ROMAN
CATHOLICISM
By
Lorraine Boettner
SECTION ONE
CHAPTER
ONE Introduction
CHAPTER TWO The Church
CHAPTER THREE The Priesthood
CHAPTER FOUR Tradition
CHAPTER FIVE
Peter
1. Historical Background
2.
Roman Catholicism a Poor Defense Against Communism
3.
Romanism an Age-long Development
4.
Protestantism and First Century Christianity
5.
Contrast Between Protestant and Roman Catholic Countries
In our twentieth
century America few among us seem to realize what a priceless heritage we
possess in the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and
freedom of assembly that is an integral part of our everyday life. Nor are many
aware of the bitter and prolonged struggles our forefathers went through at the
time of the Reformation and later to secure these freedoms. Instead it is quite
the common thing to take these for granted and to assume that they are the
natural rights of all men. But truly those of us who call ourselves Protestants
are the inheritors of a great tradition. And in a country such as the United
States our Roman Catholic friends also share these freedoms, little realizing
what it means to live under a clerical dictatorship such as their church imposes
wherever it has the power.
Roman
Catholics often attempt to represent Protestantism as something comparatively
new, as having originated with Martin Luther and John Calvin in the 16th
century. We do indeed owe a great debt to those leaders and to the Reformation
movement that swept over Europe at that time. But the basic principles and the
common system of doctrine taught by those Reformers and by the evangelical
churches ever since go back to the New Testament and to the first century
Christian church. Protestantism as it emerged in the 16th century was
not the beginning of something new, but a return to Bible Christianity and to
the simplicity of the Apostolic church from which the Roman Church had long
since departed.
The
positive and formal principle of this system is that the Bible is the Word of
God and therefore the authoritative rule of faith and practice. Its negative
principle is that any element of doctrine or practice in the church which cannot
be traced back to the New Testament is no essential part of Christianity.
The
basic features of Protestant belief therefore are:
For
more than a thousand years before the Reformation the popes had controlled
Europe and had said that there was only one way to worship God. That period is
appropriately known as the “Dark Ages.” In the church and, to a considerable
extent, in the state, too, the priests held the power. They suppressed the laity
until practically all their rights were taken away. They constantly pried into
private affairs, interfering even between husband and wife and between parents
and children by means of the confessional. All marriage was in their hands. They
interfered in the administration of public affairs, in the proceedings of the
courts, and in the disposition of estates. The revenues of the state built new
churches and paid the salaries of the priests in much the same manner as in
present day Spain. Anyone who dared resist ran the risk of losing his job, his
property, and even his life. Life under such tyranny was intolerable. From that
condition the Reformation brought deliverance.
One
of the first and most important results of the Reformation was that the Bible
was given to the people in their own languages. Previously the Bible had been
kept from them, on the pretext that only the church speaking through the priest
could interpret it correctly. Luther translated the Bible into his native
German, and edition followed edition in rapid succession. Similar translations
were made in England, France, Holland, and other countries.
Protestants
of our day who have not been called upon to suffer or to make any sacrifices to
secure this rich heritage are inclined to hold these blessings lightly. But the
advances that Romanism is making today in this nation and in other parts of the
world should cause even the most careless to stop and think. It seems that as
Protestants we have forgotten how to protest
against those same religious and political abuses that were common before
the Reformation. We need to acquaint ourselves with and to teach the principles
of our faith if we are not to be overwhelmed by a religious despotism that, if
it gains the upper hand, will be as cruel and oppressive as ever it was in
Germany, Italy, France, or Spain.
Our
American freedoms are being threatened today by two totalitarian systems,
Communism and Roman Catholicism. And of the two in our country Romanism is
growing faster than is Communism and is the more dangerous since it covers its
real nature with a cloak of religion. This nation has been well alerted to the
dangers of Communism, and it is generally opposed by the radio, the press, and
the churches. But Romanism has the support of these to a considerable extent,
and even the Protestant churches in many places take a conciliatory and
cooperative attitude toward it. Most people have only a very hazy notion as to
what is involved in the Roman system. And yet the one consuming purpose of the
Vatican is to convert the entire world, not to Christianity, but to Roman
Catholicism. Its influence is being applied vigorously at every level of our
local, state, and federal government. It is particularly significant that in
this country the hierarchy has taken as its slogan, not, “Make America
Christian,” but, “Make America Catholic.” And in that slogan are the
strong overtones of a full scale attack upon our Protestant heritage and those
precious rights of freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, and freedom of
speech.
We
cannot adequately understand this problem unless we realize that the kind of
Roman Catholicism that we see in the United States is, for the most part, not
real Roman Catholicism at all, that is, not Roman Catholicism as it exists where
it is the dominant force in the life of a nation, but a modified and compromised
form that has adjusted itself to life with a Protestant majority. Here it is
comparatively reticent about asserting its claims to be the only true church,
the only church that has a right to conduct public religious services, its right
to suppress all other forms of religion, its superiority to all national and
state governments, its control over all marriage, its right to direct all
education, and the obligation of the state to support its churches and schools
with tax money. That this is no visionary list of charges, but a cold and
realistic appraisal, is shown by the fact that in Spain, which is governed under
the terms of a concordat with the Vatican, and which is often praised by Roman
Catholic spokesmen as the ideal Catholic state, the Roman Church is now
exercising most of these so‑called “rights” or privileges.
In
order to see clearly what Roman Catholicism really is, we must see it as it was
during the Middle Ages, or as it has continued to be in certain countries such
as Spain, Portugal, Italy, France, Southern Ireland, and Latin America, where it
has had political as well as ecclesiastical control. In those countries where it
has been dominant for centuries with little or no opposition from Protestantism,
we see the true fruits of the system in the lives of the people, with all of
their poverty, ignorance, superstition, and low moral standards. In each of
those countries a dominant pattern is discernible. Spain is a particularly good
example, for it is the most Roman Catholic country in Europe, yet it has the
lowest standard of living of any nation in Europe. The Latin American nations
have been predominantly Roman Catholic for four centuries, and today the
illiteracy rate ranges from 30 to 70 percent. The veteran radio political
analyst, Howard K. Smith, recently reported that “The average per capita
income in the United States is eight times that of any country in South
America” (March 3, 1960). The average per capita income in South America is
$280, one ninth that in the United States.
But
even in those countries we do not see the ultimate fruits of the system. For
over a period of years they have been influenced to some extent by Protestantism
and they have been receiving assistance from the Protestant nations,
particularly from the United States and England, so that their present
condition, economic, social, political, and religious, is not nearly as bad as
it would have been had they been left to themselves. Substantial aid has been
given since the close of the First World War. American foreign aid, economic and
military, granted to other nations since the Second World War through 1977,
amounted to $200 billion (Statistical Abstract of
the U.S., 1978). And
probably $50 billion more has been granted since that time, making a total of
approximately $250 billion. The Roman Catholic nations of Europe and Latin
America have profited greatly through this assistance.
American Catholicism, so different on the surface
from that found in Spain, Italy, and Latin America, is, nevertheless, all a part
of the same church, all run from Rome and by the same man who is the absolute
ruler over all of the branches and who has the authority to change policy in any
of those branches as he deems it safe or expedient. If he chose to give his
subjects in Spain or Colombia relatively more freedom and better schools, such
as are enjoyed by those in the United States, he could readily do so by
directing his priests and financial resources to that end. Undoubtedly Romanism
in the United States would be much the same as that found in other countries
were it not for the influence of evangelical Christianity as set forth by the
Protestant churches.
