Chapter One:  Heresies of Catholicism
Chapter Two:  The Goddess Man Has Made

Contact John Schroeder JSCHRO265@aol.com

Heresies of Catholicism

1

From Patchwork Gospel

To Tradition’s Trap

 “My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips.”

   Psalm 89:34

To professing Catholics of the 21^st century, the Roman Catholic Church is the oldest – and in fact is the only – church founded by our lord Jesus Christ. The church’s teaching ministry has been eminently successful in establishing and maintaining this belief as if it were an established fact of history. Utilizing what is termed “apostolic succession,” Rome has convinced the faithful that their religion of today, in its leadership, its doctrines, and its liturgy, is virtually unchanged from what the Apostles left with their immediate successors. In Chapter 2 of the 1994 Catholic Catechism, Article 2 entitled “The Transmission of Divine Revelation,” fosters the notion that Christ left His Gospel and the dissemination of it exclusively in the hands of the Catholic Church. The Apostles “own position of teaching authority” is alleged to have been passed on directly to those first bishops of the “Catholic” Church, and from them to all succeeding popes and bishops down through the annals of time.

In Part 2 of the ’94 Catechism, Article 3, entitled “The Sacrament of The Eucharist,” contains several entries conveying the impression that the Catholic Mass and the doctrine of bread and wine becoming Christ’s literal flesh and blood had their origin in the apostolic church. The office of the popes is alleged to have originated with Peter, and by association, this teaching imputes great antiquity to the 19^th century doctrine of papal infallibility. Christ is supposed to have instituted all seven of the Catholic sacraments before His ascension, and infant baptism supposedly was practiced right from the church’s inception. Mary’s Immaculate Conception, her sinless life, her cradle-to-the-grave virginity, all recent doctrinal additions, are taught as if they had been articles of faith preached by the Apostles. This deliberate “aging” of doctrines reflects the tireless efforts of Rome’s apologists to create for Catholicism a reputation of great antiquity, stability, and holiness combined with absolute, God-given authority. Proof that these efforts have yielded the desired results is found in the fact that Catholicism as it presently exists is thought by a vast majority of the faithful to be the exact same faith instituted by Jesus and passed on by His Apostles.

Of course, if Catholicism really IS the one and only Church founded by Jesus, its organization, its doctrines, and its liturgies should dovetail with what is known about the apostolic Church. But, when we consult the written records – those found in the Bible, the history books, and the writings of early Church saints – we are hard pressed to find how today’s Roman Catholic Church is even remotely related to the Church instituted by Christ and propagated by His disciples. What we do find is a religion, not of grace, but of works, governed not by independent bishops, but by a self-styled monarch, and “teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.” (Mat 15:9) Hence, all of Rome’s propaganda notwithstanding, Catholicism’s antiquity is self-assumed, and has no relationship whatever to the truth. All the claims of longevity are just that, and only that – claims unsubstantiated by history, the Holy Scriptures, or the writings of early church saints. Rome is undaunted in the face of reality and truth, however, adamantly insisting that Catholicism is the one and only true church founded by Christ. Therefore, of Catholicism’s numerous heresies, this must be considered the first, for it is the one from which all the others derive their existence. Moreover, it is a chief cause of Rome’s well-documented antipathy to the Scriptures, a matter given extensive coverage later in this chapter.

What our Lord left on earth was left not just to 12 Apostles, but to 120 disciples who were in the same upper room together on the first Pentecost. These all were indwelt by and filled with the Holy Spirit who empowered them to carry the salvation message throughout the world. Not one of those 120 disciples was a Catholic. Nor were Peter, James, John, Thomas, or any of the other Apostles Catholics. Their immediate successors – Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Linus, Cletus, etc. – were Christians, not Catholics. When, in the middle of the 2^nd century, Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, was martyred, the crowd of onlookers called him the “father of Christians.” Referring to himself, Polycarp declared, “I am a Christian!” In the Bible we read, “And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.” (Act 11:26)

            The Council of Nicaea, AD 325 - 225 years removed from the apostolic church - was a synod of Christian, not Catholic, bishops. It was convened and supervised by the emperor, Constantine, an alleged convert to Christianity, not Catholicism. At the time, there were at least 1800 known Christian, not Catholic, churches, each one independent of the others, each led by its own bishop. The Council was attended by 318 of those bishops, but Sylvester, the sitting bishop of Rome, (who is listed by the Vatican as a Catholic pope,) was not among them. Historically, the designation “Catholic” is not found in common usage until the fifth century. Church historian, Eusebius, writing in the 4^th century, recorded events of Christendom’s early years without once mentioning a Catholic Church. Near the start of the 5^th century, Augustine, bishop of Hippo in Africa, was called by his mother a “Catholic Christian.”

Possessed of these facts, we conclude that what was passed on by Christ’s disciples to their successors was not a religious denomination – Catholicism – but the simple grace-based Christian faith instituted by our Lord. History, the Bible, the writings of the early church saints, these offer no support whatever for Rome’s claims that Catholicism was the one and only true church founded by Jesus; nor that Christ ordained Peter as bishop of Rome and the first pope. The so-called “holy sacrifice of the Mass,” was unknown in the apostolic church; the Lord’s Supper was a memorial, not a reenactment, of Calvary, and there were no priests allegedly endowed with the power to take the place of Jesus here on earth. Baptism was not mandatory for salvation or receipt of the Holy Spirit. No works were required of the individual who wished to be saved, only faith in Christ Jesus. “And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.” (Acts 16:31) “And Crispus, the chief ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his house; and many of the Corinthians hearing believed and were baptized.” (Acts 18:8)

            No one, this writer included, disputes the fact that the Roman Catholic Church emerged from apostolic Christianity. So did the eastern branch of Christendom, known today as the Orthodox Church. So did the Anabaptists, the Arians, The Docetists, the Marcions, the Ebionites, the Gnostics, etc. All emerged from the same Christian roots and are eloquent proof that common beginnings do not guarantee truth will be the end result.

            The Gospel Christ entrusted to His followers has never been added to, taken from, or altered in any way. It and it alone is the benchmark against which the one and only true church is measured and identified. What God’s Word said in the first century is what God’s Word says today: “By grace are you saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works lest anyone should boast.” (Eph. 2:8, 9) Salvation faith is a free gift from God. It can’t be bought with all the good works or penances in the world. “Except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of God.” (John 3:3) A new spiritual birth is necessary, and occurs when the Holy Spirit indwells the believer. “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life.” (John 3:16) The new birth results from belief in all that Christ is, all that He said, and all that He did. It has never been limited to persons of any one particular denomination, but to “whosoever believeth.”

            This basically is the Gospel left to us by Christ, the one His disciples preached and recorded. Like Jesus, it is the “same yesterday, today and forever.” (Heb 13:8) That verse should apply as well to Catholicism if it is the one true church founded by Christ. But it does not apply because of Rome’s own self-generated problem – its “Patchwork Gospel” - which completely obviates that unsubstantiated claim. History is a hard task master, and it shows that from the time it assumed an identity of its own, becoming the Catholic, rather than the Christian church, Catholicism has been “patching” the immutable Gospel of Christ with one doctrine after another, none of which is supported in the Scriptures, nor was orally transmitted by Christ’s Apostles. By inference, this makes the God of Scripture appear to be both inept and unjust. Inept, because His original Gospel allegedly was incomplete, insufficient, and had to be “patched” numerous times over many centuries. Unjust because the original converts were denied privileges and benefits enjoyed by later converts to the “complete Gospel” whose latest “patch” was added in 1965.

            This “Patchwork Gospel” that Rome created, and now is forced to live with, actually is the strongest rebuttal to any and all claims that the Roman Catholic Church is the one and only Church instituted by Christ. It is painful to admit that in 52 years as a Catholic I never once realized that the God of Catholicism needed hundreds and hundred of years, and numerous “patches” to the original, to get His Gospel “right” in my generation. Neither did I realize that the Jesus of Catholicism is a wholly different Jesus than the Savior known and preached by His Apostles. In retrospect, I accepted all of the church’s doctrines as having been a part of the religion since the time of Christ. I did not know, for example, that the critically important doctrine of transubstantiation – the assertion that ordinary bread and wine becomes the physical body and blood of Jesus – has been an article of faith only since the 13^th century. Through the parochial school training I received, I fully believed the following, which is from a book entitled, “The Faith of Millions – The Credentials of the Catholic Church.”

“When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration, he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man. It is a power greater than that of the saints and angels, greater than that of the Seraphim and Cherubim. The priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal victim for the sins of man – not once but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and omnipotent God, bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.”

Aside from the fact that the above is unscriptural, blasphemous, and utter nonsense, it points up the problem Rome has created for itself by periodically “patching” strange new doctrines into God’s original and only Gospel, the one Gospel that identifies the Church He left on earth. Since transubstantiation was not declared an article of faith until 1215 AD, Catholic liturgy did not “bring Christ down from heaven” prior to that date. How, then, could this doctrine be a product of “apostolic succession” when, 1) there were no priests in the apostolic Church, and, 2) when a gap of more than 1200 years separates it from the Apostles? And, would God feed His flock mere bread and wine prior to AD 1215; then begin feeding them His actual body and blood after that date? Hardly.

            Catholics, (me, too, when I was one) accept without question that the Apostle Peter was a Catholic and the first pope. They believe that Jesus ordained him with the words from Matthew 16:18, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” But the Bible itself, history, and the writings of the early church saints show this belief to be seriously in error. In fact, if it were not for some forged documents appearing in the third century, documents that even Rome admits are blatant frauds, there is little likelihood Peter ever would have been touted as a bishop of Rome and the first pope. The Apostle Paul was a far better candidate because of his lengthy, biblically recorded, stay in Rome, plus his own claim to having the oversight of all the churches. (2 Cor 11:28) All evidence considered, the papacy has not existed from the time of Christ. It was permanently “patched-in” many hundreds of years later when a second set of forged documents gained acceptance for a time as genuine and trustworthy.

