Listen in MP3
Download MP3
Download WMA<<Previous Part -- [This sermon is number 11 in a series of 15] -- Next part>>
Strongholds Of Satan - Part 11
"Roman Catholicism"
Copyright 2005
by Pastor David Legge
All Rights Reserved
(Permission is granted to distribute this transcript in its entirety, with no alterations)
Roman Catholicism |
|
We're turning to Jude's epistle. If you don't know where that is, Revelation is the last book in the Bible, and Jude is the book just before it. So if you turn to Jude we're only going to read one verse, just in our introduction, and I would encourage you in these subsequent weeks - if you haven't already done so tonight - to bring a pen and paper with you. I can't remember everything that I'm saying, so I doubt you will when I've been in it for a longer time than you have, at least today and this past week. So it would be a good exercise for you to bring a pen and a notebook with you as we consider these religions, particularly tonight as we consider Roman Catholicism.
Let's read verse 3, of course there's only one chapter in Jude, verse 3 - and this is the reason that Jude gives for writing this epistle. His preliminary desire was to write an epistle about salvation, and we may have had another book in the New Testament a bit like the book of Romans, but the Holy Spirit changed his mind. He says in verse 3: "Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ".
Tonight we consider 'Roman Catholicism'. Let me just say in introduction that in many of the evangelical treatments and assessments of cults and religions in our world, Roman Catholicism is omitted. It would be a good exercise for you if you went into your local Christian bookshop and looked down the section on cults or world religions, and looked down the contents or the index, and you will observe as I have done that very few of them include Roman Catholicism in their assessments and treatments of other faiths and cults. Now there are a number of reasons for that. Let me give you them, as far as I can decipher, just in introduction. The first, I think, is: because many still believe today that the Roman Catholic Church is a Christian church. Of course, it can be included in that wide umbrella called 'Christendom' today, but many - whatever sect of the church they belong to - still believe that the Roman Catholic system can be classed as a Christian church, even in the most broad sense. Therefore it can't be categorised as a cult or a false religion. Another reason that is often, I think, the reason why it's not included today in false religions and confusing cults is the ecumenical spirit that prevails, particularly in the Western church. What is that ecumenical spirit? Well, we'll look at it in a bit more detail later on, but it is simply the spirit of emphasising unity among religions and those Christian denominations that we know of, those things that we have in common, rather than emphasising the things that divide us. So why would you want to write about Roman Catholicism as a false faith or a confusing cult, if you're trying to unite so-called Christianity?
A third reason, I think, which is one that I sympathise a little bit with, is the fear of ostracising Roman Catholics for evangelism. Many well-meaning people don't want to be seen as critical of another person's faith, in case they ostracise Roman Catholics as fresh missionary ground and harvest field for the gospel - and indeed, in the form of a letter, I had one such evangelical objection to this particular study we're having tonight. They felt that I could ostracise dear Roman Catholic people that we're trying to win with the gospel. Now all of those objections I believe will be addressed in course as we go through our study this evening.
The first thing I want us to consider is the objection that is often given: why the Roman Catholic Church or system could be classed as 'the' Christian church. That's why, perhaps, it's not included in assessments of cults and false religions, because it is the 'catholic' church, as many people call it. 'Catholic' simply means 'universal', and at a casual glance of Christian history, and even secular history, you could argue that there has been no interruptions or interjections in the Catholic Church, or breakaways, or sects, or schisms from the apostles. That's what many people argue.
Now, I want to consider first of all: is that the case historically? I'm going to give you a brief résumé of church history, not in any depth I hasten to add, a very simplistic summary as well - but just to give you an understanding of where the Roman Catholic Church came from, how we have got to where we are today regarding the Roman Catholic Church, and indeed what is classed as 'Protestantism'.
First of all, after the New Testament was written, or at least around the time it was written, you have the Apostolic Church from the early 30s AD to 100AD, and that was a time characterised particularly by the persecution of Nero and Domitian. Several of the New Testament epistles were written in reaction to that. It was also a time that was characterised by the expansion of the early church, particularly the missionary journeys and escapades of Paul and Barnabas around the known European world. Between the 40s to the mid-90s of this period most, if not all, of the New Testament was written. This period that we could class as the Apostolic Early Church ends about the year 100AD with the death of the apostle John, the writer of 1, 2 and 3 John, the Gospel of John and the book of the Revelation.
