The Authority of the Catholic Church

Who's Guiding Whom?

Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. (John 16:13)

This is a favored passage used by Roman Catholic apologists in their efforts to convince others that their church is without error.

I am astonished that people can even consider using this verse to validate the teaching authority the Catholic Church has arrogated to herself. Where does the Lord mention that the Holy Spirit will come to guide only the Magisterium to all truth? This is another of those RCC teachings that did not originate with God, but was created within the dark chambers of that benighted cult.

I do not understand the process whereby the RCC concludes that God the Holy Spirit provides special insights and guidance only to members of the august body known as the Magisterium of the Roman Catholic church, while withholding that guidance from the hoi poloi of Christendom. For the purposes of this post, my use of the term "Magisterium" subsumes those parallel particularly-anointed assemblies in other religious communions. This peculiar arrogance of church hierarchies to proclaim that only they are able to accurately interpret God's Word to the masses seems not to conform to the Scriptural teaching concerning His role in the lives of believers.

In John 7:37-39, Christ speaks of the life-giving power of the Holy Spirit that will be imparted to all who believe on Him. No mention there of baptism, nor is there a mention of limiting that power to the benefit of only those within a particular assembly. In fact, it should be borne in mind that there was NO Christian church when Jesus made this statement.

In John 14:16,17, Messiah promises that the Father will send the Holy Spirit to indwell those who believe. Again, He makes no mention that only those who believe and are members of a Magisterium are to be hosts for the indwelling Spirit.

In the course of sharing Passover with His disciples, Jesus told them of the teaching ministry of the Holy Spirit. He ate this meal with His closest followers, promising them that the Holy Spirit would teach them "all things" (John 14:26). But there is no indication that the Spirit, Whom we already have been informed would indwell all believers, would restrict His teaching to just those present with Jesus at the Seder.

The Roman Catholic Church knows this to be true, or at least the guy who wrote paragraph 91 of the official Catechism did:

91. "All the faithful share in understanding and handing on revealed truth. They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them[Cf. 1Jn 2:20, 27 .] and guides them into all truth.[Cf. .Jn 16:13 .]" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. – Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 33)

Please read again these clear and truthful words, declared as trustworthy by Pope John Paul II: "They have received the anointing of the Holy Spirit, who instructs them and guides them into all truth." If this is true, and even John Paul II says it is, then why does Rome so steadfastly declare that the Magisterium alone has a special ability to interpret to the masses what God really meant to say in the Scriptures?

100. "The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him." (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. – Libreria Editrice Vaticana, pp. 37-38)

Is the message here that, while it is true that the Holy Spirit instructs believers and guides them "into all truth," He guides the members of the Magisterium into more or better truth?

The membership of the Magisterium is comprised of men, fallible men. How is it that Catholic faithful can be seduced into rejecting the idea that fallible men can, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, discover God's truth in the Scriptures, yet blindly accept that other fallible men can? A clear example of the blind leading the blind.

Again, I cannot comprehend the reasoning that leads some to argue that ordinary believers, indwelled with the Holy Spirit, are unable to properly understand the Word of God, while turning to other ordinary men for their interpretation of Scripture. Like the Pharisees, I reckon, they believe that only an elite few are empowered to fully understand what God has revealed to us in His Word.

Do you not wonder how many Pharisees are walking the streets of Heaven?

Catholicism's Ever-Changing Doctrine
What Is The Dogma Of The Day?


It is fascinating to study the dogma and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. The fascination lies not in the dogma themselves but, rather, in their imaginative origins and the incredible lengths taken to substantiate them. It is also incredibly interesting to look back over the years at how Catholic dogma, which supposedly are immutable, seem to defy the RCC's definition and mutate anyway.

One wonderful dogma, defined by popes and councils, holds that:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation, thus membership in the Church is necessary." (Adam S. Miller, The Final Word, Tower of David Publications:Gaithersburg (1997), p. 16)

That seems clear to me. According to this dogma, one must be a member of the Roman Catholic Church if he is to be saved. Stated another way, the dogma reads: Extra ecclesia nulla salus.

Some modern Catholics might ask who is Adam S. Miller and what authority does he have to define RCC dogma? Valid questions. The answer, of course, is that Miller did not define this dogma but merely included it in his little book of more than 110 defined dogmas of the Roman cult. A dogma, for those who might has slept through catechism class, is a teaching that every Roman Catholic must believe as a matter of faith - that is, without reservation - lest he lose his salvation.

