Rev. John MacLeod, M.A.
A lecture given at the 1996 Theological Conference
Part 2 – The Teachings Based on Tradition
WE shall now direct attention to some of these special teachings – based on these sources – which the Church of Rome holds to be authoritative, beginning with papal rule and authority, described as being the very cornerstone of the doctrine of Roman Catholic tradition.
The claims of the Papacy
The Church of Rome claims to be the true Church of Christ and maintains that the See of Rome is divinely authorised to reign and rule over the universal Church with the power of infallibly determining what is and what is not to be regarded as acceptable in the realms of Christian doctrine and practice. This authority has been exercised through a succession of popes and bishops from the Apostle Peter; that, at least, is what is claimed.
Webster sums up papal claims in the following propositions which summarise what was determined by Vatican I, meeting in 1869-70:
- Christ gave Peter the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church as well as the entire world.
- Inherent in the primacy of jurisdiction is also an infallible teaching authority over the entire Church.
- This right of jurisdiction is passed down to Peter’s successors, the bishops of Rome, for all time.
- When speaking ex cathedra, that is, when speaking in his official capacity as pope, and defining a doctrine on a matter of faith or morals, the Roman pontiff teaches infallibly.
- The Roman pontiff has absolute authority in himself, possesses authority over all councils; his judgment cannot be questioned; he, himself, can be judged by no human tribunal.
- The Roman church has ever remained free from all blemish of error and the doctrines of the Catholic faith have always been kept undefiled by her.
- If any questions of faith arise within the Church universal they must be defined by the judgment of the Roman pontiff.
- It has at all times in the history of the Church been necessary that every Church throughout the world should agree with the Roman Church.
- These teachings have always been held by the entire church through all ages and can be validated by the scriptures, the canons of general councils and the unanimous consent of the fathers.
- It is necessary that everyone who professes to be a Christian must submit to the authority of the Roman pontiff in all areas of faith, morals and discipline, and if anyone disagrees with these teachings of Vatican I they are anathematized.
As far as Scripture authority for holding these views is concerned, Rome principally appeals, as is well known, to Matthew 16: 18-19 – “And I say also 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.” It is not possible within the confines of this paper to do much more than draw attention to what has been regarded as the Protestant – and correct – interpretation of this passage. Christ, in the light of Peter’s confession, and not Peter is the Rock. Without advertng to the argument based on the different genders of petros and petra in the Greek original, it can be proved from Peter’s own interpretation of the Saviour’s declaration (as that is found in his First Epistle) that Christ, not Peter, was the living stone, the elect, precious chief cornerstone. From the same Epistle it is equally evident that Peter did not regard himself as invested with power over the other apostles. He was their fellow elder and certainly not setting himself up as a lord over God’s heritage. “There is absolutely nothing in this passage,” Webster writes, “which speaks of successors to Peter and the passing on of his personal prerogatives to them. The keys, rather than signifying the institution of the papacy and supreme authority to rule the Church and the world, are representative of the authority to exercise discipline in the Church and to proclaim the Gospel, declaring the free forgiveness of sins in the Lord Jesus Christ. Such a declaration opens the kingdom of God to men or, if they reject the message, closes it to them. The keys are not the possession of a single individual, for exactly the same authority which Christ promises to Peter he also grants to the other apostles. They are all given authority to bind or loose by declaring the forgiveness of sins through Christ.”
Vatican I claimed that it could validate its claims by drawing attention to the practice of the Church down though the ages and also by claiming the support of the early Fathers and their universal consent. But history proves otherwise. Webster shows that over the first two centuries not one of the early Fathers held the views of Vatican I and the overwhelming majority of the Fathers of the entire patristic age all disagree with the Roman Catholic Church’s interpretation of the previously-cited passage in Matthew’s gospel. However dominant a role Peter played in the early development of the New Testament Church, there is no evidence that he was regarded as its undisputed head and ruler. It was James, not Peter, who presided over the Jerusalem Council and if Peter was infallible and beyond criticism when it came to pronouncing on matters related to faith and morals, how was it that Paul found it necessary in Antioch to withstand him to the face, because he was to be blamed? If Scripture and the early history of the Church provide an abundance of evidence to show that the claims of papal authority and infallibility are untenable, we may well ask how was it that later popes managed to assert their authority over the Western Church and came to enthrone themselves in the Vatican, resplendent in gorgeous robes and crowned in turn with the three-tiered tiara? Paul, writing as moved by the Holy Ghost, drew attention in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians to the fact that “the mystery of iniquity” was already working even in his day but then goes on to speak of one standing in the way and so hindering its full revelation and development. “He who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way.” Most sound interpreters identify this person, or succession of persons, with the Roman Emperor and, historically, it was the collapse of the Roman Empire that paved the way for Antichrist to occupy the seat left vacant. The establishment of this usurped dominion was also greatly facilitated by the production of the notorious ninth century literary forgery known as The Pseudo-Isodorian Decretals. This collection