2
Roman
Catholicism a Poor Defense against Communism
We
have no hesitation in saying that most of the Roman Catholic nations, had they
been left to themselves, long ago would have fallen victims of Communism. In all
probability both Italy and France would have turned Communist at the close of
the Second World War had it not been for American aid and all of the political
influence that our government could lawfully exert toward those nations, and
even then the result was in doubt for some considerable time. The Vatican had
supported Mussolini’s Fascist and military policies, including the conquest of
Ethiopia (which conquest had been condemned by the League of Nations and by
practically all of the civilized world), his open and extensive support of
Franco in Spain with troops and arms, and his invasion of Albania and Greece.
After Italy entered the war on the side of Nazi Germany the Roman Church
supported the Italian war effort, which meant, of course, that our work of
carrying the war to a successful conclusion was made just that much harder.
During the war Pope Pius XII gave his blessing to large numbers of Italian and
German troops who appeared before him in uniform. With the defeat of Germany and
Italy those policies caused strong popular resentment. It is probable that, in
the turmoil that followed the ignominious fall of Mussolini, the Roman Catholic
Church would have been overthrown in much the same way that the Orthodox
Catholic Church in Russia was overthrown when the Czarist regime fell at the end
of the First World War, had not American military forces then in Italy preserved
order. In Russia a dead, formalistic church had lost the respect of the people
and had become identified with the despotic rule of the Czar since he was the
head of both the state and the church. When the people rose up in anger and
threw out the political government, they threw out the church with it and turned
to the other extreme, atheism. That has often been the case where the people
have known only one church. When that became corrupt they had no alternative but
to turn against religion altogether.
In
the critical Italian election held after the war, in April, 1948, the Communists
made a strong effort to gain control of the government, but a coalition of other
parties managed to gain the majority. Today the biggest Communist party outside
of Russia and Red China is found in Roman Catholic Italy, seat of the papacy,
precisely where, if Roman Catholicism is the effective defense against Communism
that it claims to be, we should find the least Communism. Approximately one
third of the voters in Italy today are Communist, as are approximately one
fourth of those in France.
Roman
Catholicism opposes Communism, of course, as one totalitarian system opposes
another. And for propaganda purposes she even attempts to present herself as the
chief opponent of, and the chief bulwark against, Communism. But the fact is
that during the past fifteen years Communism has made its greatest gains in
Roman Catholic nations, both in Europe and in Latin America, while the
Protestant nations, the United States, Britain, Canada, Holland, Norway, Sweden,
and Denmark, have been its most effective opponents. It is in reality only a
short step from a totalitarian church to a totalitarian state, since the people
have been trained to accept authority as it is imposed upon them rather than to
think for themselves and to manage their own affairs.
In
his very informative book, American Freedom and Catholic Power, Paul Blanshard, American sociologist and journalist who has
written extensively on church-state relations, says:
“In
several great crises in Europe the Vatican has, through passive and active
collaboration with fascism, thrown the balance of power against democracy. ...
It has aligned itself with the most reactionary forces in Europe and Latin
America. Surely it is not by accident that the two most fascist nations in the
world today—Spain and Portugal—are Catholic nations whose dictators have
been blessed by the pope and are conspicuously loyal to him! The Vatican’s
affinity with fascism is neither accidental nor incidental. Catholicism
conditions its people to accept censorship, thought control, and ultimately
dictatorship” (Rev. ed., 1958, p. 291; Beacon
Press, Boston).
And
Count Coudenhove‑Kalergi, a former Roman Catholic, says:
“Catholicism
is the fascist form of Christianity of which Calvinism represents its democratic
wing. The Catholic hierarchy rests fully and securely on the leadership
principle with the infallible pope in supreme command for a lifetime. ... Like
the Fascist party, its priesthood becomes a medium for an undemocratic minority
rule by a hierarchy. ... Catholic nations follow fascist doctrines more
willingly than Protestant nations, which are the main strongholds of democracy.
Democracy lays its stress on personal conscience; fascism on authority and
obedience” (Crusade for
Pan‑Europe, p. 173 ).
If
the United States should become Roman Catholic, the result undoubtedly would be
the rapid conquest of this country and the rest of the world by Russian
Communism. In view of the weak defense that the Roman Catholic countries are
able to put up intellectually, morally, or militarily, we are safe in saying
that one of the surest ways to turn this nation Communist would be to turn it
first to Roman Catholicism. We have acted as a strong restraint in keeping Roman
Catholic nations from going Communist. But who would restrain this nation? There
would be no other to serve that purpose, and our descent would be sure and
swift.
The
fact is that much of the popular support that the puppet governments behind the
Iron Curtain have received has been given because they have forbidden the Roman
Catholic Church to take any part in political affairs or to control the schools.
In several countries, both in Europe and in Latin America, the only choice the
people have is either Romanism or Communism. Protestantism, as an alternative
choice, is practically non‑existent. Those people have been taught hatred
for Protestantism from childhood, and few of them would try it. Many vote
Communist, not because they believe in the program, but because it is the only
effective instrument they have to oppose Roman Catholicism.
On the other hand, to see what the effect of Protestantism is upon a people we turn to the United States, where with complete separation of church and state the Reformation has made its greatest advance, and to Britain and the other nations where Protestantism has long been the dominant religion. These we find are unquestionably the most enlightened and advanced nations of the world; and in the main it is from these nations, where the people are accustomed to think and act for themselves and to govern themselves in both church and state, that the opposition to Communism has come.
One
of the first things that we want to point out in this study is that the Roman
Catholic Church has not always been what it is today. Rather, it has reached its
present state as the result of along, slow process of development as through the
centuries one new doctrine, or ritual, or custom after another has been added.
Even a superficial reading of the following list will make clear that most of
the distinctive features of the system were unknown to Apostolic Christianity,
and that one can hardly recognize in present day Romanism the original Christian
doctrines. Not all dates can be given with exactness since some doctrines and
rituals were debated or practiced over a period of time before their formal
acceptance.
1.
Prayers
for the dead: began
about a.d. 300.
2.
Making the sign
of the cross: a.d.
300.
3.
Wax
candles: about
a.d. 320.
4.
Veneration
of angels and dead saints,
and use of images:
a.d.
375.
5.
The
Mass, as a daily
celebration: a.d.
394.
6.
Beginning
of the exaltation of Mary,
the term “Mother of God” first applied
to her by the Council of Ephesus: a.d.
431.
7.
Priests began to dress differently from laymen:
a.d. 500.
8.
Extreme
Unction: a.d. 526.
9.
The doctrine of Purgatory, established by Gregory I:
a.d. 593.
10.
Latin
language, used
in prayer and worship, imposed by Gregory I:
a.d. 600.
11.
Prayers
directed to Mary, dead saints, and angels: about
a.d. 600.
12.
Title
of pope, or
universal bishop, given to Boniface III by emperor Phocas:
a.d. 607.
13.
Kissing
the pope’s foot, began with Pope Constantine: a.d. 709.
14.
Temporal
power of the popes, conferred by Pepin, king of the
Franks: a.d. 750.
15.