Now when we exit the year 100AD we come to a time that could be classed as the Persecuted Church, from the year 100 through to 313AD. That was a particular period characterised again by Roman persecution, but it was a more planned and orchestrated persecution. Within the church it was also characterised by heresies and divisive issues, particularly that of when Easter should be celebrated and so on. In 311AD an Emperor called Galerius issued an edict called the 'Edict of Toleration', and this is where the treatment changed from Rome regarding the Christian church of the day. This Edict of Toleration said that Christians should be tolerated, they should be allowed to worship in the Roman Empire. Then in 313AD the Emperor Constantine, who many of you will be familiar with - his name at least - issued another edict, the 'Edict of Milan'. That granted Christians not only toleration, but total freedom.
That's very important, because that signified what is commonly known later on, at least it paved the way for the unification between the church and state. After the year 313 right through to about 590AD, the organised church changed from what up to then had been the 'Catholic Church', the universal New Testament church with each bishop in that church equal to one another, each overseeing elder, it changed to become the 'Roman Catholic Church' with a Roman bishop who was first among equals, among all the bishops in that particular early church.
It was characterised by the Bishop of Rome who claimed that his church in particular was founded by the apostle Peter and the apostle Paul. The Bishop of Rome claimed that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. In fact he went further to say that Christ appointed Peter as His vicar on earth, and the word 'vicar' simply means 'His representative on earth'. Therefore all the succeeding bishops of Rome inherited the vicarship of Christ - that's what's called 'apostolic succession'. Because Peter, they claim, was the first bishop of Rome, every succeeding bishop of Rome has that same blessing of the vicarship of Christ, representing Christ on earth.
Now I know that that is a very swift and simplistic summary of history, but if I could sum it up even more simplistically just to say this: for the first three centuries of the church Christians, largely speaking, took the Bible as their only standard of rule, belief and practice. Then all of a sudden in the fourth century AD, Constantine begins to favour Christianity - he was not converted, as is commonly said, to Christianity, he began to favour it. Then in 324AD he made it the official religion of the Roman Empire. Now you may say: 'What's the significance of that?'. Well, practically this meant that the thousands of non-Christians who came into the Empire - whether they followed false gods or worshipped idols - because they came into the Empire, and the religion of the Empire was Christianity, to take advantage in the Empire they converted - so-called - to Christianity. Now it wasn't a true conversion in the New Testament sense, it was a conversion to gain advantage. With them came their pagan gods, their pagan beliefs, and we begin to see entering into this particular church: priests, rituals, images and so on - and I believe, we haven't got time to look at this tonight, but many of them can be traced back to ancient Babylon right at the tower of Babel. As we go into the book of Revelation, particularly in chapter 17, you see that these same characteristics of pagan Babylon will be chiefly found in the religious system, and I believe Rome will be at the head of it at the end of time. If you want to read more about that, I haven't got time to go into it in any more detail, but I would advise you to get 'The Two Babylons' by Alexander Hislop [Download PDF] - it's not in the top ten list of modern Christian books to read today, but it's one of the most vital ones. You get it, and you'll see how Babylon can be found in Rome, and will be found in this ecumenical church that will be around at the end of time.
Just to say, as we move on from that, with all this infiltration of paganism into the church, we get this state church from about 313 to 590AD and many of the views that we recognise as being 'Roman Catholic' were formed, maybe not dogmatically but at least in embryo, during that particular church period. The years that followed that are the years of the dark days of Christianity, the Mediaeval Church from 590 to 1517AD. Although during that time, as you read church history, there were small groups of true Bible-believing Christians, the church to a large extent was semi-pagan in its belief right through the time of the Middle Ages to what is now known as the Reformation Church.
Now we ask the question, and this will lead us on to our study tonight: what happened? We've come from the beginning, the Apostolic Church, through to the Persecuted Church; we then see the State Church with these influences of church and state together, and paganism coming in from the immigration of people with false religions joining for advantage the church of Jesus Christ, so-called; to the dark times of the Middle Ages - what happened in the year 1517 through to 1648AD to change the scene of Christendom? Very simply put, what happened was a rediscovery of the teachings of the Bible. Men started to read and to study again the word of God, and when they read the word of God they began to see that the word of God was not in parallel, but was in contrast to what was in the church. So they began to protest against the false beliefs that were in the Mediaeval Church, they protested and because of that they were called 'Protestants'. Now it doesn't have the meaning that people have taken for it today in Ulster, so don't you define it like that - but the historical meaning was men who believed the Bible, who were true Christians and stood up for those beliefs, and that was the beginning of the Reformation.
But chiefly this is what I want you to note made the difference: when they rediscovered the truths of the Bible, the great conflict of the Reformation, and the conflict thereafter has been the conflict between the Scriptures and tradition - the Holy Scriptures and what the church of Rome calls 'holy tradition'. Now many people hail Vatican II in 1965 as a real change in Roman doctrine, and it was not. There were some changes in Vatican II which we'll highlight later on, but effectively their doctrine stayed the same, particularly in relation to tradition. Read this quote with me, it says: 'Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and sacred scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of devotion and reverence…It is clear therefore that sacred scripture and the teaching authority of the church, in accord to God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the other'. Another quotation from the Catholic catechism: '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'.
