Catholicism Then & Now No.1

Roman Catholicism, then and now. Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man. We shall this day, by God's grace, light such a candle in England as I trust shall never be put out.

The place was Oxford. The date was the 16th of October 1555. Hugh Latimer was Bishop of Worcester.

Nicholas Ridley was Bishop of London. They met on the streets of Oxford. They knew one another.

They embraced. It was a touching scene. They'd shared a great deal.

And now they were going to share a stake. For both were tied back-to-back, supported by a stake, in front of thousands of people. The faggots were lit.

The bonfire burnt. And two martyrs, two of 288 in those years, 1555 and onwards, went into the presence of the Lord. You might know that Edward VI was a Protestant king.

And when he died there was a scramble for accession to the throne. The person who won was his elder sister, Mary. Well might historians refer to Mary as Bloody Mary.

She was a Catholic, the eldest daughter of Henry VIII. And when Edward, her brother, died and she managed to obtain the English throne, she did everything she possibly could to erase Protestantism from this island, home of ours, and reinsert Catholicism. And as a result, Latimer, Ridley, two bishops, one archbishop, and 285 other men, women, and a handful of children were going to be killed.

They would be martyred for the Protestant cause. Protestants protest. That's where the word comes from.

I am a Christian and I praise God for that, for the grace that he gave me to put my trust in Jesus Christ. And there are certain things as a Christian that I will protest against. I will not do it in a violent fashion, but I will do it with every persuasive ability that I might have.

I am called as you are to confront error with truth and to protest whenever there are those who suggest in the name of Jesus Christ things which our Savior never taught. I'm not ashamed to be a Protestant. Protestants were not born in the 16th century.

Protestants go right back to the first century when the Apostle Paul and Peter and their colleagues, having received a message from Jesus Christ, protested against sin and immorality in the Roman world. And ever since then, Protestants have protested. But the word came into its own, particularly in the 16th century, for this reason.

The church, so-called, had become somewhat foggy, somewhat misty as to what the truth of the gospel were. Certain things had come into the church which were not in any way warranted by the New Testament. And Protestant clergymen, particularly from the Church of England, stood up and were countered.

And as a result, many of them became fuel for the fires which burnt in Gloucester, in Oxford, in London, in Smithfield, and up there in Chichester, not so far away. The watch cry of Protestant people has always been this. Let me give it you in the Latin, because it comes through with a particular forcefulness.

Sola Scriptura. Sola Scriptura. The Word of God alone.

It is, as I say, the maxim by which Protestant, Bible-believing Christians live. But in the England of the 16th century, there were many who had caused the Word of God, so to speak, to be eroded, at least as far as its preaching was concerned, in the pulpits of our churches and cathedrals. Well, you say, why do I start off in giving one of two lectures on Catholicism by taking you back to the 16th century? I do so for two reasons.

The first is this. I am as astonished in the latter part of the 20th century as Bishop Ryle was in the 19th century that so few Protestants know anything about the history of the church in this country and how much was paid to secure religious liberty and our access to the Word of God. And I went into a period of history to demonstrate that the liberty we now enjoy was not always enjoyed by brothers and sisters who lived centuries ago.

I also make that particular incident live before you by way of illustration, because the title for my two lectures is Catholicism then and now, past and present. You can't really understand what's going on in the present unless you've got some insight into the past. And you can't be warned about the present and the future unless you've learned something from the lessons of history.

And I particularly emphasize my title in case there are some Roman Catholic friends with us this evening. And if you are, let me say how very delighted we are to have you in the sanctuary here in the Tabernacle. It is not my intention to be unfair, bigoted, uncharitable, dishonest in any way in handling Scripture or in handling history against the Roman Catholic Church and in favor of Protestants.

I seek to be objective and fair in my handling of both. But I emphasize my title, Catholicism then and now, because it might well be that some of you listening to this first lecture will say he was most unfair. Some of the things that he said might have existed at one time, but they don't obtain today.

