VII. Roman Catholicism

     Roman Catholicism claims to be "Christianity" - the "original/orthodox/true" Church.  In fact, the church in Rome was one of the earliest churches, probably founded by Jewish converts from the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:10) and had still not been visited by an Apostle by the time Paul wrote to them in the Winter of 57 A.D.  On the other hand, historical and cultural influences changed the church of Rome from one of many equal congregations into what claimed to be the central church over a spiritual “Roman Empire” and ruled by a Pontifex Maximus claiming to be a spiritual descendant of Peter with Apostolic (even “Divine”) authority.  Although the claim is that the Roman Catholic Church has “taught the same things from the beginning,” a comparison with the New Testament writings reveals major changes and additions have occurred over the centuries.

Brief Historical Background

     Along with churches starting in Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome and other places from the ministry of non-Apostles, (Acts 2:5,8-11), we also know that the Apostle Paul planted churches through Asia Minor and Macedonia on his missionary journeys (Acts 13-28).  Many of these church around the Mediterranean survived Roman persecution (64-313 AD) and then flourished in the 4^th century as the Emperor’s Constantine and Theodosius II moved Christianity from persecuted minority to a favored legal religion and then “State Church.”  Within 80 years, Christianity went from 10% of the population of the Empire to 90% and this required massive building projects and an expanded hierarchy to handle the people.  By 400 A.D., the Church was adopting the organizational structure of the failing political empire - local rulers (Bishops over several churches) under area governors (Arch-Bishops), under a senate (College of Cardinals), under the Pontifex Maximus (chief Priest of Roman religion/Pope).  Church centers naturally developed in major cities - Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Carthage.  Because of its role in Roman Imperial history, the church at Rome naturally had inclinations toward “primacy” and as church organization moved from several elders over a congregation to a single elder/pastor over churches, the Bishop of Rome thought he should be the “Primary” Bishop, while Arch-Bishops/Metropolitans/Patriarchs in the other major cities resisted and claimed equality with the Roman bishop.  Internal doctrinal issues threatened to divide the “State Church,” so Christian Emperors (fearing theological division would lead to political division) called Council meetings to handle these issues (325-800 AD).  Orthodoxy also claimed to be associated with tracing doctrine back through a physical lineage of bishops in churches started by Apostles (roots of “Apostolic Succession”).  When Islam swept over North Africa and the gates of Constantinople (610-750 AD), only two of these major church centers remained - Rome and Constantinople - then in 1054 AD these two officially split into separate Churches (Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy).^[1]

     The Roman Church gained an army/Protector when the Pope crowned Charlemagne “Holy Roman Emperor” on Christmas day 800 AD.  After 800 AD, the Papacy controlled the calling of Councils and used them to advance the Papal agenda.  Forged documents (the Isidorian Decretals) appeared in the 10^th century and these plus some political maneuvering were employed to move Papal power to its peak with Innocent III (1198-1216 AD).  In the 1300’s, the French monarchy exerted it power and the Avignon Papacy (1309-1377) and Papal Schism (1378-1414 AD) forced everyone in Europe to realize that the Papacy would have to be reformed to some degree.  Early 14-15^th century reformers (Wycliffe, Huss, and Savonarola) were suppressed, but reform efforts exploded in the 16^th century as Zwingli, Luther, and Calvin all gained nationalistic support and were able to initiate what eventually became Protestant “State Churches” in Switzerland, Germany, Scandinavia, the Netherlands, England, and Scotland after 1648.  Papal “Infallibility” came with the Vatican Council (1870).

