The following quotes are taken from the book "Far from Rome, near to God: Testimonies of 50 converted Roman Catholic priests," by Richard Bennet (Carlisle, Penn: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1997). They are quite interesting and valuable since they give an insight to Catholicism from those who were priests in the Catholic Church and then left it to find salvation in Jesus.
Following are excerpts from only a few of the fifty testimonies.
1. Henry Gregory Adams. Born in Saskatchewan, Canada. He entered the Basilian Order of monks and adopted the monastic name of "Saint Hilarion the Great." He was ordained as a priest and served five parishes in the Lemont, Alberta area.
A. Sacraments. "The monastic life and the sacraments prescribed by the Roman Catholic Church did not help me to come to know Christ personally and find salvation...I realized that the man-made sacraments of my church and my good works were in vain for salvation. they lead to a false security." (p. 3)
2. Joseph Tremblay. Born in Quebec, Canada, 1924. He was ordained a priest in Rome, Italy and was sent to Bolivia, Chile where he served for 13 years "as a missionary in the congregation of the Oblate Fathers of Mary Immaculate."
A. Salvation by works. "My theology has taught me that salvation is by works and sacrifices....my theology gives me no assurance of salvation; the Bible offers me that assurance....I had been trying to save myself on my works...I was stifled in a setting in which I was pushed to do good works to merit my salvation." (pp. 9, 11-12)
3. Bartholomew F. Brewer. He applied to the Discalced Carmelites, a strict monastic order. He received training of "four years of high school seminary, two years in the novitiate, three years of philosophy, and four years of theology (the last after ordination)." He was ordained to the Roman Catholic priesthood at the Shrine of the Immaculate Conception of Mary in Washington, D.C. He eventually served as a diocesan priest in San Diego, California and entered the Navy as a Roman Catholic chaplain.
A. Upon questioning Rome's Beliefs, "At first I did not understand, but gradually I observed a wonderful change in mother. Her influence helped me realize the importance of the Bible in determining what we believe. We often discussed subjects such as the primacy of Peter, papal infallibility, the priesthood, infant baptism, confession, the mass, purgatory, the Immaculate Conception of Mary, and the bodily assumption of Mary into heaven. In time I realized that not only are these beliefs not in the Bible, they are actually contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture." (pp. 21-22)
B. Relying on works. He left the Roman Catholic Church, got married and through conversations with his wife and other Christians, "I finally understood that I had been relying on my own righteousness and religious efforts and not upon the completed and sufficient sacrifice of Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic religion had never taught me that our own righteousness is fleshly and not acceptable to God, nor that we need to trust in his righteousness alone...during all those years of monastic life I had relied on the sacraments of Rome to give me grace, to save me." (p. 25)
4. Hugh Farrell. Born in Denver, Colorado. Entered the Order of our Lady of Mount Carmel, commonly called the Discalced Carmelite Fathers. Ordained as a priest.
A. Priestly power to change elements: "The priest, according to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, has the power to take ordinary bread and wine, and, by pronouncing the words of the consecration prayer in the sacrifice of the Mass, to change it into the actual body and blood and soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. Hence, since one cannot separate the human nature of Christ from his divinity, the bread and wine, after being changed into the body and blood of Jesus Christ, are entitled to the worship of adoration." (pp. 28)
B. Temporal punishment due to sins. "I knew from the teachings of the priests and nuns that I could not hope to go directly to heaven after my death. My Roman Catholic catechism taught me that after death I had to pay for the temporal punishment due to my sins. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that 'the souls of the just which, in a moment of death, are burdened with venial sins or temporal punishment due to send, enter purgatory.'" (p. 29)
C.Penance. Regarding life in the monastery and doing penance. "These penances consist of standing with the arms outstretched to form a cross, kissing the sandaled feet of the monks, receiving a blow upon the face from the monks, and, at the end of the meal, lying prostrate before the entrance to the refectory so that the departing monks must step over one's body. These, and other penances, are supposed to gain one merit in heaven and increase one's 'spiritual bank account.'" (p. 36)
D. The Mass and sorcery. "According to the teaching of the Roman Church the priest, no matter how unworthy he may personally be, even if he has just made a pact with the devil for his soul, has the power to change the elements of bread and wine into the actual body and blood, soul and divinity, of Jesus Christ. Provided he pronounces the words of consecration properly and has the intention of consecrating, God must come down on the altar and enter and take over the elements." (p. 39)
5. Alexander Carson. Baptized into the Roman Catholic Church as an infant. His priesthood studies were at St. John's seminary, Brighton, Massachusetts. He was ordained by Bishop Lawrence Shehan of Bridgeport, Connecticut in 1955 and was a priest in Alexandria, Louisiana. Also, he was pastor of Sacred Heart Catholic Church, Rayville, Louisiana.
A. Bible or Tradition. "...the Holy Spirit led me to judge Roman Catholic theology by the standard of the Bible. Previously, I had always judged the Bible by Roman Catholic doctrine and theology." (p. 53)
B. Mass contrary to scripture. "In my letter of resignation from the Roman Catholic Church and Ministry, I stated to the bishop that I was leaving the priesthood because I could no longer offer the Mass, as it was contrary to the Word of God and to my conscience." (pp. 54-55)
6. Charles Berry. He entered the Order of Hermits of St. Augustine and became a priest after 17 years. He was given orders to continue studying until he achieved a Ph.D. in chemistry and was then "transferred to the headquarters of the Augustinian order in the United States."
