This is what Catholic Priests really think about boys and foreigners...
From CNN: "A Roman Catholic priest who unleashed a torrent of expletives and racist abuse against skateboarders outside his Australian cathedral, only to have the outburst filmed and placed on YouTube, has been put on leave.
The Reverend (REVEREND?? How absurd!!!) Monsignor Geoff Baron, the dean of St Patrick's Cathedral in Australia's second biggest city, Melbourne, was videotaped swearing at and abusing a group of teenagers using the cathedral grounds as a skate park.
"Move, you f------ fool," Baron tells one skater in the video, slapping one of the group across the head and prompting a torrent of abuse in reply.
How utterly appalling that people would still believe in these so-called, ministers of the Gospel!!
Wednesday, August 1, 2007
Friday, July 6, 2007
Catholicism's Crusade Against the Bible
Most non-Catholics were surprised when Pope John Paul II, in a formal statement sentto the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Science on October 23, 1996, announced thatevolution was a scientific theory acceptable to the Church. Evangelical leaders, in joiningforces with Rome, assured their critics that Catholicism accepts biblical inerrancy. Yet the Canons and Decrees of the Second Vatican Council (Roman Catholicism’s highest author-ity) declare: “Hence the Bible is free from error in what pertains to religious truth revealedfor our salvation. It is not necessarily free from error in other matters (e.g. natural science):[emphasis in original]. 14 Evolution is “scientific,” and the Bible is not infallible when it comes to science.
Edward Daschbach, a Catholic priest, without any apparent sense of betraying Peter and the Bible, explains the official Roman Catholic position:
"The Church, then, does not accept…the literal interpretation of the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis that would lead us to think that God, for example, actually made two grown adults suddenly from clay and rib….Catholics should beagainst creation-science for at least three serious reasons:
First: It effectively teaches a distrust of science and ultimately hurts religion as well. By defending a literal understanding of the opening chapters ofGenesis…creation-science sets itself squarely against the world of true scientificdiscovery…. The myths used by the Genesis authors are simply tools with which they communicate their religious beliefs.
Second: Creation-science is contrary to the method of interpreting Scripture favored universally by scholars and strongly approved by our Church. This favored approach…[allows us to] accept the divine revelation contained inScripture, while accepting at the same time human author’s errors in matters ofscience or history….
Third: Creation-science leads to deep prejudice and bigotry against the Catholic Church. The case in point is the Book of Revelation. When creation-science advocates ply their fundamentalist tools to this final scriptural book, the Church often becomes a target for vehement attack."
Edward Daschbach, a Catholic priest, without any apparent sense of betraying Peter and the Bible, explains the official Roman Catholic position:
"The Church, then, does not accept…the literal interpretation of the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis that would lead us to think that God, for example, actually made two grown adults suddenly from clay and rib….Catholics should beagainst creation-science for at least three serious reasons:
First: It effectively teaches a distrust of science and ultimately hurts religion as well. By defending a literal understanding of the opening chapters ofGenesis…creation-science sets itself squarely against the world of true scientificdiscovery…. The myths used by the Genesis authors are simply tools with which they communicate their religious beliefs.
Second: Creation-science is contrary to the method of interpreting Scripture favored universally by scholars and strongly approved by our Church. This favored approach…[allows us to] accept the divine revelation contained inScripture, while accepting at the same time human author’s errors in matters ofscience or history….
Third: Creation-science leads to deep prejudice and bigotry against the Catholic Church. The case in point is the Book of Revelation. When creation-science advocates ply their fundamentalist tools to this final scriptural book, the Church often becomes a target for vehement attack."
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Deliver Us From Evil
"...Peter: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!" ... Jesus: "You are right Peter, Upon this ROCK (THE TRUTH that I AM GOD'S SON), I will build my Church. And the gates of hell (extra-biblical doctrines and man-made rituals for salvation), will not prevail against it!" Matthew 16:18
If Christ is not the Son of God, Christianity is a cheat, and the church is a mere chimera; our preaching is vain, your faith is vain, and you are yet in your sins, 1 Co. 15:14–17. How did the Catholic Church and corrupt Popes manage to twist one the greatest and most beautiful statements about Jesus and His Truth into a blank check to justify the sale of salvation, the Inquisition and more recently the sexual abuse of children by Priests? This is a must see documentary. "Come out of her my people!" Rev. 14
25 Questions That Catholics Must Answer about Peter As The Foundation of the Church
"...the attempts of the Roman Catholic hierarchy to establish its authority from Scripture are astonishingly weak...The assertion that the Roman Catholic bishops are the apostles' successors is based upon the thinnest of implications....we must conclude that the power of the Pope and bishops does not come from God." (James G. McCarthy, The Gospel According to Rome [hereafter "GAR"], page 260, 261)
1 - If Peter was assigned the position of leader of the Church why did Jesus declare emphatically: “. . . do not call anyone on earth ‘father’, for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher’, for you have one Teacher, the Christ” (Matthew 23:9, 10)?
Note: He only delivered an introductory speech, but James was the Christian leader who spoke on behalf of the body of apostles, which can be concluded reading carefully the entire chapter, especially verses 12ff.
4 - If Peter was the head of the Church, why was he sent by the Church to Samaria with John (see Acts 8:14)? As the No. 1 leader of the Church, he would be sending missionaries.
7 - If Peter was the first Pope, how could Paul reprimand him so severely because he acted in a wrong way (see Galatians 2:11-14)?
Note: After his conversion Paul did not go to Jerusalem, to seek guidance from Peter and the leadership of the Church there, but to Damascus.
13 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did Paul, after his conversion, receive divine instructions through a native of Damascus, called Ananias, and not through Peter?
Note: The context indicates that the reference is to the final authority vis-à-vis spiritual questions. No man can assume this role.
2 - If Peter and the disciples had understood the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18 as establishing Peter’s supremacy and leadership position, why a little later the disciples disputed who would be the greatest amongst them?
2 - If Peter and the disciples had understood the words of Christ in Matthew 16:18 as establishing Peter’s supremacy and leadership position, why a little later the disciples disputed who would be the greatest amongst them?
Note: They would rather be disputing the number 2 position, not the number 1, since that would have been already assured to Peter by Jesus.
3 - If Peter was the head of the Church, why wasn’t he who presented the final decision of the Jerusalem Council, but James (see Acts 15)?
3 - If Peter was the head of the Church, why wasn’t he who presented the final decision of the Jerusalem Council, but James (see Acts 15)?
Note: He only delivered an introductory speech, but James was the Christian leader who spoke on behalf of the body of apostles, which can be concluded reading carefully the entire chapter, especially verses 12ff.
4 - If Peter was the head of the Church, why was he sent by the Church to Samaria with John (see Acts 8:14)? As the No. 1 leader of the Church, he would be sending missionaries.
5 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did he himself attribute to Christ the role of the basic rock, and never claimed to himself or mentioned any special leadership role in the Church (see 1 Peter 2:6-8)?
6 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why didn’t Paul confirm this in 1 Corinthians 10:4, as he assured that Christ is the rock?
7 - If Peter was the first Pope, how could Paul reprimand him so severely because he acted in a wrong way (see Galatians 2:11-14)?
Note: Nowhere in the writings of Paul does he confer any primacy to Peter whatsoever. On the contrary, when he had the opportunity to call Peter the Rock of the Church, Paul said that there's no other foundation other than Christ. I Cor 3:11.
8 - If Peter was the first Pope, why does Paul say that the Church is built on the human foundation of the apostles and prophets, without discriminating Peter as the most important of these (see Ephesians 2:20)?
8 - If Peter was the first Pope, why does Paul say that the Church is built on the human foundation of the apostles and prophets, without discriminating Peter as the most important of these (see Ephesians 2:20)?
Note: Christ in this text is presented again as the Church’s cornerstone.
9 - If Peter was the first Pope, why didn’t Paul discriminate Peter as the principal one, as he made reference to Peter, together with James and John as the columns of the Church (see Galatians 2:9)?
9 - If Peter was the first Pope, why didn’t Paul discriminate Peter as the principal one, as he made reference to Peter, together with James and John as the columns of the Church (see Galatians 2:9)?
Note: He mentions James in the first place.
10 - If Peter was the first Pope, why didn’t the final authority of the Jerusalem church remain with Peter, but with the apostles, later substituted by “elders”?
10 - If Peter was the first Pope, why didn’t the final authority of the Jerusalem church remain with Peter, but with the apostles, later substituted by “elders”?
Note: Besides having been “the apostles” who sent Peter to Samaria (Acts 8:14) to supervise the new Christian communities, they also did the same sending Barnabas to Antioquia (Acts 11:22), later Judas and Silas to the same place (Acts 15:22-27).
11 - If Peter was the first Pope, why were “James and the elders” the ones who recommended that Paul submitted himself to a purification rite in the Temple (Acts 21:18, 23-24)?
12 - If Peter was the first Pope, why does Paul make clear in Galatians that he did not consider Jerusalem a divinely appointed administrative center for all the congregational activity?
11 - If Peter was the first Pope, why were “James and the elders” the ones who recommended that Paul submitted himself to a purification rite in the Temple (Acts 21:18, 23-24)?
12 - If Peter was the first Pope, why does Paul make clear in Galatians that he did not consider Jerusalem a divinely appointed administrative center for all the congregational activity?
Note: After his conversion Paul did not go to Jerusalem, to seek guidance from Peter and the leadership of the Church there, but to Damascus.
13 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did Paul, after his conversion, receive divine instructions through a native of Damascus, called Ananias, and not through Peter?
Note: In Galatians 1: 16, 17 he says clearly that after his conversion he did not resort to any human source of authority.
14 - If Peter was the first Pope, why did Paul travel to Jerusalem only three years later and declared that he only saw Peter and James, and no other apostle in his fifteen-day sojourn there?
15 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did Paul set Antioch as the base of his operations, and although that city was near Jerusalem he did not see a reason to address himself to the capital of the Judea?
16 - If Peter was the first Pope, why don’t the stories of Paul’s missionary trips ever indicate that he undertook them under the recommendation of any “administrative board”, and with a route duly approved by an ecclesiastical leader (Acts 13, 15, 20, etc.--especially 15:36)?