Doctrinal Issues

     The Papacy/Primacy of Peter? - Roman Catholicism is built, largely, on the belief that Peter’s Apostolic office/authority became associated with the Roman Church and remains open and functional through the line of Bishops of that church.  The main support for this notion is Matthew 16:19 and the claim that Christ was here granting Peter “foundational” status in the Church.  Pope Innocent I (402-417 A.D.) called himself "Ruler of the Church of God," while Innocent III (1198-1216) declared himself to be "Supreme Sovereign over the Church and the whole world."  Gregory XIII (1580) proclaimed himself "Holy Lord God the Pope" in the 1580 edition of canon law.  Pius IX (1846-1878) called the Vatican Council (1870) to have himself declared "Infallible" (inspired?), in matters pertaining to faith and morals.  Pope Leo XIII (1878-1903) claimed that “. . . We [the popes] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.”^[2]

     Response - Use of Matthew 16:18-19 as support for the Papacy does not appear in historical records until 200 A.D. and the later major Church Fathers Chrysostom and Augustine rejected this interpretation of the passage.  The gender difference between the Greek words for “Peter” (petros, Masc. for a small stone) and “rock” (petra, feminine word for bedrock, large outcropping of rock) alone argues against identifying Peter with the “foundation rock” of the Church.  The same “bind and loose” authority given to Peter in this passage is also given to the rest of the Apostles (Matthew 18:18) and we later learn that it is the identification of Jesus as the Promised Messiah, which Peter did here, that is the only “foundation” for the Church (1Corinthians 3:11), to which all of the Apostles and Prophets were added (Ephesians 2:19-21).  Before we leave the Matthew 16 passage, there is one other note and I think it is important.  One of the marks of “how important/general” a teaching was is demonstrated by its appearance in more than one Gospel.  Something as important as Rome’s claim for Matthew 16:18-19 - that Jesus was making Peter the foundation of the Church - you would think would be important enough to appear in all of the Gospels or at least all three of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke).  However, this information is only recorded in Matthew’s Gospel (for a Jewish audience!) and does not appear in any of the other Gospels, especially the one written for the church in Rome (Mark) or the one written for a Greek audience (Luke).  I find that very hard to explain if it meant what Rome now claims it means!

     As for Peter, he was a member of the "inner circle" of Apostles (Matthew 17:1; Galatians 2:9), but there is no indication anywhere in the New Testament that Peter was considered by others (or considered himself) to be pre-eminent amongst the Apostles.  Instead, we find Peter refusing special honor in the home of Cornelius, claiming to be just a man (Acts 10:24-26).  Later, it was the Lord's half-brother James, not Peter, who seemed to be presiding over the meeting that took place in Jerusalem (Acts 15:13).  Peter submitted to Paul's criticism in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-14) and later claimed in his first letter to be merely a "fellow-elder" with other men of his time and re-affirmed Jesus' teaching (Matthew 20:25-28) about elders/bishops not "lording it over" people in God's flock (1Peter 5:1-3).  The only case of "Apostolic Succession" in Scripture was prophesied beforehand and Peter recognized and declared that this applied to Judas (not himself) and presided over the replacement process, stating qualifications for Apostolic office that none of his alleged Roman "successors" down through the centuries can fulfill (Acts 1:15-26).  Peter was married (Matthew 8:14) and Paul suggests that all of the Apostles had a "right" to take a believing wife with them on their Apostolic travels (1Corinthians 9:5).  After making his comment to Peter (Matthew 16:17-19) that allegedly authorized Peter to hold authority over the Church, Jesus’ final Great Commission words indicate that He was departing still holding on to “all authority . .  in heaven and on earth” (Matthew 28:18).  Rome would have us believe that Jesus departed leaving all authority on earth to Peter and his successors, but Jesus did not even imply such a notion in His final words.

     Why has the Roman Catholic Church ignored, rejected, or maneuvered around all of this teaching - claiming that Peter's apostolic office continues to be held by a succession of men, that Peter held a position of singular "primacy" among the other Apostles, has authority over the church and God's people, and that clerical "celibacy" is required?  Once the Medieval Popes started claiming divine authority over the Church and world and killing dissidents, it is easy to see why the Reformers tended to see the Papacy as the fulfillment of 2Thessalonians 2:1-12 - the “man of lawlessness,” restrained by the Roman political emperors for several centuries, but who later took over the Pontifex Maximus role and even claimed divine authority within the naos of God (the Church), offering pseudo-miracles as credentials?  Could the Papacy be the “little horn” that would arise after the 4^th beast in Daniel 7:8,19-26?

