By the REV. FRANCIS A. SCHAEFFER, Switzerland.
I was in Rome from 30th October to 1st November of this year, 1950. Come with me and observe the most important event in the history of the Roman Catholic Church.
ROME AND AUTHORITY.
Why was 1st November, 1950, so important a day in the eyes of the Roman Church? The answer is simple but most far-reaching in its effects. The day was important because in defining the Dogma of the Assumption of Mary the Roman Catholic Church has knowingly and openly declared something to be a dogma which they acknowledge has no Biblical nor defensible historic foundation. They have embarked on the “Living Church” concept in a way from which there can be no turning back. We say they have done this previously, for example, in 1854 in the declared Dogma of Mary’s Immaculate Conception or in 1870 in the proclamation of the Vatican Council concerning the infallibility of the Pope. But previously they themselves have claimed to argue from some Biblical or historical point, as weak or as far-fetched as that point might actually be. In the present dogma they admit that this is not the case. Thus, when the Protestant Alliance of England wrote to the Pope on 27th October and challenged him to show any Biblical or historical basis for the new Dogma, they did a commendable thing in pointing out this lack to Protestants, but the Roman Church would not be embarrassed. The importance of 1st November, 1950, is that on that day the Roman Catholic Church passed a milestone; from now on, it can declare anything to be dogma without appeal to objective sources.
A booklet handed out at Saint Peter’s Square on 1st November, reads: the truth of the Assumption “became little by little ever clearer and more explicit, until reaching that full splendour made manifest in recent
* Rev. F. A. Schaeffer, an American, resident in Switzerland, is connected with the Council of Christian Churches and is a Fundamentalist and strong Protestant. He offered this article for publication and our thanks are due to him.—Editor.
times when the bishops of the Catholic world—on being officially interrogated by the Supreme Pontiff—declared with almost unanimous accord that Mary’s Assumption into Heaven is a truth revealed by God, that it can be defined, and that now is the right moment to define it.
“By proclaiming the dogma of the Assumption, the Pope makes us certain with a divinely guaranteed certainty that the most Holy Virgin Mary lives body and soul in the glory of Heaven.” Above I quote at some length from the Pope’s statement to the cardinals and bishops as they met in their solemn meeting on the Monday before the first of November. Also I quoted from the Papal Bull. In effect in all three of these, and in other official pronouncements, they said that the certainty of the truth of the Dogma rests on a poll of what the faithful believed through several hundred years past and what they believe to-day. The emphasis rests upon the “almost unanimous chorus.” When there was almost unanimous agreement, nothing more was needed for a man to speak in God’s name and to declare that because he so spoke Mary would be wreathed with a new splendour.
All that is needed as the basis of authority is that “the Living Church” should be in reasonable agreement over a long enough period of time.
This is the reason that well-known Roman Catholic theologians such as J. Coppens, C. van Crombrugghe, Marckelbach, and so on, can say without apology that the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary cannot be proved by the Bible, historical fact, or even tradition, and yet say that they believe in it. A Roman Catholic can agree that the story of Thomas’s return and Mary’s tomb being opened has no proof, but that does not matter; that the De Transitu Virginis Mariae of the fourth century was condemned as heretical by Pope Gelasius in the fifth century, but that does not matter; that the story of the fifth century Emperor Marcian and the Empress Pulcheria in relation to this has no historical basis, but that does not matter; that the belief in this teaching cannot be proved to go back any further than the end of the fourth century, but that does not matter. A Roman Catholic can even agree that Epiphanius, Tertullian, Origen, and Augustine withstood the trend toward the worship of Mary, and it still does not matter, because the Church is “a Living Church” and it is possible for it to increase in light. This phrase, “a Living Church,” is not of my invention, but the Roman Catholics themselves are using it to designate that the Roman Catholic Church can have truth revealed to it without scriptural basis.
