|
Unmasking Catholicism Mary Ann Collins, a former Catholic nun |
|
Chapter 16 Ever since Martin Luther's cry of sola scriptura (Scripture alone is our authoritative source of spiritual truth), there has been an on-going debate between Catholics and Protestants as to whether our source of authority is the Bible alone, or the Bible plus "Tradition." (I will discuss tradition and the doctrine of infallibility later in this chapter.) God gave us the Bible to teach us, to guide us, to correct us, and to enable us to lead Godly lives. Through the Bible, God reveals Himself and His ways to us. Scripture says:
If Christianity really works, then it has to work under all circumstances. That includes working for new converts who are isolated in prisons, with no Bible and no other Christians to help them. That kind of thing happens today in some Muslim nations. You can read about it in the newsletter of Open Doors (a ministry for persecuted Christians). You can get their newsletter through their website. (Information is in the Notes.)1 God has provided for such situations. He sent the Holy Spirit, who helps us remember things (especially Scripture), and enables us to understand the things of God. (See John 14:26 and 1 Corinthians 2:9-13.) It is through prayer, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that we are able to understand Scripture. Jesus said:
If we do not have access to the Bible, God has made provision for us to be able to learn what we need to know directly from Him. He has already provided us with what we need for life and godliness. The Bible says:
It is valuable to have Bibles and pastors and teachers. If they are available, then we should be grateful for them and benefit from them as much as possible. But if those things are not available, then God is powerful enough to enable us to live Godly lives without them. God is able to keep us from falling. (Jude 1:24) It does not depend on our circumstances. It depends on God. And He is faithful. Tradition The Catholic Church officially states that Catholic tradition is equal in authority to the Bible. (You can read this online.)2 According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "tradition" consists of various expressions of worship and belief of the Catholic people. (You can read this online.)3 As a result, tradition keeps changing. It is different at different periods in history, and it varies from place to place. For example, Catholic religious practices that are common in third world countries, such as Latin America, Africa, or the Philippines, may seem strange to Catholics who have a western world view. Some devotional practices that were common during the Middle Ages would seem strange to modern Americans. Jesus rebuked the scribes and Pharisees, because their traditions nullified the Word of God. He used Scripture to measure the validity of their religious traditions. He was distressed, because the religious leaders of his time considered their traditions to be equal in authority to Scripture. Jesus said:
The Bible clearly tells us that we are not to add to Scripture or take away from it. We need to stay with what has been written. It says:
According to these Scripture passages, if people make additions to Scripture, then they will wind up disobeying God. The Bible says:
If we add to God's words, then He will rebuke us and call us liars. We will have misrepresented Him. When we meet God face to face, we will want to hear Him say: "Well done, thou good and faithful servant." But if we add to His words (Scripture), then we may hear Him say something like: "Liar! You misrepresented me!" If we say that tradition is equal in authority to Scripture, then we can no longer use Scripture to test tradition, as Jesus did. Instead, we are allowing tradition to determine how we interpret Scripture. Either this is "adding to Scripture," or else it is perilously close to it. Revelation 22:18-19 warns that adding to God's words can cause a person to have his or her name be removed from the "book of life." Infallibility Protestants say that the Bible is infallible. Catholics say that the Pope is infallible. The Catholic doctrine of papal infallibility is based upon Matthew 16:18, in which Jesus told Peter: "And I say unto thee, That thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." A huge doctrine, with immense historical consequences, has been built upon this one short verse. The question is, does the rock on which the church is built represent Peter, or does it represent Jesus? Peter himself answered this question. He said that the rock is Jesus. In the Book of Acts, the high priest and other Jewish leaders questioned the apostles concerning a man who had been healed. The Bible describes this confrontation: "Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:8-12, emphasis added) Peter also referred to Jesus as the cornerstone in his first epistle. He described the church as a building made up of many stones (the individual believers) and founded on Jesus, who is the chief cornerstone. Peter said:
