SEVERAL YEARS AGO I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY to sit down with a Roman Catholic priest. What was to be a 10-minute appointment became a four-hour discussion. Afterward, I experienced some intense emotions: confusion, anger, grief. Sadly, I walked away from this meeting with an important confirmation: Though we can coexist in a context of love, there is no spiritual unity between Catholics and Christians.
It’s vital to understand religion as an organized collection of teachings (doctrines), cultural systems (practices), and worldviews (spiritual perspectives). And it’s these three distinct pillars that make each religious institution unique.
In other words, when we use the word “religion” we are talking about those things that either unite or separate groups in a religious community: non-negotiable doctrines, practices and spiritual perspectives. And after my meeting with the Catholic priest, nothing was clearer to me than the reality that Roman Catholics are Roman Catholics and Christians are Christians.
Approximately five hundred years ago, a handful of Catholic clergy in Europe came to the astonishing conclusion that being Roman Catholic didn’t necessarily make them Christians.
At some point, Germany’s Martin Luther, England’s William Tyndale, France’s John Calvin, Switzerland’s Ulrich Zwingli, Czechoslovakia’s Jan Hus and eventually many others had radical conversion experiences to Christ. The catalyst for these conversions was a simple study of the Bible, and they ultimately led to the Protestant Reformation.
But what did these radicals preach? And why did the Roman Church declare them heretics?
Heresy was a crime for which many believers were given an ultimatum: recant or suffer. Refusing to recant, the persecuted were then handed over for imprisonment, which led to torture or capital punishment (usually burning at the stake), or both.
Why were these men a threat to the Roman establishment? Because the Catholic Church had grown to possess immense power and extreme wealth. At the same time, popes and priests alike had acquired a status of legendary scandal.
Many of these “men of God” were known for their love of money and sexual perversion, but even worse, they were religious hypocrites. Jesus addressed this kind of corruption when he said, “Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness” (Luke 11:39).
The radicals were on an unstoppable mission to preach the Gospel to their parishioners. Their message? Come to Jesus and be delivered from sin, religious legalism and superstition. Equally important was their bold address to the Roman Catholic Empire regarding its appalling corruption, and unbiblical and unnecessary doctrines and traditions.
At the core of the reformation were the doctrines of the authority of scripture and justification. What does the Bible (not the church) teach regarding how a sinner can be made right before a holy God and go straight to heaven when he dies?
The reformers used five Latin declarations to disclose God’s intention regarding salvation: Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Solus Christus, Soli Deo Gloria. Sola Scriptura: By Scripture alone, we learn that we experience salvation. Sola Gratia: By grace alone … Sola Fide: Through faith alone … Solus Christus: In Christ alone … Soli Deo Gloria: Glory to God alone.
The Catholic Church responded to the protest by forging documents to refute and anathematize (to formally curse) those responsible for the movement. The Council of Trent (1545-63) was the anti-Reformation’s answer to the Protestant fire that was spreading across Europe. Trent loudly and clearly solidified its affirmation of Roman dogmas that were challenged by the former Catholic priests, while condemning the Biblical principles and doctrines revived by the reformation.
Nothing has changed since the Council of Trent. Every doctrine that Trent affirmed or refuted all those centuries ago has been affirmed or refuted by every pope since — and every anathema the Roman Catholic Church placed upon Christians during the Reformation is still upheld by the Vatican today. According to Catholic dogma, the Roman Catholic Church does not make mistakes. Therefore the Council of Trent must currently be recognized as authoritative.
Unfortunately, most Catholics don’t know that believers are still under Rome’s curse simply because they believe in God’s word in relationship to its teachings, practices and worldview.
This is no light matter. When I asked the priest a most important question, “Are you sure you will go to heaven when you die?” he responded with, “No, how can I be?” His response should have shocked me, but his answer was consistent with his beliefs: Roman Catholics tend to be left in the dark about their eternal destination.
Having said that, the implications are staggering. If a priest doesn’t have personal assurance of heaven, how can his parishioners? And if he doesn’t have the answers to his own eternal questions, can he adequately give genuine guidance and comfort to those seeking salvation?