A. superstition. "In the United States the Roman Catholic Church is on its best behavior, putting its best foot forward because of its critics and opponents. In a Roman Catholic country, where it has few opponents or critics, it is a very different matter. Ignorance and superstition and idolatry are everywhere, and little effort, if any, is made to change the situation. Instead of following the Christianity taught in the Bible the people concentrate on the worship of statues and their local patron saints." (p. 59)
B. Idols and Statues. "When I met in Cuba a genuine pagan who worshiped idols (a religion transplanted from Africa by his ancestors), I asked how he could believe that a plaster idol could help him. He replied that the idol was not expected to help him; it only represented the power in heaven which could. What horrified me about his reply was that it was almost word for word the explanation Roman Catholics give for rendering honor to the statues of the saints." (p. 59)
7. Bob Bush. He went to a Jesuit Seminary and studied for 13 years before being ordained in 1966. He entered a post graduate program in Rome.
A. Works: "When I entered the order, the first thing that happened was that I was told I had to keep all the rules and regulations, that to do so would be pleasing to God, and that this was what he wanted for me. We were taught the motto, 'Keep the rule and the rule will keep you.'" (p. 66).
B. Salvation is by faith: "It took me many years to realize that I was compromising by staying in the Roman Catholic Church. Throughout all those years I continued to stress that salvation is only in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross and not in the infant baptism; that there is only one source of authority which is the Bible, the word of God; and that there is no purgatory but rather that when we die to either go to heaven or hell." (p. 69)
C. Salvation by works: "The Roman Catholic Church then goes on to say that in order to be saved you must keep its laws, rules and regulations. And in these laws are violated (for example, laws concerning birth control or fasting or attendance at Mass every Sunday), then you have committed a sin....'individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the only ordinary way by which the faithful person who was aware of serious sin can be reconciled with God, and with the church' (Canon 9609)." (p. 75)
D. Works: "The Roman Catholic Church adds works, and that you have to do these specific things [keeping its laws, rule and regulations] ]in order to be saved, whereas the Bible says in Ephesians 2:8-9 that it is by grace that we are saved, not by works." (pp. 75-76)
As you can see, even Roman Catholic Priests can discover the truth found in God's word and escape the error of the Roman Catholic system of works righteousness. To God be the glory.
"For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, that no one should boast," (Eph. 2:8-9).
Roman Catholics often mention that the Bible never says we are saved by faith alone and that the phrase "faith alone" occurs only once in James where it says that we are not saved by faith alone. If this is so, then why do the Protestants say we are justified by faith alone and not by works? Because the Bible teaches that we are justified by faith alone, and not by works.
The following is a list of verses about being saved by faith. Please take note that faith and works are contrasted. In other words, we are saved by faith "not by works" and "apart from works," etc. The point is that there are only two options. We are saved by faith alone or we are not. Since we have faith and works (both conceptually and in practice), then we are either saved by faith alone or by faith and works. There is no other option.
If we see that the Scriptures exclude works in any form as a means of our salvation, then logically we are saved by faith alone. Let's take a look at what the Bible says about faith and works. Then, afterwards, we will tackle James' statement about "faith alone."
1. Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29Or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
2. Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness."
3. Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ."
4. Rom. 9:30, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith."
5. Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
6. Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
7. Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
8. Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.
9. Gal.3:5-6, "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
10. Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."
11. Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. Not by works, lest any man should boast."
12. Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."
Again, works/Law is contrasted with faith repeatedly and we are told that we are not justified by works in any way. Therefore, we are made right with God by faith, not by faith and our works; hence, faith alone.
James 2:24, not by faith alone
The scriptures clearly teach that we are saved (justified) by faith in Christ and what He has done on the cross. This faith alone saves us. However, we cannot stop here without addressing what James says in James 2:24, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."
There is no contradiction. All you need to do is look at the context. James chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses 1-7 instruct us to not show favoritism. Verses 8-13 are comments on the Law. Verses 14-26 are about the relationship between faith and works.
James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith but has no works, "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" (James 2:14). In other words, James is addressing the issue of a dead faith, that is nothing more than a verbal pronouncement, a public confession of the mind, and is not heart-felt. It is empty of life and action. He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an empty faith is (verses 15-17, words without actions). Then he shows that this type of faith isn't any different from the faith of demons (verse 19). Finally, he gives examples of living faith that has words followed by actions. Works follow true faith and demonstrate that faith to our fellow man, but not to God. James writes of Abraham and Rahab as examples of people who demonstrated their faith by their deeds.
In brief, James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead" (James 2:20). But, he is not contradicting the verses above that say salvation/justification is by faith alone.
Also, notice that James actually quotes the same verse that Paul quotes in Rom. 4:3 amongst a host of verses dealing with justification by faith. James 2:23 says, "and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, and Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness.'" If James was trying to teach a contradictory doctrine of faith and works than the other New Testament writers, then he would not have used Abraham as an example. Therefore, we can see that justification is by faith alone and that James was talking about false faith, not real faith when he said we are not justified by faith alone.
Penance
Penance is, according to the Roman Catholic Church, the sacrament of reconciliation that "reestablishes a right relationship between God and a wayward Catholic."1 It is something the person does. Penance is "always, by its very nature, a liturgical action, and therefore an ecclesial and public action," (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 1482) and consists of a greeting from the priest, the reading of the Bible, "an exhortation to repentance," confession to a priest, the "acceptance of penance," absolution from the priest, and a "prayer of thanksgiving" (CCC 1480). Roman Catholicism teaches that penance "is necessary for salvation for those who have fallen after Baptism, just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn" (CCCC 980). The penitent person must willingly submit to its requirements of having a contrite heart, perform verbal confession, and be completely humble (CCC, 1450). It is part of the process that restores the person to God's grace (CCC 1468, 1496). It includes works of reparation (CCC 1491). It cleanses a person preparing for Confirmation so he can receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (1310). It reconciles a person to the Roman Catholic Church (CCC 1469). Penance can be performed for the dead (CCC 1032). And, with faith it is part of the process of conversion to Christ (CCC 1470).
