SIX ROMAN CATHOLIC DOCTRINES THAT NULLIFY SALVATION BY GRACE
A Media Spotlight Special Report
by Albert James Dager
Copyright 1988, Media Spotlight
MEDIA SPOTLIGHT
P.O. BOX 290
REDMOND, WA 98073-0290
INTRODUCTION
There are problems in dealing with doctrinal errors in any church or
religious sect. Because one speaks out against error he is often
considered unloving toward those who hold those errors. That may be true
in some instances. No doubt there are those who would use knowledge of
the truth as an excuse to vent their wrath upon others with whom they
find dislike.
Besides the truth of his words, one's motive for his actions is the
all-important consideration in determining whether or not he is justified
in his charges: "Though I have all knowledge and have not love, I am
nothing" (1 Corinthians 13:2). The truth spoken in love--whether gently
or harshly--is the only way to confront error. Though not all who hear
the truth will recognize the love or accept the words, this does not
diminish the service to God or man by those speaking the truth in love.
It's difficult, when zealousness overtakes good judgment, to make the
truth sound as if it is being offered in love. No ones likes criticism,
and it is all the more unappealing when offered in words hard to receive.
Yet there are times when only hard words can adequately express the
truth. But no matter how the truth is presented, we always risk
offending those who may not understand our motive or the truth itself.
One may ask, "Who is to determine what is truth?" For the Christian
there is only one unimpeachable source: the Word of God, the Bible,
understood with the mind Christ--a mind humbly submitted to seeking the
will of the Father and following it. All who seek the truth with that
mind will find it (Matthew 7:7).
Because Roman Catholicism places its teaching authority and its
traditions on an equal footing with Scripture in formulating its
doctrines it has fallen into great error. It has rejected the objective
standard of God's Word in lieu of the subjective reasoning of man's
religious spirit. Where there has been conflict between Scripture and
tradition Roman Catholicism has attempted to explain Scripture in a
manner that subordinates it to tradition.
Today, among Roman Catholics, there is a searching for truth. And
with that searching has come an awakening to the fact that one's
salvation rests solely upon the shed blood of Jesus and His
resurrections. There have always been those within the Roman Catholic
Church who have recognized this truth and have attempted to bring it to
light in spite of persecution from the political hierarchy. Perhaps they
have not had a full grasp of the knowledge of the truth, having been
indoctrinated in Romanism for all or most of their lives, but they have
loved Jesus and have sought a closer walk with Him in the only way they
knew.
This may even be said of some priests (and certainly of many nuns) who
have not understood the full implications of certain doctrines of their
church. We can be thankful that we are saved by grace and not by
knowledge.
Yet with knowledge comes responsibility. Many Catholics, when
presented with the truth, receive it and enter into the salvation
provided by Christ. Some attempt for a time to remain in the Roman
Catholic Church in the hope that they may reach others in that church
with the truth. Sooner or later, however, as the full implications of
Rome's teachings dawn upon them, they are forced to make a choice: will
they tolerate serious error that nullifies the grace of God, or will they
leave in order to seek a more scriptural walk and enter into fellowship
with true believers?
It is to non-Catholic Christians that I hope this writing will give a
better understanding of why we cannot accept the Roman Catholic Church
(that is the religious system) as one with which we may have unity. But
it is also to those Catholics who are seeking the truth of God that it is
offered as a means to bring better understanding of how certain teachings
of their church nullify the doctrine of salvation by grace.
This particular writing deals with Roman Catholicism for specific
reasons. That church's plea for unity has not been understood among
Christians who are unaware that unity with Rome must be on its terms:
submission to papal authority. Also, there is a trend among Christians
to look favorably upon Roman Catholicism because it is perceived as
intrinsically "Christian". It is reasoned that, since Roman Catholicism
teaches the virgin birth, the deity of Christ, the sacrifice of the
cross, the resurrection, and belief in an eternal Hell, whatever else
they teach isn't important--they are only minor errors that can be
overlooked.
But the true implication of Rome's teachings has escaped many
Christians who are unaware of exactly what they contain. The issues at
hand in this writing are certain doctrines--essential for all Roman
Catholics to believe, and unchangeable--that effectively nullify the
cardinal doctrine upon which the Christian faith is built: salvation by
grace.
Careful analysis of Roman Catholic teaching demonstrates conclusively
that that church limits in the hearts and minds of its adherents the
saving power of Jesus' blood.
The six doctrines presented herein are by no means the only serious
errors to which the Roman Catholic Church adheres. But they are six of
the most serious errors which nullify the cardinal doctrine of salvation
by grace. This analysis is offered with the earnest prayer that Roman
Catholics who are searching for the truth will come to the realization
that salvation rests solely upon the grace of God through the person of
Jesus Christ alone, and not on any other mediator or mediatrix, nor on
the merits of one's own works.
And while my hope is for Catholics to realize these truths, I also
pray that all who call themselves "Christian" will realize them and come
out from any church whose teachings nullify them. May all Christians
examine their own hearts and, with a better understanding, reach out to
Catholics with the truth rather than acquiesce in the name of
"ecumenism".
PROLOGUE
When Jesus came to the neighborhood of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his
disciples this question: "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
They replied, "Some say John the Baptizer, others Elijah, still others
Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
"And you," he said to them, "who do you say that I am?" "You are
Messiah," Simon Peter answered, "the Son of the living God!" Jesus
replied, "Blest are you, Simon son of Jonah! No mere man has revealed
this to you, but my heavenly Father. I for my part declare to you, you
are 'Rock,' and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of
death shall not prevail against it. I will entrust to you the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, whatever you declare bound on earth shall be bound
in heaven; whatever you declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in
heaven."
Then he strictly ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was
the Messiah. Matthew 16:13-20
Upon this passage of Scripture rest all the claims of the Roman
Catholic Church as being the only true Church instituted by Christ. All
Roman Catholic doctrine and its interpretation of Scripture and tradition
likewise have their foundation in this single Bible passage because,
according to the Roman Catholic Church, it is this singular portion of
all the inspired writings which gives it the authority to make its laws
and declare its doctrines which must be adhered to in order to be
considered fully incorporated into the Body of Christ.
The Roman Catholic Church believes that when Simon Peter (Petros,
translated "Rock") was told by Jesus that upon this rock (petra) he would
build His Church, Peter was given primacy of position over all the
apostles and, subsequently, over the entire Church. He was, in effect
the first Pope and the Roman Catholic Church believes that all succeeding
Popes are his descendants on the ecclesiastical ladder in time.
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia published by Thomas Nelson Co.,
page 479:
The Pope is the Roman Pontiff who, by divine law, has supreme
jurisdiction over the universal Church. He is the supreme superior of
all religious. The Pope may act alone or with a council in defining
doctrine for the universal Church or in making laws. (cf Infallibility).
He is addressed as His Holiness the Pope. By title and right he is:
Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of St. Peter, the Prince
of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff, Patriarch of the West, Primate of
Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman province, and Sovereign
of the State of Vatican . (Cf Apostolic succession)
Vatican II teaches: "This Church (of Christ) constituted and
organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church,
which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in union
with that Successor, although many elements of sanctification and truth
can be found outside of her visible structure. These elements, however,
as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, possess an inner
dynamism toward Catholic unity." (LG8)
And: "In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power over the
universal Church, the Roman Pontiff makes use of the departments of the
Roman Curia. These, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with
his authority, for the good of the Churches and in the service of the
sacred pastors" (CD9).
The Pope thus has (1) a genuine primacy of jurisdictional power, that
is, a power connected with the primatial office itself as an essential,
constitutive element.
Regarding the reason why Rome is the seat of the Roman Catholic
Church, the Catholic Encyclopedia says, under the heading "ROME."
The capital city of today's Italy, the seat of the government, and
principal city of the ancient Roman Empire, was inhabited as early as the
eight century B.C. After having spent some time in Jerusalem and
Antioch, St. Peter journeyed to Rome in AD 42 and established the Church,
making numerous converts and enduring the first-century persecutions. It
is within the city of Rome , called the city of seven hills, that the
entire area of Vatican State proper now is confined. By treaty with the
Italian government certain other properties apart from the Vatican State
are considered as territorial parts of the state of Vatican City. Since
the founding of the Church there by St. Peter, the city of Rome has been
the center of Christendom. The city itself is the diocese of the Pope as
bishop of Rome.
About the Pope and his relationship to Christians (both Roman
Catholics and non-Catholics) the Roman Catholic Church holds the
following doctrine to be true:
Hence we declare, affirm, define and pronounce that it is altogether
necessary for the salvation of every creature to be subject to the Roman
Pontiff.
It must be understood that the doctrine of Papal Infallibility states
that when a Pope is speaking officially on matters of faith or morals he
is speaking infallibly and there is no possibility of error in his
pronouncement.
This doctrine, stated by Pope Boniface VIII in 1302 through his
encyclical, "Unam Sanctum," was considered doctrine as defined and
pronounced officially. Since Roman Catholic doctrine cannot change
(according to the Roman Catholic Church itself) then it must be assumed
that this doctrine must still be held to.
Today this doctrine is largely played down or ignored because of the
impact it can have upon non-Catholics; but we can't ignore the fact that
it was declared doctrine and, no matter how it has been elaborated upon
since, it still must be true. There is no salvation to anyone who is not
subject to the Pope.
