Catholic Word Games

Catholic Word Games

One of the things that can make discussing RCC doctrine with a member of that cult exceedingly frustrating has to do with word meanings. We use the same words but not infrequently understand key words and phrases in quite different ways. This linguistic confusion is not limited to the jargon of theology. Even common constructions in plain English, when used in the Roman church to express doctrine, lose their clear meaning and are assigned arcane interpretations.

Take, for example, the word unanimous. My dictionary tells me that the word indicates complete harmony or agreement:

1. Sharing the same opinions or views; being in complete harmony or accord.

2. Based on or characterized by complete assent or agreement.
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Third Edition © 1992 Houghton Mifflin Co. Electronic version lic'd from and portions © 1994 InfoSoft Int'l, Inc.)

That seems clear enough to me. I imagine it seems clear to most native English speakers. Unanimous simply means that everyone is in full agreement with whatever it is we are declaring. The good old boys who gathered at Trent in the middle of the 16th Century certainly seem to have understood the word that way.

Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published." (The Council of Trent, 4th Session, The Canonical Scriptures, Rockford: Tan (1978), pp. 18-19)

Do you reckon that someone made a slight error in transcribing the words of the bishops convened at Trent? Could it be that their intention was to declare that the almost unanimous consent of the fathers is to be the standard against which interpretations of Scripture are to be measured? Perhaps that is the thought that prompted the bishops of the First Vatican Council, meeting in 1869-70, to reaffirm Trent's position:

"And as the things which the holy Synod of Trent decreed for the good of souls concerning the interpretation of Divine Scripture, in order to curb rebellious spirits, have been wrongly explained by some, we, renewing the said decree, declare this to be their sense, that, in matters of faith and morals, appertaining to the building up of Christian doctrine, that is to be held as the true senseof Holy Scripture which our holy Mother Church hath hel and holds, to whom it belongs to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scripture; and therefore that it is permitted to no one to interpret the Sacred Scripture contrary to this sense, nor, likewise, contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers." Philip Schaff, Dogmatic Decrees of the Vatican Council, as found in The Creeds of Christendom, Vol II, New York:Harper (1877), p. 242)

What are the doctrines declared in the above decrees, infallibly delivered by two RCC councils: There are but two:

1) Only the Roman Catholic church has the authority to accurately interpret Scripture.

2) No one, not even the RCC herself, is to hold an interpretation contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

This is of major importance, for the RCC officially has committed and bound itself, through two ecumenical counsels, to the principle of unanimous consent relative to its teachings and its interpretation of Scripture. In other words, Rome has given us a standard, an authoritative Roman Catholic standard, which we may use in judging the RCC.

This is where Rome stumbles, for by the very test she established infallibly, much of the RCC's 'particular' doctrine fails to measure up. Oh, sure. The Fathers did unanimously consent on the major doctrines of the Christian creed, but there can be found no unanimous consent for Roman Catholic tradition. As one Christian theologian wrote:

...this 'unanimous consent of the Fathers' on which the Roman Catholic Church's authority rests is a complete illusion, because such a consent is historically non-existent. (William Webster, The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, Banner of Truth Trust: Carlisle (1995), p. 31)

One Catholic apologist, after explaining that the Fathers, successors to the Apostles, are considered by the RCC as "the closest source to the apostolic teaching and tradition, and therefore authoritative," goes on to explain why the words of the Bishops of Trent and Vatican I didn't really mean what they said.

One must understand what the Church means when she is bound by the unanimous consent of the Fathers. The Church cannot, has not, and does not contradict Herself. She can develop doctrine, but she cannot deny what is organically Her heritage and the foundation of her existence in the Scriptures, the Tradition and the Magisterium. The Church does not claim that all her "authority rests" on the consent of the Fathers. It rests on several things including Scripture; the Fathers are one element of this foundation.

Second, the Church has never understood or taught that unanimous consent means that the Fathers are individually infallible or that various Fathers have never held an alternative opinion. Any given passage of scripture may have several valid applications and they were all appropriated by the Fathers depending on the matter at hand. Thus, a Father may refer to Jesus as the Rock, Peter as the Rock, or Peter's confession as the Rock. This in not unusual or unexpected. It certainly does not negate the literal intent of Matthew, nor does it invalidate the unanimous consent of the Fathers. (Steve Ray, "Unanimous Consent" of the Church Fathers,)

In other words, unanimous does not mean unanimous. What unanimous really means is situational -- the meaning being controlled not by any rule of lexicology but, rather, by the immediate need of the moment.

Why do you think Rome and her apologists have come up with this sliding scale of meaning for a simple word? That is a no-brainer. As the RCC drew farther and farther away from the teachings and practices of the early church, she no longer could sustain her teachings in the face of opposing declarations by the venerated Early Church Fathers.

One area of separation between RCC doctrine and the early church, one that not all the Fathers agreed on, has to do with the relationship between the Scriptures and Tradition. Rome teaches:

95. "'It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.'[DV 10 # 3.]" --(Catechism of the Catholic Church, (c) 1994/1007, United States Catholic Conference, Inc.)

And why should anyone believe that? Why because it is defined by the Magisterium, which gets its authority from Tradition, which is defined by the Magisterium, etc. The Catechism teaches us that the writings of the Fathers are authoritative:

81. "'Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.'[DV 9.] 'And (Holy) Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.' [DV 9.]" Ibid.

And what do the Fathers have to say about the authority of Scripture? Did they unanimously consent to the silliness that Scripture is not authoritative on its own, but only when bound together with Tradition and the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church? Following are what a few of those Fathers had to say on the issue:

Rule Twenty-six: That every word and deed should be ratified by the testimony of the Holy Scripture to confirm the good and cause shame to the wicked. Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): Fathers of the Church, Vol. 9, Ascetical Works, The Morals, Rule 26 (New York: 1950) p. 106.)

This, however, must be held, that whatever is contained in Holy Scripture is true. Whoever should think otherwise against this would be a heretic. Now in other matters that are not of the faith, expositors have said many things from their own understanding and thus they were able to err in these; the words of expositors do not carry a necessity, that it would be necessary to believe in them, but only the canonical Scripture, which is in the old and New Testament. (Thomas Aquinas: Quodlibeta Disputata 12, q. 17, a. 1.)

The hearers taught in the Scriptures ought to test what is said by teachers and accept that which agrees with the Scriptures but reject that which is foreign. (Basil, Moralia, 72:1)

If anyone preaches either concerning Christ or concerning His church or concerning any other matter which pertains to our faith and life; I will not say, if we, but what Paul adds, if an angel from heaven should preach to you anything besides what you have received in the Scriptures of the Law and of the Gospels, let him be anathema (Augustine, Contra litteras Petiliani, Bk 3, ch. 6)

I need not prove by arguments what God Himself proves by His own words. When we read that God says He perpetually sees the entire earth, we prove thereby that He does see it because He Himself says He sees it. When we read that He rules all things He has created, we prove thereby that He rules, since He testifies that He rules. When we read that He ordains all things by His immediate judgment, it becomes evident by this very fact, since He confirms that He passes judgment. All other statements, said by men, require proofs and witnesses. God's word is His own witness, because whatever uncorrupted Truth says must be the undefiled testimony to truth. (Salvian the Presbyter; Fathers of the Church, Vol. 3, The Writings of Salvian, The Presbyter, The Goverance of God, Book 5, section 2 (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1947), pp. 68-69.)  

