Catholicism: Should
We Embrace it?
|
Is the Roman Catholic Church the "one true church"? Does she teach another gospel? How much has she changed since Vatican II? This article will examine Roman Catholic dogma in the light of the Word of God and reveal the true gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. |
|
The RCC [Roman Catholic Church] holds that church tradition has equal authority with the Bible. At the Council of Trent (1545-1563) Pope Pius IV placed tradition (the unwritten word) on an equal level with the Scriptures. During this time, the bishops and high ranking officials of the Catholic Church "officially" cataloged the books they thought should be included in the Bible.
At the II Vatican Council (1962 through 1965), the same position was held--that all legitimate revelations about God and Christ come from two distinct sources. Both sacred tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. What is the RCC adding to the Bible? They add the Apocrypha (officially canonized at the Council of Trent in 1546 A.D.), the books that are not contained in the Jewish account of the books of the O.T. [Old Testament], and that were not received by the believers in the earliest days of the church. Although we sometimes hear that the Protestant Bible is "incomplete," meaning that it does not have the apocryphal books found in the Catholic Bible, there are many doctrinal, historical and other errors in these books. Here are just three reasons why the Apocryphal should not be accepted as canonical or inspired:
They add the acts and decisions of the RCC, embracing at least eight folio volumes of the Popes' bulls. They add at least ten folio volumes of decretals from the Pope. They add at least thirty-one folio volumes of the acts of councils. They add at least fifty-one folio volumes of the Acta Sanctorum, or the doings and sayings of the saints. To the above is added at least thirty-five volumes of the Greek and Latin fathers. It would be an impossible task for anyone to know, or be able by their private interpretation, to master these one hundred and thirty five volumes, so as to know their rule of faith. So what the RCC is doing (in declaring officially that it is not the Bible alone that is the basis of authority) is adding her tradition, and this is much worse than the tradition of the Pharisees, which were nothing in size compared to the traditions of the RCC. The RCC claims to accept the authority of the Bible but then goes back to its traditions to try and justify things that totally negate the Word of God in the Bible. The Catholic Church has elevated tradition to the position of the Scripture and even above it. The Lord Jesus Christ was harsh with the Pharisees in Matthew 15 and Mark 7, because they foisted on people man-made precepts that conflict with the Word of God.
Jesus rebuked them for elevating the teaching of the Rabbis to the same level of authority as God's holy Scriptures. He could not obey the traditions of the elders without disobeying the written Word of God, and He chose to obey God rather than men. In support of tradition, the Catholic will go to 2 Peter 1:20:
They will say that you may study but not privately interpret the Word of God. However, that is twisting the Scripture. This text simply means that the Bible is not of human invention or human impulse. They also take John 20:30:
But they don't look at the next verse which reads:
The Bible reveals that it is the final authority, and that it is a sufficient revelation from cover to cover. Every Word of God is inspired. The Bible itself rejects the Bible "plus" anything. In both the Old and New Testament, it is forbidden to add to or take from the content of God's written revelation.