And in degree, I would accept that particular viewpoint. But I stress what I was saying. For the purposes of my study this evening, I want to speak about Catholicism then, and then later on.

Next week I'll make some comment as to where there have been some, and notice the word some, modifications and qualifications. Our declared aim, said one Roman Catholic bishop, in 1957 in this country, is the conversion of every single man, woman, and child in England. The Catholic Church has more schools than any other denomination.

It's got more monasteries and religious institutions now in the 1970s and 80s than what it had at the time of the disestablishment of the monasteries and institutions in history. But of course the reason why I'm particularly bringing to your attention the activity of our Roman Catholic friends is because of the advent, at the end of next month, political circumstances permitting, of the Pope on these shores. It will be the first time that the Roman pontiff, the head of the Catholic Church, has ever been in England.

And I'm not just referring to this Pope, I'm referring to any Pope. He will be coming, and as a result the media will carry pictures of him, and we will see masses, not only masses of people, but the actual mass of the Roman Catholic system, sometimes broadcast on television. It seems to be most interesting that just prior to the Pope's arrival in this country there has been the re-establishing of diplomatic relations between the Vatican and ourselves, perhaps the most significant move since in 1851 the Pope restored an archbishopric to England, and Cardinal Wiseman became the new Archbishop of the United Kingdom.

In fact Cardinal Wiseman said in 1851 when he returned to these shores as Archbishop that he was expecting to see the day when he would celebrate Mass in Westminster Abbey. Well, he never lived to see that day, but there are some who perhaps are suggesting that in our own lifetime we might witness such an event. So it's with this in mind, the advent of the Pope and thinking that will govern much of our discussions in the next month of him coming, and the claims of the Catholic Church that compels me to bring these two lectures to your attention.

Let me say that I do not agree with nor participate in what I would call a political Protestantism. I believe that the Pope has every right to come to this country as any other religious leader has, and you will not find me marching down the streets or squeezing my way into Canterbury Cathedral if it was possible to demonstrate when the pontiff gets there. If the archbishop lets him into the cathedral then it's the archbishop's responsibility, and anything that happens there is the responsibility of the Anglican hierarchy.

But I do have my views as a Protestant and I can state them in respect of what the Pope stands for and is teaching. I want to talk mainly this evening about traditional Catholicism. Traditional Catholicism.

And again, some people, let me just revamp for a moment or two on what I said five minutes ago, might say, well why talk about traditional Catholicism if that has passed? If you're only talking about yesteryear, why tell these young people and other friends at the tabernacle about what we used to believe? And my answer is largely this. Not only do we as Protestants need a historical perspective, but there is still a very wide body of opinion in Catholicism today that is still very traditional. In fact, I would argue that this new, very likable Pope, John Paul II, is perhaps one of the most traditional Popes that we have had in more recent times.

And some of the things that I'm sharing with you this evening he most definitely endorses. But next week I'll be speaking about other bodies of opinion that have begun to surface in the Catholic Church, particularly since Vatican II. Some of you, let me break off for a moment, might wonder what Vatican II is.

Well, it's not the bus service that you catch when you move from Rome into Vatican Square. Vatican II is one of the two most important councils that the Roman Catholic Church have had in the last 100 years. Vatican I was held in 1870, Vatican II was in the 1960s, and there were several sessions that spanned a few years.

As a result of Vatican II, there have been quite a lot of changes in Rome. Those changes, as I say, we will be looking at next time. But as I move into talking about the councils in the past, I will be referring to Vatican II and Vatican I and the Council of Trent and some of the youngsters here, and perhaps some of the older friends might wonder what all these councils are.

They're the big gathering together of all influential Catholics at that particular time, the coming together of the cardinals and the theologians and the bishops and the formulating of doctrine and the reassessment of teaching. That is what is meant by these councils. There's almost a vocabulary that I have to introduce you to, just so that you are all able to follow what I'm trying to teach this evening.