For you must know, and not be in doubt, that while before your election you lived to yourself, after it, you live for your flock. And before you had received the grace of the episcopate, no one knew you; but after you became one, the laity expect you to bring them food, namely instruction from the Scriptures. (Athanasius: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume IV, Letters of Athanasius, The Festal Letters, II. Personal Letters, Letter 49, Letter to Dracontius)

For the Lord spoke in simple words for our instruction in the faith, and His words cannot need support or comment from foreign and irrelevant sayings. Hilary of Poiters: Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series: Volume IX, On the Trinity, Book XI, Section 7.)

That should be enough to demonstrate my point, but there are plenty more where they came from. Unanimous consent as declared by two church councils cannot be understood literally, for to do so would force the Roman cult to abandon the great multitude of self-serving and completely unbiblical dogma and doctrines that she has created over the reays from the fancies and embellishments of her Magisteium. Better to invent new meanings for common words, than to confront the accusing words of those whose writings the Roman cult claims to stand on.

The truth, God's truth, is found in the pages of the Sacred Scriptures, not the lying pronouncements of the apostate Roman Catholic Church.

Table of Contents for 'Catechism vs. the Bible' 

---

How does a person get to Heaven?

Ye Must Be Born Again! | You Need HIS Righteousness!

Catholics Forbid Eating Meat On Fridays

Catholics Forbid Eating Meat On Fridays

The Price of a Hotdog? — Damnation

When I was a kid, a Catholic kid, I helped out with the two festivals that Sts. Peter and Paul Catholic Church (my parish) held annually on the grounds of the church's elementary school. When I was small, this help usually amounted to hustling soft drinks at the bingo games that ran non-stop during the festival. When I grew older, I manned one or another of the game booths.

Aside from the Bingo tent, the largest operation at these affairs was the big tent under which men of the parish drank beer and cooked bratwurst and hot dogs to feed the hungry masses. Even today, recollections of the enticing aroma of bratwursts sizzling on a charcoal grill make me hungry.

These biannual festivals began on a Friday evening and ran through the day on Saturday and Sunday. In that St. Pete's was situated in the heart of an overwhelmingly Catholic neighborhood, I suspect that the great majority of those who attended the festivities were Catholics. This is significant.

In my Catholic days, long before Vatican II ushered in a "kinder and more gentle" brand of Roman Catholicism, it was forbidden for the Catholic faithful to taste of meat on Fridays, with certain exceptions. In those days, as now, the Second Commandment of the Church obliged us to observe the laws of abstinence and fasting laid down by the Church. The law of abstinence in those days was as stated in one of my old catechisms:

What days does the law of abstinence, as apart from the law of fasting, oblige us to observe?

The law of abstinence, apart from the law of fasting, obliges us to abstain on all Fridays of the year. (Joseph DeHarbe, A Complete Catechism of the Catholic Religion, 6th American Ed., Conformed to the Codex Juris Canonici, Schwarz, Kirwin & Fauss: New York (1924), p.218 – has Nihil Obstat & Imprimitur)

Just how serious was the Catholic Church about her commandments?

How do these Commandments of the Church bind us?

They bind us strictly – that is, under pain of grievous sin. (Joseph DeHarbe, Op. cit., p. 213)

In other words, eat meat on Friday and die, you are going straight to Hell. That is serious. Of course, there were a few details to be considered, such as:

When do we commit mortal sin?

We commit mortal sin when we wilfully violate the Law of God in a matter which we know or believe to be important.

In what does the malice of mortal sin principally consist?

In this: that mortal sin is—

A grievous offence against God, our Supreme Lord, and the most criminal disobedience to His holy will;
The most shameful ingratitude to God, our greatest Benefactor and best Father;
Detestable infidelity to our most amiable Redeemer, and contempt of His graces and merits. (Joseph DeHarbe, Op. cit., pp. 224-25)

The words in DeHarbe's catechism appear to equate the Commandments of the Church with the Commandments of God, in that willful violation of either is a mortal sin. Given the definition of a mortal sin as a grievous offense against God, one is forced to the conclusion that the Catholic Church considered herself as a peer of God Himself. Wasn't this how Lucifer got into trouble?

Where are we so far? It is a precept, or commandment, of the Catholic Church that the faithful must obey the laws of fast and abstinence; willful failure to do so constitutes a grievous sin against God--or so claims the Catholic Church. We also know of the biannual church festivals of Sts. Peter and Paul Catholic Church at which the bratwurst/hot dog tent was a principle attraction.

In that just about everyone in the parish knew of the obligation to abstain from meat on Fridays – Father Greg mentioned it often enough in his homilies – one must wonder that the sandwich tent was as busy on Friday evenings as it was on the other two days of the festivals. I was aware of no special indulgences granted by the archdiocese for festival Fridays, so I imagine the requirement to abstain from meat on Fridays was always in effect. In that the men of the parish cooked and sold the meat sandwiches and, to my observation, ate plenty of them, with the blessing of the parish, I submit that Father Greg, his assistant pastor, and anyone else involved in the making and sale of meat sandwiches on Fridays was guilty of the sin due to connivance., consent, provocation, partaking and by defense of the ill done.

In how many ways may we become accessory to another person's sin, and be answerable for it?

In these nine ways: 1. By counsel; 2. By command; 3. By consent; 4, By provocation; 5. By praise or flattery; 6. By silence; 7. By connivance; 8. By partaking; 9. By defence of the ill done.

Why are we answerable for the sin which another commits?

Because, in any of the above ways, we are either the cause of his sin or co-operate with him in it, and thus are as guilty before God as if we had committed it ourselves; or, it may be, even more so. (Joseph DeHarbe, Op. cit., pp. 230-31)

Probably this sharing in the guilt of others was seen as no big thing. After all, a quick trip to the confessional could deal with any damaging effect of sin on one's hopes for eternal life. But what of those who might have died after eating a bratwurst on a bun before they were able to get to Saturday evening confession to have their sins erased? Well, according to RCC theology, could be sizzling in Hell just as those Bratwurst once sizzled on the grill.

"Wait a minute," might be the shout of a modern day Catholic. The law of abstinence has changed. It is no longer required that Catholics abstain from meat on Fridays, except for Good Friday."

That is true. No longer do Catholics sit down to Friday meals with a Damocles sword of dietary restriction hanging over their heads. But what of all those who, over the centuries, decided to gnaw on a soup bone or haunch of lamb tho' it were Friday? Were they all pardoned or paroled from Hell – assuming that was their only unconfessed grievous sin? Not according to one Catholic theologian/apologist. They're still being barbecued.