            In regard to the critical matter of church leadership, a monarchy headed by one individual called the pope was not what Christ bequeathed to His Apostles. In the book of Acts, in nine Pauline epistles and the First Epistle of Peter, it is evident that there were many churches, each independent of the others, all comprising the one Church whose unifying element was common faith in Jesus, His atoning sacrifice, and His bodily resurrection. That the existence of numerous independent churches met with Christ’s approval is supported by our Lord’s letters to seven of them in the book of Revelation. He did not address one letter to one church ruled by one bishop occupying a position of supremacy over all the churches. He addressed seven letters to seven “Messengers” who were the leaders of seven separate independent churches; and He revealed His very presence among them. “These things saith he that holdeth the seven stars in his right hand, who walketh in the midst of the seven golden candlesticks,” (Rev 2:1) In his Galatians epistle, Paul acknowledges a multiplicity of churches in that area alone by addressing his letter “unto the churches of Galatia.” (Gal 1:2)

            Further evidence that the apostolic church was made up of many individual, independent, churches, is found in letters generated by Clement and Ignatius, two renowned first-century saints. Especially in letters of Ignatius, it is apparent the independent churches were headed by bishops, presbyters and deacons. Polycarp, bishop of the Smyrna church, awaiting arrest and martyrdom, prayed for the safety of the churches, not the Church singular. Regarding the installation of new bishops, Ignatius in his letter to the Philadelphia church, constrained the church members to elect a new bishop. In so doing he contradicts Rome’s “apostolic succession” claim in which the faithful are led to believe bishops appointed by the Apostles appointed bishops to succeed themselves, who appointed bishops to succeed themselves, who then appointed bishops to succeed themselves, etc., all the way down to the present time. Likewise, in Clement’s letter to the church at Corinth, he related how the Apostles wanted bishops they had appointed replaced, as death removed them. They were to be replaced by

“…other approved men…with the consent of the whole church.”

Clement, a bishop of Rome, (AD 92-101) never claimed that he was a supreme bishop with authority over all other bishops. And, the cited quote from his letter to the Corinthian church shows to be in error the Catholic belief that new bishops could only receive their appointment from existing bishops, or a “pope.” The churches obviously enjoyed the right to approve individuals who aspired to leadership positions, another serious blow to Rome’s “apostolic succession” crutch. If, however, one measure of the true church founded by Jesus is, in fact, “apostolic succession,” Rome is in really deep trouble because of the eastern branch of Christendom, existing today as the Orthodox Church.

            Since the days of the Apostles, eastern churches have maintained absolute independence from Rome, and do not embrace Catholicism’s “Patchwork Gospel.” Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, and Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, were two of many eastern bishops, first-century successors to the Apostles. Both men were protégés of John the Evangelist. Through them and others, apostolic organization and authority would have passed to all succeeding Eastern Church bishops right down to the present time, thereby, obviating Rome’s claim of exclusivity through “apostolic succession.” For the record, today’s Orthodox Church is comprised of independent fellowships each with its own governing bishop, an exact extension of apostolic church organization.

            It was the 6^th century – 500 years after the Apostles – before the doctrine of purgatory began to attract attention as a possible future doctrinal “patch.” It was not made an article of faith until AD 1274 by the Second Council of Lyons. It was reconfirmed by the Council of Trent in the 16^th century because of attacks on it by the Reformers. Indulgences, temporal punishment, mortal and venial sin – doctrines symbiotically related to purgatory – also were unknown to the apostolic church and were “patched-in” many hundreds of years later. Is it unfair to question where in eternity all the souls went who died before purgatory and its related doctrines were "patched-in?"

            Unreported to Catholics is the fact that the apostolic church had no priests. Their Old Testament function – offering the sacrifices – was eliminated forever by Calvary. And early efforts aimed at re-establishing a Levitical-type priesthood were condemned by Jesus, Himself, in the Book of Revelation. (Rev 2:6, 15) The Roman Catholic priesthood, then is a much later development, another example of Rome’s “patchworking.” Likewise, confession of sins to another human being was unheard of in the days of the early church. The Bible says we are to confess sin directly to God. That was apostolic church practice according to the episode in Acts where Peter rebuked Simon for trying to buy power to confer the Holy Spirit. Peter said, “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee.”  (Act 8:22) If Peter was bishop of Rome and the first pope, and if Catholic Confession was a doctrine known to the Apostles, why didn’t Peter “hear” Simon’s confession, give him absolution, and send him on his way a forgiven sinner? Or, why did Clement’s 1st century letter to the Corinthian church include the following observation?

“The Lord, brethren, stands in need of nothing: and he desires nothing of anyone, except that confession be made to him. For, says the elect David, “I will confess unto the Lord…”

As doctrinal “patches” go, the one that mandated confession of sins to a priest was another late comer. First declared a doctrine in the 12^th century, it was formalized as an article of faith 100 years later – in AD 1216 – during the Second Lateran Council, the same western-church synod that decreed the doctrine of transubstantiation. In my years as a Catholic I was uninformed and, therefore, unaware that – like the ones I have cited – doctrines I believed were instituted by Jesus, were, in reality, very late additions to the religion, and were simply “the commandments of men.”

            When Jesus bowed His sacred head on Calvary’s cross, and in agony whispered, “It is finished,” (John 19:30) the Gospel of salvation was complete. Animal sacrifice was ended; the Levitical priesthood was eliminated; the Temple was done away with. All replaced by simple faith in our Lord’s sinless deity, His once-for-all-sacrifice, and His glorious resurrection from the grave. Through this simple faith came forgiveness of sins, reconciliation with God, and adoption into His household for all eternity. Before the foundation of the world, before there was an Adam, an Eve, or an original sin, that plan of redemption for fallen mankind was in place. (1 Pet 1:20) Jesus, through His sinless life, sacrificial death and grave-conquering resurrection, executed and completed that plan. There was nothing partial about it. Nothing was left undone because God is a God of completeness. He did not create a partial universe, a partial world, or – as the evolutionists claim – partial people. Neither did Jesus leave behind a partial Gospel. Nothing, absolutely nothing, was left out of the Gospel entrusted to His Apostles and disciples. The New Testament, compiled and ratified long before there was a Catholic Church, contains every doctrine received, preached, and recorded by them; every doctrine a lost soul needs for deliverance from sin and admission into heaven’s eternal bliss.

            Catholics who firmly believe that their religion is the one and only founded by Christ are sorely mistaken and deliberately misled. The numerous doctrinal “patches” applied to Catholicism down through the ages are mute, unimpeachable testimony to the contrary. The sacraments, (works necessary for salvation), are “patches” added hundreds of years after the passing of the Apostles and their successors. Likewise, the priesthood, the papacy, Purgatory, mortal and venial sin, temporal punishment, indulgences, verbal confession, the Mass liturgy, transubstantiation. Canonization of “saints,” the Marian doctrines, and “Tradition” as a doctrinal source equal to God’s divine Word, also are late additions to a Gospel made whole, entire and eternal by those sacred words, “It is finished.” Sadly, not even one of the aforementioned doctrines is supported by Scripture, nor by oral transmissions of traditions observed and practiced by the Apostles or the apostolic church. Catholicism’s motto – semper eadem, (ever the same), - should be changed to nunquam eadem, never the same.

            The fallacy of Rome’s claim to be the one true church is clearly exposed by its own history of adding strange new doctrines from time to time. For Catholics, it means they’ve never had one complete set of truths, one, single, immutable pathway to salvation. What applies today may be altered, added to, or eliminated tomorrow. In fact, Rome has today’s Catholics doing a lot more to be “saved” than Catholics living before most “patches” became articles of faith. For example, weekly Mass attendance was not mandatory until the 12^th century. Holy Communion was not necessary for salvation before that, and neither was confession of sins to a priest. From all the evidence, only one conclusion is possible – Catholicism really isn’t the one true church at all. Rather, it’s a denomination whose roots can be traced to early Christianity, but whose “Patchwork Gospel” betrays it as a purveyor of heresy, an apostate church.

            In subsequent chapters, Rome’s most flagrant anti-Scriptural “patches” will be reviewed, starting in chapter two with the numerous Marian heresies. Chapter three will be devoted to the fraud-based papal office, and other chapters will critique Purgatory, temporal punishment, indulgences, mortal and venial sin, transubstantiation, Confession, the Mass, apparitions, etc. For the remainder of this chapter, however, a “patch” Rome calls “Tradition” will be the object of study, because the fallout from it produced the second of Catholicism’s many heresies, and a fitting twin for the one just dealt with. Obviously meant to solve problems, “Tradition” has served only to emphasize the apostate condition into which Catholicism had lapsed by the 16^th century when Martin Luther’s Bible reading produced the launching pad for a Reformation that had been in the making for over 300 years. How “Tradition” came to be an article of faith, what effect it has had on the Roman Catholic view of Scriptures, the inescapable trap that has resulted, these comprise a fascinating but tragic story, one that began in AD 1546 in Trent, Italy.

By the 16^th century, Catholicism had added so many doctrinal “patches” the Council of Trent, (AD 1545-63) had to take drastic action to justify their establishment as articles of faith. One of its most critical tasks was to protect and preserve at any cost the illusion that Catholicism is the true and only church founded by Christ, empowered by Him to “create” doctrines not found in Scripture. Reformers were challenging every “patched” doctrine. Justification and indulgences, which brought the opening sally, were only the tip of the iceberg. Purgatory, temporal punishment, sacraments, the priesthood, the papacy, the Mass, transubstantiation, and more, all came under fire from the Reformers. Their watchwords were four in number: sola Scriptura, sola gratia, sola fide, sola Christus. Only Scripture, only Grace, only Faith, and only Christ.

            For Rome, the stakes were enormous. To admit sola Scriptura would have been an unmitigated disaster. Doctrines not found in the divine Word – all the ones that had been “patched-in” over a period of ten centuries – would have been exposed as man-inspired, and simply could not have been defended. Equally repugnant to the Vatican was the Reformers’ insistence that justification is exclusively by the grace of God, whose free gift of faith in Christ’s sacrifice produces forgiveness of sin and assures eternal life in heaven. Admitting to that would have wiped out the sacraments and all other works that had been “patched-in” as necessary for salvation. But the most perplexing problem of all for the assembled prelates, may well have been what to do about its own Office of the Inquisition, which office, for over 300 years, had been executing those very advocates of the four “only’s” that the Council was convened to deal with.

            One could have predicted that Rome would not capitulate without a fight, for the nearly absolute power Catholicism had wielded over western churches since the 9^th century is not something willingly relinquished. But it is doubtful that anyone – even the most avid Reformer – had the slightest inkling that Trent’s prelates would do the unthinkable. Compelled to deal with a challenge that had rapidly gotten out of control, deal with it they did. On the 8^th of April, AD 1546, the Council issued a decree that met the sola Scriptura issue head-on, and, as far as Rome is concerned, disposed of it for all time. That wordy decree included the following excerpt:

 (The Synod) “following the example of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety and reverence, all the books of both the Old and of the New Testament…as also the said Traditions as well those (traditions) appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated either by Christ’s own word of mouth or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic church by a continuous succession. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of Faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities (Praesidiis) it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.” (Emphasis mine.)