If this doctrine is not true, then neither can be the doctrine of
Papal Infallibility because we would see immediately that Pope Boniface
VIII made an error in his pronouncement of this doctrine.
However, assuming that this doctrine is true, then how do we handle
the following doctrine as defined by Vatican II:
The Church recognizes that in many ways she is linked with those who,
being baptized, are honored with the name of Christian, though they do
not profess the faith in its entirety or do not preserve unity of
communion with the successor of Peter.
We can say that in some real way they are joined with us in the Holy
Spirit, for to them also He gives His gifts and graces, and is thereby
operative among them with His sanctifying power.
There is a problem which we must honestly consider here. God's
salvation doesn't fluctuate from century to century. What was necessary
for salvation at the beginning is still necessary today and no amount of
philosophizing can change that fact.
The issue here isn't whether non-Catholics can have salvation if they
do not submit to the Pope. The issue is whether or not the Pope and/or
the Magisterial of the Roman Catholic Church has a legitimate claim to
infallibility in its proclamation of dogma.
Granted, this may seem like a small matter to most Christians of any
denominational persuasion but the importance can only be understood as
one realizes the conflict in dogma which casts a shadow of question on
the teaching authority of the Roman Hierarchy. For if there is any
question of the validity of that teaching authority then all of the
stated dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church would have to be tested to see
if they were, in fact, of God or not. The essential dogmas relating to
salvation and the destiny of the human soul are especially crucial for
consideration for there are several such dogmas as defined by the Roman
Church which, if properly understood, can nullify the primary dogma of
salvation through faith in Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross of Calvary.
In an attempt to be as totally objective as possible, I have, in the
following pages, followed a simple outline consideration of several
doctrines as they are defined by the Roman Catholic Church. After naming
a particular doctrine I have, wherever possible, stated the year it was
defined, the source of its definition and the Roman Catholic Church's
basis for that definition, whether it be according to that church's
interpretation of the Holy Scriptures or according to tradition. Then
follows a verbatim quotation of the doctrine from a reliable source. All
sources quoted are approved Roman Catholic publications which bear the
imprimatur of authorized representatives of the Roman Catholic Church.
The imprimatur, or "right to publish" is the Roman Church's means of
protecting itself from spurious or forged documents which purport to be
official when in fact they are not.
Roman Catholic Canon 1394 requires that when a work is printed, notice
of the grant of the permission be printed in that work. It is the
simplest and most efficient way to acquaint the public with the fact that
the permission was granted.
The Latin word "imprimatur" literally means "Let it be printed." and
is used by Church authorities to extend permission for the printing of
writings, prayers, pictures, and other material. The word is generally
followed by the ordinary (bishops, abbots, prelates, etc.) of the diocese
in which the printing or publishing was done or where the author lives.
The imprimatur guarantees that the written work is free from any
doctrinal or moral error as defined by the Roman Catholic Church.
In addition to doctrine which the Roman Catholic Church considers
essential to belief in order to be considered a member of the true Body
of Christ, I have also listed secondary teachings as well as rituals and
traditions which the Roman Catholic Church holds sacred.
Following the stated doctrine I have listed Scriptural verses which
can clearly be understood without any special knowledge of the Bible, by
anyone who will read this work with an open heart. These Scriptural
passages should prove valuable in ascertaining the validity of the
questionable teachings.
Finally, will follow my own personal observations which, using the
intelligence that the Lord gave me along with a sincerity to learn the
true nature of these doctrines, will give a logical explanation why I
feel that the doctrine of teaching in question should not be held by a
believer or at least should not be held unquestionably as a prerequisite
to membership in the Body of Christ.
It is my hope that those who read these pages will be ministered to in
their spirits and that all, both Catholics and non-Catholics will come to
a better understanding of God's work in and outside of the Roman Catholic
Church.
INFALLIBILITY OF THE POPE
DOGMA
DECLARED BY VATICAN COUNCIL I - 1870 AD
BASIS FOR BELIEF: NONE
TIMES MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE: NONE
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCHES TEACHES:
Definition:
Infallibility - In its Catholic doctrinal meaning, infallibility is
the end result of divine assistance given the Church whereby she is
preserved from the possibility and liability to error in teachings on
matters of faith and morals. That infallibility was always present in
the Church, even from apostolic times, is frequently affirmed by actions
and declarations of the Apostles (Gal. 1:9) and spoken of by the fathers
of the Church as the "charisma of truth" (St. Irenaeus). The doctrine of
infallibility was defined by Vatican Council I (Sess. III, cap.4) and
promulgated on July 18, 1870, the day before war broke out between
Germany and France, which led indirectly to formal suspension of the
Council three months later. The doctrine defines that infallibility is:
(1) in the pope personally and solely as the successor of St. Peter, (2)
in an ecumenical council subject to confirmation by the pope, (3) in the
bishops of the Universal Church teaching definitively in union with the
pope. As such, infallibility does not extend to pronouncements on
discipline and Church policy and by no means includes impeccability of
the pope or inerrancy in his private opinions. It is, briefly, the
assured guarantee of the unfolding of the apostolic deposit of faith by
authority of the Church whereby Christ's doctrine must and will be handed
on by an infallible Church guided by the Holy Spirit. It is
distinguished from both biblical inspiration and revelation.
Vatican II further teaches: "This is the infallibility which the Roman
Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his
office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful,
who confirms his brethren in their faith, he proclaims by a definitive
act some doctrine of faith or morals.
"Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of
the Church, are justly styled irreformable, for they are pronounced with
the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in
blessed Peter. Therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they
allow an appeal to any other judgment" (LG 25).
And: "The Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private
person. Rather as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, as one in
whom the charism of the infallibility of the Church herself is
individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of
Catholic Faith" (LG 25).
And: "Although the individual bishops do not the enjoy the prerogative
of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine
infallibly. this is so, even when they are dispersed around the world,
provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and
with Peter's successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of
faith or morals, they can concur in a single viewpoint as the one which
must be held conclusively" (LG 25).
And: "This infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed His
Church to be endowed in defining a doctrine of faith and morals extends
as far as the deposit of divine revelation, which must be religiously
guarded and faithfully expounded" (LG 25).
The Catholic Encyclopedia / Nelson - page 293 & 293
Teachings:
Infallibility does not mean preservation from sin, which is
impeccability. In apostolic times, St. Peter was infallible in the
exercise of his office. But, unlike the Blessed Virgin, he was not
impeccable, although it is commonly held that all the apostles were
confirmed in grace on the day of Pentecost and thus preserved from losing
the friendship of God.
Infallibility is not inspiration. Inspiration implies that God is the
principal author of the word or work inspired, although using a human
instrument; whereas infallibility is a providential aid, so that the
human being who was helped (and not God) is the immediate author of an
infallible statement.
The Catholic Catechism / Doubleday - page 224
ROMAN CATHOLIC SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES:
Galatians 1:9
I repeat what I have just said: if anyone preaches a gospel to you
other than the one you received, let a curse be upon him!
COMMENTS ON SCRIPTURAL REFERENCE ABOVE
Galatians 1:9
The Apostle Paul was very careful to point out in the verse just
previous to this one that, even if he himself were to preach any other
gospel than the one he had preached, he should be accursed.
The simple gospel of Truth that Paul proclaimed had nothing to do with
faith in any person other than Jesus Christ. If, in order to belong to
the Body of Christ and, therefore, to be an heir of salvation, it is
necessary to believe in the infallibility of a mere man, then faith in
Christ's atonement isn't enough. Galatians 1:9 in no way affirms
infallibility. On the contrary, the mere suggestion that the Apostle
Paul could become apostate himself and bring another gospel later would
be evidence that he, as the greatest teacher in the history of the
Church, wasn't infallible.
Some might argue that he wasn't the pope - Peter was. In the same
book of the Bible and just in the next chapter (2) Paul relates how he
had to rebuke Peter for his attitude towards the Gentile believers,
treating them as inferior to the Jewish believers.
Scripture presents ample evidence that Paul was the great authority in
the early Church even above Peter when it came to teaching. Yet, as I
have stated already, he admitted the possibility that he might even be
swayed from the truth and at a later time preach another gospel than the
true gospel which had already been proclaimed.
The Gospel of Christ is the good news of salvation through faith in
His redemptive work. To add doctrines to the already proclaimed
doctrines of Scripture on the basis of their being recently revealed is
to say that, as years pass, later generations must meet new standards of
belief than earlier generations. This is not reasonable nor is it in
conformance with God's own words that "I, the Lord, do not change."
(Malachi 3:1)
In any case, this is hardly adequate Scriptural basis for declaring so
important a doctrine that would permit complete control of the thinking
of billions of people down through the ages.
SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES TO REFUTE THE DOCTRINE OF THE INFALLIBILITY OF
THE POPE:
James 3:13-17
If one of you is wise and understanding, let him show this in practice
through a humility filled with good sense. Should you instead nurse
bitter jealousy and selfish ambition in your hearts, at least refrain
from arrogant and false claims against the truth. Wisdom like this does
not come from above. It is earthbound, a kind of animal, even devilish,
cunning. Where there are jealousy and strife, there also are inconstancy
and all kinds of vile behavior. Wisdom from above, by contrast, is first
of all innocent. It is also peaceable, lenient, docile, rich in sympathy
and the kindly deeds that are its fruits, impartial and sincere. James
1:5
If any of you is without wisdom, let him ask it from the God who gives
generously and ungrudgingly to all, and it will be given him.