Kenneth Ryan, a Catholic priest, in addressing the Friday/meat question, takes advantage of the opportunity to deal with a similar but opposite issue, that of indulgences.

"It was never true that `If you eat meat on Friday, you are automatically consigned to Hell.' Nor was it ever true if someone said the prescribed indulgenced prayers for you you went automatically from Purgatory to Heaven. There are so many conditions attached to one's attaining Heaven or being plunged into Hell that listing them in full would require a review of almost all human knowledge, revealed or unrevealed." (Kenneth Ryan, What More Would You Like to Know About the Church?, Carillon Books/Catholic Digest:St. Paul (1978), p.11 – has Nihil Obstat & Imprimitur)

In that the old way of doing things has been rendered obsolete by today's more politically correct understanding of the commandment, and since Mother Church never errs, some way must be found to "adjust" today's understanding with yesterday's reality. What better way than an appeal to one of the Catholic apologist's favorite tactics: "You don't understand."

When I was Catholic, I was frequently reminded of my obligation to eschew meat and meat products on Fridays. Not once, do I recall, was it ever explained to me that the degree of my sin, should I violate the commandment, would be determined by an examination so detailed that it would "require a review of almost all human knowledge, revealed or unrevealed."

"Just for openers, to go to hell for eating meat on Fridays in the old days, would, according to the catechism, require that the eating be done after "sufficient reflection and full consent of the will." To children "sufficient reflection" usually meant only that the eater had not forgotten it was Friday. To the investigative theologian it brings the need of considering whether the eater was subject to the law, was he Catholic, did his mental state permit him to make responsible decisions, did he live in a place where the law was habitually disregarded, was he well-instructed in his Faith, and so on for pages and pages before a sound, unassailable decision about the sufficiency of the eater's reflection could be honestly made. "Full consent of the will" to the child meant something like deciding to eat the meat "anyway," the theologian would have to investigate things like the eater's heredity, the extent of his hunger, the possibility of social pressures at a formal dinner, the availability of alternate foods, again so on to the point of seeming absurdity. All this would be a theologian deciding after the fact whether the act of eating meat had been a mortal sin. How many people in history went to all the trouble and THEN ate meat on Friday "anyway" has never been decided. The Church proclaims some persons to be saints in heaven but not even Judas has been formally proclaimed to be in hell." (Kenneth Ryan, Op. cit. pp.11-12)

Don't you find it interesting that, before a Catholic theologian might determine whether an adult has sinned by eating meat on Friday, he must consider whether there were mitigating circumstances, such as social pressures at a formal dinner, the individual's nationality, etc.? It would appear that, in the RCC understanding of mortal sin, or at least the mortal sin of eating meat on Fridays in the days before Vatican II, there are more loopholes than in the U.S. tax code.

Another review: An RCC precept requires Catholic faithful to obey the laws of fasting and abstinence. Catholic men of the St. Pete's parish sold and ate meat on certain Fridays with the parish's blessing. It appears impossible to know with certainty whether any of those who willfully sold and ate meat on those Fridays were guilty of mortal sin, except for kids who may have eaten a hotdog knowing it was Friday. The law of fasting and abstinence no longer prohibits eating meat on Fridays, except for Good Friday.

Perhaps it would help to put things into perspective were we to look at one of God's commandments.

"You shall not murder." (Exodus 20:13)

That seems every bit as clear as "The law of abstinence…obliges us to abstain on all Fridays of the year." (DeHarbe, Op. cit., p. 218). Now, if a man kills another man in order to steal his car, do you wonder whether Christ, the Perfect Judge, would set angelic investigators to determine whether the killer had been properly instructed in the Law concerning murder? Do you think that Christ would be concerned with the murderer's culture or national origin? Or if social pressure had resulted in the murder? Personally, I think not.

More significantly, do you think that God Almighty, Giver of the Law, would have decided to cancel the commandment after it had been in force for hundreds of years? After who knows how many souls had been condemned for violated it?

Assuming that, in all the years that the law of abstinence prohibited the consumption of meat on Fridays at least one person died with that serious sin unconfessed and, after due theological investigation, was condemned to spend eternity in Hell, is he still there now that the law has changed? According to priest Ryan, he is, for his sin involved more than just eating meat.

"Now, if you admit you have free will, you have to realize that the number of ways you can sin is limited only by your imagination. Even a slight insulting gesture, if you formally give it the meaning of "blasphemy" can be a mortal sin. The old example in the theology manuals was that of a man firing a gun toward the sky at God. I doubt that any sane man ever chose this way of turning away from God, but you can't deny the possibility of such a mortal sin. You see, all mortal sin is something like the sin of Lucifer, later known as Satan. It's all a matter of pride, preferring your will to that of God. The particular means you can choose to express this preference can be murder, adultery, apostasy, firing a gun at God, or just (until the law was changed) eating meat on Friday. Persons conceivably in Hell for having eaten meat on Friday are not being kept there unfairly now that the law has been changed because their act was only one of many they might have chosen to turn away from God. If they are in hell now it is because they chose to turn away from God." (Kenneth Ryan, Op. cit., pp. 12-13)

Now, that is really very esoteric. In order to accept what Ryan is saying, one must believe all the RCC teachings that she is the church that Christ established, that her ruler is Christ's vicar on earth, that her laws have the force of God's laws for they come, as it were, from His prophet, the Magisterium. Believing all that, then deliberately eating a hotdog on Friday in defiance of the law of abstinence would be tantamount to deliberately violating a commandment of God. But could it have been a commandment of God to not eat meat on Fridays?

"And Jesus said, Are ye also yet without understanding? Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught? But those things which proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man." (Matthew 15:16-20, KJV)

From the above words of Jesus, it seems clear that the meat itself is not the source of stain of sin. In that we are not talking here of meat sacrificed to idols, Paul's words in Romans 14 would seem not to be applicable. What is left? Only the Roman Catholic Church could have established the law of abstinence from meat on Fridays. Or, perhaps, eating meat on Fridays never really was considered a mortal sin. That the last is not so may be seen from these words of a noted Catholic journalist and church historian:

"The Gilmary Society's 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, complete with nihil obstat and imprimatur from John Cardinal Farley of New York, and once the definitive source of Catholic information, was unequivocal on the obligation to abstain from meat on Fridays: `Texts of theology and catechisms of Christian doctrine indicate that the obligation of abstaining forms an element of one of the Commandments of the Church. Satisfaction for sin is an item of primary import in the moral order. Naturally enough, abstinence contributes no small share towards the realization of this end. As a consequence, the law of abstinence embodies a serious obligation whose transgression, objectively considered, ordinarily involves a mortal sin. The unanimous verdict of theologians, the constant practice of the faithful, and the mind of the church place this point beyond cavil. They who would fain minimize the character of this obligation so as to relegate all transgressions, save such as originate in contempt, to the category of venial sin are anathematized by Alexander VII.'" (John Deedy, Retrospect: The Origins of Catholic Beliefs and Practices, The Thomas More Press: Chicago (1990), pp. 284-85)

My! How things have changed since Vatican II. As I interpret the words of the citation from the Catholic Encyclopedia -- "a serious obligation whose transgression, objectively considered, ordinarily involves a mortal sin," – the determination of whether eating a bit of meat on Friday was a sin was pretty much cut and dried. Nothing at all like the complex theological value judgment call described by priest Ryan.

