Roman Catholic Teaching

 

I will begin by presenting a list taken from a Facebook posting, and while I am unable to guarantee the dates given, I am convinced that the items are accurate.

​

300 AD: Prayers for the dead

300 AD: Making the sign of the cross

375 AD: Veneration of angels and dead saints

375AD: Use of images in worship

394 AD: The Mass as a daily celebration

431 AD: The exultation of Mary as the “Mother of God”

526 AD: Extreme Unction (last rites)

593 AD: Doctrine of Purgatory

600 AD: Prayers to Mary and dead saints

786 AD: Worship of the cross, images and relics

995 AD: Canonization of dead saints

1079 AD: The celibacy of the Priesthood

1090 AD: The Rosary

1090 AD: Indulgences

1215 AD: Transubstantiation

1215 AD: Confession of sins to a priest

1220 AD: Adoration of the wafer (Body of Christ)

1416 AD: ‘The Cup’ forbidden to the people

1439 AD: Purgatory proclaimed as dogma

1545 AD: Tradition established as equal with the Bible

1546 AD: Apocryphal books added to the Bible

1854 AD: The “Immaculate Conception” of Mary

1870 AD: Infallibility of the Pope in faith and morals

1950 AD: The bodily assumption of the Virgin Mary

1965 AD: Mary proclaimed “The Mother of the Church”

​

There are very many things we could look at, but let’s start by checking the Roman Catholic teaching on Mary’s perpetual virginity. One would have thought the passage in Matthew settles the matter beyond doubt:

 

Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son. And he called His name JESUS.

Matthew 1:24–25

 

However, the Roman Catholics have different ideas:

 

"Scripture’s statement that Joseph “knew [Mary] not until she brought forth her firstborn” would not necessarily mean they did “know” each other after she brought forth Jesus. Until is often used in Scripture as part of an idiomatic expression similar to our own usage in English. I may say to you, “Until we meet again, God bless you.” Does that necessarily mean after we meet again, God curse you? By no means. A phrase like this is used to emphasize what is being described before the until is fulfilled. It is not intended to say anything about the future beyond that point. Here are some biblical examples:

2 Samuel 6:23: And Michal the daughter of Saul had no child to (until) the day of her death. (Does this mean she had children after she died?)

1 Timothy 4:13: Until I come, attend to the public reading of scripture, to preaching, to teaching. (Does this mean Timothy should stop teaching after Paul comes?)

1 Corinthians 15:25: For he (Christ) must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. (Does this mean Christ’s reign will end? By no means!  Luke 1:33 says, “he will reign over the house of Jacob forever and of his kingdom there shall be no end.”"

(Quote from Tim Staples, Director of Apologetics and Evangelization at Catholic Answers)

 

The problem with this defence of the indefensible is that it ignores the context in which the word ‘until’ is used. Of course, the word shows the termination point of a particular situation, which is the case in all of the examples given in the above quote; but the context quite clearly shows the difference between them and the case of Mary and Joseph. I’ll look at the examples in reverse order.

 

1 Corinthians is referring to the period when enemies exist. When they are no longer present a different style of Christ’s reign will begin, since there will be no conflict or rebellion against it. So the ‘until’ here does indeed mark the end of Christ’s reign in the presence of enemies and the start of His reign in their absence.

 

1 Timothy refers to the end of Paul being away, and it is quite possible - very likely indeed - that when he came back he would take over teaching instead of Timothy. The period of Paul’s absence was a period when Timothy had the responsibility for public reading and teaching. So the ‘until’ marks the end of this role that Timothy had.

 

The ‘until’ in 2 Samuel is clearly referring to the entire period when childbearing during her earthly lifetime was possible for Michal, after which it was impossible because she was dead! Presumably this was because of God’s judgement on her for her attitude toward David, because 1 Samuel 25:44 tells us there was a period of marriage to Palti while David was escaping from Saul, and she remained barren then as well as with David. However, the ‘until’ tells us how long she was prevented from having the child during the time it might have been expected. After her death the ability to bear children was no longer relevant.

​

When we bless someone ‘until we meet again’ this clearly means the blessing ends at that moment; at which point we will bless them once again. It is an on-going process of blessing, and is once again a different situation to that of Mary and Joseph.

​

Since a normal sexual relationship was still possible and would have been perfectly normal for Mary after the birth of Jesus, the two cases are completely different. Furthermore, a sexual relationship is a normal part of marriage, and therefore both Mary and Joseph would undoubtedly have been expecting this. Even though both of them had angelic visitations instructing them about the birth of Jesus, on no occasion was either of them told they were never to have a normal marital relationship after His birth. So what possible reason could either of them have had not to do this? The notion is both illogical and unscriptural, and requires a use of the word ‘until’ never found anywhere else.