Every Word of God is pure, and He has magnified his Word above His name:
The New Testament describes Christianity as the faith that was delivered once and for all through Christ and the Apostles. But Catholicism has continued to add new doctrines to the Catholic faith from the traditions of men, traditions that nullify and obscure what the Bible teaches, and that are elevated to the position of the Scripture and even above it. Rome's theology has been mixed with philosophy and vain deceit after the traditions of men:
What guarantee do we have that what has been passed down by tradition was ever taught by our Lord and the apostles? Can we really know if the Bible is the inspired and infallible Word of God? The RCC says that we know the Bible is the Word of God because the RCC made the Bible, and the Church is infallible and at the head of the Church is the infallible Pope. But the church is made up of finite people; the Pope is a man. To base our confidence in the Bible on the statement of the RCC is to build our faith upon the weak foundation of mere human authority. It is to say that the Bible is the Word of God because we say so. True Bible believers believe in the Bible as the Word of God, all on the authority of God, instead of man. God claims to be its author. He provides the evidence that the Bible is the Word of God. In their seminaries, Catholic priests are taught that the Bible is inspired, infallible and inerrant, but they are also taught that the Bible is not enough. The RCC says that tradition is more safe, more clear and more reliable than the Word of God. Catholics use the following arguments: Argument #1: "Christ never wrote a book. The N.T. [New Testament] was by accident, and the disciples didn't go around with a Bible." The Bible says:
The Apostle John on the Isle of Patmos said that Christ commanded him to write to the seven churches. In Leviticus, in practically every chapter, it says that "the Lord spoke unto Moses." Argument #2: "The Bible is a very difficult book to understand (2 Peter 3:16), and every individual should not try to understand it for himself. Come to the priest and he can give you the proper interpretation." (Note: In the past, Catholics couldn't even own a Bible. In fact the Bible was forbidden to laymen and placed in the index of forbidden books by the Council of Valencia in 1229 A.D.) The Bible says:
Peter is referring to the words of Paul; it doesn't say that everything is difficult to understand. Those who are "unlearned and unstable" refers to those that are not born again and are in rebellion against God's Word. This text doesn't discourage us from studying the Word of God. The RCC promoted this lie that the Bible is a difficult book, hence the individual should not try to interpret it for themselves. The idea was that the laity couldn't be trusted with the Bible and had to come to the RCC to understand the Scriptures. However:
Jesus says, "Search the scriptures" (John 5:39). The Bereans searched the Scriptures daily (Acts 17:11). They compared the oral teaching and judged it by the written word, and in the process they used their private judgment. Timothy was taught the Scriptures from his youth and was made wise. (2 Tim. 3:15) If this can be true of a little boy who was taught the Bible, how can the Bible be a misleading or difficult book to comprehend? Whenever one comes to the Bible humbly and prayerfully, while allowing the Bible to interpret the Bible, relying not on human wisdom, or learning, logic or grammar, but solely upon the Holy Spirit, then his eyes are enlightened. (See Psalm 19:8) Argument #3: "The Church came before the Bible. The RCC gave you the Bible." The Bible says:
The original Greek is "Thou art Petros [a little piece of rock], and upon this petra [bedrock] I will build my church." Simon Peter's own explanation is in 1 Peter 2:4, referring to Christ as the stone:
1 Peter 2:6 (quoting from Isaiah 28:16) shows the Rock is Christ:
The church is built upon Christ; He is the foundation:
The RCC cannot clearly and easily show its history before 320 A.D. when the Roman Emperor Constantine professed conversion, and declared himself to be the head or pontiff of the church. The Catholic system, as it is today, goes back to about 605 A.D. The early Christian church never had many of the doctrines the RCC now has. The church of Jesus Christ was founded on our Savior, not on fallible Peter. Several fallacies to Rome's line of reasoning: (1) The ancient, early church in no way resembled the Roman Church of today. (2) The early church was born with a Bible in its hands (the Old Testament), so we can say without contradiction that the Word came before the church. (3) It was through the preaching of the Word on the day of Pentecost that thousands were converted. The Hebrew people gave us the O.T and the early Bible believers gave us the N.T. The RCC maintains that the books in the N.T. Canon were determined at the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. This is not true. The church council simply endorsed what had already been accepted by God's holy people. What is the criterion by which we judge all things? What is the basis of truth? The RCC says the basis of truth is not just the Bible but also tradition, plus what is proposed as divinely revealed by the RCC. Yet God says:
In the official post Vatican Council II Roman Catholic source, the Code of Canon Law, promulgated by the authority of Pope John Paul II in 1983 in Canon 750 it is declared:
The RCC teaches that the Bible's truthfulness in many areas is to be questioned, but it is so brilliantly clear that Scripture is the basis of truth:
The Bible is complete, and the Bible is supreme. It is the handbook of life that God gave us to enable us to make it through this life and into the eternal life that awaits us.
Will we follow man who can make mistakes or God who cannot lie? Affirmed in 1439 A.D. Catholics believe the sacraments are channels of "divine grace" by which the fruits of redemption are applied to individual souls. They believe salvation is through the sacraments, which are administered by the RCC. Vatican II documents say:
The seven sacraments were defined at the Second Council of Lyons in 1274. These were formally affirmed by the Council of Florence in 1439. In 1547 the Council of Trent defined, as a matter of faith, the number and names of the sacraments, and that they produced grace.