And so now it is time for conclusions.

1. Did the Roman Catholic Church have the authority to require its membership to abstain from eating meat and certain foods of animal origin on Fridays? Of course it did. Every religious organization appears to need some established rules and procedures for its faithful.

2. Do the laws of the Roman Catholic Church that do not in fact mirror God's laws as included in Scripture have the force of God's law? Absolutely not, for these are the rules and laws of men, and man cannot legislate at the supreme level of God's will. Was it not Lucifer's great sin that he willed to be as the Most High?

"For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High." (Isaiah 14:13-14, KJV)

3. Was anyone ever condemned to eternity in Hell for the sole reason of having transgressed this law of the Roman Catholic Church? I believe that no one is eternally condemned for the sole "sin" of having violated this law of the RCC.

Is the Roman Catholic Church, that hierarchical organization that exists outside her membership, truly equal in authority to the Most High? Does her Extraordinary Magisterium indeed speak and legislate with the same authority as God so that any contravention of her rules constitutes a sin against God Himself? Or does she presume, as did Lucifer, position and authority beyond and above her station? Has she shared in the fate of Lucifer?

Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations. (Isaiah 14:9, KJV)

All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us? (Isaiah 14:10, KJV)

Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee. (Isaiah 14:11, KJV)

How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! (Isaiah 14:12, KJV)

Why not do the research yourself? Open your Bible and find out whether God indeed ever prohibited eating of meat on Fridays, or if it was nothing but an excess of piety.

Table of Contents for 'Catechism vs. the Bible' 

---

How does a person get to Heaven?

Ye Must Be Born Again! | You Need HIS Righteousness!

Priestly Porn

Priestly Porn

I ask those of you who are parents to carefully consider this question: Would you entrust your children to a daycare center that is known to not only employ child abusers to work with children entrusted to their care but to actually nurture and protect such people?

I ask all who read this to carefully consider this question: Would you entrust your hopes for eternity to a shepherd who habitually violates his vows to his church and to his god?

Those in the Roman hierarchy who fashion the rules and exceptions that govern that cult surely are neither ingenuous nor blind to the reality of the corruption and perversion that infects the priestly class. Certainly, this awareness must have been a factor that led them to create ways to make priestly perversions to have virtually no effect on their suitability to continue to perform priestly duties.

I have posted several articles concerning predatory priests who prey upon those they claim to shepherd. The sexual and emotion horrors perpetrated by Roman Catholic priests, nuns and monks against children throughout Canada were detailed in my paper on the Duplessis Orphans. I recalled some of the terrible crimes committed by former rulers of the Catholic cult in a paper titled Would You Buy A Used Car From One Of These Guys. And in another paper called Celibacy and Pedophile Priests I examined how the Roman Catholic princely hierarchy watches over her wayward priests and protects them from the long arm of the law.

For a time following publication of such articles, I receive a lot of email from Catholic apologists and others who deny the truth of what they have read. The writers sometimes go to great lengths to play down the crimes of the Catholic priesthood and are quick to point out that it is the individual priest or nun who violates the laws of God and man. According to their reasoning, that entity known as the Roman Catholic Church continues pure as the driven snow, her soul, if you will, unsullied by the deeds of her priestly class. A convenient, if invalid, response that recalls the words and actions of Pontius Pilate as he attempted to evade responsibility for the execution of Jesus of Nazareth (Matthew 27:24). Just as Pilate could not evade his responsibility by claiming he was not to blame, so cannot the Roman Catholic cult hide from the accusing finger of reality.

Not that the Roman cult does not act against priests when forced to do so. Canon 290 of the Code of Canon Law declares that, while a priest is ordained for life, he can be deprived of his clerical state. The next canon adds that the priest thus chastised is not released from his vow of celibacy.

In worst case situations, the offending priest may be recalled to his mother house, where he will spend the remainder of his days tending the rose garden or working in the library. I suspect many who teach in Catholic seminaries might be priests who have been deprived of their clerical state. I suppose that, to some pervert priests, such punishments might be tantamount to B'rer Rabbit's being thrown into the briar patch.

So, what does the RCC leadership do to protect her billion or so faithful from the sexual appetites of predatory priests? In most cases, I suspect, it does nothing. Oh, when there are complaints, the diocese might move a priestly pervert to another parish or, in some cases, even trade him off to another diocese.

Not all Catholics are blind to priestly perversions. My next door neighbor, for example, has told me that his parish priest prohibits all fund-raising activities in his church. His reason? Every time the archdiocese is sued due to the sexual activities of a predatory priest, the chancery draws down the savings of the parish churches to settle the lawsuit. This priest told his parishioners that he could not in conscience call upon them to pay the financial costs of the sexual sins of Catholic priests.

Some would argue that sexually predatory priests like Rudy Kos are rare. These folks cannot, of course, support their claim from any veriable source. The priestly pervert acts in secret, for the most part, and the very nature of his actions militates hiding them from public scrutiny. One must look elsewhere for information. In the USA, insurance companies do not protect Catholic parishes from liability suits resulting from priestly perversions. Don't believe me? Check it out for yourself. Ask your parish priest or the Chancery for the name of the insurance company that provides such protection. Bet they can't.

You could go to the Web for information. Make it easy. Choose the Alta Vista search engine and search for "Rudy Kos". You will get pages and pages of URLs for sites detailing not only his sex crimes but those of a lot of other Catholic priests.

The Survivors of Clergy Crimes operate a web site that offers an enormous amount of information on the crimes of Catholic clergy. I challenge anyone who would deny the reality that many of those to whom they look for spiritual guidance are far from holy in their everyday lives to spend time reading in the files of this site.

The Survivors are, or were, Catholic. A Protestant ministry provides more information of priestly crimes. On this site, you can read also some of the attempts by Catholic officials and laymen to discount the truth and the seriousness of charges of priestly perversion.

Perhaps the most damning evidence of the corruption that seems to be rampant within the ranks of Roman Catholic religious was provided by a Web site and mail list operated by and for homosexual Roman Catholic priests, nuns and laymen. That site was ordered closed by the bishop of the diocese where its founding priest works. Though the site and mail list may now be closed, much of the material, correspondence and photographs they once held were preserved by a ministry operated by Catholic laymen and guided by responsible Catholic priests.