According to The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism, Vol. 1, 1969, p. 141, "Penance is a sacrament by which sins committed after baptism are forgiven." It goes on to state in question 171 that in order to receive the sacrament of penance worthily the Roman Catholic must, first, examine his conscience; second, be sorry for his sins; third, make up his mind not to sin again; fourth, confess his sins to the priest; and fifth, be willing to do the penance the priest gives him to do. Thus, we see that this so-called sacrament is a works-based means of gaining forgiveness of sins from God. This is in contradiction to scripture. A right relationship with God is achieved through faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and not by our works, or combination of our works and God's grace, because our works are nothing more than filthy rags (Isaiah 64:6).
* "being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus" (Rom. 3:24).
* "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" (Rom. 4:3).
* "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Rom. 4:5).
* "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:1).
* "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him" (Rom. 5:9).
* "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace" (Rom. 11:6).
* "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8).
As you can see, the Bible teaches us that we are made right with God by faith apart from works. Notice how the Bible contrasts faith and works when it comes to being made right with God. The Bible rejects works of any kind as a means of being made right with God. You'd think that this would be clear to the Roman Catholic Church. But, it isn't. The New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism, Vol. 2, 1969, p. 199 says:
"The priest gives us a penance after confession that we may make some atonement to God for our sins, receive help to avoid them in the future, and make some satisfaction for the temporal punishment due to them."
What is amazing in this quote is that it is not Christ's sacrifice on the cross that is the focus of atonement for our sins, but the works of the individual via penance. This is in blatant contradiction to scripture which says that we are cleansed of our sins by the blood of Christ, not by our works.
* "how much more will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered Himself without blemish to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Rom. 9:14).
* "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7).
The Scriptures teach us that Christ's blood cleanses us of ALL sin, not some, not part, but all. This includes our sins of the past, present, and future and it is not necessary to have our sins forgiven via our effort.
* "I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly" (Gal. 2:21).
* "Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22 But the Scripture has shut up all men under sin, that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe" (Gal. 3:21).
* "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace" (Rom. 11:6).
The Roman Catholic Teaching is wrong because it is contrary to Scripture; it uses penance, works that a person does, as a means to become right with God.
Atonement for sins
Remember the New Saint Joseph Baltimore Catechism, Vol. 2, 1969, p. 199 says that penance (some work you do) makes atonement for sins. Let's look at what "atonement" means.
According to The Harpers Bible Dictionary, atonement is "the means by which the guilt-punishment chain produced by violation of God's will is broken, as well as the resulting state of reconciliation (at-onement) with God."2 And, "...the earlier meaning of the English word "atonement" was "the reconciliation of two estranged parties."3
In the Old Testament priests made atonement for the sins of the people: "...So the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven" (Lev. 4:20); "...Thus the priest shall make atonement for him in regard to his sin, and he shall be forgiven" Lev. 4:26); "and the priest shall make atonement for him before the Lord; and he shall be forgiven for any one of the things which he may have done to incur guilt" (Lev. 6:7).
So, atonement brings forgiveness of sins according to the Old Testament by a priest making sacrifices. But the Old Testament system is not in effect today in this regard because Christ has come and offered a single and eternal sacrifice (Heb. 10:10-11). The OT priests were not able to cleanse us via their animal sacrifices (Heb. 10:4). Their sacrifices were a representation of the one true sacrifice of Christ (Heb. 8:3-5). Since we now have that one and true sacrifice, we don't need to do anything to make atonement for our sins since atonement was made by Jesus on the cross.
Can we atone for others?
There is a sense in which others could make atonement for people. "And it came about on the next day that Moses said to the people, You yourselves have committed a great sin; and now I am going up to the Lord, perhaps I can make atonement for your sin" (Exodus 32:30). We see this explained in the New Testament as well: "For it was fitting that we should have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; 27 who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the sins of the people, because this He did once for all when He offered up Himself" (Heb. 7:26-28).
But when we come to the New Testament we see that the atoning work for sin is centered around the sacrifice of Jesus. Whereas the Old Testament typified the coming atonement, the New Testament realizes it in the person of Christ. The Old Testament made allowances for one person (i.e., a priest) to make atonement for others so that their sins might be removed (Lev. 4:20, 26; 6:7; etc.), the New Testament teaches that it is Christ alone who makes the atonement by which our sins are removed:
* "And He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed" (1 Pet. 2:24).
* "When He had made purification of sins..." (Heb. 1:3).
* "Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people" (Heb. 2:17).
* "By this will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all, 11 And every priest stands daily ministering and offering time after time the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins; 12 but He, having offered one sacrifice for sins for all time, sat down at the right hand of God" (Heb. 10:10-11).
Conclusion
We can see that the Roman Catholic system of penance is an unbiblical, works-based system that keeps the Roman Catholic in submission to the sacramental legislation of the mother Church. Instead of the Roman Catholic Church pointing to Christ alone for the forgiveness of sins and reconciliation with God, it teaches that a person must perform works to make himself right with God. Furthermore, we have seen that the Scriptures clearly teach that our position and righteousness with God is not based upon anything that we do. On the contrary, to the exclusion of our works, the Scriptures clearly teach that we are justified before God by faith. In other words, it is by faith alone in Christ alone in his work alone that makes us right with God. There is no way that anyone is able to remove his sin through any of his sin-stained efforts.
The Roman Catholic Church, because it adds works to the finished work of Christ in order to be made right with God, thus preaches a false gospel.
"But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8-9).
Purgatory
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1030, "All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation, but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven."
The Second Vatican Council, p. 63, says, "The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments."
This process of purification occurs in a place designated by the Catholic Church as purgatory. According to Catholic doctrine, purgatory is not supposed to be a place of punishment, but of purification. The nature of this purification, according to different Catholic theologians, ranges from an extreme awareness of loss to an intense, excruciatingly painful "purifying fire."