Let me just go through one or two terms so that you can follow when I make reference to them what they actually are. First of all, a bull. That's got nothing to do with a male animal.

A bull is a papal mandate which, when published by the Pope, is authoritative and binding upon the Church. An encyclical is a papal letter which doesn't have the same authority as a bull but nonetheless is very important. It's sent to all his bishops.

The magisterium is the teaching of authority of Mother Church. It's the deposit of belief that the Roman Catholic Church holds as being necessary for all adherents. Pontiff, well possibly you've come across that term.

It's really a synonym for the Pope. It's a Latin term. Fully expressed, it's Pontifex Maximus, which means chief priest and that's what the Pope is, the chief of all the Catholic bishops.

Let's move down. Purgatory, that's the intermediate state taught by Catholic theologians that exists between heaven and hell. It's a state that you and I allegedly go to according to Catholic theology when we die.

Penance, that's what a priest will give you to do if you've sinned and you've confessed your sins and before or as he pronounces absolution he does so by instructing you to engage in certain acts which will put to rights some of your sins. Absolution, easily understood when your sins are pronounced forgiven by the priest. Host, well that's got nothing to do with someone who throws a party.

Host is what the Catholic theologians refer to as the presence of Jesus Christ in the wafer of the mass. That's equivalent if you like to the bread at our communion service. Mediatrix, that is a female mediator.

As our Lord Jesus is reckoned in Scripture to be the mediator between God and man, Catholic theologians tell us that Mary is also a mediator but to get the noun right in its feminine they use the term mediatrix. Well I hope you've got some of that vocabulary in your mind so you'll follow me as we're moving somewhat rapidly at this point in my address. Now one of the great problems that exists when we come into contact with Catholic people and when as theologians we try to do battle with them over certain aspects of their doctrine is the problem of authority.

You say what do you mean by authority? Well let's go back to those two bishops, Ridley and Latimer. Their authority, sola scriptura, the Bible alone. If you'd have pointed out to Latimer or Ridley anything that wasn't in the Bible they would say it has no right in the church at all.

But the Catholic Church brings us face to face with certain problems in as much as they recognize the authority of Scripture but they also recognize the authority of Mother Church. When Mother Church speaks she speaks ex cathedra with authority and can add to Scripture. There's no apology for that and as Protestants we're sometimes very frustrated when we say to our Catholic friends well we don't find that in the Bible.

They say so what? It's been revealed outside of the Bible and it has the authority of Mother Church behind it and that makes it acceptable. Well what things have been revealed either as a result of a papal bull or by the general teaching of Mother Church down the years? I could have given you a list of 100 things but this afternoon I felt rather merciful and I lifted out just ten or so aspects of Catholic teaching not found in the Bible and yet has the have the authority of Mother Church. 1079 as you'll see from my illustrated chart up here was the celibacy of priesthood declared.

In other words no Catholic priest can be married. You will know something of the furor about that at the moment. 1090 the rosary was introduced by a man called Peter the Hermit.

The rosemary is like a necklace with beads and as you string the beads along you say your Hail Mary. It's an instrument therefore that helps you to pray and particularly to pray to the Mediatrix Mary. In 1190 indulgences were introduced to the church whereby she could remit certain years that you might have in purgatory she could remit it by you doing something or buying as through money her indulgences.

In 1215 came out the most sensational teaching perhaps of the middle centuries. The teaching of transubstantiation which tells us that the wafer or the bread at the communion service becomes the body of our Lord Jesus Christ. Essentially it is the same though bloodless as the sacrifice of our Lord on the cross.

It was really because of this doctrine that Ridley and Latimer went to the stake and many other of the martyrs in the 16th century. They felt that this was a terrible doctrine and because they would not bow to it they were burnt. 1220 the adoration of the wafer.

We're still talking really about transubstantiation. The wafer has become the body of Christ therefore it is to be adored and during the mass the priest will hold up the wafer and the congregation will engage in adoration. I'll come back to that if I have time later on.

