76 Sermon Illustrations on Roman Catholicism

Bishop Fowler, in the _Christian Advocate_, describes the method by which Roman Catholic institutions in South America receive and care for foundlings:

No thoughtful man can watch the long processions of children which the sisters are teaching, and believe that Romanism is closing its career. She takes the utmost care of all the children she can obtain. In the great cities she has her foundling institutions. The arrangement for receiving foundlings is unique. It reminds one of the standard advertisements for stolen property, “No questions asked.” There is a rotary dummy in the side of the building above the sidewalk. This contrivance turns round instead of moving on pulleys. The outside is simply flush with the wall. Any one can turn it around. On the other side is a little bed. The waif is placed in this bed, the trap is turned back to its place, a bell is rung, a servant comes to the bed, takes out the waif, and no one is the wiser. The party depositing the child may be round the corner and gone in the darkness. The child is cared for, soon put to work, soon hired out, and becomes a source of income to the institution, and adds one more to the rolls of the church.

Sermon on coming of Pope to New Jersey. Matthew 16:15-18

================

THE POPE IS HERE

================

I. How come we don't have a pope?

II. History of the papacy.

A. Principle of apostolic succession. Matt 16:18-19

B. Gradual increase in worldly power.

C. Modern shift to spirituality.

III. Why we don't have a pope. [A Baptist response]

A. Our conscience, guided by Scripture, is our leader.

B. We do not need to go through humans to get to God. 1 Tim 2:5

C. The church must be primarily spiritual, not political. Rev 13

IV. We need earthly leaders.

A. Bible endorses human leadership.

B. The proper place of leaders. 1 Peter 5:2-3

C. Keep human leaders in perspective.

V. God must lead us.

A. Any human leader is second-rate. 1 Sam 8:7

B. He leads, we must follow.

Catholic churches are requiring couples to live apart for up to 6 months in order to have a large church wedding. Half refuse the request to separate. Financial problems are often used to justify it. Couples are also required to take prepatory courses taught by older couples.

Anonymous anti-Catholic letter blasts Pope for teaching confession must be given to a priest. The article from the Los Angeles Times says, “Rebutting a belief widely shared by Protestants and a growing number of Roman Catholics, Pope John Paul II on Tuesday dismissed the ‘widespread idea that one can obtain forgiveness directly from God’ and exhorted Catholics to confess more often to their priests.” The Pope also rebuked the practice of “general absolution.”

Accompanying tract ties Pope with Mideast terrorists.

Aren’t you offended? That is the question many evangelicals are being asked in the wake of a recent document released by the Vatican. The document declares that the Roman Catholic Church is the only true church -- or, in words the Vatican would prefer to use, the only institutional form in which the Church of Christ subsists.

No, I am not offended. In the first place, I am not offended because this is not an issue in which emotion should play a key role. This is a theological question, and our response should be theological, not emotional. Secondly, I am not offended because I am not surprised. No one familiar with the statements of the Roman Catholic Magisterium should be surprised by this development. This is not news in any genuine sense. It is news only in the current context of Vatican statements and ecumenical relations. Thirdly, I am not offended because this new document actually brings attention to the crucial issues of ecclesiology, and thus it presents us with an opportunity.

The Vatican document is very brief -- just a few paragraphs in fact. It’s official title is “Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church,” and it was released by the Vatican’s Congregation for the Defense of the Faith on June 29.Though many media sources have identified the document as a papal statement from Pope Benedict XVI, it is actually a statement from the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith that was later approved for release by the Pope (who, as Cardinal Ratzinger, headed this Congregation prior to assuming the papacy).

The document claims a unique legitimacy for the Roman Catholic Church as the church established by Christ. The document stakes this identity on a claim to apostolic succession, centered in the papacy itself. As the document states, “This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him.”

Lest anyone miss the point, the document then goes on to acknowledge that the churches of Eastern Orthodoxy also stake a claim to apostolic succession, and thus they are referred to as “Churches” by the Vatican. As for the churches born in whatever form out of the Reformation -- they are not true churches at all, only “ecclesial communities.”

Look at this:

“According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy

apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are,

therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church.

These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the

absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the

genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot,

according to Catholic doctrine, be called ‘Churches’ in the

proper sense.”

Pope Benedict was already in hot water with the media because of his recent decision related to the (limited) reinstitution of the Latin mass, complete with a call for the conversion of the Jews. He was not likely to be named “Ecumenist of the Year” anyway. This latest controversy just adds to the media impression of big changes at the Vatican under the current papacy.

There have been changes for sure. Benedict truly is a doctrinal theologian, whereas his popular predecessor, Pope John Paul II, was more a philosopher by academic training. Those familiar with the current Pope know of his frustration with the tendency of liberal Catholic theologians and laypersons to insist that the Second Vatican Council (known popularly as “Vatican II”) represented a massive shift (to the left) in Catholic doctrine. Not so, insisted Cardinal Ratzinger as head of the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith. Now, as Pope, Benedict is in a position to shape his argument into a universal policy for his church. Vatican II, he insists, represented only a deepening and reapplication of unchanging Catholic doctrine.

Evangelicals should appreciate the candor reflected in this document. There is no effort here to confuse the issues. To the contrary, the document is an obvious attempt to set the record straight. The Roman Catholic Church does not deny that Christ is working redemptively through Protestant and evangelical churches, but it does deny that these churches which deny the authority of the papacy are true churches in the most important sense. The true church, in other words, is that church identified through the recognition of the papacy. Those churches that deny or fail to recognize the papacy are “ecclesial Communities,” not churches “in the proper sense,” according to the document.

I appreciate the document’s clarity on this issue. It all comes down to this -- the claim of the Roman Catholic Church to the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the Pope as the universal monarch of the church is the defining issue. Roman Catholics and evangelicals should together recognize the importance of that claim. We should together realize and admit that this is an issue worthy of division. The Roman Catholic Church is willing to go so far as to assert that any church that denies the papacy is no true church. Evangelicals should be equally candid in asserting that any church defined by the claims of the papacy is no true church. This is not a theological game for children; it is the honest recognition of the importance of the question.

The Reformers and their heirs put their lives on the line in order to stake this claim. In this era of confusion and theological laxity we often forget that this was one of the defining issues of the Reformation itself. Both the Reformers and the Roman Catholic Church staked their claim to be the true church -- and both revealed their most essential convictions in making their argument. As Martin Luther and John Calvin both made clear, the first mark of the true Church is the ministry of the Word -- the preaching of the Gospel. The Reformers indicted the Roman Catholic Church for failing to exhibit this mark, and thus failing to be a true church. The Catholic church returned the favor, defining the church in terms of the papacy and magisterial authority. Those claims have not changed.

I also appreciate the spiritual concern reflected in this document. The artificial and deadly dangerous game of ecumenical confusion has obscured issues of grave concern for our souls. I truly believe that Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Defense of the Faith are concerned for our evangelical souls and our evangelical congregations. Pope Benedict is not playing a game. He is not asserting a claim to primacy on the playground. He, along with the Magisterium of his church, believes that Protestant churches are gravely defective and that our souls are in danger. His sacramental theology plays a large role in this concern, for he believes and teaches that a church without submission to the papacy has no guaranteed efficacy for its sacraments. (This point, by the way, explains why the Protestant churches that claim a sacramental theology are more concerned about this Vatican statement -- it denies the basic validity of their sacraments.)

I actually appreciate the Pope’s concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Of course, I am convinced that he is not right -- not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right on the church.

The Roman Catholic Church believes we are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy. Evangelicals should be concerned that Catholics are in spiritual danger for their submission to these very claims. We both understand what is at stake.

The Rev. Mark Hanson, presiding bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, responded to the press by saying that the Vatican’s “exclusive claims” are “troubling.” He also said, “[W]hat may have been meant to clarify has caused pain.”

I will let Bishop Hanson explain his pain. I do not see this new Vatican statement as an innovation or an insult. I see it as a clarification and a helpful demarcation of the issues at stake.

I appreciate the Roman Catholic Church’s candor on this issue, and I believe that Evangelical Christians, with equal respect and clarity, should respond in kind. This is a time to be respectfully candid -- not a time to be offended.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate of HolwickID #128]

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

| My Source:

| SOUTH SIDE's THE MESSENGER

| St. Louis, MO

|------------------------------

| Author: Via THE KEY WORD, via BULLETIN DIGEST

[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]

SHE KNEW TOO MUCH BIBLE

A little girl, being asked by a priest to attend religious instruction, refused, saying it was against her father's wishes. The priest said she should obey him, not her father. "Oh! Sir! We are taught in the Bible to 'Honor thy father and thy mother,'" she replied. "But you are to call me, Father," was his answer, to which she replied, "No, for the scriptures say, 'Call no man your father upon the earth for one is your father, which is in heaven.'"

The priest was not anxious to lose a religious discussion to one so young and he said, "You have no business reading the Bible." "Then why did Jesus tell me to 'Search the Scriptures?'" she asked. He replied by saying, "But that is only to the clergy. You understand that a little child cannot know the scriptures." "Then why, "she asked," did Paul write to Timothy, 'From a little child thou hast known the Holy Scriptures'?"

Surely there was some way to get the best of this young upstart. Said the priest, "Timothy was being trained to be a bishop and he was taught by the church authorities." "No sir," said the little girl, "He was taught by his mother and grandmother. At least that's what Paul wrote."

The priest turned away and someone said they heard him mumbling something about "she knew enough Bible to poison a whole parish."

May 17, 2002

To the Editor:

Re: "Aide Defends Egan's Action in Priest Case" (news article, May 15):

Isn't there something tragically illogical about the church hierarchy's having been so cavalier about protecting children from abuse while at the same time being so adamant and outspoken about protecting the fetus?

LETTY COTTIN POGREBIN

New York, May 16, 2002

The writer is a women's rights activist and a founding editor of Ms. mMagazine

What is the proper balance of reserve and respect for Mary? She is a biblical character often obscured in the crossfire of a four-century debate between Protestants and Catholics.

Two statements encapsulate the uncertainty possessing many Protestant Christians about the true, biblical role and importance of the Virgin Mary. Pope John XXIII, perhaps surprisingly, said the Virgin Mary "is not pleased when she is put above her son." And the staunch Reformed theologian Herman Bavinck once wrote of Mary, "She has been given an honor that has not been given to any other creature. She far surpassed men and angels in the undeserved grace bestowed on her."

Protestants largely do not think about Mary. But once a year she shows up, a shadowy figure on Christmas cards. Then the questions are jarred into mind: What does biblical, evangelical theology make of her? What is the proper balance of I re serve and respect for Mary? Who, really, was this woman, and what relevance does she bear today for our faith?

AN IDOLATROUS PIETY

In Protestant eyes, the Catholic church fosters a Marian piety that can only be called idolatrous despite disclaimers such as that made by Pope John XXIII. Consider the following explicit declarations:

* Pope Pius IX (pope from 1846 to 1878): "God has committed to Mary the treasury of all good things, in order that everyone may know that through her are obtained every hope, every grace, and all salvation. For this is his will, that we obtain everything through Mary."

* Pope Leo XIII, writing near the turn of the century: "As no man goes to the father but by the son, so no one goes to Christ except through his mother."

* Cardinal Saint Alfonsus de Liguori, in The Glories of Mary, reproduced in 1931 by the Redemptorist Fathers: Mary is called "the gate of heaven because no one can enter that blessed kingdom without passing through her." In prayer Mary is addressed: "All power is given to thee in heaven and on earth." Hence, "at the command of Mary all obey - even God."

* Pope Pius XII, writing in 1953: "It is the will of God that we should have nothing which is not passed through the hands of Mary."

* Contemporary Roman Catholic scholar Edward Schillebeeckx: "... Christ is the Mediator between God, the Father, and men; and ... Mary is the Mediatrix between Christ and us."

Of course, it would not be fair to hold the Catholic church responsible for extravagant claims made for Mary by her devoted but untaught worshipers. But none of the persons cited above was untaught (three were popes). Also, as the more recent statements indicate, the official Catholic appreciation of Mary remains inappropriately high to this day.

MYTHOLOGICAL APPENDAGES

Some theologians have defended the veneration of the Virgin Mary on the grounds that this supplies the church with an understanding of the feminine virtues of God. Certainly they are not wrong to point out the characteristics of God that our culture often associates with women. But Mary is not God; and if we correct our view of God by what we say about Mary, we have willy-nilly incorporated her into the Godhead in an idolatrous way, no matter what theological contortions we attempt in order to deny it.

Far more serious than this improper piety, robbing God of his exclusive honor, are the mythological appendages that the Roman church has officially added to its consideration of Mary. These are taught as being revealed by God and, therefore, as doctrines necessary to Christian faith - not simply acceptable pious opinions.

The first of these mythological accretions is the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. This has nothing to do with the virgin birth of Christ. It means that Mary was conceived by her mother Anne with no inheritance of original corruption or sin. The Bible, of course, knows nothing of a freedom from original sin on Mary's part, and the idea was rejected by almost all theological leaders for the first 1,200 years of the church.

It was rejected on the twofold grounds that the Scripture clearly teaches that all have sinned, and that Mary recognized her own need of redemption. However, near the beginning of the fourteenth century, Duns Scotus, a Dominican monk, suggested that Mary was redeemed by being exempted from original sin rather than by being redeemed from it. With this explanation of Mary's purity, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception developed and was made official in 1854.

An obvious difficulty with this doctrine is that there is no end to its logic. If Mary was not worthy to be the mother of sinless Jesus unless she was free of a sinful nature, then the same can be said about her mother, grandmother, and so on. Ultimately, this process leads back to the start of the human race.

Equally ungrounded on any biblical text is the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. This doctrine clearly rose along with monkish ideas that sex is dirty and continence holy. Accordingly, Mary was believed to be not only a virgin before Christ's birth (which Scripture explicitly states and all conservative Protestants accept), but a virgin throughout her life. This doctrine was endorsed by the Council of Trent (1545-63).

The Roman church requires the faithful to accept this doctrine in spite of Matthew 1:24-25: Joseph "took his wife but knew her not until she had borne a son." The Greek word here translated "until" indicates the end of a period of time; it anticipates an end to Mary's virginity. In addition, Jesus is called the "first-born" son of Mary (Luke 2:7).

And several passages (Mark 3:31-35; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19-21; John 7:1-5; 1 Cor. 9:5; and Gal. 1:19) refer explicitly to the brothers and sisters of Jesus. Of course, in a certain context brothers and sisters could mean spiritual brothers and sisters. Very rarely, the word "brothers" might refer to close relatives, such as cousins, Yet its primary meaning is the literal meaning of being children of the same parents, and the context of Mark 3:35 rules out any such relationship as cousin. "Whoever does the will of God is my cousin" does not really make sense.

Another mythological doctrine, the Bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary, is closely related to her purported sinlessness. This dogma, made official by a papal bull in 1950, expressly affirms that Mary's body was exempted from the universal law of decay and corruption upon death.

Some Roman Catholic scholars, such as Avery Dulles, have argued that it is possible to interpret the bodily assumption of Mary as meaning only that she in her full personality is now in the immediate presence of God. Her physical body actually decayed as do those of other humans. Yet the papal decree clearly states that she was "assumed body and soul into heavenly glory."

MARY: MOTHER OF GOD?

These dogmas about Mary are rife with mythology and poorly based on God's scriptural revelation. But what of the various honorary titles used for Mary?

Biblically based Protestants cannot accept the Marian titles of Coredemptrix (meaning that she shares in Christ's work of redemption) or Mediatrix (meaning she shares in the distribution of the benefits secured by our redemption). But another title deserves more serious consideration.

The phrase "Mother of God" has proved especially objectionable to many Protestants. How, it is thought, can a finite woman be mother of him who is infinite? Moreover, the modern usage of this term to glorify Mary is quite alien to its original use in the ancient church. As church historian Jaroslay Pelikan points out, early references to Mary as the Mother of God were intended only to glorify Christ.

The early church employed the term "theotokos" (God-bearer) against early denials of the doctrine that Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, was one person, fully God and fully man. It approved the phrase on the ground that Mary was the mother of him who is truly God. While she was not a source of his divine nature, she was the mother of the person who possessed that divine nature.

At the time of the Reformation, both Luther and Calvin defended the legitimacy of the term. (The phrase was incorporated into two Lutheran confessions, the Augsburg Confession and the Formula of Concord.)

While the phrase may be awkward, Protestants generally have agreed that it is faithful to the real sense of Scripture, and that to deny it is to suggest that we really do not believe in the full deity of him who was born of Mary.

MARY AS MICROCOSM

The difference between Protestants and Roman Catholics over Mary is actually a microcosm of what ultimately separates the two faiths. The Protestant and Catholic attitudes toward Mary illustrate two fundamental premises over which they have divided since Reformation times.

The first principle answers the question, How can I be saved from my sin? The Protestant answers: Only by the grace of God and only through personal faith in Jesus Christ, the divine Lord and Savior.

For Roman Catholics, by contrast, Mary moves into the role that belongs only to Jesus Christ. True, for some Catholics she is only a highly visible and important supporting actress. With others, she has usurped Christ at the center of the stage. But characteristically Mary shines, dimly or brightly, in the glory that belongs only to Jesus our Savior. That marks the fatal cleavage that separates Roman Catholic and Protestant evangelical faith.

Scripture itself clearly spells out the unique saviorship of Jesus Christ. In John 14:6, our Lord declares: ''No man comes to the Father except through me." Acts 4:12 reads: "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved." And 1 Corinthians 3:11 adds: "For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ."

The second principle separating Roman Catholics and Protestants is the issue of authority. It answers the question: How do we know what we are to believe and do in order to please God and lead useful Christian lives?

For conservative Protestants the final authority is the canonical Scripture the Bible. By it we become personally acquainted with God through Christ, and the Spirit of God guides us through its teaching. We hold the ancient fathers and the traditions of the church in high honor. We value the church that brings to us the message of salvation and in which we fellowship today. Yet only Christ is Lord, and he speaks to us by his Spirit through the infallible words of Holy Scripture.

For Roman Catholics, too, Holy Scripture is the infallible Word of God. Yet to its Old Testament they add the apocryphal books - books not a part of the Jewish canon accepted by our Lord and his apostles. Further, Roman Catholics accept tradition as possessing authority on a par with the written Scripture. Therein opens the greatest chasm between the Roman and Protestant views of authority: the role of the church.

In sharp contrast to Protestant views, the Roman church has held that the Spirit guides it to recognize and interpret infallibly the divine revelation given by the apostles (both the written Scripture and the oral tradition handed down in the church).