     Apostolic Humility/Ministry Roles - The New Testament presents the "Church" as a collection of independent congregations, each overseen by a plurality of elders/shepherds/ overseers that are responsible directly to Christ.  We read about Apostles, prophets, evangelists, elders, deacons, teachers, but the Bible says nothing about Popes, Cardinals, Arch-bishops, monks and Nuns - where did they come from?  Although Jesus told the Apostles to not claim spiritual titles over others, such as “Rabbi, Father, Leader,” (Matthew 23:8-10), the Roman Catholic Priesthood insists on being called “Father.”  Jesus specifically and repeatedly taught His Apostles to be humble servants and to NOT attempt to "rule over" humanity in the earthly political sense and higher officials allow people to “kneel and kiss their rings,” certainly counter to what Jesus told the Apostles about their leadership roles (Matthew 20:25-28).  When He returned to Heaven, Jesus claimed to hold full authority both in heaven and upon earth (Matthew 28:18; Revelation 1:5).  Why has Roman Catholicism rejected this teaching and created a hierarchy that has established itself in Rome as a political entity (a palace, territory, ambassadors, etc.), with a "Pope" who claims to be the "Vicar of Christ" who rules the world as "Christ on earth," sending out armies to kill off "heretics" (the Inquisition) and conquer the Middle East (the Crusades)?  The Jesuits dabbled heavily in the politics of many European nations to the point that they were banished from some.

      The Priesthood - God's original desire for Israel was that they become a "kingdom of priests" (Exodus 19:6), but they built a golden calf and wanted to return to Egypt.  As a result, the Mosaic era priesthood was given to the Levitical family of Aaron.  Following the first coming of Jesus, He is designated the new "high priest" after the order of Melchizedek (Psalm 110:4; Hebrews 4-10) and the Church is the intended "priestly kingdom" offering spiritual sacrifices (Romans 12:1,2; Hebrews 13:15; 1Peter 2:4-12; Revelation 1:5,6; 5:9,10).

      Why did Roman Catholicism reject this and return to the clergy-laity system, wherein only specially ordained men are designated "priests"?

      Church Headquarters - The New Testament teaches that Jerusalem was the location of the first earthly church (Acts) and stresses that "heavenly Jerusalem" is the true headquarters of the Church (Hebrews 12:22-24), the "Jerusalem above is our mother" (Galatians 4:21-31).

      Why has Rome departed from this teaching and claimed that the "the church of Rome" is the headquarters and "Mother" of all Christians/Churches?

      Handling Dissent - Roman Catholicism instituted the 3-phased Inquisition (1215-1800) to eradicate heresy, witchcraft, and insincere Jewish converts in Spain with torture and death, if necessary.  The New Testament gives no authority to the Church to torture and kill anyone, rather Christians are to pray for and teach those who are in opposition, even enemies (Matthew 5:43-48; 2Timothy 2:24-26).  The most radical treatment authorized in the New Covenant Scriptures is "excommunication" (1Corinthians 5:2; 2Thessalonians 3:14-15).

      The Lord’s Supper - Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper as a memorial to be done “in remembrance” of Him (Matthew 26:26-28; 1Corinthians 11:23-33).  However, two 9^th century monks in the same monastery disagreed as to whether this was a memorial or a mystical “re-sacrifice of Christ and both wrote papers.  The mystical “re-sacrifice” notion, suggested by the Monk Paschasius Radbert (831 A.D.) caught on and eventually became the doctrine of Transubstantiation (the elements are said to literally become the body and blood of Jesus when elevated and the bell rings).  It was established as an “Article of Faith” by Pope Innocent III at the 4th Council of Lateran (1215 AD).  It was given “Dogma” status at the Council of Trent (1551 AD), when a curse was pronounced upon all who rejected or doubted the doctrine of Transubstantiation.  The doctrine of Transubstantiation was one of the major issues rejected by most of the ordained priests who became leading reformers (Zwingli, Luther, etc.).  Whereas, in the Mass, Christ is re-sacrificed weekly, the Bible teaches that Jesus does not “die repeatedly,” but died one time at the beginning of this final age of history (Hebrews 9:24-26).

