AN INDEPTH STUDY OR ROMAN CATHOLISM

????? Question ????? About Catholicism: Q : I HAVE FRIENDS who are Catholics. They are sometimes very kind and seem to have Christian/Biblical principles working in their lives. However, I definitely do know how strange Catholicism and its true beliefs are. So, what I’m basically asking is: how can a crazy religion like Catholicism produce (in some instances) Biblical morality? I am confused; can you help me understand this? (M.W., USA) ANSWER: (Taken from David B. Brown’s book “Seven Myths of Denominationalism”) Does this mean to imply that everything taught within the denominations is wrong? If those things which are being done right are being done because they are commanded or authorized by the word of God, then those things are right. We contend, however, that, even if they are consistent with the word of God, if they are being done because they are commanded or authorized by any authority other than the word of God, they are vain attempts at salvation by works. For, they are works of man, not works of God. Indeed, they might be the same as those commanded by God, BUT, IN REALITY, THEY ARE BEING DONE IN OBEDIENCE TO MAN AND NOT TO GOD. Give this considerable thought. Let us illustrate with an example. The Roman Catholic stand against abortion is a brave and courageous stand for what is right. However, those Roman Catholics who obey this command do not do so because of Biblical authority. If you do not believe this, just ask one of them to give the Biblical reasons for why they believe abortion to be wrong. They cannot answer. Their answer is that the church teaches (or the Pope teaches) them that abortion is wrong, and this is the reason that they do not engage in it. Is this obedience to God, or to the Pope? True, it is consistent with Biblical precepts, but unless they recognize where and why it is commanded of God, it is faith in man and not God! A Tidbit of History T here was, in the latter part of the sixteenth century, a man in Italy who was a child of God, taught by the Spirit. His name was Aonio Paleario. He had written a book called, “The benefit of Christ’s Death.” That book was destroyed in Italy, and for three centuries it was not possible to find a copy; but two or three years ago, an Italian copy was found, I believe, in one of your libraries at Cambridge or Oxford, and it has been printed again. It is perhaps singular, but this man did not leave the Romish Church, as he ought to have done, but his whole heart was given to Christ. He was brought before the judge in Rome, by order of the Pope. The judge said, “We will put to him three questions; we will ask him what is the first cause of salvation, then what is the second cause of salvation, then what is the third cause of salvation?” They thought that, in putting these three question, he would at last be made to say something which should be to the glory of the Church of Rome; so they asked him, “What is the first cause of salvation?” and he answered, “Christ.” Then they asked him, “What is the second cause of salvation?” and he answered, “Christ.” Then they asked him, “What is the third cause of salvation?” and he answered, “Christ.” They thought he would have said, first, “Christ;” secondly, “the Word;” thirdly, “the Church;” but no, he said, “Christ.” The first cause, Christ; the second, Christ; the third, Christ; and for that confession, which he made in Rome, he was condemned to be put to death as a martyr. My dear friends, let us think and speak like that man; let every one of us say, “The first cause of my salvation is Christ; the second is Christ, the third is Christ. Christ and His atoning blood, Christ and His powerful regenerating Spirit, and Christ and His eternal electing grace. Christ is my only salvation; I know of nothing else.” (“Charles Spurgeon Autobiography,” written around the1860's) ROMAN CATHOLIC INVENTIONS 2nd century (c.=century)—Presbyters first called priests by Lucian 3rd c.—Sacerdotal mass instituted by Cyprian A.D. 300—Prayers for the dead A.D. 300—Making the sign of the cross A.D. 320—Wax candles A.D. 375—Veneration of angels, dead saints, and images A.D. 394—Mass became a daily ritual A.D. 431—Beginning of exaltation of Mary, term "Mother of God" first applied to her by Council of Ephesus A.D. 500—Priests began to wear special clothing A.D. 526—Extreme Unction (Rite of Healing) A.D. 593—The doctrine of Purgatory by Gregory I A.D. 600—Latin used in worship A.D. 600—Prayers offered to Mary, dead saints, and angels A.D. 610—First man to be proclaimed Pope (Boniface III) A.D. 709—Kissing the Pope's feet A.D. 750—Temporal power of Popes, conferred by Pepin, King of the Franks A.D. 786—Veneration of cross, images, relics authorized. A.D. 850—Holy water, mixed with pinch of salt, chrism, and blessed by a priest A.D. 890—Veneration of St. Joseph A.D. 927—College of Cardinals begun A.D. 965—Baptism of bells instituted by Pope John XIII A.D. 995—Canonization of dead saints by Pope John XV A.D. 998—Fasting on Fridays and Lent 11th c.—The Mass developed gradually as a sacrifice, attendance made obligatory A.D. 1079—Celibacy of priests declared A.D. 1090—Rosary adopted (pagan) by Peter the Hermit A.D. 1184—The Inquisition instituted by Council of Verona A.D. 1190—Sale of indulgences 12th c.—Seven Sacraments, defined by Peter Lombard A.D. 1215—Transubstantiation, defined by Innocent A.D. 1215—Auricular confession (Rite of reconciliation) of sins to a priest instead of God, instituted by Innocent IIIA.D. 1220—Adoration of the Host (wafer), decreed by Pope Honorius III A.D. 1251—Scapular invented by Simon Stock of England A.D. 1414—The cup forbidden to the laity at communion by Council of Constance A.D. 1439—Purgatory proclaimed as a dogma by the Council of Florence A.D. 1545—Tradition declared of equal authority with the Bible by the council of Trent A.D. 1546—Apocryphal books added to the Bible by the Council of Trent A.D. 1560—Creed of Pope Pius IV imposed as the official creed in place of the original Apostolic Creed. A.D. 1854—Immaculate Conception of Mary (not Jesus, not virgin birth) proclaimed by Pope Pius IX A.D. 1864—Syllabus of Errors proclaimed by Pope Pius IX and ratified by the Vatican Council, condemned freedom of religion, conscience, speech, press, and scientific discoveries which are disapproved by the Roman Church; asserted the Pope's temporal authority over all civil rulers A.D. 1870—Infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith and morals proclaimed by the Vatican Council A.D. 1950—Assumption of Mary proclaimed by Pius XII "Roman Catholic Inventions" are based on a list in Dr. Loraine Boettner's book, “Roman Catholicism,” pages 7 & 8 (used by permission of the author). John Henry Cardinal Newman, in his book, "The Development of Christian Religion," admits that "temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holidays and seasons of devotion, processions, blessings of fields, sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure (of priests and monks and nuns), and images...are all of pagan origin" (p.359). Yet, we are told in Scripture that to practice these traditions is to make void the Word of God (Matthew 15:6), to worship in vain (Matthew 15:9). Also see II John 9-10. The Bible itself declares that the way of salvation is so plain that even "fools shall not err therein" (Isaias 35:8). When the blind lead the blind, both fall (Matthew 15:14). The urgent need of our day is to search the never changing Scriptures to see if what popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, ministers, and teachers tell us is the TRUTH, OR NOT. In apostolic days, this was done: "Now these were a nobler character than those of Thessalonica and they received the word with eagerness, studying the Scriptures every day to see whether these things were so" (Acts 17:11). Those who do not teach and preach the Gospel—as it is found in the Scriptures— are under the curse of God: "But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel to you other than that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema!" (Galatians 1:8). Do not be deceived by false teachers (see Colossians 2:8); Test everything! (I Thessalonians 5:21). These Biblical truths are offered in a spirit of true Christian love. We ask you to consider them objectively so that with the Psalmist you can declare, "I have chosen the way of truth" (Psalm 118:30). (All Scripture quotations and references are taken from the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Translation of the Catholic New Testament and the Douay Version of the Old Testament.) Rome and Sin T HE ROMISH doctrine in regard to sin is on the whole the most dangerous, deceptive, and deleterious of any of the dogmas propagated by that church. It is not in harmony with the teachings of Holy Scripture respecting sin, nor is it in its practical working conducive to the highest state of morals. It encourages a degree of laxity in certain lines of moral conduct that militates against the unbuilding of a Christian character after the pattern of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. Rome teaches that there are two kinds of sin—mortal and venial. The former is deadly and exposes the soul to eternal punishment, the latter is of trifling moment, such as little deceptions, fibs, idle foolish words, petty thefts, etc., etc. Such sins need not be confessed to the priest, as they only subject one who dies in that state to the fires of purgatory. The doctors of the church, however, have always been sorely puzzled concerning the dividing line between the two kinds of sin. And well they may be, for being of the same nature, and both springing from the same root, they are kith and kin. There is a passage in Baroness Von Zedtwitz's new book, "The Double Doctrine of the Church of Rome," relevant to this subject, and worthy of being quoted. The "Baroness," before her marriage, was Miss Caldwell, of Philadelphia, Pa., who founded the Roman Catholic University of Washington, D.C. In view of her wealth, literary culture, and high social