Before providing the link to that site, however, I think it important that the interested reader first read another page in order to get an overview of what is to come. When reading under the heading "Maine" on this page, pay special attention to the fact that Father Harris acknowledged that he was the author of an "expletive-filled" sent in response to a communication from a responsible priest.

The text of Harris' email and the email that triggered it are available on the web site operated by a group called Roman Catholic Faithful. When you go there, I think it important to first read "A Few Blunt Words To Catholics" to get a feel for what is coming.

After digesting the information in that opening statement from Catholic to Catholic, the next step is to click on the link to "St. Sebastian's Angels." WARNING! This section is not for the sensitive nor those easily shocked. This is the page with the pictures, emails, articles and dating information provided by actively homosexual CAtholic priests and at least one bishop. Some of the articles and photographs are definitely X-RATED. To their credit, the RCF provide plenty of warnings of what is to come. You will never stumble blindly into pornography. After visiting this site, keep in mind what you saw there as you read again these words from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2354. "Pornography consists in removing real or simulated sexual acts from the intimacy of the partners, in order to display them deliberately to third parties. It offends against chastity because it perverts the conjugal act, the intimate giving of spouses to each other. It does grave injury to the dignity of its participants (actors, vendors, the public), since each one becomes an object of base pleasure and illicit profit for others. It immerses all who are involved in the illusion of a fantasy world. It is a grave offense. Civil authorities should prevent the production and distribution of pornographic materials." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday: New York, (c) 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. -- Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 624)

The Leadership of the Roman cult acknowledge that pornography is a "grave offense." In paragraph 2357, the Catechism defines homosexualilty and, in addressing homosexual acts, declares that "Under no circumstances can they be approved."

So here we have it. The RCC does not approve of pornography, homosexuality, violation of vows of celibacy, etc., yet on the other hand, known sexual deiates within the priesthood are sheltered and permitted to continue to shepherd innocents entrusted to their care. How can this be? Why, the Roman hierarchy calls upon its sacrament of Holy Orders to defend the perverts among her religious.

1550. "This presence of Christ in the minister is not to be understood as if the latter were preserved from all human weaknesses, the spirit of domination, error, even sin. The power of the Holy Spirit does not guarantee all acts of ministers in the same way. While this guarantee extends to the sacraments, so that even the minister's sin cannot impede the fruit of grace, in many other acts the minister leaves human traces that are not always signs of fidelity to the Gospel and consequently can harm the apostolic fruitfulness of the Church. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday: New York, (c) 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. -- Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 624)

I call upon the Catholic readers of this article to think upon what you have read when you next attend Mass. As the priest places what you believe to be the body, blood soul and divinity of Christ into your hands or on your tongue, will you wonder where those hands have been?

Homosexuality a Factor in Abuse By Priests

Table of Contents for 'Catechism vs. the Bible' 

---

How does a person get to Heaven?

Ye Must Be Born Again! | You Need HIS Righteousness!

The Authority of the Catholic Church

The Authority of the Catholic Church

Who's Guiding Whom?

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:13)

This is a favored passage used by Roman Catholic apologists in their efforts to convince others that their church is without error.

I am astonished that people can even consider using this verse to validate the teaching authority the Catholic Church has arrogated to herself. Where does the Lord mention that the Holy Spirit will come to guide only the Magisterium to all truth? This is another of those RCC teachings that did not originate with God, but was created within the dark chambers of that benighted cult.

I do not understand the process whereby the RCC concludes that God the Holy Spirit provides special insights and guidance only to members of the august body known as the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church, while withholding that guidance from the hoi poloi of Christendom. For the purposes of this post, my use of the term "Magisterium" subsumes those parallel particularly-anointed assemblies in other religious communions. This peculiar arrogance of church hierarchies to proclaim that only they are able to accurately interpret God's Word to the masses seems not to conform to the Scriptural teaching concerning His role in the lives of believers.

In John 7:37-39, Christ speaks of the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit that will be imparted to all who believe on Him. No mention there of baptism, nor is there a mention of limiting that power to the benefit of only those within a particular assembly. In fact, it should be borne in mind that there was NO Christian church when Jesus made this statement.

In John 14:16,17, Messiah promises that the Father will send the Holy Spirit to indwell those who believe. Again, He makes no mention that only those who believe and are members of a Magisterium are to be hosts for the indwelling Spirit.

In the course of sharing Passover with His disciples, Jesus told them of the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit. He ate this meal with His closest followers, promising them that the Holy Spirit would teach them "all things" (John 14:26). But there is no indication that the Spirit, Whom we already have been informed would indwell all believers, would restrict His teaching to just those present with Jesus at the Seder.

The Roman Catholic Church knows this to be true, or at least the guy who wrote paragraph 91 of the official Catechism did:

91. "All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them[Cf. 1Jn 2:20, 27 .] and guides them into all truth.[Cf. .Jn 16:13 .]" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday: New York, © 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. – Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 33)

Please read again these clear and truthful words, declared as trustworthy by Pope John Paul II: "They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them and guides them into all truth." If this is true, and even John Paul II says it is, then why does Rome so steadfastly declare that the Magisterium alone has a special ability to interpret to the masses what God really meant to say in the Scriptures?

100. "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday: New York, © 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. – Libreria Editrice Vaticana, pp. 37-38)

Is the message here that, while it is true that the Holy Spirit instructs believers and guides them "into all truth," He guides the members of the Magisterium into more or better truth?

The membership of the Magisterium is comprised of men, fallible men. How is it that Catholic faithful can be seduced into rejecting the idea that fallible men can, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, discover God's truth in the Scriptures, yet blindly accept that other fallible men can? A clear example of the blind leading the blind.

Again, I cannot comprehend the reasoning that leads some to argue that ordinary believers, indwelled with the Holy Spirit, are unable to properly understand the Word of God, while turning to other ordinary men for their interpretation of Scripture. Like the Pharisees, I reckon, they believe that only an elite few are empowered to fully understand what God has revealed to us in His Word.

Do you not wonder how many Pharisees are walking the streets of Heaven?

Table of Contents for 'Catechism vs. the Bible'

---

How does a person get to Heaven?

Ye Must Be Born Again! | You Need HIS Righteousness!

Who is Like God? Worship ONLY God!

Who is Like God?

Worship ONLY God!

In the movies, paratroopers loudly shout "Geronimo!" as they leap into the night sky. Before that dramatic moment, however, it is likely that Catholic troopers mutter a little prayer to invoke the protection of "St. Michael," patron saint of paratroopers, police, mariners grocers and those suffering from sickness.

St. Michael is known to Christians as Michael, the archangel who led angels loyal to God in the heavenly war of Lucifer's insurrection. Though Lucifer has been cast out of Heaven, he and his band of rebel angels apparently still have access (cf. Job 1:6; 2:1) and a state of war exists even now (cf. Rev. 12:4; cf. Dan. 10:13; Jude 9). Some unspecified event is going to trigger a mighty angelic battle (Rev. 12:7) and Michael, whose name signifies "Who is like God?," will lead the Lord's host to victory.

