New Dogma of the Roman Catholic Church.
On the 14th of August, 1950, an announcement from Rome declared that a new dogma of the Roman Catholic Church would be promulgated after a secret conclave to be held at the end of October, at which the Pope would preside. This new dogma is: “The doctrine of the bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary into Heaven is to be made an Article of Faith.” Roman Catholic sources record that belief in the Assumption goes back at least to 400 A.D. and Gregory of Tours put this belief in writing about 594 A.D. This unscriptural, superstitious and unfounded doctrine is based upon pure conjecture and myth. It is said that the Lord Jesus Christ appeared with His angels, as the apostles watched by the death-bed of Mary, and committed her soul to the Archangel Michael. Next day, the apostles were bearing her body to the grave when Jesus appeared again, and carried it to heaven, where soul and body were re-united. This supposed reunion of her body with her soul is the dogma the Pope will declare to be an Article of Faith on November 1st, 1950. Roman Catholics have been taught all these lies for centuries, and there has been held the Feast of the Assumption to establish the dupes of Rome in belief of these fairy tales. Now the Assumption is to be no more merely a “pious opinion,” but a binding doctrine upon all Roman Catholics. Of course, there is absolutely no warrant from the Holy Scriptures for this extravagant and extraordinary story. And if there was conclusive evidence in the view of the R.C. Church hundreds of years ago, why is it only at this late date that the Assumption is to be declared a dogma? May the answer, in part, be that they dare this step to boost so-called “Holy Year” and thus dazzle the minds of the subservient, superstitious and faithful followers of the Pope with this new ecclesiastical sensation, to hold them under the influence of Roman Catholic belief regarding the blasphemous views that that Church holds of the Virgin Mary. The poor Roman Catholic depends so much upon the idolatrous worship of Mary that this bold assertion by the Pope will no doubt have in view the strengthening of the already deceived against modern materialism, which is attacking to-day the other extreme, viz., Roman religious superstition, lies, hypocrisy and oppression. Even the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, speaking for the Church of England, have expressed the view that this new dogma will constitute a further barrier to more friendly relations between the two Churches. The “lying wonders” of the Vatican are being publicised to-day to a sceptical and critical generation outwith the borders of the Roman Church, who will but ridicule religion the more. And as to those who are well grounded in the knowledge of the Scriptures and have all their hope and confidence for salvation set upon Christ Himself, these untrue and arrogant teachings of the Pope will but serve to emphasise to them the dangers of popery to the souls of men and its utter disregard of the light of God’s Word.
The Death of Field-Marshall Smuts.
Field-Marshall Jan Christian Smuts, the South African statesman, died on Monday, the 11th September, 1950. It is appropriate that we should record the death of this renowned personality, at the ripe age of 80 years. His father was a prosperous farmer of the Dutch community in South Africa. Smuts received part of his education in England, at College in Cambridge. He returned to South Africa to practise as a lawyer. As is well known, he fought with Kruger and Botha against Britain in the Boer War; but as time went on and world events took place affecting the British nation and Colonies, General Smuts became a wise, strong and highly respected friend of Britain. During the 1914-18 War he rose to further eminence as a soldier and statesman on the side of the Allies; and since then, his name, character, and views, as a statesman of world-wide repute, have been increasingly held in the highest esteem by all classes of sober-minded persons, in this country. As to religion and morals, General Smuts has been credited with giving a prior place to the Bible, and after this to Plato’s writings. It does seem to us that he was more the philosopher than a Bible-Christian; and it is regrettable that his body was to be cremated, according to a B.B.C. announcement. Yet in affairs of State he was, in the providence of God, an outstanding man in his day, and a man of integrity as to his outward moral character in that sphere of activity in which his gifts were employed. Men of his type are not being raised up to-day to govern and direct in the affairs of nations. Is this one aspect of divine judgment? “For, behold, the Lord, the Lord of hosts, doth take away from Jerusalem and from Judah . . . the mighty man, and the man of war, the judge, and the prophet, and the prudent, and the ancient . . . and I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them” (Isaiah iii, 1-4).
Dance Music and Church Services.
In a recent issue we quoted what the Editorial Opinion in the Daily Express had to say of an English clergyman’s criticism of the Old Testament. The Daily Express sharply and rightly criticised the offending clergyman. The Daily Express on 8th August last, takes to task another minister of religion, Rev. W. G. Hargrave-Thomas, of Suffolk, whose congregation now sings hymns to the strains of modern dance music, because he seeks brightness in his services. The Editorial continues: “Is this a progressive move on the part of a country vicar? It is nothing of the kind . . . and it is a movement which is completely to be condemned. The Church will continue to be weak as long as it puts too much emphasis on making services agreeable. And too little on the faith by which it lives. If people want to hear dance music they will go to a dance-hall. If they come to Church, it should be because they want to hear the Word of God.” We heartily welcome these words from this daily paper, inasmuch as they focus attention upon the primary reason for attending the Church, that is, to hear the Word of God; and upon the evil to-day of introducing so much of a worldly and vain character into the worship of the Holy One of Eternity. We would be much heartened by a continuance of such sober observations on the part of the press. The press will lose nothing by reminding the public of the “old paths,” and will be performing a valuable service in our opinion.
Mixed Marriages.
The Jesuit Fathers made a law, through the Vatican, whereby a Papist could marry a Protestant. The Protestant must sign a document declaring that any children must be brought up in the Roman Catholic faith, before the marriage is sanctioned by the priest. The priest retains this document and holds the parents to ransom ever after. The careless Protestant may think little or nothing of what he has done; not so the Church of Rome and her agent the priest. Here is a subtle gin and snare which gains thousands per annum to the “Church,” at the expense of Protestantism. The child is “sold” before he or she is born (by the unnatural parent), to become a born slave in the service of Popery. What a shame! The devil works on the passions which for the time being blot out the most precious gospel precepts and moral principles. “Marriage is honourable in all,” but the Protestant should not sacrifice religious liberties for the sake of marriage. The Romanist should give up his or her religion, as it is pagan and non-Christian. Their saviour-God is a woman whom they call “Mary.” If the Roman Catholic man or woman is in genuine, natural love with a Protestant, he or she will not tolerate the “Church,” Pope or priest to interfere. If not, the Church and priest come first, and the life-partner comes second. That will mean life-long discord and bad feeling, as the priest, “Church,” mass and confession must be the supreme objects of the Papists. It will not matter what promises the “holy father,” “Mother Church,” and “toy-Mary” make, they will have the first and last consideration.
Should then a Protestant marry a Papist? NEVER! If the Roman Catholic for ever gives up “Mother Church,” then and not till then is the Protestant free in conscience to marry such an one, who was once a pagan Roman Catholic.—J. MacL.