1439 the doctrine of purgatory was promulgated. I made reference to that a moment or two ago. 1546 the apocryphal books were added.

If you've read a Catholic Bible you will see between the last book of the Old Testament and the first of the new the apocryphal books are placed in as authoritative scripture. If anyone wants to know more about that then I'll answer questions privately later on. 1854 the immaculate conception.

This referred to the Virgin Mary. Not only was Jesus conceived miraculously but also his mother. You may say well there's no scriptural evidence for that and you'll be dead right but Mother Church says that this is so and Mother Church has authority to promulgate doctrine if she so pleases.

In 1870 papal infallibility. A pretty new doctrine really considering the whole history of the church came out. When the Pope speaks ex cathedra it means that he is speaking in an infallible fashion.

That has brought tremendous embarrassment to Catholic theologians as I shall demonstrate in a little while. In 1950 the most recent and quite notorious dogma was promulgated, was delivered, the Assumption of Mary. What does that mean? Well she didn't die.

She was assumed up in to heaven and you will see again if I have time I'll make it clear how there has been a general development down the years in Catholic theology of the place of Mary. Indeed I would be so bold as to argue perhaps next week that some Catholic theologians are almost at the point of defending a Quaternity and not a Trinity. Bringing Mary in as the Queen of Heaven and the Mother of God and attributing her with certain things which the way I reason out at any rate indicates that she has a divinity equal with that of the Lord.

That's my conclusion. Incidentally it is not Catholic dogma by any means but I'm saying if you put together some of the things that are being taught about Mary in these days then you hover very close to that particular dogma. So you see the problem that we've got, all these things that I have listed on this board here, if you put them together they change Scripture.

Now notice this, and this is what makes the Catholic Church unique over against say any sect. The Catholic Church is very orthodox in many ways in its handling of Scripture. Believes in the Trinity, believes in the deity of Christ, believes in the authority of Scripture itself.

But when you put some of those things into Scripture, stir them round, you find that the message of Scripture has been changed, not because you've subtracted from it as liberal theologians do, but you've added to it. And this is the great problem, as I say, that confronts us when we talk to our Catholic friends. The Bible is distorted as a result of what is added.

So as a Protestant I take issue with Catholic people and Catholic theologians in particular. I very often find that the people are not so knowledgeable about doctrine actually. A lot is accepted purely by faith and by having been instructed as a child.

But I will take issue with Catholic theologians on the whole business of authority. The authority of Scripture to me is paramount. Mother Church, to whom I'm going to refer now, has not the right to promulgate, to make doctrine up, to hatch new dogmas.

Only the Lord Jesus Christ and the inspired writers of Scripture can pronounce on dogma and teach without any error at all. Well, having thought about authority, it does take us very much to Mother Church, who is of course the authoritative body in in Catholicism. Now according to one of the Popes, a man by the name of Boniface VIII in the 14th century, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church.

If you want it in the Latin language as you read it in the papal bull, extra ecclesiam nulla salus. Outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. Now there's a little divergence of opinion after Vatican II, but remember I'm speaking about Catholicism then.

You cannot be saved outside Mother Church. Interpreting Boniface's dogma today would find me to be not only a schismatic, but a heretic as a preacher inasmuch as I am ministering outside the grace, outside the outside the safety of the Catholic Church itself. And unfortunately if I had lived in those days, and thank heavens for as I personally am concerned that I don't, I could have been exterminated as a heretic.

Thomas Aquinas, a man I have a great amount of respect for, a brilliant philosopher in many ways, perhaps the greatest theologian the Catholics have ever produced. He does not blush at suggesting that people like myself would be better if we were eliminated from this world. Now the reason Aquinas would argue like that would not be because he was vindictive, but because he believed that only the Church itself could grant salvation, and if I am preventing a man or a woman from being saved by peddling heresy, then it would be better that I should be exterminated.