17 - If Peter was head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did Paul go back up to Jerusalem only after fourteen years, accompanied by Barnabas and Titus and not Peter, and that because he had a “revelation” from the Lord (see Gal. 2: 1, 2)?
18 - If Peter was the first Pope, why the only Biblical manuscripts after the fall of Jerusalem, from the apostle John, written decades after the desolation of Jerusalem, don’t ever mention any Church leader [or Pope] or Christian administrative center in his days, having a Peter as the top leader?
19 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why does John in the book of Revelation, portray Christ as sending messages to the seven churches of Asia Minor, not any Pope (Rev. 1 to 3), and in none of these messages is there any suggestion or indication that those congregations were under an external direction, but that of Christ Himself?
20 - If Peter was the first Pope, why, in the available writings of Christian authors from the second and third centuries, nothing is indicated regarding the existence of a centered administration to supervise the numerous Christian congregations, under the command of Peter?
Note: The history of the period discloses, in contrast, something much different--that the centered religious authority was the product of a post-apostolic and post-Biblical development.
14 - If Peter was the first Pope, why did Paul travel to Jerusalem only three years later and declared that he only saw Peter and James, and no other apostle in his fifteen-day sojourn there?
15 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did Paul set Antioch as the base of his operations, and although that city was near Jerusalem he did not see a reason to address himself to the capital of the Judea?
16 - If Peter was the first Pope, why don’t the stories of Paul’s missionary trips ever indicate that he undertook them under the recommendation of any “administrative board”, and with a route duly approved by an ecclesiastical leader (Acts 13, 15, 20, etc.--especially 15:36)?
17 - If Peter was head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why did Paul go back up to Jerusalem only after fourteen years, accompanied by Barnabas and Titus and not Peter, and that because he had a “revelation” from the Lord (see Gal. 2: 1, 2)?
18 - If Peter was the first Pope, why the only Biblical manuscripts after the fall of Jerusalem, from the apostle John, written decades after the desolation of Jerusalem, don’t ever mention any Church leader [or Pope] or Christian administrative center in his days, having a Peter as the top leader?
19 - If Peter was the head of the Church, the “rock” of its foundation, why does John in the book of Revelation, portray Christ as sending messages to the seven churches of Asia Minor, not any Pope (Rev. 1 to 3), and in none of these messages is there any suggestion or indication that those congregations were under an external direction, but that of Christ Himself?
20 - If Peter was the first Pope, why, in the available writings of Christian authors from the second and third centuries, nothing is indicated regarding the existence of a centered administration to supervise the numerous Christian congregations, under the command of Peter?
Note: The history of the period discloses, in contrast, something much different--that the centered religious authority was the product of a post-apostolic and post-Biblical development.
21 - If Peter was the Rock, why didn't Jesus plainly say, 'UPON YOU', will I build my Church?
Note: Obviously because Jesus was referring to another Rock, the truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. He was obviously contrasting the character of Peter as expressed in the Gospels with the solid and unshakeable rock of Jesus.
22 - If Peter was a solid Rock, why did Jesus severely rebuke him shortly after? Matthew 16:22-23
Note: Jesus rebuked Satan who was speaking through Peter. So, if Peter had just been considered by Jesus as a 'rock', how could he have become so quickly an instrument of Satan?If Jesus had just established Peter as the foundation of the Church, this episode would clearly demonstrate that Jesus made a gross mistake, which is of course, absurd. Therefore, rock CANNOT be referring to Peter.
23 - If Peter was the Rock, why didn't Jesus commission Peter to build his church, instead of saying I WILL BUILD my church?
Note: Jesus is the builder and maker of the church and its foundation. "For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." I Cor. 3: 11.
24. If Jesus' statement in Matthew 16 was so important to the establishment of the Church, why do all the other Gospel omit these words altogether?
Note: If all we had were the other 3 Gospels, the Catholic Church would not have ANY biblical basis for their Papacy. But then again, the Catholic hierarchy DOES NOT need the Scriptures to invent new dogmas, they resort to their own tradition to supplant the Scriptures.
25. If Peter was the solid rock, what does his denial of Christ reveal about Peter's total inability to be the foundation of anything?
Note: Apparently, Peter continued to show his unstableness as a sinner long after that night of denial, and had to be confronted by Paul because he was changing his approach to please different groups of converts. (See Galatians 2:11-14 for full account.)
___________________________
Since Peter was not the rock has been clearly demonstrated here, Jesus' statement "I will give you the keys of the kingdom" cannot refer to Peter either. Rather, Jesus says this again to all his disciples in Matthew 18:18 as the Church that Jesus HIMSELF would build. Because Peter had no primacy in the foundation and establishment of the Church in the early Church, the Papacy does not follow any so-called "line of apostles" after Peter and therefore their arrogance of the title of the Church that Peter built is based on a fallacy.
Furthermore, because the history of the Roman Catholicism clearly demonstrates how it has dishonored the name of Christ by replacing the true Gospel with its own saving rituals and false beliefs, claiming the Bible is insufficient to instruct in righteousness, persecuting those who would hold the Scriptures as their only norm of faith, claiming the Pope is God on earth, the Roman Catholic Church and its false system should here be interpreted as the "gates of hell", who act precisely against the true Church of Christ, those who have "kept the commandments and have the faith of Jesus" (Rev. 14:12) in all centuries, all over the world.
"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, MY PEOPLE, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Rev. 18:4.
"But in vain they do worship me, teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men." Mat 15:9:
10 Main Reasons That Discredit the Observance of Sunday
(1) No Command of Christ or of the Apostles. There is no commandment of Christ or of the apostles regarding a weekly-Sunday or annual Easter-Sunday celebration of Christ's resurrection. We have commands in the New Testament regarding baptism (Matt 28:19-20), the Lord's Supper (Mark 14:24-25; 1 Cor 11:23-26) and foot-washing (John 13:14-15), but we find no commands or even suggestions to commemorate Christ's Resurrection on a weekly Sunday or annual Easter-Sunday.
Since Sunday would be a “novelty”, a new principle of worship, especially as it would be the substitution of such an inbred tradition in the national and religious culture of the Jewish people, as was the case of the Sabbath, any change in that practice would undoubtedly prompt commentaries, specific instructions justifying the alterations, particularly as the first converts to the Christian religion proceeded from Judaism and were “zealous of the law”(Acts 21:20). However, nothing is found in the whole New Testament concerning such change, nor any debates discussing the subject.
To avoid the search of the Roman police, Christian changed regularly the time and place of the Lord's Supper celebration. Eventually, they moved the service from the evening to the morning. This explains why Paul is very specific on the manner of celebrating the Lord's Supper, but he is indefinite on the question of the time of the assembly. Note that four times he repeats the same phrase: “When you come together” (1 Cor 11:18, 20, 33, 34). The phrase implies indefinite time, most likely because there was no set day for the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
Similarly, Passover, celebrated today by many Christians on Easter Sunday, was observed during apostolic times, not on Sunday to commemorate the Resurrection, but according to the biblical date of Nisan 14, primarily as a memorial of Christ's suffering and death. Contrary to what many people believe, Easter-Sunday was unknown in the Apostolic Church. It was introduced and promoted by the Church of Rome in the second century in order to show separation and differentiation from the Jewish Passover. The result was the well-known Passover controversy, which eventually led Bishop Victor of Rome to excommunicate the Asian Christians (about A. D. 191) for refusing to adopt Easter-Sunday. These indications show that Christ's resurrection on the first day of the week, did not influence the Apostolic Church to adopt the weekly Sunday and the annual Easter-Sunday to commemorate such an event.
(7) The Resurrection is not the Dominant Reason for Sundaykeeping in Earliest Documents. The earliest explicit references to Sundaykeeping are found in the writings of Barnabas (about A. D. 135) and Justin Martyr (about A.D. 150). Both writers do mention the Resurrection but only as the second of two reasons, important but not predominant. Barnabas' first theological motivation for Sunday keeping is eschatological, namely, that Sunday as “the eight day” represents “the beginning of another world.” The notion of Sunday as “the eighth day,” was later abandoned because it is senseless to speak of “the eighth day” in a seven days week. Justin's first reason for the Christians' assembly on Dies Solis—the Day of the Sun, is the inauguration of creation: “Sunday is the first day on which God, transforming the darkness and prime matter, created the world.” These reasons were eventually abandoned in favor of the Resurrection which became the primary reason for Sunday observance.
(8) Nothing Indicates that in the Establishment of the New Covenant There Was Any Change in the Terms of the Biblical Rest Day Commandment. Nothing is said that when God writes His laws on the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of the New Covenant (New Testament) there occurs an alteration in the terms of these laws, so that Sunday replaces the seventh-day Sabbath (Heb. 8:6-10). Since this passage is an ipsis literis reproduction of Jeremiah 31:31-33, when the promise of a new covenant was firstly made to Israel due to the captivity they would face because of their sins (and one of the reasons for their punishment was exactly their negligence regarding the Sabbath commandment—see Jer. 17:19-27), it is understood that these “My laws” referred to in Hebrews are the same that always pertained to those eternal and moral principles expressed in the Decalogue.
Since Sunday would be a “novelty”, a new principle of worship, especially as it would be the substitution of such an inbred tradition in the national and religious culture of the Jewish people, as was the case of the Sabbath, any change in that practice would undoubtedly prompt commentaries, specific instructions justifying the alterations, particularly as the first converts to the Christian religion proceeded from Judaism and were “zealous of the law”(Acts 21:20). However, nothing is found in the whole New Testament concerning such change, nor any debates discussing the subject.
Seventh-day Sabbath remained valid and in force along with all the other Decalogue’s commandments after the cross. A proof of that is the testimony of Luke, writing 30 years after the Resurrection event, describing the action of the holy women, followers of Christ, as they prepared “spices and ointments” to apply on His body. They worked actively on their tasks, but “rested the Sabbath day according to the commandment” (Luke 23:56).