Now what is all this is saying? Well, simply this: the Roman Catholic Church does not see the Bible as the only word of God, but the word of God is also - apparently, they claim - transmitted through Peter, then his successors the bishops and popes of Rome, and the successors of the apostles in tradition, which is as valid as the word of God and must be held up as the word of God. They actually say, in our last quotation: 'The one cannot stand without the other'.
Now let me just say that Roman Catholics say that tradition is found in the Bible, and they are right. Tradition is spoken of positively in the Bible, in fact I'll give you a reference, 2 Thessalonians 3:6, listen to what Paul says: 'Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us'. We read of it in 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 1 Corinthians 11:2 and other verses where Paul mentions 'tradition'. But what I want you to see this evening is that Vatican II, as we looked at it, said this: 'One cannot stand without the other' - Scriptures cannot stand without tradition, and vice versa. Now if the Roman Catholic Church claim that the Bible is the word of God, and today they do claim it - although, down through the centuries, they tried to destroy it in the mother tongue of the people - yet today they do claim that, equal to tradition, it is the word of God. If their tradition contradicts the word of God, what do they do? What can they do, because they have said that one can only stand with the other. So therefore, it must mean in consequence that one must agree with the other.
Let me turn your attention to Mark chapter 7 for a moment, turn with me to Mark 7 for this is so important because here the Lord Jesus speaks on the subject of tradition. I trust you'll give me plenty of time tonight to deal with this subject. Mark 7 and verses 8 and 9, speaking of the Pharisees and their external worship without the heart, He says: 'For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do. And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own traditions'. 'Ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own traditions' - now He said the same or similar things in Matthew 15, and in Colossians 2 and verse 8 Paul says these words: 'Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ'.
'Now what does that mean?', you say. Well, simply, if your tradition, the word of God says, contradicts Scripture it cannot be held up as scriptural tradition. When your tradition contradicts Scripture, what do we take? Do we take the traditions of men? Not if they contradict the commandments of God, Jesus says, we must always favour the word of God - and God's word does not contradict itself, otherwise it couldn't be God's word. God has given us His word, Jude 3 that we read tonight: we are to contend for and defend the faith that was once and for all delivered to the saints. God's word has been given, and we are called in 1 John to distinguish between the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. We're going to seek to do that tonight as we compare the word of God with the teachings of Roman Catholicism.
Let me say before we go any further that this will be far from a comprehensive analysis of Roman Catholicism, but what I want to do is outline the fatal problems of Roman Catholicism in comparison with the Holy Scriptures. So we look at our first point this evening: the Papacy, or the Pope, the Pontificate. What does Rome say about the Pope, and what does the word of God have to say? Well, this first statement from the creed of Pope Pius IV and section 10 reads like this, this is what a Catholic ought to acknowledge and confess: 'I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church for the Mother and Mistress of all Churches, and I promise and swear true obedience to the Bishop of Rome…Successor to St Peter, Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ'.
You might say: 'Well, where do they get all that from? Surely they haven't just made it up?', well you're right, they haven't made it up. They turn to several texts in Scripture to substantiate this claim. Probably the most famous one is Matthew 16, if you turn with me to it, Matthew chapter 16 and verse 18. The Lord Jesus is speaking to Peter, He has asked 'Whom do men say that I am?', in verse 16 Peter confesses 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God'. Then in verse 18, after the Lord says that flesh and blood did not reveal this to him but his Father in heaven, the Lord says to Peter: 'upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it'. They claim that because, they say, Peter was called 'Rock', 'Petros', that the church was built upon him, and every successive bishop of Rome is that the same rock on which we build the church. But what, from the very beginning of the Reformation, Protestant theologians and scholars have rightly saw in this verse is that there is a different word used here for 'Peter' and for 'rock'. The word 'Peter' is the word 'Petros' in the Greek language, it means 'a stone' or 'a rock that is detached from the earth'. Whereas the word that is used for 'rock' here, on which Christ would build His church, is the word 'Petra' which means 'an immovable rock' a bit like the Rock of Gibraltar or Cavehill.