This incidentally was the reason for the Inquisition, this vile period in history when men were tormented, when somebody recanted under tremendous physical duress. The reason was, save them by force if necessary, get them to recant. It's ultimately for their benefit, because unless they enter Mother Church, they will go to hell.

Better torment here for a while than endless torment in the nether regions of eternity. Well, there we are, extra ecclesiam nulla salus, no salvation outside the Catholic Church. It's an interesting twist in Scripture, or rather in history, that as late as the latter part of the 19th century, and those of you who subscribe to the Daily Telegraph may have read an article by the editorial yesterday which actually referred to this, a man by the name of Lord Halifax, who is an Anglo-Catholic, went to Rome, very sensitive towards Catholicism himself, and tried to get the Pope and the Cardinals there to show favour towards the Anglican Church, to recognise Anglican priests and bishops, and to pave the way for the unity of the Catholic Church.

Now Halifax is a very pious man, a very humble man, and the Pope played him along for quite some time. And afterwards, do you know what happened? The Pope brought out the dogma known as Apostolicae Curiae. The Pope then was Leo XIII, and what he did was this.

Instead of agreeing to Halifax's request, he pronounced all Anglican orders null and void. That means to say, for it has never been rescinded, when the Archbishop of Canterbury meets the Pope and takes him into the Cathedral, the Pope will only recognise the Archbishop as a godly brother. He cannot agree to his ordination as being a correct one.

Not at all. If that doesn't embarrass the Archbishop, well, I don't know what will. But again, that's his problem and not mine.

I'm only just a free church pastor, and it's up to the Anglicans in this area to get on with it in working out ecumenical relationships at that level. Do you remember that smiling Pope John XXIII? Every young child's ideal grandfather, a really loving man, or so he appeared to be, and I've no reason to argue against that. John XXIII, the man who was ecumenical indeed, who seemed by presiding over, at least on the human level, he believed Mary was doing it on the divine level, by presiding over the Vatican Council No.

2, seemed to open the door to better relationships with other denominations. Well, it was that same John XXIII who, in an encyclical ad petrae cathedral, said this to people like you and me. We cherish the hope of your return.

Observe, we beg of you that we lovingly invite you to the unity of the Church. We are inviting you not to the house of a stranger, but to your own home, your Father's house. He wants us back, but back into the Roman fold, and that will always be a problem for those of us who put Scripture far higher than, in a completely different class, too.

The authority, so-called, of Mother Church. As Herbert Carson says, to claim infallibility for the teaching of Christ is simply to be scriptural. To claim infallibility for His Church is to go beyond Scripture.

And that's what Catholic theologians knew. So, I've got a problem in regard to authority, I've got a problem in regard to Mother Church. I'm not part of the Catholic Church, I don't intend to be part of the Roman Catholic Church.

And according to the dogma prior to Vatican II, there's very little hope for someone like myself. Well, what is the most visible aspect of the Catholic Church? After all, I speak of Mother Church, but that is only recognizable, really, by Catholic people themselves, inasmuch as they go along to their individual church. The public relations officer, so to speak, of Catholicism is none other than the Pope.

That's the reason why there's going to be such media coverage of Pope John Paul II when he comes at the end of next month. Now, apologists for Roman Catholic dogma will tell us that Christ never intended that the Sea of Peter should be vacant. What is meant by the Sea of Peter? Well, you remember how Jesus said to Peter, and perhaps you know of Catholic interpretation of this, no time to go into it at the moment, thou art Peter and on this rock I will build my church, and so on and so forth.

Peter went to Rome, according to tradition, he became the first Pope, the first bishop. And as a result, he established a succession. And the power of Peter is passed on to the next man, and to the next man, and to the next man, and from the Popes it's passed out to the Cardinals, and to the bishops, and to the ordinary priests.

The whole structure of Roman Catholicism, Catholic power, really is locked up within the Pope. Apostolic succession, it's vital to the whole system. You see, the apologist says this, that Jesus Christ never wanted the Sea of Rome to be vacant.