position, she was brought into close contact with the Roman prelacy in America and Catholic countries of Europe. Even in America in her "early girlhood", she had serious misgivings in regard to the "Unchristian conduct of almost all the prelates with whom she came in contact," but "never ceased to hope and believe that when womanhood had ripened her judgment, those apparent inconsistencies would be fully explained." But when she came to travel abroad in Catholic countries, especially the seat and centre of Roman power, her eyes were fully opened to the "true inwardness" of the papacy. She says, "Romanism, to be understood, must be traced to its source, and it is to the College of Cardinals in Rome, and the 'Propaganda,' one must look for the true confirmation of its spirit." "Revolt," she says, "was the inevitable result of my search for enlightenment, and I struggled to be free; but from the desert waste of Esoteric Catholicism but few can find the true path back to Christianity, and mine was a long and dreary search." Finally, after a patient, persistent, prayerful sincere search after the truth, she records this decision : "IN THE NAME OF CHRIST, WHOSE PURE IMAGE HAD BEEN LONG BLURRED BY DROSS OF POPERY, IN THE NAME OF RIGHTEOUSNESS AND DUTY, I CAST FROM ME WHAT WAS LEFT OF THE GARB OF ROMANISM, AND RESOLVED TO STAND BEFORE MY GOD, AS AN UPRIGHT, [EVEN] IF AN UNCLOTHED SOUL." The following is the quotation referred to: "The standard of veracity in the Church of Rome differs seriously from that used by moralists in general. The principal and most influential guide upon questions of morals, in the Roman Catholic Church, is always Alphonsus de Liguori, who is not only a saint of the Church (since 1836), and declared by the fact of his canonization to be perfectly sound in all his doctrine, but is also a ‘Doctor' of the same Church (since 1871), which means that he is one whose teaching deserves to be accepted and followed by everyone. His work on Moral Theology is accordingly the standard now in use, and the others currently employed adopt its principles. Here is what he lays down on the subject of speaking the truth. ‘Every kind of equivocation or quibbling which comes short of direct lying, but is intended to deceive the hearer, and does in fact deceive him, is always lawful for 'a just cause.'" An example of each kind will help to make the matter plainer. A man asked if a particular thing be true, which he knows to be true, but does not wish to admit, may lawfully reply: "I say, No," meaning thereby only, "I utter the word, No," and not, "I declare the thing did not happen." This and many others of a similar character are put by Liguori himself (Theol. Mor., IV.: 151-167). On turning to the words of Jesus in the Gospel we find a very different interpretation of those sins that the Roman Church calls venial. Says Jesus: "Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil;" "I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment, For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned." And Saint Paul gives expression to some very plain truths to certain Christians to whom he wrote concerning those sins that Romanists count venial. Says he: "Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour. Let no corrupt communication proceed out of your mouth, but that which is good to the use of edifying, that it may minister grace unto the hearers. Nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient." Place this bugle-blast of Paul in the interest of sincerity and truth against the deceptive Romish casuistry of Liguori: "Therefore seeing we have this ministry, as we have received mercy we faint not, but have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty; not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully, but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God." Innumerable quotations and illustrations from the Bible might be given to show that the Romish idea of sin has no foundation in the Word of God. The heart is the seat of all sin. "Out of the heart," says Jesus, "proceed evil thoughts;" "He that committeth sin," says the Apostle John, "is of the devil." Sin is the transgression of the law. All unrighteousness is sin. And the Holy Spirit has come into the world to convict of sin. All sin is of the devil. ROME AND THE BIBLE T HE ATTITUDE of the Church of Rome toward the Bible has always been that of HOSTILITY. The first book ever printed in Italy by the Pope's press at Subiaco, near Rome, was in 1465, and from it poured forth a perfect stream of literature of all kinds; but never a book, never a chapter, never a verse of Scripture. Put into the hands of the people, the Church practically says: “ANY BOOK YOU PLEASE, NO MATTER HOW DEGRADING, BUT DO NOT ON ANY ACCOUNT LET THEM HAVE THE BIBLE.” There are few demoralizing books on the Index Expurgatorius, but there are many editions of the Bible. THE ATTITUDE AND ACTION OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH FROM THE FIFTH CENTURY TO THE TWENTIETH IN REGARD TO THE BIBLE, MAY BE TERMED, DETERMINED DEADLY OPPOSITION. As early as 860, Pope Nicholas I pronounced against both the Bible and all those who read it; Gregory VII., in 1703, confirmed the ban; and Innocent IlI, in 1198, declared that all who read the Bible should be stoned to death. In 1229, the Council of Toulouse passed a decree against the possession or reading of the Bible. In 1564, Pius IV., when confirming the decrees of the Council of Trent, issued a bull to the same effect with disastrous effect. It was designed to stop the Reformation in Italy, and, coupled with the extermination of all, high and low, known to have embraced it, it had that effect. As a distinguished priest and Professor in Florence said a few years ago in a lecture on the Bible: "For two hundred years the Bible in Italy was an unknown book." And he added, "Then commenced the decadence—moral, religious, and political, of Italy." In 1600, Clement VIII., who burned Giordano Bruno, decreed that any one found reading the Bible in the vernacular would be sent to the galleys for life. In England, in the fourteenth century, any one found possessing the Bible of Wycliffe, that "organ of the devil' as he was called, incurred the penalty of death. On the accession of "Bloody Mary" to the throne of England, in 1553, tons of Bibles were used as faggots to light the piles for martyrs. When the Bible societies were formed, and ever since, the Popes have vied with each other in the ferocity of the bulls they have fulminated against them. Pius VII., in 1816, denounced them as "pestilences to be arrested by any means possible," and Leo XII., in 1825, as "traps and pitfalls." Pius VIII., in 1830, denounced all the Bibles that issued from their printing presses as "centres of pestiferous infection," and Gregory XVI., in 1844, condemned the societies, and instructed the priests to tear up all the Bibles that they could lay their hands on. Dr. Alexander Robertson tells us that on the accession of "Bloody Mary" to the throne of England, in 1553, there existed a painting in London of King Henry VIIl, in which he was represented standing holding in one hand a sceptre, and in the other A BIBLE, with the words on its Cover, Verbum Dei. This exhibition of the "Word of God" was so offensive to Papal eyes that it was obliterated, and a pair of gloves painted in its place. Pius IX was most bitter in his opposition to the reading of the Bible, and Bible societies. It was under his reign that Count Guicciardini, Guerra, Guarducci, and many others were banished from Tuscany for reading the Bible. And it was under him that Francesco Madiai and his wife were arrested in Florence, in August, 1851, for reading the Bible, imprisoned in the Bargello for ten months, and then sent to the galleys. And, also, about the same time, an English gentleman, Arthur Walker, was arrested for having a Bible in his pocket, and was imprisoned. It was when Pius IX held sway in the Vatican that the Hon. Dexter A. Hawkins, a prominent lawyer in New York, was sent to Italy to gather some data in regard to education, and while in Rome, the American Consul, ascertaining that Mr. Hawkins had a Bible in his possession, warned him “not to let it be known,” for, said he, “if it is known, I cannot even as American Consul save you from twelve months' imprisonment.” But it may be said that this hostility is directed against Protestant versions, and not against Roman Catholic ones. But such is not the case. THE OPPOSITION IS AGAINST THE BIBLE, PURE AND SIMPLE. Catholic Bibles have shared the same fate as Protestant ones when they found their way into popular use. On May 18th, 1849, some three thousand copies of the Catholic New Testament were seized and destroyed in Tuscany. Roman priests are ignorant of the Bible. The Bible is not used as a text-book in the Papal seminaries. Count Campello was trained for the priesthood in the Academy of Noble Ecclesiastics, the highest training College in Rome, and yet during all his years of study he never even saw a Bible. CATHOLIC MISSIONARIES DO NOT USE THE BIBLE, AND THERE IS NO INSTANCE IN HISTORY OF THEIR HAVING PUT A COPY OF HOLY SCRIPTURE INTO THE HANDS OF THEIR CONVERTS. A young man, a very zealous Catholic in a town in Italy, got hold of a New Testament, and took it to the priest. The priest said: "You have got hold of a very bad book. That book was printed in hell." The words awoke the young man's curiosity, and, in spite of the protest of the priest who desired to have it, he took it home to read it. The result was his conversion, and he afterward became an evangelist. The question often arises in the minds of Protestants, “WHY ARE CATHOLIC PRIESTS SO HOSTILE TO THE BIBLE? WHY DO THEY NOT WANT THEIR PEOPLE TO READ IT?” The simple answer is, IF THEY READ THE BIBLE, IT WILL SET THEM THINKING; IT WILL AWAKEN THOUGHT. And that is opposed to the genius of the Papacy. The Pope demands the sacrifice of the intellect. God in the Bible appeals to our reason. He says, "Come, let us reason together;" "Prove all things: hold