In this age of easy-believism, both Catholic and non-Catholic, no doubt there will be some who who might chuckle at such a strict interpretation of an ancient rule of faith. And it is ancient, going back at least as far as the Athanasian Creed (ca. 400 AD), wherein one might read:

"Whoever wishes to be saved, needs above all to hold the Catholic faith; unless each one preserves this whole and entire, he will without a doubt perish in eternity. . . This is the Catholic faith' unless everyone believes this faithfully and firmly, he cannot be saved." (Denzinger 39, 30)

Some of the Church Fathers, who were not Catholic because there was as yet no Roman Catholic Church, wrote of the necessity of belonging to the Church. They were, of course, referring to membership in the True Church, which is the Body of Christ and whose membership is comprised of all those who are truly saved by God's unmerited grace, through faith alone in Christ alone. That the Roman cult appropriated their words and twisted their meanings to require membership in the RCC as a prerequisite for salvation should come as no surprise to those who are familiar with the Magisterium's peculiar and self-serving theology. These words of Origen, written in the third century, make no mention of the Roman cult in this formal declaration:

"Outside the Church nobody will be saved. (Extra ecclesiam nemo salvatur)" (Origen, In Jesu Nave hom. 3,5)

Cyprian, another third century Church Father, wrote something similar:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation." (Salus extra ecclesiam non est)" (Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 73, To Iubaianus, n.21, Migne: Patrologiae Cursus completus. Series prima Latina, Parisiis; 1844)

The fourth Lateran Council declared, in 1215, that:

"One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved . . ." (Lateran IV, The Catholic Faith, Chap. 1; Denzinger 430)

The bishops assembled at Lateran IV cited the above words of Cyprian as support for their position that outside the Church no one can be saved. They did not look to the inspired Word of God as found in the sacred Scriptures for their support, but to the words of a man and then changed their meaning to point to the Roman cult and not the True Church as was Cyprian's intention.

There no doubt are some Catholics who might reject the words of Origen, Cyprian and the Athanasian Creed as not be binding on the church in that they were not formally defined according to the criteria established by the First Vatican Council. I don't know that ex post facto dogma are any more valid for the Roman Catholic Church than are ex post facto laws valid under the United States Constitution. Just to be certain, however, let us search for a definition of this dogma that would satisfy even the criteria of Vatican I. In 1302, Pope Boniface VIII promulgated the Bull Unam Sanctam, wherein these defining words might be found:

"With faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin . . . Furthermore, we declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Denzinger 468-69)

Now there's a definition of a dogma if ever I saw one. Here is another:

"It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life, but will depart "into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels" [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)

Can there be any doubt that it is a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, defined by two ecumenical councils and confirmed by two reigning popes, that salvation is not possible outside the RCC? It is further specified that one cannot be saved, "even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ," unless he is in the very bosom of the Catholic Church. What does it mean to "be in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church?" This points to another dogma; another link in a chain of such teachings built link by link, drawing from one another and supporting one another in an endless circle.

"The members of the Church are those who have validly received the Sacrament of Baptism and who are not separated from the unity of the confession of the Faith, and from the unity of the lawful communion of the Church. (Sent. Cert.)" (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Tan Books and Publishers:Rockford (1974), p. 309; w/Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur)

Pius XII made it crystal clear as to just what it takes to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church:



"Actually only those are to be numbered among the members of the Church who have received the laver of regeneration and profess the true faith, and have not, to their misfortune, separated themselves from the structure of the Body, or for very serious sins have not been excluded by lawful authority." (Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, encyclical, June 29, 1943; Denzinger 2286)

A highly respected Catholic theologian and teacher explains what the Pope said in these terms:

"According to this declaration three conditions are to be demanded for membership of the Church: a) The valid reception of the Sacrament of Baptism. B) The profession of the true Faith. C) Participation in the Communion of the Church. By the fulfilment of these three conditions one subjects oneself to the threefold office of the Church, the sacerdotal office (Baptism), the teaching office (Confession of Faith), and the pastoral office (obedience to Church authority)." (Ludwig Ott, Op. Cit.)

To recap, it is a defined dogma of the RCC that not only is salvation impossible outside the Church but that to be saved one must be baptized in the RCC, profess the Catholic faith and participate in the Communion of the RCC. We have this from at least two ecumenical councils and three popes. As frosting on the cake, let us add the words of another pope, who declared it to be error to believe that;

"In the worship of any religion whatever, men can find the way toi eternal salvation, and can attain eternal salvation." (Pius IX, "Syllabus," or Collection of Modern Errors, Section III; Denzinger 1716)

"We must have at least good hope concerning the eternal salvation of all those who in no wise are in the true Church of Christ." (Pius IX, "Syllabus," or Collection of Modern Errors, Section III; Denzinger 1717)

One of the boasts of the Roman cult, a motto if you will, is that it is Semper Eadem, always the same. That this applies to dogma of the RCC was made clear by Pope Paul VI:

"The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful--who confirms his brethren in the faith (cf. Lk. 22:32)--he proclaims in an absolute decision a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.[42] For that reason his definitions are rightly said to be irreformable by their very nature and not by reason of the assent of the Church, is as much as they were made with the assistance of the Holy Spirit promised to him in the person of blessed Peter himself; and as a consequence they are in no way in need of the approval of others, and do not admit of appeal to any other tribunal." (Paul VI, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium), November 21, 1964)

Another Romish theologian helps us to understand that dogma, once defined, are immutable. He then goes on to explain that when dogma change, it is not because they have been re-defined, but that they simply have been clarified. Classic RCC doublespeak.