All of this relates directly to Catholic doctrine about Mary. No reputable Roman Catholic scholar today argues that the doctrines of the immaculate conception of Mary, her perpetual virginity, and her bodily assumption into heaven are clearly taught in Scripture. No scholar even maintains that there is an early history of any oral tradition setting forth these doctrines. The scholars do believe that in some cases these doctrines are logically implied in Scripture.

But of course Scripture does not even say that Mary was absolutely sinless. It only says that she needed a redeemer and was a very good woman. There is likewise no believable record in the early church of her immaculate conception, perpetual virginity, or bodily assumption. The faith of the Roman church clearly rests upon the belief that Jesus Christ promised infallibility to his church, to Peter and all his successors at Rome.

It is the divinely guided sense of the church (as Catholics believe) that these doctrines were revealed or are logically, necessary to what was revealed. There may be no clear evidence from revelation or historical data available for us. We must simply trust the church because it has been guaranteed infallibility by God himself.

For the evangelical Protestant, the mythological teachings about Mary represent one of the best proofs that the Roman church is not infallibly guided by God after all. They represent, in fact, the piety of a church that has misunderstood the very core of the gospel. For the evangelical, Jesus Christ alone is Lord. He guides his church by the Spirit through the teachings of the infallible Scripture.

A WOMAN OF CHARACTER

What, then, is the proper understanding about our relation to the Virgin Mary? When we restrict ourselves to what is clearly taught in Scripture, we find in Mary a woman of beautiful character, uniquely blessed of God. She is an example of faith in God and a model for the church.

Mary appears first as a young maiden who is engaged and soon to be married to Joseph. The angel announces to her that she will bear a child. The depth of her faith in God is displayed in her immediate acceptance of the angelic message.

It is difficult in a sexually casual age to realize what depth of trust Mary displayed. For Mary, this was a threat to everything she held dear on earth - her honor and respect in the community, and her betrothed husband. She knew what righteous Joseph's attitude might well be. At best, it was the end of her prospective marriage. But there was no hesitation. After the first shock at the news, she quietly accepted what God had done: "May it be to me as you have said" (Luke 1:38).

Later, at Cana of Galilee, Mary could have taken umbrage. Jesus responded to her inquiry about a shortage of wine with a repudiation of any special, motherly right for her to put demands on him. Even more potent were the interchanges between Jesus and Mary, with his brothers and sisters. He almost seems to distinguish Mary and his siblings from those who do God's will. At the very least, he makes abundantly clear that physical relationships of mother and family are quite secondary to his mission and work. To Protestants, this is clear warning against any veneration of Mary based upon her physical motherhood of Jesus.

Yet it remains important to note that these puzzling incidents never drove Mary away from her faith in Christ. John 19:25-27 informs us that she was present at the cross when Jesus committed her into the hands of the beloved disciple. Later, as recorded in Acts 1:14, Mary took her place within the community of believers.

Thus Mary stands in the Gospels as a sign of the true humanity of Jesus Christ and as a model of the Christian. Her faith held firm in spite of the extraordinary demands laid upon her. Unswerving faith in God, and the servant role she models for the whole church represent the essence of the biblical and evangelical view of Mary, the mother of Jesus.

Can you reduce the punishment of your sins by making the sign of the Cross when your coworker blasphemes? Will God have mercy on you if you give up meat, quit smoking, or watch a pope on TV as a sign of penitence? Yes, according to the Vatican's revised doctrine of indulgences.

Lutherans and Catholics just reached an agreement last month about the fundamentals of justification by faith, but the Catholic tradition of granting indulgences (which in part sparked the Reformation) is still a sharp point of contention (CT, October 25, 1999, p. 24). The Vatican recently revised its stance on indulgences to move away from a form of medieval fund-raising to a streamlined "celebration practice" for the next millennium. In announcing the revision, Pope John Paul II called indulgences "one of the signs that belong to the tradition of jubilee celebrations." The pope's emphasis on indulgences has elicited concern from both Anglicans and Lutherans. "But this does not affect the agreement we have come to in the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification," says Dan Martensen, Director of Ecumenical Affairs for the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America. "The Pope's emphasis on indulgences just points to the ongoing differences in our doctrines and traditions."

Cardinal William Baum, the Vatican's penitentiary major, told Religion News Service that the Vatican understands INDULGENCE as "one of many words not welcome" to the church's partners in ecumenical dialogue. Still, Baum says, the two churches will strive to reach agreement on the major tenets of Christian faith. The tenth round of dialogue between Catholics and Lutherans begins in Florida in December.

The Vatican's new ENCHIRIDON INDULGENTIARUM lists 33 (instead of 74) steps for penitent Catholics to take in an indulgence, or reduction of punishment resulting from sin. Catholics earn indulgences through good deeds accompanied by confession, communion, and prayer. Such deeds typically include public proclamation of the Catholic faith - such as praying the rosary with a group of friends, or any other "public testimony in determined circumstances of everyday life." The church no longer sells indulgences, as was the practice in the Middle Ages when hospitals and churches were financed by those paying for official pardons.

Baum says today's indulgences indicate a penitent sinner's change of heart.

___________________

November 15, 1999, Vol. 43, No. 14, Page 28

When Mary Ann Pakiz converted to Catholicism she was told to burn her King James Version Bible. She eventually entered the Order of St. Benedict. Despite her devotion, only years later did she become a true follower of Christ. Here is her fascinating story in her own words, explaining what she was taught in the Catholic Church, what was wrong with it, and why she came to the personal conviction that the only way she could truly follow Christ was to leave the Catholic church. She explains why she is now confident and at peace about her final destination, Heaven.

GOD'S WORD NEEDS NO AUTHORITY OTHER THAN ITSELF

God's Word needs no authority other than itself. When I comprehended that principle, I was free -- free to search the Scriptures for truth! In them, I found the way to God. Man gets to God, God's way, through Jesus Christ, as revealed in the Bible. “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me” (John 14:6).

THE AUTHORITY ISSUE

For many years, I had been led to believe that the Catholic Church was the final authority of my faith, and that I had no right to question its teaching. The Roman Catholic system teaches that all authority comes from God, but that God has appointed the Catholic system to be the guardian of His authority.

Therefore, everything has to be weighed in the light of Catholic tradition and teaching, as theirs is held to be the only system in which truth is deposited. A Catholic cannot believe in the Scriptures without the authority of the Church to accredit the Scriptures! The Roman Catholic Church declares that God's authority is not sufficient to oblige men to believe and bow to it; it seeks to place church authority above God's authority.

True faith is faith in what God has said because God has said it! Faith in God is belief in God's Word, the Bible, without any authority other than itself. “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve” (Luke 4:8).

CATHOLIC BAPTISM

The Roman Catholic believes that salvation is based on water and works. Baptismal regeneration is the cornerstone of the Catholic system. The Church teaches that no one can enter the kingdom of heaven unless he or she is baptized.

I came under Catholic authority in 1948 when I was re-baptized and converted to Catholicism. I was born in 1930 to Finnish immigrant parents of a Lutheran persuasion. Our neighbors, who were immigrants from Yugoslavia and Italy, had a strong influence on my formative years. As exemplary Catholics, who witnessed to us about their faith, and who lived lives of good works and good deeds, of which we often were the recipients, they were committed to bringing the neighborhood under the headship of Rome. They reached out to us with what they thought was the truth. They were sincere, but sincerely wrong.

It is important to remember that individual Catholics are not our enemies; rather, they are precious souls whom God loves and for whom He commands us to reach with the Gospel of His Grace.

Salvation is by grace, not baptism or works. Grace is unmerited favor. We cannot earn grace, nor do we deserve grace. “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” (Ephesians 2:8-9).

FAITH'S OBJECT

The source of Catholic faith is the Church. Its object is loyalty to the Church. Therefore, Catholic faith is in itself. The Christian, however, knows that salvation is based on Christ's work alone, a finished work to which nothing can be added. The source of Christian faith is the Bible. Its object is Jesus Christ. Therefore, true faith is in a Person. In order for faith to be operative, it must be anchored to the person of Jesus Christ.

BLIND ACCEPTANCE

Rather than searching the Scriptures for truth to find out if Catholic teaching was in line with God's Word, I blindly accepted everything the priest told me during my instructions to become a Catholic, except for one request. He asked me to bring my King James version of the Bible to the rectory which he said had to be burned because it was not the official Catholic version. Instead, I gave it to my mother.

During my instructions, the stress was on papal supremacy and infallibility. I was told that Christ made Peter the first pope to head the Church on earth with infallible authority. The Pope, as Christ's representative on earth, guided all people, Catholic or not, into all truth (Vatican Council, 1870).

Presently, as I reflect on this Church tenet, I do not find any evidence from Scripture that Christ actually gave any such authority to Peter or even that the apostles considered Peter to have a special position of authority. Furthermore, Peter would have known that he was a pope and certainly would have said something about it. If he had known it, how is it that he did not act as pope?

BECOMING A “BRIDE OF CHRIST”

In 1950, I took another step to come further under Catholic authority by entering the Order of St. Benedict to become a sister. I had been working as a nurse's aide at a local hospital run by the Benedictine Sisters, and, as I was so impressed with their gracious service to the patients and staff, I decided that I, too, wanted to spend my life serving others.

My first year in the convent, as a postulant, was one of the happiest years of my life. Our postulant mistress was a kind, fair, and understanding woman. There were eighteen girls of various ages and backgrounds in our group. They were eager and excited to serve the Catholic Church and to live by the rule of St. Benedict. We shared many happy times together.

There were more serious moments for me, too, when I prayed in the chapel and gazed up at the crucifix wondering why Jesus had to die on Calvary's Cross. Before we became novices, we marched down the church aisle in bridal attire to become “brides of Christ”. Nothing much was said about Jesus as we prepared for this event. Rather, our emotions were at high pitch over the changes in our names. I went from Miss Mary Ann to Sr. M. Laurian, O.S.B. I was a bride of Christ, and I knew little about Him other than He was the Son of God.

A STOCKPILE OF GOOD WORKS

During the five year preparation period for our final vows, we studied the Rule of Saint Benedict, canon law, church history, a bit about Jesuit causistry (the end justifies the means), and the lives of the saints. The emphasis was on self-denial and submission of one's will to the authority figure under whose charge we were.

St. Therese, the Little Flower, was held up before us as a role model so we would emulate her way to God. It was a way based on “offering up” the daily vexations of life to make up for our sins or the sins of others. We were busy trying to build a stockpile of good works by which we could make ourselves more acceptable to God. We were offering our self-made sacrifices to God because we did not know that we could get to God because of the offering Jesus Christ made of Himself in our behalf at Calvary.

When Jesus said to God, “I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do,” He meant that the work He did in behalf of sinners was complete and could not be added to (John 17:4).

BACK IN THE WORLD

In our last three years as scholastics, some of the group left the motherhouse for teaching assignments in the diocese. We returned in the summer, and it was great to be back together again. I needed the rest and relaxation after my first year of teaching forty-five students in grades five and six combined. I had no training in elementary education but was told there would be a blessing in obedience.

In 1955, five months before my final vows, I left the convent due to health problems and returned to the home of my parents. Back in the world, I was able to get on with my life, by completing my education at the University of Minnesota, earning a Bachelor of Science Degree in Elementary Education, and in 1957, married a man from a staunch Catholic family. We were blessed with two children.

My husband's brother is a priest in our diocese; a humble, sweet man who writes poetry about nature, God, and his church.

SALVATION'S MEANING BROUGHT HOME

In 1972, my children, then ages twelve and five, were invited to a neighborhood backyard Bible club. We asked our priest-uncle if they could attend; he didn't seem to be concerned about it and gave his consent. This had to be the work of God! From that point on, our lives were dramatically changed!

The children came home each day with Bible verses to memorize. When they recited them, God touched my heart as well as theirs. I learned the most important truth about myself -- I was a sinner, and, as such, was separated from God! Because God permits no sin or sinner in heaven, I was lost! How was I going to solve this sin issue?

I wanted to be sure I would go to heaven when I died. I decided to study the Bible on my own. John 17:17, in which Jesus said to God, “Sanctify them through thy truth; thy word is truth”, was the first verse the Holy Spirit used to undergird my study of salvation. My search for answers began in Acts 16:31, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved”, and Acts 4:12, “Neither is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” Moving on to Romans, I learned that Christ satisfied the just demands of a Holy God for judgment on sin by His death on the Cross. “Therefore, we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law” (Romans 3:28).

It was an overwhelming realization that none of my past sins had ever been dealt with, even though I had confessed them to the priest and performed the prescribed penance! Going to confession had given me a counterfeit peace and security that my sins had been forgiven by the words of the priest plus the doing of penance.

Actually, the priest does not have the power to forgive sins even if he claims he does so in the name of Jesus. Our sins are forgiven only by appropriating the shed blood of Jesus in our place.

“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God. Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God” (Romans 3:23-25).

God has never given authority to any person to make the decision as to whether another person's sins will be forgiven or not, as He is the only one who truly knows what is in that person's heart. My search caused me to be able to answer the question I asked of myself while in the convent as to why Jesus had to die on the Cross. Jesus paid the price for my sin by His death on the Cross! Jesus paid our hell-death penalty in full.

Yes, we deserve hell for our sins. Remember, under no circumstance, will God allow sin or a sinner in His heaven. Jesus paid the penalty for our sin so we can spend eternity with God in heaven.

The time had come for me to make a decision. Acting on the Bible, as my sole, absolute, and final authority of faith, I received Christ as my Savior in May of 1973. I wanted to shout from the roof tops so all the world could hear what Jesus has done for them by His substitutionary atonement and shed blood. “And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32).

TRUE CHRISTIAN FAITH AND THE ROMAN SYSTEM

As I witnessed to my Catholic friends and relatives, I saw more clearly that the eternal destiny of many souls was at stake here. I was grieved by their response to the Gospel, they continued to believe that the Catholic Church was the one true church and they trusted it for salvation regardless of what the Bible said. In other words, they had been brought up allowing other human beings or a set of man-made rules to do their thinking for them.

In 1545, the Council of Trent declared that church tradition was of equal authority with the Bible. To put anything on a par with or above God's Word is idolatry! In fact, the “leaven” of the Catholic system is the discrediting of the Bible as the sole, absolute, and final authority of faith.

We must think of God rightfully as He is revealed to us through His Word. God the Father and God the Son are one. In John 10:30, Jesus said, “I and my Father are one.”

Because Jesus Christ is God, our sins have been cleansed in the blood of God; only the perfect blood of God could wash them completely away in order to thus satisfy the demands of a holy and righteous God. The ground of my salvation or the basis of my justification is the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ, and, when I, by faith, receive (appropriate) the substitutionary atonement of Jesus in my place as full payment of my hell-death penalty, God imputes the righteousness of Jesus Christ to me. That is, He reckons me as righteous.

In no way am I righteous of myself, and as such in no way can I save myself or keep myself saved; it is all of Jesus! Jesus Christ is my righteousness. It is only “in Christ” that I am righteous. I am not worthy to approach God of myself. However, when I approach God in my substitute, that is, in Christ, I am accounted worthy to do so by God because He sees me in the perfect righteousness of His Son!

JUSTIFICATION OF THE BELIEVER IS INSTANTANEOUS.

The Catholic system denies that we are justified by that faith which receives and rests on Christ alone for salvation which is freely offered to us by grace. Instead, they teach we are justified, not simply by faith in Christ, but by faith which has become activated by good works.

This faith, as taught in the Catholic system, is said to justify the sinner, not because it rests on the righteousness of Christ, but because it is a righteousness inherent in man, a righteousness which is the product of baptism which makes an individual capable of obedience to the teaching of the Catholic system of divine grace through the sacraments. Justification is not of faith, but of the sacraments.

So, therefore, the justification of the Catholic individual is progressive, being regenerated by baptism, being purified from time to time by confession and penance, growing in grace and holiness through the reception of the other sacraments, so that one day he or she will be holy enough to make it to purgatory!

So, then, the Catholic believes he is accepted by God by his inherent righteousness which has been sacramentally infused at baptism and nourished by the worthy reception of the other sacraments. As the Catholic receives sanctifying grace attached to each sacrament, he or she is taught that he or she actually becomes righteous or holy on the basis of his own intrinsic word without any righteousness imputed.

MY MISSION FIELD

The differences between the true Christian faith and the Roman Catholic system were becoming so obvious to me that in 1976, I left the Catholic Church and took my place with Bible-believing Christians.

When I was saved in 1973, I told the Lord that I would be willing to go to the mission field anywhere. He took me at my word, and, in 1994, sent me to my mission field -- dialysis. He permitted my kidney to fail first, and in order to survive, I need dialysis therapy three times a week. I thank and praise God in these circumstances as He has given me the opportunity to share His precious Gospel of Grace with seriously ill patients who need to prepare to meet God!

________

Adapted from Mary Ann Pakiz's book THE TRUTH SET US FREE: TWENTY FORMER NUNS TELL THEIR STORIES (1997). Editor: Paul S. Taylor, Eden Communications. Copyright 1998, Mary Ann Pakiz.

*

[Original illustration at this number was a duplicate in KeruxID 25837-26027]

Sermon on Lent. Isaiah 58:1-8

WHY BAPTISTS DON'T DO LENT

==========================

I. Catholic girlfriends.

II. Calendars differ between churches.

III. Are we anti-Lent because we are anti-Catholic?

A. Many here grew up Catholic.

B. A stand against Formalism and human tradition. Mark 7

IV. Lent has its place.

A. The symbolism of Lent is appropriate.

B. Lent is always an option, but never a requirement.

V. Doing Lent right.

A. Self-sacrifice can focus our thoughts. Matthew 9:15

B. Isaiah's rebuke to Israel. Isaiah 58

C. What to give up for Lent.

1) Give up evil practices. Judges 2:19

2) Give up violence and oppression. Ezekiel 45:9

3) Give up religious compromise. Daniel 3:28

4) Give up your possessions. Luke 14:33

D. What not to give up.

1) Don't give up prayer. Luke 18:1

2) Don't give up doing good. Galatians 6:9

3) Don't give up church attendance. Hebrews 10:25

VI. God gave up more than we give up.

Mel Gibson in The New Yorker (September 15, 2003), discussing his then-upcoming film, “The Passion of the Christ”:

“There is no salvation for those outside the Church. Put it this way. My wife is a saint. She's a much better person than I am. [But] she's Episcopalian. [S]he believes in God, she knows Jesus. [A]nd it's just not fair if she doesn't make it [to heaven]; she's better than I am. But that is a pronouncement from the chair [that she will not be saved]. I go with it.”