Worship
of the cross, images, and relics: authorized
in a.d. 786.
16.
Holy
water, mixed
with a pinch of salt and blessed by a priest:
a.d. 850.
17.
Worship
of St. Joseph:
a.d. 890.
18.
College
of Cardinals established:
a.d. 927.
19.
Baptism
of bells, instituted
by pope John XIII: a.d. 965.
20.
Canonization
of dead saints, first by Pope John XV:
a.d. 995.
21.
Fasting
on Fridays and during Lent: a.d. 998.
22.
The
Mass, developed
gradually as a sacrifice, attendance made obligatory in the 11th
century.
23.
Celibacy
of the priesthood, decreed by pope
Gregory VII (Hildebrand): a.d.
1079.
24.
The
Rosary, mechanical
praying with beads, invented by Peter the Hermit:
a.d. 1090.
25.
The
Inquisition, instituted
by the Council of Verona: a.d.
1184.
26.
Sale
of Indulgences:
a.d. 1190.
27.
Transubstantiation,
proclaimed by Pope Innocent III: a.d. 1215.
28.
Auricular
Confession of sins to a priest instead
of to God, instituted by Pope Innocent III, in Lateran Council:
a.d. 1215.
29.
Adoration
of the wafer (Host), decreed by Pope
Honorius III: a.d.
1220.
30.
Bible
forbidden to laymen, placed on the Index of Forbidden
Books by the Council of Toulouse: a.d. 1229.
31.
The
Scapular, invented
by Simon Stock, an English monk: a.d.
1251.
32.
Cup
forbidden to the people at communion
by Council of Constance: a.d.
1414.
33.
Purgatory
proclaimed as a dogma by the Council
of Florence: a.d.
1439.
34.
The doctrine of Seven Sacraments affirmed:
a.d. 1439.
35.
The Ave Maria (part of the last half was completed 50 years later and approved by Pope
Sixtus V at the end of the 16th century): a.d.
1508.
36.
Jesuit
order founded by Loyola: a.d. 1534.
37.
Tradition
declared of equal authority with the
Bible by the Council of Trent: a.d.
1545.
38.
Apocryphal
books added to the Bible by the
Council of Trent: a.d.
1546.
39.
Creed
of pope Pius IV imposed as the
official creed: a.d.
1560.
40.
Immaculate
Conception of the Virgin Mary,
proclaimed by Pope Pius IX: a.d.
1854.
41.
Syllabus
of Errors, proclaimed
by Pope Pius IX and ratified by the Vatican Council; condemned freedom of
religion, conscience, speech, press, and scientific discoveries which are
disapproved by the Roman Church; asserted the pope’s temporal authority over
all civil rulers: a.d. 1864.
42.
Infallibility
of the pope in matters of faith and
morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council:
a.d. 1870.
43.
Public
Schools condemned by Pope Pius XI:
a.d. 1930.
44.
Assumption
of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension
into heaven shortly after her death), proclaimed by Pope Pius XII:
a.d. 1950.
45.
Mary proclaimed Mother of the
Church by
Pope Paul VI: a.d. 1965.
Add
to these many others: monks, nuns, monasteries, convents, forty days Lent, holy
week, Palm Sunday, Ash Wednesday, All Saints day, Candlemas day, fish day,
meat days, incense, holy oil, holy palms, Christopher medals, charms, novenas,
and still others.
There you have it—the melancholy evidence of
Rome’s steadily increasing departure from the simplicity of the Gospel, a
departure so radical and far‑reaching at the present time that it has
produced a drastically anti‑evangelical church. It is clear beyond
possibility of doubt that the Roman Catholic religion as now practiced is the
outgrowth of centuries of error. Human inventions have been substituted for
Bible truth and practice. Intolerance and arrogance have replaced the love and
kindness and tolerance that were the distinguishing qualities of the first
century Christians, so that now in Roman Catholic countries Protestants and
others who are sincere believers in Christ but who do not acknowledge the
authority of the pope are subject to all kinds of restrictions and in some cases
even forbidden to practice their religion. The distinctive attitude of the
present day Roman Church was fixed largely by the Council of Trent
(1545‑1563), with its more than 100 anathemas or curses pronounced against
all who then or in the future would dare to differ with its decisions.
Think
what all of this means! Each of the above doctrines or practices can be
pin‑pointed to the exact or approximate date at which it became a part of
the system. And no single one of them became a part of the system until
centuries after the time of Christ! Most of these doctrines and practices are
binding on all Roman Catholics, for they have been proclaimed by a supposedly
infallible pope or church council. To deny any doctrine or practice so
proclaimed involves one in mortal sin.
What
will be next? Indications are that it will be another proclamation concerning
Mary. Two new doctrines are under discussion: Mary as Mediatrix, and Mary as
Co‑redemptrix. Important Roman Catholic authorities have already indicated
that these will be the next doctrines officially proclaimed. Mary is being
presented in current Roman teaching as a Mediator along with Christ. She is said
to be the “Mediatrix of all graces,” and the people are being told that the
way to approach Christ is through His mother. “To Christ through Mary,” is
the slogan. Her images outnumber those of Christ, and more prayer is offered to
her than to Christ.
It
is also being said that Mary’s sufferings, particularly those at the cross,
were redemptive in the same sense that Christ’s sufferings were redemptive. It
would seem that these two doctrines, if adopted, would in effect place Mary as a
fourth member of the Godhead, along with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And
presumably these doctrines, if adopted, will be officially announced by the
pope, for he was proclaimed infallible in this regard in 1870 and therefore no
longer needs the authority of an ecumenical council.
And
still the Roman Church boasts that she never changes or teaches new doctrines! Semper
idem—“Always the same”—is her motto! The fact that not one of the
doctrines in the above list has any support in the Bible disproves conclusively
the claim of the priests that their religion is the same as that taught by
Christ and that the popes have been the faithful custodians of that truth.
The
fact is that many of the above listed rites and ceremonies were taken directly
from paganism or from Old Testament Judaism. Some scholars say that as much as
75 percent of the Roman ritual is of pagan origin. John Henry Newman, later
cardinal, in his book, The Development of the Christian Religion, admits
that “Temples, incense, oil lamps, votive offerings, holy water, holy days and
seasons of devotion, processions, blessings of fields, sacerdotal vestments, the
tonsure (of priests, monks, and nuns), images, etc., are all of pagan origin”
(p. 359).
While the Roman
Church has been so free to hurl the name “heretic” at all who differ with
her, the above list shows that the real heretics are the Roman Catholics
themselves, and that the true orthodox are the evangelical Christians. Says the
Scripture:
“But
in vain do they worship me, teaching as their doctrines the precepts of men. ...
Making void the word of God by your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many
such like things ye do” (Mark 7:7,13).
“To
the law and to the testimony! if they speak not according to this word, surely
there is no morning for them” (Isaiah 8:20).
Surely
the Apostle Paul knew the human tendency to add to the Word of God when he gave
this warning to the early church:
“I know that after my departing grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them” (Acts 20:29-30). And even more strongly: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach unto you any gospel other than that which we preached unto you, let him be anathema” (Galatians 1:8).
Ever
since New Testament times there have been people who accepted the basic
principles now set forth in Protestantism. That is, they took the Bible as their
authoritative standard of belief and practice. They were not called Protestants.
Neither were they called Roman Catholics. They were simply called Christians.