The Roman Catholic simply says: “The Church has said that Mary was immaculate; therefore her body was immaculate, therefore it could not see corruption, therefore her body must have gone to heaven just as Christ’s body did.” It is clear that the “therefores” of this series, or any parallel series, can go on indefinitely.
ROME AND MARY.
According to the Bible, Mary indeed had a high and unique privilege. She was the only virgin mother; she was the Jewish maiden who had come to her what all devout Jewish maidens hoped would come to them; she was the mother of the Messiah. It is wrong to minimise her blessedness. But the Bible also carefully sets a bound on her honour. Her name is not even mentioned in the Gospel written by John, even though he had
béen given the special care of Mary. After the history of Jesus’s birth her name is not mentioned again in the Gospel of Luke. Matthew and Mark only mention her later in quoting the Jews who use the fact that she is the mother of Jesus in a way minimising to Jesus. When Jesus speaks to her, He calls her “woman,” the same term he used in speaking to other women; and when men would have interrupted his ministry in order that He might talk to her, He said, “For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” The last the Bible speaks of Mary she is in the upper room praying with the disciples before Pentecost. Then the curtain of oblivion falls upon her. We cannot be sure where she lived or when and where she died.
In sharp contrast, in the Roman Church, Mary has been given a higher and higher place. With the definition of the Dogma of the Assumption she has been elevated close to the level of the Trinity. The virgin birth of Christ has been given to her under the title, “the Immaculate Conception,” and so has Christ’s unique freedom from original sin been bestowed upon her by the Roman Church. Now the unique mark of Christ’s body raised without corruption has also been given to her. The Pope during these recent ceremonies has designated her as: “the Queen of Heaven and Earth,” and spoke of her radiant brow in heaven; he said that she is resplendent in heaven, that she is seated next to the sun, that she is the celestial Mother, that in heaven she is acclaimed Queen by all the choirs of Angels and by all the hosts of Saints, that she contemplates the Trinity face to face, that we are all the sons of Mary, that she is the new Eve and Mother of the living, that she is the Mother of mankind, that she is our guide, strength and consolation, that her mercy gives us solace. When he wrote of her he spelled “Her” with a capital. Previously this Pope has said that she reigns with Christ.
At Saint Mary Major all the Holy Year pilgrims call Mary: “Saint Mother of God; Mother of the divine grace; Mother of the Creator; Virgin powerful; Cause of our joy; Door of Heaven; Star of the morning; Refuge of sinners; Queen of the angels; Queen of the prophets; Queen of the apostles; Queen of the martyrs; Queen of all the saints.” At Saint Mary Major they also pray essentially the same prayer to Mary that is prayed at the other three basilicas.
A booklet sold in Rome for the celebration of the definition of the Dogma of the Assumption, bearing Ecclesiastical approval, shows a series of pictures with accompanying text in Italian, French, English, Spanish, and German. The first page pictures Satan falling down before Mary as she stands resplendent before him. The second page says that after Jesus ascended into heaven that she “remained among the Apostles as a guide, teacher and mother,” and shows her teaching as they sit at her feet. The third page states, “The Motherly Heart of Mary was a source of strength for the bereft and persecuted Apostles.” A picture on this page is of the Apostles as they come as broken men. Another picture shows her flying through the air to heaven as the heavenly host watches and says, “She flew to Her God with Her glorious body like a shot arrow.” The next picture is of her standing on the moon, surrounded by a circle of stars, with a host of angels beyond, and says, “Singing trains of Angels followed Her up to the highest of Heavens.” On the following page she
is shown above Moses, John the Baptist, and all the saints, and the text says, “The Patriarchs, the Prophets, the Saints saw Her and exulted.” The picture on the next page pictures her in the midst of the Trinity, the Father with a triangular halo, the Holy Spirit as a dove, Christ a little lower with a round halo, with a crown in His hands, and Mary with a round halo; and the text says, “In the august presence of the Holy Trinity, the Son said to His Mother: Come, We crown Thee! Thine is the universe!” The next page shows her sitting on the throne with Christ standing behind her, the Dove above her head, and the Father with a triangular halo above them all. All about are hosts of angels. The words below the picture are, “She resides with the Holy Trinity, amid the ceaseless jubilation of the heavenly Spirits.”