With this astonishing “declaration of independence,” Rome notified the Reformers, and all posterity, that Catholicism was free from reliance on divine Scripture alone, (sola Scriptura) for its doctrine, was not in the least encumbered or bound by it, and was, in fact, at liberty to use other “testimonies and authorities”…(read that, Tradition)…“in confirming dogmas.” Thus was severed for all time whatever was left of Catholicism’s relationship to the church instituted by Christ. The Word of God that Rome hadn’t paid much attention to for ten centuries anyway, was formally evicted from its rightful position of exclusivity and preeminence, its value as the source of doctrine virtually eliminated. The numerous “patches” added to the Gospel from the 6^th century on were – in retrospect – attributable to that which was venerated “with an equal affection of piety and reverence,” - (the said Traditions) – which allegedly had been “preserved in the Catholic church by a continuous succession.”

            Nor was that infamous Council content to stop at giving itself the authority to deviate from God’s divine Word in matters of faith, doctrine, organization, etc. It must also appoint itself the sole custodian and interpreter of the very Scriptures it held in such low esteem. To wit:

 “Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, it (Trent) decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall – in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine – wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church – whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures – hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established.” (Emphasis mine.)

From these Council of Trent decrees it is clear that the second of Catholicism’s many heresies is Rome’s teaching that it alone has been entrusted with God’s revelation of Himself to mankind – both the divine Scriptures and Catholicism’s alleged Traditions – and the very interpretation of it to boot. Since escaping from the Roman Catholic Church I never cease to be amazed at these kinds of claims. During my years as a Catholic I was not aware of them. I would be surprised if one out of a thousand of the faithful today are aware of them, either. For example, to justify this second great heresy, Rome claims that the Catholic Church actually pre-dates the New Testament, and is responsible for the assembly and ratification of its canon. But historical fact gives the lie to such preposterous claims.

            The renowned church historian, Eusebius, AD 260-339, writing early in the fourth century records the following in Book 1, Chapter 4:4:

 “…..but although it is clear that we are new and that this new name of Christians has really but recently been known among all nations, nevertheless our life and our conduct, with our doctrines of religion, have not been lately invented by us, but from the first creation of man, so to speak, have been established by the natural understanding of divinely favored men of old.”

Had the Roman Catholic Church existed at the time it is certain Eusebius would have so noted the fact. He didn’t. In AD 397, (still nearly 200 years before Catholicism) the Council of Carthage was convened, and Rome maintains that this convocation determined the New Testament canon. Not so says history. The representatives to that council merely confirmed the 27 New Testament books that were listed by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, (an Eastern Church) 30 years before, and had been confirmed in AD 393 at the Synod of Hippo. But even before that, in the very beginning of the second century, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr and, a bit later, Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, were quoting in their writings from most of our New Testament books. F. F. Bruce relates that the writings of Irenaeus alone in about AD 180, showed canonical acceptance of the four Gospels, the Acts, Romans, I and II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, I and II Thessalonians, I and II Timothy, Titus, I Peter, I John and the Revelation. In other words, at least 21 of our 27 New Testament books were considered Holy Scripture more than 400 years before the Roman Catholic Church became an identifiable entity. Catholicism did not pre-date the New Testament; did not spearhead verification of its canon; is not its exclusive custodian, nor its God-appointed interpreter.

            It will come as no surprise that the Council of Trent declarations cited earlier remain in effect to this day. They have never been modified; never been abrogated. In fact the Second Vatican Council, (1963-65) enthusiastically embraced them along with the rest of Trent’s myriad decrees and condemnations. Today, the church’s official position is unchanged and is boldly reiterated on pages 26 and 27 of the 1994 Catechism.

“.…the (Catholic) Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”

The baseless, unsupported claims and autocratic proclamations emanating from Rome are nothing but brazen falsehoods, ugly heresies that foster the one-true-church illusion held so resolutely by the laity. These far-fetched claims are accepted by Catholic faithful as justification for Rome’s various, unscriptural mandates - in this case, that “Tradition” is to be given honor and reverence equivalent to the very Word of God. Not only are their claims lacking the support of history, the Bible, and saints of the apostolic church, they contradict the very Scriptures Rome claims authority over.

            Our Lord told the religious Jews that, “the Scriptures cannot be broken.” (John 10:35) By this He clearly indicated that His Word is not to be demeaned, avoided, ignored, changed, or added to. In Psalm 89:34, quoted on the first page of this chapter, He declared that He would not break His covenant – in the New Testament, His promise of salvation by grace and faith alone – nor would He change (or allow to be changed) a single one of His Words. In the Galatians letter of Paul, those who preach a gospel different from the one he preached – his came directly from the lips of Jesus – are cursed, not once, but twice. (Gal 1:8, 9) Additional warnings against tampering with Scripture are found in Deuteronomy, Proverbs, and Revelation, and will be seen later on.

            By exalting “Tradition” Rome has trapped the faithful in a belief system centered on “the commandments of men,” not on the Gospel of the Savior who died for their sins. Since the word tradition is suggestive of long established customs and practices it is fair to insist that the many doctrines Rome has "patched-in" over a period of fifteen-hundred years be traceable to the early church, orally transmitted by the Apostles and their immediate successors. From all available records, however, such is not the case by any stretch of the imagination. And when the 1994 Catechism is consulted for Rome’s definition of “Tradition,” we see at once why none of the added doctrines is traceable to the Christian Church of the first four hundred years

 (Tradition is) “…distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through tradition…the church, in her doctrine, life and worship perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself IS, all that she BELIEVES. (Emphasis mine.)

 “Tradition” as Rome sees it, is not a compendium of early church customs and practices at all. It’s simply “all that she herself is,” and “all she believes,” masquerading as apostolic hand-me-downs. To rationalize fifteen centuries of error; to justify her heretical view that not all truths revealed by God are to be found in His Scriptures, Rome resorts to “Tradition” that really isn’t traditional at all. The whole thing is suggestive of an incomplete Bible, a partial Gospel, a capricious deity who improvises as He goes along. In the Scriptures, however, tradition does not inspire what Rome describes as “sentiments of devotion and reverence.” Quite the opposite. Eleven out of thirteen times the word appears in the New Testament, it refers to that which is displeasing to God. Cf. Mat 15:3,6; Mar 7:8, 13; Col 2:8; I Pet 1:18. Only twice is it used in a favorable sense. (2 Th 2:15, 3:6) But, in neither instance can it be construed as justification for “patching-in” doctrines never known to, nor verbally passed on by, the original 120 disciples and their successors.

            It was mentioned previously that the Trent declarations of 500 years ago have never been abrogated, nor so much as modified in the slightest degree. On the contrary, they have been enthusiastically ratified and even reinforced with the passing of time. For instance, today’s Catholics, besides being denied the liberty to interpret Scriptures for themselves, also are denied the freedom to interpret “Tradition,” whatever that may be at any given time. The 1994 Catechism puts it this way:

 “The task of giving an authentic INTERPRETATION of the Word of God, whether in written form or in the form of Tradition, has been ENTRUSTED to the living, teaching office of the CHURCH ALONE.” (Emphasis mine.)

Way back in the dark ages, the Roman church began to recognize the danger to itself of exposing the laity to the Word of God. Experience showed that problems resulted when individuals got their hands on Scriptures produced in their own language. At first, this was successfully countermanded by making Latin the only approved language for Scripture, liturgical rites, prayer, communication, etc. This effectively kept God’s Word out of the hands of the common people who were Latin illiterate. But later on, as the Scriptures began to appear in more and more native languages – Anglo-Saxon, Gothic, Germanic, Slavic, Coptic, Armenian, etc. – more stringent controls became necessary. Only Latin Vulgate Bibles were approved. Those published in other languages were condemned and ownership of them prohibited. Any native-language Bibles found were summarily confiscated and destroyed. Among those suffering that fate were the Gothic Bibles of the Ostrogoth, Theodoric, the Lollard Bibles of Wycliffe, and the Old English texts that became popular in England as far back as the 10^th Century.

            Rome’s obsession to control both the message of Scripture and the interpretation of it has never been more evident than in its treatment of Godly dissenters such as Wycliffe, Tyndale, Savonarola, Huss, the Cathari, the Waldenses, etc. Wycliffe was excommunicated for translating the Bible into English in 1382. After death, his bones were exhumed, burned and tossed in the river. Tyndale, for his English translation of the Bible, Savonarola and Huss, for preaching sola scriptura and sola gratia, all were burned alive. The Cathari, also called the Albigenses, and the Waldenses, for their insistence on justification by faith, were exterminated as heretics.

            The 16^th century Council of Trent forbade publication of the Scripture except by those to whom Rome had issued a proper license. By the 19^th century, no fewer than six different popes ruled against all efforts aimed at making the Scriptures available to the general public. Pius VII said that the indiscriminate distribution of Bibles in native languages “…produced more harm than benefits…was eminently dangerous to souls.” Gregory XVI was vehemently opposed to making the Scriptures freely available to all people. Leo XIII in 1897 forbade the publication or reading of Scriptures in native languages.

            There is an obvious antipathy to God’s Word in the Vatican, expressions of which sometimes are nothing short of incredible. Ignatius Loyola who founded the Jesuit order, in his “Rules For Thinking With The Church,” expressed his disdain for Scripture in Rule #13 which states:

 “I will believe that the white that I see is black if the hierarchical Church so defines it.”

One of Loyola’s fellow Jesuits had this to say about God’s Word:

Without the authority of the Church, I would believe St. Matthew no more than Titus Livius.”

To Polish Cardinal Stanislaus Hosius, who presided over the Council of Trent, is credited the following statement about the value of God’s Word:

 “Except for the authority of the Holy Mother Church, the Scriptures would have no more weight than the fables of Aesop.”

In a recent general letter to Roman Catholic bishops from current pope, John Paul II, the church “party-line” regarding sola scriptura is rigidly adhered to. Addressing a “resurgence of fideism” (faith alone) that has been observed, he writes as follows:

 “One currently widespread symptom of  this fideistic tendency is a ‘biblicism’ which tends to make the reading and exegesis of Sacred Scripture the sole criterion of truth. In consequence, the Word of God is identified with Sacred Scripture alone, thus eliminating the doctrine of the Church which the Second Vatican Council stressed quite specifically. Having recalled that the word of God is present in both Scripture and Tradition, the Constitution Dei Verbum continues emphatically: ‘Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture comprise a single deposit of the word of God entrusted to the Church…’ Scripture, therefore, is not the Church’s sole point of reference. The ‘supreme rule of her faith’ derives from the unity which the Spirit has created between Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church in a reciprocity which means that none of the three can survive without the others. (Emphasis mine.)

Imagine standing before the Judgment Seat of Christ and telling our blessed Savior that His divine Word – Sacred Scripture - was no more valuable than Aesop’s Fables; that it could not have survived apart from Catholicism’s “Sacred Tradition” and its Magisterium. “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Matt 24:35) May God be merciful to such proud but horribly deluded men, and to all who are taken in by them. In that same letter to the bishops, John Paul II included the following admonition:

 “Moreover, one should not underestimate the danger inherent in seeking to derive the truth of Sacred Scripture from the use of one method alone, ignoring the need for a more comprehensive exegesis which enables the exegete, together with the whole Church, to arrive at the full sense of the texts.”