So the Catholic Church says that Peter is the rock. But Peter declared that Jesus is the rock. Jesus Himself said that He is the rock. He told a parable about a vineyard, with tenants who refused to give a portion of their fruit to the owner of the vineyard. The owner sent servants. The tenants beat some servants and killed others. Finally, the owner sent his own son. The tenants killed him. Jesus concluded the parable by quoting Psalm 118:22-23, which says that the cornerstone was rejected by the builders. This parable describes how God sent prophets to Israel, but the Israelites rejected them. Then God sent His Son, and the Israelites rejected Him and killed Him. They thought that He was worthless. They did not realize that He was of foundational importance to them. In the context of this parable, the stone can only refer to Jesus. It cannot possibly refer to Peter. Jesus said:
Look at the context of Jesus' statement. He was on His way to Jerusalem to be crucified. He had already said:
In the parable of the vineyard, Jesus was predicting His own death. In that context, Jesus said that the son who was killed by the tenants was the cornerstone. The Apostle Paul said that the church is built on all of the apostles (not just Peter) and that Jesus is the cornerstone. He also said that Jesus Christ is our spiritual rock. Paul wrote:
In Romans 9:31-33, Paul said that Jesus was a rock of offense for the Israelites, because they tried to be saved by works of the law, instead of by faith. In the New Testament, there are three Greek words for "stone." Lithos means a stone like a millstone, or a stumbling stone. The other two words are petra and petros. Vine's Expository Dictionary says that petra means, "a mass of rock." It says that petros means, "a detached stone or boulder." It also says that petros means, "a stone that can be thrown or easily moved." In Matthew 16:18, the word for Peter is petros, a detached stone that can easily be moved. The word for the rock on which the church is built is petra, a mass of rock. Other examples of the use of petra show what a huge mass of rock is meant by the word. They include the man who built his house on rock (as opposed to sand) and the tomb where Jesus' body was placed. (It was carved out of a rock.) (See Matthew 7:24-27 and 27:60.) Have you ever climbed up a rocky mountain? You are standing on a huge rock (the mountain). This is a petra. As you climb up this massive rock, you pass many smaller rocks, varying in size from small stones to large boulders. The smaller rocks are detached. They can be rolled down the mountainside. That kind of rock is a petros, which is the name that Jesus gave to Peter. There is another problem with the doctrine of infallibility. It results in having people act like young children, who accept without question whatever they are told. This is totally contrary to the Bible, which tells us to test things for ourselves, to discern things, to compare things with Scripture so that we won't be deceived. The Bible commends the people of Berea, because they "searched the Scriptures daily" in order to "see whether these things were so." (Acts 17:10-11) God wants His people to check everything against Scripture. Paul's epistles constitute about one-fourth of the New Testament. He was a Scripture scholar. (He had been a prominent Pharisee.) He had been to the Third Heaven, where he had seen mysteries that he was not allowed to tell us about. (2 Corinthians 12:2-4) But the Bible does not criticize the Bereans for questioning what the Apostle Paul taught them. Rather, it commends them for checking it out for themselves by comparing his teaching with Scripture. The Bible tells us to test everything. It says:
According to Strong's Concordance, the word "prove" means, "to test." God requires that every man and woman test all things. We are responsible for testing things ourselves. However, the Catholic Church teaches that only the Magisterium of the Church (the Pope, and the bishops in communion with him) has the right to interpret Scripture. It says that people like you and I (and the Bereans) are not supposed to interpret Scripture for ourselves. (You can read this online.)4 Where does the Catholic approach leave Christian prisoners in countries where there is persecution? All they have to go on is prayer and their memory of Scripture. They can't read a Bible. They can't consult with a priest or a bishop. They are often doing well if they get to see any Christians at all. Would God set up a system that doesn't take care of His most faithful followers—the people who are willing to pay the highest price to serve Him? Of course not! Catholicism teaches that Christians are supposed to "receive with docility" any directives given to them by Catholic Church authorities. (You can read this online.)5 That doesn't sound like the Berean men who studied the Scriptures, to see whether or not what the Apostle Paul taught them was Biblical. Rather, it sounds like a young child who accepts without question whatever his parents tell him. I believe that is precisely what Jesus warned us against when He told us:
In 1854, Pope Pius IX declared the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. The Pope said that if people "dare" to even think anything contrary to this dogma, then that disagreement will shipwreck their faith, cut them off from the Catholic Church, and make them become "condemned." He said that if people outwardly express disagreement, then they are subject to punishment. (You can read his encyclical online.)6 The Pope's reference to punishment is significant, because a man had been executed for heresy 28 years before this papal bull was issued.7 Did Jesus treat people like that for disagreeing in their hearts with something that He or the Apostles told them? When the rich young man turned away from Jesus, He didn't rebuke him or threaten him. He let him go. (Matthew 19:16-22) Many of Jesus' disciples left Him and no longer followed Him. Jesus asked the Twelve if they also wanted to leave. (John 6:67) He didn't threaten them or rebuke them. He didn't try to force them to believe what He taught them. He didn't try to make them stay with Him. He didn't manipulate them or put emotional pressure on them. Jesus left them free to believe or not believe, to stay or to leave. If Jesus didn't demand that people believe His teachings, then how can anybody else validly do it? Nobody else has the depth of understanding, or the purity of doctrine, or the purity of heart, that Jesus did. There was one occasion when James and John wanted to call down fire on some Samaritans who wouldn't listen to them. Jesus rebuked them, saying: "You know not what manner of spirit ye are of." (Luke 9:55-56; see Luke 9:51-56.) Look at how Jesus responded to "doubting Thomas." All of the Apostles except Thomas had seen Jesus after the Resurrection. Jesus had repeatedly told his Disciples that He would be crucified and then resurrected on the third day. In spite of that, Thomas said that he wouldn't believe unless he put his finger into the holes from the nails and put his hand into the wound in Jesus' side. When Jesus appeared again, did He rebuke Thomas? Did Jesus call down curses and anathemas on Thomas, for not believing what the Apostles had said? No. He invited Thomas to put his finger into the nail holes and to put his hand into the wound in His side. In other words, Jesus invited Thomas to check it out for himself. Then He commended Thomas. (See John 20:24-29) Look at a theological confrontation that is described in Galatians 2:11-16. Peter made a decision that was theologically incorrect. Paul publicly corrected Peter. We have no record that Paul was rebuked for this. He certainly wasn't embarrassed by it, because he used the incident as a teaching illustration in his Epistle to the Galatians. According to the Catholic Church, Peter was the first pope. However, if you read Peter's epistles, he did not speak as if he had any special status. Look at how he described himself.
This is not the language of a high and mighty Pope, who lords it over the Church. Peter did not set himself apart as being in a higher position of authority than the other apostles. He did not even describe himself as being more important than the average believer. Peter told us that all Christians are specially chosen and of great value. He said:
Peter said that every Christian man and woman is a priest. He said that our spiritual sacrifices are acceptable to God. Dangers of Infallibility Deception Jesus warned us against deception. He said:
Paul warned us against deception. He also warned us that it is dangerous to accept doctrines in the way that children do. He said that it makes people susceptible to deception. Paul said:
If every Christian reads the Bible, and checks things out against Scripture (as the Bereans did), then the devil has a problem. He and his demon cohorts will have to deceive each and every Christian individually. However, if people are required to accept whatever the Pope says "with docility," then the devil's job is much easier. If he can just deceive the Pope, and get the Pope to declare something unbiblical to be official doctrine, then the devil will have successfully deceived everybody who is under the Pope's authority. The Apostle Peter was so deceived by the devil that Jesus rebuked him, saying:
The devil successfully deceived Peter concerning an important matter of faith (the death and resurrection of Jesus, as prophesied by Jesus Himself). So how can the popes (who claim to be the successors of Peter) say that the devil is incapable of deceiving them? Corruption A Catholic historian said: "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely."8 When you give any one man (the Pope) or group of men (the Magisterium) the power to define what people are required to believe in order to be able to go to Heaven, then you invite abuses of power. History is full of examples of this abuse of power. (See the chapters, "Hunting 'Heretics,'" "Ungodly Popes and Papal Authority," and "Spiritual Coercion.") There are popes who came to power by murder, by armed conquest, and by buying the papacy. Many popes openly fornicated with women and with boys. Some popes were incredibly cruel. For example, Pope Stephen IV condemned a man to be killed by having little pieces of his body cut off of him every day, until he died. Pope Benedict IX was bisexual, he had sex with animals, and he gave orders for people to be murdered. He also practiced witchcraft and Satanism.9 Obviously, not all popes are like that. But some were. There is no guarantee that it won't happen again. David