"Dogmas, as divine truths revealed by God, are eternal and unchangeable. That is why a dogma can never be "re-defined." Yet, in this work you will notice that most of these dogmas have been solemnly defined and/or pronounced more than once. These are not "re-definitions." Rather, they are further definitions and/or clarifications which buttress aspects of a dogma that have come under some form of denial or attack. The content of these denials/attacks was often not anticipated in the preceding pronouncements. Hence, each further definition is a MORE PRECISE definition of the dogma. It is never the opposite. It is never an expansion or widening, and thus changing, of what the dogma holds. It is never an evolution as to the content and substance of a dogma. The reason this is so is, again, because dogmas are immutable. Truth cannot change." (Adam S. Miller, Op. Cit., p. 3)

That's the RCC's position on dogmas. Dogmas, being divinely-revealed truth, are immutable. They cannot be changed because truth cannot change. They cannot be re-defined, only clarrified or made more precise. They can never be made to say something opposite to what they originally said. Keeping this in mind, look again at the words used by Pope Boniface VIII to define the necessity of membership in the RCC and submission to the pope for salvation:

"With faith urging us we are forced to believe and to hold the one, holy, Catholic Church and that, apostolic, and we firmly believe and simply confess this (Church) outside which there is no salvation nor remission of sin . . . Furthermore, we declare, say, define and proclaim to every human creature that they by necessity for salvation are entirely subject to the Roman Pontiff." (Denzinger 468-69)

And to this clear declaration of a dogma, add the clarifying definition of Pope Eugenius,

"It (Roman Church) firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that those not living within the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life . . .and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)

Now let us turn our attention to the new Catechism of the Catholic Church, which informs catechumins that:

"Outside the Church there is no salvation."

846. "How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body. . .

847. "This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. " (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc. - Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 244 w/Imprimi Potest of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)

O my! Looks as though the CCC has done a bit of clarification here. And it would appear that this clarification has so modified the dogma as pronounced by Boniface VIII and Eugenius as to now make it possible that people who have never even heard of Jesus Christ or the Roman Catholic Church might be saved. If I had not been told differently by Paul VI and Adam S. Miller, I would have thought this amounted to a reversal of the earlier defined dogma. Clearly, I do not understand how declaring that people outside the RCC who never heard of the RCC or Jesus Christ are not to be considered when accepting as a matter of faith that "Outside the Church there is no salvation." Maybe I can find a more clear understanding by looking deeper into the CCC.

"1258. "The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of Blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament." (CCC, Op. Cit., p. 352)

Whoa! This seems to be another clarification that appears to run opposite to the earlier definition of the dogma, in particular the words of Pope Eugenius, who declared:

". . .no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church." (Council of Florence (1441), Pope Eugenius, Decree for the Jacobites, in the Bull Cantata Domino; Denzinger 714)

When I was Catholic, I never worried about dogmas and definitions. In fact, I do not recall having heard either word from the priest during his homily or from the catechists in their teaching. Probably a good idea, given that immutable dogmas indeed do mutate, in contradiction of the RCC's teaching that they are irreformable.

Why does the Roman Catholic Church teach one thing and then deliberately act in contravention of its own teaching? That is a no-brainer. It is because the dogmas, doctrines, rules, practices and disciplines of the Roman Catholic Church all have their origins in the inconstant minds of men. Men change, cultures change, the dogmas and processes of the Roman Catholic Church change. What does not change is the revealed Word of God, as recorded by inspired men in the Holy Scriptures. Seek truth in the Bible, not the imaginative and inconsistent ramblings of the Magisterium.

Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (John 5:24)

The Catholic Church is the Road to Hell
Catholicism Teaches Works Salvation!



In the first part of the 5th Century, John Cassianus, Abbot of the Monastery of St. Victor, introduced the false doctrine known as semi-Pelagianism. A few of the errors of semi-Pelagianism are that initial faith is dependent on man's free-will, though God is solely responsible for faith itself and its increase and final perseverance depends on man's own strength, not being a gift of grace.

What is interesting, and still another indication that the Roman Magisterium is inconsistent and surely fallible, is that, while condemning the teachings of John Cassianus as heretical, the RCC refers to him as a good and godly man and holds him in high esteem.

SEMI-PELAGIANISM. The view stressing both the grace of God and the free will of man. Man is seen as contributing with God in salvation. This view is embodied in Roman Catholicism.--Paul Enns, Ed., The Moody Handbook of Theology, (c) 1989 Moody Press, p.647

The early Catholic church struggled against semi-Pelagianism. Semi-Pelagian heresies were condemned by Pope Celestine I in 432. Pope Felix IV, In the year 529, in the Synods of Orange and Valence, both of which were confirmed by Boniface II, also condemned semi-Pelagianism.