FINAL COMMENT
While the Scriptures quoted above don't actually refute the doctrine
of infallibility in so many words, they prove that God's wisdom is
available to all who will ask in faith believing. Actually, there is no
way to prove that the pope is not infallible simply because it is
possible for any person to be infallible if he is being led by the Holy
Spirit.
What I wish to point out in using these verses from the Epistle of
James is that, according to them, there must have been some Popes who
were not infallible because their actions betrayed a lack of wisdom and
faith. It isn't my purpose to rehash all of the old accusations against
former papal authorities who committed all sorts of atrocities in the
interest of power. The Roman Catholic Church is well aware of them and,
at least as far as the hierarchy of today is concerned, they are looked
upon as evil manifestations of a sordid past.
But those atrocities prove that the popes responsible for them were
incapable of exercising proper faith and wisdom. Even later on in his
Epistle James make the comment that "faith without good works is dead."
Dead faith can hardly produce infallibility in judgment. Even though the
Roman Catholic Church may honestly state that infallibility does not mean
impeccability, it nevertheless must be remembered that God will not
impart His grace to evil doers.
The question of infallibility isn't even dealt with in Scripture. A
doctrine so important as this should be expected to be stated in the
writings of the Apostles since they covered everything else that was
necessary for belief.
When the Roman Catholic Church says that the Pope's definitions are
irreformable and therefore need no approval of others, nor do they allow
and appeal to any other judgment, she is placing the Body of Christ at
the mercy of the personal whims of a single human being or, in some
cases, the magisterium with the approval of that single human being.
The word "irreformable" means "beyond the possibility of being
reformed." It implies that no change is ever possible. Yet, there are
countless instances of changes in Roman Catholic teaching. Remember now
that infallibility applies to all teachings on faith and morals when the
Pope is speaking officially. This must then apply to all Church laws
which can affect the eternal destiny of believers.
When the Church in just the past couple of decades taught that if a
Catholic were to eat meat on Friday and die without confessing it to a
priest he would go to Hell, it was certainly speaking on a matter of
faith and morals combined. According to Church law it was a mortal sin
worthy of eternal damnation to eat a piece of meat on Friday. This
depended, of course, on what part of the world you lived in or what rite
you adhered to (Eastern or Western).
Infallibility, according to its definition does not only extend to the
doctrines it also extends to the laws of the Church. And, since the
Roman Catholic Church insists that no decree spoken with infallibility
can be changed, it is only logical to assume that, when those laws were
changed regarding the eternal destiny of a soul because of some alleged
sin, the irreformable theory can only be held invalid.
This concept of infallibility must be tested then against any changes
in Church law whereby the eternal destiny of the believer is altered
simply because all such laws pertain to morality as defined by the Church
at a given moment in time. The doctrine of infallibility does not allow
for any such changes. Yet no Catholic will deny that such changes have
taken place. Remember now, that these changes I am speaking about are
only relative to laws that affect the eternal destiny of the soul; not
the laws of ritual or any other inconsequential rules. The Roman
Catholic Church rightfully omits those laws from consideration on
infallibility.
It isn't that the Pope is the immediate author of infallibility that
is the issue. It is that only the Pope can be infallible; and that he is
infallible on his own merit apart from inspiration by the Holy Spirit.
On one hand it is to say that it's because of the Holy Spirit that the
Pope is infallible and on the other hand that the Pope is the immediate
author of infallibility and not God.
This contradiction in terms must be dealt with honestly because it is
a definite allusion to the possibility of supernatural power being the
property of a human being without crediting God's help. I'm sure most
Roman Catholics would deny such a teaching. Yet, according to one of the
official publications of the Catholic Church this is true.*
Finally, without belaboring the point, I refer you to the Prologue of
this writing to refresh your memory on the teaching of Boniface III that,
without submission to the Roman Pontiff there can be no salvation. That
was Church doctrine which, according to the Church, cannot change. Yet
Vatican II has recently overridden that doctrine and said that non-
Catholics who are baptized and even non-Christians can have salvation
even thought they do not have the fullness of faith because they have not
submitted to the authority of the Pope.
As I said, I don't wish to belabor the point and I feel that this
evidence is sufficient to refute any such teaching that the Roman Pontiff
is the only source of God's revelation which can be considered
infallible.
The truth is that God will reveal His truth to all of His children who
are obedient and seeking with an honest heart. But that truth will
always be based upon His unchanging Word and can never be contradictory
to that Word.
Every Christian must hold to John's warning in 1 John 4: "Beloved, do
not trust every spirit, but put the spirits to a test to see if they
belong to God, because many false prophets have appeared in the world.
This is how you can recognize God's Spirit: every spirit that
acknowledges Jesus Christ come in the flesh belongs to God, while every
spirit that fails to acknowledge him does not belong to God."
This seems simple enough until you realize that there are many false
teachers today who acknowledge that the man Jesus did live almost tow
thousand years ago in the flesh. But the word "Christ" or "Anointed
One," (Greek) is the same as the Hebrew "Messiah." It is in this name
that the fullness of Jesus' nature and mission on earth are contained.
Anyone speaking through the Spirit of God will acknowledge that Jesus,
the only begotten Son of God came in the flesh as a man to do the will of
His Father in reconciling the sinful man to Himself through His atonement
on the Cross and His resurrection from the dead in His glorified body.
But there is more to it than even this. Since the Messiah is the Word
of God (John 1) who became flesh, He must necessarily be God Himself and,
therefore unchangeable (Malachi 3:1). Since the Word of God does not
change then the manifestation of that Word through His written, inspired
Word is unchangeable. Consequently, any teaching which is not in
conformity to the written Word of God or which adds to or subtracts from
that written Word is not of the Spirit of God.
Therefore, the laws of the Roman Catholic Church which put conditions
for salvation upon the individual other than what the written Word of God
puts upon them (namely, justification by faith in Christ alone), are
invalid laws and, regardless of the claim of infallibility in proclaiming
those laws, they need not be adhered to. It's especially an imposition
upon the individual to say that, depending upon when in history or where
on the face of the earth he happen to live, his adherence to those laws
will determine whether he may inherit the promise that God has for him if
he will only obey the laws according to his faith in Christ as already
revealed in the written Word, the Bible.
* Vatican II (LG 25), The Catholic Encyclopedia, page 292-293.
THE SACRIFICE
OF THE MASS
DOGMA
BASIS FOR BELIEF: TRADITION
TIMES MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE: NONE
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES:
Definition:
The Sacrifice of the Mass is really the holy and living
representation and at the same time the unbloody and efficacious
oblation of the Lord's Passion and that blood-stained sacrifice which was
offered for us on the cross.
The Catholic Encyclopedia / Nelson - page 375
Teachings:
Christ's own association of what he did at the Last Supper with what
he was to do on Good Friday has been the Church's own norm for intimately
relating the two. The sacrifice of the altar, then, is no mere empty
commemoration of Calvary, but a true and proper act of sacrifice, whereby
Christ the high priest by an unbloody immolation offers himself a most
acceptable victim to the eternal Father, as he did on the cross. "It is
one and the same victim; the same person now offers it by the ministry of
his priests, who then offered himself on the cross. Only the manner of
offering is different."
The priest is the same, namely, Jesus Christ, whose divine person the
human minister represents at the altar. "By reason of his ordination, he
is made like the high priest and possesses the power of performing
actions in virtue of Christ's very person." (Canon 9)
The victim is also the same, namely, the Saviour in his human nature
with his true body and blood. Worth stressing is that what makes the
Mass a sacrifice is that Christ is a living human being with a human
will, still capable of offering (hence priest) and being offered (hence
victim), no less truly today than occurred on the cross. The Catholic
Catechism / Doubleday - pages 465, 466
ROMAN CATHOLIC SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES:
Matthew 26:26 - 28
During the meal Jesus took bread, blessed it, broke it, and gave it to
his disciples. "Take this and eat it," he said, "this is my body." Then
he took a cup, gave thanks, and gave it to them. "All of you must drink
from it," he said, "for this is my blood, the blood of the covenant, to
be poured out in behalf of many for the forgiveness of sins."
Mark 14:22 - 24
During the meal he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to
them. "Take this," he said, "this is my body." He likewise took a cup,
gave thanks and passed it to them, and they all drank from it. He said
to them: "This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, to be poured out
on behalf of many."
Luke 22:19, 20
Then, taking bread and giving thanks, he broke it and gave it to them,
saying: "This is my body to be given for you. Do this as a remembrance
of me."
He did the same with the cup after eating, saying as he did so: "This
cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for you."
1 Corinthians 11:23 - 26
I received from the Lord what I handed on to you, namely, that the
Lord Jesus on the night in which he was betrayed took bread, and after he
had given thanks, broke it and said, "This is my body, which is for you.
Do this in remembrance of me." In the same way, after the super, he took
the cup, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this,
whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me." Every time, then, you eat
this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until
he comes!
1 Corinthians 10:16, 17
Is not the cup of blessing we bless a sharing in the blood of Christ?
And is not the bread we break a sharing in the body of Christ? Because
the loaf of bread is one, we, many though we are, are one body, for we
all partake of the one loaf.
COMMENTS ON SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES ABOVE:
All of these Scriptures say pretty much the same thing and they all
relate to the last supper activity and words of Jesus. There are no
other Scriptures upon which the Roman Catholic Church bases so important
a doctrine as this, that the Mass is the actual sacrifice of the cross
being re-enacted in an unbloody manner, not merely a symbolic re-
enactment of that sacrifice, being offered through the priest.