The New York Times reported in June 2004 that overworked Catholic clergy in the U.S., Canada, and Europe are outsourcing certain ritual prayer requests from their parishioners over to Catholic clergy in India. Priests said such a practice is not new, but that a priest shortage might have caused a bump in numbers. Indian priests said the requests are typically accompanied by US$5-10 (much more than they are offered for domestic prayers).

Lucy Maude Montgomery is best known for her novel "Anne of Green Gables" about life on Prince Edward Island. She was a devout Presbyterian and kept a detailed diary throughout her life. Her are some of her thoughts about making a religious decision, denominations, and revising her beliefs about hell:

October 7th, 1897 [age 22]

Cavendish, Prince Edward Island

The only social function we have had this summer was prayer-meeting, that faithful old stand-by. The prayer-meeting of today however is very different from its predecessor. It has evolved into a “Christian Endeavor Society”. I can't say I approve of the change.

Looking back on my past life I think I have had a rather peculiar spiritual experience. I am not “religiously inclined”, as the phrase goes, but I have always possessed a deep CURIOSITY about “things spiritual and eternal”. I want to FIND OUT -- to KNOW -- and hence I am always poking and probing into creeds and religions, dead and alive, wanting to know for knowledge' sake what vital spark of immortal truth might be buried among all the verbiage of theologies and systems.

When I was very young -- about eight or nine -- I began to think of these things very deeply and passed through a great many bitter spiritual struggles, of which I could not have said a word to those about me. My theology was very primitive and I took everything very literally. I supposed heaven was a city of golden houses and streets, where we would always walk around with harps and crowns and sing hymns all the time and where it would be “one endless Sabbath day”. I could not help thinking it would be dreadfully dull. ONE Sunday on earth seemed ENDLESS -- how then would it be with one that really WAS endless? But I also thought that this was very wicked of me -- that there was something in me radically wrong when heaven had no attraction for me. But anyway, it would be better than hell which I also implicitly believed to be a lake of fire and brimstone, haunted by the devil and all his angels. While I had a vague impression that heaven was spread all over the other side of the blue sky above us hell seemed to me to be situated away off to the southeast!! I was terribly frightened of hell and my fear frequently drove me into trying desperately “to be a Christian”.

I had some bitter seasons. I remember that when I was about ten I got it into my head that the Catholic church was the only right one and that outside its pale all were heretics doomed to penal fires! I got these ideas out of a sample copy of a newspaper called “The Catholic World” which had been sent to the post-master. Its statements were so dogmatic that they impressed me as authoritative. How I suffered because of this! It seems both funny and pitiful to me now. But it was very real and inexorable then. And I was so miserably ALONE -- there was no one to whom I could go for help. I would only have been laughed at, or, at best, met with some dogmatic statement which would have been of no help to me at all. In silence and secrecy I had to fight out my own battles and flounder through my quagmires.

Somehow or other I gradually got over or outgrew my difficulty about Mother Church only to stumble helplessly into another. The Baptist and Presbyterian girls in school -- the “big girls” -- were always disputing on doctrinal points, especially on Baptism, and I began to fear that the Baptists, and they only, were right and that I would certainly be “lost” if I were not immersed. I worried over this on many a sleepless pillow and argued fiercely with myself over it for weeks. Finally, however, I passed out from this shadow also.

At intervals -- always in winter; I was never troubled with conscience spasms in summer -- I “fell under conviction of sin” -- that is I remembered about hell and got frightened! -- cried, prayed, and determined desperately to be “good” -- to like reading the Bible better than story books, not to get tired -- that is to say “bored”, only I wasn't acquainted with that word then -- in church, and NOT to dislike Sunday. Besides, I would rigidly practise a hundred repressions and denials of my childish instincts. For instance, I would, when setting the table, conscientiously put for myself a certain knife which I hated and therefore thought everyone else must also hate. Last winter I read for the first time “The Story of An African Farm”. The writer was describing just such experiences of childhood. When I came to the sentence, “We conscientiously put the cracked coffee cup for ourselves at breakfast” I leaned back and laughed. It was as if I had unexpectedly seen my own face peering out at me from a mirror. So this Boer girl, living thousands of miles away in South Africa, had had exactly the same experience as mine! Truly, we are not so different from each other as we like to imagine.

To resume: -- the fit would pass in a few weeks and I would lapse back into “wickedness” and indifference again until the next attack.

As I grew up all this ceased. Then came that time in town when B. Faye Mills -- who has since gone over to the Unitarians, by the way -- turned it upside down. I hardly know what induced me to “join the church” then. The whole air seemed to be thrilling with a kind of magnetism and it was hard for anyone to resist the influence, especially one so extremely sensitive and impressionable as I am. Then there was Mary C. who really wanted to “come out” and wouldn't unless I would; and so, partly far her sake, partly because I was tired of being urged and pestered and harangued every time a revivalist came around, I surrendered and “came out”, too. I think it was a mistake, for I put myself in a false position. To “join the church” meant assenting to certain teachings which I did NOT and COULD not accept.

I cannot recall just when I ceased to believe implicitly in those teachings -- the process was so gradual. My belief in the fine old hell of literal fire and brimstone went first -- it and others seemed to drop away like an outgrown husk, so easily that I knew it not until one day it dawned upon me that they had been gone a long time. I have not yet formulated any working belief to replace that which I have outgrown. Perhaps it will come in time. These things must GROW, like everything else. [all emphasis is hers]

What we now call popes were originally bishops of Rome (one bishop among brother bishops from other cities). Then they became popes, with power over the entire Catholic Church. Then they became so powerful that they were able to depose kings and emperors. They became so powerful that they were able to force kings use their secular might to enforce the Inquisition. In 1870, the Pope was declared to be infallible.

Hans Kung is a Catholic priest and a theologian. He was a theological consultant to the Second Vatican Council (1962-1965). However, in 1979, he was disciplined by the Vatican because he opposed the doctrine of papal infallibility. According to Kung, historical research shows that, starting as early as the fifth century, the popes “decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries.”[1]

These forged documents were used to change people’s perception of the history of the papacy and of the Catholic Church. They created false credentials and an illusion of antiquity. For example, if a Pope wanted to depose a king, he could cite a forged document that said that an early pope had done the same kind of thing. This would establish a false precedent to justify his actions.

One of the most famous forgeries is the “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals,” which were written around A.D. 845. (They are also known as the “False Decretals.”) They consist of 115 documents that were supposedly written by early popes.[2]

“The Catholic Encyclopedia” admits that these are forgeries. It says that the purpose of these forged documents was to enable the Church to be independent of secular power, and to prevent the laity from ruling the Church.[3]

In other words, the purpose of the forgeries was to increase the power of the Pope and the Catholic Church.

In addition to documents that were total forgeries, many genuine documents were altered. Forged material was added to 125 genuine documents, in order to increase the power of the Pope. Many early documents were changed to say the opposite of what they had originally said.[4]

One of the forgeries is a letter that was falsely attributed to Saint Ambrose. It said that if a person does not agree with the Holy See (the Vatican), then he or she is a heretic. This is an example of how papal power was promoted by fraudulently claiming the authority of highly respected Early Fathers.[5]

Another famous forgery from the ninth century was “The Donation of Constantine.” It claimed that Emperor Constantine gave the western provinces of the Roman Empire to the Bishop of Rome. The Pope used it to claim authority in secular matters.[6]

When Greek Christians tried to discuss issues with the Church in Rome, the popes often used forged documents to back their claims. This happened so frequently that, for 700 years, the Greeks referred to Rome as “the home of forgeries.”[7]

For three hundred years, the “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals” and other forgeries were used by Roman Popes to claim authority over the Church in the East. The Patriarch of Constantinople rejected these false claims of primacy. This resulted in the separation of the Orthodox Church from the Roman Catholic Church.[8]

In the middle of the twelfth century, a monk named Gratian wrote the “Decretum,” which became the basis for Canon Law (the legal system for running the Roman Catholic Church). It contained numerous quotations from forged documents. Gratian drew many of his conclusions from those quotations. He quoted 324 passages that were supposedly written by popes of the first four centuries. Of those passages, only 11 are genuine. The other 313 quotations are forgeries.[9]

In the thirteenth century, Thomas Aquinas wrote the “Summa Theologica” and numerous other works. His writings are the foundation for scholastic theology. Aquinas used Gratian’s “Decretum” for quotations from church fathers and early popes.[10] Aquinas also used forged documents that he thought were genuine.[11]

The importance of Thomas Aquinas’ theology can be seen in the encyclical of Pope Pius X on the priesthood. In 1906, Pius said that, in their study of philosophy, theology, and Scripture, men studying for the priesthood should follow the directions given by the popes and the teaching of Thomas Aquinas.[12]

William Webster wrote the book, “The Church of Rome at the Bar of History.” He is a former Catholic. Webster has an online article called, “Forgeries and the Papacy: The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy.” It gives detailed information about the “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals” and other forged documents, showing their influence on the power of the papacy, and on the theology of the Catholic Church.[13]

Four quotations from Webster’s article are below. (They are used by permission obtained by Mary Ann Collins.) Webster writes:

“In the middle of the ninth century, a radical change began in

the Western Church, that dramatically altered the Constitution

of the Church, and laid the ground work for the full

development of the papacy. The papacy could never have emerged

without a fundamental restructuring of the Constitution of the

Church and of men’s perceptions of the history of that

Constitution. As long as the true facts of Church history were

well known, it would serve as a buffer against any unlawful

ambitions. However, in the 9th century, a literary forgery

occurred that completely revolutionized the ancient government

of the Church in the West. This forgery is known as the

“Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals,” written around 845 A.D. The

“Decretals” are a complete fabrication of Church history. They

set forth precedents for the exercise of sovereign authority of

the popes over the universal Church prior to the fourth century

and make it appear that the popes had always exercised

sovereign dominion and had ultimate authority even over Church

Councils.

“...The historical facts reveal that the papacy was never a

reality as far as the universal Church is concerned. There are

many eminent Roman Catholic historians who have testified to

that fact as well as to the importance of the forgeries,

especially those of “Pseudo-Isidore.” One such historian is

Johann Joseph Ignaz von Dollinger. He was the most renowned

Roman Catholic historian of the last century, who taught Church

history for 47 years as a Roman Catholic. [Webster quotes

extensively from Dollinger.]

“...In addition to the “Pseudo Isidorian Decretals” there were

other forgeries that were successfully used for the promotion

of the doctrine of papal primacy. One famous instance is that

of Thomas Aquinas. In 1264 A.D. Thomas authored a work entitled

“Against the Errors of the Greeks.” This work deals with the

issues of theological debate between the Greek and Roman

Churches in that day on such subjects as the Trinity, the

Procession of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory and the Papacy. In his

defense of the papacy Thomas bases practically his entire

argument on forged quotations of Church fathers... These

spurious quotations had enormous influence on many Western

theologians in succeeding centuries.

“...The authority claims of Roman Catholicism ultimately

devolve upon the institution of the papacy. The papacy is the

center and source from which all authority flows for Roman

Catholicism. Rome has long claimed that this institution was

established by Christ and has been in force in the Church from

the very beginning. But the historical record gives a very

different picture. This institution was promoted primarily

through the falsification of historical fact through the

extensive use of forgeries as Thomas Aquinas’ apologetic for

the papacy demonstrates. Forgery is its foundation.”

There is a website with several articles about the Catholic Church’s used of forged documents.[14] These forgeries were one of the causes of the “Great Schism” between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.[15]

Forged documents are the foundation of the power of the papacy. They also had a significant influence on Catholic theology and Canon Law.

________

1. Hans Kung, “The Catholic Church: A Short History” (translated by John Bowden), page 61. The author is a Catholic theologian and a priest. Pope John XXIII appointed him to be a theological consultant during the Second Vatican Council. In 1979, the Vatican disciplined him because he opposed the doctrine of papal infallibility.

2. William Webster, pages 62-63. Peter de Rosa, pages 58-61, 174, 208. Paul Johnson, page 195. (Johnson and de Rosa are Catholics.)

3. “Benedict Levita,” “The Catholic Encyclopedia,” Volume II, 1907. Benedict Levita is the pseudonym of the author of the “Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.”

4. Peter de Rosa, page 59.

The use of forged documents in developing papal power. The author is a former Jesuit priest.

http://www.crusadeforcatholics.com/newpage63.htm

http://www.remnantofgod.org/x-jesuit.htm

5. Peter de Rosa, page 166.

6. Paul Johnson, pages 170-172.

7. Peter de Rosa, page 59.

8. Orthodox Christian Information Center, “The False Decretals of Isidore.” This is an excerpt from the book, “The Papacy” by Abbee Guette. The author was a devout Catholic and a historian. As a result of his historical research about the papacy, he eventually joined the Orthodox Church.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/decretals.htm

“The Great Schism of 1054” (a sermon given at a Russian Orthodox Cathedral)

http://www.stjohndc.org/Homilies/9606a.htm

9. William Webster, pages 62-63. Peter de Rosa, page 60.

10. William Webster, page 63. Peter de Rosa, page 60.

11. William Webster, “Forgeries and the papacy: The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy.” This article gives detailed accounts of Thomas Aquinas’ use of forged documents. Aquinas mistakenly believed them to be genuine.

http://www.christiantruth.com/forgeries.html

12. Pius X, “Pieni l’animo” (“On the Clergy in Italy”), July 28, 1906. (See paragraph 6.)

13. William Webster, “Forgeries and the Papacy: The Historical Influence and Use of Forgeries in Promotion of the Doctrine of the Papacy”

http://www.christiantruth.com/forgeries.html

The use of forged documents in developing papal power. The author is a former Jesuit priest.

http://www.crusadeforcatholics.com/newpage63.htm

http://www.remnantofgod.org/x-jesuit.htm

14. The Medieval Papacy. This article includes a good summary of information about forged documents and their use to increase papal power.

http://www.christianchronicler.com/history1/medieval_papacy.html

The use of forged documents in developing papal power. The author is a former Jesuit priest.

http://www.crusadeforcatholics.com/newpage63.htm

http://www.remnantofgod.org/x-jesuit.htm

15. “The Great Schism of 1054”

http://www.stjohndc.org/Homilies/9606a.htm

While the declarations of the Catholic Vatican II council of the 1960s did bring changes to the Catholic Church, it did not change its foundational dogmas. Not only did Vatican II uphold Rome's false dogmas, it actually strengthened them. The more than 2,400 bishops attending Vatican II reaffirmed such Roman heresies as papal supremacy, the Roman priesthood, the mass as a re-sacrifice of Christ, the sacramental gospel, Catholic tradition on equal par with Scripture, Mary as the Queen of Heaven and co-redemptress with Christ, auricular confession, pilgrimages to “holy shrines,” purgatory, and prayers to and for the dead.

All of these Roman dogmas are reaffirmed in Vatican Council II -- The Conciliar and Post Conciliar Documents. This book is published by the Roman Catholic Church and contains the Imprimature: Walter P. Kellenberg, D,D., Bishop of Rockville Centre, Aug. 12, 1975. “Imprimature” is the official Catholic stamp of approval and means “let it be printed.”

Consider some quotes from the Vatican II documents:

THE MASS A RE-SACRIFICE OF CHRIST

“Hence the Mass, the Lord's Supper, is at the same time and inseparably: a sacrifice in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated; a memorial of the death and resurrection of the Lord, who said 'do this in memory of me' (Lk. 22:19) In the Mass, therefore, the sacrifice and sacred meal belong to the same mystery-so much so that they are linked by the closest bond. For in the sacrifice of the Mass Our Lord is immolated when 'he begins to be present sacramentally as the spiritual food of the faithful under the appearances of bread and wine.’ For in it Christ perpetuates in an unbloody manner the sacrifice offered on the cross, offering himself to the Father for the world's salvation through the ministry of priests” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Introduction, C 1,2, p. 108).

CHRIST PRESENT IN THE ELEMENTS OF THE MASS

“In this sacrament Christ is present in a unique way, whole and entire, God and man, substantially and permanently. This presence of Christ under the species 'is called real, not in an exclusive sense, as if the other kinds of presence were not real, but par excellence” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, chap. 1, E, p. 114). “In the celebration of Mass there is proclaimed the wonderful mystery of the real presence of Christ our Lord under the eucharistic species. The Second Vatican Council and other magisterial pronouncements of the Church have confirmed this truth in the same sense and the same words as those in which the Council of Trent defined it as an article of faith. ... Christ becomes present through an essential change in the elements” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, General Instruction on the Roman Missal, foreword, 3, p. 154).

THE MASS IS A PART OF SALVATION

“As often as the sacrifice of the cross by which 'Christ our Pasch is sacrificed' (1 Cor. 5:7) is celebrated on the altar, the work of our redemption is carried out” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Chapter 1, 3, p. 324).

THE MASS THE CENTER OF CHRISTIAN LIFE

“The celebration of the Mass ... is the centre of the whole Christian life for the universal Church, the local Church and for each and every one of the faithful. For therein is the culminating action whereby God sanctifies the world in Christ and men worship the Father as they adore him through Christ the Son of God” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, General Instruction on the Roman Missal, chap. 1, 1, p. 159).

CHRIST IS TO BE WORSHIPPED IN THE WAFER

“The reservation of the sacred species for the sick ... led to the praiseworthy custom of adoring the heavenly food which is preserved in churches. This practice of adoration has a valid and firm foundation, especially since belief in the real presence of the Lord has as its natural consequence the external and public manifestation of that belief” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, chap. 3, I A, p. 131). “The faithful should therefore strive to worship Christ our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. ...Pastors [priests] should exhort them to this, and set them a good example. ... The place in a church or oratory where the Blessed Sacrament is reserved in the tabernacle [place where the consecrated wafer is kept and worshiped between Masses] should be truly prominent. It ought to be suitable for private prayer so that the faithful may easily and fruitfully, by private devotion also, continue to honour our Lord in this sacrament” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, chap. 3, I B, p. 132).

“Devotion, both private and public, towards the sacrament of the altar even outside Mass ... is highly recommended by the Church, since the eucharistic sacrifice is the source and summit of the whole Christian life” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, chap. 3, III, p. 134). “All the faithful ought to show to this most holy sacrament the worship which is due to the true God, as has always been the custom of the Catholic Church. Nor is it to be adored any the less because it was instituted by Christ to be eaten. For even in the reserved sacrament he is to be adored because he is substantially present there through that conversion of bread and wine which, as the Council of Trent tells us, is most aptly named transubstantiation” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, Intro., C 6, pp. 109,10). “It is necessary to instruct the faithful that Jesus Christ is the Lord and Saviour and that the same worship and adoration given to God is owed to him present under the sacramental signs” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on Facilitating Sacramental Eucharistic Communion in Particular Circumstances, Piety and Reverence Towards the Sacrament, p. 221).

