Vol.4 No.1

Q. When people say that the Roman Catholic Church is guilty of apostasy, what specifically do they mean?

A. To apostatize is to turn away from the clear teachings of the Word of God in favor of the doctrines of men. By this definition, many churches are guilty of apostasy. In several specific areas the Catholic Church has substituted its own teachings for Bible truth.

First, Catholicism has claimed the right to change the Bible Sabbath. From the Catholic Mirror, September 23, 1893, we read: "The Catholic church for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday."

Exodus 20:8-11 states, "Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger [Gentile] that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it" [made it holy].

Hebrews 4: 4,9 states, " For he spake in a certain place of the seventh day on this wise, And God did rest the seventh day from all his works." "There remaineth therefore a rest to the people of God."

The Greek word translated rest in Hebrews 4:9 is Sabbatism which means "Keeping of a sabbath or "sabbath observance." The Lord blessed the Sabbath and made it holy. Our duty is to REMEMBER the Sabbath day and KEEP it holy. For further study read Genesis 2: 1-3; Mark 2: 27,28; Exodus 16: 4,5, 1529; Nehemiah 9: 13 .14; Luke 4:16; Luke 23:54,56; Acts 13:14; Acts 17:2; 18:4; Isaiah 66: 22,23.

Second, the Catholic church teaches that one can do penance through the recitation of prayers. Jesus says in Matthew 6:7: "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." We must not repeat the same thing over and over again without even paying attention to what is spoken. This principle applies not only to our beloved Catholic friends but also to all of us. Please read I King 18:25; Acts 19:34.

Third, the Catholic Church has adopted the pagan concept of the immortal soul. Yet the Bible calls death asleep: "Consider and hear me, 0 Lord my God: lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death"' (Psalm 13: 3). We also read in Acts 2:34, "For David is not ascended into the heavens..." The psalmist David sleeps the sleep of death waiting for the resurrection.

Listen to the plain words of Jesus: "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation" (John 5:28,29).

If we immediately go to heaven when we die, why then would there be a need for a resurrection? In the light of the Word of God, when we die we sleep until the resurrection morning. Read I Thessalonians 4: 13-18.

Fourth, the Catholic church teaches that the wicked suffer in eternal torment. Yet the Bible teaches that man is only mortal (Job 4:17); the wicked could not even live to be punished eternally, for the Bible clearly shows that only the righteous will be given eternal life (John 3 :15). . ... our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel" (2 Timothy 1: 10). Only those who obey the gospel shall receive immortality, eternal life (Romans 2: 6,7). Eternal life is given man through Christ (I John 5:11,12). Therefore the torment of the impenitent sinner will last until death ensues. God is love (I John 4:8). He loves us with an everlasting love (Jeremiah 31:3). Such a loving God does not enjoy inflicting or watching cruelty.

 We love the dear Catholic people. There are thousands of them who are serving God to the best of their knowledge. As these sincere Christians hear Bible truth, they will embrace it promptly.

Vol.5 No.4

Q. What did Jesus mean when He said "'Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church..." in Matthew 16:18?

A. Immediately after Peter's great confession of Christ as the Son of God, Jesus spoke the words of this text, ""Thou art Peter"and Jesus used the same Greek word that is used 116 times in the New Testament for Simon Peter-Petros. In fact, the word Petros is never used for any other purpose in the New Testament than to designate Peter. The name means pebble or rolling stone.

But then after Jesus called Peter by his name Petros, He said, "Upon this rock I will, build my church." And Christ used the petra for rock. The word petra denotes a huge unmoving boulder, a veritable -Gibraltar. This word is -never used to designate Peter. Instead it is used repeatedly to describe Jesus Himself (for example, 1 Corinthians 10:4). In other words, the church was not built upon the -unstable Peter (Petros), who had to be rebuked by Christ as Satan's agent in verse 23, but upon Christ (Petra) the Rock of Salvation. Peter"s confession of Jesus as the Son of God constituted a firm rock .of truth also, but the shifting character of the unconverted Peter wa5-not designated by Jesus as the church" s -foundation.

Please notice that, after Peter's confession, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," Jesus assured Peter, "Youre right, and this was revealed to you from above. And I'm telling you, Peter, that on this foundation (or rock) I will found my church." It was that confessed truth of Christ's divinity which has been the Gibraltar base for the church through the ages.

Vol.9 No.6

Q. Why do Roman Catholics believe that they, alone, are the spiritual successors of the apostolic church and that the Bishop of Rome is the head of Christianity?

A. The much quoted Catholic writer, Cardinal Gibbons, in Faith of Our Fathers, writes: “The Catholic Church teaches that our Lord conferred on St. Peter the first place of honor and jurisdiction in the government of His whole church, and that the same spiritual supremacy has always resided in the popes, or bishops of Rome, as being the successors of St. Peter.”

Roman Catholics are sincere. However, we must test their claim, as we would anyone else’s claim, against the Scriptures.

The whole structure of the Roman Church is built on the belief that Christ appointed Peter the first pope and so established the papacy. Disprove the primacy of Peter, and the foundation of the papacy is destroyed. Destroy the papacy, and the whole Roman hierarchy falls with it. The Roman Catholic priesthood depends absolutely upon their claim that Peter was the first pope at Rome, and that they are his successors.