The question arises as to why such a sacrifice is necessary. If
Jesus' death on the Cross was the fulfillment of His role as sacrificial
Lamb for the penalty and guilt of sin, why do we need further sacrifices?
That question can best be answered by Scripture itself, taking into
consideration that nowhere in the Bible is such a continuing sacrifice
spoken of. Quite the contrary as we shall see.
SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES TO REFUTE THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
Hebrews 7:22 - 27
Thus has Jesus become the guarantee of a better covenant. Under the
old covenant there were many priests because they were prevented by death
from remaining in office; but Jesus, because he remains forever, has a
priesthood which does not pass away. Therefore he is always able to save
those who approach God through him, since he forever lives to make
intercession for them.
It was fitting that we should have such a high priest: holy, innocent,
undefiled, separated from sinners, higher than the heavens. Unlike the
other high priests, he has no need to offer sacrifice say after day,
first for his own sins and then for those of the people; he did that once
for all when he offered himself.
Hebrews 9:11 - 15
But when Christ came as high priest of the good thins which have come
to be, he entered once for all into the sanctuary, passing through the
greater and more perfect tabernacle not made by hands, that is, not
belonging to this creation. He entered, not with the blood of goats and
calves, but with his own blood, and achieved eternal redemption.
For if the blood of goats and bulls and the sprinkling of a heifer's
ashes can sanctify those who are defiled so that their flesh is cleansed,
how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal spirit
offered himself up unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from dead
works to worship the living God!
Hebrews 9:24 - 28
For Christ did not enter into a sanctuary made by hands, a mere copy
of the true one; he entered heaven itself that he might appear before God
now on our behalf. Not that he might offer himself there again and
again, as the high priest enters year after year into the sanctuary with
blood that is not his own; if that were so, he would have had to suffer
death over and over form the creation of the world. But now he has
appeared at the end of the ages to take away sins once for all by his
sacrifice. Just as it is appointed that men die once to take away sin
but to bring salvation to those who eagerly await him.
Hebrews 10:10 - 20
By this "will," (of God) we have been sanctified through the offering
of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. Every other priest stands
ministering day by day, and offering again and again those same
sacrifices which can never take away sins. But Jesus offered one
sacrifice for sins and took his seat forever at the right hand of God;
now he waits until his enemies are placed beneath his feet. By one
offering he has forever perfected those who are being sanctified. The
Holy Spirit attests this to us, for after saying,
"This is the covenant I will make with them after those days says the
Lord: I will put my laws in their hearts and I will write them on their
minds,"
he also says,
Their sins and their transgressions I will remember no more." Once
these have been forgiven, there is no further offering for sin.
FINAL COMMENT:
The Apostle Paul was very careful to reiterate several times, the lack
of need for continual sacrifices. This particular letter was written to
the Hebrew Christians because they needed to be reassured that the
previous sacrifices of animals were no longer necessary. He pointed out
that, once Jesus paid the price for our sins there was not other price to
be paid; by the Lord (as priest) or by anyone else.
As our high priest today He performs the function of mediation for us
before the throne of God as we simply come to Him in faith accepting what
He has done for us. Why do we need to attach provisions to His wonderful
grace? The Word of God speaks so plainly here, why argue?
There is more crucial matter to be considered here. Every time the
"sacrifice" of the Mass is being offered it is a denial of the finished
work of the Cross. To say that Jesus must be offered up to God thousands
of times every day, all over the world, is to nullify a professed belief
in the sacrifice on Calvary. It is saying that Jesus' actual death on
the cross is no more than a dry-run for all those that follow on the
altars of Roman Catholic Churches everywhere.
Roman Catholic claims to the contrary, it says that the Lord's actual
death wasn't enough.
Please, dear reader, don't close your mind to this. I realize that
these pages don't contain pleasant reading for you if you consider
yourself a devout Catholic as I once did. But there is so much at stake
here.
God wants us to come to Him in simple faith, accepting His Word as the
basis for that faith. When the traditions and philosophies of men
encroach upon the simply stated truths contained in Scripture, the issues
cannot help but become clouded.
This is why I urge you to search the Scriptures diligently to test the
things that are written here. Don't take any man's word for God's truth
no matter how impressive his titles and seminary training might be. No
one is infallible when it comes to state truth other than when he is led
by the Holy Spirit. But how can one know if the Holy Spirit is the one
who is speaking unless he tests that spirit against the written Word of
God which was given to us for that purpose.
You must even test my words. I earnestly implore you to. Realize
this as you do so: that everyone who has the Spirit of God in him has the
ability to decipher truth from error if his heart is truly open to God to
receive instruction.
The first question you must ask yourself, if you are honest, is, do I
have the Spirit of God living in me? If you don't know the answer to
this question, then chances are excellent that you don't.
If you wish to know the truth in all these matters and you also wish
to draw closer to God, then it is necessary that you accept His sacrifice
on the cross as the full and complete atonement for your sins. Repent,
once and for all, of your sins and ask the Lord to give you His Holy
Spirit so that you can be assured of eternal life. It is His Spirit
living in us that quickens our spirits and makes them alive to God.
From that point on it's a matter of living daily for Him and searching
the Scriptures to learn His will for your own life.
There is freedom in Christ which has been denied us all as long as we
remain subject to the dictates of men who impose upon us the restriction
of religious tradition.
Consider this: You must do more than believe that God's truths are
real. You must accept them for yourself personally. As the Lord said,
Do you believe? You do well. But the devils also believe and they
tremble.
To know about God is one thing. To know Him personally is quite
another. One may say that he knows about the wealthiest man in all the
world. But until he is adopted by that man as an heir, he can't really
appropriate the benefits attached to sonship. God has offered us a way
to enter into His blessings by providing a one-time sacrifice for all of
our transgressions. When we speak of grace we know that we are speaking
of god's unmerited favor. Therefore, if salvation is by grace, what can
we do to earn it? None of us can pay the price of so great a gift.
But God so loved the world that He gave us His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.
Believe it. Accept it. And bear with me as we carry on.
TRANSUBSTANTIATION
DOGMA
DECLARED BY POPE INNOCENT III - 1215 AD
BASIS FOR BELIEF: TRADITION & INTERPRETATION OF MARK 14:22-25
TIMES MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE: NONE
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES:
Definition:
Transubstantiation - The way Christ is made present in this sacrament
(Holy Eucharist) is none other than by the change of the whole substance
of the bread into His body, and of the whole substance of the wine into
His blood...this unique and wonderful change the Catholic Church
rightfully calls transubstantiation. (Encyclical "Mysterium Fidei" of
Pope Paul VI - Sept.3, 1965) The first official use of the term was made
by the Fourth Council of the Lateran in 1215 AD. Authoritative teaching
on the subject was issued by the Council of Trent. This change takes
place at the consecration of the Mass. Although it is not perceptible to
the senses, it is commonly called a miracle. 1979 Catholic Almanac - page
387
Teachings:
When Catholic Christianity affirms, without qualification, that "in
the nourishing sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of
the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and true man," is
present "under the appearances of those sensible things," it rests its
faith on the words of Scripture and the evidence of Sacred Tradition.
The Catholic Catechism / Doubleday - page 458
The first serious ripples of controversy came in the ninth century,
when a monk from the French Abby of Corbie wrote against his abbot, St.
Paschasius (785-860). Ratramnus (d. 868) held that Christ's body in the
Eucharist cannot be the same as Christ's historical body once on earth
and now in heaven because the Eucharistic body is invisible, impalpable,
and spiritual. He wanted to hold on to the Real Presence but stressed
the Eucharist as symbolic rather than corporeal. His book on the subject
was condemned by the Synod of Vercelli, and his ideas, it is held,
influenced all subsequent theories that contradicted the traditional
teaching of the Church.
Within two centuries the issue had reached such a point of gravity
that a formal declaration was evoked from the Holy See. In 1079,
Archdeacon Berengar of Tours who favored Ratramnus' position and wrote
against what he considered the excessive realism of Paschasius, was
required by (Pope) Gregory VII to accept the following declaration of
faith in the Eucharistic presence:
I believe in my heart and openly profess that the bread and wine
placed upon the altar are, by the mystery of the sacred prayer and the
words of the Redeemer, substantially changed into the true and life-
giving flesh and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord, and that after the
consecration, there is present the true body of Christ which was born of
the Virgin and, offered up for the salvation of the world, hung on the
cross and now sits at the right hand of the Father, and that there is
present the true blood of Christ which flowed from his side. They are
present not only by means of a sign and of the efficacy of the sacrament,
but also in the very reality and truth of their nature and substance.
Catholic Catechism / Doubleday - page 461
Responding to the claims of merely symbolic or spiritual presence, the
Church condemned "anyone who denies that the body and blood, together
with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, the
whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained in the
sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, but says that Christ is present in the
sacrament only as a sign, or figure, or by his power."