So the Lord Jesus is saying to Peter, after he made this statement to Him 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God', 'Thou art Petros', a stone, 'and upon this Petra', this immovable rock, 'I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it'. Now that's clear from the Greek language, but if the Lord was wanting to be clear and He was wanting to build His church upon Peter, 'Petros', surely He could have said 'Thou art Peter and upon thee I will build my church'. I hope that answers that question for you, I'm sure it won't for many - some turn again to verse 19, where Peter is told by the Lord 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven'. Therefore they say that Peter has the keys to the church, he's the Bishop of Rome and so are his successors. The fact of the matter is that Peter fulfilled this verse. We haven't got time to do it, but if you were to go to the Acts of the Apostles you would see very clearly that Peter was the first to preach and unlock the door of the church to the Jews; and then he goes in Acts chapter 10 and he unlocks the door of the church to the Gentiles through the preaching of the Gospel. It did not mean that he had authority to take people to heaven or to send them to hell, or that he even controlled the church, it meant that through the preaching of the Gospel he opened in Acts 2 to the Jew and in Acts 10 to the Gentiles the good news and the church of Jesus Christ.
We know from Revelation 3 and verse 7 that only the Lord Jesus is able to open and to shut, only He has those eternal keys of glory. Later on in Matthew 18, if you care to turn to it, and verse 18 you can see clearly that to all the apostles the same injunction was given: 'Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven' - plural, it's spoken to all the apostles, all those who are preaching the Gospel.
Now, even answering those two texts in Matthew 16 and 18, for some the question still remains: 'But did the Lord not appoint an earthly head of the church for today, a successor to Peter?', who they claim is the first Pope. Let me give you this evening eight or nine texts that I believe refute categorically the claim that Peter is the first Pope, and that the Popes today have succeeded him. The first two are found in Matthew 23 and Mark 10. Matthew 23, the Lord Jesus said: 'Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant'. Now that would seem to turn on its head, wouldn't it, papal authority, papal supremacy. Then the Lord Jesus, in the same tone, said in Mark 10: 'Whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many'. It doesn't seem to fit in with the hierarchical system of the Pontificate, does it?
Now to turn to another theme, another verse is 1 Peter 5:1 - and I please ask you to note that Peter wrote this book - he says in chapter 5 verse 1: 'The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed'. He included himself among the elders, he didn't set himself on a pinnacle above them as the Bishop of Rome or anything like that. Then thirdly we see in Acts 8:14: 'Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John' - the Pope being sent, doesn't make sense does it? We can't imagine the Pope being sent by his cardinals or by his bishops, but Peter and John subjected themselves to the church in the early stages.
Then we move on to Acts 15, we're not going to read it but at the Council of Jerusalem Peter was present, but it was James' counsel that was heeded. They listened to James and not particularly Peter, that would seem strange if he was the chief head of the church. Then moving on, one more proof, 2 Corinthians 11 verse 5: 'For I suppose I was not a whit', Paul says, 'behind the very chiefest apostles' - Paul claims to be on the same level footing with all the other apostles, including the apostle Peter. We go to another verse in Galatians 2 and verse 9: 'When James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas...' and so on, but you see that Paul collectively puts James, Cephas which is Peter, and John together as pillars - there was not a head of the church, but the apostles were pillars of the church. Then seventh in Galatians 2 and 11: 'But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him', Paul says, 'to the face, because he was to be blamed'. In this Galatian controversy Paul reprimanded Peter to the face - it would seem strange if he was infallible, as the first bishop of Rome, because he was wrong! Then eighthly in Ephesians 4:11 the list of the gifts of the church are given: 'He gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers' - first is apostles, not the Bishop of Rome, not a Pope, but the apostles.
Now, I hope you can see very clearly that that proves that the papacy does not weigh up with Holy Scripture. Let us move on to the Mass. The Mass is the centre of Roman Catholic experience. Anyone who knows anything about the Church of Rome will know this, because it's more than symbolic. As the priests stand before the emblems he, as he says 'This is Christ's blood and body', he actually has miraculous power to change the emblems - it's called transubstantiation. The bread and the wine convert, it is claimed, actually into the body, the blood, the soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ. This can be seen because the priest will lift the wafer before the congregation, and the congregation lift up and worship in their spirits, adore as divine, the sacrament. The Mass, the Church of Rome claims, is a real sacrifice, it is a sacrifice for both the sins of the living and the sins of the dead. It is a continual sacrifice, and they claim that it is the same sacrifice as Christ's sacrifice on the cross of Calvary.
Let me show you how this cannot be according to Holy Scriptures. Turn with me to Hebrews chapter 10 and verse 11, the apostle writes: 'Every priest', in the Old Testament, 'standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man', Christ, 'after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God' - one sacrifice for sins forever, He sat down, the work was finished. That's very clear, verse 13: 'From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified'. Then verse 18: 'Now where remission', or forgiveness, 'of sin is, there is no more offering for sin'. I think that's clear enough. If you turn back to Hebrews 7 verse 24: 'But this man, because he continueth ever', He lives ever through His resurrection, 'He has an unchangeable', that also means a non-transferable, 'priesthood'. He has no successors: 'Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them'.