I reckon those condemnations never took root, for to this date, the Roman church continues to hold to a form of semi-Pelagianism, or works-based salvation. Just one example of how man is required, in Catholic doctrine, to cooperate with God for his salvation may be seen in the RCC doctrine of baptism as taught in the Catechism:

1257 The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. He also commands his disciples to proclaim the Gospel to all nations and to baptize them. Baptism is necessary for salvation for those to whom the Gospel has been proclaimed and who have had the possibility of asking for this sacrament. The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism, but he himself is not bound by his sacraments.--Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed., (c) 1994/1997 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. (Emphasis not in original)

The Roman church teaches that man is, in large measure, responsible for his salvation and eternal state. By contrast, the Holy Bible teaches that:

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.--Ephesians 2:8-10

Noted Catholic educator and theologian, Dr. Ludwig Ott disagrees and clarifies the Roman Catholic position in a textbook used in Roman Catholic seminaries:

According to the teaching of the Reformers, faith, in the sense of fiducial faith, is the sole cause of justification (_sola fide_ doctrine). In opposition to this teaching, the Council of Trent declares that, side by side with faith, other acts of disposition are demanded (Denzinger 819). As such are named: fear of Divine justice; hope in the mercy of God for the sake of the merits of Christ; the beginning of the love of God; hate and detestation of sin; and the purpose of receiving Baptism and of beginning a new life. The Council describes the ordinary psychological course of the process of justification, without thereby defining that all individual acts must be present in the given sequence, and that only these can be present. Just as faith, as the beginning of salvation, must never be absent, so also sorrow for sins committed must never be lacking, as forgiveness is not possible without an inner aversion from sin. Denz 793, cf. Denz 897.--Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, (c) 1962 B. Herder, 1962 pp. 253-4 (Emphasis not in original)

For those who don't get Rome's heretical message, the Council of Trent provided several "incentives," among them:

Canon 9. If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone,[114] meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, let him be anathema.--Council of Trent, 6th Session, Canons On Justification (Denzinger 819)

And there you have it; another example of that peculiar Romish idea that the work of Christ on the cross was insufficient to obtain and secure salvation for those called by God to eternal life. Nope, Bubba has gotta to put his back into it and lend that weak Roman Jesus a helping hand if the salvation Rome offers is gonna "take." Reckon I'll put my trust in the Lord God Almighty and His Son, Jesus the Messiah -- and not in the shaky promises of the man-powered Roman church.

Read your Bible. Seek God's truth. You'll see that what Rome says and offers doesn't match up with the Word of God.

Catholics Commit Idolatry by Praying to Dead Saints



Rome teaches that Catholic faithful are to honor and invoke the saints in Heaven, who offer prayers to God for man.

956. "The intercession of the saints. 'Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness.... They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus.... So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped.'[LG 49; cf. 1 Tim 2:5 .] …" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, Doubleday:New York, © 1994 United States Catholic Conference, Inc. – Libreria Editrice Vaticana, p. 271)

This is how it works, more or less: The Catholic on earth prays to the spirit of someone the pope (at least in latter times) has declared to have lived an exemplar life of faith and who now resides in heaven. Then, the spirit of the dead saint prays to God on behalf of the earthbound Catholic. It is something like that old kids' game called "Pass It On."

Have you ever wondered how the saint in Heaven can be assured that the person seeking his intercession is playing straight? Or does he just intercede for anyone who asks, even Satanists, atheists, pranksters, etc? Think about it. If a voodoo priestess calls upon the name of John the Baptist – who must surely be residing in Heaven – does John just dash off a quick intercessory prayer for that priestess' intentions? Perhaps there is a Heaven-based private detective agency that does background checks on everyone who seeks help from the Catholic saints.

The Scriptures teach that God is omnipresent – that He exists everywhere all the time (Psalm 139:7-12). That God is omniscient we also know from Scriptures (1 John 3:20). These are some of the attributes of God. I know of no passage in Scripture where I might read that the spirits in Heaven exist everywhere and know everything. Rome, of course, has found a way to twist a passage of Scripture to support her idea that these spirits can keep abreast of events on earth.

"That the saints know something of what passes on earth and can sympathize with us, may be inferred from what our Savior says in St. Matthew (xxii, 30), that the saints "shall be as the Angels of God in Heaven," and from what He says in St. Luke (xv, 7, 10), "I say unto you, there shall be joy before the Angels of God upon one sinner doing penance." If the Angels see a sinner doing penance, the saints who are like Angels of God can do the same." (C. F. Donovan, Our Faith and the Facts, Patrick L. Baine:Chicago (1927), p. 322: w/Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur)

There you go. To support prayers to saints, one RCC theologian takes a proof text out of context and forces it to match his need. Then he misquotes or mistranslates another passage and then bends it to his will as well. Finally, he draws a false parallel between angels and the souls of the dead. One more example of Roman Catholic eisegesis.

Let's break it down and see if the Scriptures indeed do support Father Donovan's arguments. The verse from Matthew, in context, reads as follows in the KJV:

Matthew 22:23 The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection, and asked him,

Matthew 22:24 Saying, Master, Moses said, If a man die, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother.