During the first three centuries they continued to base their faith solely on
the Bible. They often faced persecution, sometimes from the Jews, sometimes from
the pagans of the Roman empire. But early in the fourth century the emperor
Constantine, who was the ruler in the West, began to favor Christianity, and
then in the year 324, after he had become ruler of all of the empire, made
Christianity the official religion. The result was that thousands of people who
still were pagans pressed into the church in order to gain the special
advantages and favors that went with such membership. They came in far greater
numbers than could be instructed or assimilated. Having been used to the more
elaborate pagan rituals, they were not satisfied with the simple Christian
worship but began to introduce their heathen beliefs and practices. Gradually,
through the neglect of the Bible and the ignorance of the people, more and more
heathen ideas were introduced until the church became more heathen than
Christian. Many of the heathen temples were taken over by the church and
re‑dedicated as Christian churches.
Thus
in time there was found in the church a sacrificing and gorgeously appareled
priesthood, an elaborate ritual, images, holy water, incense, monks and nuns,
the doctrine of purgatory, and in general a belief that salvation was to be
achieved by works rather than by grace. The church in Rome, and in general the
churches throughout the empire, ceased to be the apostolic Christian church, and
became for the most part a religious monstrosity.
There
remained, however, some groups, small in numbers, usually in isolated places,
and later primarily in the mountains of northern Italy, who maintained the
Christian faith in reasonable purity. There were also individuals throughout the
church in all ages, usually more or less independent of the church at large, who
continued to hold quite correct ideas concerning the Christian faith. But the
half paganized condition continued through the Middle Ages and on into the 16th
century when the religious revival in the West, known as the Reformation, shook
the church to its foundations. At that time some scholars bean to study Bible
manuscripts that had been brought to light by the forced flight of eastern monks
from their monasteries as the Mohammedan invasions extended into Europe, and
these scholars saw how far the church had departed from its original Scriptures.
First
there came the Renaissance, which was primarily a revival of learning, followed
shortly by the Reformation. Some of the scholars in the church were called
“Reformers.” They called the people back to the Bible, and there they saw
how wrong and contrary to Scripture was the use of images, holy water, priests
saying mass, and church services in Latin which the people could not understand.
The Reformers strongly attacked the ignorance and superstition that had become
such a large part of the church program, and gave the people a service in their
own language with preaching based on the Word of God. Protestantism, therefore,
was not a new religion, but a return to the faith of the early church. It was
Christianity cleaned up, with all the rubbish that had collected during the
Middle Ages thrown out.
The
Reformation, under Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, and Knox, was literally a
“back‑to‑the‑Bible” movement, a return to apostolic
Christianity. Evangelical Christianity has established itself as the historic
faith of the first century, which came down through the ante-Nicene Fathers
and Augustine, which was largely obscured during the Middle Ages, but which
burst forth again in all its glory in the Reformation, and which has continued
to grow and increase down to our own time.
The
very name “Protestant,” first applied to those Reformers who protested
against the decrees issued by the Diet of Spires, implies in its broader sense
that the churches led by the Reformers “protested” against the false
doctrines and practices that were contrary to the teachings of the New
Testament. They demanded a return to the purity and simplicity of New Testament
Christianity. Protestantism did not begin with Luther and Calvin. It began with
the Gospel, with the life and death and resurrection of Christ. It teaches what
the New Testament teaches, nothing more and nothing less. It was not founded on
the writings of Luther, or Calvin, or any of the later writers, although those
writings proved helpful in the work of the church. Evangelical Protestantism
cannot change greatly, for it is founded on an unchanging Book, completed in the
first century and declared in the creeds of all evangelical churches to be the
Word of God. The names of Protestant churches are not very old, and the
denominations differ in regard to some doctrines; but the churches are in quite
close agreement concerning the essentials of the faith, each attempting to hold
in its purity the teachings of Christ and the apostles. The disagreement and
conflict which Rome attempts to picture as existing between Protestant
denominations is for the most part exaggeration, and is due largely to Rome’s
failure to understand what Protestantism really is.
How,
then, do we know whether or not any particular system sets forth true
Christianity? By comparing it with a recognized standard, especially with the
Bible which is the ultimate authority. Judged by that standard, evangelical
Protestantism is the same system of truth that was set forth in the New
Testament and practiced by the first century Christians. All accretions, such as
purgatory, the authority of tradition, the priesthood, the papacy, the worship
of the Virgin Mary and the saints, the veneration of relics, auricular
confession (“auricular”—pertaining to the ear—auricular confession,
therefore, means confession in the ear of a priest), penance, etc., are totally
without Scriptural basis and should be branded as false.
It
is a fact beyond challenge that the Protestant countries of Europe and the
Americas have been comparatively strong, progressive, enlightened, and free,
while the Roman Catholic countries have remained relatively stationary or have
stagnated and have had to be aided economically and politically by the
Protestant nations. The Middle Ages were dark because Romanism was dominant and
unchallenged. The light that we enjoy, which was first manifested in Europe and
then in America, we owe to the Protestant Reformation. How appropriate the
inscription on the Reformation monument in Geneva—Post tenebris
lux, “After the darkness,
light”!
The
lesson of history is that Romanism means the loss of religious liberty and the
arrest of national progress. If after living in the United States one who was
not aware of the contrast between Protestant and Roman Catholic cultures were to
visit some Roman Catholic countries in Europe or Latin America, not merely to
see places that have been fixed up to attract tourists but to live for some time
among the common people, it would make him sick at heart to see the ignorance,
poverty, superstition, illiteracy, suppression of religious freedom, and
legalized prostitution which particularly in Latin America is found in
practically every town of any size, a fairly consistent pattern in all of those
areas—characteristics of heathenism, characteristics of Romanism.
In
Latin America, where the Roman Church has been dominant for four centuries with
practically no competition from Protestantism, it has had ample opportunity to
bring forth the true fruits of the system. And there, as a church, it has failed
miserably. About 90 percent of the people have been baptized in the Roman
Catholic Church, but probably not more than 10, or at most 15, percent are
practicing Roman Catholics. The present writer is in receipt of a letter from a
missionary in Bolivia who writes: “The Roman Catholic Church in Bolivia is not
a Christian church at all but an unholy device for keeping the people in
ignorance and poverty.” He added that Romanism the world over is one unified
system, all under the control of the pope in Rome, and that it probably would be
as bad in the United States if it were not for the restraining influence of the
evangelical churches. Strong words those, but he was writing of a situation
concerning which we know but little in this country.
Governments
in Roman Catholic countries have been extremely unsteady. Repeatedly the people
shoot up their governments or overthrow them. Practically all of those countries
have been ruled by dictators at various times, and sometimes for long periods of
time. Since the Second World War France has had repeated governmental crises,
until a more stable situation was reached making General de Gaulle president and
giving him dictatorial powers. Italy has had 32 governmental crises in 25 years,
usually, as in France, characterized by resignation of the government, followed
by a period of uncertainty and paralysis until a new election was held or a new
alignment of parties was worked out. Spain, which is often pointed to as the
model Catholic state, is governed under a concordat with the Vatican, has only
one political party, the clerical-fascist party of General Franco, and has been
under the dictatorship of Franco since 1938. Portugal, too, is a
clerical‑fascist state, under dictator Antonio Salazar. In that country
the fall of the monarchy in 1910 was followed by a period of economic and
political chaos, with 40 governmental changes in 18 years, until Salazar became
minister of finance in 1928 and prime minister with dictatorial powers in 1932,
which position he has held ever since.1 In the Latin American nations
the overthrow of national governments, followed by periods of dictatorship, has
occurred repeatedly during the past 15 years—those in Argentina, Brazil,
Columbia, Venezuela, Peru, Cuba, Chile, and Nicaragua having been the most
recent.