of documents contains “a fabrication of Church history which set forth precedents for the exercise of sovereign authority by the popes over the universal Church throughout the centuries,” and they, in combination with two other major forgeries, The Donation of Constantine and The Liber Pontificalis, were, in the eleventh century codified into a system of canon law which elevated the then reigning pope and all his successors to the position of absolute monarch over the Western Church. “These writings,” we are told, “were then utilised by Gratian and incorporated into his Decretum in the twelfth century. “By this means they became the basis of all canon law in the Church as well as the foundation for all scholastic theology relating to the Church.” It is only by distorting or ignoring historical facts that the myth of papal infallibility has been perpetuated. It can be shown that Popes always erred and that Fathers and councils never regarded the bishops of Rome to be infallible. Some of the bishops present at Vatican I were ready to admit this and were honest enough to vote against the issuing of these decrees. Webster draws attention to example after example of papal fallibility over the centuries. In the seventeenth century two of them, for instance, in turn censured Galileo for teaching the Copernican theory of the solar system. It took a long time but it is now officially accepted by Rome that this was a grave error. So much then for papal infallibility! We now pass on to consider:
Mariolatry
It is well known that the present incumbent of the papal chair is much given to Mariolatry and that, for instance, he attributes his survival of an assassination attempt to her personal intervention in his behalf. The bullet removed from his body is reported to be now among the artifacts laid up at the Fatima shrine in Portugal. What is taught in the Roman Catholic Church with regard to Mary has of course no Scriptural basis whatever, nor can there be found, even in its historic tradition, what might be taken as support for the dogmas which have been promulgated. Her immaculate conception, her assumption into heaven and her present mediatorial role are dogmas which were, nevertheless, in 1854 and 1950, declared authoritatively to be truths revealed by God and necessary to be believed for salvation. As neither Scripture nor tradition can be appealed to as sanctioning Mariolatry the Roman Catholic Church has to maintain that it is based on new revelations and that is an even greater departure from the principle of sola scriptura. “From the early years of the Church,” Webster tells us, “some writers such as Irenaeus began to stress Mary’s humble obedience to God as the antithesis of Eve’s folly, thus elaborating upon the Biblical antithesis between Christ and Adam. At a time when there was growing veneration of martyrs, Mary also began to be viewed as one who should be specially honoured because of her unique relationship to the Lord, and slowly she became more and more exalted in the consciousness of the people. She was therefore accorded hyperdulia, the highest degree of veneration, as opposed to mere dulia which belongs to all saints and angels, and latria, which is due to God alone.”
“Yet,” Webster continues, “there is not the slightest evidence that there was a cult of Mary or a worship of her person in these early centuries. The real turning point in the doctrine of Mary came with the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD, when Mary was declared to be the ‘Mother of God’ (theotokos). This was not initially intended to exalt Mary so much as to exalt the Lord Jesus Christ and preserve the truth of His divinity. However, just as the portrayal of Mary as being antithetical to Eve was distorted by the unbiblical way that Mary was seen to contribute to our salvation, so this changed emphasis opened up the possibility of a growing exaltation of Mary herself. The veneration became so great that eventually she was believed to have been immaculately conceived. The next step was for her to be exalted to the position of co-redemptrix and co-mediatrix with Christ. Mariology had clearly led to Mariolatry.”
That Mary was in the same spiritual state as all are who are descended from Adam by ordinary generation and in need of salvation both from original and actual sin is clear from her own declaration, “My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” The doctrine that she was immaculately conceived and thus free from original sin was taught first of all by Pelagius and his disciple Celestius and we are assured that not one single early church Father agreed with it. Even Popes and theologians such as Bernard of Clairvaux, Bede, Anselm and even Thomas Aquinas repudiated the views of Pelagius so it remains a mystery how the Roman Catholic faithful can possibly believe in a doctrine which is not found in either of the two sources which they appeal to as authoritative – not to mention the fact that the unanimous consent of the Fathers is altogether absent – but was formulated by one ‘infallible’ pope who, in doing so, plainly contradicted other ‘infallible’ popes of the past. The doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is likewise entirely unsubstantiated. That she gave birth to other children seems clear from Scripture. We are told that the One she wrapped in swaddling clothes and laid in a manger was “her firstborn son.” The Greek word translated ‘firstborn’ is prototokos and Webster points out that when it refers to children it means the first to be born. Moreover the Bible tells us quite clearly that Jesus of Nazareth had brothers and sisters and to say that the words used refer exclusively to cousins is not tenable. It suited Rome to preach that celibacy was a higher spiritual state than that of marriage. Her nunneries and monasteries, vital sources of revenue, would then be provided with the personnel required to keep them in operation. Now apparently with the searchlight of investigative journalism being turned on these institutions as well as the priesthood, the Roman Catholic Church is encountering recruiting difficulties. Now we are hearing noises coming from several quarters suggesting that celibacy is not a closed issue after all and that the Pope has set up a forum for debating it. “It is not divine law,” Cardinal Hume recently said without blinking, “it is Church law, so any Pope or general council could change it.” As for the doctrine of the assumption of Mary body and soul to heaven, either without dying or shortly after death, even a prominent Roman Catholic writer (Eamon Duffy) has conceded that “there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it . . .” Yet, in 1950, Pius XII in his decree, declared it to be a dogma revealed by God. He justifies himself on the ground that it seemed reasonable that Mary should be thus dealt with and that nothing was impossible with God! In the very teeth of what the Bible explicitly teaches of Christ as the one Mediator between God and men, the Roman Catholic Church assigns Mary the place of a co-mediatrix with titles and attributes which place her on an equality with Him. We move on to the matter of:
Salvation
If Arminianism is, according to Principal Cunningham, a scheme for dividing or partitioning the salvation of sinners between God and sinners themselves,” then, in Roman Catholicism we have the very essence of it. “Martin Luther,” James Buchanan wrote, “described the doctrine of justification as “an article of faith that decides whether a church is standing or falling. By this he meant that when this doctrine is understood, believed and preached, as it was in New Testament times, the church stands in the grace of God and is alive; but where it is neglected, overlaid, or denied, as it was in mediaeval Catholicism, the church falls from grace and its life drains away, leaving it to a state of darkness and death. The reason why the Reformation happened, and Protestant churches came into being, was that Luther and his fellow Reformers believed that papal Rome had apostatised from the Gospel so completely in this respect that no faithful Christian could with a good conscience continue within her ranks.” Rome’s faith, that is, the grace of faith has come to be defined within her pale as “belief in the Church itself and its teachings,” and justification “is not a finished act with permanent consequences, but a process in which an individual works to stay in what the Roman Church calls a ‘state of grace’.” A full blown sacramental system has replaced God’s instituted means of communicating salvation to perishing sinners. The number of the sacraments has been increased to seven – baptism, confirmation, the eucharist, penance, ordination, marriage and extreme unction and an exclusive priesthood, along Old Testament lines, has been set in place to act as “a mediating agency between God and people.” Ordination confers upon the priest the right to teach and govern and is supposed to place an indelible mark upon the individual concerned which he can never lose. It is plain that there is no basis in Scripture for such an institution. According to Rome, the sacrament of Baptism (to quote Webster) “is perceived as the means of receiving four basic gifts: the remission of sins, deliverance from death, regeneration, and the bestowal of the Holy Spirit.” As a refutation it will be sufficient to quote the Shorter Catechism, “Baptism is a sacrament, wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ, and partaking of the benefits of the covenant of grace, and our engagement to be the Lord’s.” The early Church knew nothing of baptismal regeneration, auricular confession, penance, purgatory, indulgences and the whole sacramental system now in operation would not have been owned by the early Fathers. It was the Council of Trent that entrenched the Church of Rome in error, and there it remains to this day, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men and placing all within her pale and devoted to her under a new yoke of bondage. We pass on to consider:
The Eucharist
Rome’s doctrine of the Eucharist was first given dogmatic expression at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. “It was then,” as Webster reminds us, “that the Church formally adopted the doctrine of transubstantiation. Quoting the Council of Trent again, “In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the mass, that same Christ is contained and immolated in an unbloody manner on the altar of the cross.” Without referring just now to the passages of Scripture with which we are already familiar, and which plainly condemn the Tridentine statement, attention may be drawn to the fact that the unanimous consensus of the early Fathers is not there to support it. Tertullian denied the real presence of Christ in the sacrament; the elements were, in his view, symbolical or representative of spiritual realities. “Augustine,” Webster tells us, “argued that the sacraments, including the eucharist, are signs and figures which represent or symbolise spiritual realities. He made a distinction between the physical, historical body of Christ and the sacramental presence, maintaining that Christ’s physical body could not literally be present in the sacrament of the eucharist because he is physically at the right hand of God in heaven, and will be there until he comes again. But Christ is spiritually with his people. Augustine viewed the eucharist in spiritual terms and he interpreted the true meaning of eating and drinking as being faith: ‘To believe on Him is to eat the living bread. He that believes eats; he is sated invisibly, because invisibly is he born again.’ Clearly, if Augustine had lived after The Council of Trent he would have come under its anathema!
To sum up – paraphrasing Webster to a great extent – the Roman Catholic Church, through its legalistic teachings, has invalidated the finished work of Christ in salvation. By elevating Mary to the position of a Mediatrix and Queen, and the Pope to be visible head of the Church, it has set aside the Biblical teaching that Christ is the only Head and Sovereign. By encouraging the worship of Mary it has promoted idolatry. By its teaching on the sacraments and the priesthood, it has undermined the sufficiency of Christ’s vicarious sacrifice. In its teaching on justification it has shifted the foundation for salvation from the imputed righteousness of Christ to imparted grace which enables sinners to merit heaven by their own works. Through its teaching on asceticism and purgatory it has embraced the influences of Pagan philosophy. “In short,” Webster says, “by elevating the teachings of men in its tradition to a place of authority equal to the Scriptures, it has displaced God’s authority with its own.”
It has been weighed in the balances and found wanting.