Roman Catholicism: What in God’s name is it ?
Church or Sect?
True or False?
Lion or Lamb?
The True Bride of Christ?
The Woman in Revelation surrounded by Twelve Stars
or
The Other Woman?
This Mother Church is very ancient, she certainly pre-dates Protestantism but does she pre-date the Evangelical Faith that birthed Protestantism?
Roman Catholicism is a vast institution. Penetrating it at any level is a huge enterprise. It is multi-layered, it has a legal basis in Canon Law. As a religion it has a vast and complex doctrinal base. It has Sacred Tradition: The oral transmission of truths held to be apostolic but additional to those laid out in the Holy Scriptures. Sacred Tradition is held to be a co-equal source of divine authority alongside Holy Scripture. There is also the Magisterium: The Teaching Authority, which is empowered to accurately, fully and infallibly interpret the meaning of the Holy Scriptures. From Sacred Tradition and the Teaching Authority flow all those doctrines and dogmas that give Roman Catholicism its uniqueness. Then there is the Papacy: the popes stand firstly as the Vicar of Christ, Christ on earth, his co-regent and secondly as the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter from whom the headship and apostolic succession derives its source. On this base stands all the teaching, powers and authority relating to the priesthood. Then there are the Church Councils, whose deliberations, those of popes, cardinals and bishops, can also carry the stamp of infallibility.
The Council of Trent is one of these and is much quoted as a source of divine authority. The Church of Rome calls itself the One, Holy, Catholic Apostolic Church. There is no salvation outside its motherly embrace and no other Christian denomination is a “proper church” according to the present pontiff, Benedict XV1. Why? Simply because they do not have the apostolic authority to ordain bona fide priests.
Besides all this there is a further dimension to this institution. One that causes it to bestride not only the spiritual world but also the secular. It should not be forgotten that the Vatican City is an independent state. It has therefore a significant political component. It has forged concordats with most of the nations of the earth. These seek to ensure the place of Catholicism even in states that are inherently hostile to the Christian Gospel. Hence the infamous concordat that was signed between the Vatican and Hitler’s National Socialist Party.
Rome also has unquantifiable wealth in property and art treasures as well as banking and commercial interests around the world. Because of its standing and its connections with all religions and most nations it is a mighty player in this realms of diplomacy, one made all the greater by its perceived moral authority.
Italy may be a relatively small fish amongst the ranks of European powers. The Vatican in comparison, is big, huge; the only thing about it that is small and insignificant is its acreage. Its reputation is immense. Its history is not a matter of conjecture, it spans at least one and a half millennium and its leadership, the papacy, has dealt throughout with Caesars, Holy Roman Emperors, national governments and world rulers.
So, this great Mother Church is seen by most, whether they be friends or enemies of Rome to be by far the greatest in status, in its huge numbers, around the billion mark, in wealth, in political influence, in moral teaching, in the world of art and architecture and learning. The pope is listened to wherever he goes. The great and the good seek him out and regardless of their faith or lack of faith receive his benediction. The world waits and watches for the changing colour of the smoke that indicates a new pope has been elected.
It is a master of spectacle. It is one of the wonders of this world.
But what of her character? Is She a Lion or a Lamb?
If it takes you by the throat and throttles the life out of you know for sure that it is a killer
Jesus says of the devil that he is like a roaring lion seeking those he can devour. But scripture also uses another wild animal to depict the dangers that surrounded God’s little flock even in the apostolic age. And the threat came not from without but from within the Church.
Jesus said: ‘Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you shall know them. Do people pick grapes from thorn bushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit.’
Matt. 7 v 15-17
Paul said: ‘ I know that after I leave savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock. Even from your own number men will arise and distort the truth in order to draw away disciples after them. So be on your guard. Remember that for three years I never stopped warning you with tears.’