1 Salazar’s dictatorship ended in 1968, and Franco’s ended in 1975.
It
cannot be passed off as mere chance that governments in Protestant countries,
such as the United States, Britain, Canada, Holland, and the Scandinavian
countries, have been so stable over long periods of time while those in the
Roman Catholic countries have been so unstable. The result follows in part at
least because of the contrasting doctrines of the relation that should exist
between church and state. Protestantism holds that the church and the state are
each of divine origin, that each is supreme in its own sphere and independent of
the other. Romanism holds that power comes to the state through the church, that
the church and state should be united with the church holding the superior
position, that the pope as God’s representative on earth is above all temporal
rulers, above all kings, presidents, and governors, that it is the duty of the
state to maintain a political atmosphere favorable to the Roman Catholic Church,
supporting it with public money while placing restrictions on all other
churches, and that the state should do the bidding of the church in punishing
heretics. Such doctrines undermine governments by weakening the confidence of
the people in them, while the Protestant doctrines strengthen and support them.
Throughout
history the Roman Church has sought to gain power from the state, but has never
willingly relinquished power to the state. It has always resented paying taxes
to the state, even on purely commercial properties that are owned and operated
by it, and it has resented any laws requiring its priests to pay income taxes.
The continual meddling of the Roman Church in politics, even to the extent of
sponsoring Roman Catholic political parties where it is strong enough to do so
(usually known as the “Christian Democratic” party, or a similar name, as in
Italy, France, Germany, Holland, Belgium, etc.), has caused much resentment.
That, no doubt, is also its plan for the United States if and when it becomes
strong enough. Usually a political party is not instituted unless it can control
at least one fourth of the total vote. How can any unprejudiced person face
these facts and still not see the contrast between the two systems?
We
behold a strange phenomenon in the world today. While people in the
predominantly Roman Catholic countries are struggling to throw off the yoke of
the Roman Church, Protestant countries are welcoming it with open arms and
allowing it to dictate policies of state, education, medicine, social life,
entertainment, press, and radio. And in no Protestant country is this tendency
more clearly seen than in the United States. For 32 years, 1928‑1960, one
of our great political parties had an unbroken line of national party chairmen
who were members of that church, and in 1960 it succeeded in electing a Roman
Catholic president of the United States. Although the Constitution makes it
illegal to favor one church above another, repeatedly in recent years bills have
been passed by Congress and signed by nominally Protestant presidents granting
very substantial favors to the Roman Catholic Church. More than $24,000,000 in
public money has been given to the Roman Catholic Church in the Philippines
since the close of the Second World War, allegedly for war damages, while hardly
one tenth that amount has been given to Protestant, Jewish, and other church
groups in that country. In June, 1956, Congress passed, and President Eisenhower
signed, a bill giving the Vatican nearly one million dollars ($964,199) for the
refurnishing of the pope’s summer home at Castel Gandolfo, just outside the
city of Rome, Italy—allegedly as war damages inflicted by American air raids,
although the State Department has held that this country has no legal obligation
for such damages. In election years, when no one wants to vote against the Roman
Catholic Church, Congress is particularly vulnerable to such pressures. But
nothing was appropriated to restore Protestant churches in Italy or in the other
war-ravaged countries! Those had no lobby in Washington to represent their
cause.
About
80 percent of the money provided by the government under the Hill‑Burton
bill for the building and operation of sectarian hospitals in the United States
($112,000,000 during the first ten years of its operation) went to Roman
Catholic institutions as that church eagerly took such money, while most
Protestant churches, desirous of maintaining the principle of separation of
church and state, were reluctant to accept it. In various places, particularly
in the bigger cities governed by Roman Catholic officials, public properties,
such as schools, hospitals, building sites, etc., have been turned over to the
Roman Catholic Church at give‑away prices. Similar things happen in
England, where, for instance, parochial schools receive 95 percent of their
total costs from the public treasury—but even so, the hierarchy is not
satisfied and is demanding complete financial equality with the public schools,
which, of course, is fair warning of what the Roman Church would like to achieve
in this country.
The hold that
Roman Catholicism is able to maintain over large numbers of people, not only in
Europe and Latin America but also in the United States, is due in part to its
appeal to unregenerate human nature. The Roman concept of sin is quite different
from that of Protestantism. Rome does not demand reform in her people. As long
as they acknowledge the church and meet the external requirements they are
allowed to do about as they please. In our country witness the many corrupt
politicians and gangsters in our cities in recent years who have been members of
that church and who have remained in good standing while continuing their evil
course over long periods of time. A case in point is that of Tom Pendergast, in
Kansas City, who with a large number of his accomplices finally was sent to the
penitentiary. When he died the Roman Catholic priest who conducted his funeral
praised him as a friend and commended his loyalty to his church, because, it was
said, he had not missed mass in 30 years. It can be assumed that Roman
Catholicism will remain popular as long as the majority of men remain
unregenerate.
But
the real cause of Roman Catholic growth and success is not to be found so much
in its aggressive policy in infiltrating governments, schools, press, radio,
etc., nor in its lax moral code. It is to be found rather in the
indifference of Protestants and their lack of devotion to their own evangelical
message. Modernistic and
liberal theology has so enervated many of the churches that they have little
zeal left to propagate their faith. Let Protestantism return to its evangelical
message and to the type of missionary zeal that governed the early Christians,
and let Protestants challenge Rome to full and open debate regarding the
distinctive doctrines that separate the two systems, and it will be seen that
the one thing Rome does not want is public discussion. Rome prefers to assert
her alleged “rights” and to have them accepted without too much question.
But Protestantism has the truth, and can win this battle any time that it is
willing to force the issue.
In
this regard J. Marcellus Kik, former associate editor of Christianity
Today, has written:
“That
there is still a remnant of paganism and papalism in the world is chiefly the
fault of the church. The Word of God is just as powerful in our generation as it
was during the early history of the church. The power of the Gospel is just as
strong in this century as in the days of the Reformation. These enemies could be
completely vanquished if the Christians of this day and age were as vigorous, as
bold, as earnest, as prayerful, and as faithful as Christians were in the first
several centuries and in the time of the Reformation” (Revelation
Twenty, p. 74).
Protestants do not desire controversy merely for
the sake of controversy, and often shrink from engaging in it. But in this time
of rising tensions certain issues must be faced. Rome continues to press her
propaganda drive. Where she is in the majority she takes special privileges for
herself and places restrictions on, or prohibits, other churches. Where she is
in the minority she asks for special favors, favors which by no stretch of the
imagination are ever given to Protestants in Roman Catholic countries, and seeks
quietly to infiltrate the government, schools, press, radio, hospitals, etc.