Matthew 22:25 Now there were with us seven brethren: and the first, when he had married a wife, deceased, and, having no issue, left his wife unto his brother:

Matthew 22:26 Likewise the second also, and the third, unto the seventh.

Matthew 22:27 And last of all the woman died also.

Matthew 22:28 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife shall she be of the seven? for they all had her.

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Matthew 22:30 For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.

Matthew 22:31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,

Matthew 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

Matthew 22:33 And when the multitude heard this, they were astonished at his doctrine.

Jesus was having one of THOSE days. First, the Pharisees had sent their disciples to try to trick Him into making a declaration that would be considered treasonous by Roman authorities. That didn't work. Then the Sadducees thought to snare Him with a trick question – and that is what the above passage records. When reading the passage, one should bear in mind that the Sadducees did not believe in things supernatural; things like the resurrection of the dead and the existence of angels.

The loaded question is detailed in verses 25-28. I suppose the cunning Sadducees figured they'd chivvy Jesus into a situation where He would be forced to admit there is no resurrection of the dead. Didn't work, as we see in the succeeding verses.

Jesus slammed them hard in verse 29, when He told them the premise upon which their question was based was flawed. And the reason for their error? Crystal clear. "Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." And this is, of course, the same charge that can be laid against Father Donovan, whose teaching on this issue is certified to contain nothing contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine.

Jesus, being the perfect Teacher, went on to explain their error to the Sadducees – and to us. In the process, He exposes another of their false beliefs. Angels are deathless creatures, who do not propagate and therefore have no need for marriage. In the resurrection, the saints will have those same characteristics.

The proof text cited by Donovan in no way supports the saints "know something of what passes on earth and can sympathize with us." Roman Catholic eisegesis of a verse taken out of context.

But what about the proof texts from Luke? Let's first read them, again in context.

Luke 15:1 Then drew near unto him all the publicans and sinners for to hear him.

Luke 15:2 And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.

Luke 15:3 And he spake this parable unto them, saying,

Luke 15:4 What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them, doth not leave the ninety and nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it?

Luke 15:5 And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing.

Luke 15:6 And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbours, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost.

Luke 15:7 I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety and nine just persons, which need no repentance.

Luke 15:8 Either what woman having ten pieces of silver, if she lose one piece, doth not light a candle, and sweep the house, and seek diligently till she find it?

Luke 15:9 And when she hath found it, she calleth her friends and her neighbours together, saying, Rejoice with me; for I have found the piece which I had lost.

Luke 15:10 Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth.

Did you notice? There is no mention of anyone doing penance in either verse 7 or verse 10. I went to the Catholic Douay-Rheims Bible, the New Testament of which was "Translated from the Latin Vulgate and diligently compared with the original Greek" back in 1582. There, I found these renderings for verses 7 and 10:

7 I say to you, that even so there shall be joy in heaven upon one sinner that doth penance, more than upon ninety-nine just who need not penance.

10 So I say to you, there shall be joy before the angels of God upon one sinner doing penance.

Wow! Now we're talking penance. Let's see now. The translations in the KJV were made from available Greek texts. The Rheims New Testament was translated from the Latin Vulgate, which was translated from Greek texts, and then was compared with whatever Greek texts were available in Rheims in 1582.

I don't read Latin, so it would serve no useful purpose for me to look at the verses in that version. I did go to the 21st edition of Eberhard Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece to see how the verses read in that document. Since this BBS does not support a Greek alphabet, I shall simply provide a literal, word-for-word translation, in the original word order.

Luke 15:7 I tell you that thus joy in – heaven will be over one sinner repenting than over ninety-nine just men who no need have of repentance.

Luke 15:10 So I tell you there is joy before the angels - of God over one sinner repenting.

Oops! Sure seems as though those folks who worked on the Rheims New Testament were not terribly diligent when comparing their translation of the Vulgate with the original Greek. Tsk. Tsk.

For a more detailed examination of these passages, I invite the reader to Robertson's Word Pictures in the New Testament, Volume II, pages 204-7; Baker Book House edition. But for now, back to Father Donovan's teaching:

The verses from Luke cited by Donovan are drawn from a larger account of Jesus reproaching the Pharisees. The high and mighty Pharisees were increasingly upset by the popularity of Jesus' message with the tax collectors and outcasts of society. Jesus was aware of their grumbling, so He used parables to rebuke them for their pious self-righteousness.

In verse 4, He describes how God takes the initiative in seeking sinners. This was the opposite of what rabbis were teaching: that God would receive sinners who sought His forgiveness with sufficient earnestness (Sounds a lot like what the RCC teaches, doesn't it?). Verse 7 and verse 10 speak to joy over the return of the lost.