Yallop wrote the book, In God's Name: An Investigation into the Murder of Pope John Paul I. Vatican insiders asked Yallop to investigate the death of John Paul I, because they suspected that he was murdered. Yallop did his homework. His information comes from interviews with Vatican insiders and Mafia gangsters. He gives a revealing and disturbing picture of life in the Vatican.10 Throughout Church history, there have always been tares among the wheat and wolves among the sheep. I realize that scandals are not limited to the Catholic Church. There have been many scandals in Protestant denominations. But Catholic corruption is more deadly, because the Catholic Church claims to be infallible. That claim makes wolves in sheep's clothing far more dangerous. It gives them great power over the minds and lives of other people. Conclusion Jesus promised us that the gates of Hell will not prevail against His Church. That requires the supernatural intervention of God. According to the Bible, God has done this by sending us the Holy Spirit to teach us and to guide us. (John 14:26; John 16:13) According to the Catholic Church, God has done this by miraculously protecting the popes from making mistakes when they make pronouncements about faith or morals. This idea has a natural appeal. We would all like to have magical protection from error. Also, it is nice to be able to be passive spectators, receiving "with docility" whatever our superiors teach us, without having to face the responsibility of checking it out for ourselves. But, attractive or not, this idea is not supported by Scripture or by Church history. (For a discussion of historical inconsistencies, see the section on "Infallibility" in the chapter, "Was the Early Church Roman Catholic?") What is our source of authority? God. His primary way of communicating with us is through the Bible. He sent the Holy Spirit to enable us to understand the Bible. If we don't have access to a Bible (as is the case with some persecuted Christians), then God has other ways of teaching us, guiding us, and directing us. No matter what our circumstances are, God is willing and able to keep us from falling. A Challenge I have a challenge for you. It will require some work on your part, but it will be worth the effort. I have discussed the question of our source of authority. Now, I want to demonstrate it to you. You have thought about the issue. Now, I want you to personally taste the difference between Scripture and Roman Catholic tradition. I can't do this for you. You have to experience it for yourself, in order to understand. Before reading the rest of this chapter, please ask God to give you wisdom and discernment. (James 1:5) I want you to read some statements by Pope Pius IX. They are from his encyclical, Ineffabilis Deus. I don't have permission to quote the statements, so I can't put them in this book for you. However, you can read them online. (If you don't have a computer, perhaps a friend with a computer would be willing to get the information for you. If not, then you can use a computer at a public library.) Some Internet addresses are below. If they don't work for you, then you can do an Internet search for "Ineffabilis Deus."
Please read the sections, "The Definition" and "Hoped-for Results." They are near the end of the encyclical. You can find them quickly by searching the web page for "The Definition." (When you have the encyclical online, go to EDIT. Select FIND. Type "The Definition." Then hit ENTER.) "Hoped-for Results" comes immediately after "The Definition." We are going to compare what Pope Pius IX said about Mary, with what the Bible says about her. In reading the material, please pay attention to the tone of the writing, as well as to the contents. Please notice how the Pope speaks—his attitude, his bearing, his approach towards his readers, and the general tone of his writing. Please notice how you feel while you are reading the encyclical. Sometimes we can "sniff" things that our intellects don't pick up. We have expressions reflecting that. For example: "There's something fishy going on." It means that something doesn't smell right—I don't know what's wrong; I can't explain it; but there is something wrong here. I'll give an example from my own life. When I was a Catholic, I used to recite certain special prayers in order to earn indulgences on behalf of the "poor souls in Purgatory." One day, while I was doing it, something just didn't feel right about it. I stopped doing it. Months later, I realized that reciting prayers is not praying. If my reason for saying the prayers was to earn indulgences (rather than sharing my heart with God), then I wasn't praying. Years later, I realized that Purgatory doesn't even exist. My "sniffer" picked up the problem long before my mind understood it. I'm asking you to activate your "sniffer" when you read this encyclical. You can ask God to help you do it. This papal bull is as official as they can get. It is an "infallible" pronouncement of Catholic doctrine. The Pope who wrote it is on his way to becoming a canonized saint. Pope John Paul II beatified him on September 3, 2000. (You can read about this online.)11 Beatification is the last step before canonization.