fast that which is good;" "Think on these things." I know a Roman Catholic priest, he is a personal friend; he is being persecuted for his loyalty to the truth, and yet he is in the Church. I have heard of another priest who is anxious that his people should possess the Bible and read it, and he also wants his brother-priests to know it, and preach it, and to comfort the sick with its Divine words. "But," he says, "alas! I fear that these my wishes will never be realized. And why? Because the day in which the priests and Catholic believers give themselves to the reading and the study of the Bible, that day will be the last for the Roman Church, for the priests, and for the Papacy." That thought of the Italian priest is in keeping with the words used by Zanardelli, the present Premier of Italy, in a speech made at Brescia: "Woe to the Roman Catholic Church when my countrymen get hold of the Old and New Testaments, then they will know the difference between Jesus Christ and His so-called Vicar." When the Ecumenical Council, held in the Vatican in 1869-70, was in session, at which the infallibility of the Pope was decreed, the following curious incident occurred. Dollinger and Dupanloup, in supporting their arguments against the proposed new dogma, wished to refer to some passages of Scripture; but no one had a Bible in the whole Council, nor could one be procured for them within the bounds of the Church, so one had to be borrowed from the Protestant chaplain of the Prussian Embassy! As a noted writer has said: "The ignorance of the Roman Catholic clergy of the Bible is only equaled by their hostility to it." The two go hand in hand. Padre Curci, the learned Jesuit, who died a few years ago in a convent at Fiesole, to which he had been banished by the Vatican for his liberal writings, said in his work Vaticano Regio: "If theological study in general has waned and degenerated amongst our clergy, biblical study has been entirely abandoned. The activity of the Protestants in the study of the Bible, which ought to be to us a noble incentive, has been made a pretext for calumny to such an extent that already in some large dioceses an understanding is allowed to circulate quietly amongst the younger clergy that, as the study of the Bible is a Protestant affair, it would be a curse to any one to engage in it." AFRAID OF THE LIGHT Why is it that the Romish Church cuts out the second Commandment entirely from their Catechisms; and then to make the number good, makes two Commandments of the tenth? The Commandment which they do not wish their children to learn is as follows: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity, of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love Me and keep My commandments” (Exodus xx. 4-6). It is the same both in the Douay and Authorized Versions. What right has any Church to mutilate Holy Scripture? Against such the malediction of Jesus Christ is pronounced: “If any man shall take away from the words of the book, God shall take away his part out of the book of life” (Rev: xxii. 19) The Atrocities of Rome VOLUMES HAVE BEEN WRITTEN about the horrendous accounts of Protestant blood spilled during the 150 years following the founding of the Jesuit Order. Many counter: well, Protestants killed too! Yes, and in answer to that, [the author’s opinion is that] any man worth being a man, when someone comes into his home to rape and butcher his wife, and dash his children to pieces, certainly will fight and kill too, if need be, to save those he loves. To read an account is quite different than having to live through it. To literally witness the terrible scene and to see those you hold dear being mangled and slaughtered before your eyes has to make an image so vivid, never able to be erased. Some of the most horrible scenes ever to take place were during that time period, far too many, and much too savage to try to describe. IT MUST TAKE AN AWFUL COLD HEART AND WILLFUL BLINDNESS NOT TO SEE THE OVERWHELMING ATROCITIES THAT ROME AND HER COHORTS HAVE INFLICTED UPON THE HUMAN BEINGS OF THIS WORLD. Huguenot Protestants in France united together and became a show of real strength, causing great concern for twenty-two year old king Charles IX and his dominate mother—Catherine de’ Medici—who actually was the real power behind the throne. Upon Catherine’s suggestion, a plan was put forth to get rid of the Protestant Huguenots once and for all. A royal wedding was arranged in Paris, France between Margaret of Valois, the sister of Charles IX, and Henry of Bourbon, Protestant nobleman; a deceptive gesture to bring religious unity and peace to France. Knowing that the royal event would bring many thousands of Protestants to Paris, plans were carefully laid for the date 24 August, 1572, at midnight, and at the ringing of the church bells, to become the time and signal to begin a massacre of all Protestants in the city. The St. Bartholomew massacre, as it is known in history, began in Paris but then quickly spread to other provinces all over France, continuing for over a week. Without gory details, it was reported that close to 100 thousand Protestants were butchered unmercifully during those few days; the river Seine literally ran red with Protestant blood and could not carry away all the headless, mutilated, and putrefying corpses because it was so full. Upon Pope Gregory XIII hearing the news, (the same pope who had Bavarian mathematician Jesuit Clavius to devise the Gregorian calendar; the one we use today), he rejoiced, ordered a jubilee in celebration, and had a medal struck in commemoration of the glorious Catholic achievement. In England, fourteen years before the St. Bartholomew massacre, Elizabeth, the younger sister of Mary, took the throne as Queen. With flint like determination, she set a course to rule England that favored Protestantism. Pope Pius V ruled: “We declare the aforesaid Elizabeth to be a heretic and abettor heretics and We declare her and her supporters to have incurred the sentence of excommunication... We declare her to be deprived of her pretended claim to the aforesaid kingdom and of all lordship, dignity, and privilege whatsoever. Also, We declare that the lords, subjects, and peoples of said kingdom and all others who have sworn allegiance to her are perpetually absolved from any oath of fidelity and obedience. Consequently, We absolve them and We deprive the same Elizabeth of her pretended claim to the kingdom...And We command and forbid her lords, subjects, and peoples to obey her...We shall bind those who do the contrary with similar sentence of excommunication.” So haughty are the claims of these degenerate men [that they] believe in their minds [that they are] the Pontifex Maximus—God’s representative on earth. As such, they believe they have unlimited power to depose every monarch, hand over country to foreign invasion, [and] deprive everyone of his possessions without legal process. Anyone offering help to one deposed—even basic human kindness— would be excommunicated. This peril stared Elizabeth straight in the face, as behind the scenes, the popes and his Jesuits encouraged civil disobedience. However, the popes, (and as incredible as it seems, in Elizabeth’s forty five year reign, she saw nine popes come and go), they all fully underestimated the patriotism of the English people, and the English Oak heart of their Queen. A mighty fleet was prepared, with numerous war gun ships and large transports, 131 ships in all, carrying over 30,000 men, two-thirds of which were soldiers. The Spanish “Invincible Armada,” it was called, as it boasted its superior weapons and awesome numbers of strength. They were on a deadly mission, never doubting for an instant anything but success; with breeze filled white sails glistening in the sunlight that put in motion that day on 22 July, 1588, the spectacular and proud Armada glided out of Spanish Corunna harbor. Destination: England. Mission: invasion—to bring the English under Spanish control in full submission to the Holy Roman Catholic Church and to teach this upstart, usurper, illegitimate bastard, heretic of a queen, and all her heretic subjects with her, a lesson—ambitious mission indeed! The English had advanced knowledge of the coming Armada, and so kept a close watch for it, with preparations made to give warning signals at the first sighting. Then, the “reality” was upon them, as all England became alive with the news that the mighty fleet was approaching, spotted by a patrol one hundred miles off the coast. The English Navy sprung into action, as it put out to sea to engage the enemy. “Catholic” Spain—the most powerful European nation of the time, against small “Protestant” England. The scope of what was at stake here was tremendous—the common man fighting for human rights, in protest of the aristocrat forcing him to be his slave. As the Spanish Armada advanced up the English Channel, it formed a ‘crescent’ battle formation, with most of their gun ships on either end of the crescent and the transports in the center. The English Fleet met them with sixty gun ships that were smaller but more maneuverable, with heavier and longer range cannons, and seamen who were excellent gunners. To break up the Spanish formation, the English, under the cover of darkness, sent in several fireships filled with explosives, which sent the Spanish fleet into panic. From then on, the battle was in the English’s favor. The Spanish were out-maneuvered, out-gunned, and out-classed, driven on the run into the North Sea. Here the limping Spanish Fleet made a fatal decision to return home by the way going north of Scotland and around the west side of the British Islands and Ireland. Severe storms battered the already damaged and leaking remaining ships to pieces. The whole operation became a Spanish disaster, with nearly half of the ships lost and three-quarters of the men dead (From The Grand Design Exposed by John Daniel). Final Comment: If the Spanish Armada would have been successful that day, it is very possible Protestantism would have been wiped off the