Acts 20 v 29-31
If you want to know the true character of a man, seek out those that knew him in his youth and childhood, his adolescence and in the years of his maturity. Listen and learn from his own words, his own writings his own actions, find out about his character from those who have entered into a relationship with him. Hear from his friends and his enemies, his family and his business connections. See how he has conducted himself when he has been strong and in control and when he has been weak and seemingly lost control of his destiny. If you want to understand Roman Catholicism then you will have to study a vast amount of material. It is best done by yourself, but this may help spark an interest and motivate a personal investigation.
This institution, above all others, deserves and needs to be watched.
Rather than begin an in-depth investigation into the heart of Roman Catholicism let's begin with a simple demonstration that indicates what type of being we have set before us.
Roman Catholicism teaches a truth believed also by Evangelical Christians. That the Holy Scriptures are the Word of God, written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and are without error, categoric and unequivocal. We’re in agreement. Or are we? We are, until Sacred Tradition and the Teaching Authority have added their revelations and interpretations. Some of the most recent are based on scientific dogmas such as evolutionary theory and a new enthusiasm for scriptural criticism. A recent teaching from the Roman Catholic episcopate in the U.K. warned Catholics that they should not expect total accuracy in the Bible. Parts of Genesis and indeed other passages have come under attack as not being literally true or historically accurate.
That’s the end of inerrancy then.
This Church however believes the literal word when it suits their purpose.
Jesus says: ‘This bread is my flesh which I give for the life of the world.’ John 6 v 51
And ‘Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life’
John 6 v 53-54
The literal interpretation of these scriptures underpin Catholic doctrine relating to the Eucharist and its doctrine of transubstantiation.
But within this same discourse Jesus says something else that should make their doctors of theology think again.
Jesus says: ‘The Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.’
John 6 v 63
If the ‘flesh counts for nothing’ how is it there are, photographed, displayed and proudly presented, and fully accredited, large numbers of eucharistic miracles. These have occurred in the past and continue to happen, even more frequently in the present age, according to R.C. sources. They graphically and literally demonstrate that the consecrated host of bread has become, at least in one case, real flesh, and in many others real blood. Yes, at Lanciano in Italy, particles of human flesh, placed behind the protection of glass, is venerated as the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, proving Roman Catholic doctrine to be true.
Or is it perhaps just one demonstration amongst many, of ‘the work of Satan’ in displaying ‘counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders.’
2 Thessalonians ch. 2 v 9
Or more likely in this case a demonstration of the all too common temptation to produce what the crowds want to see. In many places of this type much money is made by visiting pilgrims. It is no good Roman Catholics taking offence at this. Much of the wealth of Rome was extracted from the gullible and the pious by the sale of a multitude of holy products and guarantees of salvation or time off purgatory. Also as a result of visiting some holy shrine located in any of the wondrous holy cities of Christendom.
There are many more miracles and wonders of the Catholic Church, which boggle the mind and imagination. Like the miraculous removal by angels, of Mary and Joseph’s house from Israel to three other locations before it was finally settled at Loretto in Italy. Or the miracles of the rosaries turned into gold in Medjugorje, or miraculous rose petals in the Philippines, many cases of statues of the Virgin Mary weeping blood, or the incorruptible bodies of long dead saints on display at various place of worship, or the marvellous painting miraculously imprinted onto a peasants cloak in Guadeloupe, or a solar miracle, the spectacle of the dancing, gyrating, plunging sun at Fatima seen by between 30,000 and 100,000 pilgrims, and huge numbers of healings attributed to relics and religious artefacts, and so on. All of these validated either by the faithful or by scientific investigation, if you believe it.
However while the Church of Rome is prepared to be literal with regard to one passage of scripture it is not so keen to believe the literal words of Jesus in all cases.
For example, when Jesus urges his followers to pluck out offending eyes and amputate offending hands rather than risk the loss of a heavenly reward. Never was done to my knowledge in my forty years as a Roman Catholic, no one preached that this was a command of God. The Magisterium of the Church, to be fair to it, would certainly reprimand anyone who taught it as a requirement of the Faith. It was a command of Jesus, but not one to be taken literally, it was figurative, an example of the seriousness of the choices we make for or against him.