Have you read the material from the encyclical? If so, then please read what the Bible says about Mary, the mother of Jesus. The first two chapters of the Gospel of Matthew, and the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke, have information about the infancy of Jesus, and the time when He was in the Temple, asking questions of the religious leaders. Those Scripture passages are too long to quote here. You can read them in your own Bible. I have quoted all of the other Scripture passages about Mary, the mother of Jesus. (In searching for the word "Mary," I found more references to other women named Mary than I did for Jesus' mother.) Some women went to the tomb after Jesus was crucified. They included women named Mary, but the mother of Jesus is not mentioned as being one of them. Matthew 28:1 refers to: "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary." Mark 16:1 says that they are: "Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome." Luke 24:10 refers to: "Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them." So the "other Mary" in Matthew 28 is Mary, the mother of James. (Presumably, "Mary the mother of James" refers to the disciple James and not to the man whom Paul referred to as, "James the brother of Jesus.") Aside from the infancy and childhood of Jesus, the following Scripture passages are the only ones that refer to Mary, the mother of Jesus. Here is what the Bible says about her:
The Scripture passages that I just quoted, plus the first two chapters of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, are all of the passages that refer to Mary, the mother of Jesus. The Bible doesn't tell us much about her. Some Questions I asked you to read two sections from the Pope's encyclical. The first one was, "The Definition." It has two parts: the actual definition of the dogma, and a warning not to doubt or disagree with the dogma. How did you feel when you read the warning? What was the tone of the warning? What was the Pope's attitude towards his audience? The second section that I asked you to read was, "Hoped-for Results." How did you feel when you read it? What is the tone of the writing? What is the Pope's attitude towards Mary? How did you feel when you read the quotations from Scripture? If you are not used to using the King James Version of the Bible, then it would be good to read those passages in your own Bible, in the translation that you are familiar with. What is the tone of the Scripture passages? What is the attitude towards Mary? What is the approach towards the readers? How much prominence does the Bible give to Mary? Compare that with what the Pope said about her. In the section of the encyclical called, "Hoped-for Results," what did the Pope say about Mary? We know that she was the mother of Jesus. What else did the Pope say about her? Are any of those statements supported by what the Bible says about her? You may have noticed that the Pope said that Mary would enable the Catholic Church to "reign." He said that, because of Mary, Rome would rule from "the river" all the way to the "ends of the earth"—in other words, throughout the world. ("The river" refers to the Tiber River, which is in Rome. The Vatican is located next to the Tiber River.) Look at Mary, as portrayed in the Bible. Would she want to create a super-power that would rule over the nations? Some Observations It is worth noting that, in the Bible, the last thing we hear about Mary, the mother of Jesus, is in the first chapter of the Book of Acts. She was in the upper room, with about 120 people, before the Holy Spirit came upon them on the Day of Pentecost. Galatians 4:4 does refer to her, but only to say that Jesus was "made of a woman." It is a way of referring to the Incarnation of Jesus, rather than giving new information about Mary. Scripture tells us about a woman who gave Mary special prominence and praise. It also records what Jesus had to say about it. The Bible says:
Please ask God to give you His perspective about the passages that you read from the papal encyclical. If you are a Catholic, then you may be so familiar with this kind of writing that you don't notice what it really says. If that is the case, then please read the section, "Hoped-for Results," again. Read it slowly. Think about what it says. There is a lot at stake here. The Apostle Paul said:
Another Challenge I've got another challenge for you. Get your "sniffer" out and read the Glossary (Appendix C). It gives nitty gritty details of how "tradition" is practiced in the daily lives of real people. Read this, and see how it compares with Biblical faith in Jesus Christ. It is one thing to talk about "tradition" as an abstract concept. It is quite another thing to see the concrete details of how it is actually applied in real life. |
Copyright 2003, 2007 by Mary Ann Collins. All rights reserved. |