The "joy in Heaven" mentioned in verse 7 refers to the joy of God Himself. On earth, the Pharisees were complaining (see verse 2), but in Heaven there was great joy with God and among the angels. The heavenly joy resulted from the repentance of those sinners who responded to Jesus' message, as opposed to those who think themselves righteous and have no need to repent.

Look again at verse 6. The shepherd is the one who is joyful at the recovery of his lost sheep and it is the shepherd who calls his friends to share his good news with them. In verse 9, it is the woman who found her lost coin who is filled with joy and who gathers her friends and neighbors to tell them of her good news. In neither parable do the friends and neighbors have any reason to be joyful until they are informed of the good fortune of one who recovered what was lost. Think about the teaching. Who is symbolized by the shepherd and the woman and who are the lost? It is fallen man who has strayed from the fold and it is the Lord God Who feels joy when one of His lost ones returns. The angels in Heaven are like the friends and neighbors in the parables; until the Lord shares His joy with them, there is no reason to believe they have any idea what is going on with the lost.

Context. Context. Context.

Donovan provides another pseudo-biblical support for the idea that saints are aware of happenings on earth.

"Moses, when with God on the mountain, far away and out of sight, was allowed to know that his people had fallen into idolatry. He could see what was passing elsewhere and could pray to God for them. It is only natural to suppose the saints can do the same. Those blessed souls in Heaven, who are bound to us by ties of nature and grace, must have a sincere desire to help us in our necessities. We believe that the Blessed Virgin and the Saints enjoy the power of interceding for us with God, a privilege bestowed upon them by Jesus Christ." (Donovan, Op. cit.)

Wrong again. Donovan informs his Catholic readers that Moses, while up on the mountain top with God, was empowered to see what was happening down below. He then builds on the basis of this "power" of Moses by claiming it is "natural to suppose the saints can do the same." I confess that for me it is not "natural to suppose" any such thing.

The biblical account of Moses' visit with the Lord God atop Mt. Horeb is long and complex and one that I had to refresh myself on. So, I carefully read again Exodus chapters 19 through 32 to see whether the priest was correct. I found nothing to support the idea that Moses was able to see "what was passing elsewhere." What I did find was that God TOLD Moses what was passing elsewhere. And that is very much different from the Catholic teaching Donovan provides.

Exodus 32:7 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:

Exodus 32:8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

I checked the Douay-Rheims Old Testament and Exodus 32:7,8 read essentially the same as my KJV. Donovan's book carries the Nihil Obstat and Imprimitur, so we are assured that it has been reviewed by ecclesiastical authorities and was determined to contain nothing contrary to Roman Catholic doctrine. This must be an assurance that what Donovan wrote above at least parallels official RCC doctrine. If this is so, then Rome is wrong. Period.

The arguments and Scriptures the RCC uses to support the fantasy that the spirits of dead know what is going on – to some degree at least – and are available to intercede on behalf of the Catholic faithful still living on earth don't work. The premise is false.

Believers don't need to make contact with spirits of the dead to seek their intercession with God Almighty. As children of God, members of His family, we have the right to go boldly before the Throne of Grace with our petitions. We can appeal to our heavenly Father directly.

Hebrews 4:14 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession.

Hebrews 4:15 For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

Hebrews 4:16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.

Filthy Hands On The Body Of Christ


It seems not a month goes by that one does not read of some new revelation concerning the conduct of one or another Roman Catholic priest. Recently, the Diocese of Dallas was financially wrecked by the award of $120 million dollars to victims of convicted pedophile priest Rudy Kos. All told, the number of offenses alleged against Kos came to 1350 over an 11 year period.

Shortly after Kos' trial, the Archbishop of San Antonio made a public plea for funds to help the Archdiocese of San Antonio pay penalties and compensation awarded by local courts to the victims of two pedophile priests.

These are not isolated incidents. Within the past 20 months or so, the Diocese of Bridgeport (CT), was successfully sued by two victims of priestly child abuse in separate cases. A New Haven (CT) priest was successfully sued for sexually abusing a child. A diocese in Alabama and another in Springfield, (IL) and individual priests also were taken to court.

Jody Ericson, writing in the April 3, 1998 edition of the Providence Phoenix , reported the likely imminent ouster of long-time Rhode Island bishop Louis Gelineau in the wake of mounting sexual abuse scandals. Ericson reported that "some 40 rape and molestation suits have been filed against 13 priests in Rhode Island."

"Okay," say those inclined to turn a blind eye to such symptoms of depravity in the clergy and hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church, "there are bound to be a few bad apples who evade the close scrutiny of the the bishops and manage to get through seminary and be ordained to the priesthood. Their corrupt behavior should be viewed as the failings of individual men and not of the Catholic Church as a whole." On the surface, that sounds pretty good. On the surface.

Do officials of the RCC seek to "cover up" the aberrant sexual behavior of its priests? Let us examine the manner in which the various ordinaries are said to have dealt with the allegations and charges laid against priests under their authority. In San Antonio, claims surfaced that the Archdiocese was aware of the vile sexual preferences and behavior of at least one of the convicted priests but that rather than acting to protect children and others of the RCC faithful, simply transferred the offender to another parish.