For Luke, then, who declares to have looked for detailed information about everything related to Christ’s experience (Luke 1:1-4), the rest day “according to the commandment” was the seventh-day Sabbath. He refers to the following day simply as “the first day of the week”, without attributing to it any special qualifications (see Luke 24:1).
The same Luke reports in the Acts of the Apostles how during the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), as the judaizers problem was dealt with, no norms were set against the Sabbath observance (Acts 15:20), a demonstration that such instruction was unnecessary. All observed it regularly and there was no need to give instruction regarding it. Paul, on a Sabbath day, when there was no synagogue in a certain location, went to the side of a river for a time of prayer (Acts 16:13). In Corinth he spent one year and a half preaching every Sabbath and never remembered to tell those who met there to change their day of worship to Sunday (Acts 18:1-4, 11) even when only the gentiles remained, as the Jews left.
(2) Jesus Made no Attempt to Institute a Memorial of His Resurrection. If Jesus wished the day of His resurrection to become a memorial day of rest and worship, He would have capitalized on the day of His resurrection to establish such a memorial. It is important to note that divine institutions like the Sabbath, baptism, Lord's Supper, all trace their origin to a divine act that established them. But on the day of His resurrection Christ performed no act to institute a memorial of His resurrection.
(2) Jesus Made no Attempt to Institute a Memorial of His Resurrection. If Jesus wished the day of His resurrection to become a memorial day of rest and worship, He would have capitalized on the day of His resurrection to establish such a memorial. It is important to note that divine institutions like the Sabbath, baptism, Lord's Supper, all trace their origin to a divine act that established them. But on the day of His resurrection Christ performed no act to institute a memorial of His resurrection.
If we think it through, both Christ’s death and resurrection are equally important events, foundational to the Christian faith. Both could deserve a special day for their celebration. If the Resurrection was supposed to be celebrated regularly on a special day, given its importance, why not the Savior’s death? So, we have two exceptional historical landmarks for a Christian—the death and the resurrection of Christ. Which would deserve a memorial day? Possibly both, but the Scriptures don’t establish that. Nothing is implied that any change occurred in the text of the divine law because of any of these events.
If Jesus intended to memorialize the day of His Resurrection, most likely He would have told the women and the disciples when He arose: “Come apart and celebrate My Resurrection!” Instead He told them, “Go and tell my brethren to go to Galilee” (Matt 28:10), and to the disciples, “Go . . . make disciples . . . baptizing them” (Matt 28:19). None of the utterances of the risen Savior reveal any intention to memorialize His Resurrection by making Sunday the new day of rest and worship.
The reason is that our Savior wanted His followers to view His Resurrection as an existential reality to be experienced daily by living victoriously by the power of His Resurrection, rather than a liturgical/religious event to be celebrated on Sunday. Paul expressed the hope to “know him and the power of his resurrection” (Phil 3:10), but he never mentions his desire to celebrate Christ's Resurrection on Sunday or Easter-Sunday.
(3) Sunday Is Never Called “Day of the Resurrection.” Sunday is never called in the New Testament as “Day of the Resurrection.” It is consistently designated “First day of the week.” The references to Sunday as day of the resurrection first appear in the early part of the fourth century, specifically in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. By that time Sunday had become associated with the resurrection and consequently was referred to as “Day of the Resurrection.” But this development occurred several centuries after the beginning of Christianity.
(3) Sunday Is Never Called “Day of the Resurrection.” Sunday is never called in the New Testament as “Day of the Resurrection.” It is consistently designated “First day of the week.” The references to Sunday as day of the resurrection first appear in the early part of the fourth century, specifically in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea. By that time Sunday had become associated with the resurrection and consequently was referred to as “Day of the Resurrection.” But this development occurred several centuries after the beginning of Christianity.
(4) The Sunday-Resurrection Presupposes Work, not Rest and Worship. The Sunday-Resurrection presupposes work, rather than rest and worship, because it does not mark the completion of Christ's earthly ministry which ended on a Friday afternoon when the Savior said: “It is finished” (John 19:30), and then rested in the tomb according to the commandment. Instead, the Resurrection marks the beginning of Christ's new intercessory ministry (Acts 1:8; 2:33), which, like the first day of creation, presupposes work rather than rest.
(5) The Lord's Supper was not Celebrated on Sunday in Honor of the Resurrection. Historically we know that Christians could not celebrate the Lord's Supper on a regular basis on Sunday evening, because such gatherings were prohibited by the Roman hetariae law—a law that outlawed all types of communal fellowship meals held in the evening. The Roman government was afraid that such evening gatherings could become an occasion for political plotting.
To avoid the search of the Roman police, Christian changed regularly the time and place of the Lord's Supper celebration. Eventually, they moved the service from the evening to the morning. This explains why Paul is very specific on the manner of celebrating the Lord's Supper, but he is indefinite on the question of the time of the assembly. Note that four times he repeats the same phrase: “When you come together” (1 Cor 11:18, 20, 33, 34). The phrase implies indefinite time, most likely because there was no set day for the celebration of the Lord's Supper.
If, as some scholars contend, the Lord's Supper was celebrated on Sunday evening, as part of the Lord's Day worship, Paul could hardly have failed to mention the sacredness of the time in which they gathered. This would have strengthened his plea for a more worshipful attitude during the partaking of the Lord's Supper. The failure of Paul to mention “Sunday” as the time of the gathering or to use the adjective “Lord's-kuriake” to characterize the day as “the Lord's Day,” (as he did it with reference to the Lord's Supper), shows that the apostle did not attach any religious significance to Sunday.
(6) The Lord's Supper Commemorates Christ's Sacrifice, not His Resurrection. Many Christians today view their Lord's Supper as the core of Sunday worship in honor of Christ's resurrection. But in the Apostolic Church, the Lord's Supper was not celebrated on Sunday, as we have just seen, and was not connected with the Resurrection. Paul, for instance, who claims to transmit what “he received from the Lord” (1 Cor 11:23), explicitly states that the rite commemorated not Christ's resurrection, but His sacrifice and Second Coming (“You proclaim the Lord's death till he comes” (1 Cor 11:26).
(6) The Lord's Supper Commemorates Christ's Sacrifice, not His Resurrection. Many Christians today view their Lord's Supper as the core of Sunday worship in honor of Christ's resurrection. But in the Apostolic Church, the Lord's Supper was not celebrated on Sunday, as we have just seen, and was not connected with the Resurrection. Paul, for instance, who claims to transmit what “he received from the Lord” (1 Cor 11:23), explicitly states that the rite commemorated not Christ's resurrection, but His sacrifice and Second Coming (“You proclaim the Lord's death till he comes” (1 Cor 11:26).
Similarly, Passover, celebrated today by many Christians on Easter Sunday, was observed during apostolic times, not on Sunday to commemorate the Resurrection, but according to the biblical date of Nisan 14, primarily as a memorial of Christ's suffering and death. Contrary to what many people believe, Easter-Sunday was unknown in the Apostolic Church. It was introduced and promoted by the Church of Rome in the second century in order to show separation and differentiation from the Jewish Passover. The result was the well-known Passover controversy, which eventually led Bishop Victor of Rome to excommunicate the Asian Christians (about A. D. 191) for refusing to adopt Easter-Sunday. These indications show that Christ's resurrection on the first day of the week, did not influence the Apostolic Church to adopt the weekly Sunday and the annual Easter-Sunday to commemorate such an event.
(7) The Resurrection is not the Dominant Reason for Sundaykeeping in Earliest Documents. The earliest explicit references to Sundaykeeping are found in the writings of Barnabas (about A. D. 135) and Justin Martyr (about A.D. 150). Both writers do mention the Resurrection but only as the second of two reasons, important but not predominant. Barnabas' first theological motivation for Sunday keeping is eschatological, namely, that Sunday as “the eight day” represents “the beginning of another world.” The notion of Sunday as “the eighth day,” was later abandoned because it is senseless to speak of “the eighth day” in a seven days week. Justin's first reason for the Christians' assembly on Dies Solis—the Day of the Sun, is the inauguration of creation: “Sunday is the first day on which God, transforming the darkness and prime matter, created the world.” These reasons were eventually abandoned in favor of the Resurrection which became the primary reason for Sunday observance.
(8) Nothing Indicates that in the Establishment of the New Covenant There Was Any Change in the Terms of the Biblical Rest Day Commandment. Nothing is said that when God writes His laws on the hearts and minds of those who accept the terms of the New Covenant (New Testament) there occurs an alteration in the terms of these laws, so that Sunday replaces the seventh-day Sabbath (Heb. 8:6-10). Since this passage is an ipsis literis reproduction of Jeremiah 31:31-33, when the promise of a new covenant was firstly made to Israel due to the captivity they would face because of their sins (and one of the reasons for their punishment was exactly their negligence regarding the Sabbath commandment—see Jer. 17:19-27), it is understood that these “My laws” referred to in Hebrews are the same that always pertained to those eternal and moral principles expressed in the Decalogue.
The ceremonial part of that law ended on the cross, and the primary readers of the Hebrews epistle (as well as its author) knew that, for when it was firstly received by them the Temple’s veil had already been rent from top to bottom, ending those rites that pointed to Christ and His sacrifice. And if there were any doubts about it, the tenor of the epistle itself would solve the problem, for chapters 7-10 define exactly the end of these ceremonies, while stressing that the divine law is written on the hearts of the true children of God—in its moral aspects and other ethical and hygienic principles, without the ceremonial prefigurations (see Eph. 2:15).
(9) The Roman Catholic Church Presents Itself as the Author of the Change in the Rest Day from the Seventh-day Sabbath to Sunday. Several documents of the Roman Catholic Church assert that it was the responsible for that alteration, as can be exemplified by some official statements of that church, such as:
“The Catholic Church . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday” – The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.
“You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify”.—James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917 ed.), pp. 72, 73.
Another Catholic document confirms it:
“Ques. How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays?
“Ans. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church”. – Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (same in the Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. By Daniel Ferris [1916 ed.], p. 67.
