Catholic Questions

Catholics claim that Scripture and "Sacred Tradition" are equal in authority." Protestants say the Bible is the sole guide for faith and practice (see 2 Tim. 3:16,17; 1 John 5:13). Rome says the magisterium (teaching authority of the Roman Church) has been entrusted to interpret the Bible for Catholics, who are not to interpret it for themselves. Protestants say that individual Christians can trust the Holy Spirit for guidance as they read and interpret the Bible for themselves (see John 5:39; 14:26). Catholicism teaches that Peter was the first pope, and that through apostolic succession other popes have succeeded him, each serving as "vicar of Christ"; Protestants insist the apostles had equal authority and there was no "pope," a word not found in the New Testament (see Matt. 18:18; John 20:23). Catholics teach that the pope is infallible when he speaks "ex cathedra" (lit. "from the chair" or with authority) on matters of faith and morals; Protestants reply that no human being is infallible, and only Christ is head of the Church (see Eph. 1:22; Col. 1:18).

As to "Thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build my church," Peter had by grace confessed what none ever had, that Christ was the Son of the living God. As entitled to be called Son of God according to promises to Messiah, He had been owned, but Son of the living God He had never been called. This the Father revealed to Peter. The Lord owns the grace conferred on him, and declares that his name should be called Peter (a stone), partaking by grace through his confession of that which he confessed, for it was upon that truth so confessed (that is, on Christ's being the Son of the living God) that He would build His church. Hence it is said that the gates of hades, of the power of death (Satan as having the power of death), should not prevail against the church. For Christ by resurrection was declared to be Son of God with power, above all the power of Satan; and, the church being built on this rock, of His being the Son of the living God, Satan's power, that of death, could not overthrow it. So Chrysostom repeatedly uses it. As James has said, to suppose any real foundation but Christ is denying the Lord. And it is in this character of a divine person having the power of life over death that He can build the church.

When we examine the question of transubstantiation, we shall see that the most famous doctors of the church denied that doctrine five centuries later, and that it was never settled as a defined doctrine till 1215, nine centuries later, so that the Mass was impossible. For if the element be not really the body of Christ, such a sacrifice is impossible. I rest on what is said in Hebrews 9 and 10, which chapters not only teach what is inconsistent with it, but formally contradict it in every part. That Christianity has a sacrifice is a fundamental truth, but that Epistle teaches that it was one, only one, offered once for all upon the cross, never to be repeated, and its not being so repeated essential to its nature and value.

And now again, in the second epistle, he says, "Accordingly then, brethren, stand firm, and hold fast the traditions which ye were taught whether by word or by letter of ours" (verse 15). Beyond a doubt the delivered instructions embrace oral and epistolary teaching, and in no way allow an indefinite sense actuating powerfully but almost insensibly a community from age to age. The traditions which the apostle urges the church to hold fast were known and possessed truth (1 Cor. 11:2), not at all scripture supplemented by a vague spiritual sense that would mould all by its intrinsic influence. The Romish idea is unknown to and excluded by scripture, which insists on the Lord originating and forming all that is His will by that word which the Spirit makes effectual in all His operations from quickening to the highest edification, and alike in worship and in service. For He is here in the individual saint, and in the assembly, to glorify Christ according to the Father's will. The theory of a dual rule of faith betrays its real character as a rival of scripture, and a rebel against God Whose glory admits of no co-ordinate authority, such as its tradition cannot but assume to be. For this supposes defect in scripture, and claims, though human, nothing less than divine honour. A tradition you have not got and do not know is not only an absurd contradiction of the only true sense of tradition in scripture, but its assertion by Romanism exposes its votaries to the purely human tradition of the elders, which the Lord denounced as commandments of men which make void the word of God. In vain do such worship God; they honour Him with their lips, but their heart is far from Him. The word of God alone has an absolute title over the heart and conscience of His people.

The language of the Lord, as to a Person who has not eaten His flesh, nor drunk His blood, not having life, makes it perfectly impossible to apply it to the Eucharist; for the eating and drinking the Lord speaks of is the first receiving of life: till they ate and drank, they had no life in them. None but dead souls can partake of it, and so receive life. To talk of preserving or sustaining is in the teeth of the express terms of the passage.

If the scriptures be taken, as having the authority of God's word, as being inspired by Him, as every true Christian acknowledges, the Romanist system of doctrine cannot be maintained for a moment; but my object now is to notice not the errors only, but the infidelity found in it.

I proceed to the proofs of this. The scriptures teach that, Christ having by one offering perfected for ever them that are sanctified, there is now no more offering for sin. (Heb. 10:14.) The whole Romanist system is based on, and identical with, the doctrine that there is in the Mass an offering for the sins of the living and the dead. The scripture teaches us that the only ground on which we can stand in the presence of God is that the blood of Jesus cleanses from all sin. The Romanist believes that there is a purgatory needed to complete this cleansing, unless for some rare soul in an unusual state of sanctity. Now these two Romanist doctrines are really infidel as to what God has taught for our peace.

But if this is so, what of the practice of the invocation of saints? To bring in the saints in heaven as go-betweens, as is done by the Romish church and by some prominent Anglicans, also, is to becloud and belittle the gospel. Not a single line of Scripture is there to support such a horrible idea. It savours of “the depths of Satan.” It is the very essence of worldly religion, for it puts God at a distance, and that is what the world has done from the beginning.

In brief: Mary had a very special place – but one of privilege, not of authority or power. Praying to Mary is simply idolatry. Worship belongs to God.

Catholics believe that those in purgatory cannot help themselves, but Catholics left back on Earth can enable them to obtain heaven more quickly by praying for them, offering Mass for them and doing forms of good works, which includes gaining indulgences. According to the Catechism, those seeking indulgences want to shorten their own or someone else's time in purgatory.

Now comes the important question, "If there were such men as bishops and deacons in the first days of the Church, why do we not possess them now?" The answer is simple. We have no one to ordain them. There is no ordaining power in the Church of God in the absence of the apostles. I am quite aware of what thousands think and say, that apostolic succession is the resource. But I find no such thing in Scripture. All the N.T. writers speak of evil coming in after their departure, but none refer us to any successors as a safeguard. Paul warned the brethren, and then commended them to God and the Word of His grace (Acts 20:32), Peter provided for the need of the saints after his decease by inspired writings, speaking of nothing and no one else (2 Peter 1:12-15), John casts the saints upon what they had heard from the beginning, and upon the unction they have received (the Holy Spirit, 1 John 2:20-27), and Jude, after drawing a very dark picture, bids us build up ourselves on our most holy faith, etc. (Jude 20). Absolute silence everywhere as to authoritative succession. Transmission of truth I certainly find; transmissions of authority nowhere (2 Tim. 2:2). Every thoughtful person must know that this pretended apostolic succession is the most uncertain thing in the world. It is claimed by the Romish, Greek, and National bodies, all disowning each other. Rome claims that true succession is alone found in her, and that all who have not derived their office from the Pope are impostors. The Greek Church refuses Rome's claims as baseless, and rejects her communion as heretical. Where is certainty in all this? If apostolic succession is a divine principle, and our only true safeguard, as many assert, where can I be sure of finding it? The truth is, the notion has no warrant from Scripture at all. Consequently there is no authority to ordain in the Church now, and this is why we have amongst us no men with the titles of "bishops" and "deacons." We do not pretend to a power that we do not possess. We, the rather, own the ruin and disorder that has come in, and cast ourselves upon the unfailing grace of God. And many can testify, who have been gathered to the Lord's name for many years, apart from all ecclesiastical systems, that God is faithful in these matters to those who put their trust in Him.