THE WAFER TO BE CARRIED IN PROCESSIONS

“In processions in which the Blessed Sacrament is solemnly carried through the streets to the singing of hymns, especially on the feast of Corpus Christi, the Christian people give public witness to their faith and devotion towards this sacrament” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on the Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery, chap. 3, III, p. 134).

MASSES FOR THE DEAD

“Holy Mother Church is extremely concerned for the faithful departed. She has decided to intercede for them to the fullest extent in every Mass and abrogates every special privilege in this matter” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, V, Indulgences not Attached to Things and Places, Norms, 20, p. 87). “The Church offers the Paschal Sacrifice [the Mass] for the Dead so that ... the dead may be helped by the prayers and the living may be consoled by hope” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, General Instruction on the Roman Missal, VIII, Masses for the Dead, 335, p. 197).

MASS MUST BE PERFORMED IN STRICT ACCORDANCE WITH CATHOLIC TRADITION

“To safeguard the success of these celebrations and to obtain a greater spiritual efficaciousness ... attention must be given to the form. ... The texts of the Mass should be taken from the missal or from approved supplements. Every change ... is arbitrary and therefore rejected ... The furnishings of the altar (cross, altar cloth, candles, missal, purificator, corporal, hand towel and communion plate), the sacred vessels (chalice, paten, pyx), the vestments (amice, alb, cincture, stole and chasuble) should be, in number, form and quality, as desired by present legislation. ... The ritual gestures and the ceremonies of the celebrant, as well as the attitude of the participants should be those prescribed for the normal eucharistic celebration” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Instruction on Masses for Special Groups, 11a,b, p. 146).

THE WINE CAN BE TAKEN ONLY ON SPECIAL OCCASIONS

“First, they should be reminded that, according to the Catholic faith, Christ is received whole and entire in a complete sacrament even when people communicate under one kind only [take only the wafer without the juice]. And they are not thereby deprived of any grace necessary for salvation ... With the bishop's approval and after due instruction the following persons may receive Communion from the chalice ... [there follows 14 groups of persons who are permitted to partake of the juice during special Masses performed at weddings, baptisms, ordinations, and certain retreats]” (Vatican II, The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, General Instruction on the Roman Missal, IV, 241, 242, pp. 181-182)

CATHOLIC TRADITIONS ON EQUAL PAR WITH SCRIPTURE

“Sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal ... Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal feelings of devotion and reverence” (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, chap. 2, 9, p. 682).

SALVATION IS THROUGH THE SACRAMENTS AND THE CHURCH

“Just as Christ was sent by the Father so also he sent the apostles ... that they might preach the gospel to every creature and proclaim that the Son of God by his death and resurrection had freed us from the power of Satan and from death, and brought us into the Kingdom of his Father. But he also willed that the work of salvation which they preached should be set in train through the sacrifice and sacraments, around which the entire liturgical [ritualistic] life revolves. Thus by Baptism men are grafted into the paschal mystery of Christ. ... They receive the spirit of adoption as sons” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, chap. 1, I, 5,6, pp. 23-24).

“In that body the life of Christ is communicated to those who believe and who, through the sacraments, are united in a hidden and real way to Christ in his passion and glorification. Through baptism we are formed in the likeness of Christ: 'For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body' (1 Cor. 12:13). In this sacred rite fellowship in Christ's death and resurrection is symbolized and is brought about” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 1, 7, p. 327).

“For it is the liturgy through which, especially in the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist, 'the work of our redemption is accomplished,' and it is through the liturgy, especially, that the faithful are enabled to express in their lives and manifest to others the mystery of Christ and the real nature of the true Church” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Introduction, para. 2).

SALVATION DISTRIBUTED BY THE POPE

“For 'God's only-begotten Son ... has won a treasure for the militant Church ... he has entrusted it to blessed Peter, the key-bearer of heaven, and to his successors who are Christ's vicars on earth, so that they may distribute it to the faithful for their salvation. They may apply it with mercy for reasonable causes to all who have repented for and have confessed their sins. At times they may remit completely, and at other times only partially, the temporal punishment due to sin in a general as well as in special ways (insofar as they judge it to be fitting in the sight of the Lord). The merits of the Blessed Mother of God and of all the elect ... are known to add further to this treasury'“ (ellipsis are in the original) (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 4, 7, p. 80).

SALVATION THROUGH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

“For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fulness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God” (Decree on Ecumenism, chap. 1, 3, p. 415).

“This holy Council first of all turns its attention to the Catholic faithful. Basing itself on scripture and tradition, it teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism (cf. Mk. 16:16; Jn. 3:5), and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, II, 14, p. 336).

SALVATION BY GOOD WORKS

“From the most ancient times in the Church good works were also offered to God for the salvation of sinners, particularly the works which human weakness finds hard. Because the sufferings of the martyrs for the faith and for God's law were thought to be very valuable, penitents used to turn to the martyrs to be helped by their merits to obtain a more speedy reconciliation from the bishops. Indeed, the prayers and good works of holy people were regarded as of such great value that it could be asserted that the penitent was washed, cleansed and redeemed with the help of the entire Christian people” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 3, 6, pp. 78,79).

SALVATION THROUGH BAPTISM

“By the sacrament of Baptism, whenever it is properly conferred in the way the Lord determined and received with the proper dispositions of soul, man becomes truly incorporated into the crucified and glorified Christ and is reborn to a sharing of the divine life” (Decree on Ecumenism, chap. 3, II, 22, p. 427).

SALVATION IS THROUGH INDULGENCES AND RITUAL

“By means of indulgences those members of the Church who are enduring their purification are united more speedily to the members who are in heaven ... holy Mother Church again recommends the practice of indulgences to the faithful. ... The remission of punishment by distribution from the Church's treasury is incorporated into it. The Church recommends its faithful not to abandon or neglect the holy traditions of those who have gone before. They should be welcomed in a religious spirit as a precious treasure of the Catholic family and esteemed as such. ... The Church reminds them constantly of the things which should be given preference because they are necessary or at least better and more efficacious helps in the task of winning salvation” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 4, 10,11, p. 82).

SALVATION CAN BE ACHIEVED THROUGH NON-CHRISTIAN RELIGIONS (One wonders how Rome can teach this when we just read above that salvation comes only through the Catholic Church? Rome contradicts herself often, and of course both pronouncements here are false teaching.)

“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Moslems. These profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day... Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience-those too may achieve eternal salvation” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 2, 16, p. 338).

SALVATION GRACE IS NOT FREE BUT MUST BE EARNED

“All children of the Church should nevertheless remember that their exalted condition results, not from their own merits, but from the grace of Christ. If they fail to respond in thought, word and deed to that grace, not only shall they not be saved, but they shall be the more severely judged” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 2, 14, p. 337).

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THE ONLY TRUE CHURCH

“This is the sole Church of Christ which in the Creed we profess to be one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after his resurrection, entrusted to Peter's pastoral care. ... This Church, constituted and organized as a society in the present world, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 1, 8, p. 329). “For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help towards salvation, that the fulness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the people of God” (Decree on Ecumenism, chap. 1, 3, p. 415).

THE POPE IS THE SUPREME HEAD OF THE CHURCH

“The college or body of bishops has for all that no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's successor, as its head, whose primatial authority, let it be added, over all, whether pastors or faithful, remains in its integrity. For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, namely, and as pastor of the entire Church, has full, supreme and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 3, 22, p. 344).

THE POPE IS THE INFALLIBLE TEACHER

“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful-who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32)-he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. For that very reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church... as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal. For in such a case the Roman Pontiff does not utter a pronouncement as a private person, but rather does he expound and defend the teaching of the Catholic faith as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the Church's charism of infallibility is present in a singular way” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 3, 25, p. 349).

“This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 3, 25, p. 348).

MARY THE SINLESS MOTHER OF GOD, PERPETUAL VIRGIN, BODILY ASSUMED INTO HEAVEN AS QUEEN OVER ALL

“Joined to Christ the head and in communion with all his saints, the faithful must in the first place reverence the memory of the glorious ever Virgin Mary, Mother of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ... Because of the gift of sublime grace she far surpasses all creatures, both in heaven and on earth... The Immaculate Virgin preserved free from all stain of original sin, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, when her earthly life was over, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of lords (cf. Apoc. 19:16) and conqueror of sin and death” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, I, 52,53; II, 59, pp. 378,381- 382).

MARY IS CO-REDEMPTRESS WITH CHRIST

“Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man's salvation through faith and obedience. For as St. Irenaeus says, she being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching ... 'death through Eve, life through Mary.’ This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ's virginal conception up to his death” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, II, 56, pp. 380-381).

MARY INTERCEDES FOR MEN FROM HEAVEN AND AIDS IN THEIR SALVATION

“Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into their blessed home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, II, 62, pp. 382-383).

MARY TO BE VENERATED

“Mary has by grace been exalted above all angels and men to a place second only to her Son, as the most holy mother of God who was involved in the mysteries of Christ: she is rightly honored by a special cult in the Church. ... The sacred synod teaches this Catholic doctrine advisedly and at the same time admonishes all the sons of the Church that the cult, especially the liturgical cult, of the Blessed Virgin, be generously fostered, and that the practices and exercises of devotion towards her, recommended by the teaching authority of the Church in the course of centuries be highly esteemed, and that those decrees, which were given in the early days regarding the cult images of Christ, the Blessed Virgin and the saints, be religiously observed” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, IV, The Cult of the Blessed Virgin in the Church, 66,67, pp. 384-385).

INTERCESSIONS OF AND PRAYERS TO DEAD SAINTS

“The 'treasury of the Church' ... is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ's merits have before God. ... This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body. ... The union of the living with their brethren who have fallen asleep in Christ is not broken. ... Now that they are welcomed in their own country and at home with the Lord, through him, with him and in him they intercede unremittingly with the Father on our behalf, offering the merit they acquired on earth through Christ Jesus. ... Their brotherly care is the greatest help to our weakness” (The Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 2, 5, pp. 76,77).

“In full consciousness of this communion of the whole Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, the Church in its pilgrim members, from the very earliest days of the Christian religion, has honoured with great respect the memory of the dead ... she has always venerated them, together with the Blessed Virgin Mary and the holy angels, with a special love, and has asked piously for the help of their intercession. ... When, then, we celebrate the eucharistic sacrifice [the Mass] we are most closely united to the worship of the heavenly Church; when in the fellowship of communion we honor and remember the glorious Mary ever virgin, St. Joseph, the holy apostles and martyrs and all the saints” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, I, 52,53; II, 59, pp. 375,377). “Holy Mother Church is extremely concerned for the faithful departed. She has decided to intercede for them to the fullest extent in every Mass and abrogates every special privilege in this matter” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, V, Norms, 20, p. 87).

PURGATORY NECESSARY TO PURGE SIN

“The doctrine of purgatory clearly demonstrates that even when the guilt of sin has been taken away, punishment for it or the consequences of it may remain to be expiated or cleansed. They often are. In fact, in purgatory the souls of those who died in the charity of God and truly repentant, but who had not made satisfaction with adequate penance for their sins and omissions are cleansed after death with punishments designed to purge away their debt” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, Apostolic Constitution on the Revision of Indulgences, chap. 1, 3, p. 75).

PRIESTS HAVE SPECIAL POWERS TO BESTOW SPIRITUAL BLESSING

“However, the Lord also appointed certain men as ministers, in order that they might be united in one body in which 'all the members have not the same function' (Rom. 12:4). These men were to hold in the community of the faithful the sacred power of Order, that of offering sacrifice and forgiving sins, and were to exercise the priestly office publicly on behalf of men in the name of Christ” (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, chap. 1, 2, p. 776). “Priests, while being taken from amongst men and appointed for men in the things that appertain to God that they may offer gifts and sacrifices for sins, live with the rest of men as with brothers” (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, chap. 1, 3, p. 778). “The purpose then for which priests are consecrated by God through the ministry of the bishop is that they should be made sharers in a special way in Christ's priesthood and, by carrying out sacred functions, act as his ministers who through his Spirit continually exercises his priestly function for our benefit in the liturgy. By Baptism priests introduce men into the People of God; by the sacrament of Penance they reconcile sinners with God and the Church; by the Anointing of the sick they relieve those who are ill; and especially by the celebration of Mass they offer Christ's sacrifice sacramentally” (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, chap. 2, I, 5, p. 781).

CATHOLIC PRIESTS SHARE CHRIST'S IDENTICAL PRIESTHOOD

“All priests share with the bishops the one identical priesthood and ministry of Christ” (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, chap. 2, II, 7, p. 786).

CHURCH HAS POWER TO GRANT INDULGENCES; THOSE WHO SAY CHURCH HAS NO SUCH POWER ARE CURSED

“Indulgences are ... the taking away of the temporal punishment due to sins when their guilt has already been forgiven. ... in granting an indulgence the Church uses its power as minister of Christ's Redemption. ... It teaches and commands that the usage of indulgences-a usage most beneficial to Christians and approved by the authority of the Sacred Councils-should be kept in the Church; and it condemns with anathema those who say that indulgences are useless or that the Church does not have the power to grant them. ... By means of indulgences those members of the Church who are enduring their purification are united more speedily to the members who are in heaven in the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, IV, 8, 10, pp. 80-82).

RITUALS AND SUPERSTITIOUS PRACTICES ENCOURAGED

“The faithful who use with devotion an object of piety (crucifix, cross, Rosary, scapular or medal) after it has been duly blessed by any priest, can gain a partial indulgence. But if this object of piety is blessed by the Pope or any bishop, the faithful who use it with devotion can also gain a plenary indulgence on the feast of the apostles Peter and Paul. ... When one of the faithful is in danger of death and no priest in available to administer the sacraments to him with the apostolic blessing ... holy Mother Church still grants a plenary indulgence to be gained at the moment of death, on condition that they are properly disposed and have been in the habit of reciting some prayers during their lifetime. The practice of using a crucifix or cross while gaining this plenary indulgence is praiseworthy” (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, chap. 8, V, Norms, 17,18, p. 86).

CONFESSION AND PENANCE AID IN CONVERSION

“The sacrament of Penance restores and strengthens in members of the Church who have sinned the fundamental gift of ... conversion to the kingdom of Christ, which is first received in Baptism. ... Those who approach this sacrament receive from God's mercy the pardon of their offences and at the same time they are reconciled to the Church which they have wounded by their sins. The Religious should likewise hold in high esteem the frequent use of this sacrament ... desiring closer union with God, should endeavour to receive the sacrament of penance frequently, that is, twice a month ... To ensure legitimate liberty, all women religious and novices may make their confession validly and licitly to any priest approved for hearing confessions in the locality” (Decree on Confession for Religious, pp. 611,612).

CELIBACY IMPOSED

“For these reasons, based on the mystery of Christ and his mission, celibacy, which at first was recommended to priests, was afterwards in the Latin Church imposed by law on all who were to be promoted to holy Orders. This sacred Council approves and confirms this legislation so far as it concerns those destined for the priesthood, and feels confident in the Spirit that the gift of celibacy, so appropriate to the priesthood of the New Testament, is liberally granted by the Father” (Decree on the Ministry and Life of Priests, chap. 3, II, 16, p. 802).

COUNCIL OF TRENT REAFFIRMED

THE COUNCIL OF TRENT WAS A CATHOLIC COUNCIL HELD FROM 1545 TO 1563 IN AN ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THE PROGRESS OF THE PROTESTANT REFORMATION. THIS COUNCIL DENIED EVERY REFORMATION DOCTRINE, INCLUDING SCRIPTURE ALONE AND GRACE ALONE. TRENT HURLED 125 ANATHEMAS (ETERNAL DAMNATION) AGAINST BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTIANS, INCLUDING THESE:

FOURTH SESSION: DECREE CONCERNING THE CANONICAL SCRIPTURES: “If anyone does not accept as sacred and canonical the aforesaid books in their entirety and with all their parts [the 66 books of the Bible plus 12 apocryphal books, being two of Paralipomenon, two of Esdras, Tobias, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Sophonias, two of Macabees], as they have been accustomed to be read in the Catholic Church and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate Edition, and knowingly and deliberately rejects the aforesaid traditions, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA.”

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 12).

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Christ Jesus, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 33).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: “If anyone says that in the Roman Church, which is the mother and mistress of all churches, there is not the true doctrine concerning the sacrament of baptism, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on Baptism, Canon 3).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: “If anyone says that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on Baptism, Canon 5).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON BAPTISM: “If anyone says that children, because they have not the act of believing, are not after having received baptism to be numbered among the faithful, and that for this reason are to be rebaptized when they have reached the years of discretion; or that it is better that the baptism of such be omitted than that, while not believing by their own act, they should be baptized in the faith of the Church alone, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on Baptism, Canon 13).

SEVENTH SESSION, CANONS ON CONFIRMATON: “If anyone says that the confirmation of those baptized is an empty ceremony and not a true and proper sacrament; or that of old it was nothing more than a sort of instruction, whereby those approaching adolescence gave an account of their faith to the Church, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on Confirmation, Canon 1).

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: “If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the most Holy Eucharist are contained truly, really and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure or force, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 1).

THIRTEENTH SESSION, CANONS ON THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST: “If anyone says that Christ received in the Eucharist is received spiritually only and not also sacramentally and really, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Canon 8).

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: “If anyone says that in the Catholic Church penance is not truly and properly a sacrament instituted by Christ the Lord for reconciling the faithful of God as often as they fall into sin after baptism, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 1).

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: “If anyone denies that sacramental confession was instituted by divine law or is necessary to salvation; or says that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone, which the Catholic Church has always observed from the beginning and still observes, is at variance with the institution and command of Christ and is a human contrivance, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 7).

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: “If anyone says that the confession of all sins as it is observed in the Church is impossible and is a human tradition to be abolished by pious people; or that each and all of the faithful of Christ or either sex are not bound thereto once a year in accordance with the constitution of the great Lateran Council, and that for this reason the faithful of Christ are to be persuaded not to confess during Lent, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 8).

FOURTEENTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF PENANCE: “If anyone says that God always pardons the whole penalty together with the guilt and that the satisfaction of penitents is nothing else than the faith by which they perceive that Christ has satisfied for them, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of Penance, Canon 8).

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: “If anyone says that in the Mass a true and real sacrifice is not offered to God; or that to be offered is nothing else than that Christ is given to us to eat, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 1).

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: “If anyone says that by those words, Do this for a commemoration of me, Christ did not institute the Apostles priests; or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His own body and blood, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 2).

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: “If anyone says that the sacrifice of the Mass is one only of praise and thanksgiving; or that it is a mere commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross but not a propitiatory one; or that it profits him only who receives, and ought not to be offered for the living and the dead, for sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other necessities, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 3).