In other words, if you'll pardon the pun, we should always be able to see the Bishop of Rome. Because no one, according to the apologists, would really like to have a vacant sea at Rome. You've got to be able to view who your bishop is, and to take your teaching from him, and your example from him.

Well, let's just argue that that's all right for the time being. So we've got this apostolic succession. It all seems very wonderful, to have the vicar of Christ, the representative of Christ on earth, and the power passed on from one man, to another man, to another man, to another man.

But the problem becomes rather embarrassing, when, for example, in 1377, you have a schism that develops within the Catholic Church. By schism, I mean a separation. Let me tell you what happened at that time.

Gregory XI had been Pope for some years, and his headquarters were at Avignon in France. The papacy had been in France for about 70 or 80 odd years, but it was now clear for him to go back to Rome. And unfortunately, when he arrived at Rome, a little time afterwards, he died.

So the College of Cardinals, or the appointing body, whoever they were, determined that they would appoint another Pope. And Urban VI received their selection, received their vote. He didn't prove, however, to be a very acceptable Pope.

He wasn't amenable to the political persuasions of the people who put him in. So they decided that they'd muffed it, and they tried for another, and Clement VII, he became the Pope. The unfortunate thing was that Urban VI did not like the idea of handing over to Clement VII.

Clement VII returned to Avignon, the other Pope stayed in Rome, and so now we've got the problem of two Popes. Now, who was the right Pope at that time? It's not really a humorous situation, or at least it wasn't then, because the whole of Europe was split. Even in England, Scotland chose one man, and England chose the other man.

So they decided to do something about it. They called the Council, Council of Pisa, in 1409. And they determined that they would sack both Popes, depose them.

And as a result, another Pope was appointed, Alexander V. And now you've got the farcical situation of the first two Popes vying for power, refusing to be deposed, and instead of two, you've got three. Now, later on, Catholic theologians, somehow or other, sorted it all out. And they worked out which was the proper Pope.

I'm not quite sure, actually, what their findings were, but doubtless it could be looked up. But this whole row lasted for 50 years. So for 50 years, the lifespan of someone who was living at that time, there was no way in which he could possibly be aware who was a true Pope in Europe.

And yet, according to the apologists of the Catholic faith, it is necessary to have a Pope as a representative of God on this earth, so that the faithful will not be confused. Well, confusion comes back to Catholic theologians when, in 1870, enchanting the Jesuits but causing great problems to Cardinal Newman, an Anglican who's now become a Catholic, they bring out the decree of the infallibility of the Pope. And we were told by Pius XI, who was around at that time and probably, therefore, very much in favour of it, that actually this dogma had always been part of Roman Catholic theology.

Well, it's one thing to have an infallible Pope. It's another thing to be able to tidy up all the situations that past Popes got themselves into, when one would imagine having intense inspiration more than anyone else, they wouldn't be in such a dilemma. You say, what do you mean? Well, let's take Joan of Arc for a moment, shall we? You know of Joan of Arc, this lady who received voices from heaven, and Eugene IV, the Pope at that time, decided she was a witch.

And so he had her burnt, like all witches, demon possessed people were treated in the medieval times. Well, that's okay, in one sense, but Benedict XV made her a saint. So one Pope burns her, and the other Pope beautifies her, makes her a saint.

Well, infallibility becomes rather an embarrassing situation, to be able to cope with that example. But let me give you another. Take Galileo.

We're in a completely different area now. Galileo was a scientist. He lived in the latter part of the 16th century, an outstanding man.

And he came to realize that the earth was not the center of the universe. And yet scripture, according to Catholic interpretation, says, yea, the word is, the world is established. It shall never be moved.

Therefore, the earth was the center of the universe. But Galileo said, no, the Sun is the center. And he followed the teacher Copernicus with this particular viewpoint.