 

So clearly, the Matthew passage refers to the end of Mary’s pregnancy, after which a different situation begins. Why does it mention that particular moment? If it meant what the Catholics want it to mean it would not have mentioned the phrase…

 

“until she brought forth her firstborn”

 

…at all, since this would have absolutely no relevance to her virginity. It would simply say,

 

“Joseph knew [Mary] not.”

 

The fact that the birth of Jesus has relevance to the situation clearly shows that this was the moment when things changed. Otherwise why not say…

 

“…until she lost him in the temple at the age of 12;”

 

…or…

 

“…until he was baptised by John in the river Jordan;”

 

…or any other event in the life of Jesus? If she remained a virgin for the whole of her life, the birth of Jesus is of no more relevance to her state of virginity than any of these other events.

 

A clear example of the use of the word ‘until’, used in an identical context to that in Matthew 1:25, would be to say,

 

“The boy was hungry by the time school had finished, but he didn’t have anything to eat until he got home.”

 

Does this mean the boy never had anything to eat at all and starved to death? Of course not: it quite plainly means that he ate after he got home, not before. In exactly the same way...

 

“Joseph… did not know her till she had brought forth her firstborn Son”

 

...means that Mary and Joseph waited until after the birth of Jesus before then having a sexual relationship.

 

On the other hand, if it was the case that the boy never had anything to eat after this day at school and starved to death, then you would never, ever, begin the description of his experience by saying,

 

“…he didn’t have anything to eat until he got home,”

 

as this quite obviously would be contradictory to what happened. Likewise, if Mary and Joseph never had a sexual relationship, then the Bible would not say,

 

“…till she had brought forth her firstborn son.”

 

Another obvious example would be when a mother tells her child,

 

“Wait until you get home!”

 

This may be the threat of punishment, or the promise of something the child wants; but either way it means that when they arrive home the waiting will be over and that which mother has just promised will come. Likewise, the state of Joseph not ‘knowing’ Mary was one that ended after the birth of Jesus.

 

Of course, there are some New Testament verses referring to Jesus’s brothers and sisters.

 

Is this not the carpenter's son? Is not His mother called Mary? And His brothers James, Joses, Simon, and Judas? And His sisters, are they not all with us? Where then did this Man get all these things?"

Matthew 13:55–56

 

Then His brothers and His mother came, and standing outside they sent to Him, calling Him. And a multitude was sitting around Him; and they said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are outside seeking You.. “But He answered them, saying, “Who is My mother, or My brothers?” And He looked around in a circle at those who sat about Him, and said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! For whoever does the will of God is My brother and My sister and mother.”

Mark 3:31-35

 

And it was told Him by some, who said, "Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, desiring to see You."

Luke 8:20

 

His brothers therefore said to Him, "Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing… For even His brothers did not believe in Him.

John 7:3, 5

 

Predictably the Roman Catholic response is to say that these terms are sometimes used in the Bible of close relatives not necessarily brothers or sisters as we know them. This may be true, but it is also the case that by far the most frequent use of these terms is the way we would understand them. Once again it is the context that tells us how they are meant.

 

In the case of Matthew it could not be clearer. The opponents of Jesus were making the case that He was nobody special, just an ordinary person like the rest of them. They pointed out that his father, mother, brothers (James, Joses, Simon, and Judas) and sisters were all living among them. In other words, this was a normal family of parents and children, of which Jesus was a member. They could not have made this claim had Mary and Joseph been living celibate lives.

 

The passage in Mark is another very obvious example. Here, Jesus is effectively saying, “You tell me my closest relatives are here? My closest relatives are those who do God’s will!” This would not work if the people called ‘brothers’ in the passage were not his brothers. So once again, the context proves the case.

 

Of course, one reason for this odd doctrine is that they have departed from the clear teaching of the Bible. It is interesting that in his defence of the practice of celibacy, Christopher Kaczor makes not one reference to the Bible.

 

It is also interesting that the Catholic Answers page explaining the immaculate conception, begins:

 

“The Marian doctrines are, for Fundamentalists, among the most bothersome of the Catholic Church’s teachings.”

(validated by Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, Quote: ““NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.”)

 

This derogatory use of the word ‘Fundamentalists’ shows that their teaching rests primarily not on what the Bible says, but on their own reasoning, built up over many centuries. The reason for this can be seen by the final statement on the page:

 

“The Catholic Church was commissioned by Christ to teach all nations and to teach them infallibly—guided, as he promised, by the Holy Spirit until the end of the world (John 14:26, 16:13). The mere fact that the Church teaches that something is definitely true is a guarantee that it is true (cf. Matt. 28:18–20, Luke 10:16, 1 Tim. 3:15).”