planet. But, God sent a storm and destroyed the Devil’s plans. Nevertheless, the Devil is not finished!!! Without question, the Catholic Church has joined [AND IS!] the One World Beast system, which will unmercifully persecute and kill true Christians in the last days (See Revelation 20:4). This time, however, our Savior and King, Jesus Christ, will destroy the enemy: “And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone” (Revelation 19:20). Scriptural Truths for Roman CatholicsBy Bartholomew F. Brewer, Ph.D. CONVERTED DISCALCED CARMELITE FRIAR AND PRIEST (Emphases Added) THE TRUE CHURCH T HE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH claims to be God's true Church; and all members are to promise obedience to the Bishop of Rome, whom she claims is successor to Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church is built on the assumption that in Matthew 16:13-19, Jesus appointed Peter the first pope and so founded His Church and established the papacy. If this is true, then all true Christians must become Catholic. If it is false, the whole Catholic religion is false and cultic and no true Christians could be identified with such a system. We must, then, search the Scriptures in order to know what is true. The Scriptures are not merely the writings of men, "But holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (II Peter 1:21). "All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing injustice; that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work (II Timothy 3:16-17). "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words (the Bible) shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35). Both Scripture and history testify to the authenticity, reliability, efficiency, and sufficiency of the Bible. Though some Catholic translations are better than others, all are reliable enough for general study with Catholics. When Jesus in Matthew 16:18 said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it," He used the demonstrative taute, "this," pointing to Peter's confession, "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God" as the rock. Jesus said, "Thou art Peter (petros, "stone.” All believers are stones. See I Peter 2:5 and Ephesians 2:21.), and upon this rock (petra, a "huge rock foundation," the confession that Jesus is the Christ), I will build my church.” HE DID NOT PROMISE TO BUILD HIS CHURCH UPON PETER. Jesus would not have trusted such a precious possession as His Church to the leadership of even one fallible man much less a whole succession of them. The pope of Rome is called the Vicar of the Son of God (Vicarins Filii Dei). In the Bible, we find that the Holy Spirit, not a pope, was sent to the place of Jesus on earth. That is what Vicar means. The Holy Spirit was given to guide us into all truth (John 16:7-15), and the Scriptures were given for teaching, for reproving, for correction, and for instruction (II Timothy 3:16). Christ did not leave His Church to human leadership. Jesus Himself is still the Head of His Church. He speaks to us through His infallible Word—the Holy Scriptures—by His ever present and infallible Holy Spirit. Let us remember that Christ is the Rock and only Head of the Church. I Corinthians 3:11. For other foundation, no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus. • I Corinthians 10:4, The rock was Christ. • Ephesians 1:22, 23, Head over all the Church. • Ephesians 2:20, Christ Jesus...the chief corner stone. About thirty-four times in the Old Testament God is called a Rock or the Rock of Israel. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus founded His Church. He was to be the only Head: the Holy Spirit, the Vicar and Guide; and the Bible, the only Authority for faith and practice. All true Christians constitute THE TRUE CHURCH (those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, who believe and obey Christ's teachings). True believers were called "Christians," not "Catholics." •Acts 11:26, Disciples were first called Christians. •Acts 26:28, Persuade me to become a Christian. •I Peter 4:16, Suffer as a Christian. There were no Roman Catholics until Christianity was merged with paganism into a state religion around 315 A.D. The true Christians obeyed God's Word; they never joined in the pagan corruption. The gates of hell have never prevailed against the true believers. They are few, their way is narrow, and they would rather suffer martyrdom than compromise the Word of God or deny their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ: "Go out from her, my people, that you may not share in her sins, and that you may not receive of her plagues" (Apocalypse [Rev.] 18:4). Believers must not be identified with compromising or counterfeit Churches! THE POPE The Pope is called "Our Holy Father.” See encyclical of Pope Leo XIII in the Douay Version of the Bible. He is also called "Our Most Holy Lord," Pope Pius X. See Cardinal's Oath. Moreri, a famous historian said, "To make war against the Pope is to make war against God, seeing the Pope is God and God is the Pope.” Decius said, "The Pope can do all things God can do.” Pope Leo XIII said of himself, "The supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God himself.” Pope Pius X said, "The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ himself hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks.” Pope Pius XI once declared,"You know that l am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth.” ALL THIS IS BLASPHEMY! • Isaias 44:8, Is there a God besides me? • Matthew 23:9, Call no one on earth our father. • Ephesians 4:5, One Lord. • Philippians 2:11, Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father. • I Peter 5:3, Nor yet as lording it over your charges. • 1 Peter 5:1-4, I, Your fellow-presbyter. Peter called himself a presbyter, "pastor," not a pope. He refused honor (Acts 10:25,26) saying, "Stand up for I myself also am a man.” The apostles argued regarding who was greatest in the kingdom (Matthew 18:1) which indicates that even they did not accept Peter as head of the Church. The wealth and power of the Roman Popes could have come to Peter or any of the apostles. They had charisma; they could heal, and raise the dead, and perform many other miracles. They could have accumulated gold and land and conquering armies, but they gave away all that was placed at their feet (Acts 4:37, 3:6). They rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer for the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 5:41). How could anyone be so naive as to think that the papacy evolved out of such humility and simplicity? THE OFFICE OF POPE IS OF PAGAN ORIGIN AND CANNOT IN ANY WAY BE SUBSTANTIATED IN SCRIPTURE. Because of the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit, such an office is not necessary. It is out of order! It is wrong! It is blasphemy! THE PRIESTHOOD The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ ordained the twelve apostles to the priesthood at the Last Supper and that the powers of the priesthood were handed down during the past two thousand years. This teaching is direly contrary to the Word of God. In the Old Testament, the work of Christ was prefigured under the three offices of prophet, priest, and king. The nation of Israel had each office. With the coming of Christ, each of these offices found its fulfillment in Him. Thus, in the New Testament, there is no need for a human priesthood to offer sacrifices: • John 19:30, It is consummated. • I Timothy 2:5, There is one God, and one Mediator...Christ Jesus. • Hebrews 7:17, Thou (Christ) art a priest forever, according to the order of Melchisedech [Melchizedek in KJV]. • Hebrews 7:3, Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of nor end of life, but likened to the Son of God, he continues a priest forever. • Hebrews 7:12, For when the priesthood is changed, it is, necessary that a change of law be made also. • Hebrews 7:24, Because he continues forever, has an everlasting (non-transferable, in-transmissible [Gr. aparabatos, "without successor") priesthood. • Hebrews 7:25, He lives always to make intercession. • Hebrews 7:27, He does not need to offer sacrifices daily. • Hebrews 9:12, Having obtained eternal redemption. • Hebrews 10:10, We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. • I Corinthians 12:28, God indeed has placed some in the Church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers...(no mention of sacramental priests). • Ephesians 4:11, He Himself gave some men as apostles, and some as prophets, others again as evangelists, and others as pastors and teachers...