(10) The Seventh-day Sabbath Will Be Restored in the New Earth When Sin Is Extirpated From the Universe. If some alteration in the terms of the divine day of rest had occurred, this would be reflected in prophecies regarding the future world, when the prophet declares that “in the new heavens and new earth” all the residents will come to “worship before Me, says the Lord” on the Sabbath day (Isa. 66:22, 23). Isaiah’s prophecy has to do specifically with the New Earth regime, as indicated by the context. When no more sin or sinners will exist in this new environment where “dwelleth righteousness” (2 Ped. 3:13) ALL the commandments of the divine law will be respected, and since “the Sabbath was made because of man” (Mar. 2:27), it will proceed in the holy regime of the New Earth, not Sunday, as would be the case if any change had occurred.
(9) The Roman Catholic Church Presents Itself as the Author of the Change in the Rest Day from the Seventh-day Sabbath to Sunday. Several documents of the Roman Catholic Church assert that it was the responsible for that alteration, as can be exemplified by some official statements of that church, such as:
“The Catholic Church . . . by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday” – The Catholic Mirror, official organ of Cardinal Gibbons, Sept. 23, 1893.
“You may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify”.—James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917 ed.), pp. 72, 73.
Another Catholic document confirms it:
“Ques. How prove you that the Church hath power to command feasts and holydays?
“Ans. By the very act of changing the Sabbath into Sunday, which Protestants allow of; and therefore they fondly contradict themselves, by keeping Sunday strictly, and breaking most other feasts commanded by the same Church”. – Henry Tuberville, An Abridgment of the Christian Doctrine (same in the Manual of Christian Doctrine, ed. By Daniel Ferris [1916 ed.], p. 67.
(10) The Seventh-day Sabbath Will Be Restored in the New Earth When Sin Is Extirpated From the Universe. If some alteration in the terms of the divine day of rest had occurred, this would be reflected in prophecies regarding the future world, when the prophet declares that “in the new heavens and new earth” all the residents will come to “worship before Me, says the Lord” on the Sabbath day (Isa. 66:22, 23). Isaiah’s prophecy has to do specifically with the New Earth regime, as indicated by the context. When no more sin or sinners will exist in this new environment where “dwelleth righteousness” (2 Ped. 3:13) ALL the commandments of the divine law will be respected, and since “the Sabbath was made because of man” (Mar. 2:27), it will proceed in the holy regime of the New Earth, not Sunday, as would be the case if any change had occurred.
The well reputed French version of Louis Segond thus reads: “. . . à chaque sabbat, toute chair viendra se prosterner devant moi, dit l‘Éternel” [every Sabbath day all flesh will come to prostrate before Me, says the Eternal One]. This is also reflected in the contemporary language Bible published in Brazil, in the Portuguese language: “. . . em todos os sábados pessoas de todas as nações virão me adorar no Templo” [on every Sabbath day people from all nations will come to adore me in the Temple].
CONCLUSION: The 10 reasons listed above suffice to discredit the claim that Christ's resurrection on the first day of the week caused the abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday. The truth is that initially the resurrection was celebrated existentially rather than liturgically, that is, by a victorious way of life rather than by a special day of worship.
__________
Note: This article is an adaptation of the text “Seven Main Reasons That Discredit the Sunday Observance”, by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, with the addition of three more reasons and several paragraphs to the seven reasons presented in the original text, by Prof. Azenilto G. Brito.
CONCLUSION: The 10 reasons listed above suffice to discredit the claim that Christ's resurrection on the first day of the week caused the abandonment of the Sabbath and the adoption of Sunday. The truth is that initially the resurrection was celebrated existentially rather than liturgically, that is, by a victorious way of life rather than by a special day of worship.
__________
Note: This article is an adaptation of the text “Seven Main Reasons That Discredit the Sunday Observance”, by Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, with the addition of three more reasons and several paragraphs to the seven reasons presented in the original text, by Prof. Azenilto G. Brito.
Roman Catholicism: Is it a Cult? You decide!
Roman Catholicism: Is It A Cult?*
To many Christians, the Roman Catholic Church is an enigma -- a mysterious ecclesiastical system of laws, rituals, and religious orders. For centuries there have been angry denouncements from Roman Catholics against Protestantism for the schism created by the Reformation, and from Protestants against Roman Catholicism for its theological errors and its claim to be the only one true church.
Out of this controversy, charges have arisen that Roman Catholicism is not truly Christian, but is in fact, the largest and oldest "Christian" cult in the world.
The Christian Research Institute, (CRI), founded by the late Dr. Walter Martin, is regarded by many as the foremost authority on cults and the occult. They also see themselves as experts on what constitutes Biblical theology. CRI has produced position papers on Roman Catholicism, addressing some of the doctrines with which they are in disagreement. They have stopped short, however, of acknowledging Roman Catholicism as a cult. They are, in fact, adamant in their defense of Roman Catholicism as an orthodox Christian religion. In this regard, they have come against others for their insistence that Roman Catholicism meets the criteria of a cult.
That there are grave problems with many Roman Catholic doctrines and interpretations of Scripture, no knowledgeable non-Catholic would dispute. But to what degree does Roman Catholicism present a danger to the purity of Biblical truth? Are their teachings, practices, and liturgy commiserate with cultism? Or are they truly Christian, differing only in minor interpretations and applications? To answer these questions, it is necessary to define just what constitutes a cult.
What is a Cult?
The word "cult" connotes neither good nor evil. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines a cult as "a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents."
Based on this rather simple definition, every church body may be classified as a cult. But there is another definition offered by Webster's , which is more akin to the use of the word employed by theologians and sociologists: "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents," and "great devotion to a person, idea, or thing."
But even this definition is inadequate in light of current trends in Christian thought. There is a wide distinction between the sociological and theological viewpoints.
Our concern is with the theological definition. Yet even here, one of the problems we have today is that there have developed several benchmarks from which to define a cult. For example, the Christian Research Institute has established as its benchmark what it terms "orthodoxy." That is, the historical position of the Church or churches from the time of the apostles to the present. This definition includes the early Roman Catholic Church fathers. On this basis, CRI (as do other cult-watching groups) considers Roman Catholicism as orthodox, but in error in only some teachings. However, Dr. Martin's original assessment would have to include Roman Catholicism:
"... a cult might also be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person's interpretation of the Bible. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses are, for the most part, followers of the interpretation of Charles T. Russell and J. F. Rutherford. The Christian Scientist of today is a disciple of Mary Baker Eddy and her interpretations of Scripture. The Mormons, by their own admission, adhere to those interpretations found in the writings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. It would be possible to go on citing many others, including the Unity School of Christianity, which follows the theology of Charles and Myrtle Filmore. From a theological viewpoint, the cults contain not a few major deviations from historic Christianity. Yet paradoxically, they continue to insist that they are entitled to be classified as Christians" (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 11).
The basis for determining what constitutes a cult must go beyond stated doctrinal positions. If we use Dr. Martin's original test, "a group of people gathered about a specific person or person's interpretation of the Bible," we will not be fooled into thinking that, just because an organization issues a doctrinal statement in conformity with "orthodoxy," that organization is truly Christian.
Even if an organization can be said to have been established by God, there are no guarantees that God is going to continue to sanction it if it doesn't continue in the spirit and purpose for which He established it. And unless its criterion for establishing truth is the unadulterated Word of God rightly divided, its existence is counterproductive to the Faith. Add to this any liturgy or practices which are counter to the spirit of the Word, and you have the makings of a cult in the theological sense.
Ron Enroth, author of The Lure of the Cults and New Religions, and professor of sociology at [the neo-evangelical and liberal] Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, cites Brooks Alexander, co-founder of the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, as having established the criteria for determining what constitutes a cult from a Biblical theological perspective. These are twofold:
1. A false or inadequate basis of salvation. The apostle Paul drew a distinction that is utterly basic to our understanding of truth when he said, "By grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: not of works lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8-9). Inasmuch as the central doctrine of biblical Christianity is the sacrificial death of Christ for our sin, all cultic deviations tend to downplay the finished work of Christ and emphasize the importance of earning moral acceptance before God through our own religious works as a basis of salvation.
2. A false basis of authority. Biblical Christianity by definition takes the Bible as its yardstick of the true, the false, the necessary, the permitted, the forbidden, and the irrelevant. Cults, on the other hand, commonly resort to extra-biblical documents or contemporary "revelation" as the substantial basis of their theology (e.g. Mormons). While some cult groups go through the motions of accepting the authority of Scripture, they actually honor the group's or leader's novel interpretation of Scripture as normative (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International) (Enroth, The Lure of the Cults & New Religions, p. 21).
Enroth and Alexander make the distinction between sociological understanding of what constitutes a cult, and theological understanding. The sociological position is that whatever is normative to a given culture is not a cult. The Biblical theological position is that those groups that adhere to the Bible as the basis for all theology and practice are normative. Those groups that offer other criteria as equal to or superior to the Bible, including erroneous and/or exclusive interpretations of Scripture, are cults.
From the sociological point of view, Roman Catholicism is not a cult. But what about the Biblical theological point of view? To ascertain the answer to this question, we will be quoting almost exclusively from the Vatican II documents. This is because of the misconception that the Roman Catholic Church is not the same as it was in the past, and that it has instituted reforms through the Vatican II Council which allow for evangelical Christianity to seek unity with the papacy. While Vatican II has softened its stance in regard to its approach toward non-Catholics, it will be seen that it still holds major doctrines and practices that rule out unity for true Christians who have the knowledge to understand the insurmountable barriers erected by the Roman Church itself.
The Basis for Salvation
The Roman Catholic Church claims that salvation is by grace through the shed blood of Christ on the cross. But in practice and other teachings, how true is their affirmation of that crucial doctrine?
Historically, Roman Catholicism has maintained that Jesus merely made the way open for salvation. But to enter into that salvation, one must live in obedience to the authority of the papacy. In addition, Jesus' provision for salvation not being complete, the Church offers other means to assure one's salvation.
It is through the Roman Catholic Church alone that salvation in its fullest sense can be attained:
"For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation. that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God" (Vatican Council II, p. 456).