The expression "whole Christ" proved to be decisive. Since the whole
Christ is present in the fullness of his divine and human natures, this
implies that he is present under the sacramental appearances with the
totality of his divine attributes as well as his human properties. He is
therefore in the Eucharist also with the essence of those dimensional
features that we commonly associate with a living human being. The
explanation of how these physical properties are possible is part of
theological speculation but the fact is a matter of faith. Catholic
Catechism / Doubleday - page 462
There was no dependence on Aristotelian philosophy in the Church's use
of words like "substance" or "transubstantiation." Long before either
term had become commonplace in the West, the East spoke regularly of the
ousia or being of the bread and wine, which were changed into the ousia
or being of Christ. The which constitutes bread and wine, in virtue of
the sacramental consecration, ceased to be bread and wine and became the
reality of the whole Christ. What alone remained were the species, i.e.,
appearances or external properties of what looked and tasted like bread
and wine but were now the living body and blood of the Savior.
Given this perdurance of Christ's presence as long as the species
remain, it was only logical for the Church to worship the Blessed
Sacrament as it would the person of Jesus himself. As a result, he is to
be adored "in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist with the worship of
latria, including the external worship." Concretely this means that the
Blessed Sacrament is to be "honored with extraordinary festive
celebrations" and "solemnly carried from place to place" and "is to be
publicly exposed for the people's adoration." (Council of Trent - Canons
1 & 3) The Catholic Catechism / Doubleday - pages 462, 463
ROMAN CATHOLIC SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES:
Mark 14:22-25
During the meal he took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to
them. "Take this," he said, "this is my body." He likewise took a cup,
gave thanks and passed it to them, and they all drank from it. He said
to them: "This is my blood, the blood of the covenant, to be poured out
on behalf of many. I solemnly assure you, I will never again drink of
the fruit of the vine until the day when I drink it new in the reign of
God."
John 6:48-58
I am the bread of life. Your ancestors ate manna in the dessert, but
they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven for a man to
eat and never die. I myself am the living bread come down from heaven.
If anyone eats this bread he shall live forever; the bread I will give is
my flesh, for the life of the world." At this the Jews quarreled among
themselves, saying "How can he give us his flesh to eat?" Thereupon
Jesus said to them: "Let me solemnly assure you, if you do not eat the
flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. He
who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has life eternal, and I will
raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood
real drink. The man who feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood remains in
me, and I in him. Just as the Father who has life sent me and I have
life because of the Father, so the man who feeds on me will have life
because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike
your ancestors who ate and died nonetheless, the man who feeds on this
bread shall live forever." He said this in a synagogue instruction at
Capernaum.
COMMENTS ON SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES ABOVE:
The best thing to share here is to point out the continuation of the
Gospel of John discourse on the Lord being the bread from heaven. In the
very next verses we read:
"After hearing his words, many of his disciples remarked, "This sort
of talk is hard to endure: How can anyone take it seriously?" Jesus was
fully aware that his disciples were murmuring in protest at what he had
said. "Does it shake your faith?" he asked them. "What then, if you were
to see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before...? It is the spirit
that gives life; the flesh is useless. The words I spoke to you are
spirit and life.
Jesus Himself stated that He was speaking in a spiritual sense; that
we must eat of Him spiritually not physically because the flesh itself is
worthless. Yet, we see how the previous verses were taken out of context
and an important doctrine built upon them even to the point of stating
that the Roman Catholic Church condemns anyone who does not agree with
their interpretation.
Let's be totally objective here because, if one uses a particular rule
of interpretation to state that the Lord is speaking literally in a
specific verse of Scripture then he must use the same rule of
interpretation for the rest of that verse. That's only logical and fair
the the Scripture itself.
It is obvious that Jesus, when He said, "This is my body" did not say
"This has become my body." Since He was in His body at the time then He
couldn't have been in the piece of bread. And since His blood was
flowing through His veins, it couldn't be in the cup. If we were to
apply such a definition absolutely, then we must take the rest of His
statement in the same manner. In Luke 22:20 the same event is described
in more detail and the words are repeated almost verbatim in I
Corinthians 11:25:
He did the same with the cup after eating, saying as He did so:
"This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which will be shed for
you."
Using this more complete account of what the Lord said, we ask the
question, "Was the bread His body?" Therefore we may honestly ask, "Was
the cup the new covenant?" If so, what happened to this new covenant
when the cup was lost? Without that cup, we have no new covenant. Of
course, the cup was symbolic of the new covenant which would be ushered
in after the Lord spilled His blood for our redemption and, by His
resurrection, opened the door for full fellowship with God as before the
fall of Adam.
We must likewise apply the rule of consistency to the verses that
recall the Lord's words about His being the living bread. Now, consider
for a moment: Was the Lord a piece of bread at the time He made that
statement? Which will; it be - Is Jesus bread or is a piece of bread
Jesus? According to this reference which the Church uses to teach
transubstantiation, the Lord was bread. Therefore, His disciples could
have bitten into Him and swallowed a piece of bread. Ridiculous? Of
course.
But He said it and if it were to be taken literally instead of
spiritually then we can just as easily conclude that His flesh was made
of dough as we can conclude that a piece of dough is His flesh.
We must also then consider that Jesus was a rock, a tree, a vine, a
star, etc., for there are many passages of Scripture which speak of Him
in those terms and even by His own words.
If you are a Roman Catholic I urge you not to close your eyes to the
very important point. The reason will follow.
SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES TO REFUTE THE DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION:
John 6:59-63
Quoted above.
Luke 22:18
I tell you, from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine
until the coming of the reign of God."
FINAL COMMENT:
When Jesus said that He wouldn't drink of the fruit of the vine again
until the kingdom of God was established, He acknowledged that it was
still wine that was in the cup because that is what the fruit of the vine
is. It certainly isn't blood. The substance was unchanged after He had
pronounced His "consecration."
Now, why is it so serious to consider the Roman Catholic sacrament of
the Holy Eucharist as unworthy of participation by true Christians? In
light of Roman Catholic teachings that it must be worshiped even as the
Lord Jesus Himself is worshiped, it must be classed as idolatry.
Why do I use such strong words? Because, if we really analyze this
doctrine aside from traditional teachings of the Church, we will see that
it is telling us that a piece of bread is actually God.
Before we throw that off as nonsense, remember that the Church also
justifies its position on Mary as the Mother of God on the basis that
Jesus is God and she is His mother - therefore she is the Mother of God.
It is no more unreasonable to use that same rationale to assume then that
the piece of bread is God if it is, according to Roman Catholic teaching,
the very person of Jesus Christ.
Remember to, that "anyone who denies it as the body and blood,
together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ: stands
condemned. This means that all Christians who are not Roman Catholics
are damned because they don't accept this teaching. It, in itself, is a
contradiction of the stand of Vatican II on the position of non-Catholic
Christians.
Because the concept of "transubstantiation" is essential the the
sacrifice of the Mass, the two are unalterably linked together and,
should one be found false then they mush both be found false. That being
the case, even the concept of "transubstantiation," if it is adhered to,
nullifies the professed faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ on the
Cross. It too, as does the Mass, tells us that that atonement wasn't
enough. To say that is to deny the essential doctrine of atonement.
This is true regardless of whether or not one states that belief. Can I
say that I have accepted the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross for my sins
in a true sense if I still hold reservations about needing to add my own
works through vicariously offering sacrifices to supplement the original
sacrifice?
PURGATORY
DOGMA
PROPOSED BY POPE GREGORY I - 593 AD
DECLARED DOGMA BY THE COUNCIL OF FLORENCE - 1439 AD
TIMES MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE: NONE
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES:
Definition:
Purgatory - The state or condition in which those who have died in the
state of grace, but with some attachment to sin, suffer for a time before
they are admitted to the glory and happiness of heaven. In this state
and period of passive suffering, they are purified of unrepented venial
sins, satisfy the demands of divine justice for temporal punishment due
for sins, and are thus converted to a state of worthiness of the beatific
vision. 1979 Catholic Almanac - page 379
Teachings:
Catholicism believes there is still the prospect for expiation (not
repentance) called purgatory because its function is to purify those who
die in God's friendship but are not fully cleansed of the effects of
their sins.
The Catholic Catechism / Doubleday - page 254
The Benedictine constitution states that "We, with our apostolic
authority, make the following definition," and then goes on to declare
that the souls of the just, who die in God's friendship, "soon after
death and, in the case of those who need it, after purification, have
been, are, and will be in heaven."
The Catholic Catechism / Doubleday - page 257
If those who are truly repentant die in charity before they have done
sufficient penance for their sins of omission and commission, their souls
are cleansed after death in purgatorial or cleansing punishments.
The suffrages of the faithful on earth can be of great help in
relieving these punishments, as for instance, the Sacrifice of the Mass,
prayers, almsgiving, and other religious deeds which, in the manner of
the Church, the faithful are accustomed to offer for others of the
faithful. Decree - 2nd Council of Lyons - 1274 AD
ROMAN CATHOLIC SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES:
2nd Maccabees 12:41-45 (Old Testament Apocryphal book)
All then blessed the ways of the Lord, the just judge who brings
hidden things to light, and gave themselves to prayer, begging that the
sin committed might be fully blotted out. Next, the valiant Judas urged
the people to keep themselves free from all sin, having seen with their
own eyes the effect of the sin on those who had fallen.
After this he took a collection from them individually amounting to
nearly two thousand drachmae, and sent it to Jerusalem to have a
sacrifice for sin offered, an altogether fine and noble action, in which
he took full account of the resurrection. For if he had not expected the
fallen to rise again it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray
for the dead. Whereas if he had in view the splendid recompense for
those who make a pious end, the thought was holy and devout. This is why
he had this atonement sacrifice offered for the dead, so that they might
be released from their sin."