According to Roman Catholic Doctrine, though a person may be in a state of grace, he may not enter heaven until he is purified from sins that were not dealt with on earth. Baptism remits sins committed up to that point, but prayers, indulgences, penance, absolution, and the Mass are means by which the sinner is able to expiate sins committed after baptism. If sins are not remitted, after death he must suffer the flames of purification until he is sufficiently cleansed and pure so as to enter into the presence of God. Additionally, intercession can be made by Catholics on behalf of those who are presently in purgatory. This is also done through saying the Mass, certain acts of penance, saying the Rosary, or by indulgences where the benefit is applied to the dead in purgatory.
But purgatory is not for everyone. Baptized infants who have died before the age of accountability and Catholic saints who lived such holy lives are excused from the "purifying fires."
The length of time that someone must suffer in this state is never known, but it is considered to be proportional to the nature and severity of the sins committed. Therefore, it could be anywhere from a few hours to millions of years.
Problems with the Doctrine of Purgatory
As a Christian who bases spiritual truth on the Bible alone, I see problems with the doctrine of purgatory. For example:
1. It is not explicitly found in the Bible.
2. It implies that the righteousness of Christ does not cleanse from all sin.
3. It implies that justification is not by faith alone.
4. It implies that there is something we must do in order to be cleansed of sin.
The Catholics will disagree with my perceived problems of the doctrine of purgatory. That is to be expected. They will cite Church Fathers, the Apocrypha, and various biblical references to fire and purification. Which ever side of the argument you fall into, my goal here is to present a biblical argument that examines the doctrine in an attempt to determine if it is biblical or not.
Of course, the Catholic will say that as a Protestant, I come to the argument with the preconceived belief that (1) Purgatory is unbiblical, (2) that I am biased against it, and (3) that I have an agenda to accomplish. To each of these accusations I admit guilt. None of us are perfectly unbiased and most everyone has personal beliefs that are reflected in their actions and words. In this case, having read and studied the Bible thoroughly, I find no place in it for the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory.
Please feel free to email me at cfollower@gmail.com
It is necessary to write a page on Roman Catholicism because there are significant differences between Protestant and Roman Catholic doctrines. Protestants accuse the Catholics of being unscriptural, and the Catholics state that the Protestants do not have the true faith carried through the centuries by the Catholic Church. Which ever side you fall on, the real issue is whether or not the Roman Catholic Church is representing true Christianity.
If you are a Roman Catholic, please understand that this is not meant to offend you in any way. This site is dedicated to examining the truth, all truth, and compare it to the Bible. No matter who it is or what group is proclaiming truth, we know that the Bible is the Word of God and that no truth from God will contradict it. I urge you to examine what is here on this site and see if what is being taught here is true. If you do, you will be doing exactly what the Bible commands: to examine all things (1 Thess. 5:21; 1 Pet. 3:15; 2 Tim. 2:15; Acts 17:11; Jude 3). Since the Catholic Church holds the Bible to be the word of God, I am putting Catholic doctrine to the biblical test.
It is apparent that the Roman Church has added much to the scope of Christian doctrine that is not revealed in scripture. This is an issue that needs to be addressed. It is vital.
The Protestant church cites the Bible alone as the source of doctrinal knowledge. The Catholic Church, on the other hand, cites the Bible and Tradition. Please consider the following.
". . .the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 82.).
Apparently, it is Tradition that is the source of doctrines which are clearly not taught in the Bible but which the Catholic Church still says are implicit within its text and elucidated through Apostolic Tradition. Some of them are as follows: The Mass, Penance, Veneration of Mary, Purgatory, Indulgences, the Priesthood, the Confessional, the Rosary, Venial and Mortal Sins, and statues in the Church. The issue is whether or not these teachings of the Roman Catholic Church are credible. Do they accurately represent Christianity? Can they be substantiated with the Bible? Do they contradict the Bible?
This letter attempts to examine the doctrines of Rome and compare them with the Bible to see if they are supported or contradicted by God's Word. We know that all truth in God's Christian Church comes from Him, through the Holy Spirit. It will not, therefore, be contradictory. Let us see what God's written word says and compare it to the Unwritten Word, which is the Roman Catholic Church's term for Tradition.
Is the Bible Alone Sufficient for Spiritual Truth?
According to Roman Catholicism, Sacred Tradition and the Bible together provide the foundation of spiritual truth. From this combination, the Catholic church has produced many doctrines which it says are true and biblical, which Protestants reject: veneration of Mary, penance, indulgence, purgatory, prayer to saints, et. al. Protestantism, however, rejects these doctrines, and Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition, and holds fast to the call "Sola Scriptura," or, "Scripture Alone." Catholics then challenge, "Is Sola Scriptura biblical?"
The Bible does not say "Do not use tradition" or "Scripture alone is sufficient." But the Bible does not say "The Trinity is three persons in one God," either, yet it is a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. 2 Tim. 3:16 says that Scripture is inspired and profitable for correction and teaching. Scripture states that Scripture is what is good for correction and teaching, not tradition. However, in its comments on tradition, the Bible says to listen to tradition but also warns about tradition nullifying the gospel -- which we will look at below.
In discussing the issue of the Bible alone being sufficient, several points should be made:
1) The method of the New Testament authors (and Jesus as well) when dealing with spiritual truth was to appeal to the Scriptures as the final rule of authority.
Take the temptation of Christ in Matthew 4 as an example. The Devil tempted Jesus, yet Jesus used the authority of Scripture, not tradition, nor even His own divine power, as the source of authority and refutation. To Jesus, the Scriptures were enough and sufficient. If there is any place in the New Testament where the idea of extra-biblical revelation or tradition could have been used, Jesus' temptation would have been a great place to present it. But Jesus does no such thing. His practice was to appeal to Scripture. Should we do any less having seen his inspired and perfect example?