Penance
On the subject of salvation and the expiation of sin, Vatican Council II stated:
"Therefore, the Church announces the good tidings of salvation to those who do not believe, so that all men may know the one true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent and may be converted from their ways, doing penance (Vatican Council II, p. 6).
"The full taking away and, as it is called, reparation of sins requires two things. Firstly, friendship with God must be restored. Amends must be made for offending his wisdom and goodness. This is done by a sincere conversion of mind. Secondly, all the personal and social values, as well as those that are universal, which sin has lessened or destroyed must be fully made good. This is done in two ways. The first is by feely making reparation, which involves punishment. The second is by accepting the punishments God's just and most holy wisdom has appointed. From this the holiness and splendor of his glory shine out through the world. ...
"The doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment for it or the consequences of it may remain to be expiated or cleansed. They often are. In fact, in purgatory the souls of those 'who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but who had not made satisfaction with adequate penance for their sins and omissions' are cleansed after death with punishment designed to purge away their debt" (Vatican Council II, p. 64).
Indulgences
One means of attaining salvation from the punishment of one's sins is what the Roman Church calls indulgences. These may be purchased with money or through acts of penitence, acts of charity, or other pietistic means. The concept of indulgences is based on the idea that one's good works merit God's grace. Since Christ's sacrifice was insufficient for the full payment of the penalty of sin, acts of piety and gifts to the Roman Church may be used as partial payment for one's sins. The efficacy of an indulgence depends upon the merit attributed to it by the church. For example, one may pay to have a mass said for a relative believed to be in purgatory. The mass will then account for a certain number of days deleted from his purgatorial sentence.
"The use of indulgences spread gradually. It became a very clear element in the history of the Church when the Popes decreed that certain works which were suitable for promoting the common good of the Church 'could replace all penitential practices' and that the faithful who were 'genuinely sorry for and had confessed their sins' and done such works were granted 'by almighty God's mercy and ... trusting in his Apostles merits and authority' and 'by virtue of the fullness of the apostolic power' 'not only full and abundant forgiveness, but the most complete forgiveness possible for their sins.
"For 'God's only-begotten Son ... has won a treasure for the militant Church ... he has entrusted it to blessed Peter, the key-bearer of heaven, and to his successors who are Christ's vicars on earth, so that they may distribute it to the faithful for their salvation. They may apply it with mercy for reasonable causes to all who have repented for and have confessed their sins. At times they may remit completely, and at other times only partially, the temporal punishment due to sin in a general as well as in special ways (insofar as they judge to be fitting in the sight of the Lord). The merits of the Blessed Mother of God and of the elect ... are known to add further to this treasure'" (Vatican Council II, p. 70).
While acknowledging that indulgences have been abused, the Roman Church ascribes that abuse to "the past," as if no such abuse occurs today. But the very nature of indulgences is an abuse against the purity of the Faith. To make matters worse, the Roman Church condemns those who oppose the idea of indulgences:
"[The Roman Catholic Church] 'teaches and commands that the usage of indulgences -- a usage most beneficial to Christians and approved by the authority of the Sacred Councils -- should be kept in the Church; and it condemns with anathema [cursing by ecclesiastical authority] those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them.'" (Vatican Council II, p. 71)
The Roman Catholic Church says it alone can grant this essential blessing for full salvation, and then condemns to hell those who disagree -- virtually all non-Catholics!
It was primarily Martin Luther's opposition to the evil practice of selling indulgences that sparked the Reformation. While he sought to remain in the Roman Church and bring reform to it [e.g., Martin Luther never gave up the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration], he was eventually excommunicated for his stand, as were other Reformers.
The response of Roman Catholicism to the Reformation was a hardening of the papal heart which resulted in mass executions, torture, and other violent means to squelch the rejection of papal authority. The Counter-Reformation resulted in the creation of Order of Jesus -- the Jesuits -- as a means to spy out and destroy those who sought to follow the path to freedom from Rome's tyrannical grip upon their souls. Thus ensued one of the bloodiest periods in the history of the Church, which saw countless martyrs for Christ at the hands of the papacy. With all its posturing to win the hearts of non-Catholic Christians today, the Roman Catholic Church has never offered an apology for its murdering of our ancestral brethren. This chapter in history is virtually ignored by the Vatican.
The Eucharist & The Mass
Roman Catholicism states that redemption is accomplished in the Eucharist:
"For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, 'the work of our redemption is accomplished'" (Vatican Council II, p. 1).
In Roman Catholic belief, the Eucharist is the embodiment of Christ in the bread of the Roman Catholic communion table; the bread is literally His body, and the wine is literally His blood. To non-Catholics, this can be confusing. But the Vatican II documents spell out the degree to which this literalness is held by its affirmation of the Council of Trent's Decree on the Eucharist that the wafer is to be worshiped as God. Is not idolatry the sign of a cult?
"There should be no doubt in anyone's mind 'that all the faithful ought to show to this most holy sacrament the worship which is due to the true God, as has always been the custom of the Catholic Church. Nor is it to be adored by any the less because it was instituted by Christ to be eaten'" (Vatican Council II, p. 104).
The Roman Church insists that Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient in itself to take away the penalty for our sins, but that we must add to His sacrifice through penance and through the application of the Roman Catholic mass as an ongoing sacrifice:
"Hence the Mass, the Lord's Supper, is at the same time and inseparably: a sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated (Vatican Council II, p. 102).
"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 is 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.' ... 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. (John Hardon, The Catholic Catechism, pp. 465-66) (cf. Heb. 10:12-18).
Scripture is clear that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was sufficient for taking away not only the guilt, but also the punishment for our sins. The whole purpose of His suffering was to bear our punishment (Isa. 53:4-6).
The chastisement (or punishment) that reconciled us to God (establishing peace with Him) was laid upon Jesus at the cross. There is not a single Scripture that speaks of punishment for our sins if we die in Christ. At worst, we will suffer the loss of reward for our failure to produce fruit in our lives to our capabilities. But all Scriptural references to punishment apply to unbelievers only. For the believer, to be absent from the body is to be present with Christ (2 Cor. 5:8).
Does this make us more inclined to sin and take a cavalier attitude about our position in Christ? Just the opposite. When those who have the Spirit of God consider the awful price paid for our redemption, we abhor our sins all the more. If we fall, it is as Paul said, the result of sin that dwells in our mortal bodies. But our spirits -- our attitude -- is one of hatred for sin.
The history of the Catholic Church proves conclusively that its means for salvation is not by grace, but by works of its own laws. This, in itself, qualifies it to deemed a cult. It was one of the "approved religions" under the pagan emperor Constantine -- the first major cult that broke from the teachings of the apostles.
The Basis for Authority
Perhaps the most cogent argument offered against the cults by true believers in Christ Jesus is that Scripture is the sole authority for all belief and practice for those who are in Christ. The first avenue of attack against a cult's theology takes the researcher through that cult's basis for belief. Even those cults which affirm the validity of the Bible as the sole authority, add their own authorities to it. And that is what cult researchers mark as one of the unmistakable signs of a cult.
Like other cults, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and that is the basis for establishing truth, doctrine, and practice. But it also has other criteria that it says are equal to Scripture: tradition, and Magesterium (the teaching authority of the Church).
While asserting, as do all aberrant "Christian" cults, that Scripture is the primary source of all revelation, the Roman Catholic Church in practice and in its teachings affirms that its interpretation of Scripture is the only valid basis upon which all truth resides and upon which its other authorities rest.
"Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them , flowing out from the same divine wellspring, move towards the same goal. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles [the pope and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church] so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching. Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence...
"But the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. Yet this Magesterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.
"It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magesterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls" (Vatican Council II , pp. 755-756). (Emphasis ours.)
In addition, the Roman Church openly professes that its view of Scripture differs from that of 'other' Christians:
"But when Christians separated from us affirm the divine authority of the sacred books, they think differently from us -- different ones in different ways -- about the relationship between the scriptures and the Church. For the Church according to Catholic belief, its authentic teaching office has a special place in expounding and preaching the written Word of God (Vatican Council II, p. 468).
"It is for the bishops, 'with whom the apostolic doctrine resides' suitably to instruct the faithful entrusted to them in the correct use of the divine books, especially of the New Testament, and in particular of the Gospels. They do this by giving them translations of the sacred texts which are equipped with necessary and really adequate explanations. Thus the children of the Church can familiarize themselves safely and profitably with sacred Scriptures, and become steeped in their spirit.
"Moreover, editions of sacred Scripture, provided with suitable notes, should be prepared for the use of even non-Christians and adapted to their circumstances. These should be prudently circulated, either by pastors of souls, or by Christians of any rank" (Vatican Council II, pp. 764-765).
The cry of Reformation was sola scriptura -- the insistence that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority for all believers. The Holy Spirit's enlightenment is a safeguard against religious tyranny.
But for the Roman Catholic Church, the Scriptures are not sufficient of themselves to provide all that is necessary "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:16-17) without the Roman Church's interpretations. Isn't that what CRI originally established as one of the primary criteria for determining if a group is as cult?
Exclusivity
Another sign of a cult is its exclusivity and insistence that it alone holds the authority as God's only true church. Rather than acknowledge that the true Church is comprised of individuals bound to God the Father through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, a cult looks upon the organization itself -- that is, the hierarchical structure -- as the Church. This is true of Romanism.
Although the Roman Catholic Church admits today that God's grace is active in non-Catholic Christians, we are referred to as "separated brethren" (which the Roman Church, through its ecumenical movement, hopes to some day bring into fellowship under its authority). According to Romanism, unless we acquiesce to this movement toward "unity," we remain outside the graces of the Church, regardless of how much in God's grace we live.
"Bishops should show affectionate consideration in their relations with the separated brethren and should urge the faithful also to exercise all kindness and charity in their regard, encouraging ecumenism as it is understood by the Church" (Vatican Council II, p. 573).
The key phrase in this statement is "as it is understood by the Church." This betrays Roman Catholicism's cult mindset that sees the Church as a separate entity from the corporate body of all true believers. How the Roman Church views ecumenism is revealed in the Vatican II documents:
"The term 'ecumenical movement' indicates the initiatives and activities encouraged and organized, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity" (Vatican Council II, p. 457).