The answer is that he cannot. But God’s Word can, and does.
Robert Michaels is a long-time Benicia resident. He can be reached at robert.eagleswings@yahoo.com.
Sharing is caring!
Thanks for the clear summary of what Christian hope is based upon (and what Jesus taught us it must be based upon) and how religious institutions dressed up as Christianity can be, and often are, opposed to Christ.
Thank you GA Jim! It’s God’s Word as our authority. It’s not our personal beliefs, opinions or even a church’s interpretation of what they think the Bible says. There is truth and there is error. Next time I plan to write about what Catholics discover when they read their Bibles, for themselves, in relationship to Catholic dogma/doctrine.
Robert
Robert Michaels stated: ”Catholics discover when they read their Bibles, for themselves, in relationship to Catholic dogma/doctrine.
That should be interesting. I will look forward to reading the piece.
One issue I have long had with Catholicism has been that salvation is found through the Church and not via a direct personal relationship with Christ.
I understand the historical reasons for the Church as a source of control, as alternatives were few.
It is very refreshing to see such a prejudicial view from someone from one Christian sect, towards another Christian sect.
My wife, who periodically goes to Catholic mass with my children, will be very pleased when I tell her that she is not a “real” Christian. Who knew?
Dear Thomas Peterson,
May I encourage you to take a few minutes to read the article again in relationship to what I have written (below) in response to your comment.
——————————————————————————————————–
If this is what you walked away with from this piece, that there is an air of prejudice in its contents, than I am sorry. This article, if you read it with an open mind, was to demonstrate that first, it is true that just because one is Catholic does not make them a Christian. I was baptized Catholic, but I had no love for Jesus or the Bible, no consistent love for Christ’s church and people, no desire to hear the Word of God preached on the Lord’s day, do desire to serve God…in his church, no desire to fellowship with God, no desire to give up my sin and live in obedience to God’s word.
I was not a Christian. I was deceived into thinking I was, but my life was evidence that I wasn’t.
Secondly, the article was to show that some Catholic priests in the 16th century were persecuted and often times martyred, after they gave their lives to Christ, rejected Catholic doctrine and began preaching the Bible rightly. Killing men (and women) simply because they dared to think outside the Catholic box and considered God’s word their authority, not the popes.
If that’s not prejudice, I don’t what it is.
Thirdly, if you read the piece in it’s entirety, the Council of Trent intentionally and officially labeled these men as heretics, and Rome place so-called anathemas (formal curses) on anyone that did not believe the Catholic dogmas disclosed in Trent’s official rebuttal. In other words, the Roman Catholic Church has damned to hell, anyone that opposes Rome.
Once again, that is prejudice…is it not?
Fourthly, the testimony of many current and former Catholics is that they don’t study their Bibles for themselves. Sadly, this means that they don’t know what is true and what is false concerning doctrine (teachings), Christian living and so on. Ask most Catholics a simple question: do you know where you will go when you die? And most say, I’m trying to go to heaven, or I hope I will go to heaven. Ask a second question, what must you do to be saved and go to heaven? And you get all kinds of answers, but rarely, if at all, are they answers found in the Bible. Consequently, and sadly, most Catholics, like the priest I interviewed, have no clue about what Jesus and the apostles said and taught about how to be saved, and go to heaven when they die.
The Bible is about Jesus. Jesus is God. Jesus tells us what will save us, how he will save us and what he saves us from. It is there in the Bible! If the Roman Catholic church, the Pope and its clergy, teach anything that contradicts God’s Word, wouldn’t Catholics want to know? and secondly, shouldn’t the church be exposed for unbiblical teachings and practices?
Do Catholics care? Should they be concerned?
My church is made up of many former Catholics. They all left the Catholic church essentially for one reason: they discovered that the teachings and practices of Rome contradicted the Bible, especially in matters of salvation and forgiveness of sin against God. In other words, they all discovered that being Catholic does not mean they were Christians.
What makes a person a Christian? Going to church and attending Mass? Mafias even do that.. Reading the Bible? A skeptic might even do that.