The New Testament writers constantly appealed to the Scriptures as their base of authority in declaring what was and was not true biblical teaching: Matt. 21:42; John 2:22; 1 Cor. 15:3-4; 1 Peter 1:10-12; 2:2; 2 Peter 1:17-19, etc. Of course, Paul in Acts 17:11 says, "Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." Paul commends those who examined God's word for the test of truth. He did not commend them for appealing to tradition. Therefore, we can see that the method used by Jesus and the apostles for determining spiritual truth was to appeal to Scripture, not tradition. In fact, it is the Scriptures that refute the traditions of men in many instances.
2) It is not required of Scripture to have a statement to the effect, "The Bible alone is to be used for all spiritual truth," in order for sola scriptura to be true.
Many doctrines in the Bible are not clearly stated, yet they are believed and taught by the church. For example, there is no statement in the Bible that says there is a Trinity, or that Jesus has two natures (God and man), or that the Holy Spirit is the third person in the Godhead. Yet, each of the statements is considered true doctrine within Christianity, being derived from biblical references. So, for the Catholic to require the Protestant to supply chapter and verse to prove Sola Scriptura is valid, is not necessarily consistent with biblical exegetical principles that they themselves approve of when examining such doctrines as the Trinity, the hypostatic union, etc.
3) In appealing to the Bible for authentication of Sacred Tradition, the Catholics have shown that the Bible is superior to Sacred Tradition -- for the lesser is blessed by the greater (Heb. 7:7).
You see, if the Bible said "do not trust Sacred Tradition," then Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition would be instantly and obviously invalidated. If the Bible said to trust Sacred Tradition, then the Bible is authenticating it and the Roman Catholic Church would cite the Scriptures to that effect. In either case, the Scriptures hold the place of final authority, and by that position are shown to be superior to Sacred Tradition. This means that Sacred Tradition is not equal in authority to the Word of God.
If Sacred Tradition were really inerrant as it is said to be, then it would be equal with the Bible. But, God's word does not say that Sacred Tradition is inerrant or inspired as it does say about itself (2 Tim. 3:16). To merely claim that Sacred Tradition is equal and in agreement with the Bible does not make it so. Furthermore, to assert that Sacred Tradition is equal to Scripture is to effectively leave the canon wide open to doctrinal addition. Since the traditions of men change, then to use tradition as a determiner of spiritual truth would mean that over time new doctrines that are not in the Bible would be added, and that is exactly what has happened in Catholicism with doctrines such as purgatory, praying to Mary, indulgences, etc. Furthermore, if they can use Sacred Tradition as a source for doctrines not explicit in the Bible, then why would the Mormons then be wrong for having additional revelation as well?
4) If the Bible is not used to verify and test Sacred Tradition, then Sacred Tradition is functionally independent of the Word of God.
If it is independent of Scripture, then by what right does it have to exist as an authoritative spiritual source equivalent to the Bible? How do we know what is and is not true in sacred tradition if there is no inspired guide by which to judge it? If the Roman Catholic says that the inspired guide is the Roman Catholic Church, then it is committing the fallacy of circular reasoning. In other words, it is saying that the Roman Catholic Church is inspired because the Roman Catholic Church is inspired.
5) Sacred Tradition is invalidated automatically if it contradicts the Bible, and it does.
Of course, the Catholic will say that it does not. But, Catholic teachings such as purgatory, penance, indulgences, praying to Mary, etc., are not in the Bible. A natural reading of God's Word does not lend itself to such beliefs and practices. Instead, the Catholic Church has used Sacred Tradition to add to God's revealed word and then extracted out of the Bible whatever verses that might be construed to support their doctrines of Sacred Tradition.
Nevertheless, the Catholic apologist will state that both the Bible and Sacred Tradition are equal in authority and inspiration and to put one above another is a false comparison. But, by what authority does the Catholic say this? Is it because it claims to be the true church, descended from the original apostles? So? Making such claims doesn't mean they are true. Besides, even if it were true, and I make no claim that it is, there is no guarantee that the succession of church leaders is immune to error. We saw it creep in with Peter, and Paul rebuked him for it in Gal. 2. Are the Catholic church leaders better than Peter?
To continue, is it from tradition that the Catholic Church authenticates its Sacred Tradition? If so, then there is no check upon it. Is it from quotes of some of the Church Fathers who say to follow Tradition? If so, then the Church Fathers are given the place of authority comparable to Scripture. Is it from the Bible? If so, then Sacred Tradition holds a lesser position than the Bible because the Bible is used as the authority in validating Tradition. Is it because the Catholic Church claims to be the means by which God communicates His truth? Then, the Catholic Church has placed itself above the Scriptures.
6) One of the mistakes made by the Catholics is to assume that the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition. This is false.
The Church simply recognized the inspired writings of the Bible. They were in and of themselves authoritative. Various "traditions" in the Church served only to recognize what was from God. Also, to say the Bible is derived from Sacred Tradition is to make the Bible lesser than the Tradition as is stated in Heb. 7:7 that the lesser is blessed by the greater; but this cannot be, since Catholicism appeals to the Bible to authenticate its tradition.
Conclusion
Since the Bible is the final authority, we should look to it as the final authenticating and inerrant source of all spiritual truth. If it says Sacred Tradition is valid, fine. But if it doesn't, then I will trust the Bible alone. Since the Bible does not approve of the Catholic Church's Sacred Tradition, along with its inventions of prayer to Mary, prayer to the saints, indulgences, penance, purgatory, etc., then neither should Christians.
Objections Answered
1. The Bible comes from Roman Catholic Sacred Tradition.
A. The problem is twofold. First, tradition is generally anything the Christian church passed down and doesn't require inspiration of any sort. But Roman Catholicism claims such generic tradition under its umbrella of Sacred Tradition. This is the fallacy of equivocation. In other words, the meaning of the word "tradition" is changed between the first and second reference. There is no proof that the RCC sacred tradition is inspired. But there is evidence that it is flawed, particularly when we compare what it has revealed (purgatory, Mary worship, penance, indulgences, etc.) with Scripture, and such doctrines are not only absent from Scripture, but contradict Scripture.