Evangelicals who have tried witnessing to Catholics without an understanding of the Catholic mentality, express dismay that unregenerate sinners can be so biblically illiterate and so arrogant at the same time. Often in the most contemptuous manner, Catholics will let it be known that their interest is not in what the Bible says, but in what the Catholic Church teaches. That is what I have come to call the “Tradition Trap.” It has been created by Rome’s numerous statements and mandates devaluing Scripture, while at the same time demanding “equal” honor and reverence for “Sacred Tradition.” It holds Catholics tenaciously in the grip of what Rome says without regard, interest, or fear for what God’s Word says. What Rome says and what the Bible says, however, are as far apart as Rome is from the true “eternal city” – Jerusalem.

            Rome says it alone has been entrusted with Sacred Scripture. God’s Word says: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:” (I Tim 3:16) No indication therein that Rome or anyone else is appointed exclusive custodian of Scripture. And, no indication in the following that it has been given exclusive interpretive authority, either. “…the anointing which ye have received of him (the Holy Spirit) abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. (I John 2:27) It is the indwelling Holy Spirit that interprets and teaches, not the Roman church.

            Taken as a whole, the Council of Trent decrees and the 1994 Catechism references previously cited, comprise a perfect blueprint for the establishment of a religious cult. Rome endows itself with absolute authority over what is taught, what is to be believed, how Scriptures are to be interpreted. New doctrines and teachings, products of “Tradition,” can be introduced at any time. Yet none of this can be attributed or traced to the Church instituted by Christ. All of it is simply the Montanist heresy of the 2^nd century reprised. Its founder, Montanus, was a mystic who experienced trances in which he allegedly received new revelations directly from the Holy Spirit. This implied what Rome’s “patchworking” also implies – that Christ’s Gospel was incomplete, that the Holy Spirit was adding to it via special revelations given only to Montanus and his followers. The early Church wisely declared Montanism a heresy. It still is. Christ’s Gospel required no new revelations then or since then. Holy Spirit revelation ended with the Book of Revelation.

            Some time ago, my wife and I had a conversation with a practicing Roman Catholic couple who knew that I was raised in a Catholic home. The subjects covered were of a doctrinal nature touching on numerous areas where Catholic teachings conflict with God’s Word. Our friends continually referred to what they had learned from their Catholic education while my wife and I adhered strictly to Biblical truth. At one point the dear lady fairly shouted at me, “John, you were raised a Catholic! “You know better!” By this I was supposed to understand that all Catholic teaching is correct – the truth – and any conflicting beliefs have to be in error. When my wife suggested that a lack of Bible knowledge was seriously affecting their beliefs, the angry lady’s husband exclaimed: “Ah, the Bible is just a bunch of words on paper!” I, for one, have nothing but fear for the pitiful soul who – at the seat of Judgment – tells our Lord His Bible was “just a bunch of words on paper.”

            While on the one hand Rome admits that the Bible is the inspired Word of God, and even suggests that Catholics read it, little real enthusiasm for Scripture has been generated, and control of the message received is never relinquished. Catholics, under pain of sin, abide at all times by Rome’s interpretations. In this way, Rome solidifies its position of absolute authority over the faithful, discourages in-depth Bible study, and prevents a mass exodus of its members into evangelical, Bible-directed Christianity.

            In our day the Roman Catholic Church has further diminished the credibility of the Bible in Catholic circles by accepting as fact the Darwinian theory of evolution, and sanctioning the evil campaign of the infamous Jesus Seminar. By embracing the theory that all organisms – man included – are evolved from “primeval slime,” the church capitulates to the forces of evil who promote the belief that the first eleven chapters of Genesis are nothing more than myth. So insensitive is Rome to Biblical truth that they fail to see – or choose to ignore – that every Christian doctrine has its foundation in the first eleven chapters of Genesis. Destroy belief in the historicity of Genesis and you destroy the very foundations of Christianity! “If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?” (Psa 11:3) The last time Rome dabbled in a scientific matter, Galileo was censured for agreeing with Copernicus that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice-versa. This time Rome has not only picked the wrong “horse” again, but by so doing has stepped all over the divinely revealed Word of God. (Cf. I Tim 3:16.) Following is a news item that must have had the atheists, agnostics and humanists jumping for joy. Words of  John Paul II are in bold type.

NEWSBRIEF: Chicago Tribune, Friday 10/25/96.

POPE BOLSTERS CHURCH SUPPORT FOR EVOLUTION

By Stevenson Swanson, Tribune staff writer. Dateline: New York.

“In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church’s position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is ‘more than just a hypothesis’ and that evolution is ‘compatible with Christian faith’ In a written message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope said the theory of evolution has been buttressed by scientific studies and discoveries since Charles Darwin. ‘…it is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge,’ the pope said in his message Wednesday. ‘The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes, in itself, a significant argument in favor of this theory… ‘If taken literally, the Biblical view of the beginning of life and Darwin’s scientific view would seem irreconcilable. In Genesis, the creation of the world, and Adam, the first human, took six days. Evolution’s process of genetic mutation and natural selection – the survival and proliferation of the fittest new species – has taken billions of years, according to scientists…’

The Pope’s message went much further in accepting the theory of evolution as a valid explanation of the development of life on Earth, with one major exception: the human soul. ‘If the human body has its origin in living material which pre-exists it the spiritual soul is immediately created by God,’ the Pope said.” (Emphases mine.)

In the foregoing, we see one of the self-appointed “guardians” of the Holy Scriptures, one of the self-styled “infallible” popes, denying the truth of God’s revealed Word as recorded in the book of Genesis. He who claims for Rome, and for Rome alone, the right to interpret God’s Word, publicly endorses the Devil’s evolution lie with statements that refute the veracity of the divine Scriptures. This thinly veiled attack on the Bible concludes with doubt being cast upon the origin of the human body that God says in Genesis was formed on the sixth day of creation out of the dust of the earth – not over eons of time by way of ever advancing speciation.

            Of all the ironies associated with the Vatican’s claims (A) to be the one true church, and (B) to be the sole custodian and interpreter of the Scriptures, this one – the endorsement of Darwinian evolution – most visibly and successfully shatters the laity’s trust in the Bible. Darwin’s theory of evolution, which everywhere is taught as fact, is a blatant repudiation of God’s Word, and in no sense or way is it “compatible with Christian faith.” The “baggage” that accompanies it for the unsuspecting Catholic includes elimination of the six days of creation, replacement of them with a naturally occurring universe in existence for billions of years following an imagined “Big Bang” or a collapsed ultra-dense cloud. It presumes the existence of pain, suffering and death before Adam’s original sin, thereby contradicting God, whose Word says death came as a result of Adam’s sin. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” (Rom 5:12)

            This endorsement of Darwinian evolution by the leader of nearly a billion souls amounts to a subtle declaration that God has deceived us; has led us to believe that the first eleven chapters of Genesis contain an historical account of ex nihilo creation, man’s fall into sin, God’s judgment via Noah’s flood, the confusion of languages, and the migration of nations. Catholics who subscribe to their pope’s doubts about the veracity of the Scriptures should ask themselves some hard questions. To wit:

            Did our Lord purpose to deceive us when He referred to Genesis as historical? “But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. (Mar 10:6) “For in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark.” (Mat 24:38) Our Savior was not deceiving us.

            The writer of Hebrews referred to the sacrifices of Cain and Abel recorded in Genesis 4. “By faith Abel offered a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous.” (Heb 11:4) Was this an attempt to deceive us? Peter spoke of God’s judgment on Sodom and Gomorrha. “And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly.” (2 Pet 2:6) Was Peter somehow misinformed? Not likely.

            By accepting Darwinian evolution as fact, (with the stipulation that at some point in time God breathed a soul into some form of animal life that then became a man) the Roman Catholic church has committed doctrinal suicide. Without the initial chapters of Genesis as historical fact, there is no foundation for ex nihilo creation, (2 Pet 3:4, 5) original sin, judgment, suffering and death, blood atonement, clothing, marriage, the promised Savior, on and on.

            Moreover, Darwinian evolution is bad science; it is, in fact, no science at all. True science is based on observation, testability, replication, and affirmation or falsification, none of which are applicable with respect to the origin of all things for the simple reason that there were no eye witnesses except God Himself. Former evolution supporters, though still unwilling to believe in ex nihilo creation, have been jumping Darwin’s sinking ship by the dozens for several years now. Gould, Hoyle, Behe, big important figures in the scientific community, have, along with numerous others, abandoned entirely Darwin’s gradualization ideas. And, unbeknownst to Rome, or deliberately overlooked by it, there is not a scientist living on this earth who can produce one unimpeachable proof that molecule-to-man evolution ever happened. Three immutable natural laws stand as insurmountable barriers against it, and, though John Paul II appears not to know it, all – not some – all genetic mutations are harmful! Most actually are fatal, thus eliminating entirely the possibility that genetic mutations result in the formation of new, advanced species. In truth, all real scientific evidence points to “intelligent design” – creation by a sovereign, omnipotent deity.

            For the Catholic Church to so diminish the integrity, yea the very truth, of God’s divinely revealed Scriptures is to spawn doubts that Rome has any respect at all for our Lord’s Words.“…had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me. But if ye believed not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46, 47) A critical question for the Vatican, especially when at the same time it is sanctioning the egregious work of the infamous Jesus Seminar. For those unfamiliar with this evil group, let me explain.

            Some years ago, a collection of self-styled Bible scholars got together for the express purpose of determining which of the words attributed to Jesus in the Bible were, in fact, spoken by Him. The group is made up of individuals representing many denominations including Roman Catholics. Their efforts have been directed at analyses of the four Gospels with an eye to determining which of the words in red letters were actually spoken by our Lord during His earthly ministry. This, mind you, 2000 years after the fact! Meetings have been held every so often for several years, at least one of them at Catholic Notre Dame University in South Bend, Indiana.

            Reports coming out of these sessions indicate they don’t put much confidence in the Holy Spirit’s ability to inspire and direct the composition and compilation of God’s divine Word. In 2 Peter 1:20, 21, credit for the Scriptures is given to the Holy Spirit, not to mortal men. “For the prophecy came not at any time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.” In Paul’s second letter to Timothy he instructs that young Christian as follows: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God.” (2 Tim 3:16)

            It’s clear that the Jesus Seminar participants do not subscribe to those Biblical assurances, for published progress reports indicate they have already determined very few of the words red-lettered in our Bibles were actually spoken by our Lord. This conclusion has been arrived at by majority vote. Certain passages containing the words of Jesus were reviewed by the group during each of the meetings, at the end of which, voting was done to establish whether or not the reviewed words came from the lips of the Lord. A participant casting his vote via a black ball was expressing his conviction that Jesus never said the critiqued words. A gray ball cast was notification a slim possibility existed that Christ said such words, while the casting of a red ball indicated agreement that Jesus really spoke the words in question. At last report, these people were in the process of producing their own version of the four Gospels. When it’s published, our Lord may become known to its readers as the “silent Jesus.”