(again no mention of sacramental priests). • I Peter 5:1-3, I, your fellow-presbyter and witness. (Nothing about being a priest). The office of priest is not the same as minister. The concept of a mediating, sacrificing priesthood originated and developed under Cyprian and the theological authority in the West until the time of Augustine, and was part of the merger of paganism with Christianity. Nowhere in the Scriptures will one find evidence of a mediating, sacrificing priesthood after Christ. THE MASS The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Mass is the un-bloody sacrifice of the body and blood of Jesus Christ. It also teaches that the Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross. Both are against God's teaching: • Hebrews 7:27, He died once for all. • Hebrews 9:11-15, He entered once for all. • Hebrews 9:26, Once for all. • Hebrews 9:28, Christ offered once. • Hebrews 10:10, Once for all. • Hebrews 10:11,12, One sacrifice for sins. • Hebrews 10:14, For by one offering. • Hebrews 10:15-20, There is no longer offering for sin (v. 18 shows a historical present tense; in other words, His work continues unfettered by time or space). If Christ is offered again by Roman Catholic priests as they claim, then the above Scriptures are not true. There are more than 100,000 Masses said all over the world every day. Jesus suffers the terrible agony of Calvary at least 100,000 times every twenty-four hours instead of "once for all" as the Scriptures teach. We must believe the Scriptures. If we truly love the Lord Jesus Christ and seek to follow His Word, we will have no regard for the teaching that the bread and wine are "changed" (confected, converted, transubstantiated) into the body and blood of Christ, and then presented to God as a sacrifice by which God is appeased and atonement of sin is made. When Jesus said, "This is my body" or "blood," He did not "change" the substance, but was explaining that He is the one "represented" by the Passover bread and wine. Jesus did not say touto gignetai, this has become or is turned into, but touto esti, which can only mean this represents or stands for. Just as the Passover was a remembrance, so is the Lord's Supper (Communion) a remembrance until He comes. THE ROMAN CHURCH, IN ADVOCATING THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION, DEPARTS FROM THE LITERAL SENSE OF SCRIPTURE. May we be able to say with the Apostle Paul: "We at least, are not, as many others, adulterating the Word of God," (II Corinthians 2:17). CONFESSION OR THE SACRAMENT OF PENANCE The Roman Catholic Church teaches that her priests exercise the power of forgiving sins by hearing confession of sins and granting pardon for them as ministers of God and in His name. This teaching is not from the Bible. •I Esdras 10:11, Now make confession to the Lord the God of your fathers. •Mark 2:7, Who can forgive sins, but only God. •Acts 4:12, Neither is there salvation in any other. •Acts 8:12, Repent..and pray to God. (Peter did not hear his confession and forgive him, but said, "pray to God.") •I John 1:7, The blood of Jesus Christ... cleanses us from all sin. The tense of the verb, "cleanses" is present indicative, which signifies a continuous and interrupted act of God. •I John 1:9, If we acknowledge our sins. (To God, not to a priest who claims to be in persona Christi, "in Christ's place") • I John 2:1, If anyone sins, we have an advocate (Jesus) with the Father. Throughout the Bible, remission of sin and salvation are connected with faith in Christ, nowhere with priestly absolution. In order to support her tribunal upon earth, the Roman Catholic Church misinterprets Matthew 16:19, "I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.” Also, see Matthew 18:18, "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And John 20:23 says, "Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” First of all, the "keys of the kingdom" refers to the authority to proclaim the terms of salvation in Christ. This is the privilege and duty of all Christian believers. The authority to bind and loose is first and foremost the commission to proclaim the gospel which liberates those who believe it, and consigns to bondage those who reject it. The Roman Catholic Church misinterprets this text in order to support the practice of confessing sins to a priest. The Biblical context clearly indicates, however, that the words of Matthew 16:19, 18:18, and John 20:23 were not only spoken to the apostles, but also to those believers who were with them. Christian ministers are to preach repentance, but nothing is said about hearing confession and the granting of absolution (forgiveness of sins). JUSTIFICATION The most important question pertinent to religion is, "how may a man obtain the forgiveness of (his) sins?" Here is where the most significant deviation occurs. The Bible teaches that "faith" secures the remission of sins (Acts 10:43), while Roman Catholicism teaches that the "sacraments" (in addition to faith) do. We must be very precise here, for the Apostle Paul said that any different way of salvation, even if given by an angel, would be accursed. Jesus said that the seed sown on good ground "understood" the way of salvation (Matthew 13:23). WE URGE YOU TO EMBRACE THE LORD'S WAY AND LET GO OF THE FORMER WAY. The Scripture says, "Having been justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1). One Catholic writer in defending his Church made a statement that we all should heed. He said that if faith alone saves, "the whole traditional structure of Christianity is a needless empty show, the Mass, the sacraments, the sacrificing priesthood, the teaching hierarchy, the papacy, practices of penance, asceticism, habits of self-restraint, prayer. Nay, these things are a hindrance, an enormous sham, a terrible system of lies, and therefore to be utterly swept away and destroyed.” (Philip Hughes, “A POPULAR HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH,” p. 176). True Biblical Christianity rejects the notion that salvation is a moral process, that the sinner is "made" just, or "works out" his salvation by his own deeds. Heed what God teaches in the following texts: •John 3:3, “Unless a man be born-again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.” •John 3:16, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that those who believe in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.” •John 5:24, “He who hears my word, and believes him who sent me, has life everlasting, and does not come to judgment, but has passed from death to life.” •Acts 4:12, “Neither is there salvation in any other.” •Romans 4:5, “But to him who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the impious, his faith is credited to him.” •Romans 4:6, “David declares the blessedness of the man to whom God credits justice without works.” •Romans 3:28, “We reckon that a man is justified by faith independently of the works of the Law.” • Romans 5:1, “Having been justified therefore by faith.” •Romans 10:3, “Ignorant of the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to the justice of God.” •Titus 3:5, “Not by reason of good works that we did ourselves, but according to his mercy...” •1 John 5:11-13, “God has given us eternal life; and this life is in his Son. He who has the Son has the life. He who has not the Son has not the life. These things I am writing to you that YOU MAY KNOW THAT YOU HAVE LIFE.” Prayer: Heavenly Father, in the name of Jesus, I ask forgiveness of my sins. I give my life to you that I may receive the Son and that the Holy Spirit may work in me to will and to do of His good pleasure. Because your Word says so, I believe that You have heard my prayer and have forgiven my sins. I promise to study and obey the Scriptures so that my knowledge and faith can increase. Amen. The Jesuit Order By John Daniel I NIGO DE LOYOLA was born in 1491, the youngest of five sisters and eight brothers. His mother died when he was a small infant. One year after his birth, Christopher Columbus electrified Spaniards and all Europeans alike, with his mind-boggling news of the discovery of the New World. When Columbus sailed off on his second voyage to this marvelous New World in 1493, one of Inigo’s brothers equipped a vessel, and joining the fleet, sailed off with him. At age sixteen, about the time, his father Don Beltram died; he was made page boy at the royal summer residence, spending the next ten years of his life in the pomp and formalism of court life and aristocratic ways. Also about this time, Queen Isabella died. King Ferdinand of Spain, now fifty-two, remarried Germaine de Foix, a fifteen-year-old French princess. Inigo, the page, was assigned to serve the new Spanish Queen. In Inigo’s mind, to serve was to love. To love was to serve. Inigo’s first love was Germaine de Foix. Inigo never grew taller than 5-foot-1-inches. Whether his small stature gave him a complex, even to sometimes fantasizing, can never be known, but [with the] descriptions given, [it] seems he struggled to find his place in life. He was one who wanted to excel, never satisfied with second best. He was bold, defiant, cunning, violent, [and] vindictive with an unbendable iron will; this report was given from a police record after excesses, serious and grave misdemeanors, who along with his clergyman brother was brought to justice. In 1517, at age twenty-six, and desirous of finding glory, he entered the military service. Four years later, a cannon-shot passed between his legs shattering his right leg and damaged his other. Thus ended Inigo’ s short military career. The mangled leg being hurriedly and clumsily set was also jolted in the grueling stretcher journey over the hills to Inigo’s castle home. It had to be reset twice in hopes of straightening it, with further added agony of having a protruding lump of bone sawed off. A surgical rack, where he had to lay motionless for weeks to stretch the leg to its normal length, but without success, left him with a permanent limp. All this was done without anesthetic, with Inigo almost dying from the ordeal. This experience became the pivotal point in Inigo’s life—as his thoughts turned to spiritual things. During Inigo’s long convalescence of agony and many sleepless nights, he occupied much of his idle time by reading his sister-in-law’s books of devotion—a monkish “Life of Christ” and “The Golden Legend” (lives of the saints), writings so laden with myth and miracles that the transition from reality to fantasy was an easy one. Buffeted by depression now, exalted by free-flowing happiness then, suddenly afflicted with growing doubts about God, his sanity, the need to be a success, about everything; this see-saw wavering state of mind made him receptive to his so called miraculous vision of the Virgin and Child. It was during this period that he claims to have made a vow of perpetual loyalty and chastity. Instead of a glorious military career, he would now be a warrior in a different sense—a soldier for Christ. Sadly, as a young man driven with inner turmoil, he turned to the only place he knew for spiritual answers—his Roman Catholic Church. Jesuit Order Founded THROUGH THOSE YEARS in school to acquire his education, Ignatius de Loyola made believers who became his steadfast followers. Thoughts, ideas, and plans, were formulated into a firm and real goal. Ignatius became a priest in 1537. Martin Luther was excommunicated in 1521. Loyola was mortified by the advances of Protestantism. Therefore, he resurrected the original