When Protestants are in the majority they tend to ignore those things. But when
some major issue arises, such as the nomination of an American ambassador to the
Vatican, or the nomination of a Roman Catholic for President of the United
States, Protestant opposition does become vocal. A few years ago when President
Truman sent the name of General Mark Clark to the Senate for confirmation as
American ambassador to the Vatican, there was vigorous protest and a full scale
debate was fast arising when General Clark requested that his name be withdrawn.
All that the hierarchy could do was to run for cover and cry “bigot” and
“persecutor” at anyone who opposed such a tie‑up with the Vatican.
They definitely did not want a public debate. But the result of such events is
to bring out into the open the issues which normally are more or less kept under
cover, and to afford opportunity for discussion of the issues on their merits.
The
kind of society that Roman Catholicism has produced in other countries where it
has been dominant should serve as a fair warning as to what we can expect if it
becomes dominant here. What clearer warning do we need? Let us take a good look
at conditions in those countries and then ask ourselves if a Roman Catholic
America is the kind of heritage we desire for ourselves and the kind we want to
pass on to later generations. Through the indifference of Protestants and the
aggressiveness of Romanists we are in danger of losing the very things that have
made this nation great.
Scripture
quotations throughout this book for the most part are from the American Standard
Version of 1901 rather than the King James Version since the former is
generally conceded to be more accurate. Quotations from the Roman Catholic
Confraternity Version are designated as such.
1. Definition
2. “Catholic”
3. What is a
“Sect”?
4. Church Government
5. The Church in
Politics
6. A Church Under
Foreign Control
7. The Unity and
Diversity of Protestantism
The Bible teaches that Christ founded His church,
the Christian church, and that He is both the foundation on which it rests, and
the head of the church which is His body: “For other foundation can no man lay
than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11);
“...being built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ
himself being the chief corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20); “And he put all
things in subjection under his feet, and gave him to be head over all things to
the church, which is his body” (Ephesians 1:22-23); “...Christ also is the
head of the church” (Ephesians 5:23).
The
church is composed of all who are true Christians, those who have been “born
again,” or “born anew” (John 3:3), from all nations and denominations.
Local “churches of Christ” (Romans 16:16) are congregations of Christians
who gather together for worship and for missionary activity. And, while they are
many, they are all members of the one church of Christ: “For even as we have
many members in one body... so we, being many, are one body in Christ” (Romans
12:4-5). This is the true church.
A
truly broad and charitable definition of the church is given for example, in the
Westminster Confession of Faith, which says: “The visible church, which is
also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation, as
before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world, that profess
the true religion, together with their children; and is the kingdom of the Lord
Jesus Christ, the house and family of
God, out of which there is no
ordinary possibility of salvation” (XXV:2).
And
the Larger Catechism, in answer to the question, “What is the visible
church?” (Q. 62), says: “The
visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the
world do profess the true religion, and of their children.”
The
marks of a true church are:
John
Calvin insisted repeatedly on “the ministry of the Word and sacraments” as
the distinguishing marks of a true church. To these are generally added the
exercise of proper discipline, although minor errors and irregularities of
conduct do not in themselves give sufficient cause to withhold acknowledgment of
a true church. Dr. Louis Berkhof says concerning the faithful exercise of
discipline: “This is quite essential for maintaining the purity of doctrine
and for guarding the holiness of the sacraments. Churches that are lax in
discipline are bound to discover sooner or later within their circle an
eclipse of the light of the truth and an abuse of that which is holy” (Systematic
Theology, p. 578).
In
the Bible the word “church” never means a denomination. The Bible has
nothing to say about denominations. Whether a local church chooses to remain
strictly independent, or to enter into a working agreement with one or more
other local churches, and if so on what terms, is not discussed in Scripture,
but is left entirely to the choice of the church itself. And we find that in
actual practice churches range all the way from those that remain entirely
unrelated to any other, to the other extreme of those that subject themselves to
some hierarchy of denominational overlords who own the property and send the
minister. Surely the local church should own the building and grounds that it
has developed and paid for. Such ownership serves as a shield against undue
denominational pressure being brought to bear upon it. And, as it has the right
to decide whether or not it will join a denomination, so it should have the
right to withdraw from the denomination if it so chooses.
Usually
the word “church,” as used in the New Testament, means a local congregation
of Christians, such as “the church of God at Corinth,” “the church in
Jerusalem,” “the churches of Galatia,” “the church in thy house.” At
other times it may refer to the church at large, as when we are told that
“Christ loved the church, and gave himself up for it” (Ephesians 5:25). Or
again it may refer to the whole body of Christ in all ages, as when we read of
“the general assembly and church of the firstborn who are enrolled in
heaven” (Hebrews 12:23). When our Lord prayed for unity, “that they may all
be one” (John 17:21), it was primarily a spiritual unity, a oneness of heart
and faith, of love and obedience, of true believers, and only secondarily a
unity of ecclesiastical organization, that He had in mind, as is made clear by
the fact that He illustrated that unity by the relationship which exists between
Himself and the Father—“even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee.”
Unity of faith must be achieved before there can be unity of organization. The
ideal, of course, would be for the church to be one in both faith and
organization. But it clearly is not yet ready for that. Much work remains to be
done in teaching God’s Word before that can be accomplished. As Christians
become more closely united in doctrine they work together more harmoniously and
want to be united more closely in organization. But unity of doctrine must
always remain primary, for that relates to the very purpose for which the church
was founded. The alleged tragedy of disunity of organization is more than offset
by the real tragedy of disunity of doctrine that results when conservative and
modernistic churches are combined in one organization.
It
is just here that the Romanists, who claim to be the only true church, err in
attempting to bring all churches, even to force all churches, into one external
and mechanical organization. The oneness for which Christ prayed was not
external and visible, but spiritual and invisible. There can be and actually is
real spiritual unity among Christians apart from organizational unity. The
church is not a mechanism, but a living organism, whose head is Christ; and any
unity that is mechanical and forced is bound to hinder the very thing that it is
designed to promote. When we hear the pope and occasionally other church leaders
talk about uniting all churches into one super organization, the words they
employ and their method of approach make it clear that what they have in mind is
not a spiritual unity of believers but an ecclesiastical and mechanical unity of
believers and unbelievers, designed primarily for what they think would be
greater efficiency of operation.
And,
after all, perhaps the diversity of churches, with a healthy spirit of rivalry
within proper limits, is one of God’s ways of keeping the stream of
Christianity from becoming stagnant. History is quite clear in showing that
where there has been enforced uniformity the church has stagnated, whether in
Italy, Spain, France, or Latin America. The confinement of religious life to a
dead level of uniformity does not solve our problems.
Something
should be said concerning the meaning of the term “catholic,” which the
Roman Church tries to appropriate exclusively to itself. Dr. J. G. Vos, editor
of Blue Banner Faith and Life,
gives this definition: “The
Catholic Church: The universal church of God, as distinguished from a
particular branch, congregation or denomination of that church.” “The Church
of Rome,” he continues, “has wrongly appropriated to itself the term
‘Catholic’; it is self‑contradictory to call a body ‘Roman’ (which
is particular) and at the same time ‘Catholic’ (which means universal).”
A
Catholic Dictionary gives this
definition: “Catholic. The word is derived from the Greek, and simply
means universal.”
Dr.