            These actions on the part of the Roman Catholic Church – giving credence to the bankrupt Darwinian evolution theory, and sanctioning the ill-conceived Jesus Seminar by participating in its evil enterprise – are merely modern examples of the Vatican’s antipathy to Scripture. Such publicized endorsements effectively undermine the laity’s confidence in the Bible, and are a clear indication why so few Catholics read it; why others say, “Ah, the Bible is just a bunch of words on paper!”

            When Satan set out to destroy the man and woman God had created perfect in every way, his avenue of attack centered on the Word of God. “Yea, hath God said, ‘Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?’” This, or course, is an intentional misquotation of Genesis 2:17 in which God made only one tree off limits. “Ye shall not surely die:” A deliberate contradiction of God’s admonition that eating fruit of the forbidden tree would result in certain death. Finally, “For God doth know that…ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:5) Here Satan infers God has a hidden motive not favorable to His creatures, and known only to Satan himself. This strategy – assaulting God’s Word – successful there in the Garden of Eden - has remained Satan’s most effective weapon for the corruption of souls through all the succeeding ages. In the Roman Catholic religion - in its practice of “patching” the Lord’s Gospel while continually devaluing His divine Word - Satan has found a most useful ally.

 “Yea hath God not said His Gospel is incomplete? Hath He not said it lacketh many truths? Hath He not periodically revealed new truths from TRADITION to the great high priest who sitteth in the Vatican?”

Three times – twice in the Old Testament, once in the New – mankind is forbidden to add to or to take from the Word of God. Yet this is exactly what the Vatican has done by: 1) adding dogmas not found in Scripture; 2) by adding books to the Bible that both the Jews and early Christians rejected as uninspired; and 3) by publishing Catechisms that have replaced the Bible as Catholicism’s number-one teaching tool. These all are in violation of God’s divine Word. “You shall not add unto the word which I command you neither shall you diminish aught from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.” (Deut 4:2) Clearly, mankind is prohibited from tampering with Scripture as given by the Holy Spirit.

            In the book of Proverbs we find this admonition: “Every word of God is pure: He is a shield unto them that put their trust in Him. Add thou not unto His words, lest He reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Pro 30:5,6) Because God’s Word is true and everlasting, this Scripture bluntly decrees the Catholic Church is a liar!

            Once again – in the very last book of the Bible, and in its very last chapter – God’s warning is repeated, and its gravity emphasized by the addition of anathemas not previously stated. The divine Word of God – not the finite word of Rome – reads as follows: “For I testify unto every man that hears the words of the prophecy (message) of this book if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: and if any man shall take away from the words of this book, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Rev 22:18, 19)

            Unfortunately, for devout Catholics who are entrusting their souls to their religion instead of to their Savior, the Vatican “marches to the beat of a different drummer.” Besides inventing so-called “Tradition” as justification for the numerous “patches” it has imposed upon God’s Gospel, the Council of Trent added to the Bible itself by including books the Jews and the apostolic church had summarily rejected. These books known as the Apocrypha were excluded by the Jews from the Old Testament Scriptures for three reasons: 1) historical inaccuracies; 2) blatant heresy; and 3) absence of Holy Spirit inspiration. Ditto the early Church Christians who unanimously approved the long accepted Old Testament while settling on the canon of the New Testament. For fifteen centuries Christianity had a 39-book Old Testament and a 27-book New Testament. After Trent, the Catholic Church had a new expanded Bible that could no longer be called the Word of God. And to make sure this arrogant insult to a Holy God would be accepted by the faithful as “sacred and canonical,” one of Trent’s 125 curses was pronounced upon any who would dissent from the Council’s action.

 “…But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said (Apocrypha) books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic church, and as they are contained in the old Latin Vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid, let him be anathema (cursed). Note: Jerome’s Latin Vulgate, a 5^th century product, did include the Apocryphal books, but not as sacred Scripture.

Imagine for a moment doing something the Word of God expressly forbids, and then pronouncing a curse upon all those who disagree. Amazing. Catholicism, the self-appointed custodian and sole interpreter of God’s Word, applies “patch” after unsupported “patch” to God’s immutable Gospel for ten centuries, invents a thing called “Tradition” to justify their forbidden actions, tops these off with the addition of spurious books to their Bible, and then declares “cursed” all those who spurn such absolute folly. Thanks be to God for comforting Scriptures like this one: “Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” (Rom 8:34)

            The Council of Trent was the ultimate disaster for the Catholic Church. Not even one of the doctrinal “patches” attacked by the Reformers as unsupported in Scripture was repudiated by the assembled prelates. Luther’s contention, based solidly on the Word of God, that justification is by faith alone, and not by works, not only was rejected by the Council, but also was condemned. Luther was excommunicated, and all were cursed who hold to his belief that, “The just shall live by faith.” (Hab 2:4; Rom 1:17)

 “If anyone shall say that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in the divine mercy pardoning sins for Christ’s sake, or that it is that confidence alone by which we are justified, let him be accursed.”

Not just anyone, but the very Holy Spirit of God said long ago, “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.” (Eph 2:8, 9) Does the Trent curse apply to the One who gave us that sweet promise? And this one: “Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.” (Tit 3:5) And this one: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, he that believeth on me hath everlasting life.” (John 6:47) Unlike Roman Catholic officials who are held captive in their own “Tradition Trap,” the early Christian leaders clung tenaciously to the Scriptures. In his Book 4, Chapter 28:8, church historian, Eusebius, expresses the 4^th century Christian view of contemporaries who were deserting and twisting the Word of God.

 “…They have treated the Divine Scriptures recklessly and without fear. They have set aside the rule of ancient faith; and Christ they have not known.  They do not endeavor to learn what the Divine Scriptures declare, but strive laboriously after any form of syllogism which may be devised to sustain their impiety.”

Had the Roman Catholic religion existed in the 4^th century when Eusebius wrote his history of the young Christian Church, the above-cited quotation may well have been aimed straight at the Vatican. There in the Lateran’s  hallowed halls, the Scriptures have been treated with reckless abandon, downgraded to mere equality with the words of sinful men, twisted, added to, ignored, and all without fear of the mighty, eternal, King of Kings from whom those Scriptures emanated. Not only has Catholicism failed to observe what God’s Word declares, it has tried every way to keep the trusting laity from obedience to that Word as well. Faced with ever increasing availability of printed Bibles in more and more native languages, the Council of Trent chalked up one more mark against itself and Catholicism by authorizing a Jesuit, Robert Bellarmine, to produce an extra-biblical publication which became known shortly thereafter as the Trent Catechism. In it were found no contradictions to Rome’s numerous heresies. None of the Reformers’ Scriptural doctrines were found there, either.

            Many Catholic Catechisms have been published since that first one in the 16^th century. All have been, and continue to be, tightly controlled purveyors of the Vatican-approved Catholic “party line.” They are extra-biblical, meaning they are not authorized – in fact, are condemned – by the Word of God. They offer, nonetheless, a fascinating study in how nimbly Rome skips through momentous doctrinal upheavals and changes, and how subtly they discourage the study of divine Scripture. My personal favorite has to do with papal infallibility which has been a declared article of faith only since the year AD 1870. In that 19^th century, and prior to the First Vatican Council out of which came the infallibility declaration, a popular Catechism was one published in Scotland by Stephen Keenan, a Catholic priest. When first it appeared in 1851, it featured the following question and answer regarding papal infallibility;

Q. Must not Catholics believe the pope in himself to be infallible?

A. This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of Catholic faith.

In 1851, it seems, papal infallibility was nothing more than a Protestant “invention.” Catholics were not bound under pain of sin to believe it. It was not a doctrine; not an article of faith. The pope was as prone to err in that era as any other mortal soul. But when the Keenan Catechism was reprinted just 20 years later – one year after Pius IX “patched” papal infallibility into the Catholic Church repertoire of added doctrines not supported by Scripture – its treatment of the same subject had undergone a major face-lift.

Q. Is the pope infallible?

A. Yes, the pope is infallible.

Q. But some Catholics, before the Vatican Council, denied the infallibility of the pope, which was impugned by this very Catechism.

A. Yes, they did so under the usual reservation, insofar as they then could grasp the mind of the church, and subject to her (the church’s) future definitions, thus implicitly accepting the dogma.

A most amazing organism is the Roman Catholic Church. One day a doctrine is not a doctrine. The next day it becomes a doctrine. All who denied it yesterday must believe it today, because their denial yesterday was with the reservation that Rome might change its mind today. Such unmitigated insolence on the part of those who claim custodial authority over God’s divine Word. Who dares trust his or her immortal soul to a church whose “mind” can be changed any time expediency dictates? How can one ever be certain that today’s already heretical doctrine of Mary as co-mediatrix with Christ, will not tomorrow become the doctrine of Mary co-redeemer, co-savior with our Lord, of all who “believe on her name?”  How long before today’s “infallible” pope declares himself not just “vicar of Christ” but Christ Himself? These are very real possibilities, not in the least far-fetched. For a church that is not restricted in its beliefs and declarations by the Word of God, is a church unpredictable; a church unreliable; an apostate church, no less deadly than the “Mystery Babylon” of Revelation.

            Another Catechism – the “Full Catechism of The Catholic Religion” – presents an excellent study in the art of discouraging Bible reading. Authored by Joseph Deharbe, and re-published in 1979, the hardbound version sells in Catholic book stores for 17.95. In it, the Catholic Church is projected as the lone “pillar and ground of truth,” (Cf. 1 Tim 3:15) For this reason, the church allegedly cannot erroneously interpret the Word of God. Therefore, the individual Catholic is forbidden to interpret Scriptures, for two given reasons. First, no individual can understand the Scriptures like the Holy Spirit who gives the Vatican their true meanings. Second, “The Holy Scripture is a Divine and mysterious book,” containing certain things not easily understood. (Cf. 1 Pet 3:16) Only those possessing the “learning and piety” necessary should read the Bible, and then only approved translations with annotations endorsed by Rome.