Templar (Popes military arm 1118-1307) idea of the warrior-monk, the soldier of Christ, and created his own such soldiery. Unlike the Templers, however, Loyola’s soldiery would crusade not with sword (though perfectly prepared to let others wield it on their behalf), but with the word. On 27 September, 1540, in a private reception hall of the Palace of the Popes on Vatican Hill Rome, eleven men of aristocratic birth, met with Pope Paul III who gave approval of their Order (Loyola was made leader of the new Order). That beginning was to become the most loyal and most efficient organization the Roman Catholic Church has ever spawned in all its near-2000-year history. In the agreement to rescue Rome from the predicament of losing its world control to Protestantism, and to preserve the spiritual and temporal supremacy which the Popes “usurped” during the Middle Ages, Rome now “sold” the Church to the Society of Jesus; in essence, the Popes surrendered themselves into their hands. So, the Church became immensely dependent on the Jesuit Order to defend the Pope’s position as the supreme spiritual and temporal leader of the world, a belief that is absolutely vital if Rome is ever to regain control of the world. And in turn, the Jesuit Order is dependent on the Popes for its exorbitant privileges and latitude—if it is to actually convince the world of its need for Pope as its leader; it is similar to the Queen bee which lays and cultivates her eggs: some turn into worker bees and others drone bees; one bringing her food to sustain her life, the others impregnating her, that she may continue laying fertile eggs. Bound in this way, as the interest of both parties becomes life and death issues, to separate them would fatally bring each to their end. THE TRADITIONs OF MEN 1st Capt. Jochebed River The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) says: “...these truths and rules are contained in the written books and in the unwritten TRADITIONS... the TRADITIONS, whether they relate to faith or morals, as having been dictated either orally by Christ or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Canon in unbroken succession.” (Council of Trent, 1546, emphasis mine)1 “...Sacred TRADITION is the handing on of God’s Word by the successors of the Apostles. Together, Tradition and Scripture form one sacred deposit of the Word of God, which is committed to the Church...” (Vatican II notes in “Handbook for Today’s Catholic”, Liguori) 2 Jesus said: “But in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men. Ye leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men. And he said unto them, Full well do ye reject the commandment of God that you may keep your tradition.” Mark 7:7-9; Matt 15:6-9, Revised Version. Having been a former Catholic, steeped in the culture and traditions of the church, the following issues were weighed mentally and emotionally through time before the choice of obedience to the Word of God alone by the leading of the Holy Ghost was taken. These issues are on the Mass and Images, the reason being as a child, the writer gave herself over to the faithful practice of these things only to find out later by the light of God’s Word that they are vain tradition. There are other innumerable practices that could be questioned by the honest reader with regards to their validity vis-a-vis the Truth, but the reader can check the footnotes below. I. The Mass/Eucharist/Communion The RCC says: “There is in the Catholic Church a true Sacrifice, the Mass instituted by Jesus Christ. It is the sacrifice of His body and blood, soul and divinity, himself, under the appearances of bread and wine. The Sacrifice is identical with the Sacrifice of the Cross, inasmuch as Christ is the Priest and Victim in both. A difference lies in the manner of offering, which was bloody upon the Cross and is bloodless on the altar. The Mass is a propitiatory Sacrifice, atoning for sins of the living and dead for whom it is offered. Christ instituted the Mass at the Last Supper. Christ ordained the Apostles priests, giving them power and the command to consecrate His Body and Blood to perpetuate and renew the Sacrifice.” (1990 Catholic Almanac, pg 212, cited in Zims, pg.133) The Bible says, “Sacrifices and offerings and whole burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin, thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein (the which are offered according to the law), then hath he said, Lo, I come to do thy will He taketh away the first, that he may establish the second. By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest indeed standeth day by day ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, the which can never take away sins, but he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;...(14) For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified...(18) Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin.” (Hebrews 10:8-18) See also, Heb. 7:26-27; and Heb 9:26-28 1 Peter 3:18 says, “Because Christ also suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God; being put to death in the flesh, but quickened in the spirit.” The Levitical law of sacrifices and offerings were abrogated by the once and for all sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. The New Covenant replaces the Old Covenant because Jesus fulfilled the law- “It is finished” -John 19:30 To say that in the Mass, Jesus is offered again and again, is to make void what He has done on the Cross once and for all. To say that He’s done it, but He has not done it, is typical of RC double talk. II. Images/Saints/Relics The RCC says: “...The holy council commands all bishops and others who hold the office of teaching...to instruct the faithful diligently in matters relating to intercession and invocation of the saints, the veneration of relics, and the legitimate use of images,... and those who maintain that veneration and honor are not due to the relics of the saints, or that these and other memorials are honored by the faithful without profit, and that the places dedicated to the memory of the saints for the purpose of obtaining their aid are visited in vain, are to be utterly condemned, as the Church has already long since condemned and now again condemns them.” (Canon and Decrees of the Council of Trent, 25th Session, cited in Zims, pg. 140) The Bible says: “Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor the likeness of any form that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; thou shalt not bow down thyself unto them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, upon the third and upon the fourth generation of them that hate me; and showing mercy unto thousands, of them that love me and keep my commandments.” (Exodus 20:4-6; Deut 5:8-10). Deut 27:15 - “Cursed be the man that maketh a graven or molten image, an abomination to the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and setteth it up in secret. And all the people shall answer and say, Amen.” See also the following Scriptures: Lev. 26:1; Isaiah 40:19; Isaiah 44:9; Hab 2:18; John 4:24. Contemporary Catholics replace the word “worship” with “venerate” to go around this commandment. In fact, this second commandment on images is not even mentioned in the Catholic Cathechism. To fill up the ten commandments, they divide the tenth into the 9th and 10th . But the making of an image per se is foremost to what God has forbidden and bowing down to such IS worship. III. There is an incident in the Old Testament where a king disobeyed God’s command given through a prophet which incurred God’s displeasure over the king. In 1st Samuel 15, God commanded King Saul through the mouth of the prophet Samuel to: “Go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.” (1 Samuel 15:3) Now in verse 9 it says, “But Saul and the people spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was good, and would not utterly destroy them: but everything that was vile and refuse, that they destroyed utterly.” Continuing on, in chapter 15:22, “And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. Verse 23 - “For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is idolatry and teraphim. Because thou hast rejected the Word of the LORD, he hath rejected thee from being king.” How can we apply this principle to the RCC? Through the centuries they have made excuses for their disobedience to the Word of God (the Bible) and have set up spurious authority through their councils, bishops and popes to authenticate their disregard for the same by their tradition. With the indictment of the prophet Samuel, may I reiterate verses 22 and 23 as judgments against this church: “Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as in OBEYING THE VOICE OF THE LORD? BEHOLD, TO OBEY IS BETTER THAN SACRIFICE, AND TO HEARKEN THAN THE FAT OF RAMS. FOR REBELLION IS AS THE SIN OF WITCHCRAFT, AND STUBBORNNESS IS IDOLATRY AND TERAPHIM. BECAUSE THOU HAST REJECTED THE WORD OF THE LORD, HE HATH REJECTED THEE FROM BEING CHURCH.” To the honest reader, may I invoke the command of the Spirit in Revelation 18: 4, 5: “Come forth, my people, out of her, that ye have no fellowship with her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues: for her sins have reached even unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.” History has multiplied evidences of her sins, if the honest reader would search out the fruit of the RCC through the centuries: the murders (Inquisition); the corruption in the hierarchy and the people: lying, cheating, stealing, perversion, pedophilia*, etc. She is definitely NOT concerned with the righteousness of God nor the morality of people, nor about the TRUTH. She’s only concerned about her entrenched spurious authority over souls and over nations. “The times of ignorance therefore God overlooked; but now he commandeth men that they should all everywhere REPENT.” (Acts 17:30) Before Jesus left this earth, He has promised the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, the spirit of Truth to lead and guide us. John 15:26 