The loving thing to do is to challenge Catholics not to take the Vatican’s word for it, but rather, read what God says in his written word for themselves, about how a man, woman or child comes to Christ to be saved and receive eternal life.
The Bible also teaches that it is a healthy thing to search one’s heart, and see if one really is a Christian in relationship to what the Bible says, not what we think up, or what we are spoon fed.
I am concerned for Catholics and that is why I wrote the piece.
Robert,
Your verbose narrative attempting to qualify your overall statement is appreciated; however, misdirected and in vain. As, it is my contention that Catholicism, Islam, Christianity, Judaism, the concept of eternal life, etc. all equate to the same thing.
Thank you, Thomas, for your response. Is it safe to assume you are a skeptic? or do you have spiritual beliefs of your own?
This might help with a profile:
“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” —Stephen F Roberts
As an aside, for me it is all about harmony.
Interesting opinion of Thomas Jefferson:
“Among the sayings and discourses imputed to him by his biographers, I find many passages of fine imagination, correct morality, and of the most lovely benevolence: and others again of so much ignorance, so much absurdity, so much untruth, charlatanism, and imposture, as to pronounce it impossible that such contradictions should have proceeded from the same being. I separate therefore the gold from the dross; restore to him the former, and leave the latter to the stupidity of some, and roguery of others of his disciples. Of this band of dupes and impostors, Paul was the great Coryphaeus, and first corrupter of the doctrines of Jesus. These palpable interpolations and falsifications of his doctrines led me to try to sift them apart.” – Thomas Jefferson to William Short, Monticello, 13 April 1820[1]
;
I think the Benicia Herald should be ashamed of itself for posting a bigoted article such as this; a similar piece on Jews or Muslims would not be tolerated. Furthermore Benicia and the surrounding areas, the entire state of California for that matter, would not have been what it is today without Catholic missionary priests and sisters coming here from Spain and Mexico.
This article just shows what a small minded ignorant provincial tacky little town Benicia is and always will be.
Not ashamed. Nor is this an “article” — it is commentary. Learn the difference before you comment again. Ed.
Raising the questions of orthodoxy in relationship to the differences between Catholic doctrine and Protestant doctrine goes back even further than the Reformation. Look at the Council of Nicea where Arians said that the Son was not as eternal as the Father while Athanasius insisted that the Son was as truly God as the Father. Both can’t be right. Disagreement pushes people to to not only articulate their beliefs more carefully, but even more importantly, it pushes them to expose the warrant or basis for their beliefs. In questions of doctrine and theology, one must always answer one vital question: by what authority are you staking your convictions of truth and error? The author of this article makes a claim that being a “religious” Catholic does not make one a “Christian” according to three underlying truths (warrants): 1) the Bible’s affirmation that a “Christian” is defined biblically as being justified solely by faith in Christ alone apart from works and 2) the official Catholic doctrine of justification as articulated at the Council of Trent does not define justification in the same “sola fide” terms; 3) An unbiblical view of justification provides no true assurance of salvation. Now with which of these warrants do you disagree?
The author also raises the question of whether one’s doctrinal convictions rests on the authority of Scripture or on the traditions of the church. Again, if you have a problem with a claim regarding the Bible’s authority and/or sufficiency in matters of faith and doctrine, why not address it specifically? You infer that the author is a bigot, the Benicia Herald editorial staff are bigots for publishing editorials that address religious opinions, and this seemingly because the entire town of Benicia is made up of “small minded” people who are all “ignorant.” Hmmm.. Ironically, all that you accomplish by resorting to ad hominem arguments and stereotypical generalizations is to perpetuate the very thing that you most detest– “small mindedness.” Argue the claims, the warrants, and the evidence, and all will benefit by a discussion that promotes the pursuit of truth, not the silencing of opinions.
Dear Reader,
With all due respect, the Benicia Herald is a great example of freedom of speech applied. All writers seem to be welcome. To my knowledge, the Herald never discriminates in matters of race, religion, political stance and so on.
The Forum section is generally opinion based. There have been pieces published by opposing political parties rebuking the other side. There are often pieces by skeptics sharing their opposing opinions and perspectives on matters of faith.