John H. Gerstner, Professor of Church History in Pittsburgh Theological
Seminary, in a booklet, The Gospel
According to Rome, says:
“Strictly
speaking ‘Roman Catholic’ is a contradiction of terms. Catholic means
universal; Roman means particular. It is the Protestant and not the Romanist who
believes in the catholic church. Protestants believe the church is universal or
catholic; Rome cannot discover it beyond her own communion. Our formula is: ‘Ubi
Spiritus ibi ecclesia’—‘Where
the Spirit is there is the church.’ Her motto is: ‘Ubi
ecclesia ibi Spiritus’—‘Where
the (Roman) church is there is the Spirit.’
“It is because
of the proper historic use of the word ‘catholic’ that Protestants do not
hesitate to recite it in the Apostles’ Creed. We cling to the word because we
cherish the concept. Rome has no monopoly on it; indeed, as we have suggested,
it is a question whether she has any right to it” (p. 14).
All
those who believe in Christ as Savior, regardless of what denomination they
belong to, are in fact members of the Christian catholic church. Evangelical
Protestants are the truest “catholics,” for they base their faith on the New
Testament as did the early Christians. The Roman Church has added many doctrines
and practices that are not found in the New Testament, and anyone who accepts
those becomes, to that extent, a Roman catholic, and by the same token ceases
to be a Christian catholic. Since the word “catholic” means “universal,”
the true Christian catholic church must include all
true believers, all who belong to the mystical or spiritual body of Christ
(“the church, which is his body”—Ephesians 1:22-23). But there have been,
and are, millions of Christians who have never had any connection with the Roman
church. The Roman Church, is, after all, a local church, with headquarters in
Rome, Italy and is limited to those who acknowledge the authority of the pope.
Even in her most extravagant claims the Roman Church claims only about one in
eight of the population of the world, and in the professedly Christian world she
has cut herself off from and broken communion with perhaps more than half of
Christendom, so that there are probably more professed Christians who reject her
authority than acknowledge it. And geographically she fails utterly to prove her
claim to universality. Even in the nominally Roman Catholic countries such as
Italy, France, Spain, and Latin America, Rome today probably does not have
effective control of more than fifteen percent of the people. In any event the
Roman Church clearly is not universal, but is only one among numerous others and
is outnumbered by the effective membership of the various Protestant and Eastern
Orthodox churches.
Bishop
J. C. Ryle, of Liverpool (England), has well said:
“There are
many ‘churches,’ but in the New Testament only one true church is
recognized. This true church is composed of all believers in the Lord Jesus. It
is made up of God’s elect—of all converted men and women—of all true
Christians. It is a church of which all the members are born again of the Holy
Spirit. They all possess repentance toward God, faith toward our Lord Jesus
Christ, and holiness of life and conversation. They all draw their religion from
one single book—the Bible.
“It is the
church whose existence does not depend on forms, ceremonies, cathedrals,
churches, vestments, organs, or any act or favor whatever from the hand of man.
It has often lived on and continued when all these things have been taken from
it. This is the universal church of the Apostles’ Creed, and of the Nicene
Creed. This is the only church which is truly universal. Its members are found
in every part of the world where the Gospel is received and believed.”
And
Rev. Stephen L. Testa, a former Roman Catholic, and founder of The Scripture
Truth Society, has said:
“The Lord
Jesus Christ founded His church (Matthew 16:18), which was evangelical
Christian. He was to be the Head, the Holy Spirit the Guide, and the Bible the
only rule of faith and practice. It was made up of His followers who were born
again and pledged to continue His work of redemption in the world. It was catholic
in that it was designed
for all the people of the earth. The
church remained pure and faithful Gospel for to the about 300 years, which was
the golden age of martyrs and saints, who were persecuted by pagan Rome. After
the so‑called conversion of emperor Constantine (a.d.
310) Christianity was declared the state religion, and multitudes of
pagans were admitted to the church by baptism alone, without conversion. They
brought with them their pagan rites, ceremonies and practices which they
gradually introduced into the church with Christian names, all of which
corrupted the primitive faith, and the church became Romanized and paganized.
What makes a church truly catholic is its adherence to the Gospel of Christ and
the Apostles’ Creed. The Roman Church has added popery and so many other pagan
doctrines and practices that many people think it no longer either Christian or
catholic.
“The
Reformation of the 16th century was a protest against those pagan
doctrines, a wholesale withdrawal from the official church and a return to the
primitive catholic Christianity of the New Testament. The Roman Church today can
become again a truly catholic church by renouncing popery and those dogmas and
practices which are contrary to the Word of God and holding fast to its
primitive foundation, on which basis the reunion of all Christian churches could
be realized. The name ‘catholic,’ when applied to the Roman Church
exclusively, is a misnomer, for it befits better those Protestant churches which
hold fast to the Bible and the Apostles’ Creed without any additions whatever.
‘For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this
book, If any man shall add unto them, God shall add unto him the plagues which
are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of the
book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life, and
out of the holy city, which are written in this book’ (Revelation
22:18‑19).
“The true
church of Christ is invisible, made up of truly converted people who are to be
found in all the visible churches and whose names are written in heaven, and the
visible churches exist to train saints for the kingdom of Christ” (booklet, Is
Romanism in the Bible? p.
3).
Another
trait of the Roman Church is her attempt to brand all other church groups as
“sects,” and as schismatic. First, let us fix clearly in mind precisely what
a “sect” is. Dictionary definitions tend to emphasize the divisive,
schismatic, heretical elements in defining a sect. Hence we would define a sect
as a group that shuts itself in as God’s exclusive people, and shuts all
others out. By its exclusiveness a sect cuts itself off and isolates itself from
the main stream of Christian life. On that basis the Roman Church, with its
bigoted and offensive claim to be “the only true church,” its readiness to
brand all others as heretics, its anathemas or curses so readily pronounced
against all who dare to differ with its pronouncements, and its literally dozens
of heresies and practices which are not found in the New Testament,
automatically brands itself as the biggest and most prominent of all the sects.
This
sectarianism is shown, for instance, in statements such as the Syllabus
of Errors, issued by Pope
Pius IX, in 1864, and still in full force where the Roman Church can enforce its
will. The hierarchy in the United States plays down this Syllabus, and for many
years has conducted a subtle campaign designed to hide many of its distinctive
doctrines and so to gain favor with the American public. But here are its claims
in plain language. Some of the most distinctive articles in their affirmative
form are:
15.
“No man is free to embrace and profess that religion which he believes
to be true, guided by the light of reason.”
17.
“The eternal salvation of any out of the true church of Christ is not
even to be hoped for.”
18.
“Protestantism is not another and diversified form of the one true
Christian religion in which it is possible to please God equally as in the
Catholic Church.”
21.
“The Church has power to define dogmatically the religion of the
Catholic Church to be the only true religion.”
24.
“The Church has the power of employing force and (of exercising) direct
and indirect temporal power.”
37.
“No national Church can be instituted in a state of division and separation
from the authority of the Roman Pontiff.”
42.
“In legal conflict between Powers (Civil and Ecclesiastical) the Ecclesiastical
Law prevails.”
45.
“The direction of Public Schools in which the youth of Christian states
are brought up... neither can nor ought to be assumed by the Civil Authority
alone.”
48.
“Catholics cannot approve of a system of education for youth apart from
the Catholic faith, and disjoined from the authority of the Church.”
54.
“Kings and Princes [including, of course, Presidents, Prime Ministers,
etc.] are not only not exempt from the jurisdiction of the Church, but are
subordinate to the Church in litigated questions of jurisdiction.”