B. Second, it assumes that the Roman Catholic Church produced the Bible. The RCC did not produce the Bible. God produced the Bible and the Christian church recognized the word of God (John 10:27) and endorsed what God had already authored.
To say that the RCC gave us the Bible is to imply that the RCC has the right to tell you whatever it means. This is problematic because how then do we check what the RCC says?
2. Sacred Tradition is divine revelation and equal to Scripture.
A. At best, this is only a claim that cannot be proven to be false by comparing the revelations supposedly given through Sacred Tradition with the word of God. As mentioned above, there are many such doctrines devised that are not found in the Word of God and even contradict it.
B. The Bible clearly tells us that God's Scripture is divinely breathed forth and that it is inspired. There is no such claim for tradition. In fact, though the Bible tells us to follow tradition, it also tells us to be wary of it. Therefore, tradition cannot be inspired if God's Word warns us against following it.
C. The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it "transgresses the commands of God" (Matt. 15:3). By Jesus' own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way. See Roman Catholicism, the Bible, and Tradition.
The Bible clearly tells us that it is the standard of truth. We are not to exceed what the Scriptures say. "Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that in us you might learn not to exceed what is written, in order that no one of you might become arrogant in behalf of one against the other" (1 Cor. 4:6).
3. Heb. 7:7 is not about scripture, but about people, and cannot be used to subject Sacred Tradition to the Bible
A. It is true that Heb. 7:7 is about people and not about scripture. But there is more in the text than just people. Heb. 7:4-10,
"Now observe how great this man was to whom Abraham, the patriarch, gave a tenth of the choicest spoils. 5 And those indeed of the sons of Levi who receive the priests office have commandment in the Law to collect a tenth from the people, that is, from their brethren, although these are descended from Abraham. 6 But the one whose genealogy is not traced from them collected a tenth from Abraham, and blessed the one who had the promises. 7 But without any dispute the lesser is blessed by the greater. 8 And in this case mortal men receive tithes, but in that case one receives them, of whom it is witnessed that he lives on. 9 And, so to speak, through Abraham even Levi, who received tithes, paid tithes, 10 for he was still in the loins of his father when Melchizedek met him."
The writer of Hebrews is mentioning different concepts as well as historical facts. He mentions tithing, descendents of Abraham, the lesser is blessed by the greater, authority, and Federal Headship. It is the concept of the greater in authority blessing the lesser in authority that is being examined here in this article. We know that there is a principle of the greater in authority blessing the lesser. Can we not also apply this same principle of authority to the issue of the Roman Catholic Church's claim on sacred tradition as being authoritative as compared to the authority of Scripture? I do not see why not. After all, the Roman Catholic Church appeals to Scripture to support its sacred tradition. In so doing, is submitting itself to the authority of Scripture for validation of its principle.
The Apocrypha: is it scripture?
The Apocrypha consists of a set of books written between approximately 400 B.C. and the time of Christ. The word "apocrypha" (απόκρυφα) means "Hidden." These books consist of 1 and 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, the Rest of Esther, the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach, (also titled Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, The Letter of Jeremiah, Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, The Additions to Daniel, The Prayer of Manasseh, and 1 and 2 Maccabees.
The Protestant Church rejects the Apocrypha as being inspired, as do the Jews, but in 1546 the Roman Catholic Church officially declared some of the apocryphal books to belong to the canon of Scripture. These are Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (also known as Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch. The apocryphal books are written in Greek, not Hebrew (except for Ecclesiasticus, 1 Maccabees, a part of Judith, and Tobit), and contain some useful historical information.
Is the Apocrypha Scripture?
Protestants deny its inspiration, but the Roman Catholic Church affirms it. In order to ascertain whether it is or isn't, we need to look within its pages.
Not quoted in the New Testament
First of all, neither Jesus nor the apostles ever quoted from the Apocrypha. There are over 260 quotations of the Old Testament in the New Testament, and not one of them is from these books. Nevertheless, a Roman Catholic might respond by saying that there are several Old Testament books that are not quoted in the New Testament, i.e., Joshua, Judges, Esther, etc. Does this mean that they aren't inspired either? But, these books had already been accepted into the canon by the Jews, whereas the Apocrypha had not. The Jews recognized the Old Testament canon and they did not include the Apocrypha in it. This is significant because of what Paul says.
"then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision? 2 Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God," (Rom. 3:1-2. ).
Paul tells us that the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. This means that they are the ones who understood what inspired Scriptures were, and they never accepted the Apocrypha.
Jesus references the Old Testament: from Abel to Zechariah
Jesus referenced the Jewish Old Testament canon from the beginning to the end and did not include the apocryphal in his reference. "From the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation" (Luke 11:51).
"The traditional Jewish canon was divided into three sections (Law, Prophets, Writings), and an unusual feature of the last section was the listing of Chronicles out of historical order, placing it after Ezra-Nehemiah and making it the last book of the canon. In light of this, the words of Jesus in Luke 11:50-51 reflect the settled character of the Jewish canon (with its peculiar order) already in his day. Christ uses the expression "from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah," which appears troublesome since Zechariah was not chronologically the last martyr mentioned in the Bible (cf. Jer. 26:20-23). However, Zechariah is the last martyr we read of in the Old Testament according to Jewish canonical order (cf. II Chron. 24:20-22), which was apparently recognized by Jesus and his hearers."
This means that the same Old Testament canon, according to the Jewish tradition, is arranged differently than how we have it in the Protestant Bible today. This was the arrangement that Jesus was referring to when he referenced Abel and Zechariah, the first and last people to have their blood shed -- as listed in the Old Testament Jewish canon. Obviously, Jesus knew of the Apocrypha and was not including it in his reference.