(Emphasis mine)

 

From this quote it can be seen that at some moment, long in the past, the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church, assuming they were both guided by the Holy Spirit and at the same time incapable of any kind of error, took it upon themselves to go beyond the plain teaching of the Bible and start adding things of their own. The result, as with any deviation, is that they travelled further and further away until today we see doctrine that quite clearly contradicts the plain teaching in scriptures; and they are now struggling to square the circle and distort scriptures into agreeing with what they have decided upon.

 

One example of error in the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, admitted by Roman Catholics themselves, are the abuses they themselves administered through their doctrine of Indulgences. Quote:

 

“Those who claim that indulgences are no longer part of Church teaching have the admirable desire to distance themselves from abuses that occurred around the time of the Protestant Reformation.”

(This was the opening paragraph of their page on the subject that has now been removed! Emphasis mine.)

 

Regardless of how one views indulgences as practiced by today’s Roman Catholic Church (and I do not want to be diverted into taking up too much space in showing how they are as unbiblical today as they were then), it is clear from this quote that they accepted the way they were practiced at that time was wrong. The ‘abuses’ in indulgences at that time quite obviously had to be perpetrated by the Roman Catholic Church since it was only they who were practising them. So if the leaders of the Roman Catholic Church were wrong then, they can equally be wrong now!

 

This admission that the manner in which indulgences were practiced at that time were wrong is also the admission that when the Roman Catholic Church teaches something they say is definitely true, this is no guarantee that it is true (to contradict their claim quoted earlier): it certainly wasn’t then! Perhaps that is why they have removed the page? Or have they removed it because they now consider the practices of indulgences that were called abuses were perfectly valid after all? Whatever, adding teaching not supported by scripture to the basics of our faith can only result in error.

 

Over and over again the New Testament shows clearly that every aspect of the provision God has made to deal with the sin that results from our sinful natures is by faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ, through God’s grace. There is nothing we can do for ourselves AT ALL! Indeed, to attempt to do anything other than put one’s faith in Jesus Christ is to remove ourselves from the only remedy! See What Does the Lord Require for more detail on this.

 

The definition of indulgences presupposes that forgiveness has already taken place:

 

“An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven”

(Indulgentarium Doctrina 1

 

"Indulgences in no way forgive sins. They deal only with punishments left after sins have been forgiven."

This quote found here (Myth 3).

 

The above quote shows how the error arose: it is a misunderstanding by confusing ‘consequences’ and ‘punishment’. If sin has been forgiven, then there remains no punishment to be paid for it. If there is a punishment still to be paid for sin, then the sin is not forgiven. This is obvious logic. Sin cannot be both punished and forgiven: it is either one or the other, never both. Since Jesus Christ took all our punishment, there remains none for us to experience if we have put our trust in Him.

 

All we like sheep have gone astray; We have turned, every one, to his own way; And the LORD has laid on Him the iniquity of us all.

Isaiah 53:6

 

However, sinful acts can result in consequences that are not pleasant, and from which we are not immune. For example, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are the result of sexual activity the Bible calls sinful. If everyone who ever lived had obeyed God’s law about marriage, STDs would not exist. This is not punishment for the sin (although the Catholic Church would claim it is, calling it ‘temporal punishment’ as in the above quote), but the consequence of it.

 

There is only one New Testament punishment for sin – eternal separation from God.

 

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Romans 6:23

 

This punishment is removed from those who put their trust in Jesus Christ and is a gift according to the above scripture. So trying to do anything, be it paying money in earlier centuries, or saying ‘Hail Mary’ (for example) today, can have no effect on the punishment for sin.

 

If we repent of a sin (i.e. stop doing it and ask for God’s forgiveness on the grounds of the cross) that causes some kind of physical ailment, as in the case of STDs for example, then this is the consequence of the wrong action, not the punishment for it. There is the possibility of physical healing, of course; but this is a different subject. In any case, healing comes the same way as forgiveness: through faith in the finished work of Christ. There is no place for indulgences of any kind in the scriptures.

 

Another example of moving away from scripture is the fact that both the Apostle Peter (whom the Catholics consider to have been the first ‘pope’) and the other apostles were married, showing how far Roman Catholics have travelled from Bible doctrine in their insistence on celibacy.

 

Now when Jesus had come into Peter’s house, He saw his wife’s mother lying sick with a fever.

Matthew 8:14

 

Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

1 Corinthians 9:5

 

Of course there may be certain individuals whom God calls to lead a single life, as was the case with the Apostle Paul. However, this is no reason for insisting that only those who are single can fulfil a particular role: in the case of the Catholics that of ‘priest’. Of course, these ‘priests’ are themselves unscriptural, since there is no example of any New Testament Church being run by a single individual (see Church Leadership for more detail), and Jesus specifically tells us to call no man, “Father.”

 

Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

Matthew 23:9

 

INDEX

​