TWENTY-SECOND SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS: “If anyone says that it is a deception to celebrate Masses in honor of the saints and in order to obtain their intercession with God, as the Church intends, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 5).

TWENTY-THIRD SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER: “If anyone says that there is not in the New Testament a visible and external priesthood, or that there is no power of consecrating and offering the true body and blood of the Lord and of forgiving and retaining sins, but only the office and bare ministry of preaching the gospel; or that those who do not preach are not priests at all, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 1).

TWENTY-THIRD SESSION, CANONS ON THE SACRAMENT OF ORDER: “If anyone says that the bishops who are chosen by the authority of the Roman pontiff are not true and legitimate bishops, but merely human deception, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons on the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon 8).

TWENTY-FIFTH SESSION, DECREE ON PURGATORY: “Since the Catholic Church, instructed by the Holy Ghost, has, following the sacred writings and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, taught in sacred councils and very recently in this ecumenical council that there is a purgatory, and that the souls there detained are aided by the suffrages of the faithful and chiefly by the acceptable sacrifice of the altar, the holy council commands the bishops that they strive diligently to the end that the sound doctrine of purgatory, transmitted by the Fathers and sacred councils, be believed and maintained by the faithful of Christ, and be everywhere taught and preached.”

TWENTY-FIFTH SESSION, ON THE INVOCATION, VENERATION, AND RELICS OF SAINTS, AND ON SACRED IMAGES: “The holy council commands all bishops and others who hold the office of teaching and have charge of the cura animarum, that in accordance with the usage of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, received from the primitive times of the Christian religion, and with the unanimous teaching of the holy Fathers and the decrees of sacred councils, they above all instruct the faithful diligently in matters relating to intercession and invocation of the saints, the veneration of relics, and the legitimate use of images, teaching them that the saints who reign together with Christ offer up their prayers to God for men, that it is good and beneficial suppliantly to invoke them and to have recourse to their prayers, assistance and support in order to obtain favors from God through His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord, who alone is our redeemer and savior; and that they think impiously who deny that the saints who enjoy eternal happiness in heaven are to be invoked, or who assert that they do not pray for men, or that our invocation of them to pray for each of us individually is idolatry, or that it is opposed to the word of God and inconsistent with the honor of the one mediator of God and men, Jesus Christ, or that it is foolish to pray vocally or mentally to those who reign in heaven.”

Pope Pius IV (1559-1565) issued a summary of the decisions of the council under the title “Pope Pius's Creed.” We will quote part of this creed, which has ever since been regarded as an authoritative summary of the Catholic faith:

“I profess also, that there are truly and properly seven sacraments of the new law ...namely, baptism, confirmation, eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony, and that they confer grace. ... “I profess likewise, that in the Mass is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead; and that, in the most holy sacrifice of the Eucharist, there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ... “I constantly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained therein are helped by the suffrages of the faithful. “Likewise, that the saints reigning together with Christ, are to be honoured and invocated; that they offer prayers to God for us; and that their relics are to be venerated. “I most firmly assert, that the images of Christ, and of the mother of God, ever virgin, and also of the other saints, are to be had and retained; and that one honour and veneration are to be given to them. “I also affirm that the power of indulgences was left by Christ in the church, and that the use of them is most wholesome to Christian people. “I acknowledge the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman church, the mother and mistress of all churches. And I promise to swear true obedience to the Roman bishop, the successor of St. Peter, the prince of the apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ. “I also profess, and undoubtedly receive all other things delivered, defined, and declared, by the sacred canons and general councils, and particularly by the holy Council of Trent. And likewise, I also condemn, reject, and anathematize, all things contrary thereto, and all heresies whatsoever condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the church. “This true Catholic faith, out of which none can be saved...” (Miller's Church History, pp.1081-1082).

These proclamations and anathemas [curses] were fleshed out in the murderous persecutions vented upon true Christians by Rome, and Trent has never been annulled. Vatican II referred to Trent dozens and dozens of times, quoted Trent's proclamations as authoritative, and reaffirmed Trent on every hand. The New Catholic Catechism cites Trent no less than 99 times. That is my own count. There is not the slightest hint that the proclamations of the Council of Trent have been abrogated by Rome. At the opening of the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII stated, “I do accept entirely all that has been decided and declared at the Council of Trent.” Every Cardinal, Bishop and priest who became a member of the Council also signed that document (Wilson Ewin, You Can Lead Roman Catholics to Christ, Quebec Baptist Mission, 1990 edition, p. 41).

Consider a few examples of how Vatican II looked upon Trent: “The dogmatic principles which were laid down by the Council of Trent [remain] intact...” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 37). “Therefore, following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of Vatican I, this present Council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine of divine revelation” (Constitution on Divine Revelation, p. 678). “[Christ] is substantially present there through that conversion of bread and wine which, as the Council of Trent tells us, is most aptly named transubstantiation” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 110). “For under this form (leaving intact the principles of the Council of Trent, by which under either species or kind there is received the true sacrament and Christ whole and entire), the sign of the eucharistic banquet appears more perfectly” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 124).

“The Roman Missal, promulgated by our predecessor St. Pius V in the Year of our Lord 1570 by decree of the Council of Trent, is universally acknowledged to be among the most useful of the many fruits which that Council brought forth for the good of the Church of Christ” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 138). “When issuing decrees that the Order of the Mass should be revised, the Second Vatican Council ruled, among other things, that certain rites were to be restored to the vigour which they had in the days of the holy Fathers. These are the very words used by St. Pius V in his Apostolic Constitution Quo primum whereby he promulgated the Tridentine Missal of 1570 [Trent]. The employment of the very same words indicates that the two Missals, though separated in time by four centuries, are nevertheless inspired by and embody one and the same tradition. ... In those troubled days St. Pius V was unwilling to make any changes in the rites except minor ones; he was intent on preserving more recent tradition, because at that time attacks were being made on the doctrine that the Mass is a sacrifice present under the eucharistic species” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 155).

“In this way the liturgical norms of the Council of Trent have in many respects been fulfilled and perfected by those of the Second Vatican Council” (Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy, p. 159). “This sacred council accepts loyally the venerable faith of our ancestors in the living communion which exists between us and our brothers who are in the glory of heaven or who are yet being purified after their death; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea, of the Council of Florence, and of the Council of Trent” (Constitution on the Church, p. 377). “The sacrament of baptism cannot be repeated ...and therefore to baptize again conditionally is not allowed unless there is prudent doubt of the fact, or of the validity, of a baptism already administered (Council of Trent, Session 7, Can. 4)” (Decree on Ecumenism, p. 445). “The Fathers of the Council, continuing the work begun by the Council of Trent, confidently entrust to superiors and professors in seminaries the duty of training Christ's future priests in the spirit of that renewal promoted by the Council itself” (Decree on the Training of Priests, p. 654).

HAS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THEN, CHANGED?

You have read for yourself the solemn proclamations of Rome's official Vatican II Council. These are proclamations made by the Pope and the college of bishops, and according to Catholic teaching, there is no higher authority than “the Church's dogma and interpretation of Scripture.” Of course, we realize there are Catholics do not believe these teachings, but where shall we go to find the official teachings of Catholicism? To the Vatican itself, of course. To say that the Vatican doesn't know Catholic doctrine is like saying Hitler didn't know Nazism.

Though some dramatic changes were made during and since the Vatican II Council, the Roman Catholic Church remains the same blasphemous, unscriptural institution it always has been. It is not possible to believe the previously quoted Vatican II pronouncements and think otherwise. Yet, the lie that Catholicism is becoming more evangelical, more biblical, and more spiritual continues to be propagated with blind perseverance. It is this lie that is being used to encourage the ecumenical fellowship between Catholics and Protestants. The same lie is a clever tool for persuading Catholics to stay in the Roman Church when they are converted or when they begin doubting Catholic doctrines.

Since it is plain that the Roman Catholic Church continues to uphold doctrines that are blasphemous and contrary to the Word of God, it is therefore inexcusable for Billy Graham and other evangelicals to affiliate with it or to speak of it in a positive fashion. The Word of God commands us to separate from those who teach error. “Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them” (Romans 16:17). “Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away” (2 Tim. 3:5). “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?” (2 Cor.6:14). “Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us: Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness; but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth” (1 Cor. 5:6-8). “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him” (2 Cor. 11:3-4).

FIRST IMPRESSIONS

My first memories of anything Islamic were when I prepared to start work in Saudi Arabia. In the United Kingdom I visited my local library and read some books on the country. The place looked extraordinarily exotic and once I got there I wasn't disappointed. I vaguely knew that Saudi Arabia was the birthplace of Islam but as to the significance of the Ka`bah, Hajj, etc., I knew even less.

Some Saudi newspapers have a daily question and answer piece on Islam. The questions submitted by the readers were often extremely specific on minute, seemly irrelevant practices — for example the SALAH (ritual prayer) or ablution — and these questions were often read out in the work tea room by ex-pats — including myself — for amusement. It all seemed so incomprehensible — but then everything about Saudi Arabia was a culture shock, so I never considered the religion separate from the culture.

Later I shifted to the United Arab Emirates. Here, it felt almost European, laid back, sort of quasi-Mediterranean in comparison. This made me look at Islam differently — it didn't seem so tough and dogmatic as in Saudi. Inevitably again I debated Islam at work or with friends and I was impressed with the logic. Logic and religion? These two are not supposed to coexist.

SCHOOL DAYS

Being brought up from the age of 4 at a Catholic school run by nuns, then from 11 to 18 at a school run mainly by Benedictine monks, I had undergone years of formal religious education. However, except for some various stories from the Bible, I felt I hadn't a clue as to the relationship between Christianity and real life. Also, there were just so many inherent contradictions and “mysteries” that our school teachers veered away from — so long as you had faith.

So on the one hand at school we were taught to analyze and question the rationale behind biology, chemistry, and so on, but religion was above such earthly proofs. Not surprisingly, my fellow pupils did their best to escape from compulsory church services and ceremonies. I found hymns particularly dreary; saintly statues made me queasy rather than comforted. Priestly vestments and church ornamentation alienated rather than satisfied.

Back to Arabia: I had numerous but always friendly arguments about religion with Muslims. In hindsight, I was the one who provoked the discussion (I've always liked a good argument). My curiosity aroused, I started reading some pamphlets. I was wary of people trying to “convert” me, although no one seemed particularly out to proselytize. On the contrary, my friends patiently went along with my arguments. Religious discussions were frustrating by my lack of information — I was getting fed up with this, so I embarked on a refutation of Islam through reading. I searched for the weak spot — so then I could triumph over these Arabs! I only read booklets and books that I carefully chose myself, looking only for those that were as impartial and frank as possible, written by both Muslims and non-Muslims. By necessity the reading material had to deepen. I moved on from the Ahmed Deedat type confrontational style of material. I still wasn't really convinced and kept looking for that one defect that would unravel it all.

CHRISTIANITY VS. ISLAM

Christianity directs to turn the other cheek; whereas Islam says fight for your rights, but only when you are oppressed. Christianity says that a rich man will never enter heaven. Islam says that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with wealth; it is good so long as it is acquired legally and a portion (2.5 percent) given yearly to the poor. Wealth is distinguished from greed. The noble ideals of Christianity break down in the real world.

Islam seemed to recognize the grubby imperfect lives we lead but had relentlessly accurate insight of the strengths and weakness of the human psyche. For example, respecting others privacy: Hurtful tabloid newspaper gossip is alien to Muslim countries. The highest standards of courtesy are found in daily interactions: AS-SALAMU `ALAYKUM (“Peace be upon you”) is the recurrent greeting, compared to the cold and casual “Hi.” Everyone has arguments and fallouts, but for two Muslims, after 3 days the two sides must patch up — the one who makes the first gesture is seen as the better person. Consequently, I almost never heard of the I'm-not-talking-to-him attitude that poisons relationships and is so energy consuming.

I began to realize the astonishing range of issues Islam deals with, particularly on the social side. From hygiene to education, from war time and economics, to racism, to nationalism. No matter is too small to escape its rational instruction. Throughout, the Qur'an addresses mankind, not just the bickering Arab tribes of the time. It is not limited to the period of revelation but appears to speak down the ages. I found the tone consistently serious and majestic but always simple and crystal clear. It all seemed rather practical and sensible. Religion was just not supposed to be like this. Could all this be thought up by an illiterate man 1,400 years ago? Well, maybe.

I dug a little deeper. As for the famous literary brilliance of the Qur'an that I had read of, “that inimitable symphony” described by Marmaduke Pickthall, I had no idea and could only guess at from the inadequate English translations from the original Arabic.

DOCTRINAL INDIGESTION

As I said, I had an extensive religious education. These are a few of the creeds of Catholicism that I had always found difficult:

• The Christian clergy of priests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, etc. Why do we need a hierarchy? Could a religion operate without one?

• Divinity of Christ. Did he actually claim divinity? What was that first commandment again?

• Doctrine of the Trinity. Sorry, I just don't get it. Anyway, some prominent Christian leaders now openly doubt it, as do some Christian sects, for example, the Unitarians.

• Church statues. Idols are breakable. Anyway, what was that second commandment again?

• Infallibility of the Pope. But he did make errors, for example when condemning Copernicus for saying the Earth revolved around the sun.

• Original sin. A newborn baby has inherent sin and needs forgiveness (baptism)? Again, somehow difficult to understand.

• Worshiping “saints.” Do we need an agent to reach God?

• Transubstantiation. Where bread and wine are transformed (literally) into the flesh and blood of Christ during the Mass. Are there elements of paganism here?

• Christ died on the cross for the “sins of the world.” If Christ died for our sins in advance, then why bother trying to be good? Anyway, did he really claim this?

And there's more, but I'll spare you.

Islam graciously cut through this ideological nightmare. One by one these muddled dogmas were clearly debunked as I dug deeper in my research. I was interested to learn that the central Christian tenets above were trashed out by a conference 300 years after Christ died. The conference was heavily prejudiced by the powerful Roman emperor of the time: not exactly divine. The monks must have forgotten to mention all that. Surprisingly, in Islam, Christ is a highly revered prophet. Also, like Muhammad, he would never be termed divine. In fact many Muslims are named `Isa (Arabic for Jesus), and Christ and Mary are mentioned in the Qur'an more times than Muhammad.

So, contrary to Christianity, Islam appeared (to me anyway) simple and clear. Today Christianity is all but dead in the West — this is scary and probably precedes an era of spiritual nihilism. The only growth area is in evangelism [does he mean evangelicalism/charismatics?] — where emotions are let rip. It is known by anyone who has had to reason with someone in an ecstatic or angry state, that logic and emotion do not make good bedfellows — any rational thought is thrown out the window. Some churches hire discos in a desperate attempt to attract the punters; others are becoming bingo halls. Good Christians are staying at home in droves on Sunday: for many of them, cutting the grass seems more meaningful.

I remember a Christian friend of mine complained that the Mass never seemed the same when they switched over from Latin to English — it was better when you couldn't understand it.

So, this is the sorry state to Christianity today.

RELIEF

My hunches that these were man-made doctrines were finally proven right. It was quite a relief. Whatever issue I examined in Islam, I could not find error nor did I have to stretch my credibility. Surely then it cannot be of human origin? No wonder the monks at school kept it all well hidden. However, my stubbornness held out another year or so.

I tried to read the Qur'an, which initially I found heavy and intense. I soon realized that this was because it was so concise and concentrated — there was no padding out. It appeared strangely succinct, like a telegraph message. Surely, I wondered, if written by Muhammad, it would be full of the narrow stories of the times, not to mention mistaken scientific beliefs of the time.

In comparison, the Bible goes in great detail regarding local events, internal wars, what so-and-so did, and local politics. All very fascinating at the time, but hardly an eternal guide for all mankind. The Bible was, of course, composed by men — and reads like a diary of the times. For example, the Gospel ACCORDING to Saint... . I long wondered how that makes it divine. There are few grand concepts. The text is addressed to the small tribes of Judea. The statements authentically attributed to Christ himself are but a few dozen, and even those are colored by St. Paul and others. Also, the version we read today is translated through from Aramaic to Hebrew to Greek to Latin to English. What text could possibly have survived unchanged — especially when so many had a vested interest in the content? The many conspicuous contradictions are well known, even by Christians.

Therefore, it was almost unbelievable to learn that the Muslim sacred book, the Qur'an, was written down during Prophet Muhammad's lifetime, was checked numerous times by himself to ensure accuracy, and has remained exactly in the original language and text ever since. I was interested to read that when several thousand copies of the Qur'an were printed in Egypt with just one DUMMA (vowel mark) missing, they were immediately pulped. Why should a tiny dash make any difference? How did anyone spot it so quickly?

Being scientifically trained, I was interested in the scientific references of the Qur'an. These included meteorological, astronomical, physical, medical references and more. Many of these are tantalizingly subtle, for example [WE MADE EVERY LIVING THING OF WATER] (Al-Anbiyaa' 21:30). So far, no one has found any discrepancies; however, I still looked for one indisputable scientific fact that would clear up the issue: The size of the universe or the distance to the sun for example would do nicely. I could not find anything that specific, of course. Maybe that is the point: Humans always like evidence on a tray, clearly labeled.

ISLAMIC DOGMA?

I often felt Islam was dogmatic, loaded with tough restrictions and regulations. Was it all necessary? Can't we just go out and have a good time and do what we want? But upon closer examination, I saw that those who “suffer” most by such restrictions are the strongest of society. Who are these? The wealthy, young, healthy, usually male. Who are vulnerable? Women, the poor, the sick, the very young and the very old. All are strongly protected by Islamic Law, centuries before the welfare state was dreamed of. For example:

Who drinks and enjoys alcohol the most? Men. However, who actually suffers most

from alcoholism? Battered wives and abused children, not to mention the thousands

killed or maimed by drunk drivers.

Who's restricted most by the prohibition of sexual promiscuity? A man can walk away

from pregnancy. Women are biologically inclined to monogamy. So who pays the real

price of promiscuity? The unwanted baby born to a single mother left to fend for

herself.

Who benefits from the clothing restriction on women? Hardly the men. Women are

protected and respected from predatory males, rape, and pregnancy.

Who enjoys and profits financially from pornography? Throughout history this has

always been a male thing. Not many magazines seem to be owned or bought by women.

It's well known that rapists and child abusers (men again, I'm afraid) are often

driven and seduced by explicit pornography.

Who suffers by giving obligatory charity? The rich.

Who wants to care about the elderly in a society that worships youth? It's such a

nuisance to hedonistic young people. Muslims are obliged to look after their

parents and all the elderly. Again the weak are given security.

The list goes on.