These sacraments are based on good works, and the Bible says our good works cannot save us.
1. Baptism: Catholics believe that baptism, administered by the pouring of water over the head by the priest, cleanses all traces of original and personal sin, and brings rebirth into the life of grace. They are taught that infants are to be baptized as soon as possible after birth in spite of the fact that no infants are shown being baptized in the Bible. Faith always preceded baptism. The practice of infant baptism (370 A.D.) is simply another tradition of the RCC. Catholics are taught that the Christian life "begins at baptism," operating through the RCC. This baptism is said to bring "rebirth" into the life of grace. The RCC will refer to John 3, but this chapter has nothing to do with water baptism. It has to do with the necessity of being born again, but we are not born again by means of water baptism or infant baptism. The word baptism is not even mentioned in John 3. They will also refer to 1 Peter 3:21: "The like figure whereunto even baptism doeth also now save us...by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." The baptism referred to here is not water baptism but the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is real baptism. Water baptism is ritual baptism, a religious work. It does not save anyone. Ephesians 2:9 says:
It is through faith that we are saved and not of ourselves:
It is the blood of Jesus, not baptism, that cleanses us from all sin:
2. Confirmation Confirmation is said to grant special strength from the Holy Spirit to avoid temptation, and to defend the Catholic faith. Laying on of hands, and confession of all known sins to a Roman Catholic priest, is involved in this sacrament. Laying on of hands is used to set men apart in a ministry. It indicates partnership and has nothing whatsoever to do with conferring the Holy Spirit. The word "confirmation" was first used sacramentally at the Council of Riez in 439 A.D. The administration of this sacrament requires the laying on of hands and anointing with chrism (one of three "holy oils" used by the RCC). Confirmation is said to place Catholics more firmly into Christ. The Word of God teaches no such doctrine.
3. Penance and reconciliation Roman Catholicism incorrectly translates "repentance" (metanoeo = to turn, to think differently, reconsider) in Ezek. 18:30, Luke 13:5 and Acts 2:28 as "penance." Catholics believe the priest grants absolution (remission of sins), but the temporal punishment of sins remains; therefore, they must do something to appease the wrath of God regarding the temporal punishment. The priest determines what is sufficient to satisfy God in this matter. Penance may consist of repeating prayers ("Hail Mary"), the rosary, offerings, works of mercy, service to neighbor, voluntary self-denial or sacrifices.
The sacrament of penance stands in utter contradiction with the Biblical truth of justification by faith in Jesus Christ. Good works can never make amends for our sins.
4. Eucharist The RCC teaches that the Eucharist (Mass) is a real sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary (an unbloody sacrifice), and the priest has the power to change bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ. Jesus cleanses his people from their sins, not the Eucharist.
5. Matrimony This sacrament is to provide the grace necessary for a holy and happy marriage. 6. Holy Orders The priest receives the power to absolve (forgive) sins, celebrate the Mass, and perform other functions. The RCC and her priests cannot forgive sins.
We are to come straight to God for forgiveness.
7. Extreme Unction (Anointing of the Sick) This sacrament was formerly known as "Last Rites," but was changed to "Anointing of the Sick" during Vatican II and can only be performed by the Roman Catholic priests. The condition of the soul at the moment of death is said to determine the eternal destiny of the Catholic. Those who die out of grace will spend eternity in hell. While those who die in a state of grace will eventually go to heaven, most must first suffer in purgatory. Extreme Unction was unheard of until the 6th century. It is not taught in the Bible and, as a final good work, it is useless.