The Bible refers to Michael as "archangel" and "one of the chief princes," but the early Greek fathers and others consider him the most senior of all the angels, or "Prince of the Seraphim."

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, tradition assigns four offices to Michael:

1) To fight against Satan.

2) To rescue the souls of the faithful from the power of the enemy, especially at the hour of death.

3) To be the champion of God's people, the Jews in the Old Law, the Christians in the New Testament

4) To call away from earth and bring men's souls to judgment

In the imagery of Catholicism, Michael usually is depicted as a fully armed warrior standing over the body of a slain dragon. Often, he is shown to be holding a pair of scales (to weigh the souls of the dead) or the Book of Life (to indicate that he participates in the judgment).

Michael is a created being, yet how many of the responsibilities and offices ascribed to him by tradition intrude upon the authority of the Christ and the Holy Spirit?

He is a created being and, as such, not to be worshipped:

I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;--Exodus 20:2-5

NOT TO BE WORSHIPPED, yet Catholicism indeed does render worship to St. Michael and to other angels. In fact, until the custom died a couple of hundred years ago, the Saint's Day of Michael (Sept. 29) was a holy day of obligation, requiring the Catholic faithful to attend Mass in his honor. When the warlike Germans embraced Catholicism, the church morphed Wotan, chief of their pagan gods, into Michael, the chief of the warrior angels. Another easy adaptation of pagan beliefs and practices into Romish orthodoxy. Now, throughout the lands once walked by the German hordes we see not the ancient hilltop temples of Wotan, but churches and shrines dedicated to angel Michael.

Every Catholic saint worth his salt can claim a string of miracles, preferably miraculous deliveries, and the best of them make the occasional earthly visitation. Those who venerate Michael can point to both:

According to an (apocryphal?) legend of the tenth century he appeared over the Moles Hadriani (Castel di S. Angelo), in 950, during the procession which St. Gregory held against the pestilence, putting an end to the plague. Boniface IV (608-15) built on the Moles Hadriani in honour of him, a church, which was styled St. Michaelis inter nubes (in summitate circi).

Well known is the apparition of St. Michael (a. 494 or 530-40), as related in the Roman Breviary, 8 May, at his renowned sanctuary on Monte Gargano, where his original glory as patron in war was restored to him. To his intercession the Lombards of Sipontum (Manfredonia) attributed their victory over the Greek Neapolitans, 8 May, 663. In commemoration of this victory the church of Sipontum instituted a special feast in honour of the archangel, on 8 May, which has spread over the entire Latin Church and is now called (since the time of Pius V) "Apparitio S. Michaelis", although it originally did not commemorate the apparition, but the victory.--Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright © 1913 by the Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright © 1996 by New Advent, Inc.

How did Michael the archangel, one of the chief princes of God's angelic host (Dan. 10:13), become St. Michael, patron of paratroopers and police? There are those who would suggest the process was nothing more than apotheosis, or god-making, so well known to the ancients and to those who today makes deities of sports figures, matinee idols and rock stars. Rome, of course, denies such an idea, claiming instead that those she canonizes are nothing more than friends and servants of God whose holy lives merit His special love:

"The true origin of canonization and beatification must be sought in the Catholic doctrine of the worship (cultus), invocation, and intercession of the saints. As was taught by St. Augustine (Quaest. in Heptateuch., lib. II, n. 94; Contra Faustum, lib. XX, xxi), Catholics, while giving to God alone adoration strictly so-called, honour the saints because of the Divine supernatural gifts which have earned them eternal life, and through which they reign with God in the heavenly fatherland as His chosen friends and faithful servants. In other words, Catholics honour God in His saints as the loving distributor of supernatural gifts. The worship of latria (latreia), or strict adoration, is given to God alone; the worship of dulia (douleia), or honour and humble reverence, is paid the saints; the worship of hyperdulia (hyperdouleia), a higher form of dulia, belongs, on account of her greater excellence, to the Blessed Virgin Mary.--Catholic Encyclopedia, Op. cit.

DULIA, HYPERDULIA, LATRIA. Call it what you will, worship is worship and worship is to be rendered to the Creator, not created things or beings. Playing word games and inventing new meanings for what is represented by the practice of kneeling before an image, praying and sacrificing to a created being and holding special rites to honor such beings is idolatry, clear and simple. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck -–it is a duck!! When it comes to worshipping created beings and things – you can call it dulia or hyperdulia, but it still is idolatry.

Scripture particularly warns us against being beguiled into worshipping angels.

Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,--Colossians 2:18,

Angel worship was becoming a big thing in the area around Colosse, where the practice continued for centuries. In it's worship (dulia) of Michael, Gabriel, etc., Roman Catholicism is in clear violation of God's commandment against idolatry. The proscription against worshipping (or rendering obsequious honors to) angels may be seen also in Matthew 4:10, Revelation 19:10 and Revelation 22:8,9.

There are similarities between the teachings and practice of the Roman church as concerns angels and those of the heretics who were proselytizing angelic worship in Paul's time. The Colossian heretics based their teaching on visions and revelations they claimed to have received. This of course, sounds a lot like the apparitions and "developing" traditions of the Roman church. These false teachers claimed to have secret wisdom and transcendent knowledge which only is available to the spiritually elite, similar to the Roman Magisterium. Like those of the Magisterium, their claims are false. The Scriptures are clear: Jesus Christ is God's final and complete revelation to man (Hebrews 1:1,2)

In writing to the Colossians, Paul stressed that all the truth necessary for salvation, sanctification and glorification is available in Christ, who is God revealed. (John 1:14; Rom. 11:33-36; 1 Cor. 1:24, 2:6-8; Eph. 1:8-9, 3:8-9) In the first two chapters of his letter, the Apostle stressed Christ's deity and his sufficiency to save believers and to bring them to spiritual maturity. There is no reason to worship or seek the assistance of Michael or any other created being. Christ is enough!

The Catholic Encyclopedia provides an alternate point of view:

It is objected that the invocation of saints is opposed to the unique mediatorship of Christ Jesus. There is indeed "one mediator of God and man, the man Christ Jesus". But He is our mediator in His quality of our common Redeemer; He is not our sole intercessor nor advocate, nor our sole mediator by way of supplication." --Catholic Encyclopedia, Op. cit.

Is it God who promotes angels and selected dead people to the status of sainthood? Not at all. It is the pope, the Vicarius Filii Dei, who determines just who are the particular friends of God who merit His "special" love. And, by golly, he does so infallibly. At least, that is the consensus of a lot of the good ole boys who, in their fantasies, determined the Pontifex Maximus to have such powers.