Matthew 12:32
Whoever says anything against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but
whoever says anything against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven,
either in this age or the age to come."
1 Corinthians 3:10-15
Thanks to God showed me I laid a foundation as a wise master-builder
might do, and now someone else is building upon it. Everyone, however,
must be careful how he builds. No one can lay a foundation other than
the one that has been laid, namely Jesus Christ. If different ones build
on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay or
straw, the work of each will be made clear. The Day will disclose it.
That day will make its appearance with fire, and fire will test the
quality of each man's work. If the building a man has raised on this
foundation still stands, he will receive his recompense: if a man's
building burns, he will suffer loss. He himself will be saved, but only
as one fleeing through fire."
COMMENTS ON SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES ABOVE:
2nd Maccabees 12:41-45
The Book of Maccabees is a portion of the apocryphal books which are
held to be inspired Scripture only be the Roman Catholic Church. As part
of their Old Testament, they were never recognized as the inspired
Scriptures by the Jewish theologians of old and they are the only books
never referred to by any of the New Testament writers or by any person
spoken of in the New Testament.
Even if they could be proven to be the inspired Word of God (which
they cannot), they would still be part of the Old Covenant dispensation
and, since Jesus, through His death, burial and resurrection, put an end
to the curse of sin for all believers, the destiny of the souls of the
faithful departed has been altered from those who merely had the hope of
the first resurrection along with the Messiah (Jesus).
Mathew 12:32
This Scripture can only be emphasizing the severity of sinning against
God's Holy Spirit. Even the Catholic Church teaches that sins cannot be
forgiven after death. Purgatory is supposed to cleanse only from the
penalty of death due to sins already forgiven. When Jesus said "either
in this age or in the age to come" the key word is "age." He didn't say
either in this life of after death. This age is the age of grace whereby
we are forgiven as a result of our faith in the atoning work of the
Cross. The next age will be the millennial reign of Christ whereby He,
along with His saints, will rule the nations with a rod of iron. During
that age as even now, the sin of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will
not be forgiven.
To quote this Scripture as proof of purgatory is illogical and
contradictory.
1 Corinthians 3:10-15
These passages speak of the value of our works for rewards. It is the
quality of our work which will be tried as by fire, not we ourselves.
Our trial is on earth to see if we will live righteously before God.
According to this Scripture, all that we have built, if it is on any
weak foundation, will be burned. It says nothing of punishment but only
that whatever is not done for Christ will be destroyed.
The Day (capital D) is the name commonly given in Scripture for the
Great Day of the Lord which will be the time of His coming again to the
earth in order to restore it unto Himself. At that time all the works of
men will be judged whether they are acceptable to God or not. If they
are found to be wanting in their quality they will not stand for rewards
but will be as chaff to be burned up. Even though all the works of a man
may be burned, the man himself may be saved if he has the covering of the
blood of Jesus Christ and His worthiness according to faith.
He will stand destitute of rewards though, as one fleeing through a
fire and losing all of his possessions.
To use this Scripture as a proof of purgatory is to say then that the
Day of the Lord is when purgatory will be in effect: not today. This is
not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. It teaches that purgatory is
real today.
SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES TO REFUTE THE DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY:
The following Scriptures tell us of the confidence we have in the
complete atonement for our sins by Jesus Christ. They offer proof that,
once our sins are forgiven, they are never remembered by God.
Psalm 103:12,13
As far as the east is from the west, so far has he put our
transgressions from us. As a father has compassion on his children, so
the Lord has compassion on those who fear him.
1 John 1:9
But if we acknowledge our sins, he who is just can be trusted to
forgive our sins and cleanse us from every wrong.
Romans 8:1
There is no condemnation now for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Acts 13:38,39
You must realize, my brothers, that it is through him (Jesus) that the
forgiveness of sins is being proclaimed to you, including the remission
of all those charges you could never be acquitted of under the law of
Moses. In him every believer is acquitted.
Romans 3:21-28
But now the justice of God has been manifested apart from the law,
even though both law and prophets bear witness to it - that justice of
God which works through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. All
men have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. All men are now
undeservedly justified by the gift of God, through the redemption wrought
in Christ Jesus. Through this blood, God made him the means of expiation
for all who believe. He did so to manifest his own justice, for the sake
of remitting sins committed in the past - to manifest his justice in the
present, by way of forbearance, so that he might be just and might
justify those who believe in Jesus.
What occasion is there for boasting? It is ruled out. By what law,
the law or works? Not at all! By the law of faith. For we hold that a
man is justified by faith apart from observance of the law.
Romans 5:1-2
Now that we have been justified by faith, we are at peace with God
through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have gained access by
faith to the grace in which we now stand, and we boast of our hope for
the glory of God.
Romans 5:9
Now that we have been justified by his blood, it is all the more
certain that we shall be saved by Him from God's wrath.
Romans 5:15-19
But the gift is not like the offense. For if by the offense of the
one man (Adam) all died, much more did the grace of God and the gracious
gift of the one man, Jesus Christ abound for all. The gift is entirely
different from the sin committed by the one man. In the first case, the
sentence followed upon one offense and brought condemnation, but in the
second, the gift came after many offenses and brought acquittal. If
death began its reign through one man because of his offense, much more
shall those who receive the overflowing grace and gift of justice live
and reign through the one man, Jesus Christ.
To sum it up, then: just as a single offense brought condemnation to
all men, a single righteous act brought all men acquittal and life. Just
as through one man's disobedience all became sinners, so through one
man's obedience all shall become just..
Titus 3:5-8
But when the kindness and love of God our Saviour appeared, He saved
us; not because of any righteous deeds we had done, but because of His
mercy. He saved us through the baptism of the new birth and renewal by
the Holy Spirit. This Spirit He lavished on us through Jesus Christ our
Saviour, that we might be justified by His grace and become heirs, in
hope, of eternal life. You can depend on this to be true.
Philippians 1:21 & 23
For, to me, "life" means Christ; hence dying is so much gain.
I am strongly attracted to both: I long to be freed from this life and
to be with Christ, for that is the far better thing.
Hebrews 10:14-18
By one offering He (Jesus) has forever perfected those who are being
sanctified. The Holy Spirit attests this to us, for after saying.
"This is the covenant I will make with them after those days, says the
Lord: I will put my laws in their hearts and I will write them on their
minds." He also says,
"Their sins and their transgressions I will remember no more."
Once these have been forgiven, there is no further offering for sin.
FINAL COMMENT:
This doctrine of a place called "Purgatory" rests heavily upon
tradition which, I realize, the Roman Catholic Church places on an equal
level with the Scriptures. The problem with this doctrine, however, is
that it actually nullifies the professed belief in the atoning work of
the Cross.
It says that Jesus suffered, bled and died a cruel death for our sins,
but that His sacrifice wasn't enough. The punishment for those sins must
still be dealt with by horrible suffering akin to a temporary lake of
fire.
To profess belief in Purgatory is to cast scorn upon the Lord's
sacrifice which was a perfect offering to satisfy God's justice.
Was it, or wasn't it?
What you choose to believe is your responsibility. Whether or not you
accept His atonement (payment, full and complete) for your sins will
determine whether or not you have any forgiveness at all.
I don't ask you to accept my determination on the matter. What I do
ask is that you search the Scriptures with an open heart and devoid of
human traditions which could cloud proper understanding.
THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF MARY
DOGMA
DECLARED BY POPE PIUS IX - 1854 AD
BASIS FOR BELIEF: TRADITION
TIMES MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE: NONE
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES:
Definition:
Immaculate conception - This is the privilege and the singular grace
that divine omnipotence bestowed upon the Blessed Virgin Mary to preserve
her from original sin by infusing into her soul sanctifying grace from
the very instant of conception in the womb of her mother, St. Anne.
Through this, Mary, who was to be the Blessed Mother of the Son of God,
was conceived in the state of holiness and justice. This effect, caused
by the act of God, resulted in her being free of the consequences of
original sin, such as the slavery to the devil, subjection to
concupiscence, and darkness of the intellect. Further, Mary was not
subject to the law of suffering and death, which are penalties of the sin
of human nature, even though she knew these, experienced them, and
endured them for our salvation. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception
was defined for the Universal Church's belief by Pius IX, Dec. 8, 1854,
as follows: "We declare, announce, and define that the doctrine which
states that the Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved, in the first instant
of her conception,, by a singular grace and privilege of God Omnipotent
and because of the merits of Jesus Christ the Savior of the human race,
free from all stain of original sin, is revealed by God and must be
believed firmly and with constancy by all the faithful."
The Catholic Encyclopedia / Nelson - page 285
Teachings:
The sinlessness of Christ's mother had been recognized from the
beginning, but was little dwelled upon except in the writings of the
Greek and Latin Fathers when they described her perfect holiness and
compared her with the first woman, Eve. They spoke of her as "holy,
innocent, most pure, inviolate, undefiled, immaculate," in a way that
left no doubt they considered her absolutely without sin.
The Catholic Catechism / Doubleday - page 151
SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES TO REFUTE THE DOCTRINE OF
THE IMMACULATE CONCEPTION OF MARY
Romans 3:23-25
All men have sinned and are deprived of the glory of God. All men are
now undeservedly justified by the gift of God, through the redemption
wrought in Christ Jesus. Through his blood, God made him the means of
expiation for all who believe.