Rome needs a sacramental system By promoting seven sacraments Rome is able to retain its structure of world power. Without a sacramental system, the RCC would lose both its religious and secular power. She condemns to eternal punishment in hell all those who deny that the seven sacraments were instituted by Christ. Yet Christ says:
We are to go to the Savior. There are 52 paragraphs in the Catechism of the Catholic Church devoted to the sacraments. It says, "The whole liturgical life of the Church revolves around the Eucharistic sacrifice and the sacraments." The RCC is actually making the grace of Christ inaccessible to people by having them go through the church and through Mary to receive it. The sacraments are works, yet the Scripture plainly says:
The sacraments did not come from God, they came from traditions of man. The RCC is denying the truth of the Gospel by adding sacraments as additional requirements for forgiveness of sin and for eternal life. The central focus of the RCC is the Mass or Holy Eucharist. It was officially defined and canonized as a dogma by Pope Innocent III in 1215 A.D. A dogma is a teaching or doctrine that can never be reversed or repealed. It is equal in authority to the Bible. Their teachings say that:
The whole of Roman teaching and belief is founded upon the premise of the continual sacrifice of Christ for sin. The Mass is the very essence of the RCC. It is the heart of their worship. If there were no Mass, there could be no Catholic Church.
The Catholic priest cannot really explain how that the finished work of Christ on the cross is continued today in the Mass. They say it is a "mystical act" of transubstantiation and that God is continually, through Christ, reconciling the universe to Himself, and they are being reconciled again and again.
They believe that the Eucharist is a real sacrifice of Jesus on Calvary, not just an reenactment of what took place in the past.
In the 2nd Vatican Council II documents, volume one, p. 103 it says,
Canon 904:
Yet the Bible says:
Transubstantiation The dogma of transubstantiation was decreed in 1215 A.D. by Pope Innocent III. The RCC teaches that the bread (host) and wine in the Mass actually turns into the body and blood of Jesus after the priest blesses it in the ceremony. When the priest raises the wafer above his head, Catholics believe that Christ voluntarily comes from heaven. Then He voluntarily again becomes a sacrifice. There is nothing in Scripture that says that Christ would ever dream of doing this. It took one offering to save us from sin.
Catholic doctrine teaches that this wafer, which is no longer bread, but is now the actual body of Jesus Christ, is to be worshipped and adored as divine. When the bread has supposedly been changed literally into Christ by the priest, it is placed in a holder and the Catholic must bow before this and worship the wafer as God. Sometimes they have processions where they solemnly march, as the congregation bows and offers praise and worship to this wafer. The RCC bases transubstantiation upon the teachings of Aristotle. His 3 B.C. concept of matter viewed everything as consisting of two parts: accidents and substance. Accidents are described as the outward appearance of matter, substance is the inner essence. Even though this idea has long since been discarded by modern science, the Catholic Church not only clings to it but takes it one step further, claiming the inner essence can change while the outward appearance remains the same. What before was bread and wine is now the body and blood of Jesus Christ. This practice of teaching that their priests have the power to change bread and wine into the literal body and blood of Christ was adopted around the 13th century and was unheard of in the early N.T. church. This is absurdity to think that the word of the priest can turn dough into flesh and wine into blood. This pagan idea was introduced into Italy by the Goths, the Lombards and the Franks early in the 6th century when they occupied the country for over 200 years. This became entrenched in the medieval church. Pope Gregory VIII endorsed it in the 11th century. Pope Innocent III made the belief in transubstantiation compulsory around 1215. The adoration of the wafer or host was decreed in 1220 A.D. Pope Julius III made it a dogma in the 16th century. Only the superstitious accept this pagan, false teaching. Catholics are told that their sins are forgiven indirectly whenever they participate in the Mass, that they are spiritually nourished and actually feast on His body. The Lord's Supper was never intended to be a sacrifice; it was intended only to commemorate the finished work of Calvary. The RCC teaches that in the Mass Christ is offered as a propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead. You will not find this teaching in the Bible.
To adore the bread as if it were substantially the Lord Himself is gross idolatry. Scriptures the RCC uses for transubstantiation: The Biblical text used for the dogma of the transubstantiation is taken from Luke 22:19: "...This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me." A literal interpretation of this text is unwarranted. All through the N.T. there are grammatical metaphors describing His relationship with people. Jesus referred to Himself as the Door, the Vine, the Root, the Rock, the Bright and Morning Star, as well as the Bread. It is plain to any observant reader that the Lord Supper was intended primarily as a Memorial, and in no sense a literal sacrifice. "...this do in remembrance of me" (Luke.22:19). The RCC also uses John 6:54-55 to try and show that Jesus taught transubstantiation. But by studying the entire passage it is clear that Jesus was talking about spiritual, not physical food and drink. Jesus is speaking of the spiritual hunger in man for righteousness and salvation. Verse 35:
Therefore, to come to him is to eat:
And to believe on Him is to drink:
John 6:54-55 is not saying that Jesus is establishing the literal drinking and eating of his flesh and blood. In verse 63 he says:
Jesus makes clear what we should be eating and drinking to have eternal life.