I do not write these things to shock you. I want to ask you a question. What heathen goddess has been given a more exalted place by her devotees? She is not a goddess in Roman Catholic dogma, but she surely is in practice.
ROME AND HEATHENISM.
Maryology, like other corruptions in Roman Catholicism, can be traced back to the ancient heathenisms. The use of the more and more favoured title, “The Queen of Heaven,” and the older title, “Our Lady,” and the emphasis in Mary worship on the moon and the stars are indications of this. The Maryology of Rome is not related to the Mary of the Bible but to the Latin and Greek goddesses of Europa, Selene, Diana Luna, Diana the Huntress (not to be confused with the Ephesian Diana); the Phoenician Astarte, which was a snare to the Jews from the time of the Judges on and which is spoken against in Jeremiah under the title, “The Queen of Heaven,” and to whom the Jewish women made moon-shaped cakes (Jeremiah vii, 18; xlv, 17-25); the Babylonian goddess Istar; and the Egyptian goddess Isis, who was so often shown with her son on her lap.
Roman Catholicism is not Christianity; it is an illegitimate child born of the unlawful mixture of Paganism and Christianity. This mixture started in the time of Constantine and has continued until now, for practical purposes, the Roman Catholic Church has a goddess. When Constantine began to make Christianity respectable, the statues of heathen gods were given new heads and hands (and sometimes not even that) and were said to represent Christian saints. Constantine himself began Christian buildings (for example, his basilica, which was replaced by the present Saint Peter’s one thousand two hundred years later), and at the same time continued as High Priest, Pontifex Maximus, of the pagan state religion. The trappings of heathen worship were added to the Christian services. The mediation of saints followed the pagan system of a series of mediators. Pagan holidays were brought over, such as the heathen May festivals which became the Maggio Festival in Florence.
There is no way to feel the full impact of the growth of the Roman Church out of heathen Rome like having adequate time in Rome itself. As the Roman Catholic Church took over the buildings of heathen Rome, she took over its ideas. As the present Saint Peter’s grew out of a heathen cemetery, as the Pope’s stronghold, Sant’Angelo, was originally Hadrian’s tomb, as the Roman Catholic Church of the Pantheon was the heathen Pantheon of Rome, as Saint Mary’s in Aracoeli rests upon the hill which
was the religious centre of ancient Rome, as the Temple of Vestal Virgins is now dedicated to Mary, so Roman Catholicism grew out of the heathenism which Paul denounced.
ROME AND CAESAR.
Roman Catholicism is a Romanised Christianity. It is a sect with a Roman colouring. It should have been localised in Rome, but by the flow of history it has spread into all the world. At the Basilica of Saint Peter one of the songs which the pilgrims sing begins, “Noble city of Rome, O Mistress of the World,” and indeed that expresses their view. The Popes have grasped the Caesar’s reins and have grown until their claims and pomp in Caesar’s city out-Caesar Caesar. Romanism is a Sovereign State, and its grasp reaches into almost every country. The official language is the same which the Caesars spoke, and all its leaders must speak two tongues, that of their mother country, and as well, Latin, the official language of this other state. The Caesars were chiefly political but were also the High Priests of the State’s religion. The Popes are chiefly religious, but are also the Head of their State. The Pope, as the Head of a Sovereign State, receives ambassadors from other Sovereign States in order that the Pope can care for the interest of his religious subjects who are at the same time citizens of the State in which they live. Rome is a religio-political State, totalitarian in its form of government. Thus the Pope in his pomp and power reaches into lands beyond the ancient Caesars’ reign. Roman Catholicism is, then, a Romanised sect of Christianity, born in Rome, coloured by Rome, which has overrun much of the world.
ROME AND THE PROTESTANT “LIBERALS”.