Luke 11:27,28
While he was saying this a woman from the crowd called out, "Blest is
the womb that bore you and the breasts that nursed you!" "Rather," he
replied, "blest are they who hear the word of God and keep it."
Matthew 11:11
I solemnly assure you, history has not known a man born of woman
greater than John the Baptizer. Yet the least born into the kingdom of
God is greater than he.
Luke 1:46,47
Then Mary said: "My being proclaims the greatness of the Lord, my
spirit finds joy in God my savior,.."
Matthew 12:46-50
He was still addressing the crowds when his mother and his brothers
appeared outside to speak with him. Someone said to him, "Your mother
and your brothers are standing out there and they wish to speak to you."
He said to the one who had told him, "Who is my mother? Who are my
brothers?" Then, extending his hand toward his disciples, he said,
"There are my mother and my brothers. Whoever does the will of my
heavenly Father is brother and sister and mother to me."
Luke 2:48-50
When his parents saw him they were astonished, and his mother said to
him: "Son, why have you done this to us? You see that your father and I
have been searching for you in sorrow." He said to them: "Why did you
search for me? Did you not know I had to be in my Father's house?" But
they did not grasp what he said to them.
COMMENT:
The most disturbing thing about this doctrine is that, according to
the pope (Pius IX who defined it, every member of the Church must believe
it firmly and with constancy (firmness of mind without deviation). This
means, by its very definition, that, unless you hold to this doctrine
which cannot be supported by Scripture, you cannot be a member in good
standing of the Body of Christ. Combining this with other teachings of
the Roman Catholic Church it becomes impossible to attain salvation
because you would be considered a heretic for denying the teaching
authority of the Church.
Consequently your salvation not only rests upon belief in the
atonement for your sins on the Cross, it must necessarily depend upon
your faith in Mary's sinlessness. This in itself should be enough to
dissuade a person from holding any stock in the authority of men to teach
who can so easily compromise the essential doctrine of redemption through
Jesus Christ alone.
But for those who need proof or at least a reasonable rebuttal to this
idea of Mary's immaculate conception, let's examine it in light of the
few Scriptures that I have cited as evidence to the contrary.
When it says in Romans 3:23 that all men have sinned it doesn't just
mean the male gender. In fact, the Roman Catholic New American Bible is
the only edition that uses the word "men." All others simply state "all
have sinned," or somewhat similar renditions. Nowhere, of course, does
it say that Mary was any exception. If this were so important a
doctrine, it would seem that the Lord would have made mention of it
somewhere in His revealed Word.
In Luke 11:27,28 Jesus is definitely saying that everyone who hears
the word of God and keeps it is blessed even above His own mother. Her
blessing was in being chosen as a vessel to bear the human body of the
Son of God. That, in itself, made her blessed above all other women.
Yet any person, man or woman, can be considered as blessed as Mary if
they will recognize Jesus Christ as the means of their salvation and live
accordingly.
Matthew 11:11 tells us that, in the greater than any other born of
women. Here, again, only the New American Bible uses the word "man"
where all others simply say "none other" or something similar. Nowhere
in the original is there any implication that only males are being
referred to. If this is the case, then we must understand that Jesus is
saying that no one who had been born up to that time was a greater human
than John the Baptist. Naturally the balance of Scripture allows for His
own exception but it doesn't allow for Mary's.
In Luke 1:46,47 Mary, by her own words, acknowledges her need for
salvation because she calls God her savior. Even God is not a savior to
anyone who is without sin simply because they would already be enjoying
His fellowship just as the angels. One does not need a savior unless he
or she needs to be saved from something. The reason mankind needs a
savior is to release us from the penalty of sin and its influence in our
lives.
Jesus again placed all who will do the will of the Father on an equal
footing with his mother and his brothers when, in Matthew 12, He pointed
to his disciples and said that they are His brothers, sisters and mother.
That means that you can be accounted holy and pure if you will first of
all accept the salvation that Jesus provided for you by His one time
sacrifice on the Cross of Calvary and allow the Holy Spirit to gain
control of your will so that you may be found doing the will of the
Father.
An important aspect of the doctrine of Mary's immaculate conception is
that she was free of darkness of the intellect because of her
sinlessness. If this is the case she most certainly would have been able
to grasp what Jesus was telling her in Luke 2:49 about having to be in
His Father's house. Yet Mary was just as puzzled as Joseph in not
understanding the reasons for His behavior.
It must be borne in mind that all subsequent doctrines relating to the
mother of Jesus are inexorably linked to this doctrine. Her perpetual
virginity, her assumption into heaven, her position as Mother of God, can
not stand the test of logic or God's justice if this one doctrine of her
immaculate conception is not true.
Whatever you choose to believe you must understand that any doctrine
that places a human being in a position of special favor with God, by its
very nature nullifies the professed belief in the atoning work of Jesus
on the Cross. In order to have salvation you must receive the gift by
faith in Him only. To say that someone, as in this case, can be
conceived without sin is to say that the cross is meaningless simply
because God could have created each individual in the same manner thereby
avoiding the agony of Calvary. Yet this is contrary to His basic law of
justice where He says that, "without the shedding of blood there is no
forgiveness." These words are recorded in Hebrews 9:22.
THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY INTO HEAVEN
DOGMA
DECLARED BY POPE PIUS XII - 1950 AD
BASIS FOR BELIEF: TRADITION
TIMES MENTIONED IN SCRIPTURE: NONE
THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHES:
Definition:
Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary - The doctrine of the taking up
of the body and soul of the Mother of God into heaven after her death was
an early teaching of the fathers and of special interest to all
Christians. Tradition and theological reasoning show that the privilege
of Assumption was revealed implicitly. On Nov.1, 1950 Pope Pius XII
declared the Assumption of the Bless Mother of God a doctrine of faith.
The solemnity is celebrated on Aug.15 and is a holy day of obligation.
The feast was celebrated by the Christians of the seventh century,
based on the Scriptures. In the O.T., the singularity of the Blessed
Mother as the "woman" was declared (cf. Gen.3:15) as being through whom
the redemption would become fulfilled. The N.T. declares that redemption
(Lu.1; 1 Jn.3:9) and the Blessed Virgin Mary was "full of grace" and
could not be perfect as God foretold unless she remained incorruptible
(cf. 1 Cor.15:54-57). Pope Alexander III (1159 to 1181) wrote: "Mary
conceived without detriment to her virginal modesty, brought forth her
Son without pain, passed hence without decay, according to the word of
the angel, or rather God speaking by the angel, that she might be shown
to be full, not half-full, of grace." The Catholic Encyclopedia / Nelson
- page 56
Teachings:
Almost as soon as Pius IX defined the dogma of Mary's Immaculate
Conception, Rome was besieged with petitions for defining her bodily
Assumption. It is calculated that from 1870 to 1940, over four hundred
bishops, eighty thousand priests and religious, and more than eight
million of the laity had formally signed requests asking for the
definition.
As a consequence, on May 1, 1946, Pius XII sent the following
questionnaire to all the bishops of the Catholic world: "Do you,
Venerable Brethren, in view of the wisdom and prudence that is yours,
judge that the bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin can be proposed
and defined as a dogma of faith; and do you, along with your clergy and
faithful, desire it?"
Within a few months, the replies received in Rome were "almost
unanimous" in favor of the definition. The Pope drew the inevitable
conclusion from the consent of those whom "the Holy Spirit has placed as
bishops to rule the Church of God."
On November 1, 1950, Pius XII answered these requests of the Catholic
Hierarchy with a solemn definition that "by the authority of our Lord
Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our Own
authority, We pronounce, declare, and define as divinely revealed dogma:
The Immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, after her life on earth,
was assumed, body and soul to the glory of heaven." (Encyclical
Munificentissimus Deus)
The spontaneous reaction of the faithful was gratitude for the exalted
honor paid to the Mother of God. The Pope's own sentiments were
expressed to the bishops gathered in Rome for the occasion when he told
them the joy he felt over the proclamation and the assurance it gave him
that Mary would obtain the graces of which mankind stood in such dire
need. On the level of piety and devotion, therefore, Mary's Assumption
was only the climax in a series of definitions to honor the Blessed
Virgin, beginning with the divine maternity at Ephesus and terminating in
the past century with the doctrine of her Immaculate Conception. But
dogmatically the Constitution of Munificentissimus Deus has a much deeper
meaning.
Pope Pius defined Mary's Assumption as a truth divinely revealed. Of
the two sources of revelation, theologians commonly say the assumption
was implicit in Tradition, in spite of the practical absence of
documentary evidence before A.D. 300. Yet the Pope finally declared that
the doctrine was in revelation. How do we know? On the answer to this
question rests a new insight into Christian Tradition that had been
gaining momentum since the eighteenth century. Briefly stated, Tradition
is coming to be identified more with the Church's magisterium or
teaching office and less exclusively as the source along with Scripture,
of the truths of salvation. Behind this new emphasis is a development of
dogma since the Council of Trent that reveals hidden depths in the
Mystical Body of Christ. The Church is not only the guardian of a faith
once and for all given to the apostles, but expositor of that faith in
every age to the end of time.
In August of the same year that he defined the Assumption, the Pope
laid down the principles that guided the Marian definition. The Church's
teaching authority, he said in Humani Generis, is not confined to
reflecting or consolidating the past. It is also, and especially, the
vital present-day function of an organism animated by the Spirit of God.