To the papacy, the purpose of the ecumenical movement is to meet the needs of the Vatican's ecclesiastical system on the pretext of promoting Christian unity. But on what terms is unity to be realized?
"This sacred Council urges the faithful to abstain from any frivolous or imprudent zeal, for these can cause harm to true progress toward unity. Their ecumenical activity cannot be other than fully and sincerely Catholic, that is, loyal to the truth we have received from the Apostles and the Fathers, and in harmony with the faith which the Catholic Church has always professed, and at the same time tending toward that fullness in which our Lord wants his Body to grow in the course of time" (Vatican Council II, p. 470).
Through the ecumenical movement, the Roman Catholic Church is attempting to undo the Reformation, and to bring all of Christendom under the authority of the papacy. While it encourages "dialogue" with non-Catholic Christians, its position is adamant: there will be no unity without surrender to "Mother Church."
This establishes the pope as the central figure for the Faith in the same way that the apostles of other cults are established. While they acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the central figure of the faith to which they adhere, there can be no true relationship with Him apart from the dictates of the hierarchical pronouncements. The cult of the papacy is in itself sufficient grounds to recognize the Roman Church as a cult. The display of adoration, the gaudy parade of a mere man as if he were a god, the pandering to idolatrous worship through bowing down and kissing his ring, the insistence that he be addressed as His Holiness the Pope (or Father) of all Christians cannot but confirm to any Christian -- let alone professed cult-watchers -- that Roman Catholicism is a cult.
Conclusion
There are other evidences of cultism in Roman Catholicism, too numerous to mention here. One significant consideration: any religious group that threatens damnation and/or excommunication to any segment of its membership for eating, drinking, marrying, or failure to attend religious rites is a cult.
Note: Dr. Bill Jackson, president of the Association of Fundamentalists Evangelizing Catholics (AFEC), prepared the following, "The Marks of a Cult," as applied to the Roman Catholic Church:
1) Extra Biblical Revelation. Dr. Ludwig Ott, probably the most readable and conservative Roman Catholic theologian, has written in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma: “Theology, like faith, accepts as the source of its knowledge Holy Writ and Tradition ... and also the doctrinal assertions of the church … this latter means the day by day teaching ministry of the Church through the pope and the bishops united with the pope.” (This latter is referred to as the Magesterium.)
2) False Basis of Salvation. From Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), #16: “the ways of reaching beatitude—through right conduct, with the help of God’s law and grace, through conduct that fulfills the twofold commandment of charity, specified in God’s Ten Commandments.”
3) Uncertain Hope. A very complimentary article in The Philadelphia Inquirer stated of the late Cardinal Krol: “He doesn’t have to worry about food, clothing, shelter. What are his worries? ‘My salvation, getting to Heaven’ says the Prelate.”
4) Presumptuous Messianic Leadership. If the pope is NOT the Vicar of the Messiah (Christ), he is presumptuous in thus identifying himself. Jesus Christ knew His church would need an infallible Head, so He Himself chose His Vicar in John 14:26, 15:26 and 16:7-15. This Vicar is not only infallible, He is infinite. He is the Holy Spirit.
5) Doctrinal Ambiguity. From the New Catholic Encyclopedia: “The Bible as a literary work had traditions that included myth” (Vol. 10, p. 184); “Some of the miracles recorded in Holy Scripture may be fictional and include imaginative literary exaggerations. The episode of Noah and the Ark is imaginative literary creation” (Vol. 9, p. 887); “The Gospels are not biographies of Jesus and still less scientific history” (Vol. 12, p. 403).
6) Claims of Special Discoveries. These, in Catholicism, are numberless. They go from the Letter of the Oration, a “true letter” of Jesus found in the Holy Sepulchre to the revelations at Fatima (an apparition approved by the Vatican). In between are countless appearances of Mary to Catherine Laboure, Simon Stock, the visionaries at Medjugorje and Bernadette Soubirous, etc. Add a few of Bob and Penny Lord’s “Eucharistic Miracles” and you have more special discoveries than all the other cults combined.
7) Defective Christology. Pius XII’s encyclical, Mediator Dei: Christ “has offered and continues to offer Himself as a victim for our sins.” Hebrews 9:25 says, “nor yet that he should offer himself often.” Hebrews 10:14, “For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.”
8) Segmented Biblical Attention. “The Seven Verses of Scripture Authoritatively Interpreted by Rome” (from the Denver Catholic Register, 3/29/90, p. 10): “Father (Francis X.) Cleary (S.J.), scripture scholar and professor in the Department of Theological Studies of St. Louis University, writes, ‘Many people think that the Church has an official “party line” about every sentence in the Bible. In fact, only seven passages have been definitively interpreted.’”
9) Enslaving Organizational Structures. This may not be as evident in contemporary “liberated” American Catholicism, but it was very much a fact for Europe’s millions in past centuries. All were taught that there was no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, which through her bishops could impose anathemas or excommunication seemingly at will. The masses of people were controlled by that system. Even the kings of Europe quaked at the possibility of papal displeasure.
10) Financial Exploitation. The coins ringing in the coffers of Tetzel have ceased, and exorbitant payments for early purgatorial release can be relegated to previous centuries, but the very fact that any Mass stipend is expected for Masses to remit fictitious purgatorial suffering is a case for financial exploitation.
11) Denunciation of Others. Priest Lawrence Feeney of the Boston Heresy Trial believed “extra nullus salus ecclesia” (no salvation outside the church). He was approached by Bobby Kennedy, who complained that Feeney was sending his Protestant friends to hell. Feeney replied, “I’m not sending them to hell, but I am telling them where to come if they want to get to Heaven.” [In response to the Feeneyism Movement within the Catholic Church, the Church ratified its belief that Salvation is not found outside the Catholic Church and obedience to the Pope: "Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church. [...] "Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth." Pius XII – Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949 - Source http://www.romancatholicism.org/feeney-condemnations.htm.]
12) Syncretism. From Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), #846: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try by their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.”
To many Christians, the Roman Catholic Church is an enigma -- a mysterious ecclesiastical system of laws, rituals, and religious orders. For centuries there have been angry denouncements from Roman Catholics against Protestantism for the schism created by the Reformation, and from Protestants against Roman Catholicism for its theological errors and its claim to be the only one true church.
Out of this controversy, charges have arisen that Roman Catholicism is not truly Christian, but is in fact, the largest and oldest "Christian" cult in the world.
The Christian Research Institute, (CRI), founded by the late Dr. Walter Martin, is regarded by many as the foremost authority on cults and the occult. They also see themselves as experts on what constitutes Biblical theology. CRI has produced position papers on Roman Catholicism, addressing some of the doctrines with which they are in disagreement. They have stopped short, however, of acknowledging Roman Catholicism as a cult. They are, in fact, adamant in their defense of Roman Catholicism as an orthodox Christian religion. In this regard, they have come against others for their insistence that Roman Catholicism meets the criteria of a cult.
That there are grave problems with many Roman Catholic doctrines and interpretations of Scripture, no knowledgeable non-Catholic would dispute. But to what degree does Roman Catholicism present a danger to the purity of Biblical truth? Are their teachings, practices, and liturgy commiserate with cultism? Or are they truly Christian, differing only in minor interpretations and applications? To answer these questions, it is necessary to define just what constitutes a cult.
What is a Cult?
The word "cult" connotes neither good nor evil. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines a cult as "a system of religious beliefs and ritual; also: its body of adherents."
Based on this rather simple definition, every church body may be classified as a cult. But there is another definition offered by Webster's , which is more akin to the use of the word employed by theologians and sociologists: "a religion regarded as unorthodox or spurious; also: its body of adherents," and "great devotion to a person, idea, or thing."
But even this definition is inadequate in light of current trends in Christian thought. There is a wide distinction between the sociological and theological viewpoints.
Our concern is with the theological definition. Yet even here, one of the problems we have today is that there have developed several benchmarks from which to define a cult. For example, the Christian Research Institute has established as its benchmark what it terms "orthodoxy." That is, the historical position of the Church or churches from the time of the apostles to the present. This definition includes the early Roman Catholic Church fathers. On this basis, CRI (as do other cult-watching groups) considers Roman Catholicism as orthodox, but in error in only some teachings. However, Dr. Martin's original assessment would have to include Roman Catholicism:
"... a cult might also be defined as a group of people gathered about a specific person or person's interpretation of the Bible. For example, Jehovah's Witnesses are, for the most part, followers of the interpretation of Charles T. Russell and J. F. Rutherford. The Christian Scientist of today is a disciple of Mary Baker Eddy and her interpretations of Scripture. The Mormons, by their own admission, adhere to those interpretations found in the writings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young. It would be possible to go on citing many others, including the Unity School of Christianity, which follows the theology of Charles and Myrtle Filmore. From a theological viewpoint, the cults contain not a few major deviations from historic Christianity. Yet paradoxically, they continue to insist that they are entitled to be classified as Christians" (Kingdom of the Cults, p. 11).
The basis for determining what constitutes a cult must go beyond stated doctrinal positions. If we use Dr. Martin's original test, "a group of people gathered about a specific person or person's interpretation of the Bible," we will not be fooled into thinking that, just because an organization issues a doctrinal statement in conformity with "orthodoxy," that organization is truly Christian.
Even if an organization can be said to have been established by God, there are no guarantees that God is going to continue to sanction it if it doesn't continue in the spirit and purpose for which He established it. And unless its criterion for establishing truth is the unadulterated Word of God rightly divided, its existence is counterproductive to the Faith. Add to this any liturgy or practices which are counter to the spirit of the Word, and you have the makings of a cult in the theological sense.