When the Pope announced that he would pronounce the Assumption of Mary to be a Dogma, many of the “Liberal Protestants,” who have been calling Rome a “sister Church” and urging Rome to join the World Council of Churches, said that the declaration of this Dogma by the Pope would make it more difficult for Rome and them to come together. To the contrary, this act of Rome actually brings Rome and the “Liberals” (that is, Modernists or Rationalists, either the older type or the so-called neo-Orthodox) closer together. It adds one more difference in Dogma, but brings them closer together in that both the Protestant Liberals and the Roman Catholic Church are now committed completely to the “Living Church” concept. To the Protestant Liberals, when the millions of the World Council of Churches come together and reach agreement, the “Living Church” has spoken, and it becomes the voice of God. My paper on “The New Modernism,” given at the International Council of Christian Churches’ Congress in Geneva, considers this in detail. Now the Roman Catholic Church has, in the defining of this Dogma of the Assumption of Mary, openly passed in a more clear way than ever before into this same field of authority. To Rome when the faithful agree completely enough and long enough, then it becomes the voice of God in the “Living Church.” The Roman Catholic does have more stability and direction than the modernistic Protestant, for in Catholicism’s poll is included not only what the faithful who are now alive believe, but what the faithful of the past believed. Thus, Rome is in a stronger position than the Modernists who (through Barth, the Lund Theologians, and the New Modernists generally)
have retreated into the irrationalism of dividing historic and religious truth in order to salvage some authority. But basically Rome and the Modernists are closer than they seem, because “The Living Church” concept controls them both.
It is not that we, Bible-believing Christians, stand midway in a line between the Modernists and Rome; they together stand on one end of the line, with a subjective authority of a “Living Church,” and we stand at the other end of the line, with the objective authority of the Bible as the Word of God, the only rule of faith and practice. The Modernists want unity on the basis of “it does not matter what you believe”; the Roman Catholics want unity on the basis of “return and all will be forgiven.” Both want an external unity; both have the same basic type of authority. Either sufficient time or sufficient external pressure could bring them together.
ROME AND US.
As I stood in the Piazza of Saint Peter’s, I was impressed by the crowds. The crowd in Saint Peter’s Square stretched on seemingly without end. In the light of Rome’s claims, crowds, and magnificence, each Christian should come to a careful, prayerful, and studied personal conclusion—is Romanism right or wrong? If it is right, we should hurry back. If it is wrong, we should gird ourselves anew for the battle. A lukewarm position is impossible here. It will not do to call Rome a “sister Church,” and then stay out of it. Either she is right or she is a revolting perversion.
If, after a careful study of the Bible as God’s Word, we Bible-believing Christians are sure we are right, then we are in a battle for the souls of men. It is people who make Rome great. If the crowds had been taken out of Saint Peter’s Square on 1st November, the pomp would have been a mockery. Polemics are needed, but soul winning among the Romanists is also needed. The Reformers had both, and we must too if our stand against Rome is to mean what it should. We do not believe in an authority based on a “Living Church”; but the Churches made up of Bible-believing Christians should be living. The cardinals bow to kiss the Pope’s slipper; are we in constant obedience at the feet of Christ? The Bible is our authority; do we only march under it as a banner, or do its standards control our lives? Christ wept over Jerusalem, because the people had no shepherd; have we ever shed a tear for those who are under the rule of Rome? These may live beside us as neighbours in a civilised modern country, but religiously they are bound by the yoke Paul gave his all to break, as he preached to the Gentiles the wonder of a free salvation, through faith, based only on the finished work of Christ.
The hearts of believers are like the needle touched by the loadstone, which cannot rest until it comes to the point whereunto, by the sweet virtue of it, it is directed; for being once touched by the love of Christ, receiving therein an impression of sweet, ineffable virtue, they will ever be in motion and restless, until they come unto Him and behold His glory. That soul which can be satisfied without it, that cannot be eternally satisfied with it, is not partaker of the efficacy of His intercession.
—Dr. Owen.