      Baptism - The practice of “baptizing infants” appears to have emerged in the later 2^nd century and then spread in the 3^rd-5^th centuries as the necessity of baptism for salvation was coupled with the Greek notion of inherent evil in matter (original sin) and the “Church and State” program adopted the initiation model of Israel and Jewish practices - infant circumcision and Bar Mitzvah (infant baptism and confirmation).  Immersion of believers was practiced until 752 A.D., when Pope Stephen II approved the practice of sprinkling for death-bed cases in Northern climates/winter.  In 1311, a Roman Catholic Council at Ravenna approved sprinkling and pouring as valid for baptism in all cases and, since it is more convenient, it became widespread before the 16^th century Reformation and was retained by most of the Reformation groups.  Again, Roman Catholicism is responsible for the change from Biblical teaching to current common practice.  Did God ever approve of this change?

      Sainthood - Based in one Greek word, the New Testament refers to the nouns: sanctification (the state of being set aside for God's use - hagiosmos) and those people who are in this state, the "saints/holy ones" (hagioi).  The verb, to make something holy/sanctified, is hagiadzo.  The New Testament writers understood all Christians to be "saints"/the sanctified/holy ones/hagioi following conversion.^[3]  That’s why Paul was writing to the “saints” in the various churches.^[4]

      Why did Catholicism depart from New Testament teaching and restrict the term "saints" to only a select few that are "qualified" by allegedly working miracles, being dead for a long time, and then "officially granted" this title by Roman authorities?

      Concerning Mary - Catholic teaching on Mary developed gradually, with Mary being given the role of Co-regent (queen of heaven) and Co-mediatrix in heaven by the Medieval Catholic Church.  Liguori’s “Glories of Mary” asserts that Mary holds all power in heaven and on earth, is the source of salvation, and the one who makes peace between sinners and God.  I have seen a photograph of a large crucifix statue in Italy that had Jesus hanging on one side and Mary on the other, although the missionary who took it said that it may have been removed later on.

      When giving special honor to Mary was originally suggested, Jesus specifically dealt with the issue by denying that such should happen and, instead, focused attention on God's revealed Word (Luke 11:27-28).  The New Testament teaches that Jesus holds all authority in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18) and that there is one mediator between God and humans - Jesus (1Timothy 2:5-6).  Why did Roman Catholicism depart from this teaching and exalt Mary as "co-mediatrix" and "queen of heaven"?  Pius IX (1846-1878) decreed the Immaculate Conception and Deity of Mary due to pressure from the common people.  Should we believe Jesus/Scripture or gradually developing Roman Catholic doctrine?

      Purgatory - The Roman Catholic doctrine holds that not all sins are removed before death, thus souls “pay” for these sins with suffering for various amounts of time in purgatory before being released to heaven.  Their time in purgatory may be shortened by Masses and Prayers, which friends and relatives can pay the Church to perform.

      In response, since the terminology and concept of “purgatory” is foreign to the Bible, the real source appears to be pre-Roman Etruscan (the culture Romans conquered/replaced in Italy) beliefs that were adopted and later woven into Catholic theology.  Consider what Historian Will Durant wrote about Estruscan theology,

The belief in hell was the favorite feature of Etruscan theology. The dead spirit, as seen in the sepulchral representations, was conducted by genii to the tribunal of the Underworld, where in a Last Judgment it was given an opportunity to defend its conduct in life. If it failed, it was condemned to a variety of torments that left their mark on Virgil (reared on Mantua's Etruscan lore), on the early Christian conception of hell, and, through these and twenty centuries, on Tuscan Dante's Inferno.  From such damnation the good were spared, and the sufferings of the damned might be shortened by the prayers or sacrifices of their living friends. The saved soul passed from the Underworld to the society of the gods above, there to enjoy feasts, luxuries, and powers depicted hopefully on the tombs.  [Will Durant, Caesar and Christ, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1944; p. 8]