What about Catholic baptism? Why, if infant baptism causes a babe to become integrated into the life of Christ and a member of the saving community does scripture never give a single example of this in practise. The answer is simple, baptism, in the scriptures always happens after a person has come to faith in Christ. It is a sign of a spiritual reality that happens upon a profession of faith , following that comes baptism, which signifies the death of the old life and the risen reality of the new. This for obvious reasons cannot happen for a baby. Nor is there anything in scripture that supports the notion that a priest, a sacrament and a believing parent and godparent can believe for another, especially one as yet incapable of faith, understanding or speech. This odious and false doctrine is in place simply because the Church claims for itself what belongs to Christ alone.
The Catholic Church becomes our Priest our Mother our Saviour. We are reborn into the Church and only through this, unto Christ and salvation. There is “No salvation outside the Church.” Look at that statement in the light of the Gospels and you will see how false it is, but this is their damnable claim. They demand control and oversight of you from cradle to grave. The Scriptures are also controlled by Rome, by both Sacred Tradition and the Teaching Authority. The doctrines of Rome, should you examine them bear testimony to this fact. These doctrines are so anti-biblical that they could not exist if the primacy of the biblical word, the revelation of God, was held as the first and last Word of God. His complete and completed Revelation. This is what scripture says of itself. It is a living and unchangeable Word. Roman Catholicism denies this in practise, whatever it may say in public, it must do this, since to concede the notion of the Bible as the finished and final authority would be a death blow to this institution.
There is more, such are the depths of this religion, there is always more. There is the command of Jesus to ‘call no man father.’ But it's OK to call my priest father and the pope, Holy Father.
Yet another aberration is their failure to acknowledge that Joseph had sexual relations with Mary following the birth of Jesus. This is not merely implied it is stated in the clearest of terms. If this comment quoted below were applied to my daughter and son in law I would know exactly what was meant by it: there is no doubt and no confusion and it is not open to any other interpretation.
‘Joseph took Mary home as his wife but he had no union with her until she gave birth to her son.’
Matt. 1 v 24
The word 'until' is small but extremely meaningful in this context. This scripture, if taken literally, offends against the doctrine that states Mary is ever a virgin. Consequently it is not taken literally.
Sex is a problem to Rome. It hates the idea of holiness being associated with a sexual act, hence celibacy for its priests and virginity for its greatest saint, the Blessed Virgin Mary. And yet an earlier betrothal and sexual act between two of God’s great Old Testament figures tells us a different story. A love story of exquisite tenderness that provided Jesus with two of his ancestors: Ruth and Boaz.
These two produced Obed, through normal sexual intercourse, he and his wife produced Jesse the father of David in the same manner. This process of marriage and birth through the sexual act continued without interruption until Mary, who did conceive, but by the Holy Spirit. That is according to the Word of God. So is the fact that following this miraculous birth she then ‘knew’ her husband Joseph, and together they had further children: the brothers and sisters of Jesus, referred to in the Scriptures as such, a number of times.
But the Catholic Church objects to this and denies it, by giving an entirely warped, unnatural, unwarranted and erroneous interpretation of the gospel accounts.
That Jesus had brothers and sisters is clearly stated along with the fact that Mary and Joseph had sexual relations and enjoyed a normal married life subsequent to the birth of Jesus. Once again, to concede this is to demolish a long held and to Catholics, a precious and important doctrine. The perpetual virginity of Mary.
Yet another perversion of Holy Scripture is this one:
‘That all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.’
Romans 3 v 23
But Sacred Tradition and the Teaching Authority have decreed that Mary is sinless, never sinned and was saved from even the stain of original sin. So Paul is either mistaken, or forgetful of the one exception to his rule. or maybe just ignorant of Mary’s status and of her Immaculate Conception that had occurred decades earlier. Perhaps he also missed or ignored her miraculous Assumption into Heaven, which must have been known to Paul, had it actually happened of course.