It's clear that “harsh” Islamic rules actually protect the weak and those without a voice in society. It's not surprising, then, that the abhorrence against Islam, even from the very beginning at the time of Muhammad, came from the high and mighty of society. The entertainment moguls of Hollywood and elsewhere today see Islam as a severe threat to their profit margins. It's not so surprising, then, that the vast majority of those reverting to Islam are women. Also, I noticed that it was the under-trodden of society, such as the destitute Hindus of India and blacks in racist America, who feel that only Islam's ideals can address their problems.

Regarding women, I thought I had hit on the weak spot of Islam until I discovered that women enjoyed inheritance and divorce rights 1,400 years before the West discovered “Women's Lib.” A wife even keeps her own name after marriage. Some of the richest people in the Muslim world are women. Contrary to my image of Muslim women being “oppressed,” my personal observation was that women were not simply equal to men but in some ways held in a distinguished, almost reverential position in society. They didn't behave a bit oppressed. On the contrary, I personally cannot recall ever hearing a disparaging or sexist remark from a Muslim man regarding any woman.

DECISION TIME

So what to do with this information? I had two choices: either to do nothing (which was tempting) or change my religion. Also I wanted to break with the Catholic Church which had lost credibility to me. I didn't want to forever be a lapsed Catholic. As far as I know, it's not possible to resign (what would I send back — my confirmation medal?). I mulled over the issue for a year or more before one spring Friday deciding to take the plunge. Now several years have passed and I have realized that far from being the end of the matter, the hard work had only just begun on that Friday. I look ahead with interest and some trepidation at the resurgence of Islam around the world — I wonder how the West will react to the inevitable rise of Islam in the next century: submit or feel threatened? Many vested interests will fight it, particularly the powerful entertainment lobbies. Whatever happens, Islam is not going to go away.

There appears no sense in dying anymore, especially if one is living in a Roman Catholic diocese run by a bishop who chooses to adhere to the strictness of the Vatican book rather than listen to the strings of a more pastoral heart.

Bishop Richard W. Smith recently issued “newly revised guidelines,” not only for Roman Catholic funerals, but for the disposal of the dearly departed should cremation be chosen as the method of dealing with the loved one’s body.

Those guidelines, in fact, filled two pages.

And they removed all fun from dying.

About the only good thing about funerals, at least in my book, are the eulogies given by friends and family that aid and abet the mourning process, and open the memory bank to the times when life was played out in technicolour.

Joy, at a funeral, is presented by tears mixed with laughter.

When I die, I want them rolling in the aisles.

Unless I find a Catholic priest who is willing to bend the rules, however, this will not happen.

In the Ecclesia newspaper, it was explained this way:

“The word ‘eulogy’ refers to speech or writing that offers high

praise, particularly for one who has died,” the document begins.

“When Christians gather for the funeral Mass, we do so to praise

God the Father. We gather not to praise the deceased but to pray

for them. For this reason, eulogies are not given.”

Well, I disagree. God gets His fair share of praise and, while more praise is always good, we go to funerals not because of God but because of the person who died. Otherwise, why go to funerals?

And then there is the decree about the music that can be played at Catholic funerals -- one which now bans secular or recorded music as being “not appropriate in church.”

This, too, is disturbing.

As someone who has sung Stand By Me on virtually every continent except Antarctica, and this is with or without a couple of gins under my belt, it will be in my last will and testament that it be played at my funeral as they wheel my still-warm ashes out the front door.

In fact, I will hopefully be the one singing it -- having already set into motion having it recorded on a CD, a project necessitated by the loss of the tape which had me performing my “signature tune” at the ultra-posh Maple Leaf Ball in London back in 1989, and accompanied by a 12-piece orchestra, no less.

So, what now? Have it blaring from the hearse?

And, speaking about ashes, what about them?

According to these “recently-revised” Guidelines for the Celebration of Funerals:

“scattering cremated remains over water, in the air, on the

ground, separating them for placement in different locations, or

keeping them in homes, does not display appropriate Christian

reverence and hope, and should therefore not be done.”

This throws another spanner into the works.

There is a lake in northern Saskatchewan, for example, named Bonokoski Lake -- named in honour of my father’s first cousin, Daniel Bonokoski, an RCAF officer who was shot down during a bombing mission over Berlin near the end of the World War II.

I made a pilgrimage to that lake some years ago, flying there in a bush plane from a remote village on the border of the Northwest Territories, and then I wrote about for a Remembrance Day issue of this newspaper.

And I want some of my ashes tossed in that lake, and a few more into Baptiste Lake, outside Bancroft, where my family now makes its home.

The rest can go in an urn -- a big urn, since I am claustrophobic -- and buried in the family plot at St. Francis Xavier Cemetery in Brockville, next to my father and my brother.

I once joked that I wanted my ashes put in pepper shakers and distributed in restaurants across the country.

But I’ve since changed my mind.

Perhaps the church will see this as a concession on my part, and loosen up on the eulogy and the music.

Otherwise, what’s the sense of dying?

The U.S. religious marketplace is extremely volatile, with nearly half of American adults leaving the faith tradition of their upbringing to either switch allegiances or abandon religious affiliation altogether, a new survey finds.

The study released by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life is unusual for it sheer scope, relying on interviews with more than 35,000 adults to document a diverse and dynamic U.S. religious population.

While much of the study confirms earlier findings -- mainline Protestant churches are in decline, non-denominational churches are gaining and the ranks of the unaffiliated are growing -- it also provides a deeper look behind those trends, and of smaller religious groups.

“The American religious economy is like a marketplace - very dynamic, very competitive,” said Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum. “Everyone is losing, everyone is gaining. There are net winners and losers, but no one can stand still. Those groups that are losing significant numbers have to recoup them to stay vibrant.”

The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey estimates the United States is 78 percent Christian and about to lose its status as a majority Protestant nation, at 51 percent and slipping.

More than one-quarter of American adults have left the faith of their childhood for another religion or no religion at all, the survey found. Factoring in moves from one stream or denomination of Protestantism to another, the number rises to 44 percent.

One in four adults ages 18 to 29 claim no affiliation with a religious institution.

“In the past, certain religions had a real holding power, where people from one generation to the next would stay,” said Penn State University sociologist Roger Finke, who consulted in the survey planning. “Right now, there is a dropping confidence in organized religion, especially in the traditional religious forms.”

Lugo said the 44 percent figure is “a very conservative estimate,” and more research is planned to determine the causes.

“It does seem in keeping with the high tolerance among Americans for change,” Lugo said. “People move a lot, people change jobs a lot. It’s a very fluid society.”

The religious demographic benefiting the most from this religious churn is those who claim no religious affiliation. People moving into that category outnumber those moving out of it by a three-to-one margin.

The majority of the unaffiliated -- 12 percent of the overall population -- describe their religion as “nothing in particular,” and about half of those say faith is at least somewhat important to them. Atheists or agnostics account for 4 percent of the total population.

The Roman Catholic Church has lost more members than any faith tradition because of affiliation swapping, the survey found. While nearly one in three Americans were raised Catholic, fewer than one in four say they’re Catholic today. That means roughly 10 percent of all Americans are ex-Catholics.

The share of the population that identifies as Catholic, however, has remained fairly stable in recent decades thanks to an influx of immigrant Catholics, mostly from Latin America. Nearly half of all Catholics under 30 are Hispanic, the survey found.

On the Protestant side, changes in affiliation are swelling the ranks of nondenominational churches, while Baptist and Methodist traditions are showing net losses.

Many Americans have vague denominational ties at best. People who call themselves “just a Protestant,” in fact, account for nearly 10 percent of all Protestants.

Although evangelical churches strive to win new Christian believers from the “unchurched,” the survey found most converts to evangelical churches were raised Protestant.

Hindus claimed the highest retention of childhood members, at 84 percent. The group with the worst retention is one of the fastest growing -- Jehovah’s Witnesses. Only 37 percent of those raised in the sect known for door-to-door proselytizing said they remain members.

Among other findings involving smaller religious groups, more than half of American Buddhists surveyed were white, and most Buddhists were converts.

More people in the survey pool identified themselves as Buddhist than Muslim, although both populations were small -- less than 1 percent of the total population. By contrast, Jews accounted for 1.7 percent of the overall population.

The self-identified Buddhists -- 0.7 percent of those surveyed -- illustrate a core challenge to estimating religious affiliation: What does affiliation mean?

It’s unclear whether people who called themselves Buddhists did so because they practice yoga or meditation, for instance, or claim affiliation with a Buddhist institution.

The report does not project membership figures for religious groups, in part because the survey is not as authoritative as a census and didn’t count children, Lugo said. The U.S. Census does not ask questions on religion.

________

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press.

Though in agreement with most Protestants on certain points, Roman Catholics diverge with Protestants on critical points concerning salvation. With more than 74 million followers in North America, Catholics make up the largest Christian denomination on the continent. Following is some basic background on Catholicism:

• The Catholic Church was established as an institution around the fifth and sixth centuries. The current pope is Benedict XVI (Joseph Ratzinger, installed April 24, 2005).

• North America has 74,517,041 members of Catholicism.

• The Catholic Church is headquartered in Vatican City.

Catholics believe:

• the same as Protestants about God’s nature and about the death, burial and resurrection of Christ.

• in the same 66 books of the Protestant Bible, but they also affirm the apocryphal texts. In addition, they hold that authority is found in the teachings of the apostles as they’ve been preserved in the Catholic Church apart from the Bible. Thus the office of the pope has “full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church” (CCC, no. 882).

• “through Baptism we are freed from sin and reborn as sons of God; we become members of Christ” (CCC, no. 1213).

• priests can forgive sins

• grace is administered through sacraments during Eucharist (Mass).

• Mary was perfect. Catholics view her as a co-mediator of God’s grace and as a collaborator with the salvation of Jesus her Son (CCC, nos. 510, 973). According to Pope Paul VI, “The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship” (CCC, no. 971).

________

Adapted from “Roman Catholicism” overview written by Bill Gorden, resourcing consultant for the North American Mission Board’s personal and mass evangelism team. For a more detailed overview, visit www.4truth.net and click on “denominations.” Quotes are from Catechism of the Catholic Church. Liguori, Mo.: Liguori Publications, 1994.

Every conversion is a betrayal, even as we depict it as an act of higher loyalty. When we turn toward God, taking what we believe is the right path, we rationalize the switch as turning toward truth and submitting to the unassailable claims that eternal principles must, of necessity, make on our conscience. “Here I stand; I can do no other,” as Martin Luther put it to Johann von Eck and the Diet of Worms. And that was before he realized what he was getting himself, and Christendom, into.

Yet even as we embrace what we see as the greater good, we are, by definition, turning away from something we held dear – from the tradition we were raised in, from ideas we once believed in, from friends, from family, from the tribe. And that rejection often brings conflict and pain, and ought to bring a desire to redeem, if not explain, the unsettling tensions that can accompany one of the most profound decisions in a person’s life. “Well, I won’t see you in paradise,” a lifelong friend said when I announced that I had converted to Catholicism. My friend is a faithful evangelical whose judgments are not to be dismissed lightly, even though a natural reflex against my disloyalty to what was once our shared tradition surely weighed heavily in her verdict.

More than fifteen years later, that naked confrontation of creeds and emotions continues to disturb my conscience, and to prompt considerations not only of my own religious choice but of our growing national penchant for conversion – for continual religious reinvention that seems to mirror our national fascination with makeovers and our almost manic need for constant movement. A pilgrimage is one thing, having the goal of deepening faith through a long and rigorous journey of sanctification. But we are rapidly becoming a society of religious boulevardiers, always on the move, not as itinerant monks who bring our faith with us, but as God-shoppers on the lookout for the best deal. The reality is that conversion does not seem to trouble our nights nearly as much as it should, and to my mind this calls into question the depth of our newfound commitments; it also points to the common societal tendency to gloss over real differences, or, at the other extreme, to exalt combat as the only means to ideological clarity.

In the first scenario, religious conversion amounts to little more than psychotherapy – chicken soup that could be served up any number of ways depending on one’s mood. In the second scenario, conversion is just another weapon wielded on the battlefield that is America’s public square today – a way to prove that I am right and you are wrong, and wrong about everything, not just religion. Our conversion is affirmed only by demonstrating that our personal choice of what to believe is superior to all other beliefs, including those we ourselves once espoused. Neither rationale – the therapeutic or the self-justifying – addresses the claims of the religious community we leave or the one we join. The real disloyalty in these cases is to faith itself.

______

Historically, the ardor for conversion in America is understandable, though its contemporary expression is nothing short of revolutionary. We are a God-loving nation, defined spiritually by our revivalism, as we are politically by our republicanism. We do not want inherited truth any more than we want a hereditary monarchy. Yet sometime in the last few decades the quest for authenticity – we were founded, after all, by Puritan pilgrims seeking the true faith – got mixed up with our market-based love of reinvention, and thus the conversion industry was born.

In his classic work from 1955, PROTESTANT-CATHOLIC-JEW: AN ESSAY IN AMERICAN RELIGIOUS SOCIOLOGY, Will Herberg argued that some 96 percent of Americans continued to identify with the religious traditions they were raised in – by and large one of the three religions examined in the book. If there was any significant shifting, it was within these groupings. Stasis characterized the American religious character. Three decades later, one of Herberg’s leading successors in the field, sociologist Robert Wuthnow, showed how much the landscape had changed: By 1985, Wuthnow reported, one-third of Americans had converted to another religion, and most likely the numbers have continued to rise since then. Not only that, but many Americans, in what sociologist Wade Clark Roof has called this “generation of seekers,” have converted several times.

So determined are Americans to choose their religious destiny that any opinion to the contrary is seen as, well, heresy. I once attended a seminar on Native American religion in which one of the panelists – an American Indian – was complaining about the appropriation of his traditions by “white shamans,” a lament that received nods of assent from the largely white crowd. But he elicited an audible gasp when he pointed out that people simply couldn’t choose to become a practitioner of Indian religion. The religion is so bound up with the tribe you are born into and the geographical area where that tribe lives, he explained, that plucked from this context the religion makes no sense. And conversely, it makes no sense for someone to pretend to be part of a world they cannot enter. Needless to say, his listeners were aghast.

______

What accounts for the shift? There are a number of factors, prominent among them the decline of institutions, the fraying of communal and ethnic bonds, and the rise in religious intermarriage. Once you marry someone from outside your faith or denomination, it becomes increasingly untenable to consign them to even the comfier upper rings of hell. (Mel Gibson, a traditionalist Catholic who has suggested that his Episcopalian wife is destined for perdition, may be exceptional in this regard.)

The increase in immigration has not diluted the predominantly Christian makeup of the nation as much as some contend, but it did significantly expand the menu of choices. Loosed from their bonds of familial and denominational loyalty, Americans have happily availed themselves of these choices – the “heretical imperative,” as Peter Berger has called it. We remain a deeply spiritual, if not especially religious nation; most people feel they have to “be” something. (“A man’s got to believe in something,” W.C. Fields said. His punch line was, “I believe I’ll have another drink,” but the original sentiment still holds true.) In the abstract, this sort of religious freelancing should be a good thing. Sociologists like to differentiate between “achieved” and “ascribed” identities, the latter being the religious loyalty that one takes in with mother’s milk, together with the rites and traditions of old-world faiths. Achieved identities are those we discover for ourselves, often as we grow into adulthood.

In his book PAUL THE CONVERT, author Alan F. Segal reports that two-thirds of religious conversions are gradual, the result of intellectual and emotional quests, and only one-third are sudden. That kind of slow fermentation should – I would think – produce a deeper and richer religious faith. Yet the opposite seems typically to be the case, as religious conversion so often looks like spiritual faddism, with questing Americans snapping up all manner of spiritual snake oil and trading it in as soon as they realize they’ve bought just another placebo.

For many who discover a new spiritual home within a long-standing tradition, on the other hand, there seems to be a tendency to proclaim their newfound allegiance, but without acquiring a corresponding grounding in the history and beliefs of their faith. That results in what both liberals and conservatives decry as an endemic religious illiteracy in America, or, perhaps worse, a simple lack of religious seriousness.

The opposite tendency, of course, is the more widely noted phenomenon of converts becoming the greatest zealots. Diving into the deep end of the religious pool can be as problematic as skimming the surface, however. William James famously described conversion as “the process, gradual or sudden, by which a self hitherto divided or consciously wrong, inferior, and unhappy becomes unified and consciously right, superior, and happy.” It is a short step from there to triumphalism, and too many converts seem ready to take that step, perhaps in part out of a desire to compensate for their delayed enlightenment by trying to prove that they are purer in their beliefs, more Catholic, one might say, than the pope. This can produce all manner of tragic results, as each day’s news bears witness to.

The more common problem with the zealousness of the converted, I think, is that it is often rooted in a narcissistic desire to be right, which is then camouflaged as a proprietary monopoly on universal truth. One can believe in something that is true without being correct about everything else in one’s life. The humility required by the great religious traditions would never sanction the egotism of identifying one’s personal wishes with the universal truths of the faith. Separating the two is perhaps the greatest spiritual challenge for the deepest religious believers. It is a quest for what Richard Gaillardetz, a Catholic studies professor at the University of Toldeo, has called “eschatological humility.” “Eschatological humility,” he wrote in COMMONWEAL magazine, “treasures divine truth as it is mediated through the received faith of the church but also recognizes that we do not so much possess divine truth as it possesses us.”

______

Along with the penchant for zealotry, the newly converted are often strongly attracted by the idea of a historically grounded religious authenticity. One could argue that this has always been an incentive to, and a justification for, religious conversion. Go to the source for the real thing, we are told, so it’s no surprise that we follow this advice in our thinking about religion.

Several years ago I was invited by a rabbi friend to give a talk at Sabbath services. Naturally, I was a bit daunted by the prospect, especially when the rabbi encouraged me to talk about my experience of “swimming the Tiber” – a story that I figured might be of interest to the audience, but not one pointing to common ground between us. When I had finished my tale of conversion and opened the floor for questions, an elderly woman in the front row shot up her hand and asked, “So, you went from being a Protestant to a Catholic. Why didn’t you go all the way and become a Jew?”

The line induced laughs, and my somewhat embarrassed rabbi quickly shifted the discussion to other areas. I actually thought it was a good question, perhaps because I recognize in my own psyche the lure of historical verisimilitude, which was certainly one of the factors in my own leap backward, beyond 1517. The motivation to make a clean break is understandable, and an integral part of the appeal of conversion. Islam, in fact, teaches that its newcomers do not convert per se but actually undergo a “reversion,” that is, a return to the place where we all started, Islam being the default set point of the soul in the Muslim view. By discovering one’s “true self” somewhere in the distant past, we needn’t contend with the hurt feelings of those living with us in the present, or with the idea that we ourselves have “changed” or betrayed anything. We were always right. We just didn’t know it.