Muslims and Jews, as you mentioned, are welcome to send pieces. And perhaps an author might might address Islam and Judaism in the future as well.
You don’t want to live in a society where censorship is practiced…do you?
But by the same token, it is best to publish our commentary in the spirit of love. My pieces here are to simply challenge Catholics to read the Bible for themselves, so as not to potentially be misled.
I did cite historical evidence of Catholicism’s “Council of Trent,” (which anyone can read) that pronounced damnation (hell) on anyone that taught contrary to Rome’s dogmas. In many cases, the Catholic church participated in “Capitol Punishment” having protestants burned at stake.
Are we bigots for bringing this to light?
It’s public knowledge that Rome abused it’s power in the past, swindling men of their money in the form of selling indulgences (forgiveness of sins) in order to build Cathedrals and such.
Priests are mandated to take a vows of celibacy (which is not Biblical – priests, pastors and elders in the Bible were allowed to marry and have children). How many of these men over the centuries, including the recent past, have been involved in sexual scandals, all the while conducting masses and confessionals on the behalf of the “faithful?.”
Are we intolerant for exposing the sin and hypocrisy in these cases?
Definition of a bigot:
a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
Lastly, with all due respect, your opinion of my piece, your view of the Benicia Herald, and your perspective of Benicia is extremely “intolerant” and under the definition of a bigot, is very bigoted itself.
I accept Catholics, even love Catholics, but I do not agree with their teaching and practices. That is not bigotry.
And I, personally, welcome your comments. I just hope that you will point out specifics rather than broad statements. If I may, please take your Bible and read the New Testament, for yourself, compare the scriptures with Catholic dogma, traditions, etc.
Dear Reader,
With all due respect, the Benicia Herald is a great example of freedom of speech applied. All writers seem to be welcome. To my knowledge, the Herald never discriminates in matters of race, religion, political stance and so on.
The Forum section is generally opinion based. There have been pieces published by opposing political parties rebuking the other side. There are often pieces by skeptics sharing their opposing opinions and perspectives on matters of faith.
Muslims and Jews, as you mentioned, are welcome to send pieces. And perhaps an author might address Islam and Judaism in the future as well.
You don’t want to live in a society where censorship is practiced…do you?
But by the same token, it is best to publish our commentary in the spirit of love. My pieces here are to simply challenge Catholics to read the Bible for themselves. We want to be thinkers and grow in the knowledge of God’s Word. We don’t simply want to take other people’s word for it, we want to know it for ourselves, right?
I did cite historical evidence of Catholicism’s “Council of Trent,” (which anyone can read online) that pronounced damnation (hell) on anyone that taught contrary to Rome’s dogmas. In many cases, the Catholic Church instrumental in enforcing “Capitol Punishment” having many protestants burned at stake. That is what I would call extreme bigotry…wouldn’t you?
It cannot be bigotry for exposing these atrocities…can it?
It’s public knowledge that Rome abused its power in the past, swindling families of their money in the form of selling indulgences (forgiveness of sins) in order to build the Roman Catholic empire.
Priests are mandated to take a vows of celibacy (which is not Biblical – priests, pastors and elders in the Bible were allowed to marry and have children). How many of these men over the centuries, including the recent past, have been involved in sexual scandals, all the while conducting masses and confessionals on the behalf of the “faithful?.”
Are we intolerant for shedding light about the sin and hypocrisy in these cases?
Definition of a bigot:
a person who strongly and unfairly dislikes other people, ideas, etc. : a bigoted person; especially : a person who hates or refuses to accept the members of a particular group (such as a racial or religious group)
Lastly, with all due respect, your opinion of my piece, your view of the Benicia Herald, and your perspective of Benicia is extremely “intolerant” and under the definition of a bigot, is very bigoted itself.
I accept Catholics, even love Catholics, but I do not agree with their teaching and practices. That is not bigotry.
Having said all that, I welcome your comments. I understand your frustration. I just hope that you will point out specifics rather than make broad statements. If I may, please take your Bible and read the New Testament, for yourself, compare the scriptures with Catholic dogma, traditions, etc.
Take care ~ robert