Perhaps the greatest error in this doctrine is the teaching that God's forgiveness through Christ is insufficient to completely handle all punishment due the sinner,

That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God, is clearly the teaching of Scripture . . . God does not always remit the whole punishment due to sin together with the guilt

This notion is probably the foundation for the Reformation emphasis on the sufficiency of the "finished work of Christ on the cross" and resistance to the Catholic notion of penance (paying for sins by assigned good deeds here) and offering prayers/indulgences for the dead.  In the teaching that most closely might help with this issue, the condition of the rich man in Hades does not seem to be reversible, nor did he request that word be sent to his brothers so that they might do things to shorten his time (Luke 16:19-31).

            Biblical teaching might suggest the need for continual sacrifices in terms of Old Testament people living under the Law of Moses, but the New Covenant was focused on God forgiving and forgetting the sins of those in the covenant (Jeremiah 31:31-34).  The Apostles taught that "all sins" were forgiven through Christ (Acts 10:43), that Christ's sacrificial death was a "propitiation" (a wrath-averting sacrifice - Hebrews 2:17; 1John 2:1-2), that Jesus by one offering took care of all of our sins and no repeated offerings are required as they were in the Levitical system (Hebrews 7:27), Jesus offered one "all-time" sacrifice for sins with nothing further required (Hebrews 10:12-18).  Also see: 1Peter 3:18.  John taught that our continued forgiveness required only that we walk in the light and confess our sins (1John 1:9).

            Rosary - The “Rosary” is a string of beads used by Catholics - as they move bead by bead, these "prayer counters" guide a person in how many "Hail Mary" and "Our Fathers" they say.  From the Catholic Encyclopedia (online)

"The Rosary", says the Roman Breviary, "is a certain form of prayer wherein we say fifteen decades or tens of Hail Marys with an Our Father between each ten, while at each of these fifteen decades we recall successively in pious meditation one of the mysteries of our Redemption."

Let us begin with certain facts which will not be contested. It is tolerably obvious that whenever any prayer has to be repeated a large number of times recourse is likely to be had to some mechanical apparatus less troublesome than counting upon the fingers. In almost all countries, then, we meet with something in the nature of prayer-counters or rosary beads.^[5]

Jesus’ comment on “repetitious prayer” seems to have been ignored by Catholicism also,

And when you are praying, do not use meaningless repetition, as the Gentiles do, for they suppose that they will be heard for their many words.  Therefore do not be like them; for your Father knows what you need, before you ask Him.  (Matthew 6:7-8)

Final Thoughts

     Since virtually all "Christian" groups assume that Jesus and His original Apostles were right, it would seem sensible to focus on what writings the Apostles and their close associates left as the best guide to figure out what Christianity is supposed to be and then go from there.  The alternative is to select some particular "national version" (Italian Catholicism, German or Scandinavian Lutheranism, Swiss/Dutch/Scottish Calvinism, etc.) and give your loyalty to it and whatever it now teaches - this will automatically put you at odds with others who do not endorse your particular "additions/alterations" to the original Apostolic Church.  All of us embrace some standard from which we make our decisions about the right path - but it will be either the original simple New Testament version from the Lord and His appointed spokesmen or some culturally-defined “version” (Bible plus traditional/cultural alterations) that you link up with.  If you find differences between Scripture and modern church doctrine/practice, then you must decide which is more authoritative and trustworthy.  Comments like John 12:48; Galatians 1:6-9; 1Corinthians 4:6; 2Timothy 3:14 - 4:4 led me to choose the New Testament writings as the best guide to Christian faith and practice.

     As many Catholics would admit, if you begin with the Bible, you would not arrive at anything resembling what is now known as the Roman Catholic Church!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Charles E. McCoy

5/15/2006