The text Catholics use to prove Christ’s bestowal of spiritual headship on Peter is Matthew 16:13-19. Matthew 16:18 says, “And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The rock Jesus is talking about is not Peter. The Bible tells us plainly that the church is “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the corner stone” (Ephesians 2:20). And again, “For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11). Without that foundation the true Christian church could not exist. Christ did not build His church upon a weak, sinful man. That no superior standing was conferred upon Peter is clear from the later disputes among the disciples concerning who should be greatest among them.

According to Roman Catholic tradition, Peter was the first bishop of Rome, his pontificate lasted twenty-five years, from 42 to 67 A.D., and he was martyred in Rome in 67 A.D. The remarkable thing, however, about Peter’s bishopric in Rome, is that the New Testament has not one word to say about it. There is no allusion to Rome in either of his epistles. There is in fact no New Testament evidence, or any historical proof of any kind, that Peter ever was in Rome

The first twelve chapters of the book of Acts tell of Peter’s ministry and travels in Palestine and Syria. Surely if he had gone to Rome, the capital of the empire, this would have been mentioned. Also, many archaeologists have tried to prove that Peter at least visited Rome, but they could find no shred of evidence that Peter had ever been there.

The New Testament records, particularly Peter’s own writings, show that he never claimed authority over the other apostles or over the church.

The best proof of a man’s position and authority is his own testimony.

Does Peter claim to be a pope, or to have primacy over the apostles? Fortunately, he wrote two epistles which are found in the New Testament. There he states his position. He does not claim the highest place in the church. He assumes no ecclesiastical superiority, but with profound humility puts himself on a level with those whom he exhorts.

When Cornelius, the Roman centurion fell down at his feet and wanted to worship him, Peter protested quickly and said, “Stand up; I myself also am a man” (Acts 10:25, 26). Yet the popes not only accept, but demand such homage. Even the highest cardinals prostrate themselves on the floor before the pope to kiss his foot.

Surely if Peter had been a pope, “the supreme head of the church,” he would have declared this in his epistles. The popes have never been slow to make such claims for themselves, or to extend their authority as far as possible. But instead, Peter refers to himself only as an apostle (of which there were eleven others), and as an elder or presbyter, a minister of Christ.

Vol.10 No.2

Q. I recently read that in a few years the Catholic church is planning to canonize the late Mother Theresa. Will her sainthood make any difference for her or for us?

A. To mark the first anniversary of Mother Theresa’s death, the Roman Catholic Church organized a lavish public tribute. It included a memorial mass in St. Peter’s Basilica, a TV spectacular from St. Peter’s Square and an homage from Pope John Paul II. The Vatican was also careful to announce that the five-year minimum wait required for the church to review any application for sainthood will not be waived in her case. Yet no one expects the Catholic church to deny the application, either.

Mother Theresa was a remarkable person and a devout Catholic. Her life of service is something which no one can take from her. In fact, many would classify her as a living saint.

However worthy mother Theresa or any other person would be, their canonization by the Roman Catholic Church is unbiblical. God alone designates saints and He does this in their life times. It would serve no purpose to do so after death. In every instance the word “saint” is used to describe living beings or to refer to them at the time they were alive. Frequently Paul refers to true believers in Christ as “saints.” Typical is his salutation to the Roman Christians: “To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints” (Romans 1:1).

Across the age, many questionable people have been canonized. While we cannot judge their ultimate fate, not knowing if they truly repented of their evil deeds, there is little doubt that a few “saints” will never be found in heaven.

One such questionable saint is Mary MacKillop of Australia. On January 19, 1995, 120,000 people attended the mass conducted by Pope John Paul II in Sydney, Australia. The purpose of the mass was the beatification of Mary MacKillop.

No Australian has ever been elevated to “sainthood” by the Roman Catholic Church. Mary Mackillop was a strange choice for the first possible “saint.” In 1871 the Roman Catholic bishop of Adelaide disbanded the order of the Sisters of Joseph, founded by Mary in 1866 and excommunicated her. In 1888 she was accused of alcoholism and financial mismanagement, and ordered to leave the state of South Australia. She was received back into the Roman Catholic fold 18 months later when her appeal to Rome was upheld.

Yet the beatification of Mary was uncritically accepted throughout the nation. Australian newspapers praised the mass, the national newspaper, The Australian headlining its report on January 20, 1995 “A Nation Consecrated.” Books and items of memorabilia on Mary MacKillop multiplied.

Few, of different religious persuasions, apparently stopped to consider that the late Miss MacKillop, whatever her spiritual condition when alive, is now simply a skeleton in a grave. She can neither be benefitted by her beatification nor can she benefit us. Apparently the pope believed otherwise. He ascribed the heavy rains in new South Wales and Queensland, which terminated a few years drought, to the blessings bestowed upon the South Wales by Mary.

There are other difficulties in the creation of saints by human authority after death. The Bible tells us that these people, rather than residing in heaven, are “asleep” in their graves. The creation of saints encourages men and women to seek these “saints,” as their mediation with our Heavenly Father. Yet Scripture plainly declares “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5.) To ascribe mediatorial powers to a mere human is to denigrate the work of our Savior and deny the scriptural testimony on the state of the dead.

A spokesman of the Presbyterian Church correctly stated: “That some people should receive particular prominence in that area [of sainthood] and be credited with the ability to twist God’s arm is utterly unbiblical.” The Australian, January 15, 1995.