says, “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall bear witness of me.” And in John 16:13 - “Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he shall guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak from himself; but what things soever he shall hear, these shall he speak; and he shall declare unto you the things that are to come.” Luke 11:13 says, ”If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?” Can’t we trust the Father to give us the Holy Spirit if we ask Him? Let us trust God, not the council of men. 1 & 2 cited in “Romanism”, by Rob Zims, pg. 22 * Two new books give evidence that the Roman Catholic priesthood in America is overrun with homosexuals. One is “Goodbye Good Men...”by Michael Rose, and the other is “The Changing Face of the Priesthood” by Donald Cozzens. Some people say at least 60% of the clergy are homosexuals, perverts, or both. *All Scripture References are taken from the Revised Version which has the Catholic Imprimatur. Transubstantiation D URING THOSE MONTHS of Bible searching and patient, prayerful thought, there was no doctrine of the Roman Church that so completely held my attention as that of Transubstantiation. As the word indicates, it is a change of one substance into another, a change of bread and wine into the body and blood, the soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ. The doctrine of the Church of Rome is that after the priest has pronounced the words of consecration, "Hoc est corpus meum," etc. (This is my body, etc.), what are seen to be bread and wine upon the altar are no longer bread and wine, but the real body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. This wonderful change is produced by the use of these words, Hoc est corpus meum. And this, as Archbishop Tillotson says, led certain jugglers to call their sleight-of-hand tricks hocus-pocus, which is nothing but a corruption of the priest's hoc est corpus, by means of which he commands the whole substance of bread to be gone, and the real body of Christ to assume its place. The bare statement of such a pretended miracle is enough to refute it—to the satisfaction of every person whose senses have any authority with his understanding. In connection with my study of the simple narrative of the institution of the Lord's Supper, as found in the Gospels, I learned through Dr. Clark that our Lord conversed with his disciples, in all probability, in the Chaldaic, now the Syriac language, in which there is no term that expresses to mean, signify, denote; hence, the Hebrews use a figure and say it is, for it signifies. There are numerous instances in the Bible illustrative of this. Thus, the Apostle John, in Rev. 1:20, uses the substantive verb as the Hebrews did—“The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches; and the seven candlesticks are the seven churches." Who would imagine from this that the very substance of seven stars and seven candlesticks was converted into the very substance of the seven churches in Asia and of their seven ministers, as I suppose the word angel to mean? Yet it must be so, the principle laid down by the Council of Trent, and maintained by all good Roman Catholics, upon the perversion of the words, “This is my body.” The keystone of the Roman structure of transubstantiation rests upon the use of the substantive verb IS: “This is my body,” which, according to the idiom of the language in which the words were spoken, could express no more than, this signifies, or represents my body. In my reading, I turned again to the words of Christ—as they were spoken that night in the upper room, as he reclined at the table with the twelve. And I inquired, in what sense did the disciples understand these words: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:26-28)? In the above passage, the pronoun “it” is omitted. Why? Because it is not found in the original but is supplied by the translators. They no doubt understood that the word “blessed” referred to the bread which our Lord took in His hand; and if this were the meaning, their supplement would be correct; but that, I apprehend, is a mistake. The word rendered "blessed" means, “He gave thanks.” "He took bread, and thanked God." So likewise—in reference to the cup. That Christ blessed God, and not the bread, is farther evident from the word which both Luke and Paul make use of to express what He did on that occasion. It is the very same word which Matthew uses in relation to the cup, and which signifies “give thanks;” and so, our translators have rendered it, Luke 22:19: "And He took bread and gave thanks;” and 1 Cor. 23-24, He "took bread, and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said," etc. Here the pronoun “it” is properly supplied, because the action of breaking refers to the bread alone. Therefore the word “blessed” and “gave thanks” are expressions of precisely the same import, and God is the object of both. Christ took bread into His hands, no doubt, and brake it, and said, "This is my body." The disciples were witnesses of His action and heard His words. Now I thought, how would we have understood Him had we been in the place of His disciples? They were men like ourselves; and as we would have felt and thought, they must have felt and thought—If we say they were men of other feelings and perceptions than we are, then we cannot judge of their testimony according to those rules of evidence which are applied to the “witness of men." They saw their Lord reclining at table, and taking bread in His hands; they saw Him break the bread, they received the broken pieces into their own hands, and they ate them. They heard Him say, "This is my body;" but they expressed no surprise, which they would have done had they supposed that He was breaking His own body in pieces, with His own hands, and that they actually ate Him, as the Church of Rome teaches that He is eaten every time the wafer is received. Such an unexpected operation would overwhelm any one of us with astonishment and dismay; and it would have done the same to the disciples had it actually taken place. They would have been, if possible, still more surprised if, after having eaten His body, they still saw Him reclining where He was, taking a cup into His hands, and telling them that this was His blood, which they were now to drink. Viewing the matter as it really was, that the bread and the wine represented His body and His blood, which were about to be broken and shed, everything is plain and intelligible, but viewing it in any other light, the thing is absurd and impossible. Had the disciples literally eaten the body of Christ, that which appeared and spoke to them afterwards must have been a mere phantom. Then there was no real sacrifice offered to God upon the cross, no real atonement for sin. If, as the Roman Church claims, the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine at the table in the upper chamber in Jerusalem by the eleven disciples was a real propitiatory or atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world, then was Christ offered up as a victim on Thursday night at the table before He was offered up the next day on the cross; and the disciples had EATEN HIM before He was crucified. That is the only logical construction of the Roman interpretation of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. A plain, unvarnished statement of the case reveals the irrational absurdity of the dogma on which rests the entire fabric of the papacy. Thus I saw that transubstantiation is not a mere harmless absurdity to be laughed at. It strikes at the root of the Christian religion. It subverts the doctrine of the cross of Christ and removes the only foundation on which a sinner can hope for the pardon of his sins and the salvation of his soul. In my Bible reading, I found the Epistle to the Hebrews a rich storehouse of truth—touching this whole question. The writer of that inspired book insists that THE DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST UPON THE CROSS WAS A PERFECT PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE, OFFERED UP ONCE FOR ALL, for the sins of the world. He stoutly maintains that the one offering is sufficient. If he were combating the pretentious claim of the Papacy, that in the mass the atoning work of Christ is repeated at the will of the priest, he could not be more explicit or clear in his declarations. For example, in speaking of Christ, our great High Priest, he says: "For such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, like those high priests (Jewish or Roman), to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself;” "But Christ having come a high priest...through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption;" "For Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands (like the little tabernacle on the altar in which the Roman priest puts the wafer); but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us; nor yet that he should offer himself often (as the priest in the mass); but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself;" "And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die...so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many." In speaking of the coming Christ as the fulfiller of all the prophecies concerning sacrifices and offerings for sin, he is represented as saying: "Lo, I am come to do thy will. By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest (Jewish or Roman) indeed standeth day by day ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, the which can never take away sins: but he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God...For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." And finally under divine inspiration he declares: "There is no more offering for Sin!” (Heb. chs. 9, 10). But one more testimony is added—that of the Apostle John, in whose inspired writings weighty emphasis is placed upon the sacrificial work of our great High Priest. John says: "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2), and for all time. Can anything be plainer than the above inspired