and sisters, the Bible speaks of only one abiding, tangible, infallible guide left by God for His church, and that is the Word of God, the infallible scriptures. Not a fallible human leader, but the infallible scriptures of truth. all Scripture given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness. The Bible, not the Pope, is the only infallible guide for the child of God in the matters of faith and practice. These are but some, just some, of the Rome's teachings with regard to the papacy. But I trust that what I've just said in these moments together, that at least in this message it is settled in your mind that Roman Catholicism is a false religion simply because its teaching on the papacy does not correlate with the teaching of Holy Scripture. God willing, in the will of God next week, we'll consider another tenant of the Roman Catholic faith. And let us thank God that God has given us his word, whereby we can judge all of these matters, whether they are found to be scripturally right, or whether there is error and heresy with regard to these matters. May the Lord bless his word to our hearts for Christ's sake. Amen. Let's bow in prayer. Father in heaven, we thank thee for thy word. and we thank thee for the teaching, Lord, of the Scriptures, and we must come to them as we consider what others believe and to find what the Scriptures teach. Lord, these messages are necessary. Too many people are gullible and they do not understand, Lord, the teaching of Scripture. Lord, it is my desire as the minister of this congregation that our people would not be in ignorance with regard to these things. And so, Lord, teach us, teach us, and may we know the truth, and may we be able to defend the faith once delivered onto the saints. We thank Thee that Thou art King, and that upon Thy head there are many crowns, thou art ruling over the nations of the world. We bless thee for this. Now help us Lord as we get to prayer we ask these our petitions in Jesus name. Amen. Just a reminder