Last month we began an analytical examination at Roman Catholicism. In that article I called Romanism a false religious system and said that it is not New Testament Christianity. Those statements are true and are substantiated by some of the most outstanding biblical scholars of our century and of our day including Dr. Loraine Boettner, Dr. John MacArthur, Dr. D. James Kennedy, and Dr. R.C. Sproul.
We began also to trace the roots of Roman Catholicism by looking at it's claim of apostolic succession. The Roman Church claims to have an unbroken succession of popes that began with the apostle Peter in the first century. We saw very conclusively in the last issue that claim can not be true and therefore the authority of the Roman Catholic Church falls apart at its beginning.
This month I would like to continue this look at the RCC by tracing it's development in the early church and in the Roman empire. I believe that many of my readers will be surprised to learn that the seeds of Roman Catholicism grew out of the paganism of the Roman world. Roman Catholicism is Paganism in Christian Clothing. As we continue I think you will see what I mean.
Some who do not accept the claim of apostolic succession by the RCC place it's beginning in the 6th century when Gregory the Great (AD 590) became the first to claim supremacy over other all bishops. However the critical roots of this movement can be found far earlier than this. As a matter of fact the seeds of Catholicism can be found as early as the end of the first century.
When the apostle John wrote the book of the Revelation around AD 96 popery was already raising it's head in the church. In Revelation 2:15 John, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit the words of The Lord Jesus Christ himself, penned these words. "Likewise you also have those who hold to the teaching of he Nicolaitans." The word "Nicolatians" comes from two Greek words. (NIKAO) means to conquer. (LAOS) means people. So Nicolaitan means to conquer the people. So by this early period of the Church you find this doctrine of popery, or priesthood that was creeping into the Church at Pergamum. A ruling class of clergy, an ecclesiastical hierarchy was already being established.
Now some might try to use this as a justification for this doctrine saying that since it appears early in the church it must be orthodox. However there were a number of other heresies that appeared in the first century as well such as gnosticism. Just because it was practiced in the first century church is not an automatic stamp of approval. There is however a much greater condemnation of this practice found in this same chapter. In verse 6 of Revelation chapter 2, John writing to the Church at Ephesus but still writing the words of Jesus says, "But you have this in your favor: You hate the practices of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate." The Lord Jesus who is the true head of the Church (Eph. 5:23; Col. 1:8) says that He hates the practice of the Nicolaitans. John Walvoord in his commentary on the book of The Revelation sums it up very well. "What God hates the Christian ought to hate as well." The roots of Roman Catholicism found in the early church were clearly condemned by the very God that Romanism claims to worship and the very Christ that the pope claims to represent. Now even if that were all the evidence we could raise about the illegitimacy of Roman Catholicism it would be enough. But there is much more.
During the next two hundred years as the chasm between clergy and laity initiated by the Nicolatians widened the hierarchy within the ranks of the clergy also expanded. Certain bishops (pastors) were exalted above others and came to be acknowledge as superior to other bishops. Some of these "Monarchial Bishops" eventually began to assume the oversight of several churches in an area or region with the local bishops serving under them and then some of those monarchial bishops were exalted above others. By around AD 150, for at least two reasons, the bishop of Rome began to emerge as the most superior.
Of course the first reason was the tradition related to Peter. All of the bishops were supposedly in the line of succession from the apostles but Peter you will remember was supposed to have been selected by Jesus himself as the leader. That same tradition says that Peter went to Rome and became the first bishop and therefore the bishops of Rome were in direct succession from Peter. As we saw last week, even if that were true, Peter himself nor any of the other disciples ever understood the Lord Jesus to give Peter any special position. The second reason relates to the fact that Rome was the capital of the empire and there could and would be certain political advantages that came from the bishop of Rome being given a place of preeminence. However at this particular time it was more a matter of prestige than politics because Christianity was still considered an illegal religion by the Roman government and was being persecuted.
That all changed in A.D. 312. Constantine, the emperor of Rome, was carrying on his conquests of the World. He was suffering serious reverses and then one day he announced that he had seen in the sky a giant cross and over it were these words: "In this sign thou shalt conquer." He took this to mean that if he would embrace Christianity he would be victorious. So he professed to become a Christian and decreed that the religion of the Roman Empire must be Christianity. He made Christianity a state religion, and persecution ceased. At first glance this looks like a positive turn if events. But really the period known as "Dark Ages" could be dated from this point because by this one transition, that Satan did to the Church what he couldn't do through 200 years of persecution. What Satan couldn't do with murder he did with mixture.
During this period, church and state became married. The church became wealthy as it was supported by the wealth of the state and the wealth of the empire was placed at the disposal of the Church officials. The Church began not only to exercise religious authority but governmental authority as well. Christianity became popular, and while the church remained orthodox in her creeds, (what she professed to believe), she permitted pagan doctrines and practices to come into the church and go unchallenged. The Church became wealthy and worldly, but lost her purity and power.
Constantine, without regard for spiritual conversion, compelled all his armies to be baptized, and so were "Christian". Conquered peoples were forced to do the same. Many professed Christianity but few possessed Christ. The sincerity of Constantine's "conversion" and the motivation of his religious activity are highly questionable. Earle Cairns in his book Christianity Through The Centuries says, "The fact that he (Constantine) delayed baptism untill shortly before his death and kept the position of Pontifex Maximus, chief priest of the pagan state religion, would seem to support this view".
What happened next should send a chill down the spine of every true believer. There was a blending of paganism and Christianity. Many practices, rituals, symbols, and doctrines that can not be found or supported in Scripture found their way into the old catholic Church. It is almost as if the name of the pagan religion or deity was chiseled off the front of the buildings or idols and replaced with the title "Christ", "Christian" or the name of some "saint" without changing anything else. The Chaldean tau, which was the elevation of a large "T"on the end of a pole, was changed to the sign of a cross. The rosary of pagan origin was introduced. Celibacy of clergy which has no scriptural foundation came from pagan practice. Other practices of pagan origin which started during the period from AD 312-590 include: Prayers for the dead, Making the sign of the cross, worship of saints and angels, worship of Mary, priests began to dress differently than laymen, the doctrine of purgatory introduced. Gradually these changes became more prominent than the teachings of biblical Christianity and they continue today.