Jesus is talking about entering into vital spiritual union with Him to have life. The other verse they use is Matthew 26:26-28: "...This is my body...this is my blood of the new testament..." By looking closer at Jesus' words this can be seen to be figurative language. Jesus did not say that this "has become, or this is turned into," but the Greek means "signifies, represents or stands for." It is obvious that Jesus' meaning was not literal but symbolic, and He wasn't the first man in the Bible to claim figuratively that a glass of liquid was really blood. 2 Samuels 23:16-17 reads:
Transubstantiation is official teaching in RCC In RCC dogma anyone who does not hold to this belief in the most explicit detail is accursed and damned forever. At the Council of Trent this doctrine was formed and remains today as the standard of Catholic doctrine. As the 2nd Vatican Council commenced in 1963, Pope John XXIII declared, "I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent." Canon 1: "If anyone shall deny that the body and blood together, with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore entire Christ, are truly, really and substantially contained in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist, and shall say that he is only in it as a sign or a figure, let him be accursed." Canon 2: "If anyone shall say that the substance of the bread and wine remains in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be accursed." Canon 6: "If anyone shall say that Christ, the only Begotten Son of God, is not to be adored in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, even with the open worship of latria, and therefore not to be venerated with any particular festival celebrity, nor to be solemnly carried about in processions according to the praiseworthy and universal rights and customs of the holy Church, and that he is not to be set publicly before the people to be adored, and that his adorers are idolaters, let him be accursed." Jesus said, "It is finished." The RCC teaches that the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice which appeases the wrath of God and does indeed take away sin. This goes directly against Scripture, because in Hebrews 10:18 it says:
In John 19:30 Jesus said:
His suffering was finally over. He had submitted willingly because it was the will of His Father to offer Him as the satisfaction of the penalty for all the sin in the world, past, present and future. Have you ever wondered why in every Catholic Church they still have Jesus up on the cross? They have Jesus still dying for the sins of the world, but that is a lie. The Bible repeatedly affirms in the clearest and most positive terms that Christ's sacrifice was complete in that one offering, and that it was never, ever to be repeated. This is set forth explicitly in Hebrews 7, 9 and 10.
The RCC's teaching on the Mass debases Christ's finished and complete offering of Himself on Calvary's cross. There is no perpetual sacrifice today All the sophisticated, philosophical, theological arguments of Rome to justify the Mass are unconvincing before the arguments from the letter to the Hebrews. There is no perpetual sacrifice today. Calvary cannot be repeated. The word "once" or "once for all" is found in Hebrews seven times. That word speaks of the finality, the efficacy, the sufficiency of our Lord's work on the cross. His work is complete, adequate; a final atonement for man's sins.
The RCC claims that there is no conflict, and no problem, but the infallible dogmas of the RCC have thwarted, contradicted and changed the Word of God. The Catholic Mass is a very attractive ritual, but what Rome teaches is diametrically opposite to what is declared so clearly in God's Word. Either the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was complete and perfect and final, or it was not. You cannot have Calvary and the Mass both. To accept the Mass is to say that the cross was not enough. It impugns the character of Jesus Christ. We should reject the traditions and practices of a system that is not only unbiblical; it has actually stepped into mysticism, bordering dangerously on the occult. Any pretense of a continuous offering for sin is worse than vain; it is blasphemy. Prior to 300 A.D. there were no prayers offered to Mary. Special prayers to Mary were formulated in the 1050's A.D. Catholics are sometimes told that there are two ladders reaching up to heaven, one red and the other white. A person climbing the red ladder, which had Christ Jesus at the top of it, could not get up, but going by the white ladder the Virgin Mary would reach down and draw you up. They falsely portray Jesus as being angry with people, and Mary is falsely portrayed by being merciful and able to pacify Jesus' supposed anger. Nowhere does the Bible say Jesus is angry with his children.