Now I can say all this knowing that Rome has theologians and lawyers by the thousand who could take each of these points and prove that the Catholic interpretation is correct and mine false.
I will not argue with them, many have tried and end up exhausted and frustrated by the futility of endless debate. Instead I will introduce you to an idea that worked a treat in 17th century France. It worked for a long time and was developed in the finest of detail by the most subtle of clerical minds, the Jesuits.
It should be noted that this religious order was fiercely, not to say fanatically loyal to the papacy. In a world that had become a theological war zone, these men became the pope's storm troopers. The Jesuits were not therefore a sub section of the Church that went off the rails; they were at the heart of and entrusted with the prosecution of the great Roman Catholic Counter Reformation.
Jesuits were however eventually exposed to the remorseless glare of publicity. Their own words quoted back to them and in the public arena by one brave man. As a result the word Jesuitical entered the language and into dictionaries, becoming synonymous with lying, intrigue and deception. The craft they devised had an uninteresting name but had fascinating consequences. The name is Casuistry and is linked with Probabilism. As an example, try this one. Find out how to visit a brothel and of actually having sex with a prostitute without the intention of sinning. Or, killing a man by stealth in an ambush in order to defend one’s honour. It is all done by deflecting the intention. The intention in visiting the brothel was not to have sex, the fact that having got there and sampled the atmosphere and seen what was on view, one tended to move one towards sex, is just a by-product, not the intention, hence it is not a sin. It works something like that, but more from the Jesuits themselves will demonstrate the method more fully.
The following may convince you that the legal minds employed by Rome are not to be trusted. That they will argue a point to death and beyond, that they have no scruple and care nothing about either the Word of God or the spirit of that word. What you are about to read could not be further removed from the truth. The character of these men is brutally exposed by a devoted Roman Catholic who took his life in his hands to write the famous, Provincial Letters. His name is Blaize Pascal.
I will content myself with one example. The direct quotes are from the Penguin Classics: Blaise Pascal / The Provincial Letters translated and introduced by A.J. Krailsheimer.
Pascal is speaking to a Jesuit who is painstakingly explaining, as if to a novice, the ingenious ways in which casuistry and the science of probable opinions works.
The Jesuit speaks. ‘ You should know then that this marvellous principle is our great method of directing the intention, which is so important in our morality that I think I might almost compare it to the doctrine of probability. You have seen some of its features in passing, in certain principles I mentioned. For when I explained how servants can perform certain awkward commissions with good conscience, did you not notice it was only by deflecting their intention from the evil of which they were accessories and applying it to the profit they get out of it? That is what directing the intention means... But now I want to show you this great method in all its lustre, on the subject of homicide, which it justifies in innumerable circumstances, so that you may judge from such effects all that it is capable of producing.'
‘I see already,’ I said ‘ that this will make everything permissible, nothing will escape it.’
‘You go from one extreme to another,’ answered the Father, ‘ You must cure yourself of this fault. As evidence we do not permit everything, note for instance, that we never tolerate anyone having the formal intention of sinning just for the sake of sinning; and that if anyone insists on having no other end in evil doing but evil itself, we break from him, that is diabolical… Not that we fail to deter men as far as we can from forbidden things, but when we cannot prevent the action, at least we try to purify the intention; and thus we correct the viciousness of the means by the purity of the end. That is how our Fathers have found a way to permit the acts of violence commonly practised in the defence of honour. For it is only a question of deflecting one’s intention from the desire for vengeance, which is criminal, and applying it to the desire to defend one‘s honour, which according to our Fathers is lawful.’
Pascal challenges the Jesuit to prove these statements are authentic. His reply leaves no room for doubt.
‘I only put forward what I can prove, and by so many passages you will be filled with wonder at their number, authority and arguments.’
Pascal prods his enthusiastic Jesuit guide into ever darker waters. Can one accept a challenge to a duel? For honours sake, yes. Can one initiate a duel? For honours sake, yes. And yet both were illegal in France, forbidden by the king himself. Deeper and darker it gets as the Father quotes moral theses in support of further examples.