Is the pope infallible in issuing a decree of canonization? Most theologians answer in the affirmative. It is the opinion of St. Antoninus, Melchior Cano, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bañez, Vasquez, and, among the canonists, of Gonzales Tellez, Fagnanus, Schmalzgrüber, Barbosa, Reiffenstül, Covarruvias (Variar. resol., I, x, no 13), Albitius (De Inconstantiâ in fide, xi, no 205), Petra (Comm. in Const. Apost., I, in notes to Const. I, Alex., III, no 17 sqq.), Joannes a S. Thomâ (on II-II, Q. I, disp. 9, a. 2), Silvester (Summa, s. v. Canonizatio), Del Bene (De Officio Inquisit. II, dub. 253), and many others. In Quodlib. IX, a. 16, St. Thomas says: "Since the honour we pay the saints is in a certain sense a profession of faith, i.e., a belief in the glory of the Saints [quâ sanctorum gloriam credimus] we must piously believe that in this matter also the judgment of the Church is not liable to error." These words of St. Thomas, as is evident from the authorities just cited, all favouring a positive infallibility, have been interpreted by his school in favour of papal infallibility in the matter of canonization, and this interpretation is supported by several other passages in the same Quodlibet. This infallibility, however according to the holy doctor, is only a point of pious belief. Theologians generally agree as to the fact of papal infallibility in this matter of canonization, but disagree as to the quality of certitude due to a papal decree in such matter. In the opinion of some it is of faith (Arriaga, De fide, disp. 9, p. 5, no 27); others hold that to refuse assent to such a judgment of the Holy See would be both impious and rash, as Suarez (De fide, disp. 5 p. 8, no 8); many more (and this is the general view) hold such a pronouncement to be theologically certain, not being of Divine Faith as its purport has not been immediately revealed, nor of ecclesiastical Faith as having thus far not been defined by the Church. "---Ibid.

Did you know there is a "Chaplet to St. Michael?" According to one Antonia d'Arsonac, the archangel visited her one day and taught her about the chaplet. He promised her that anyone who recited this chaplet before receiving communion would be escorted to the communion rail by a corps of nine angels, one from each of the nine angel choirs. To make things even better, Michael promised that those who recited his chaplet every day could count on his help and that of all the angels for so long as he lived. Sigh!

To give the reader some idea of what this chaplet involves, in addition to the usual multiplied Hail Maries and Our Fathers, here are a couple of the chaplet's concluding prayers:

O glorious prince St. Michael, chief and commander of the heavenly hosts, guardian of souls, vanquisher of rebel spirits, servant in the house of the Divine King and our admirable conductor, you who shine with excellence and superhuman virtue deliver us from all evil, who turn to you with confidence and enable us by your gracious protection to serve God more and more faithfully every day.

Pray for us, O glorious St. Michael, Prince of the Church of Jesus Christ, that we may be made worthy of His promises.

This is the law of the Roman Catholic Church:

Can. 1186 To foster the sanctification of the people of God, the Church commends to the special and filial veneration of Christ's faithful the Blessed Mary ever-Virgin, the Mother of God, whom Christ constituted the Mother of all. The Church also promotes the true and authentic cult of the other Saints, by whose example the faithful are edified and by whose intercession they are supported.

Can. 1187 Only those servants of God may be venerated by public cult who have been numbered by ecclesiastical authority among the Saints or the Blessed.

Can. 1188 The practice of exposing sacred images in churches for the veneration of the faithful is to be retained. However, these images are to be displayed in moderate numbers and in suitable fashion, so that the christian people are not disturbed, nor is occasion given for less than appropriate devotion.--Code of Canon Law

This is the Law of God:

I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;--Exodus 20:2-5

When the time comes for the sheep to be separated from the goats, do YOU want to stand before the Great White Throne and try to explain to the Perfect Judge that when you were praying to one of His angels, or to Mary or some other dead person, you were not really worshipping with latria – merely dulia or hyperdulia? Do you honestly believe that Christ's judgment will be based upon Roman Catholic dogma and doctrine?

Think about it. Get right with the Lord while you still have breath.

Table of Contents for 'Catechism vs. the Bible' 

---

How does a person get to Heaven?

Ye Must Be Born Again! | You Need HIS Righteousness!

The Bible Verses Catholic Tradition

The Bible Verses Catholic Tradition

Who is Trustworthy?

I imagine that just about everyone reading here is aware that, as far as the Roman Catholic Church is concerned, the Word of God includes both the Sacred Scriptures and Tradition, as interpreted by the Teaching Authority of the Church.

95. "'It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.'[DV 10 # 3.]"

97. "'Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God' [DV 10] in which, as in a mirror, the pilgrim Church contemplates God, the source of all her riches." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday: New York, © 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. – Libreria Editrice Vaticana, pp. 34, 35)

The RCC claims Tradition originates with God and, in fact, some certainly may. However, it does seem that a great deal of Rome’s Tradition – with a capital “T” – wells up out of the minds of men. Surely, it can be easily demonstrated that the men, the church fathers, so frequently referenced by modern Catholic apologists and wannabe apologists took different views of issues at different times in their careers.

To this day, Romish apologists can be shown to be influenced by their own prejudices in matters of foundational importance. One example might be drawn from the response of a well-respected RCC apologist, writing in Catholic Digest, to a question concerning Jesus’ siblings.

“If anyone without doctrinal background and awareness of Christian tradition would simply pick up the Gospels and read these references to the brothers and sisters of Jesus, I suppose he would take for granted that they were the children of Mary and Joseph. But it is a remarkable thing that none of the early Fathers or writers of the Church – except possibly Tertullian, who was a heretic – ever thought of considering these brethren as children of Mary. Some took it for granted that they were children of Joseph by an earlier marriage, but there was always a firm and constant doctrinal tradition that Mary had remained a virgin all her life. Origin and St. Basil are particularly strong in pointing this out.” (J. D. Conway, What the Church Teaches, Harper & Brothers: New York (1962), p. 87; w/Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur)

Just a single paragraph lifted from a longer study, yet so many errors and so many untruths. I do not accuse Monsignor Conway of deliberately lying, though I do believe him to have accepted as true many lies that originated in the infallible Teaching Authority of the RCC. Let us examine in detail a few points made by Conway.

“But it is a remarkable thing that none of the early Fathers or writers of the Church – except possibly Tertullian… ever thought of considering these brethren as children of Mary.” That is patently not true, as I demonstrated in some detail in my article Mary – Eternally Virgin? . In that article, the reader will discover that Saint Jerome, Doctor of the Church and an early writer of the Church, apparently indeed did have such thoughts:

"There is a letter in which this same Clement writing to JAMES THE LORD'S BROTHER, gives an account of the death of Peter, and says that he has left him as his successor, as ruler and teacher of the church;. . . But it is time that we should pay attention to the beginning of Clement's own narrative, which he addresses to James the Lord's brother. " (Philip Schaff, Ed. The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," Vol. 3, Jerome, The Preface to the Books of Recognitions of St. Clement, p. 1135-6) (Emphasis not in original)

The Clement Jerome refers to – who addressed his own narrative to James the Lord’s Brother – was a Bishop of Rome, a pope, if you will. Surely his writings, while not infallible in this case, merit some consideration.