            R.A. Torrey, the great 19^th century evangelist, commenting on the concept that the Bible is a difficult book and hard to be understood, expressed his belief like this:

 “I am always suspicious of profound explanations of Scripture, explanations that require a scholar or philosopher to understand them. The Bible is a plain man’s book. (Cf. Mat 11:25) In at least ninety-nine cases in a hundred the meaning of Scripture lies on the surface – the meaning that any simple-minded man, woman or child who really wants to know and obey the truth would see in it.”

When Vatican VIPS say in effect, “We only are the ones who compiled, preserved, and disseminated the Holy Scriptures, (none of which is true,) therefore we have the exclusive right to their interpretation,” they can be compared to the telegraph operator who, upon starting his shift, finds a message for a group of people already typed out and packaged for delivery. As he delivers it, he declares, “I’m the only one who can tell you folks what this message means.” In the case of God’s divine Word, every born again believer is indwelt by the Holy Spirit – the very author of the Scriptures – and by Him is empowered to interpret them quite correctly. (Cf. 1 John 2:27.)

            It is apparent that Jesus did not consider His Word to be “mysterious” or difficult to understand, for he urged the unbelieving religious Jews to, “Search the Scriptures; for... they are they which testify of me.” (John 5:39) Why would our Lord urge people – especially unbelievers – to search into what He knew they would be unable to comprehend? Such would only engender confusion, and the Bible tells us God is not the author of confusion. (Cf. 1 Cor 14:33) In a similar vein, Luke expressed admiration for the Bereans to whom Paul and Silas preached the Gospel. Of them he said, “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind, and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so.”  (Act 17:11) Does Rome think its laity is of lesser intelligence than the common folk of Berea in Paul’s lifetime?

            This second great heresy of Catholicism – that Rome is the sole custodian and interpreter of God’s Word – is, as has already been noted, propagated very effectively through Catechisms and the teachings they contain. Add to this the personal influence of the clergy, the trust placed in the priest by his parishioners, the Rome-fostered illusion that only in the pastor resides the “oracles” of God, and what you end up with is a brainwashed flock, unable and unwilling to contest even the most outlandish claims and dogmas – the Marian heresies, for example. On page 27 of the 1994 Catechism, even the manner in which the laity is to accept Rome’s teachings is dictated.

 “Mindful of Christ’s words to His apostles: ‘He who hears you hears me,’ the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.”

How clever of the Vatican to suggest in the above that “hearing” the teachings and directives of their pastors is equivalent to hearing the very words of our Lord. For this reason, of course, the laity is instructed to accept whatever they are taught submissively and without doubting, questioning, or disputation of any kind. Unfortunately, this is exactly how the Vatican’s teachings are received by multi-millions of the Catholic faithful, (me, too, when I was one). It accounts for the stonewalling experienced by evangelical Christians who try to witness to these sadly misled folks. A Catechism statement – “…the Church…does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone,” should have Catholics jumping out of their seats shouting, “Why not!? Why would God leave important truths out of His Bible!?” But, instead of demanding answers to that and numerous similar questions, Catholics (me, too, when I was one) find it easier to “receive with docility” only what Rome chooses to feed them. What Rome chooses not to feed them, though, is critical to the eternal destination of their souls.

            In the epistle of Paul to the Galatians, God’s Word reveals two vitally important facts that are hidden from the Catholic faithful. “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of (by) me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal 1:11, 12) Fact the first: what Paul preached he received directly from the lips of our Lord, and there is not the slightest suggestion it was anything less than a complete Gospel. “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”  (Gal 1:8, 9) Fact the second: to preach anything other than what Paul preached is twice cursed in God’s Word. The oft “patched” gospel of Catholicism is not even close to the complete Gospel Paul and the other Apostles preached. Those who preach and teach it do so at their own peril.

            In His wonderful “Olivet Discourse” our blessed Savior said, “And THIS Gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness to all nations; and then shall the end come.” (Mat 24:14) Christ said, “THIS” Gospel, not an incomplete Gospel needing “patches” to perfect it. Later, toward the end of that famous sermon, Jesus said. “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” (Mat 24:35) “Sacred Tradition,” so-called by the Council of Trent bunch, has been granted equal status with the Word of God by the Vatican VIPS; but it was not so honored by our Lord. He said it was His Words that would not pass away; not His Words and the “Sacred Tradition” unveiled at Trent, Italy in the 16^th century.

            When a religion departs even partially from the written Logos – the Word as it is preserved in our Bibles – there is only one way it can go – astray. In each of the heresies discussed in this and following chapters, the Catholic church either has added to God’s Word, twisted God’s Word, taken away from it, or ignored it entirely, always to the detriment of its trusting members. Justification by faith alone in Christ’s atoning sacrifice – the very foundation of the Gospel given to Paul directly by Jesus – has been replaced in Catholicism by a works-based, Tradition-driven theology not found anywhere in divine Scripture.

            The Bible contains many warnings about false teachers and teachings, some of which have been referred to already. The one that follows seems especially apropos. “Now the SPIRIT speaketh expressly that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils; speaking lies in hypocrisy: having their consciences seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry and commanding to abstain from meats.” (1 Tim 4:1-3) In AD 1079, the Catholic Church forbade priests to marry; commanded them to remain celibate throughout their lives. That order has never been rescinded; continues in force to this day, and has resulted in the kind of shocking immorality previously associated only with pagan religions of bygone days and the cults of this generation. Catholicism completed fulfillment of the prophecy in First Timothy - about the same time as the celibacy decree – when Rome commanded the faithful, under penalty of serious sin, to abstain from meat on all Fridays and certain “fast” days throughout the year.

            According to Eusebius, historian of the early Christian church, certain of the Apostles were married, among them both Peter and Philip. The latter had four daughters “which did prophesy.” (Act 21:9) Obviously there was no such thing as celibacy in the early church. Nor were the early Christians bound to observe certain days of the week or abstain from certain foods. Says Eusebius in his Book 1, Chapter 4, the patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob:

 “…did not care about observing Sabbaths, nor do we. They did not avoid certain kinds of food, neither did they regard the other distinctions which Moses first delivered to their posterity to be observed as symbols; nor do Christians of the present day do such things.”

The early Christian church, predecessor to the Roman Catholic Church, was not under bondage to commandments not found in the Word of God. No one was placed under penalty of sin for missing a Lord’s Day gathering. Bishops, deacons, elders, presbyters, could be married or not married as they themselves were led. No foods were forbidden them. No works were prescribed as necessary for salvation. “Sacred Tradition” was unheard of. The Scriptures alone contained their articles of faith, their doctrine. As a former Catholic who had no knowledge of the Word of God other than what Rome fed me, it now seems so appropriate to me that the longest chapter in the Bible is Psalm 119 which has 176 verses. Appropriate, because the entire psalm is focused on the wonder, the beauty, the comfort, the truth, the guidance, and the protection to be found in God’s precious Word. “Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.” (Psa 119:11) “This is my comfort in my affliction: for thy word hath quickened me.” (Psa 119:50) “For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.” (Psa 119:89) “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.” (Psa 119:105 “Thou art my hiding place and my shield: I hope in thy word.” (Psa 119:114)

            The Apostle, Peter, declared a bishop of Rome and the first pope by the Catholic church, believed what the Vatican seems not to believe. When a saddened Jesus asked the twelve, “Will you also go away?” it was Peter who expressed the group’s sentiments. “Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” (John 6:67, 68) They are found in every Bible, those wonderful words of eternal life. They are not found in so-called “Sacred Tradition,” Catechisms, papal “bulls” and encyclicals, pastoral observations or “Patchwork” doctrines. Because they are God’s Word, they are found only in God’s Word.

            In these pages we have seen overwhelming evidence that Rome lies when it claims to be the original, the true, and the only church founded by Christ Jesus. Its “Patchwork gospel” is a very visible contradiction to that claim, for it is not the Gospel given us by Jesus. It is not the Gospel preached by Paul, Peter, Philip, John, all the other Apostles, as well, and the early Christian Church. The Vatican’s gospel is not the Gospel Jesus referred to in Matthew 24 as “THIS Gospel.” Furthermore, in its organization, its doctrines, its liturgies, and its extensive statuary, the Roman Catholic Church is radically different from the church left on earth by Christ. Is it descended from apostolic Christianity? Of course, just as numerous other sects, faiths and denominations are rooted in the early church. But is it the one and only true church? Not according to history and the Word of God. That’s simply one of Rome’s many lies. Another is Rome’s claim to have been appointed sole custodian and interpreter of the divine Scriptures. This is Catholicism’s second great heresy and is as unsubstantiated as the first, 1) by God’s Word, 2) by history, and, 3) by the early church saints. Hundreds of years before there was a Catholic church, the Old and New Testaments were compiled and ratified. Rome had nothing to do with their compilation or approval, and any authority Rome claims with respect to the Bible is self-assumed and has not come from Jesus.

            In all truth, the Vatican’s well-documented antipathy to the Bible, reflected in its record of banning, and/or discouraging the study of it, more than disqualifies Rome from any kind of say-so with respect to the divine Scriptures. Its expedient manufacture of an umbrella called “Sacred Tradition,” under which doctrines not found in the Bible can be introduced and justified, is just further proof of Rome’s very active disdain for the Word of God, and its unswerving opposition to the Bible as the one and only rule of faith.

            Would our Lord have entrusted His divine Word and its interpretation to a Vatican crowd that denies the historicity of Genesis by endorsing microbe-to-man evolution? Would He entrust His most precious Word to a Vatican crowd whose leaders say it’s downright dangerous to seek for truth in the Word of God…who say the Bible is “…eminently dangerous to souls.?” Rome’s audacity impugns the intelligence of a holy God, Creator of all things, for it implies the kind of stupidity that entrusts the wolf with the protection of the sheep. “…I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek. For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.” (Rom 1:16, 17) The Apostle, Paul, was not ashamed of the Gospel Christ bequeathed to His followers, the complete Gospel clearly set forth in the Bible. Why should popes be so afraid of it if their motives are pure?

            The twin heresies looked at in this chapter are deeply implanted in the minds of most Roman Catholics, even those not-so-devout souls for whom a forty-minute Mass on Saturday night or Sunday morning is a sufficient amount of spirituality for the week. And so long as they accept Rome’s false claims of exclusivity, antiquity, and absolute God-given authority, it’s nearly impossible to help them achieve a saving relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. They literally are caught in Catholicism’s “Tradition Trap,” and only an open-minded comparison of what they’ve been taught with what the Bible says can free them from it.

            That in itself – gaining the Catholic’s respect for God’s Word – can prove difficult in the extreme and engender much disappointment. One missionary to a “Catholic Country” told me of instances where Catholics to whom he had given a King James Bible tore out a page right in front of him, rolled their tobacco in it, and smoked the resulting “cigarette,” smiling smugly at him the whole time. Fortunately, most evangelical Christians attempting to witness to a Catholic will not be subjected to a similar experience. But they are likely to get a lot of, “Ah, the Bible is just a bunch of words on paper!” and/or, “I don’t care what the Bible says, that’s not what the Catholic Church teaches.”