‘It is quite reasonable to say that someone may fight to duel to save his life, his honour or some considerable amount of property, when it is established that an attempt is being made to rob him of these, by lawsuits or chicanery, and that is the only way to preserve them... in such an event it is lawful to accept or challenge to a duel… and also that one may kill one’s enemy by stealth. And even on such occasions one must not have recourse to a duel if one can kill a man by stealth, and thus get out of it. For by this means one will at once avoid risking one’s life in a fight and taking part in the sin which one’s enemy would commit by duelling.'
‘That is a pious ambush, Father’ I said, ‘ but, however pious, it remains an ambush, since it makes it lawful to kill one’s enemy treacherously.’
‘Did I ever say,’ replied the Father, ‘that one may kill anyone treacherously? Heaven preserve me! I tell you that one may kill by stealth, and from that you conclude that one may kill treacherously, as if it were the same thing.’
His outrage at Pascal’s remarks and his defence of the proposition conclude with the following extraordinary statement.
‘Anyone who kills his enemy after being reconciled with him and promising to make no more attempts on his life is not absolutely said to kill him treacherously, unless they enjoyed intimate friendship.’
Pascal continues to listen as he is told that this killer of his enemy by ambush may also, should he consider any witnesses or a judge, false, kill them as well. And so it goes on, may one kill someone you believe intends to slap you or hit you with a stick? Yes you may, providing you direct your intention correctly, because the casuists have provided a probable opinion to that effect. They even permitted killing for an insult or a sign, but this was discouraged, not for a moral reason but for practical one. A state whose gentlemen and knights were obsessed with matters of honour would be swiftly depopulated if such a measure was ever officially sanctioned.
How far must one go to prove that an institution is rotten at the core? The truth is I do not know. To those who believe it is difficult to even find a cause sufficient to make them think again. Argument is not a weapon to use against emotion. And people feel emotionally tied to their religion. So, change is a work of God. I know that from my own life. And I am glad that it is this way. We speak if we believe we are called to do so, beyond that it is for God to act.
So, I could on at length about this, but what has been quoted should be sufficient to give you a glimpse into the souls of these people. These servants of the Church of Rome. These doctors of moral theology, these lawyers, these confidants of the popes. How could they be like this? From what pit were they spawned, and who nurtured them and employed them to sow such falsehood and mayhem into the Kingdom of God? And how does a doctor of the Church today defend a Church whose motto is Semper Idem: Always the same. This was not the dark ages, the Church of Rome was still the One, True, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church was it not? These men occupied the highest place among its teachers, did they not? Was not the Magisterium in place, was not Sacred Tradition still a mine of divinely inspired wisdom? Was not the Church still equipped to interpret Holy Scripture? Did not the Church know right from wrong?
What shocks me more than what has been quoted is that still, to this day, Catholic apologists rush to defend this institution and its history.
In John’s Revelation it says to those who are in Babylon during the last days, “ Come out of her my people.”
My picture is Lot and his daughters escaping from Sodom. It is relevant I believe to both evangelical Christians who are flirting with Rome and to Roman Catholics. Get away and get out and do not look back!
Pascal’s literary work almost certainly dealt a premature death blow to casuistry. It could perhaps have lived on into the present age if it had not been so dishonoured by the publication of the Provincial Letters. Jesuits used it as an evangelical tool. Converting the rich and noble to Catholicism was made much easier by casuistry. By ensuring that their lifestyle was neither condemned or constrained by either moral law or the Word of God. Everything from simony, buying lucrative positions in the Church, avoiding bankruptcy law, duelling, almsgiving, whoring, killing because of a verbal offence to ones honour, anything, even the requirement to love God, made acceptable by these ecclesiastics. Jesuits through this system circumvented both the laws of the state and the Laws of God.