No matter where you go in the world of Roman Catholicism it can be truthfully said that Jesus Christ is not preeminent. He lives in virtual banishment, while Mary and the saints of Rome are said to be more available and more human than the Christ of the Bible. The theory seems to be that Mary is more approachable than Jesus Christ Himself. If Mary and the saints receive prayer requests first, then they believe Christ will receive them favorably. Seventy-five percent of the churches in Rome are dedicated to Mary. Mary is a goddess in the RCC. They will deny that they worship her, but if you pay attention to some of the prayers you will see that they do worship Mary and the saints. Some of the prayers to Mary go like this:
Idol worship is as common in Roman Catholic countries as in China, India or Bangladesh. Mary and the saints have been, for centuries, objects of worship by all Roman Catholics, especially Mary. Catholics believe that Mary had a part in redemption because of her cooperation in the incarnation. For all practical purposes Mary is "omnipotent and omnipresent." The same can be said of the Roman saints. The beginning of the exaltation of Mary, and the first use of the term "mother of God," was in 431 A.D. at the Council of Ephesus. While worship of Mary took centuries to develop, Mary worship is worse now than it was in the 9th and 12th century. Now we have the dogma of the immaculate conception of Mary and the dogma of her assumption, which they didn't have then. These dogmas are not only contrary to God's Word but an insult to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. Her alleged assumption rivals Jesus' ascension. And the immaculate conception means it is the responsibility of all Catholics to put Mary in the same category as Jesus. It means Mary is sinless. But the Bible says that Christ alone is sinless. Pope Pius XII (the pope during WWII) in a special letter gave Mary the following titles:
Mary is also called:
She is also called:
And Pope Paul VI proclaimed she was the "Mother of the Church" in 1965.
John Paul II said:
He concluded by asking all Christians:
Our present Pope even has these words in Latin "Totus Tuus" (All Yours) on his religious garb, designating his "abandonment to Mary." (Crossing the Threshold of Hope, by Pope Paul John II, p. 215) Mary is in a prominent place and held up as ever virgin and sinless, even as Jesus Christ Himself was. The RCC gives Mary the titles, roles, and status of God. How does this kind of blasphemous teaching fit in with God's holy Word? See the Names and Titles of Jesus Mary was the mother of Christ's humanity but not of His divinity. Mary was declared to have perpetual virginity at the Council of Chalcedon in 451 A.D. Matthew 1:18 shows that Mary did not remain a virgin after Jesus was born:
The reference "before they came together" is to sexual relations, not co-habitation. There are several verses that show Jesus had literal blood brothers through Mary:
These were not Jesus' disciples. They were his half-brothers and sisters. His brothers' names are given in the first two verses above. During our Lord's ministry, he paid no special attention to Mary. Jesus wanted the world to know that all mothers, all sisters and all brothers were as much to Him as were the woman who gave him birth and the brethren born of the same womb.
Bible facts: (1) There was no woman worship among the Jews. (2) Throughout the old testament women are treated as inferior to men. (3) Neither Christ nor His disciples paid any special attention to His mother. (4) Mary had no part in Christ's ministry. (5) When Mary and his brethren went to visit Christ, asking that He come out to them, He simply refused. (6) Christ rejected the idea that His mother and brethren were any more to Him than were the people in the house wherein He was teaching. (7) Even when Christ's discourse was over, He did not go to his mother and brethren, but He went out of the house and sat down by the seaside. (Matt. 13:1) The Bible teaches against the adoration of Mary. Luke 11:27-28 says:
A hundred years preceding the 2nd Vatican Council have been called the Marion century. During this period the RCC developed many new doctrines concerning Mary. Most significant was Pope Pius IX's proclamation of the Immaculate Conception, issued in 1854. Many Catholics do not understand the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and even fewer realize that it contradicts Scripture. It has nothing to do with the virgin birth of Jesus Christ. It means that Mary, when she was conceived in her mother's womb, did not have the stain of original sin, that she was sinless. That is not what Scripture says. Only Jesus was without sin. All others have sinned:
Mary herself said she was a sinner in Luke 1:46-47:
Only a sinner needs a Saviour. Mary also offered the sacrifices necessary for a sinner in the Old Testament:
The Biblical accounts of Mary present her as a humble, faithful servant of God, but Catholic tradition has confused her position with that of Christ Himself. Mary has appeared to many in the uncharacteristic role of promoting herself. Apparitions or appearances of Mary started in Europe around 1531 and spread all over the world. In 1917 she appeared at Fatima to three shepherd children. She told them to repeat the rosary daily. There she announced:
Catholics feel that if they pray to Mary about a problem, she would be more sympathetic and understanding than Jesus or God. Yet Hebrews 2:18 says this of Christ:
Catholics believe that Mary balances and gives a feminine dimension to God that is missing in biblical Christianity. The RCC declares that Mary is "the mediator of all grace." The Baltimore Catechism shows Mary as "the final dispenser of all grace" in Roman Catholicism. The Bible never mentions Mary interceding for us. The thief on the cross appealed to Christ, not Mary.