Unfortunately, in America today this approach too often becomes an exercise in chronological, rather than theological, justification. It becomes what I call “vintage religion,” like shopping for retro furnishings that can recreate a world we were never part of and that we can then idealize through some soft-focus lens of nostalgia. The resuscitation of Celtic and Norse religions, along with resurgent neopagan faiths like Wicca and Heathenism, are manifestations of this trend. These modern versions of ancient traditions are often created out of whole cloth, but they offer the pleasure of enjoying an old-time religion without engaging one’s own past. It is the luxury of wearing a beautiful fur coat that was bought by someone else’s grandmother long before it was a sin to kill animals for fashion.

______

Underlying the entire conversion question is the loss of the fear of eternal damnation. In the old days, if you made the wrong choice you were doomed. Not anymore. Today, religious belief is pretty much, “I’m OK, You’re OK. See you in heaven.” In his 2003 book THE TRANSFORMATION OF AMERICAN RELIGION: HOW WE ACTUALLY PRACTICE OUR FAITH, Alan Wolfe aptly calls this phenomenon “salvation inflation,” and the numbers bear him out. One Gallup poll has shown that 75 percent of Americans say that there is a religion “other than their own that offers a true path to God,” and of that number a substantial majority believe that this other path to God is equally as good as their own. Additionally, although the vast majority of Americans say that there will come a day when God judges people and decides whether they will go to heaven or hell, the poll finds that 44 percent believe that a good person will go to heaven whether or not he or she believes in God.

This is seven centuries – and an even longer distance theologically – from Pope Boniface VIII declaring that there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church – EXTRA ECCLESIAM NULLA SALUS.

The progress from a conversion of fear to one of mature choice would not seem to be such a bad thing. Converting out of the fear that we are dangling over a fiery pit with one foot on a banana peel, as Jonathan Edwards had it, is not exactly the most profound motivation for worshiping God. The problem, of course, is that if one religion – or no religion – is as good as another, why switch? In fact, why be anything at all? Many Americans seem to be asking the same thing, and the lack of any need to formally affiliate with a brand-name faith has contributed to the steep decline in membership in many denominations. It has also prompted the expenditure of millions of dollars in advertising by those denominations, in an effort to better market themselves.

Improving public relations, however, does not strike me as the best way to attract believers. In the end, meaningful beliefs attract the best believers, and the enduring appeal of conversion can be seen as evidence that many Americans do take their religious quests seriously. This can be salutary not only for them, but also for the faiths they embrace. I once heard the church historian Martin Marty recount his experience of acquiring three daughters-in-law, and his surprise at their fascination with the various Marty family rituals whose roots and significance the Martys themselves had begun to take for granted through decades of habit. It was thanks to these newcomers to the family, he said, that he began to rediscover the meaning and memories of the family traditions. In the same way, converts can hold up a mirror to the communities they join, perhaps reminding us of things we don’t like about ourselves, but also about the good things that attracted us in the first place, and above all about the “why” of who we are.

In American Catholicism adult converts – 150,000 every year – have been called the new immigrants, an apt label given the impact they are having on the church. Purdue University sociologist James Davidson has shown that the 10 percent or so of American Catholics who are converts are often more faithful in their observances than so-called cradle Catholics. Converts are more likely to believe there is “something special” about being Catholic; they are more likely to be registered in a parish (87 versus 67 percent); to read about the church (47 versus 34 percent); to share their faith (41 versus 29 percent); and to believe that their faith helps them with daily decisions (35 versus 21 percent).

Certainly much of this can be chalked up to the often short-lived zeal of the convert. It is the process of deepening the faith after conversion – what the church calls “mystagogy” – that is the true test of a conversion. The pilgrimage of sanctification after the moment of justification is an avenue by which bonds frayed by rejection of one tradition in favor of another can be healed.

In reflecting on his own faith journey on the eve of his retirement in 2004, Bill Moyers cited T.S. Eliot’s claim that “no man has ever climbed to the higher stages of the spiritual life who has not been a believer in a particular religion, or at least a particular philosophy.” Moyers then inverted the image of mountaintop enlightenment to one that is perhaps better suited to the nitty-gritty of real faith at work: “As we dig deeper into our own religion, if we are lucky we break through to someone else digging deeper toward us from the core of their tradition, and on some transcendent level we converge....”

This does not avoid the differences, or gloss over the difficulties, inherent in our religious choices. Rather, it is a call to plumb the depths of our faith – to be truer to ourselves, and in doing so to discover connections with eternal truths and with other believers that may not have been visible under the aspect of a privatized or superficial life of faith. Conversion is popularly depicted as a sudden burst of inspiration enjoyed by a blessed individual. But the most firmly grounded conversion is one that transports an individual deeply into a community. In the end, true conversion is an ongoing process, and above all a challenge to ourselves as much as it is to those around us.

On September 11, 2000, newspapers around the world carried the story about how Satan had invaded the Vatican in Rome and screamed insults at Pope John Paul II (1920–2005) through the agency of a teenage girl, reported to have been a “splendid girl in terms of purity and goodness” before being possessed by the devil at the age of 12. The 19-year-old began shouting in a “cavernous voice” during a general papal audience in St. Peter’s Square. Despite the efforts of the pope to quiet the attack, the Prince of Darkness laughed at the Holy Father’s efforts to drive him away. When Vatican guards attempted to constrain the girl, she violently pushed them back in a display of superhuman strength.

Vatican exorcist Father Gabriele Amorth said that he and another exorcist, Father Giancarlo Gramolazzo, had previously worked with the girl and that the pope had spent half an hour with her the day before the incident and had also exorcised the teenager. However, it soon became apparent when the girl began insulting the pope and speaking in unknown tongues during the papal audience that neither of the exorcisms had managed to banish Satan. Vatican sources were quick to remind the media of Pope John Paul II’s successful exorcism of an Italian woman named Francesca Fabrizzi in 1982.

Later in September 2000, Reverend James Le Bar, an exorcist for the Archdiocese of New York, commented that there had been a “large explosion” of exorcisms in recent years. In New York alone, he said, the number had accelerated from none in 1990 to a total of 300 in the last 10 years. Reverend Le Bar said that as men and women have diminished self-respect for themselves and decreased reverence for spirituality, for other human beings, and for life in general, one of Satan’s demons can move in and “attack them by possessing them and rendering them helpless.”

On November 26, 2000, an Associated Press story datelined Mexico City, Mexico, stated that a steady procession of men and women believing themselves to be possessed pass through the doors of the city’s Roman Catholic parishes seeking exorcism from the eight priests appointed by the archbishop to battle Satan and his demons. Reverend Alberto Juarez told of seeing a young woman who began to speak in a man’s voice and then growl like a dog. Father Enrique Maldonado spoke of houses where he witnessed locked doors open and objects move about the rooms. Reverend Daniel Gagnon stated that he had once considered himself scientific, pragmatic, but he had changed his mind. “Psychology is where you begin, but there is an area that science cannot explain,” he said.

The casting out of demons and the healing of the sick and the lame were two of the great facets of the apostolic commission that Jesus (c. 6 b.c.e. – c. 30 c.e.) gave to his followers, but the practice of performing an exorcism on candidates for baptism was first recorded by the church father Hippolytus (c. 170 – c. 235) in third-century Rome. The priest or layman instructing those who would join the church was instructed to lay his hands upon the heads of the catechumens and pray. It was then supposed that it would be impossible for a demonic entity to remain quiet and unnoticed at this time, thereby betraying its presence and presenting the unfortunate human host for the process of exorcism.

According to the September 1, 2000, issue of the National Catholic Reporter, the first mention of “exorcist” as an office in the Roman Catholic Church exists in a letter of Pope Cornelius in 253. Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell states that in the early medieval liturgies, there were three kinds of common exorcisms — the exorcism or blessing of houses or objects, of those about to receive baptism, and of people believed to be possessed by demons. In various parts of Europe, the priest conducting the exorcism might also use the rites to banish such pre-Christian deities as Thor and Odin.

Accounts of demonic possession were commonplace in ancient Egypt, Babylonia, and Persia from the earliest times. Although there are no accounts of demonic possession or of exorcism in the Old Testament, the casting out of demons is an integral part of Jesus’ ministry and it is an important aspect of the earthly assignments that he gives to his followers. (“Then he called together his twelve apostles and sent them out two by two with power over evil spirits” [Mark 6:7]. “Finally, Paul ... turned and said to the spirit, ‘In the name of Jesus Christ, I order you to leave this girl alone!’” [Acts 16:18]. The New Testament also refers to Jewish exorcists who begin to cast out demons in Jesus’ name (Mark 9:38–40): “‘Teacher, we saw a man using your name to force demons out of people. But he wasn’t one of us, and we told him to stop.’ Jesus said to his disciples: ‘Don’t stop him! No one who works miracles in my name will soon turn and say something bad about me. Anyone who isn’t against us is for us.’”

Neither Jesus nor those who cast out demons in his name is called an “exorcist” in the New Testament, and the word “exorcise” is never used anywhere in the Bible in the context of banishing demons. By contrast to shamanic exorcisms of evil spirits in tribal cultures, which can last for hours or days; the rituals of demonic banishment in ancient Egypt or pagan Europe, which were dramatic ordeals of lengthy duration; or the rites of exorcism of the Roman Catholic Church, which can go on for many days, months, even years, Jesus’ exorcisms consisted of his/her simple and direct command to the demon to leave its unwilling host body.

When Jesus triumphs easily and immediately over the evil beings that have infested a human body and soul in the many encounters described in the gospels, the possessing entities are always demons, never Satan himself. Although these are victories that diminish Satan’s earthly powers, it may be that the great showdown between Jesus, the Son of God, and Satan, the Lord of the Earth, is building for the great final battle between good and evil at Armageddon at the time of the Apocalypse.

Although accounts of exorcism are not to be found in the Old Testament, later Jewish tradition employs a ritual that involves the sounding of the shofar, the reciting of prayers, and the anointing of the afflicted person with oil and water over which passages from Psalms have been read. As in Christian exorcism, it is important that the true identity of the demon be learned so that it can be addressed by name and ordered out of the body of its victim. In the Kabbalist tradition, the exorcist also demands to know the nature of the sin that led the demon to attach itself to a human body so that after expulsion the soul can be rectified and placed at rest.

John L. Allen, Jr., a staff writer for the National Catholic Reporter, acknowledged (September 1, 2000) that in a few well-publicized cases “failure to make a careful assessment of possible brain dysfunction before performing exorcism has resulted in disaster.” Allen then mentions a 1976 case in which two Bavarian priests were convicted of negligent homicide when medical treatment for a 23-year-old epileptic was discontinued in favor of exorcism and the young woman died. He also refers to a 1996 case in which a Korean Protestant exorcist in California was convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to four years in prison for inadvertently trampling a woman to death during a four-hour exorcism.

Vatican exorcist Gabriele Amorth said that he always asks for a person’s medical history and consults a psychiatrist if he feels such information will be useful before beginning an exorcism. He argues, however, that only performing an exorcism can provide certainty, because it is in the response to the rites that one can detect the presence of a demon.

While many priests appear to have the attitude that a little exorcism could never hurt anyone, Father Joseph Mahoney, a Catholic chaplain in Detroit who works with individuals suffering from multiple personality disorder, sees it quite differently. He believes that an exorcism can be “extremely destructive” when applied to patients with undiagnosed multiple personality disorders, and he refers to research carried out by the Royal Ottawa Hospital in Canada, which concluded that the process of exorcism could create new personalities in such subjects.

In January 1999, the Vatican issued a revised Catholic rite of exorcism for the first time since 1614, reaffirming the existence of Satan and revamping his image for the millennium. Officials stressed that the church was not revising scriptural references to the Devil or suggesting that people should cease believing in the Evil One. But priests who conduct exorcisms should now deal with evil as a force lurking within all individuals, rather than one that threatens people from without.

Father Malachi Martin, a Jesuit who served as an advisor to three popes, has authored a number of books dealing with demon possession and exorcism, including Hostage to the Devil. When he was asked why there has been such a spectacular rise in the number of people possessed by demons and in need of exorcism, he replied that it was as St. Paul (d. 62–68 c.e.) had declared: “There is a spiritual war on, a war with the spirits ... a war with the invisible forces that want men’s souls.”

Describing the process of exorcism, Martin explained that an exorcism was a confrontation, not a mere exercise in prayer. The exorcist was at war with the demon. Once begun, the process must be finished. If the exorcist should stop the rites for any reason, the demon will pursue him.

The exorcism continues with a kind of conversation between the demon and the exorcist, who is attempting to learn as quickly as possible the demon’s name. Often the entity’s name is a reflection or a symbol of that demon’s function, and it must be forced to admit it.

The demon systematically ridicules human love and faith and constantly probes the exorcist for any signs of weakness, any area of his past that might be open to reproach. Objects in the room may move, windows shatter, doors open and close. “At a certain moment,” Martin told journalist Wen Smith, “everybody in the room knows there’s something in the room that wants you dead. It’s a horrible feeling knowing that unless something happens, you are going to die — now.”

Martin freely admitted that not all exorcisms end in triumph for the exorcist. Sometimes the demon remains in control and the victim remains possessed. Even when the demon is expelled from its unwilling human host, it may still wander about seeking other vulnerable men and women to inhabit. And the exorcist himself may continue to pay a price for interfering in the demon’s possession of its host body. Martin said that he had been flung out of bed, knocked off stools, and had his shoulder broken — reminders that the demon was still around and very angry with him.

On September 22, 2000, the 1973 horror film The Exorcist was rereleased with added footage that had been excised from the original, and priests across the nation braced themselves for a tidal wave of cases of alleged demonic possession. Arguably the most frightening movie ever made, the film was based on the best-selling novel by William Peter Blatty and was directed by William Friedkin. As many motion picture reviewers and commentators have discussed, the film presentation of demonic possession touched a kind of collective primal fear in its audiences that was made all the more horrible by the fact that the victim was a smiling, cherubic, innocent young girl. Demons became all the more real when people realized that possession could occur to their child, to their spouse, even to them. Father Merrin, the exorcist in the film, uses the actual Roman Ritual of exorcism that was created by the Roman Catholic Church in 1614, and the repetitious chanting of the actors performing the rites gave the presentation an added aura of reality and of participation in a supernatural event.

Reverend Bob Larson, an evangelical preacher and author who runs an exorcism ministry in Denver, told the New York Times (November 28, 2000) that he had 40 exorcism teams across the country and that his goal was that “no one should ever be more than a day’s drive from a city where you can find an exorcist.” Larson could not see why anyone would be “freaked out” over the idea of an exorcism: “It’s in the Bible. Christ taught it.”

Michael W. Cuneo, a Fordham University sociologist, has been studying the subject of exorcisms for many years. His research indicates that as recently as the 1960s, exorcism in the United States was nearly completely abandoned as a church rite. Then, in 1973, the motion picture The Exorcist changed that. By the mid-1980s, there was a “proliferation of exorcisms being performed by evangelical Protestants.” In the 1990s, Cuneo says that there is an “underground network” of exorcists numbering in the hundreds, and a “bewildering variety of exorcisms being performed.”

Reverend Martin Marty, a Lutheran minister and an analyst of religious trends and customs in the United States, commented that exorcisms were “all over the place” and the driving out of evil spirits has a long and varied history. Marty noted that the godparents at the baptismal service in many Christian faiths are asked, on behalf of the child they sponsor, if they renounce the devil and all his works and ways. That, he explained, is a mild version of exorcism. And exorcism is a smaller part of modern Western religions than it was in ancient Babylon, Egypt, and Greece. There are witchdoctors in African societies who perform exorcisms, medicine people among Native American tribes who are exorcists, and shamans throughout Asia who banish evil spirits.

As long as there are human beings who believe in supernatural powers, there will be exorcists who will be summoned to rid the innocent of the demons who have possessed them. A survey of its readers conducted by Self magazine in 1997 revealed that 65 percent of those surveyed believed in the Devil; and the results of a Gallup poll released in June 2001 indicated that 41 percent of adult Americans believe that the Devil or his demons can possess humans.

________

DELVING DEEPER

Bamberger, Bernard J. Fallen Angels. New York: Jewish Publication Society, Barnes & Noble, 1995.

Blatty, William Peter. The Exorcist. New York: Bantam Books, 1972.

Dickason, C. Fred. Demon Possession & The Christian. Westchester, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1989.

McGinn, Bernard. Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil. San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1994.

Oesterreich, T. K. Possession: Demonical & Other Among Primitive Races, in Antiquity, the Middle Ages, and Modern Times. New Hyde Park, N.Y.: University Books, 1966.

________

Gale Encyclopedia of the Unusual and Unexplained | 2003 | Copyright 2003, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

Lent is a period of fasting and repentance traditionally observed by Catholics and some Protestant denominations in preparation for Easter. The length of the Lenten fast was established in the 4th century as 40 days. During this time, participants eat sparingly or simply give up a particular food or habit. Ash Wednesday and Lent began as a way for Catholics to remind themselves to repent of their sins in a manner similar to how people in the Old Testament repented in sackcloth, ashes, and fasting (Esther 4:1-3; Jeremiah 6:26; Daniel 9:3; Matthew 11:21).

However, over the centuries it has developed a much more “sacramental” value. Many Catholics understand giving something up for Lent as a way to gain blessing from God. The Bible does not teach that such acts have any merit with God in terms of salvation (Isaiah 64:6). In fact, the New Testament teaches us that our acts of fasting and repentance should be done in a manner that does not attract attention to ourselves: “When you fast, do not look somber as the hypocrites do, for they disfigure their faces to show men they are fasting. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. But when you fast, put oil on your head and wash your face, so that it will not be obvious to men that you are fasting, but only to your Father, who is unseen; and your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you” (Matthew 6:16-18).

Fasting is a good thing when it is done with a biblical perspective. It is good and pleasing to God when we give up sinful habits and practices. There is absolutely nothing wrong with setting aside a time when we focus on Jesus’ death and resurrection. However, these practices are things we should be doing every day of the year, not just for 40 days between Ash Wednesday and Easter. If a Christian wishes to observe Lent, we are free to do so. The key is to focus the time on repenting from our sins and consecrating ourselves to God, not on trying to earn God’s favor or increase His love for us.

Ash Wednesday (from http://www.bible-truth.org/FAQ-Catholicism.html)

Ash Wednesday was started by the Roman Catholic church in the seventh century. It has no biblical basis and is not found or even hinted at in the Bible. It is the first day of Lent, another Roman Catholic invention, which is the forty days before Easter. Participants are supposed to fast and give up something they enjoy for the next 40 days.