Jesus references the Old Testament: The Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms
Catholics sometimes respond by saying that the Old Testament is referred to in three parts, the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings. It is these writings that are sometimes said to include the Apocrypha. But this designation is not found in the Bible. On the contrary, Jesus referenced the Old Testament and designated its three parts as the Law, the Prophets, and the Psalms, not as the Law, the Prophets, and the Writings.
"Now He said to them, "These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled" (Luke 24:44).
So we see that the designation offered by the Roman Catholics is not the same designation found in the Bible and their argument is invalid if their argument is incorrect. Nevertheless, even if it did say "writings," it would not include the Apocrypha for the above mentioned reasons.
Church Fathers
Did the Church Fathers recognize the Apocrypha as being Scripture? Roman Catholics strongly appeal to Church history, but we don't find a unanimous consensus on the Apocrypha. Jerome (340-420), who translated the Latin Vulgate which is used by the RC church, rejected the Apocrypha since he believed that the Jews recognized and established the proper canon of the Old Testament. Remember, the Christian Church built upon that recognition. Also, Josephus, the famous Jewish historian of the first century, never mentioned the Apocrypha as being part of the canon either. In addition, "Early church fathers like Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, and the great Roman Catholic translator Jerome spoke out against the Apocrypha." So, we should not conclude that the Church Fathers unanimously affirmed the Apocrypha. They didn't.
Errors in the Apocrypha
If the Apocrypha is Scripture, then it should not have any errors. But since it does have errors, as will be demonstrated below, this puts into question whether or not the Roman Catholic Church has properly used its self-proclaimed position as the teaching authority of the Christian Church. If it can error in such an important manner as defining what is Scripture, can it be trusted to properly teach the Christian Church?
Problems in the Apocrypha
When we look into the Apocrypha itself, we find numerous problems. For example, we see it advocating magic, where the smoke of a fish heart on a fire drives away devils.
Magic:
Tobit 6:5-7, "Then the angel said to him: Take out the entrails of this fish, and lay up his heart, and his gall, and his liver for thee: for these are necessary for useful medicines. 6 And when he had done so, he roasted the flesh thereof, and they took it with them in the way: the rest they salted as much as might serve them, till they came to Rages the city of the Medes. 7 Then Tobias asked the angel, and said to him: I beseech thee, brother Azarias, tell me what remedies are these things good for, which thou hast bid me keep of the fish? 8 And the angel, answering, said to him: If thou put a little piece of its heart upon coals, the smoke thereof driveth away all kind of devils, either from man or from woman, so that they come no more to them."
Is it true that the smoke from a fish's heart, when burned, drives away evil spirits? Of course not. Such a superstitious teaching has no place in the word of God.
The Apocrypha also teaches that forgiveness of sins is by human effort.
Salvation by works:
Tobit 4:11, "For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness."
Tobit 12:9, "For alms delivereth from death, and the same is that which purgeth away sins, and maketh to find mercy and life everlasting."
We know from Scripture that alms (money or food, given to the poor or needy as charity) does not purge our sins. The blood of Christ is what cleanses us, not money or food given to poor people. "but if we walk in the light as He Himself is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John 1:7).
Money as an offering for the sins of the dead:
2 Maccabees 12:43, "And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection."
Can anyone truly accept that money isn't an offering for the sins of dead people? Such a superstitious and unbiblical concept has no place in Scripture.
Wrong historical facts:
Judith 1:5, "Now in the twelfth year of his reign, Nabuchodonosor king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Ninive the great city, fought against Arphaxad and overcame him."
Baruch 6:2, "And when you are come into Babylon, you shall be there many years, and for a long time, even to seven generations: and after that I will bring you away from thence with peace."
The book of Judith incorrectly says that Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Assyrians when he was the king of the Babylonians.
Baruch 6:2 says the Jews would serve in Babylon for seven generations where Jer. 25:11 says it was for 70 years. "And this whole land shall be a desolation and a horror, and these nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years."
Conclusion
Obviously the Apocrypha has serious problems. From magic, to salvation by works, to money as an offering for the sins of the dead, and blatantly incorrect historical facts, it is full of false and unbiblical teachings. It isn't inspired. Likewise, neither is the Roman Catholic Church, which has stated the Apocrypha is inspired. This shows the Roman Catholic Church is not the means by which God is communicating his truth to his people, that the Magisterium has erred greatly, and that it is infested with man's false tradition, rather than God's absolute truth.
Indulgences
An indulgence, according to the Roman Catholic Church, is a means of remission of the temporal punishment for sins which have already been forgiven, but are due to the Christian in this life and/or in purgatory. This punishment is most often in purgatory, but can also be suffered in this life. An indulgence removes time needed to be spent in purgatory. There are two kinds of indulgences: partial and plenary. A partial indulgence removes part of the punishment of sins. A plenary indulgence removes all of the punishment of sins. Granting an indulgence of a certain number of days or years means that is how many days or years is removed from the time of punishment a person must undergo in purgatory.
On the inside of the cover of the New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism published in 1969, there is a prayer. After the prayer, it says the following: "An indulgence of five years. A plenary indulgence on the usual conditions, provided this prayer has been recited daily for a month." This means that by saying the prayer properly, five years is removed from a person's time in purgatory!
On the same page of the New St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism, it says: "The faithful who devote 20 minutes to a half hour to teaching or studying Christian doctrine, may gain: an indulgence of three years. A plenary indulgence on the usual conditions twice a month, if the above practice is carried out at least twice a month."
So, we can see that according to this catechism, if you say the prayer properly you can have five years removed from your time in purgatory. Likewise, if the faithful devote 20 minutes to a half hour to teaching or studying Christian doctrine, they can have three years removed from purgatory. Is this biblical? Not at all. It is ridiculous to think that reading doctrine and saying a prayer removes time of punishment in the Catholic-invented place called purgatory. It is nothing more than a means to control the Catholics and keep them dependent on "The Mother Church."