Now Roman Catholic theologians will say: 'Well, what about John 6 and 54 when Jesus says 'This is my body, this is my blood'?'. Well, when you read down further into John 6 and verse 63, the Lord Jesus explained and said: 'It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life'. They are figurative language, 'This is my body, this is my blood', He was sitting beside them as He spoke those words, they were spiritual words. They signified what He would do at Calvary, they weren't meant to be taken literally, just as He said 'I am the door, I am the bread of life' and so on. Probably the greatest verse on this subject is John 19:30, where the Lord Jesus cried from the cross 'Tetelestai', 'It is finished!'.
This is not what the Roman Catholic Church teaches. This is Father Richard Chilson who is questioned about the mass and the finished work, it's from a video entitled 'Catholicism: Crisis of Faith' by Lumen Productions. It explains to you what their belief is, but what I want you to see is his reaction when he's asked about the finished work of the Lord Jesus:
[Begin video transcript]
Interviewer: 'Father Richard Chilson is the author of eight books on the Catholic faith, including 'Catholic Christianity' and 'An Introduction to the Faith of Catholics'. We asked him why the Catholic Church seeks to continue the sacrifice of Jesus at the Mass'.
Richard Chilson: 'The Eucharist for Catholics is ultimately a mystical understanding...the Eucharist, by making present that sacrifice throughout history, helps us to open our eyes to what is really going on continually - that God is continually, through Jesus Christ, reconciling the universe to Himself. It allows us to personally come into that moment, and be reconciled with God again and again and again. For a Catholic it continues before the sacrifice of Calvary, the sacrifice of Calvary does not begin at that point, it begins really at the foundation of the world - it goes forward in history and it goes backward in history as well'.
Interviewer: 'Other Christian denominations celebrate that the sacrifice is finished. We asked Father Chilson why the Catholic Church chooses to focus on its continuing, why not leave it finished?'
Richard Chilson: 'I don't know if I can answer that. I'm sorry, I know that's a real issue between Protestants and Catholics, but I don't know if I can answer it in any better way than I've already kind of stumbled on'.
[End video transcript]
That is because the Mass is not based on the word of God, that is the contrast, that is the great issue of the ages. John 19:30 says it is finished, the Mass says it is continual, it is not sufficient, it must go on if you are to be saved perhaps. Now we want to consider now Mary - this is the third fatal flaw in Catholicism. Pope Pius IX in 1854 dogmatised the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Now you will have heard of that, but you probably like most people will have misunderstood it, because it's not talking at all about the virgin birth. The Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with the virgin birth. The Immaculate Conception teaches that Mary was conceived without sin, Mary was conceived without sin, and did not sin, therefore, in her life. Now that is in complete contradistinction to the word of God. We know from Luke chapter 1, after the Lord Jesus was born, that in her Magnificat in verse 46 and 47 Mary actually rejoiced in God her Saviour - she needed a Saviour and she brought an offering for sin to the temple. She needed a Saviour because she was as a sinner, the Scriptures teach. In 1854, not before it mind you, but then Pius said she had no sin. Now that creates a problem, because in Romans 3:23 Paul says: 'All have sinned and come short of the glory of God', there is no difference. That doctrine of the Immaculate Conception raised in the minds and hearts of many Catholics another question, because Romans 6:23 teaches that the wages of sin is death. So if Mary was not a sinner, did she or did she not die?
Well, if she died, did she decay? Or did she not die at all? So many Catholics wanted an answer that in 1950, not an awfully long time ago, Pope Pius XII dogmatised the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary - what is that? That God took her up, she didn't die, she was assumed into heaven without dying - and this 'Mary-olatry', this Marian doctrine of the Catholic Church, is divine law. You can't say: 'Well, I'll believe the Christ bit and not the Mary bit', because Catholic doctrine denounces upon you an anathema if you do not accept this teaching of Mary. In 1917 in Fatima, Mary was meant to have appeared, and she said to those people who were following her: 'My immaculate heart will bring you to God' - and believe it or not people are still claiming to hear and to see Mary. In part of Belfast this very year there was this magazine went round of all the apparitions, visions and sightings and hearings of Mary in our own day and age.