55.
“The Church ought to be in union with the State, and the State with the
Church.”
57.
“Philosophical principles, moral science, and civil laws may and must
be made to bend to Divine and Ecclesiastical authority.”
63.
“Subjects may not refuse obedience to legitimate princes, much less
rise in insurrection against them.”
67.
“The marriage tie is indissoluble by the law of nature; divorce,
properly so called, cannot in any case be pronounced by the civil authority.”
73.
“Marriage among Christians cannot be constituted by any civil contract;
the marriage‑contract among Christians must always be a sacrament; and the
contract is null if the sacrament does not exist.”
77.
“It is necessary even in the present day that the Catholic religion
shall be held as the only religion of the State, to the exclusion of all other
forms of worship.”
78.
“Whence it has been unwisely provided by law, in some countries called
Catholic, that persons coming to reside therein shall enjoy the free exercise of
their religion.”
80.
“The Roman Pontiff cannot and ought not to reconcile himself to, or
agree with, Progress, Liberalism, and Modern Civilization.”
These
statements are from the pope who just six years later established the doctrine
of papal infallibility! The Roman Church here condemns freedom of religion,
freedom of speech and of the press, the separation of church and state; asserts
the authority of the church over the state and of the pope over civil rulers,
the right of the church to direct all education, the right of the church to
suppress other faiths; condemns the public school system, and many other things
which are integral parts of our American way of life. Let no one say that this Syllabus
of Errors belongs to a former age and that it is not to be taken
seriously. Even today it forms a part of the ordination vows of every Roman
Catholic priest in the world. Every priest takes an oath on the Bible that he
believes and will defend the eighty articles of this Syllabus. No part of it has
ever been repudiated. Hence it contains official Roman Catholic doctrine. With
the church committed to this Syllabus, how
can anyone at one and the same time be a member of the Roman Catholic Church and
a loyal American citizen?
In
this Syllabus the Roman Church displays a bitter, sectarian spirit in its
relations with other churches. In every local community Roman Catholic priests
refuse to join ministerial associations or to cooperate with ministers from
other churches in any form of religious observances, and they not infrequently
refuse to cooperate even in non‑religious community projects.1
On
the other hand most Protestant churches are remarkably free from sectarianism.
Most of them take a broad, tolerant attitude in acknowledging as true Christians
any of their fellow men who base their hope for salvation on faith in Christ and
live a good Christian life—in which case, as we have just seen, they are
“catholic,” ecumenical in the best sense of the term.
It
may be charitably assumed that there are good Christians in all denominations,
including the Roman Catholic. For any one branch of the church to claim that
those within its fold alone constitute the body of true Christians is both crude
and impudent, and is inconsistent with the principles of love and charity so
clearly commanded in the Scriptures.
The
intolerance and sectarianism of Romanism is also shown in her attempt to use the
word “church” for herself alone, as a synonym for the Roman Catholic Church,
thereby unchurching all others, and by referring to Protestants as
“non‑Catholics.” Protestants are too lax in allowing the Roman Church
to deprecate them with terminology which implies that they have no place in the
church universal. The correct meaning of the term “church” and
“catholic” should be pointed out, and doctrinal and historical evidence
cited to show that the Roman Church herself is the church of schism and
innovation, that by adding a host of unscriptural doctrines she has departed
from the simplicity of the Gospel and from apostolic practice. It can be shown
that more than half of Rome’s present creed was unknown to the early church.
Consequently, she has neither the moral nor the logical right to appropriate to
herself the terms “church” and “catholic.”
We
suspect that it is just because the Roman Church knows that so much of her
doctrine and so many of her practices are unscriptural or anti‑Scriptural
that as a matter of self-defense she attempts to appropriate these terms to
herself. A more appropriate name for this church, one that we have used
frequently, is, the Roman Church, or the Church of Rome. These terms are
accurate, and moreover they are terms which appear frequently in her own
literature, written by representative Roman Catholics. Hence Protestants do that
church no injustice in speaking of it under these terms.
Furthermore,
in its official title—the Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church—the Roman
Church seeks to appropriate the word “apostolic.” But again she has no right
to call herself apostolic, since she bears so little resemblance to that church,
more than half of her present doctrines and practices being unknown to the
apostolic church. She applies to herself the term “holy,” but the fact is
that through the ages and in her official capacity the Roman Church has been
guilty of the most atrocious crimes, practiced in the name of religion,
including murder, robbery, persecution of all kinds, bribery, fraud, deception,
and practically every other crime known to man. Such crimes have been practiced
not merely by church members, but by popes, cardinals, bishops, and priests who,
as a study of church history will show, undeniably were evil men. Those crimes
still are practiced where the Roman Church is attempting to suppress
Protestantism—in Colombia, for instance, since 1948, when the liberal
government was overthrown and a new government came into power with the support
of the Roman Catholic Church and a concordat with the Vatican, 116 Protestant
Christians have been killed because of their faith, 66 Protestant churches or
chapels have been destroyed by fire or bombing, over 200 Protestant schools have
been closed, and Protestant work of any kind forbidden in approximately two
thirds of the country which has been designated “mission territory” (see Report
of the Evangelical Confederation of Colombia, Bulletin No. 50, June 26,
1959).
The
assumption of Roman Catholic writers that theirs is the true church, and that it
is the same orthodox, martyr, missionary church of apostolic times is manifestly
false. The claim that the popes are in the direct line of succession from St.
Peter—even if such a claim could be proved, which it cannot—would mean but
little without imitation of the lives of the apostles and conformity to their
doctrines. Jeremiah rebuked the foolish confidence of the Jews in his day who
cried, “The temple of Jehovah, the temple of Jehovah... are these” (7:4),
and called on them rather to prove their devotion to God with righteous and holy
living. Caiaphas was in the line of Aaron and was the successor of many pious
priests, but that did not make him and the Jews who crucified Jesus the true
church. John Calvin called the Church of Rome in his day a foul harlot rather
than the spouse of Christ, because of the low moral standard practiced and
tolerated by her priests. Her pretensions to be the true church of Christ were
shown by her actions to be false. How could she be the kingdom of Christ when
her way of life was at such variance with His Word?
1 Since the Second Vatican Council the priests have been given more freedom to cooperate with other ministers and to take part in some community projects.
As
Protestants we believe in and practice democracy in Church government as well as
in state government. We have local organizations in which ministers and laymen
with equal voting rights handle local church problems, and for the denominations
at large, general assemblies or conventions or conferences, composed of
ministers and elders, usually in equal numbers, who are the elected
representatives of the churches. Both the New Testament and the history of the
church during the first four or five centuries make it abundantly clear that
Christianity is essentially democratic in tendency. That tendency becomes
manifest wherever the spiritual life of the church is free to assert itself.
The New Testament church was an organized band of baptized believers practicing New Testament ordinances and actively engaged in carrying out the Great Commission. Of that organization Christ alone was the Head. Believers were related to Him and to each other as members of the body. Each local church appears to have been a self-governing body. As the church in Jerusalem grew and needed more organization, that was provided, not by hierarchical appointment, but in a democratic way without consulting any other church. We read: “The twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, “...Look ye out therefore, brethren, from among you seven men of good report” (Acts 6:2‑3). There was no dictation by Peter, nor by