declarations—that Christ was to be offered but once; and yet the Roman priests pretend to offer him on the altar in the mass, thousands of times every day! "After He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.” Transubstantiation D URING THOSE MONTHS of Bible searching and patient, prayerful thought, there was no doctrine of the Roman Church that so completely held my attention as that of Transubstantiation. As the word indicates, it is a change of one substance into another, a change of bread and wine into the body and blood, the soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ. The doctrine of the Church of Rome is that after the priest has pronounced the words of consecration, "Hoc est corpus meum," etc. (This is my body, etc.), what are seen to be bread and wine upon the altar are no longer bread and wine, but the real body and blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. This wonderful change is produced by the use of these words, Hoc est corpus meum. And this, as Archbishop Tillotson says, led certain jugglers to call their sleight-of-hand tricks hocus-pocus, which is nothing but a corruption of the priest's hoc est corpus, by means of which he commands the whole substance of bread to be gone, and the real body of Christ to assume its place. The bare statement of such a pretended miracle is enough to refute it—to the satisfaction of every person whose senses have any authority with his understanding. In connection with my study of the simple narrative of the institution of the Lord's Supper, as found in the Gospels, I learned through Dr. Clark that our Lord conversed with his disciples, in all probability, in the Chaldaic, now the Syriac language, in which there is no term that expresses to mean, signify, denote; hence, the Hebrews use a figure and say it is, for it signifies. There are numerous instances in the Bible illustrative of this. Thus, the Apostle John, in Rev. 1:20, uses the substantive verb as the Hebrews did—“The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches; and the seven candlesticks are the seven churches." Who would imagine from this that the very substance of seven stars and seven candlesticks was converted into the very substance of the seven churches in Asia and of their seven ministers, as I suppose the word angel to mean? Yet it must be so, the principle laid down by the Council of Trent, and maintained by all good Roman Catholics, upon the perversion of the words, “This is my body.” The keystone of the Roman structure of transubstantiation rests upon the use of the substantive verb IS: “This is my body,” which, according to the idiom of the language in which the words were spoken, could express no more than, this signifies, or represents my body. In my reading, I turned again to the words of Christ—as they were spoken that night in the upper room, as he reclined at the table with the twelve. And I inquired, in what sense did the disciples understand these words: "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake, and gave to the disciples and said, 'Take, eat; this is my body.' And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave to them, saying, 'Drink ye all of it; for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins” (Matt. 26:26-28)? In the above passage, the pronoun “it” is omitted. Why? Because it is not found in the original but is supplied by the translators. They no doubt understood that the word “blessed” referred to the bread which our Lord took in His hand; and if this were the meaning, their supplement would be correct; but that, I apprehend, is a mistake. The word rendered "blessed" means, “He gave thanks.” "He took bread, and thanked God." So likewise—in reference to the cup. That Christ blessed God, and not the bread, is farther evident from the word which both Luke and Paul make use of to express what He did on that occasion. It is the very same word which Matthew uses in relation to the cup, and which signifies “give thanks;” and so, our translators have rendered it, Luke 22:19: "And He took bread and gave thanks;” and 1 Cor. 23-24, He "took bread, and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and said," etc. Here the pronoun “it” is properly supplied, because the action of breaking refers to the bread alone. Therefore the word “blessed” and “gave thanks” are expressions of precisely the same import, and God is the object of both. Christ took bread into His hands, no doubt, and brake it, and said, "This is my body." The disciples were witnesses of His action and heard His words. Now I thought, how would we have understood Him had we been in the place of His disciples? They were men like ourselves; and as we would have felt and thought, they must have felt and thought—If we say they were men of other feelings and perceptions than we are, then we cannot judge of their testimony according to those rules of evidence which are applied to the “witness of men." They saw their Lord reclining at table, and taking bread in His hands; they saw Him break the bread, they received the broken pieces into their own hands, and they ate them. They heard Him say, "This is my body;" but they expressed no surprise, which they would have done had they supposed that He was breaking His own body in pieces, with His own hands, and that they actually ate Him, as the Church of Rome teaches that He is eaten every time the wafer is received. Such an unexpected operation would overwhelm any one of us with astonishment and dismay; and it would have done the same to the disciples had it actually taken place. They would have been, if possible, still more surprised if, after having eaten His body, they still saw Him reclining where He was, taking a cup into His hands, and telling them that this was His blood, which they were now to drink. Viewing the matter as it really was, that the bread and the wine represented His body and His blood, which were about to be broken and shed, everything is plain and intelligible, but viewing it in any other light, the thing is absurd and impossible. Had the disciples literally eaten the body of Christ, that which appeared and spoke to them afterwards must have been a mere phantom. Then there was no real sacrifice offered to God upon the cross, no real atonement for sin. If, as the Roman Church claims, the eating of the bread and the drinking of the wine at the table in the upper chamber in Jerusalem by the eleven disciples was a real propitiatory or atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world, then was Christ offered up as a victim on Thursday night at the table before He was offered up the next day on the cross; and the disciples had EATEN HIM before He was crucified. That is the only logical construction of the Roman interpretation of the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. A plain, unvarnished statement of the case reveals the irrational absurdity of the dogma on which rests the entire fabric of the papacy. Thus I saw that transubstantiation is not a mere harmless absurdity to be laughed at. It strikes at the root of the Christian religion. It subverts the doctrine of the cross of Christ and removes the only foundation on which a sinner can hope for the pardon of his sins and the salvation of his soul. In my Bible reading, I found the Epistle to the Hebrews a rich storehouse of truth—touching this whole question. The writer of that inspired book insists that THE DEATH OF JESUS CHRIST UPON THE CROSS WAS A PERFECT PROPITIATORY SACRIFICE, OFFERED UP ONCE FOR ALL, for the sins of the world. He stoutly maintains that the one offering is sufficient. If he were combating the pretentious claim of the Papacy, that in the mass the atoning work of Christ is repeated at the will of the priest, he could not be more explicit or clear in his declarations. For example, in speaking of Christ, our great High Priest, he says: "For such a high priest became us, holy, guileless, undefiled, separated from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; who needeth not daily, like those high priests (Jewish or Roman), to offer up sacrifices, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people: for this he did once for all, when he offered up himself;” "But Christ having come a high priest...through his own blood, entered in once for all into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption;" "For Christ entered not into a holy place made with hands (like the little tabernacle on the altar in which the Roman priest puts the wafer); but into heaven itself, now to appear before the face of God for us; nor yet that he should offer himself often (as the priest in the mass); but now once at the end of the ages hath he been manifested to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself;" "And inasmuch as it is appointed unto men once to die...so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many." In speaking of the coming Christ as the fulfiller of all the prophecies concerning sacrifices and offerings for sin, he is represented as saying: "Lo, I am come to do thy will. By which will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest (Jewish or Roman) indeed standeth day by day ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, the which can never take away sins: but he, when he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God...For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." And finally under divine inspiration he declares: "There is no more offering for Sin!” (Heb. chs. 9, 10). But one more testimony is added—that of the Apostle John, in whose inspired writings weighty emphasis is placed upon the sacrificial work of our great High Priest. John says: "He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world" (1 John 2:2), and for all time. Can anything be plainer than the above inspired declarations—that Christ was to be offered but once; and yet the Roman priests pretend to offer him on the altar in the mass, thousands of times every day! "After He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down on the right hand of God.”