            Catholics firmly believe that their church is the one and only true church founded by Jesus, but even if this were true, the Catholicism of today has very little in common with the Christian Church our Lord left to the Apostles. Today’s Catholic Church is like the company that got started producing fine bread, but after a short time switched over to baking rum cakes. Likewise, the product Rome is marketing in this generation is a far cry from what early Christendom brought to the table. Some of the ingredients are the same, but the end product has an entirely different flavor. And, what bread-maker, converted to the production of rum cakes, would have the audacity to forbid others to produce fine bread? Rome is expert at claiming, forbidding, and condemning, but, as if ignoring an unsavory fact will make it go away, the Vatican maintains an uncharacteristic silence about the period of 800 plus years when pope after pope curtailed or banned entirely the reading of the Bible by the Catholic faithful. Nothing is said in Catholic educational institutions or the local parish church about the persecution – rather, the execution – of holy men of God who brought or sought to bring the Word of God to the general populace. Moreover, the rank immorality of popes, (those guardians of the Sacred Scriptures) that extended from the ninth to at least the 17^th century is never mentioned in polite Catholic conversation.

            In succeeding chapters, Catholic doctrines – all “patches” to God’s Gospel – will be measured against Bible teachings, same as in this chapter. It’s the way I was liberated from Rome’s “Tradition Trap,” the way former priests and nuns also have come to a knowledge of the truth. I pray it will be useful to evangelical Christians in helping Catholic relatives, friends, co-workers, etc., come to a realization that it doesn’t take a cardinal with a red hat, or a pope with a staff and crown to grasp the salvation message found in the Word of a loving and merciful God.

2

The Goddess Man Has Made

Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? Ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? Yea, there is no God; I know not any. (Isa 44:8)

Of all the beautiful, soul-stirring ceremonies that have become a part of the Roman Catholic religion, perhaps the most beautiful and soul-stirring are those associated with the worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus. For example, besides the two holy days of obligation honoring her (August 15, Assumption, and December 8, Immaculate Conception) the entire month of May has been designated as Mary’s month, a month whose culmination features processions, lovely hymns, and the crowning of Mary’s statue with a headpiece of fresh flowers interwoven with gold ribbon and lace.

            As the congregation sings “Tis The Month Of Our Mother,” and “Bring Flowers Of The Fairest,” little girls in crisp white dresses scatter rose petals in the main aisle ahead of a young lady who carries on a satin pillow the crown she has been chosen to place upon the head of the great Queen’s statue. In the sanctuary, boys in white cassocks and pink surpluses swing censors filled with sweet smelling incense in the direction of Mary’s statue. The procession winds solemnly to the altar rail and the young lady with the crown respectfully advances to the side altar – Mary’s altar – where a ladder awaits. Slowly, with great reverence and devotion, she mounts the ladder, then lovingly, carefully, glowing all the while, she places the crown upon the statue’s head. It is all so beautiful; so uplifting!

            Unfortunately, it’s heresy. More than heresy, it’s blasphemy! It’s man at his most arrogant, making a goddess out of a created being. This in defiance of the true, the one and only God, the very Creator of all things, the One who said: “Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” (Isa 44:6) The entire “Cult of Mary” as it is called in the 1994 edition of the Catholic Catechism, is a satanic diversion taking glory from the One who died that we might have eternal life. Mariology is absolutely without any foundation in God’s Holy Word. It is based entirely on fables, fantasy, spurious documents and “Traditions” that have been built on them. This humble maiden chosen by God to bring her own Savior into the world has been elevated by Rome to the status of Theotikos (mother of God) and Regina Caeli (queen of heaven). This, without Scriptural support of any kind. Yet the Catholic faithful are commanded under the penalty of grievous sin to accept as divine truth all of the following about Mary the mother of Jesus:

1. She was conceived immaculate, without a sin nature, in her mother’s womb.
2. She is the Mother of God by virtue of being the one who gave birth to Jesus.
3. She lived a completely sinless life, the result of her Immaculate Conception.
4. She remained a virgin throughout her life; even after Jesus was born.
5. At the time of her death, her body was “assumed” into heaven and did not decay.
6. She is, with Christ, the co-mediatrix between God and man.
7. She now reigns as “Queen of Heaven.”

In the 1994 Catholic Catechism thousands of words are devoted to doctrines about Mary. Many Scriptural references are given, but not a single one offers unqualified support for belief in any of the dogmas enumerated above. All rationale that directly supports Rome’s teachings about Mary are based on the inductive reasoning of error-prone human minds, people who simply came to believe things about Mary that, over many centuries, were assimilated into Rome’s “Tradition Trap.” Some of these teachings were originated by spurious documents dating from the 4^th and 5^th centuries, hundreds of years after the deaths of the Apostles and their immediate successors. Others are, quite obviously, the result of men’s fertile imaginations. All are – I repeat – completely unsubstantiated or supported by even one Scripture from the Word of God. And, as we compare each of the Marian doctrines to what is written in the Bible, it will become crystal clear that the Roman Catholic church beliefs about Mary, the mother of Jesus, are heretical beyond a shadow of a doubt. They are, in fact, a prime example of extra-biblical “revealed truths” (Cf. chapter 1) Rome attributes to “Tradition” and the private revelation of the Holy Spirit.

IMMACULATE CONCEPTION: SINLESS LIFE.

Certainly two of the most fallacious teachings about Mary are her imagined Immaculate Conception, and her alleged freedom from sin throughout her life. According to these doctrines, Mary, whose father was a mortal and a sinner like all of us, was conceived in her mother’s womb free from the sin nature (called “original sin”) inherited by all descendents of Adam, and remained sinless throughout her life. Such teachings are found nowhere in either the Old or the New Testament, and are at once in conflict with the written Word of God. For the Bible tells us only the man Christ Jesus – whose father was God the Holy Spirit – was born and endured without sin. “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.” (2 Cor 5:21)  Scripture also tells us that every individual except our Lord is guilty of sin. “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: (Rom 3:10) and: “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” (Rom 3:23)

A thorough study of both Testaments reveals a total absence of information about Mary’s birth, her parents, her childhood, anything. The Apostles of Jesus and the early church saints knew nothing of Mary’s origins, either, for there are no such references in any of their writings. As a matter of historical fact, the very first known appearance of this idea is traced to the 4th century when Augustine was bishop of Hippo. A sect known as Pelagians, whose chief spokesman was Julian of Eclanum, believed that Mary the mother of Jesus had been born without sin and was, therefore, free from the power of the “demons.” In defending the clearly stated Biblical doctrine that all mankind inherits a sin nature from the original sin of Adam, Augustine pointed out to the heretic Julian of Eclanum that if Mary the mother of Jesus had been freed from the power of the demons, it was not the result of her natural birth, but the result of her being born again by the grace of God, as described in the third chapter of John’s Gospel. That should have put to rest for all time any suggestions that Mary’s conception was in some way special or different. But in the 13^th century, about 800 years after Augustine, the Immaculate Conception matter enjoyed a renewal of support. Not, however from Thomas Aquinas, the famous doctor of the Roman Catholic Church. Aquinas declared quite emphatically that Mary the mother of Jesus was conceived with the stain of original sin – an inherited predisposition to sin – as are all descendents of Adam and Eve. In his Brevis Summa de Fide, Aquinas addressed the matter this way:

 “Certainly Mary was conceived with original sin, as is natural. If she would not have been born with original sin, she would not have needed to be redeemed by Christ, and, this being so, Christ would not be the universal Redeemer of men, which would abolish the dignity of Christ.”

It is interesting to note in the Catholic Catechism that not a single early Church father is cited as a reference for the Immaculate Conception doctrine. Nor, in fact, are there any Scriptures invoked to support it. Oh, there are included some quotes by early Church patriarchs, but none have to do with Mary’s supposed Immaculate Conception. By their inclusion, however, the apathetic faithful and less than astute student can be led to believe that this is a doctrine of great antiquity, one that has come down through the ages as an accepted “Tradition,” one that can be traced back to apostolic times. But if it is, in fact a church “Tradition,” founded on the doctrines held by the early Church, all evidence for this is conspicuous by its absence from the 1994 Catechism. What is found there are the conclusions of pope’s and councils, all of them far removed from the Christian Church founded by Jesus. How then, with no record of support for it in Scripture or among the early Church fathers, with emphatic opposition to it on the part of Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas, how could the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception ever have been declared an article of faith of the Roman Catholic Church?

            John Duns Scotus was his name and the Immaculate Conception doctrine can be attributed almost exclusively to his efforts. His life spanned the years AD 1266-1308, the latter part of which he spent as a Franciscan monk and self-styled Catholic theologian. As a teacher in Paris in 1306 Duns Scotus gave new life to the Immaculate Conception doctrine that Augustine and Aquinas had emphatically opposed. His espousal of it marked the turning point for a belief that, if not completely moribund at the time, was at least in a deep coma. His own order adamantly opposed his position. Pope Sixtus IV, himself a Franciscan, distanced himself from the cause celebre that resulted. Duns Scotus was threatened with trial by Philip the Fair’s ongoing heresy inquisition, and either fled or was transferred to Cologne, the place of his death. End of story? Not by a long shot.

            The popularity of Duns Scotus saw great growth in the century following his death, and by the 16^th century, this obscure Franciscan monk had become the darling of Catholic theologians, his adherents first rivaling and then surpassing those of Aquinas. And with his popularity grew the popularity of the Immaculate Conception doctrine. Several popes supported it. The councils of Basel (AD 1439) and Trent (AD 1546) endorsed it. It even prospered, may have greatly benefited, from the chaos of the Protestant Reformation and the Catholic Counter-Reformation.

            It was not until December 8, 1854, however, that Pius IX, declared the Immaculate Conception to be a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. In a document entitled Ineffabilis Deus, he said the doctrine had been revealed by God, (Cf. Chapter 1, Montanism) and must be accepted and believed by all the faithful under penalty of sin. The Word of God, the Apostles, early Christian Church fathers, and both Augustine and Aquinas were overruled! The heretic Julian of Eclanum and his sect, the Pelagians, with a major assist from John Duns Scotus, had somehow convinced “god” to make this doctrine known to Pius IX. From page 124 of the 1994 Catechism we have the word of Pius IX that Mary was conceived free of sin.

 “The most Blessed Virgin Mary was, from the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”

History indicates that Pius IX made this declaration on his own and without the benefit of a church council. It was a grave contradiction of the Holy Scriptures that insist only one person – Christ Jesus our Lord – was born without the Adamic nature that leads inevitably to sin. “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.” (Heb 4:15) Which raises the question: what “god” revealed this to Pius IX?