This system of moral expediency was dreamed up by the intellectual elite of the Roman Church. Casuistry in this form lasted for at least a hundred years, doing untold damage to the moral fibre of a great nation. This Jesuitical teaching brought the Catholic clergy and French nobility into such disrepute that it almost certainly contributed to the rise of and the subsequent horrors of the French Revolution.
Roman Catholic apologists are adept at every form of polemic. They are subtle, relentless and ingenious. Their ability to complicate and obfuscate are second to none.
The Bible is not simple, far from it, but in comparison to the writings of Roman apologists it is straightforward. Clear in what it commands, what it commends and what it condemns. When it condemns idolatry it does so in the simplest form. An idol can be of any form animate or inanimate, human or non human. A statue to Mary would qualify, and just the making of it and the intention to bow down to it is sufficient to break this commandment of God. Devotions to Mary go far beyond this simple condemnation. Into the stratosphere of idolatry through the extravagance of its devotional practises, its prayers, litanies and its underlying theology which paints pictures of Marian divinity in a bewildering myriad of ways.
Mary is so beautiful.
How her name has been despoiled by these grotesque and extravagant and non-biblical additions.
‘My soul glorifies the Lord and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour’
Here is the second commandment.
‘You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them…’
Exodus 20 v 3-4
What do the apologists of Rome do to get themselves out of this
bind?
The shadow of casuistry darkens this matter also. Observe the method at work.
Firstly they change the terms that define the Commandment. It is not the intentions of the heart that are spoken of, they are physical acts: making of an idol and bowing down before it. Both these acts are replicated hundreds of thousands of times a day through authorised devotions. It is obvious that these acts signify worship and indeed the disposition of the heart. But the heart cannot be measured by man as accurately as the actions of the body. Perhaps that is why the command given to Moses was written as it was. To make idolatry obvious and unmistakeable.
Secondly they create a sliding scale that separates and compartmentalises worship, a scale that cannot ever be measured since it happens within the heart and mind of the individual worshipper. Once the intentions of the heart are hidden, censorship becomes a matter of guesswork. Is this person giving veneration to a saint that is so fulsome it is more appropriate to that which ought to be offered to God. The answer: Who knows? Who can Judge?
Job done !
How is it done?
Catholic doctors of theology define three different stages of devotion and worship. That which is appropriate to saints, dulia, to Mary, hyper-dulia and to God latria. As they have now defined devotion and worship in terms of an inner disposition of the heart and mind and spirit, it matters little what happens physically or emotionally. The words of scripture that concern the most basic of human responses bowing down and the making of an object of veneration and thereby, potentially worship, is legally and infallibly circumvented.
Brilliant, apart from the fact that these people will one day face their Maker and the giver of the Ten Commandments. And casuistry will not confuse God.
The Roman Catholic Church trained and educated these men. They nurtured them and sent them forth to deceive those they taught, to pervert the moral order and to subvert the Holy Scriptures. Thereby making the Word of God null and void.
I spoke about judging the character. This is the character of Rome. You can emasculate an athlete by feeding him or her, a diet of rich food, drugs and alcohol. You can ruin the Word of God by adding to it libraries, books, chapters filled with inaccuracies, exaggerations and falsehoods. That is what these Church Fathers, Popes, Doctors of Divinity, Church Councils and Canon Lawyers have done. Perhaps that is why the Word of God states categorically that nothing is to be added to or subtracted from what was originally revealed and written down by the apostolic eye witnesses to the life of Jesus Christ our Lord and Saviour.
One of these men, the apostle Paul wrote,
‘Rather we have renounced secret and shameful ways, we do not use deception, nor do we distort the word of God. On the contrary, by setting forth the truth plainly we commend ourselves to every man’s conscience in the sight of God. And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
For we do not preach ourselves, but Jesus Christ as Lord, and ourselves as your servants for Jesus’ sake. For God who said, “ Let light shine out of darkness,” made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus.’
2 Corinthians v 2-6.
You see, it is all about Jesus and His victory over the works of Satan