The word “Ash” comes from the practice in this pagan ritual of a priest or lay person putting their finger in ash and making the sign of a cross on the forehead of the participant. The day before Ash Wednesday is popularly known as Mardi Gras (or “Fat Tuesday”). The Lenten period is supposed to be a time of self-examination and confession of sin. However, to show the true attitude of those who practice this, the day before they party and carouse (sexual activity), which is exemplified by the extravagant celebration in New Orleans. In other words they eat, drink and make merry, which means sinning the day before they begin Lent, because for the next 40 days they have to avoid these practices. For them it is acceptable though, because the next day they go to “confession” and get the priest’s absolution for their sins. True Christians are to live godly lives and resist sin, not indulge which is the basis of this pagan ritual. Biblical Christian understand that Jesus had to suffer for all our sins and thus we “discern” (1 Cor. 11:29) the body of Christ and resist sin which would have caused Jesus Christ suffering 2,000 years ago.

Ash Wednesday was actually taken from Roman paganism, which took it from Vedic India. Ashes were called the seed of the fire god Agni, with power to forgive sins. Ashes were said to be a symbol for the purifying blood of Shiva in which one could bathe away sins. During Rome’s New Year Feast of Atonement in March, people wore sackcloth and bathed in ashes to atone for their sins. As the dying god of March, Mars took his worshipers’ sins with him into death. The carnival fell on dies martis, the Day of Mars. In English, this was Tuesday, because Mars was identified with the Saxon god Tiw.

Of all the Christmas images, the one that best evokes the meaning and feeling of the Incarnation is the Madonna with Child. There, in the love between Mary and the infant Jesus, the mystery of God-made-man fuses with humanity’s primordial experiences of birth and mother love and nurtures the faith, however fragile, that peace on earth is possible among men of good will. Little wonder, then, that in the iconography of the Christian church, Mary is second only to Jesus as an object of love and devotion.

Over the last quarter century, however, the cult of Mary has cooled perceptibly, especially among better-educated Roman Catholics. One reason is the reform movement of Vatican Council II. Heeding Pope John XXIII’s warning that “the Madonna is not pleased when she is put above her son,” the council fathers curbed excessive Mariolatry and reminded the faithful that Jesus alone is source and center of Christian worship. More important, Pope Paul VI’s anti-birth-control encyclical and the feminist movement of the ‘70s soured many Catholic women on the Virgin Mother model they were told to emulate in their youth. “Mary embodied domesticity, a piety that was the enemy of intellectuality and a purity that seemed to deny female sexuality,” explains Catholic novelist Mary Gordon, 29. “If a Catholic girl rejected these things, she rejected Mary too.” Despite such an enormous cultural change, the Virgin Mary is beginning to recapture the Christian imagination in new and often arresting ways. Overcoming their longstanding bias against Mariology, Protestants have joined Catholic and Orthodox scholars in exploring the meaning of Mary in the New Testament and the role Marian piety might play in a reunited Christianity. In several recent books and symposiums, Protestants have discovered that the New Testament does contain a theology of Mary, while Catholic scholars now acknowledge that there is little basis in the Bible for Catholic dogmas of Mary’s Immaculate Conception (the belief that she was born without sin) or her bodily assumption into heaven.

Free Agent: Among the new breed of independent Catholic nuns, Mary’s virginity has become a source of feminist pride. “Because she was asked to become the Mother of Jesus without the intervention of man, she responded to the call of God as a person, without biological differentiation,” says Sister Barbara Thomas, a past president of the Leadership Conference of Women Religious. “She did this as a free agent, not bound by physical dependence upon man’s cooperation, nor by social constraint to seek a man’s approval.” Perhaps the boldest effort to reinterpret the Virgin is “The Mary Myth” (Seabury Press), in which sociologist Father Andrew Greeley acknowledges the historical and psychological links of Mary with pre-Christian goddesses. Explains Greeley: “Mary is the Catholic Christian religion’s symbol which reveals to us that the Ultimate is androgynous, that in God there is both male and female, both pursuit and seduction, both ingenious plan Pieta: and passionate tenderness.”

‘New Eve’: Much of the current interest in the Virgin is frankly analytical — an effort to discover how and why she emerged as the dominant female image in Western art and culture. Curiously, the New Testament contains little information about the historical Mary and some Scriptural passages are even negative. The few times Mary meets her son during his public ministry, Jesus emphasizes that his true kinship is no longer with his blood relatives but with the new family of his disciples. Most of the later Christian ideas of Mary are derived from Luke’s account of the conception and birth of Jesus. Through her acceptance of God’s call to be mother of the Messiah, Mary becomes in Luke’s hands the “New Eve” who symbolizes the link between the old Israel and the “New Israel” of believers in Christ. Only in A.D. 431, at the Council of Ephesus, did the early church fathers give Mary her first additional title: “Mother of God.” Today’s scholars suggest several reasons why Mary became a powerful religious symbol. Greeley believes that the early Christians had a psychological need to express the feminine side of God, which their Hebrew forefathers suppressed. Historians point out that Christianity absorbed the religions of its pagan converts. Marian feast days fit easily into seasonal celebrations of ancient fertility goddesses. And in the East, where devotion to Mary developed earlier than in the West, images of Mary bore a striking resemblance to the seated figures of Near Eastern “great Mothers.” As a potent symbol of later Christian civilization, Mary became an icon reflecting shifting cultural values. Ascetics, who regarded even marital sex as sinful, extolled her purity. Mystics found in her total obedience to God the prototype of the single soul’s rapturous union with the divine, and monks stressed her perpetual virginity. Meanwhile, the mass of average believers revered her more accessible human qualities - forebearance, compassion, maternal love and turned to her as “mediator” of Christ’s saving graces. “Whenever Jesus takes on the image of the stern judge or excessively suffering Saviour, popular devotion has swung to Mary as one who is more approachable to humankind,” observes Notre Dame University theologian James Burtchaell.

By the Middle Ages, Mary had attained an unofficial cultic status that neatly paralleled Jesus’ own. Her Immaculate Conception echoed his Ascension. She was “Queen of Heaven” and he was “Christ the King.” Her prayer was the “Ave Maria,” his was “The Lord’s Prayer.” Not surprisingly, then, the Protestant reformers rejected the cult of Mary because it conflicted with key Reformation themes. Among them: fidelity to Scripture alone, Jesus as the sole mediator between God and man and rejection of the monastic life in favor of the Christian family. In reaction, the Catholic Counter-Reformation, with the Jesuits taking the lead, enhanced Mary as a symbol of Catholic commitment.

Apparitions: “Since the nineteenth century, Marianism and papalism have gone hand in hand and given each other mutual support,” says liberal Catholic theologian Hans Kung. In an unusual assertion of papal teaching authority, Pope Pius IX in 1854 proclaimed the Immaculate Conception a dogma of the Catholic faith and sixteen years later led a victorious papal faction at Vatican Council I, which declared the dogma of papal infallibility. Meanwhile, a curious cleavage in Christian sensibility developed among rank-and-file Christians. Whereas untutored Protestant revivalists were apt to hear the call of “the Lord,” Catholic adolescents, such as Bernadette of Lourdes, claimed to see apparitions of the Virgin.

Psychologically and ecclesiastically, Marianism peaked in 1950 when Pope Pius XII, the last Roman Pontiff to rule as an absolute monarch, proclaimed as Catholic dogma the bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary into heaven. Although some Mariologists anticipated even grander pronouncements by the Pontiff, none has been forthcoming. Instead, Vatican Council II chose to simplify the essentials of faith. Today, Mary is seen as a symbol of radical Christian hope — the first of humankind to be redeemed and fully glorified by her perfect faith in Christ, but totally subordinate to her son. In return, at least some Protestant ecumenists, such as Baptist theologian Arthur Crabtree, have begun to include Mary in their prayers as “a unique member of the church and model for all Christians.”

Relevance: But the real question is whether ordinary men and women will find in Mary a relevance for their own lives. The story of Mary in history reveals different meanings of the Virgin Mother for different generations. Certainly the times are ripe for an appreciation of the feminine side of all human beings — and of God as well. And the Christmas story reminds us that Mary was not only the mother of the Messiah but a courageous woman in her own right who suffered for her singular response to God’s call.

A series of articles on Pope Francis's comments on proselytizing

EVANGELIZE, DON’T PROSELYTIZE - AND THERE’S A DIFFERENCE.

People can’t be coerced into the faith, they must be loved. That is what Pope Francis is saying, and that is what his predecessors said.

http://www.aleteia.org/en/religion/article/should-we-proselytize-5829569848279040

________

In this week’s interview with atheist newspaper publisher Eugenio Scalfari, Pope Francis commented that “proselytization is solemn nonsense.” Christians who have converted to the Catholic faith, missionaries, and those involved in apostolates that work helping people to convert to Catholicism were offended. When Pope Francis said “proselytization is solemn nonsense” and re-assured Eugenio Scalfari that he did not intend to convert him, they heard the Pope saying that evangelization was a waste of time and that converting people to Catholicism was “nonsense.”

Pope Francis does not have the theologian’s precision that characterized Pope Benedict XVI nor the philosopher’s clarity of thought and expression that marked Bl. Pope John Paul II. He is a pastoral Pope, interested in people and passionate about meeting them on their own terms, wherever they are. Unfortunately, Pope Francis seems more concerned with the individual contact and warm personal style than he does with clarity of teaching.

To understand Pope Francis’s words, we should first understand what he means by “proselytization.” To proselytize is to attempt to convert someone to your religion. This simple definition is clear enough, but the word also carries a connotation of using coercion of some sort. To use guilt, emotional blackmail, or psychological pressure to get a person to accept a religion is both immoral and ineffective. Even if they convert, they have done so under pressure, and thus it is not a true conversion.

To understand the Catholic approach to evangelization, it is worth considering Pope Benedict XVI’s teachings on a visit to Brazil in 2007. Addressing the Latin American Bishops, the Pope said, “To you who represent the Church in Latin America, today I symbolically entrust my encyclical Deus Caritas Est, in which I sought to point out to everyone the essence of the Christian message.” Pope Benedict then explained that the Church “does not engage in proselytism. Instead, she grows by ‘attraction,’ ... just as Christ draws all to himself by the power of his love.”

The first Christians converted the Roman Empire because of the radiant love they showed. As John Zmirak has written,

“What impressed the Romans was how the Christians lived, and their willingness to push back against the corruptions of a dying, death-dealing culture. Christians did not kill their unwanted infants – in fact, they went to the city gates and rescued the infants whom pagans had abandoned. Christians did not divorce, as Romans did; they were more likely to be chaste before marriage and faithful afterward – which led Roman aristocrats to seek out Christian wives. ... In an increasingly totalitarian Roman state, Christians were even willing to say no to the emperor. These radical acts of resistance to the social and political culture, carried out at personal cost that sometimes included martyrdom, won over jaded residents of the crumbling empire.”

This is the point Pope Francis is making: people must be attracted by the love Christians exhibit rather than some form of emotional, psychological, or social coercion. So in the interview, he says to Eugenio Scalfari, “It is love of others, as our Lord preached. It is not proselytizing; it is love. Love for one’s neighbor, that leavening that serves the common good.” Scalfari replies, “Love your neighbor as yourself?” And the Pope says, “Exactly so.”

Neither Pope Benedict nor Pope Francis have any intention that Catholics should stop evangelizing. However, they are aware that a preaching that consists only of laying down the law or presenting doctrinal precepts to be affirmed is in adequate. Preaching the Gospel must be in words and works. The Gospel of love must be shown through lives of self-sacrificial love.

When Jesus commanded us to go into all the world and preach the Good News, he expected us not only to proclaim the message, but first to be transformed by it. Once we are transformed by the Gospel of the Risen Lord, we will be able to radiate his life and love into the world with great power. This is the same message communicated by Bl. Pope John Paul in his apostolic letter, Into the New Millennium.

In that manifesto for the New Evangelization, John Paul II reminds all Catholics of the primacy of love as the heart of the evangelistic effort, and with ringing tones he calls us:

“Let us go forward in hope! A new millennium is opening before the Church like a vast ocean upon which we shall venture, relying on the help of Christ. The Son of God, who became incarnate two thousand years ago out of love for humanity, is at work even today: we need discerning eyes to see this and, above all, a generous heart to become the instruments of his work. ... Now, the Christ whom we have contemplated and loved bids us to set out once more on our journey: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Mt 28:19). The missionary mandate accompanies us into the Third Millennium and urges us to share the enthusiasm of the very first Christians: we can count on the power of the same Spirit who was poured out at Pentecost and who impels us still today to start out anew, sustained by the hope “which does not disappoint.”

________

Fr. Dwight Longenecker is the parish priest of Our Lady of the Rosary Church in Greenville, South Carolina. Browse his books, visit his blog and be in touch at dwightlongenecker.com.

==========================================

http://www.standfirminfaith.com/?/sf/page/30851

MORE FROM THE DISASTROUS NEW POPE

Matt Kennedy

October 1, 2013

________

This time Pope Francis decides to correct Jesus’ faulty missiology:

“Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us. Sometimes after a meeting I want to arrange another one because new ideas are born and I discover new needs. This is important: to get to know people, listen, expand the circle of ideas. The world is crisscrossed by roads that come closer together and move apart, but the important thing is that they lead towards the Good ...”

Compare with:

And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” (Matt 28:18-20)

It’s a good thing we have the Pope to interpret scripture for us. I mean who would have known that when Jesus instructed his followers to make disciples of all nations and baptize them in the name of the Trinity and teach them to follow all his commands, he really meant: get to know everybody and tell them to follow their own consciences.

In answer to a question about whether or not there is an absolute “good’, the Pope answered:

“Each of us has a vision of good and of evil. We have to encourage people to move towards what they think is Good ... .Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.”

Compare with:

The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? (Jer 17:9)

“None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God. 12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” 13 “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” “The venom of asps is under their lips.” 14 “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” 15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood; 16 in their paths are ruin and misery, 17 and the way of peace they have not known.” 18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” (Romans 3:12-18)

And you were dead in the trespasses and sins 2 in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience — 3 among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. (Eph 2:1-3)

No one is good but God alone. (Mark 10:18)

It’s difficult to believe that any pope asked about the nature of truth and goodness would encourage fallen human beings to follow whatever ‘vision’ of good they possess. Not only is it morally absurd (the Nazis, Khmer Rouge, and the Klu Klux Klan were/are all following their vision of the good) it is biblically repugnant. No one is good but God. The human heart is deceived. When groups of human beings do what is right in their own eyes, it never ends well. This is precisely why Jesus sends the Holy Spirit to convict the world of sin and rebellion (John 16:8) and commissions his church to call all human beings to repent and surrender to him. Apart from Jesus Christ the world is not and can never be “a better place” no matter how much people follow their vision of good.

Now we wait. It shouldn’t be long before we’re treated to the now familiar sight of conservative Catholic bloggers desperately trying to persuade us and themselves that Pope Francis really didn’t say what he said, that he was mistranslated or that he is misunderstood. Nonsense. The Pope is not a stupid man. He knows the import of his words and the media/cultural context in which he speaks them. At some point my Catholic friends need to face facts. This pope is a disaster for Rome. It’s not as if he is the first papal disaster ... but he’s the first in quite a long time. He’s going to undo at least some of John Paul II’s and Benedict’s work. Liberal Catholicism will rise from the dead and gain ground. The sooner you realize that the more prepared you’ll be to endure the next 15 or so years of his papacy.

=====================================

THE POPE’S ‘LONG PATH’

Baptist Press

Russell D. Moore

October 1, 2013

________

It’s another week and thus another interview with Pope Francis. This one, I’m sorry to say, is more than just confusing. It’s a theological wreck.

In an interview with La Repubblica in Rome, the Pope responded to a question about whether there is a “single vision of good” by saying, “Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place.”

The Pope also said, “The Son of God became incarnate in the souls of men to instill the feeling of brotherhood.” When the reporter commented, “Some of my colleagues who know you told me that you will try to convert me,” the Pope said, “Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.”

From Augustine’s “Confessions” to “Well, everyone has his own ideas about good and evil....” is a mighty long path.

First of all, I am a Protestant so, of course, I do not accept the church’s claims about the papal chair as Vicar of Christ. But though I protest, I don’t throw rocks (no Petrine pun intended). My mother’s side of the family was and is Roman Catholic, and some of the most significant influences in my life personally and intellectually are Roman Catholics.

Second, I don’t dislike Pope Francis. I think he is quite right about the primacy of Christ’s Gospel over the culture wars. In my much smaller pool and from my much smaller perch, I’ve tried to say that outrage itself isn’t a Christian virtue. Our mission ought to be toward reconciliation, not the vaporization of our perceived enemies.

But.

If Pope Francis wishes to reclaim the gospel’s primacy, he must simultaneously speak with kindness to those outside of its reach and speak of the need for good news. What these interviews seem continually to do is what evangelical theologian Carl Henry warned Protestants of in the 20th century, of severing the love of God from the holiness of God. God is, Henry said, against both the liberal Social Gospel and obscurantist and angry fundamentalism, the God of both justice and justification.

Without speaking to the conscience, and addressing what the sinner already knows to be true about the day of giving an account, there is not love, only the consigning of the guilty conscience to accusation and condemnation. If the church is right about the personhood of unborn children (and I think it is), then why would we not be “obsessed” about speaking for them, and for the women and men whose consciences are tyrannized by their past sins?

It is not good news to say to such consciences, “Well, we’re all brothers and sisters,” if what they feel in their psyches and read in their Bibles (and in their Catholic catechisms) is that those who commit such things will not inherit the Kingdom of God. We must speak with tenderness and gentleness, but with an authoritative word from God, that there is a means of reconciliation. The burdened conscience doesn’t wish to hear “It’s all OK.” The burdened conscience is freed by “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ” (Romans 8:1).

There’s little purpose in refighting the Protestant Reformation here, but we do, in some sense, return to Martin Luther’s problem. With a guilty conscience, he could find no way to reconciliation in himself or by the purported economy of grace. In the church, he saw rules and rituals but, in that, felt only condemnation.

But opposite a harsh, rule-oriented Christianity is a way that is just as condemning, a way that we’ve seen often in hyper-Protestant communions: the tendency to downplay sin at all. This leaves sinners like us in a kind of earthly purgatory that never purges, and leads us to hide from the face of God because, like our first parents, we know who we are and what we’ve done.

I’m in no position to advise the Bishop of Rome, but I hope we’ll see a fuller-orbed message from him. I’m with Pope Francis on the need for kindness but I pray it will be a convictional kindness that addresses both the reality of God’s holy justice and His reconciling love.