Ron Enroth, author of The Lure of the Cults and New Religions, and professor of sociology at [the neo-evangelical and liberal] Westmont College in Santa Barbara, California, cites Brooks Alexander, co-founder of the Spiritual Counterfeits Project, as having established the criteria for determining what constitutes a cult from a Biblical theological perspective. These are twofold:
1. A false or inadequate basis of salvation. The apostle Paul drew a distinction that is utterly basic to our understanding of truth when he said, "By grace are you saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God: not of works lest any man should boast" (Eph. 2:8-9). Inasmuch as the central doctrine of biblical Christianity is the sacrificial death of Christ for our sin, all cultic deviations tend to downplay the finished work of Christ and emphasize the importance of earning moral acceptance before God through our own religious works as a basis of salvation.
2. A false basis of authority. Biblical Christianity by definition takes the Bible as its yardstick of the true, the false, the necessary, the permitted, the forbidden, and the irrelevant. Cults, on the other hand, commonly resort to extra-biblical documents or contemporary "revelation" as the substantial basis of their theology (e.g. Mormons). While some cult groups go through the motions of accepting the authority of Scripture, they actually honor the group's or leader's novel interpretation of Scripture as normative (e.g. Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International) (Enroth, The Lure of the Cults & New Religions, p. 21).
Enroth and Alexander make the distinction between sociological understanding of what constitutes a cult, and theological understanding. The sociological position is that whatever is normative to a given culture is not a cult. The Biblical theological position is that those groups that adhere to the Bible as the basis for all theology and practice are normative. Those groups that offer other criteria as equal to or superior to the Bible, including erroneous and/or exclusive interpretations of Scripture, are cults.
From the sociological point of view, Roman Catholicism is not a cult. But what about the Biblical theological point of view? To ascertain the answer to this question, we will be quoting almost exclusively from the Vatican II documents. This is because of the misconception that the Roman Catholic Church is not the same as it was in the past, and that it has instituted reforms through the Vatican II Council which allow for evangelical Christianity to seek unity with the papacy. While Vatican II has softened its stance in regard to its approach toward non-Catholics, it will be seen that it still holds major doctrines and practices that rule out unity for true Christians who have the knowledge to understand the insurmountable barriers erected by the Roman Church itself.
The Basis for Salvation
The Roman Catholic Church claims that salvation is by grace through the shed blood of Christ on the cross. But in practice and other teachings, how true is their affirmation of that crucial doctrine?
Historically, Roman Catholicism has maintained that Jesus merely made the way open for salvation. But to enter into that salvation, one must live in obedience to the authority of the papacy. In addition, Jesus' provision for salvation not being complete, the Church offers other means to assure one's salvation.
It is through the Roman Catholic Church alone that salvation in its fullest sense can be attained:
"For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation. that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that Our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God" (Vatican Council II, p. 456).
Penance
On the subject of salvation and the expiation of sin, Vatican Council II stated:
"Therefore, the Church announces the good tidings of salvation to those who do not believe, so that all men may know the one true God and Jesus Christ whom he has sent and may be converted from their ways, doing penance (Vatican Council II, p. 6).
"The full taking away and, as it is called, reparation of sins requires two things. Firstly, friendship with God must be restored. Amends must be made for offending his wisdom and goodness. This is done by a sincere conversion of mind. Secondly, all the personal and social values, as well as those that are universal, which sin has lessened or destroyed must be fully made good. This is done in two ways. The first is by feely making reparation, which involves punishment. The second is by accepting the punishments God's just and most holy wisdom has appointed. From this the holiness and splendor of his glory shine out through the world. ...
"The doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment for it or the consequences of it may remain to be expiated or cleansed. They often are. In fact, in purgatory the souls of those 'who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but who had not made satisfaction with adequate penance for their sins and omissions' are cleansed after death with punishment designed to purge away their debt" (Vatican Council II, p. 64).
Indulgences
One means of attaining salvation from the punishment of one's sins is what the Roman Church calls indulgences. These may be purchased with money or through acts of penitence, acts of charity, or other pietistic means. The concept of indulgences is based on the idea that one's good works merit God's grace. Since Christ's sacrifice was insufficient for the full payment of the penalty of sin, acts of piety and gifts to the Roman Church may be used as partial payment for one's sins. The efficacy of an indulgence depends upon the merit attributed to it by the church. For example, one may pay to have a mass said for a relative believed to be in purgatory. The mass will then account for a certain number of days deleted from his purgatorial sentence.
"The use of indulgences spread gradually. It became a very clear element in the history of the Church when the Popes decreed that certain works which were suitable for promoting the common good of the Church 'could replace all penitential practices' and that the faithful who were 'genuinely sorry for and had confessed their sins' and done such works were granted 'by almighty God's mercy and ... trusting in his Apostles merits and authority' and 'by virtue of the fullness of the apostolic power' 'not only full and abundant forgiveness, but the most complete forgiveness possible for their sins.
"For 'God's only-begotten Son ... has won a treasure for the militant Church ... he has entrusted it to blessed Peter, the key-bearer of heaven, and to his successors who are Christ's vicars on earth, so that they may distribute it to the faithful for their salvation. They may apply it with mercy for reasonable causes to all who have repented for and have confessed their sins. At times they may remit completely, and at other times only partially, the temporal punishment due to sin in a general as well as in special ways (insofar as they judge to be fitting in the sight of the Lord). The merits of the Blessed Mother of God and of the elect ... are known to add further to this treasure'" (Vatican Council II, p. 70).
While acknowledging that indulgences have been abused, the Roman Church ascribes that abuse to "the past," as if no such abuse occurs today. But the very nature of indulgences is an abuse against the purity of the Faith. To make matters worse, the Roman Church condemns those who oppose the idea of indulgences:
"[The Roman Catholic Church] 'teaches and commands that the usage of indulgences -- a usage most beneficial to Christians and approved by the authority of the Sacred Councils -- should be kept in the Church; and it condemns with anathema [cursing by ecclesiastical authority] those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them.'" (Vatican Council II, p. 71)
The Roman Catholic Church says it alone can grant this essential blessing for full salvation, and then condemns to hell those who disagree -- virtually all non-Catholics!
It was primarily Martin Luther's opposition to the evil practice of selling indulgences that sparked the Reformation. While he sought to remain in the Roman Church and bring reform to it [e.g., Martin Luther never gave up the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration], he was eventually excommunicated for his stand, as were other Reformers.
The response of Roman Catholicism to the Reformation was a hardening of the papal heart which resulted in mass executions, torture, and other violent means to squelch the rejection of papal authority. The Counter-Reformation resulted in the creation of Order of Jesus -- the Jesuits -- as a means to spy out and destroy those who sought to follow the path to freedom from Rome's tyrannical grip upon their souls. Thus ensued one of the bloodiest periods in the history of the Church, which saw countless martyrs for Christ at the hands of the papacy. With all its posturing to win the hearts of non-Catholic Christians today, the Roman Catholic Church has never offered an apology for its murdering of our ancestral brethren. This chapter in history is virtually ignored by the Vatican.
The Eucharist & The Mass
Roman Catholicism states that redemption is accomplished in the Eucharist:
"For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, 'the work of our redemption is accomplished'" (Vatican Council II, p. 1).
In Roman Catholic belief, the Eucharist is the embodiment of Christ in the bread of the Roman Catholic communion table; the bread is literally His body, and the wine is literally His blood. To non-Catholics, this can be confusing. But the Vatican II documents spell out the degree to which this literalness is held by its affirmation of the Council of Trent's Decree on the Eucharist that the wafer is to be worshiped as God. Is not idolatry the sign of a cult?
"There should be no doubt in anyone's mind 'that all the faithful ought to show to this most holy sacrament the worship which is due to the true God, as has always been the custom of the Catholic Church. Nor is it to be adored by any the less because it was instituted by Christ to be eaten'" (Vatican Council II, p. 104).
The Roman Church insists that Christ's sacrifice was not sufficient in itself to take away the penalty for our sins, but that we must add to His sacrifice through penance and through the application of the Roman Catholic mass as an ongoing sacrifice:
"Hence the Mass, the Lord's Supper, is at the same time and inseparably: a sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated (Vatican Council II, p. 102).
"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 is 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.' ... 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. (John Hardon, The Catholic Catechism, pp. 465-66) (cf. Heb. 10:12-18).
Scripture is clear that Jesus' sacrifice on the cross was sufficient for taking away not only the guilt, but also the punishment for our sins. The whole purpose of His suffering was to bear our punishment (Isa. 53:4-6).
The chastisement (or punishment) that reconciled us to God (establishing peace with Him) was laid upon Jesus at the cross. There is not a single Scripture that speaks of punishment for our sins if we die in Christ. At worst, we will suffer the loss of reward for our failure to produce fruit in our lives to our capabilities. But all Scriptural references to punishment apply to unbelievers only. For the believer, to be absent from the body is to be present with Christ (2 Cor. 5:8).
Does this make us more inclined to sin and take a cavalier attitude about our position in Christ? Just the opposite. When those who have the Spirit of God consider the awful price paid for our redemption, we abhor our sins all the more. If we fall, it is as Paul said, the result of sin that dwells in our mortal bodies. But our spirits -- our attitude -- is one of hatred for sin.
The history of the Catholic Church proves conclusively that its means for salvation is not by grace, but by works of its own laws. This, in itself, qualifies it to deemed a cult. It was one of the "approved religions" under the pagan emperor Constantine -- the first major cult that broke from the teachings of the apostles.
The Basis for Authority
Perhaps the most cogent argument offered against the cults by true believers in Christ Jesus is that Scripture is the sole authority for all belief and practice for those who are in Christ. The first avenue of attack against a cult's theology takes the researcher through that cult's basis for belief. Even those cults which affirm the validity of the Bible as the sole authority, add their own authorities to it. And that is what cult researchers mark as one of the unmistakable signs of a cult.
Like other cults, the Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and that is the basis for establishing truth, doctrine, and practice. But it also has other criteria that it says are equal to Scripture: tradition, and Magesterium (the teaching authority of the Church).
While asserting, as do all aberrant "Christian" cults, that Scripture is the primary source of all revelation, the Roman Catholic Church in practice and in its teachings affirms that its interpretation of Scripture is the only valid basis upon which all truth resides and upon which its other authorities rest.
"Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them , flowing out from the same divine wellspring, move towards the same goal. Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit. And Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles [the pope and bishops of the Roman Catholic Church] so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching. Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence...