Moving right along, I offer the words of another early Church Father, writer and Doctor of the Church, Cyril of Jerusalem, who also appears to have given some thought to the subject:

"But now is Christ risen from the dead, the first fruits of them that are asleep; — And He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve; (for if thou believe not the one witness, thou hast twelve witnesses;) then He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; (if they disbelieve the twelve, let them admit the five hundred;) after that He was seen of JAMES, HIS OWN BROTHER, and first Bishop of this diocese. Seeing then that such a Bishop originally saw Christ Jesus when risen, do not thou, his disciple, disbelieve him. But thou sayest that His brother James was a partial witness; afterwards He was seen also of me Paul, His enemy; and what testimony is doubted, when an enemy proclaims it? "I, who was before a persecutor, now preach the glad tidings of the Resurrection." (Philip Schaff, Ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 7, S. Cyril, Archibishop of Jerusalem, Lecture 14, P. 269) (Emphasis not in original)

Did you notice Cyril's clear statement, "He was seen of James, HIS OWN BROTHER?" Can any words be more clear? Can there be any legitimate understanding of these words other than what they plainly say? From Cyril’s words alone, one can argue that some of the early Church Fathers not only gave the thought some consideration but actually believed it to be true.

Leo the Great, another early Church Father, writer, pope and Doctor of the Church, penned these words, thereby manifesting that he not only had considered the idea but also believed it to be true:

“it is evident that after the incarnation of the Lord no one can be saved, even of those who hold His faith, who have not the life of faith; since it is written, They acknowledge that they know God, but in deeds they deny Him (Titus 1:16). And John says, He that saith that he knows Him, and keepeth not His commandments, is a liar (1 John 2:4). JAMES ALSO, THE BROTHER OF THE LORD, writes saying, Faith without works is dead (James 2:20). If, then, believers now are not saved without good works, while the unbelieving and reprobate without good action were saved by our Lord descending into hell, then the lot of those who never saw the incarnation of the Lord was better than that of these who have been born after the mystery of His incarnation." (Philip Schaff, Ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, Vol. 12, The Letters and Sermons of Leo the Great, Epistle 15, pp. 919-20) (Emphasis not in the original)

Well, the foregoing sources were but men and, as even a Catholic apologist will admit, fallible. How about an ecumenical council of the Church? These words from one such council clearly show that, as late as A.D. 695, there was a strong body of belief that Jesus of Nazareth had at least one sibling:

". . . For also JAMES, THE BROTHER, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, OF CHRIST OUR GOD, to whom the throne of the church of Jerusalem first was entrusted, and Basil, the Archbishop of the Church of Caesarea, whose glory has spread through all the world, when they delivered to us directions for the mystical sacrifice in writing, declared that the holy chalice is consecrated in the Divine Liturgy with water and wine. And the holy Fathers who assembled at Carthage provided in these express terms: "That in the holy Mysteries nothing besides the body and blood of the Lord be offered, as the Lord himself laid down, that is bread and wine mixed with water." Therefore if any bishop or presbyter shall not perform the holy action according to what has been handed down by the Apostles, and shall not offer the sacrifice with wine mixed with water, let him be deposed, as imperfectly shewing forth the mystery and innovating on the things which have been handed down" (Philip Schaff, Ed., The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd Series, Vol. 14; The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, The Canons of the Council in Trullo; Often Called The Quinisext Council, A.D. 692, Canon 32, p.716) (Emphasis not in original)

There are other proofs that Monsignor Conway was talking through his hat when he claims that NONE of the early Church Fathers or writers, except perhaps Tertullian, ever considered that Christ had siblings, but interested readers can read their words on the linked page.

Conway lays a label on Tertullian, whom he called a heretic. Well, history certainly records that Tertullian was the most important of the converts to Montanism.

“[Montanism’s] greatest conquest was the gifted and fiery, but eccentric and rigoristic Tertullian. He became in the year 201 or 202, from ascetic sympathies, a most energetic and influential advocate of Montanism, and helped its dark feeling towards a twilight of philosophy, without, however, formally seceding from the Catholic Church, whose doctrines he continued to defend against the heretics. At all events, he was not excommunicated, and his orthodox writings were always esteemed.” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, Ante-Nicene Christianity, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company:Grand Rapids (1987), p.420)

In as much as Tertullian held to Montanism, Conway’s assertion that the man was a heretic clearly holds water. Yet other Catholic writers, including Pope John Paul II, are not put off from using Tertullian’s teachings to support their doctrinal arguments. In the encyclical Fides et Ratio, John Paul II uses Tertullian’s words to support his arguments concerning the distinction between theology and philosophy. And isn’t this something we often see with Catholic theologians and apologists? A source is a heretic or mighty man of God, depending upon how his words are to be used. This is one of the major failings of reliance on Tradition for dogma and doctrine.

After discounting Tertullian’s opinions as those of a heretic, Monsignor Conway then calls upon another Doctor of the Church, early church father and writer – Saint Basil – to support the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity. Interestingly, Conway also points to Origin to lend strength to the dogma of Mary’s unrelenting virginity. This calling upon the work of Origen is particularly interesting when one considers Conway’s scathing use of the label HERETIC in reference to Tertullian (whose position on the issue apparently ran contrary to that of the Monsignor). Tertullian was not excommunicated, but Origen was in fact anathematized by a Church council.

If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches and Origen, as well as their impious writings, as also all other heretics already condemned and anathematized by the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and by the aforesaid four Holy Synods and [if anyone does not equally anathematize] all those who have held and hold or who in their impiety persist in holding to the end the same opinion as those heretics just mentioned: let him be anathema. Medieval Sourcebook: Fifth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople II, 553, Canon 11 [Denzinger 223])

An ecumenical council anthematized Origen and his writings, yet Conway – and any number of other Catholic theologians and apologists draw support for their positions from his writings. Once again, proof that a figure, ancient or modern, can be either a dog or a goat, depending upon the purpose of the Catholic writer. This is Tradition. And it is utterly unreliable as a source of doctrinal truth.

One final comment on Conway’s words quoted above. The opening sentence carries very heavy elitist overtones. The inference is that “anyone without doctrinal background and awareness of Christian tradition” is unequipped to understand or grasp biblical truth. Yet, as I have shown, Conway – an apologist who surely must have had both a doctrinal background and an awareness of Christian (read Catholic) tradition – manifested his own inability, or unwillingness, to understand biblical truth.

God’s truth is in the Sacred Scriptures. Look for it there, not in the self-serving utterances of men with axes to grind. When presented with doctrinal statements or issues of a theological nature – even on this board – I urge the reader not to accept them at face value. Rather, open the Scriptures and prayerfully search to see what the Lord God had to say on the issue at hand.

Table of Contents for 'Catechism vs. the Bible' 

---

How does a person get to Heaven?

Ye Must Be Born Again! | You Need HIS Righteousness!