Defrocked priest Rudy Kos claims he tried for years to tell officials something was wrong with him and that he needed help. He says he was told he was on his own. When he was 16, Kos was sent to a juvenile facility for deviant bevahior. He claims to have seen a number of psychiatrists who either could not or would not help him. He said he entered the priesthood seeking a refuge from homosexual feelings he had been having. Kos blames the RCC hierarchy, which he says betrayed him.

A suit against the Bridgeport (CT) Diocese was allowed to go to jury in spite of the abuse victim's age because there was an issue of fact as to whether the Diocese had fraudulently concealed the cause of the action. The Diocese was also ordered to pay $33,195 in sanctions for withholding evidence. (Martinelli v. Bridgeport Roman Catholic Diocese. No. 3:93 CV 1482 (Arterton, J.) U.S.D.C. , New Haven, August 26, 1997

In a recent Alabama case, a woman claimed, in a suit against a priest and the catholic diocese, that her parish priest sexually abused her as a child, and that one of his female followers raped her. The case was dismissed on a technicality involving the statute of limitations. (Alabama, Doe v. Roman Catholic Church , 656 So.2d 5 (La.App. 3 Cir. 1995)

One can only wonder how such monsters can become priests. However, once the pedophiles, fornicators and carousers within the "celibate" priesthood are identified, why does the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church appear to protect them, rather than separate them from the innocents they are charged to shepherd? Why does the RCC hierarchy appear to do nothing, or very little, to help them. Sending a depraved priest on a retreat to the "mother house" of his order, seems hardly enough. Certainly, merely transferring such a person to a different parish does nothing more than expose other innocents to his predatory behavior.

Perhaps one reason is that Catholicism does not require impeccability of its priests. In itself, of course, this is not unusual, for who can live a sin-free life? Certainly not this writer and, as we have seen over the past several years, not some who would preach from a Protestant pulpit. What makes a difference within the RCC is its failure or refusal to adhere to its own doctrine and laws. Scripture is quite clear as to God's opinion of those who willingly participate in deviant sexual behavior:





Leviticus 18:22, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination."

Leviticus 20:13, "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

There may be those who would argue that priestly pedophilia is not quite the same thing as homosexuality. I would agree. It is worse. In any case, the Lord God Almighty admits to no weaseling:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

The Lord has provided a golden parachute for those who turn aside from the reprobate life.

1 Corinthians 6:11-13, "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Meats for the belly, and the belly for meats: but God shall destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for fornication, but for the Lord; and the Lord for the body."

God forgives those who respond to His call and covers theirs sins with the shed blood of Christ, but He holds in low esteem those who, knowing Him turn back to their evil ways:

2 Peter 2:9-15, "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished: But chiefly them that walk after the flesh in the lust of uncleanness, and despise government. Presumptuous are they, selfwilled, they are not afraid to speak evil of dignities. Whereas angels, which are greater in power and might, bring not railing accusation against them before the Lord. But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption; And shall receive the reward of unrighteousness, as they that count it pleasure to riot in the day time. Spots they are and blemishes, sporting themselves with their own deceivings while they feast with you; Having eyes full of adultery, and that cannot cease from sin; beguiling unstable souls: an heart they have exercised with covetous practices; cursed children: Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness;"

The RCC, which is a law unto itself, has much to say concerning those to whom it accords the authority and power (according to her own dogma), to call Jesus Christ down from Heaven to reside in eucharistic wafers. To whom it calls alter Christus, or "another Christ." Compare the public behavior of the Roman Catholic hierarchy with the Canons of its own Law.

Can. 1395 §1 Apart from the case mentioned in can. 1394, a cleric living in concubinage, and a cleric who continues in some other external sin against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue which causes scandal, is to be punished with suspension. To this, other penalties can progressively be added if after a warning he persists in the offence, until eventually he can be dismissed from the clerical state.

Whoa! Just what does this mean? In the Catholic reckoning of the Decalogue, which conforms to the Augustinian model, the Sixth Commandment is: Thou shalt not commit adultery. Now, according to the Catholic understanding of adultery, it must involve sexual relations with a married person. Clearly, a 10-year-old altar boy is not likely to be married so, I suppose, according to the strict letter of the canon law, pedophilia involving a priest and such a child would not strictly be considered adultery.