The Treasury of the Church
The Treasury of the Church is a storehouse of merit that has been earned by the sacrifice of Christ and the prayers and good works of the the Virgin Mary and all the saints. This reservoir of merit is drawn upon and applied to Roman Catholics via the Roman Catholic Church so that their future duration of punishment might be reduced. So, essentially what we have is a system where merit is dispensed through the Roman Catholic sacraments and priesthood.
* "We also call these spiritual goods of the communion of saints the Church's treasury, which is "not the sum total of the material goods which have accumulated during the course of the centuries. On the contrary the 'treasury of the Church' is the infinite value, which can never be exhausted, which Christ's merits have before God. They were offered so that the whole of mankind could be set free from sin and attain communion with the Father. In Christ, the Redeemer himself, the satisfactions and merits of his Redemption exist and find their efficacy" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1476).
* "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 in the unity of the Mystical Body" (CCC 1477).
In short, this treasury of the church of Rome is a means by which it keeps its people dependent upon its sacramental, ecclesiastical system. Without participation in Roman Catholic Sacraments, future punishment will be far more extensive. The Roman Catholic Church keeps its people coming back to it, dependent upon it, needful for the dispensing of the treasury of merit that it has at its disposal. Instead of the Roman Catholic being completely sanctified and justified in Christ, by the work of Christ on the cross, the very propitiation offered by the Lord in his sacrifice is usurped by the Roman Catholic Church. The power and priesthood and mediatorship of Christ is replaced by that of the Roman Catholic Church, and it becomes the means by which the so-called people of God are relieved of their sin punishment. This is a blasphemous claim of Rome that detracts from the power and glory and sufficiency of the cross. All Roman Catholics should stop looking to the church as its means of salvation and/or as a means of deliverance from punishment. Instead, the Roman Catholic should look to Christ alone through faith alone for the forgiveness of his/her sins.
* "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law" (Rom. 3:28).
* "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness" (Rom. 4:3).
* "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness" (Rom. 4:5).
* "Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 5:1).
* "Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him" (Rom. 5:9).
* "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8).
The problem with indulgences
The obvious problem with indulgences is that they negate the all-sufficiency of the cross. It was Jesus who took our punishment. He took our place so that we do not have to suffer any punishment for our sins so that we might be made right with God. We are not saying that sins have consequences and punishments. We are saying that being made right with God is not by our suffering, but by Christ's.
"Surely our griefs He Himself bore, and our sorrows He carried; yet we ourselves esteemed Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. 5 But He was pierced through for our transgressions. He was crushed for our iniquities. The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, and by His scourging we are healed. 6 All of us like sheep have gone astray. Each of us has turned to his own way. But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all to fall on Him" (Isaiah 53:4-6).
The Second Vatican Council, p. 63, mentions purgatory as a place of punishment for our sins: "The truth has been divinely revealed that sins are followed by punishments. God's holiness and justice inflict them. Sins must be expiated. This may be done on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and trials of this life and, above all, through death. Otherwise the expiation must be made in the next life through fire and torments or purifying punishments." Indulgences only have value in Catholicism due to the unbiblical teaching of purgatory, which the Roman Catholic Church teaches is a place of punishment where people expiate their own sins there (CCC 1475).
Expiation is "a term associated with the removal, cleansing, or forgiveness of sin."1 But how does a person expiate or cleanse himself of his own sins? He doesn't. If there were a means by which we could cleanse ourselves on our own sins, then God would have provided that.
"I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly" (Gal. 2:21).
Nevertheless, out of the teaching of purgatory, and temporal punishment comes the teaching of indulgences -- a means by which punishment for sin is reduced through a person's own sufferings. How horrible is this teaching, since it reduces the power and glory of the cross and says we can expiate our own sins, instead of trusting in Christ alone for this. The Roman Catholic Church needs to recant its false teaching and urge its people to look to Christ alone and not to its mediatorship, its priesthood, its treasury of merit, its sacraments, or its rules and regulations for the salvation of souls.
Indulgences is not a biblical teaching.
Mary
Mary occupies a unique place in biblical history. She conceived Jesus by the power of the Holy Spirit. Then, she bore the Messiah. Among women, she is most blessed (Luke 1:42) and all who claim to be Christian acknowledge her as a chosen vessel of God. While Christians admit Mary's uniqueness, the Catholic Church has, in its own words, "clarified her position and nature through Sacred Tradition." Through the centuries, more and more doctrines concerning her have been revealed. For example:
1.Mary is called the Mother of God AD 431
2.Prayers offered to Mary AD 600
3.Immaculate Conception (that she was sinless) AD 1854
4.Assumption of Mary AD 1950
5.Mary Proclaimed Mother of the Church AD 1965
Mary is Most Blessed Among Women
Mary is undoubtedly blessed among women (Luke 1:42). But, is it appropriate to attribute to her such titles as "Our Queen, Our Mother, Our Life, Our Sweetness, and Our Hope?" I cannot see how it is. Was she sinless? It would seem not, since she said she needed a savior in Luke 1:47, "And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior." Did she remain a virgin after the birth of Jesus? Again, it seems not since Matt. 1:25 says that Joseph ". . .kept her a virgin until she gave birth to a Son; and he called His name Jesus." Does she mediate and intercede for sinners? Again, the scriptures seem to contradict this when it states that Jesus is the only mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5). Is she exalted above all angels? There is no scripture stating so. Can she simultaneously hear the prayers of countless people all over the world in different languages? Again, there is nothing in God's word to lead us to believe this.
Please understand that I am not attacking Mary or her wonderful position in history. Rather, it seeks to examine her position according to biblical revelation and answer the questions just posed. Hopefully, faithfully, and according to God's word, we can look at Scripture to find the answers.