Well, Urban VIII had old Galileo into his rooms in in the Vatican, a 70-odd year old man, and on pains of torture and death, Galileo has to recant, and say he no longer believes that the earth goes around the Sun, but rather that the earth is the center of the universe. And right until 1831, until by divine papal decree, says somebody caustically, the earth then received papal permission to move. But for some 200 years or so, according to the infallible Pope, scientific nonsense was part of the theological and scientific system of the Catholic Church.

Now, I don't use those examples to ridicule the dogma of Catholicism, but I do bring them out as some things that need to be attended to when you speak of the infallibility of the Pope. And it will not do for Catholic theologians to say, well, the Pope wasn't infallible then. Of course he wasn't infallible then.

But if he has the potential of being infallible, then presumably some of the daft mistakes that were made over the years would have been avoided. Let's move into modern times. An embarrassing period for the Vatican supporters.

What about the Pope's failure to see what Mussolini was like, and the support that was given by the Vatican to Mussolini during the war? What about the concordat that the Vatican signed with Hitler during the war? What about the support that the Vatican has always given to Franco? Again, unfortunate, yes, I will agree. And many Catholics, I'm sure, would be sorry that this has ever happened. But that's not the point.

We know mistakes are made. Protestants make mistakes. Everybody makes mistakes.

But here is the Pope. Where is infallibility? Where is inerrancy? Infallibility has not served this pontiff of Rome very well at all. But you see, the church was never built on him.

It was built on the Lord Jesus Christ. And he reigns in the world, not through Mother Church as an institution, but by the power of his spirit in the lives of individuals. But let's move on, and somewhat quickly.

I've got problems with authority. I've got problems with Mother Church. I've got problems with the Pope.

I'm full of problems. I've got one with the Mass. Only the priest can celebrate the Mass.

You see, only he has had the sacrament whereby at ordination he's received power from the pontiff down through the cardinals, the bishops, into himself, so that at one point he can raise that wafer and he can say, Hoc est corpus meum. This is my body. And the faithful will believe that this is indeed the body of Christ.

Hoc est corpus meum. Do you know where the little adage hocus pocus comes from? Well, it's traced back to that. It's a cynical observation of people who believe that this is just chicanery, that this is just superstition.

But our Catholic friends, and we will not in any sense mock their sincerity, believe as the Council of Trent puts it, that identical with the sacrifice of the cross is the wafer that now has been turned into the body of the Lord Jesus Christ. The only difference lies in the manner of the offering which is unbloody, which is bloody upon the cross and unbloody on our altar. And so Christ is adored.

The sacrament is sometimes reserved. The priests, and particularly if they follow John Paul II's pronouncement a few years ago, will go into the church where the reserved sacrament is, and there they will worship the Lord in the sacrament. And on a certain day in the year, they will take the sacrament around the streets and they will celebrate the feast of Corpus Christi, the feast of the body of Christ, and they will adore it and worship the Lord in the sacrament as they believe.

Let's move on. And this will be the final thing that I'll mention this evening. What about Mary? The cult of Mariolatry.

Mary is fast becoming the co-redemptrix for Catholic people. Prayers are to Mary, even more than prayers to Christ. Listen to this.

I take it from the, I take it from the Council of Trent. The most holy Virgin Mary was in the first moment of her conception by a unique gift of grace and privilege of Almighty God in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Redeemer of mankind preserved free from all stain of original sin. And then later on we read in 1950, Pius XII saying, Mary the Immaculate Perpetual Virgin Mother of God after the completion of her earthly life was assumed body and soul into heaven.

I'll deal more with that next week. But Mary has been announced as the Queen of the Church. When John Paul II, or rather when Pope John XXIII convened Vatican Council too, he put it under the chairmanship at the spiritual level of Mary.

And you will discover as I shall spell out more particularly next week, that our present Pope is dedicated, if anything, to the cult of Mary. And I predict that Mariolatry will know revival and expansion as a system within Catholicism in the next decade.