Adultery is defined as carnal connection between a married person and one unmarried, or between a married person and the spouse of another. It is seen to differ from fornication in that it supposes the marriage of one or both of the agents. Nor is it necessary that this marriage be already consummated; it need only be what theologians call matrimonium ratum. Sexual commerce with one engaged to another does not, it is most generally held, constitute adultery. Again, adultery, as the definition declares, is committed in carnal intercourse. Nevertheless immodest actions indulged in between a married person and another not the lawful spouse, while not of the same degree of, guilt, are of the same character of malice as adultery (Sanchez, De Mat., L. IX. Disp. XLVI, n. 17). It must be added, however, that St. A1phonsus Liguori, with most theologians, declares that even between lawful man and wife adultery is committed when their intercourse takes the form of sodomy (S. Liguori L. III, n. 446). (Catholic Encyclopedia, copyright © 1913 by the Encyclopedia Press, Inc. Electronic version copyright © 1997 by New Advent, Inc. )

Continuing to read in Canon 1395:

§2 A cleric who has offended in other ways against the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, if the crime was committed by force, or by threats, or in public, or with a minor under the age of sixteen years, is to be punished with just penalties, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state if the case so warrants.

I suppose the questions here must be 1) is it adultery when a priest sexually abuses an altar boy; and 2) if it is, what would be a "just penalty"? Perhaps another question should be: If it isn't adultery, is it not still wrong?

Well, "Mother Church" has a sort of catchall canon to cover those ecclesiastical crimes not addressed specifically in the canon law. When you read the following, please give particular notice to under what conditions this law might be invoked.

Can. 1399 Besides the cases prescribed in this or in other laws, the external violation of divine or canon law can be punished, and with a just penalty, only when the special gravity of the violation requires it and necessity demands that scandals be prevented or repaired

In other words, take action as necessary to protect the RCC from unfavorable media attention.

Is the Roman Church unaware of the evil nature of the predatory actions of its pedophile priests against the children who serve at the altar? I think not, for in the Catholic Catechism, we read:

ARTICLE 4 - THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS 1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting "in order to be seen by men").

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

How can a pedophile or other sexual predator officiate at the Catholic Mass? How can a priest who, by even the Roman Catholic concept of justification, clearly has fallen out of grace be permitted to invoke priestly powers to call Christ down from Heaven to be offered yet again in the Eucharistic sacrifice? How can a priest who has fouled his soul with sexual sin take in his hands the consecrated wafer which is, according to RCC dogma, the real and substantial body, blood, soul and divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity? How can the Catholic faithful take this bread from his tainted hands?

Does not Scripture warn that those who partake of the Lord's Supper unworthily will incur God's wrath?

1 Corinthians 11:26-31, "For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord's death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged."

Catholic canon law holds to a similar position:

Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

This appears to cover those who continue to practice grave sins such as fornication, pedophilia, and the like, but what about the officiating priest? What about the man whom Catholics love to refer to as alter Christus? Does he not only call Christ down from His seat at the right side of the Father to become a communion wafer but actually partake of that wafer, that so-called body of Christ, in the Eucharistic sacrifice? Can someone guilty of persistent grave sin be qualified to do these things? Canon law states:

Can. 916 Anyone who is conscious of grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession, unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.

I am not prepared to address whether a "sacramental confession" of persistent and continuing grave sin qualifies a person to be another Christ. Nor will I address the issue of the validity of such a confession when the confessing sinner has every intention of continuing to sin in the same way. Let Rome's canon lawyers dispute over that. Suffice it that the Council of Trent addressed the effect of grave sin on one's standing with the grace of Christ:

Against the subtle wits of some also, who by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent, it must be maintained that the grace of justification once received is lost not only by infidelity, whereby also faith itself is lost, but also by every other mortal sin, though in this case faith is not lost; thus defending the teaching of the divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God not only unbelievers, but also the faithful [who are] fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liars with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners, and all others who commit deadly sins, from which with the help of divine grace they can refrain, and on account of which they are cut off from the grace of Christ. (Council of Trent, 6th Session, January 13, 1547, Decree Concerning Justification, Chapter XV)

Making the question as clear as possible, can a priest who is cut off from the grace of Christ because of persistent sexual sin truly celebrate the Eucharistic sacrifice that is the very heart of the Mass? Trent says he can and, moreover, that his standing with the Lord has no effect on the sacraments he confers or effects. Hard to believe, hunh?

Canon 12. If anyone says that a minister who is in mortal sin, though he observes all the essentials that pertain to the effecting or conferring of a sacrament, neither effects nor confers a sacrament, let him be anathema (Council of Trent, 7th Session, March 3, 1547, Decree Concerning the Sacraments, Canons on the Sacraments in General)

Those of you who in silence read the postings on this site, I entreat to search your hearts. Can you believe that Christ would choose to permit Himself to be controlled by the priestly incantations of a man guilty of such vile and persistent sin as pedophilia? Do you honestly believe that Christ, who is pure and holy, would submit to being handled and broken, when in cookie form, by the sinful hands of a depraved priest? When you take the consecrated host from the hands of the priestly celebrant of the Mass, can you be sure that those hands are spiritually clean? The canon law of the Roman Church requires that all Catholics diligently seek the truth in matters which concern God and His church.

Can. 748 §1 All are bound to seek the truth in the matters which concern God and his Church; when they have found it, then by divine law they are bound, and they have the right, to embrace and keep it



The Word of God makes the same charge to the faithful:

2 Timothy 2:15, "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."