"Together with the sources of revelation (Scripture and tradition) God
has given to his Church a living magisterium to elucidate and explain
what is contained in the deposit of faith only obscurity, we may add, is
unimportant. Given this faculty by her founder, whose Spirit of truth
abides with her at all times, the Church can infallibly discern what
belongs to revelation no matter how cryptic the contents my be.
Consequently, when Pius XII defined the Assumption, he did more than
propose the doctrine for acceptance by the faithful or give them a new
motive for devotion to the Blessed Mother. He indicated the Church's
right to authorize a legitimate development in doctrine and piety that
scandalizes Protestants and may even surprise believing Catholics. The
Catholic Catechism / Doubleday - pages 160-161
The Passion of our Lord found its echo in the compassion of his Holy
Mother. In truth the sorrows of Mary, the sorrows of her trans-pierced
heart, were necessary not only that many many thoughts should be revealed
of sorrowing men and women, but also for her own perfect sanctification.
Her soul had to be made perfect in the furnace of trial and tribulation.
As in all thins else so pre-eminently in this must she resemble our Lord,
that he was the Man of Sorrows and acquainted with grief. Of all the
redeemed his Mother must be nearest to his Cross, not only on Calvary,
but also in every hour of her earthly pilgrimage.
But that pilgrimage, both for Jesus and for Mary, at length was over.
And now that our Lord is glorified in his Kingdom, every tear that his
Mother shed on earth shall be wiped away by his pierced hand, and changed
into a jewel in the crown upon her peerless brow. Mary must die, for
this is the lot of mortals. "It is appointed unto man to die, and after
death the judgment."; and as Jesus died, so will his Mother die, for in
all things, so far as may be, shall her lot be like to his; moreover,
since all her children must pass one day through the gate of death, so
bitter to human nature, so their Mother swill go before them, treading
the same path. but in her passing hence there will be for her no
bitterness, death will lead her straight to God. she had waited,
obedient to the will of God who would have her remain a while on earth,
the Apostles' Queen. But now the chains which held her captive at length
were broken and her sinless soul winged its flight to be with her Son for
ever. And Mary's judgment: "Well done, good and faithful servant."
Were these words for which all Christ's servants wait expectant ever
spoken as when they were addressed to her, who alone was crowned in
heaven as the Mother of her Lord?
The bodies of the holy Apostles, of the Martyrs who shed their blood
for Christ, of men and women famed for their sanctity, were to be
carefully preserved and venerated in the Church from the first beginnings
of Christianity. Of the Mother of God no relics should remain upon upon
the earth. Mary was taken up, body and soul, to the unveiled presence of
her Son. she was the mystic Ark of the covenant which God had
sanctified. The body of the virgin Most Holy from which the Holy Spirit
had formed the body of Christ should not be permitted to see corruption.
Behold the Queen in her beauty by the side of her Son, as already the
Psalmist saw her in prophetic vision, in a vesture of gold wrought about
with divers colors. She is the eldest daughter of the Father, and the
beloved Mother of the Son, and the chosen Spouse of the Everlasting
Spirit.
We, too, have to die and to meet Christ in judgment. We trust to be
greeted with forgiveness and love as we enter into his Kingdom. He will
not reject us, whose arms were extended wide for us upon the Cross of
pain. "Who is he that shall condemn? Christ Jesus who died for us?"
(Rom.8:34)
But if, notwithstanding all, our hearts fail within us at the thought
of our sins and miseries, we will entreat our dear Mother who is also the
Mother of our Judge, to be to us Felix caeli porta, the gate of a happy
eternity, that when all is passing and death is near, she may turn her
eyes of mercy towards us, and show unto us at length the ever-blessed
Fruit of her womb, Jesus, teaching us to trust Him absolutely and to the
full. So may it be for us all we beseech thee, O loving, O kind, O sweet
Virgin Mary.
The Teaching of the Catholic Church / Macmillan pages 547, 548
SCRIPTURAL REFERENCES TO REFUTE THE DOCTRINE OF THE ASSUMPTION OF MARY
INTO HEAVEN:
II Kings 2:9-12
When they had crossed over, Elijah said to Elisha, "Ask for whatever I
may do for you, before I am taken from you." Elisha answered, "May I
receive a double portion of your spirit." "You have asked that is not
easy," he replied. "Still, if your see me taken up from you, your wish
will be granted; otherwise not." As they walked on conversing, a flaming
chariot and and flaming horses some between them, and Elijah went up to
heaven in a whirlwind. When Elisha saw it happen he cried out, "My
father! my father! Israel's chariots and drivers!" But when he could no
longer see him, Elisha gripped his own garment and tore it in two.
Genesis 5:22-24
Enoch lived three hundred years after the birth of Methuselah, and he
had other sons and daughters. The whole lifetime of Enoch was three
hundred and sixty-five years. Then Enoch walked with God, and he was no
longer here, for God took him.
1 Corinthians 15:51-52
Not all of us shall fall asleep, but all of us are to be changed - in
an instant, in the twinkling of an eye, at the sound of the last trumpet.
The trumpet will sound and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we
shall be changed.
COMMENTS:
One might wonder what 2 Kings 2:9-11 and Genesis 5:22-24 have to do
with the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary. Actually, they are an
indication that the teachings around which this doctrine revolves are
faulty. Notice that the Roman Catholic Church approves the teaching that
Mary must die and, although she is far above every creature, even death
cannot be spared her.
Yet, both Enoch and Elijah were taken to heaven without seeing death.
If God favored Mary above all others why would he not have spared her
having to see death? But even more significant than this is the fact
that death is the penalty for sin. Without sin there would be no death.
The fact that Mary died at all, whether her body saw corruption or not,
can only attest to the fact that she had to have been born in sin just as
all humans are. Enoch and Elijah are proof that God can spare death to
His children if He so sees fit in spite of the fact that it is the
consequence of sin. Elijah's and Enoch's lives were so exemplary that
God saw fit to take them without their seeing death. If Mary's life was
so much more exemplary than theirs, which the Roman Catholic Church
teaches, then she would not have had to see death either.
Jesus was the exception on the other side. He was the only person who
didn't deserve to die. Yet, God made Him sin for our sins and hung Him
on a cross to pay the penalty for those sins. He could not die a natural
death because His flesh was sinless. He had to be put to death in order
to taste of it for our sakes. What a sacrifice! That God would become
man for worms like us and allow Himself to suffer the humiliation and
torture of death as a criminal. How can we escape if we neglect so great
a salvation that He has provided for us?
We cannot forget 1 Corinthians 15:52. Here we are told that even all
the members of Christ's Body who are alive on the day that He returns
will be changed into their incorruptible bodies without seeing death. So
God, again, is indicating to us that the sting of death is still at His
option for individuals although there are only two recorded instances
where He actually has, in the past, nullified the death penalty for those
He considered especially anointed.
Probably more significant than the doctrine of the Assumption itself,
is the impact that the Roman Catholic Church feels it has had upon her
authority to teach from whatever motive she deems suitable. In her own
words, "Tradition is coming to be identified more with the Church's
magisterium or teaching office and less exclusively as the source along
with Scripture, of the truths of salvation." This can only mean that the
Roman Catholic Church regards it teaching office as more reliable than
the Scriptures. The reason they can feel justified in this position is
that they consider themselves the only true deposit of faith and,
consequently, whatever they say has to be the truth. This is held to
regardless of the obscurity of the tradition as their own words reveal.
For those who don't know what it means when the Church says that a
particular day is a holy day of obligation, it simply is a law that
obliges all true believers to attend a Mass and observe that day in a
special manner in honor of the occasion for which it is named. In other
words, not only are members obligated to acknowledge the proposed truth
of the dogma but they are bound under the penalty of mortal sin to
observe it in a special way. Should one not do so and die without
confessing this sin he will be judged condemned to Hell for eternity
regardless of the merits of Christ's death on the Cross for his sins. In
effect, then, this dogma, because of its carrying the penalty of mortal
sin according to faith, nullifies the essential doctrine of faith in the
atoning work of Christ on the Cross. It says that, in order to maintain
fellowship with God you must honor the mother of Jesus with special days
of devotion. Should you not do so you can lose your salvation.
This fact cannot be denied. It is a condition which men have attached
to the saving work of the Saviour in dying for our sins.
Yet Paul tells us in Romans that we are justified by faith without the
deeds of the law. In this case, which takes precedent - the Word of God
or the laws of men?
As in all other cases, you must be the final arbiter of that question
for your own life. I would encourage you to take the Lord's words at
their face value. "If the Son frees you, you will really be free."
(John 8:36)
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. The New American Bible, St. Joseph's Edition (New York: Catholic book
Publishing Co., 1970).
2. Vatican II: The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents, Austin
Flannery, O.P., ed. Northport, NY: Costello Publishing Co. 1975).
3. The Catholic Encylopedia, Robert Broderick, ed. (New York: Thomas
Nelson, Inc., 1976).
4. John A. Hardon, S.J., The Catholic Catechism (New York: Doubleday and
Co., Inc., 1975).
5. 1979 Catholic Almanac, Felician A. Foy, O.F.M., ed. (Huntington, IN:
Our Sunday Visitor, Inc., 1978).
6. The Teaching of the Catholic Church - Vol. 1, George D. Smith,
D.D\Ph.D., ed. (NY: The Macmillan Co., 1960).
These documents are free from , providing free webcontent for websites around the world!. copy freely with this link intact. BelieversCafe.com