I'm going to show you again another video clip, just outlining the important place that Mary holds within the life of Roman Catholicism:
[Begin video transcript]
Narrator: "...is elevated to divine revelation. Distortion of truth now becomes inevitable. The biblical accounts of Mary present her as a humble, faithful servant of God; but Catholic tradition has confused her position with that of Christ Himself. Mary has allegedly appeared to many in the uncharacteristic role of promoting herself. In 1917 she appeared at Fatima, there she announced: 'God wishes to establish in the world devotion to my immaculate heart. My immaculate heart will be your refuge and the way to lead you to God'. This shrine to the Immaculate heart of Mary recently was erected in Santa Clara, California to promote devotion to Mary's immaculate heart".
Interviewee: "I feel, whenever I have a problem and I'm praying, I feel that if I talk to Mary she would have more sympathy with me, and she can understand my motives if I feel I've done something wrong better than Jesus could or God. She's kind of like the mediator for me".
Narrator: "This advert is from the Catholic Standard and Times, quote 'He hasn't said no to her in 2000 years, what would you have her ask Him?'".
[End video transcript]
Now friends, you can see the important place that Mary has within Catholicism - she has been crowned Queen of Heaven by the Triune Godhead. Incidentally, Jeremiah 7 talks about, in paganism in Israel's day, a Queen of Heaven too - but she has been exalted to this point of almost, I would say, actual deity, as a co-redemptrix in our salvation, as a co-mediator with God. Here she is in a picture, granted, but all the angels of heaven worshipping, venerating and adoring her. She is seen as the mediator of all grace. There is actually a picture in the Baltimore Catechism of God judging Christ, a bit like this one, and the blood of Christ flowing out of His side into the hands of Mary, and flowing out of the hands of Mary upon the little children that are Catholic, confirmed and baptised and so on - she is seen as the dispenser of all grace, the mediator of all grace. You heard, the Son of God, it is taught, cannot disobey her. So if you want anything, don't go to Christ first, go to Mary and you'll get what you're looking for.
Now all this, I would vouch to say, makes salvation very complicated - and one thing it certainly does is it makes it less accessible, because Christ has paved the way, Hebrews tells us, to come straight into the presence of God by His own blood. First Timothy 2:5 says that 'there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus'. Mary doesn't figure at all in the equation. Yet, not only is there the worship of Mary, but there is the veneration of saints and of angels, of images and of objects. Now I don't have a lot of time to go into this, but just to say that in my travels I came across obvious ones such as the bones of saints and so on, and there was one travelling around here not so long ago around Ireland. Here are two that I found which are extraordinary: this is actually a piece of toast, a piece of toast! And on this piece of toast, if you can see it, is meant to be the face of the baby Jesus - now you can see a face. This is an underpass, I believe, in Chicago - and this is a stain, a damp stain upon the wall, and people have seen - they claim - the Virgin Mary in this stain on the wall, and they are venerating it, they're worshipping it!
Now what does the second commandment teach? Exodus 20:4-5: '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'. That's the second commandment - you say: 
'Well, do the Catholics not have the commandments?'. Yes, they have the commandments, but spot the difference - can you? The second commandment about bowing down to images is not there. They have omitted the second commandment. Oh, yes they still have ten if you count them, but do you know what they do? The tenth commandment they break into two: 'You shall not covet your neighbour's wife. You shall not covet anything else that belongs to your neighbour'. They make ten, nine and ten, in order to omit two because it doesn't fit in with their tradition. Now if that's not changing the word of God according to human tradition, I ask you what is?
We must move on. We've looked at the Papacy, the Mass, Mary, very very briefly - and Salvation is our next point. What is the Roman Catholic way of salvation? I engineered this diagram in order to try and explain to you the way Catholics see salvation. They do believe that we're born in sin, you're born in sin, and because you're born in sin there is a problem. The benefits of Christ's death to all infants that are born can only be imparted in grace through infant baptism - that's why it's so important that Roman Catholic babies are baptised just after they're born, because baptism according to Roman Catholic dogma cleanses and removes original sin. It actively infuses grace within the life of that soul, that child. It brings them into a state of grace, or you could put it: they are justified by the act of baptism. That's what they actually claim, this is initial justification - incidentally there are 6 million Roman Catholic babies baptised every year, and round about 2 million adults a year.