"But the task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. Yet this Magesterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.
"It is clear, therefore, that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, sacred Scripture and the Magesterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls" (Vatican Council II , pp. 755-756). (Emphasis ours.)
In addition, the Roman Church openly professes that its view of Scripture differs from that of 'other' Christians:
"But when Christians separated from us affirm the divine authority of the sacred books, they think differently from us -- different ones in different ways -- about the relationship between the scriptures and the Church. For the Church according to Catholic belief, its authentic teaching office has a special place in expounding and preaching the written Word of God (Vatican Council II, p. 468).
"It is for the bishops, 'with whom the apostolic doctrine resides' suitably to instruct the faithful entrusted to them in the correct use of the divine books, especially of the New Testament, and in particular of the Gospels. They do this by giving them translations of the sacred texts which are equipped with necessary and really adequate explanations. Thus the children of the Church can familiarize themselves safely and profitably with sacred Scriptures, and become steeped in their spirit.
"Moreover, editions of sacred Scripture, provided with suitable notes, should be prepared for the use of even non-Christians and adapted to their circumstances. These should be prudently circulated, either by pastors of souls, or by Christians of any rank" (Vatican Council II, pp. 764-765).
The cry of Reformation was sola scriptura -- the insistence that the Bible alone is the ultimate authority for all believers. The Holy Spirit's enlightenment is a safeguard against religious tyranny.
But for the Roman Catholic Church, the Scriptures are not sufficient of themselves to provide all that is necessary "for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Tim. 3:16-17) without the Roman Church's interpretations. Isn't that what CRI originally established as one of the primary criteria for determining if a group is as cult?
Exclusivity
Another sign of a cult is its exclusivity and insistence that it alone holds the authority as God's only true church. Rather than acknowledge that the true Church is comprised of individuals bound to God the Father through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, a cult looks upon the organization itself -- that is, the hierarchical structure -- as the Church. This is true of Romanism.
Although the Roman Catholic Church admits today that God's grace is active in non-Catholic Christians, we are referred to as "separated brethren" (which the Roman Church, through its ecumenical movement, hopes to some day bring into fellowship under its authority). According to Romanism, unless we acquiesce to this movement toward "unity," we remain outside the graces of the Church, regardless of how much in God's grace we live.
"Bishops should show affectionate consideration in their relations with the separated brethren and should urge the faithful also to exercise all kindness and charity in their regard, encouraging ecumenism as it is understood by the Church" (Vatican Council II, p. 573).
The key phrase in this statement is "as it is understood by the Church." This betrays Roman Catholicism's cult mindset that sees the Church as a separate entity from the corporate body of all true believers. How the Roman Church views ecumenism is revealed in the Vatican II documents:
"The term 'ecumenical movement' indicates the initiatives and activities encouraged and organized, according to the various needs of the Church and as opportunities offer, to promote Christian unity" (Vatican Council II, p. 457).
To the papacy, the purpose of the ecumenical movement is to meet the needs of the Vatican's ecclesiastical system on the pretext of promoting Christian unity. But on what terms is unity to be realized?
"This sacred Council urges the faithful to abstain from any frivolous or imprudent zeal, for these can cause harm to true progress toward unity. Their ecumenical activity cannot be other than fully and sincerely Catholic, that is, loyal to the truth we have received from the Apostles and the Fathers, and in harmony with the faith which the Catholic Church has always professed, and at the same time tending toward that fullness in which our Lord wants his Body to grow in the course of time" (Vatican Council II, p. 470).
Through the ecumenical movement, the Roman Catholic Church is attempting to undo the Reformation, and to bring all of Christendom under the authority of the papacy. While it encourages "dialogue" with non-Catholic Christians, its position is adamant: there will be no unity without surrender to "Mother Church."
This establishes the pope as the central figure for the Faith in the same way that the apostles of other cults are established. While they acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the central figure of the faith to which they adhere, there can be no true relationship with Him apart from the dictates of the hierarchical pronouncements. The cult of the papacy is in itself sufficient grounds to recognize the Roman Church as a cult. The display of adoration, the gaudy parade of a mere man as if he were a god, the pandering to idolatrous worship through bowing down and kissing his ring, the insistence that he be addressed as His Holiness the Pope (or Father) of all Christians cannot but confirm to any Christian -- let alone professed cult-watchers -- that Roman Catholicism is a cult.
Conclusion
There are other evidences of cultism in Roman Catholicism, too numerous to mention here. One significant consideration: any religious group that threatens damnation and/or excommunication to any segment of its membership for eating, drinking, marrying, or failure to attend religious rites is a cult.
Note: Dr. Bill Jackson, president of the Association of Fundamentalists Evangelizing Catholics (AFEC), prepared the following, "The Marks of a Cult," as applied to the Roman Catholic Church:
1) Extra Biblical Revelation. Dr. Ludwig Ott, probably the most readable and conservative Roman Catholic theologian, has written in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma: “Theology, like faith, accepts as the source of its knowledge Holy Writ and Tradition ... and also the doctrinal assertions of the church … this latter means the day by day teaching ministry of the Church through the pope and the bishops united with the pope.” (This latter is referred to as the Magesterium.)
2) False Basis of Salvation. From Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), #16: “the ways of reaching beatitude—through right conduct, with the help of God’s law and grace, through conduct that fulfills the twofold commandment of charity, specified in God’s Ten Commandments.”
3) Uncertain Hope. A very complimentary article in The Philadelphia Inquirer stated of the late Cardinal Krol: “He doesn’t have to worry about food, clothing, shelter. What are his worries? ‘My salvation, getting to Heaven’ says the Prelate.”
4) Presumptuous Messianic Leadership. If the pope is NOT the Vicar of the Messiah (Christ), he is presumptuous in thus identifying himself. Jesus Christ knew His church would need an infallible Head, so He Himself chose His Vicar in John 14:26, 15:26 and 16:7-15. This Vicar is not only infallible, He is infinite. He is the Holy Spirit.
5) Doctrinal Ambiguity. From the New Catholic Encyclopedia: “The Bible as a literary work had traditions that included myth” (Vol. 10, p. 184); “Some of the miracles recorded in Holy Scripture may be fictional and include imaginative literary exaggerations. The episode of Noah and the Ark is imaginative literary creation” (Vol. 9, p. 887); “The Gospels are not biographies of Jesus and still less scientific history” (Vol. 12, p. 403).
6) Claims of Special Discoveries. These, in Catholicism, are numberless. They go from the Letter of the Oration, a “true letter” of Jesus found in the Holy Sepulchre to the revelations at Fatima (an apparition approved by the Vatican). In between are countless appearances of Mary to Catherine Laboure, Simon Stock, the visionaries at Medjugorje and Bernadette Soubirous, etc. Add a few of Bob and Penny Lord’s “Eucharistic Miracles” and you have more special discoveries than all the other cults combined.
7) Defective Christology. Pius XII’s encyclical, Mediator Dei: Christ “has offered and continues to offer Himself as a victim for our sins.” Hebrews 9:25 says, “nor yet that he should offer himself often.” Hebrews 10:14, “For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified.”
8) Segmented Biblical Attention. “The Seven Verses of Scripture Authoritatively Interpreted by Rome” (from the Denver Catholic Register, 3/29/90, p. 10): “Father (Francis X.) Cleary (S.J.), scripture scholar and professor in the Department of Theological Studies of St. Louis University, writes, ‘Many people think that the Church has an official “party line” about every sentence in the Bible. In fact, only seven passages have been definitively interpreted.’”
9) Enslaving Organizational Structures. This may not be as evident in contemporary “liberated” American Catholicism, but it was very much a fact for Europe’s millions in past centuries. All were taught that there was no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, which through her bishops could impose anathemas or excommunication seemingly at will. The masses of people were controlled by that system. Even the kings of Europe quaked at the possibility of papal displeasure.
10) Financial Exploitation. The coins ringing in the coffers of Tetzel have ceased, and exorbitant payments for early purgatorial release can be relegated to previous centuries, but the very fact that any Mass stipend is expected for Masses to remit fictitious purgatorial suffering is a case for financial exploitation.
11) Denunciation of Others. Priest Lawrence Feeney of the Boston Heresy Trial believed “extra nullus salus ecclesia” (no salvation outside the church). He was approached by Bobby Kennedy, who complained that Feeney was sending his Protestant friends to hell. Feeney replied, “I’m not sending them to hell, but I am telling them where to come if they want to get to Heaven.” [In response to the Feeneyism Movement within the Catholic Church, the Church ratified its belief that Salvation is not found outside the Catholic Church and obedience to the Pope: "Now, among those things which the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach is contained also that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church. [...] "Therefore, no one will be saved who, knowing the Church to have been divinely established by Christ, nevertheless refuses to submit to the Church or withholds obedience from the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth." Pius XII – Letter of the Holy Office to the Archbishop of Boston, August 8, 1949 - Source http://www.romancatholicism.org/feeney-condemnations.htm.]
12) Syncretism. From Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994), #846: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try by their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience—those too may achieve eternal salvation.”
SHOCKING CATHOLIC BELIEFS- Supreme Papal Authority Comes From the Law of the Caesars
"...superior papal authority and dominion is derived from the law of the Caesars." Lucius Ferraris, in "Prompta Bibliotheca Canonica, Juridica, Moralis, Theologica, Ascetica, Polemica, Rubristica, Historica", Volume V, article on "Papa, Article II", titled "Concerning the extent of Papal dignity, authority, or dominion and infallibility", #19, published in Petit-Montrouge (Paris) by J. P. Migne, 1858 edition.
"...the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who being God, cannot be judged by man." Pope Nicholas I, quoted in History of the Councils, vol. IX, Dist.: 96, Can 7, "Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para", by Labbe and Cossart.
"...the appellation of God had been confirmed by Constantine on the Pope, who being God, cannot be judged by man." Pope Nicholas I, quoted in History of the Councils, vol. IX, Dist.: 96, Can 7, "Satis Evidentur Decret Gratian Primer Para", by Labbe and Cossart.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)