Assumption of Mary The concept of
the assumption of Mary was introduced to the Council of Chalcedon by
Juvenal of Jerusalem in 451 A.D. It was
declared dogma in 1950 A.D. by Pius XII.
Ascended in the Greek means "go up of one's own power," not taken up as was Elijah or Enoch (John 3:13). Veneration of Mary Declared in 431 A.D. The word "venerable" is derived from the Latin word venerare which means "to worship." God tells us that only He is to be worshipped.
Throughout the world, particularly in South America, the Philippines and the West Indies, people are getting into all types of ecstasies and religious worship and adulation and veneration to Mary and to the saints, in exact contradiction to God's Word in the Bible. God's Word is abundantly clear that we are to adore God, and Him alone, and that is to be done in spirit and in truth. (Also see Rom. 1:25 and John 4:24) The Mary of Rome is not the Mary of the New Testament. The first Pope is generally regarded by historians as Gregory I (590A.D.) The title of Pope, or universal bishop, was first given by the emperor Phocas in 610 A.D. Kissing of the Pope's feet began in 709 A.D. (This had been a pagan custom to kiss the feet of emperors.) Temporal power of the Popes began in 750 A.D. Papal infallibility (meaning: "cannot err") was decreed in 1870 A.D.
In its official source the Code of Canon Law, published 1983 by Pope Paul II, and in Canon, 749 it is declared:
In Canon 333, Section three, it is declared:
In the first Vatican Council in 1870 the RCC declared the teaching of the Pope to be infallible.
This declaration is audacity brought to the extreme in utter contradiction to the Word of God that is infallible, true, eternal and from God. The Pope is called "Holy Father." This is a name reserved for God the Father and Him alone:
The above verse is not referring to our parents, as it is in the context of Christ's teaching concerning religious leaders; e.g., you are not to call men "Rabbi" or "Master" either. (See Matthew 23:8 and 10.) The title 'Pope," is derived from the Latin "Papa" and means "father." The Pope is commonly called 'The Holy Father." This title is in contradiction to the words of Christ. Cardinal Manning in 1869 personifying the Pope said:
This is still Rome's policy. John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II never repudiated this arrogant claim.
And so, "Truth," and "Life, "the Way," "the Bread of Life," the Water of Life," "Lily of the Valley, "Good Shepherd," "Rose of Sharon," --all these apply not only to Jesus, according to the RCC, but they also apply to the Pope. How blasphemous! See the Names and Titles of Jesus Rome's words about the Pope attack the Person and work of Jesus Christ. Confession of sins to a priest, at least once a year, was instituted by Pope Innocent III in 1215 A.D. Celibacy Celibacy was decreed for priests in 1079 A.D. by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII. Vatican Council II documents, Volume one, p. 893 states:
If one wishes to remain celibate, it is permissible, but it is never to be commanded. Jesus and the apostles imposed no such rule. Peter was married (Matt. 8:14), and Paul said bishops were to have a wife and children. (I Tim. 3:2) Priest as father While it is not uncommon to find priests today that allow the laity to call them by their first names, many allow others to call them "father." The Bible forbids us to address religious leaders as "father."