Now the problem is, you're still a sinner. This initial grace of infant baptism won't do if you continue to sin, and we all continue to sin, so more is needed, there's more work to be done. So you need to preserve that grace within you, effectively if you want to get to heaven you need to increase that grace, so Christ, they claim, He initiated seven sacraments in order to preserve and increase grace. What are those seven sacraments? Well, there is the list of them: baptism that we've mentioned; reconciliation which is just penance, trying to atone for your sins in confession to a priest; Holy Eucharist, the Mass; confirmation; matrimony, marriage; holy orders; and the anointing of the sick or the last rites. All of these things throughout your life will keep you in a state of grace, and effectively increase grace. But the problem is, if you're like every other human being on the face of the earth, you continue to sin. Because you continue to sin you will need what is called, over here number 3, re-justification. Even if you keep all these sacraments, and you fail in some way, you will need re-justification to replace that grace. You might commit a mortal sin, I could go down them, but those are the more serious sins, and they kill the life of grace, they kill it dead so that you would go straight to hell if you died after committing a mortal sin. Then there are venial sins, which are lesser sins, they just weaken the life of grace in you - but nevertheless, after committing mortal and venial sins you need re-justification and that comes through penance, through confession to a priest. Penance, mortification, all sorts of acts, confessing to a priest ought to atone - if it's done enough and sincerely - to some extent for your sins.
The problem is we're all sinning so much, as we have always done, that we continue to sin and all these sins - both mortal and venial - accrue to us a temporal punishment that will come one day in the form of purgatory. What an awful doctrine that is. Really Roman Catholic salvation ends on the note that the condition of your soul at the moment of your death will determine where your eternal destination will be. It is a continuation of this 'works' gospel from birth to death, and still at the end of it all you're not guaranteed. Purgatory, it all speaks, but Purgatory especially that Christ's death on the cross wasn't complete or wasn't enough to take us to heaven, to save us completely. Added to that blasphemy is the fact that it teaches that we can actually atone and pay for our own sins. Whereas what do the Scriptures teach? Ephesians 2:8-9: 'For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast'. Romans 3:28: 'Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law'. Romans 5:1: 'Therefore being justified by faith', not by works, not by sacraments, but by faith, 'we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ'. In Galatians 2:21 Paul says: 'I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law', sacraments or rules, 'then Christ is dead in vain'. What did He die for? The fact that He died is enough, the hymn says: 'It is enough that Jesus died, and that He died for me'.
You see, the Roman Catholic doctrine perverts the very word of grace, because as you have seen from this chart, grace is merited, it's earned - but the very word 'grace' as it is defined in the Bible means 'unmerited favour'! It is a gift that you cannot earn, that is what free grace is - free! Yet Rome puts a price on it.
We must end with this fifth point: ecumenism. Ecumenism is this unity of Christian denominations and religious sects, and also more than that, other religious systems into one. Now I did say earlier that Rome has not changed in its doctrinal basis after Vatican II in 1965 - there are no doctrinal changes, and she in fact confesses of herself that she is always the same, and we see that even in the new Pope. But there has been a change of image since Vatican II in 1965, one thing that did seem to change was at least their PR relationship to non-Christian religions and faiths. Dialogue is encouraged with them, and I want to show you a video clip that encapsulates this for us very well:
[Begin video transcript]
"...radical change of Catholic dogma, because that would destroy Roman Catholicism".
Narrator: "While no doctrinal changes were made, the second Vatican Council did change the position of the church in relationship to non-Christian religions. It affirmed that people of all religions form one community, and that the church respects the spiritual, moral and cultural values of Hinduism, Buddhism and Islam. Dialogue and collaboration were encouraged".
Interviewee: "I myself am engaged in a PhD in Mahayana Buddhism, my specialty in that is Tibetan Buddhism. I chose Buddhism because it seemed to be as contrary to Christianity as it is possible to be. Buddhists do not believe in God, Buddhists do not believe in a soul. What I have discovered instead through my studies of Buddhism is that in spite of the doctrines and myths that seem to contradict one another, the reality behind those doctrines and myths seems to be the same".
Narrator: "Catholic publishers seem to agree, and have produced numerous books designed to enrich Catholic spirituality with Eastern religion: 'A Taste Of Water: Christianity Through Taoist Buddhist Eyes' was co-authored by a priest and a nun. 'Love Meets Wisdom: A Christian Experience of Buddhism', written by a Jesuit priest; and 'Buddhist Emptiness and Christian Trinity', which shows how Buddhist-Christian dialogue has gone beyond mutual understanding to mutual transformation. Pope John Paul II personally took the initiative to unite the leaders of the world's religions for a prayer summit at Assisi, Italy in 1986. They came from around the world: Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and Jews. Muslims from nine nations sang from the Koran. American medicine men called on the great spirit. Buddhism's Dali Lama, traditionally regarded as a living deity, chanted rhythmically. Animists from Africa, Hindus, Zoroastrians - 'We will stand side-by-side asking God to give us peace'. With that papal invitation, 160 leaders from the religions of the world gathered to petition God. While toleration for the cultures of others is commendable, this summit treated all religions as equally valid, an endorsement without precedent in the history of Christianity".