To call someone "father" in spiritual matters is to put him in the place of God as the one who gives spiritual life and is blasphemous. Only God the Father gives spiritual life. When the Bible calls Abraham the "father of us all" (Romans 4:16) this refers to a standard pattern of faith and a standing precedent of justification by faith. Roman Catholics are educated to look to the priest in all matters. He is their shepherd; they rely upon him for guidance, for knowledge of the gospel, for the forgiveness of their sins, for their soul's salvation.
Roman Catholicism teaches that the Apostles were ordained by Jesus at the Last Supper to perpetuate the coming sacrifice He would make on the cross, and that this ordination has been handed down through the centuries to the current generation of priests. Therefore, Rome teaches that her priests actually operate and discharge the priesthood of Jesus Christ, and that they are called other "Christs." Priests are led to believe that in the confessional they are the delegate and the instrument of Christ, and that by their ordination they are qualified to judge another man's sins. They believe they are the bridge between God and man. Jesus is the only Priest. He not only became the perfect sacrifice for sin, but after being accepted by God as having totally fulfilled the requirements of the old covenant, He became the mediator of a better covenant. (See Heb. 8:6) This means that Jesus is the High Priest of every true believer.
Vatican Council II documents, Volume 2, p. 74 declare:
Yet the priesthood of Jesus Christ is unique, and it cannot be transferred to another. (See Hebrews 7:17-24)
All believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are called priests. We offer spiritual sacrifices, and we all have access to God.
We must take the totality of God's Word to see that there is one Mediator and one Advocate with the Father (Jesus Christ), and that no individual has the biblical or juridical power to absolve anyone from sin. Rome does not directly deny that there is one Mediator (I Tim. 2:5), but she adds to it; e.g., saying that Mary is a secondary mediator. "Bless me Father..."? (showing why there is no Priesthood in the N.T.) There is no support whatsoever in the Bible for a sacramental priesthood in the church founded by the Lord Jesus Christ. The priesthood was done away with and completed and fulfilled in Christ at the cross. The Roman priesthood is just another example of Rome's many human inventions. Auricular confession was instituted by Pope Innocent III in the Lateran Council in the 12th century. ("Auricular" means confession heard into the ear of the priest.)
Catholics say the priest only asks God to forgive sins, yet their documents reveal they teach otherwise:
Code of Canon Law, Canon 978, Section one:
The Bible says:
Yet the RCC has thousands of mediators in the person of saints, many of whom never existed, in the person of RCC priests and even Mary, who is considered Mediatrix. In all pre-Christian religions, Judaism included, there was the element of the human priesthood. The pagan converts of the ancient near East religions (as their Jewish forerunners) still felt the need of a cultic priesthood. It is found in the Mormon Church, the Episcopal Church and the RCC. The priest was formerly trained to ask questions and probe the consciences of men and women concerning all sins of thought, word or deed. There is abundant proof that young, celibate priests were required to study the disgusting details of the vilest sins known to fallen man, and that they be prepared to question closely on the subject of marital relationships. The Council of Trent in the 16th century had a curse for anyone who disagrees with Rome's interpretation about confessing sins to a priest:
This curse has not been retracted. The Catholic priests use the verses in John 20:22-23. This text has no reference whatsoever to Rome's sacrament of confession. The right to hear confessions and the power to forgive and retain sins was never claimed or exercised by any of the apostles. This was God's prerogative alone.
The hearing of confession, and the granting of absolution, is not once spoken of in the epistles as part of the duty of the pastor or minister. The blessed provision God makes for man, conscious of his sinfulness, is not to kneel down before a fellow sinner and confess his sins to one who may be guilty of the same sins himself but rather:
The apostles preached the gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, which when believed and accepted resulted in the forgiveness of sins. (See Acts 13:38-39). This is the word of reconciliation. No man on earth can remit or forgive sin.
The RCC has created a stumbling block, and placed a barrier in the way of someone who wants to reconcile with God.
A priest can't forgive your sins, it is the Lord Jesus Christ.
Quotes from The New Catholic Catechism (Proving Rome's dogma has not changed) Open Letter to Precious Catholic People [offsite link] Why do some exiters of Armstrongism go into the Roman Catholic Church?
|