[End video transcript]
Now this chap here is familiar to you all I'm sure over recent days, Pope Benedict the 16th - the new man in the See of Rome was reported on Reuters news agency today, hot off the press, as again asking the church worldwide to come together. The report said: 'The new Pope Benedict praised dialogue with Muslims for the first time and issued another call for Christian unity, renewing a theme he has made a hallmark of the early days of his papacy'. Usually what happens, if that's a hallmark, that's going to be a mark of his whole papacy right throughout its existence. Now we haven't got time to go into all this, but what is happening particularly in neo-evangelicalism today is that these demarcation lines, these fallacies when compared to the word of God, they are being blurred as demarcation lines. We're all called to come together in that which is common, they believe in the Trinity, they believe Christ is the Son of God and so on - they believe so much more than other cults and other non-Christian religions, so should we not unite rather than divide? Well, you can see clearly that this is not a scriptural Christendom or Christianity. In fact, what Paul tells us in 2 Corinthians 6 to do with regard to anything like this, whatever the label is: 'Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you. And will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty'.
Where did the Roman Catholic Church go wrong? Where did they go wrong? Well, they elevated tradition to a position of the Scriptures, and even above the Scriptures. Now that's a warning for Protestant churches and denominations, because they are doing exactly the same today. In 1215 the doctrine of transubstantiation, man-made, based on an Aristotelian philosophy. In 1274 the doctrine of purgatory, in 1854 the immaculate conception that Mary was not born in sin and subsequently did not live in sin, in 1870 Papal infallibility, in 1950 the assumption of Mary, in 1965 the declaration on world religions. Before these dates the Catholic Church did not have these as dogma, in fact many of the Popes contradicted some of these - what happened to those Catholics? This is a manmade religion, and the fact of the matter is: they have made void the commandments of God by their own tradition. Paul warned, listen to what Paul said in 2 Corinthians 11: 'If anyone preaches to you another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive another spirit which ye have not received, or another gospel which ye have not accepted...', and then in Galatians he says 'Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again: if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that which ye have received, let him be accursed'.
If ever a system was anti-Christ it is the system of Roman Catholicism, and it will prove to be such in the end - if you're a prophetic scholar you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. These were the issues at the heart of the Reformation Germany in 1521, the conflict that led to Reformation revival. Now remember please that the leaders of the Reformation were Roman Catholic priests, but they opened the Scriptures - Wycliffe, Huss, Zwingle, Calvin, and Luther - and many of them died for their faith. When Luther was asked to recant his Protestant beliefs he said these words, and we would do well to bind them to our hearts: 'My conscience is captive to the word of God'. The reformers cry ought to be our cry today: 'Sola Scriptura', Scripture alone, 'Sola Fide', faith alone, and 'Only through Christ alone' can we come to God - and not just for doctrine's sake, but the eternal salvation of men and women's souls depends upon it!
Can I ask you in closing: have you experienced the salvation of the Bible, not the salvation of Romanism or the salvation of Protestantism, the salvation of the Bible? It's available, 1 John 5:13 says: 'These things', the word of God, 'have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God'. You can know this evening, why? Because Jesus died, paid the penalty, was buried in the grave - the work complete - rose again on the third day, ascended to heaven, and He is alive tonight, able to save better than any church. He offers salvation as a free gift of grace to all who will receive it by faith and faith alone.
Friend, we are not Roman Catholic beating tonight - if you're a Roman Catholic, we love you with all our hearts, and we long that you would know the gospel. If you're a Protestant, you could be following the same gospel of works - will you not trust Christ by faith?
Don't miss part 12 of the "Strongholds Of Satan" series: 'Cooneyites'
------------------------
Transcribed by:
Andrew Watkins
Preach The Word.
May 2005
www.preachtheword.com
info@preachtheword.com
This sermon was delivered at The Iron Hall Assembly in Belfast, Northern Ireland, by Pastor David Legge. It was transcribed from the eleventh recording in his Strongholds Of Satan series, titled "Roman Catholicism" - Transcribed by Andrew Watkins, Preach The Word. The inclusion of images and diagrams in this transcript is done without intention to breach any copyright restrictions. If this has been done in any instance, please contact us and we will willingly remove the offending item.
All material by David Legge is copyrighted. However, these materials may be freely copied and distributed unaltered for the purpose of study and teaching, so long as they are made available to others free of charge, and this copyright is included. This does not include hosting or broadcasting the materials on another website, however linking to the resources on preachtheword.com is permitted. These materials may not, in any manner, be sold or used to solicit 'donations' from others, nor may they be included in anything you intend to copyright, sell, or offer for a fee. This copyright is exercised to keep these materials freely available to all. Any exceptions to these conditions must be explicitly approved by Preach The Word.