            In the 20^th century, Pius XII defended the Immaculate Conception dogma, citing as its Scriptural support God’s words to the serpent after Adam sinned. “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Gen 3:15) From this first Messianic prophecy, Rome has somehow been able to determine that Mary was conceived without a sin nature and sinless for life. This same Scripture has been cited by the Vatican VIPS as justification for Mary’s elevation by the Catholic Church to her status as “Queen of Heaven.” Amazing? Incredible? Astounding? Yes, yes, yes. Factual? Not even close!

Genesis 3:15 has nothing to do with Mary, the mother of Jesus, other than to prophecy that our Lord would be conceived in the womb of a virgin by the power of the Holy Ghost. The woman referred to is the nation of Israel out of whose ranks the Redeemer was to come. The word “enmity” is the key to understanding the prophecy. When God said there would be enmity between Satan and the woman, He was foretelling the war that Satan would wage against God’s chosen people – the children of Israel – throughout history, and even to this present time. Nowhere in the Bible are we informed of any attempt by Satan to destroy Mary. But we have ample proof of his efforts to corrupt and crush the nation of Israel, thereby frustrating God’s plan and promise that the Savior would be born a Jew.

            The Bible tells us, moreover, that the prophesied enmity between Satan and Israel will even carry over into the very last times. The same “woman” of Genesis 3:15 is seen again in Chapter 12 of Revelation. “And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars. And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered”. (Rev 12:1, 2) “…and the dragon (Satan) stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born. And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.” (Rev 12:5, 6) “And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.” (Rev 12:17) In these verses, certain phrases leave no doubt that the woman described is the nation of Israel, not Mary, the mother of Jesus. The crown of twelve stars worn by the woman unquestionably marks her as a figure of the twelve tribes of Israel. The woman’s flight into the wilderness is prophetic of God’s plan to prevent total annihilation of Israel during the “time of Jacob’s trouble.” (Jer 30:7) And the phrase, “the remnant of her seed,” can only refer to Jewish converts to Christianity during the great Tribulation.

            That Catholic theology insists the woman in Genesis 3 and Revelation 12 is Mary, the mother of Jesus, is proof positive that Rome’s agenda – in this case the Immaculate Conception doctrine – takes precedence over the Word of God, and actually contradicts sound exegesis. No wonder Rome doesn’t want Catholics interpreting the Bible on their own! The earthly mother of the man Christ Jesus died and was buried two millennia ago. It is the nation of Israel – referred to as “the woman” both in Genesis and Revelation – who will flee into the wilderness for God’s protection during the coming tribulation. But Catholics are not permitted to believe that. They must believe Pius XII’s lie that the woman is Mary, our Lord’s mother.

            Another justification for the Immaculate Conception doctrine, according to Catholic theologians, is found in a familiar passage of Scripture recorded in the Book of Luke. It is the passage that relates the angel Gabriel’s appearance to Mary announcing the news of her selection as the vessel through which Israel’s promised Messiah will be brought into the world. Catholic teaching contends that the angel’s words to Mary were, “Hail, FULL of grace.” Since only a sinless soul could be addressed in that manner, Rome cites this Scripture as proof of Mary’s Immaculate Conception and sinless life. Numerous other Scriptures – some previously quoted – quite explicitly rule out Mary’s alleged freedom from sin, so something must be wrong with Rome’s translation of God’s Word. Sure enough, when the Greek text is consulted, it’s obvious that Gabriel has been misquoted by the Vatican.

            In the Gospel of John, our Lord is described by the evangelist as “FULL of grace and truth.”  (John 1:14) In the Greek, the phrase translated, “full of grace,” is pleres charitos. In the entire New Testament, this is the only use of that phrase, and it pertains to the One – the only One – who truly was without sin. The Greek phrase the angel used to address Mary is chaire kecharitomene. A literal translation of that phrase is, “one who is receiving unmerited favor.” Thus, the KJV correctly translates John 1:14 as: “Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” There simply is no honest way you can get “full of grace” out of the Greek phrase chaire kecharitomene. J.M. Carda, a Roman Catholic priest and author, offered this commentary on the subject doctrine: “The Holy Scriptures do not mention the historical origin of Mary, nor do they expressly allude to any privilege in her conception.” The word pleres in the Greek means “filled up to the maximum” or, “completely full.”  It has no other meaning. It is used once in Scripture in reference to Jesus. It is not used in reference to Mary. Conclusions. She was not full of grace at conception. She was not conceived free of the Adamic nature. She is not the Immaculate Conception. She did not live a sinless life, only Jesus did.

            Just what are the implications of a Mary conceived without a sin nature – without the stain of original sin? Of a Mary who was thus empowered to live a life absent of any sin whatever? Well, first of all, it obviates the need for Jesus to have a divine rather than a human father. If Mary had a human father, and she must have for the Bible does not tell us otherwise; and if she was born free of the Adamic sin nature, then Jesus, too, could have had a human father and still been sinless. Point number two; if Mary was born free from the inclination to sin and therefore lived a sinless life, then our Lord was not alone the perfect unblemished sacrifice God required for atonement of the world’s sins. Mary could have gone to the cross and thereby redeemed mankind. There would have been no reason for God to allow His beloved, only begotten son to suffer the excruciating agonies He went through. Implication the third; a Mary conceived sinless and sin-free for life would not have needed redemption, nor would she have been subject to pain and death. However, she herself acknowledged her need for redemption when she prayed, “My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” (Luke 1:46, 47) The fact that Mary suffered death – as do all sinners – is acknowledged in the Vatican by its Assumption doctrine covered later in this chapter.

            The implications just cited of a sinless Mary certainly are sufficient to cast the most serious doubts upon the Catholic Immaculate Conception doctrine and her alleged lifelong sinlessness. But it is in God’s divine Word that doubts are fully confirmed and this invention of Rome is revealed to be a “doctrine of devils,” (1 Tim 4:1) and a “damnable heresy.” (2 Pet 2:1) “…we have before proved both Jews and Gentiles, that they are all under sin; As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:” (Rom 3:9,10) “there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Rom 3:12) “For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” (Rom 3:23)

            Unless the Roman Catholic theologians have successfully changed its meaning, the little word “all” still encompasses everyone sired by a human father, while excluding none. The Bible is absolutely clear in its teaching that Jesus was perfect and sinless, without spot or blemish, and the only acceptable sacrifice for the sins of the world. On Mary’s alleged perfection the Bible’s silence is deafening. From the lips of Jesus Himself we have this assurance: “Verily I say unto you, among them that are born of women there hath not risen a greater than John the Baptist:” (Mat 11:11) If Mary, the mother of Jesus, was “born of woman” – and she was – then, by the witness of her own Son, she was not greater than John the Baptist. And if the Bible does not teach that John the Baptist was conceived without sin and was sinless throughout his life – and it most definitely doesn’t – then Mary was neither, either, amen!

            If even further proof of the fallacious nature of the Immaculate Conception doctrine is needed, it can be found in the writings attributed to the early Church saints. Not one of them relates that the mother of Jesus was born without a sin nature. Not one of them expresses admiration for her because of her totally sinless life. Were there any truth in these peculiarly Catholic beliefs, it is certain that at least some of the apostolic church saints would have commented on such a noteworthy and singular blessing. As a former Catholic with dear relations still bound by Rome’s “damnable heresies,” I am saddened by their trust in what Rome disseminates rather than what is written for all people in the divine Word of God. Jesus, not Mary, is the Star of the story. He is the hero deserving all and getting all of the glory. Mary, the Apostles, John the Baptist, are merely the supporting cast, all in need of forgiveness and redemption by the Leading Man of all time, the Lord Jesus. To Him and to Him alone we are to give glory, honor and praise.

MOTHER OF GOD.

The second Marian heresy, that she is the “mother of God,” actually is the oldest, its seeds having been planted in the 5^th century. In our day, Catholic theologians have concluded from two passages in the Gospel of Luke that Mary’s designation as God’s mother is Scriptural. However, any rational human being must reject the contention that a created being – Mary – could be maternal to an eternal, uncaused, uncreated being – God. Certainly she was the mother of the physical child Jesus placed in her womb by the power of the Holy Spirit. She was the mother of His human body and His human nature. His divine nature is from everlasting and had no beginning; is no one’s offspring “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God.” (Psa 90:2) and in another of the Psalms we are told “Thy throne is established of old: thou art from everlasting.” (Psa 93:2) There certainly can be no question about the eternal nature of Him who in the Old Testament was called variously The Lord of Hosts, the Angel of the Lord, Messiah, Emanuel, Prince of Peace, The Mighty God. How then can Rome conclude that Mary is the Mother of God when she was a mere mortal, a creation of the eternal Word? Rome’s explanation, which has a very persuasive ring to it, appears on page 125 of the 1994 Catholic Catechism.

Called in the Gospels “the mother of Jesus,” Mary is acclaimed by Elizabeth, at the prompting of the Spirit and even before the birth of her son, as “the mother of my Lord.” In fact, the One whom she conceived as man by the Holy Sprit, who truly became her Son according to the flesh, was none other than the Father’s eternal Son, the second person of the Holy Trinity. Hence the Church confesses that Mary is truly “Mother of God”. (Theotokos)

That has such a logical ring to it one cannot be faulted for accepting it as factual, and concluding that Mary really is the Mother of God. This, of course, is the wisdom of man, not the inspired Word of God, so it is at once suspect and for good reason. Two Bible references are cited in the Catechism apologetic above. The first is an admission that the Gospels always refer to Mary as the “mother of Jesus,” never as the mother of God. This is true and moot. It is the second Scriptural citation about Elisabeth’s statement to which our attention is directed. For background, Mary has been told by the angel that her cousin Elisabeth also is with child and Mary goes to visit her. Upon hearing Mary’s greeting the babe leaps in Elisabeth’s womb and she makes the following statements to Mary: “And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come to me? For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy. And blessed is she that believed: for there shall be a performance of those things which were told her from the lord.” (Luke 1:43-45)

Before drawing the same conclusion from these statements of Elisabeth as is drawn by Rome, a good question to ask is: who was Elisabeth referring to as her Lord? Was she referring to God or not? There are two Greek words she could have used. The first is kurios, which is used 748 times in the New Testament and is translated master, lord, owner, but never God. The other Greek word she could have used is Theos (God),” which is used 1343 times in the New Testament, and always means God, Deity. Elisabeth used the first word – kurios. She did not refer to Mary as “…the mother of my Theos (God),” but rather as “…the mother of my kurios (Lord).” Scripture makes a clear distinction between Lord and God, as can be seen in Mary’s response to her cousin. She said, “My soul doth magnify the Lord (kurios) and my spirit doth rejoice in God (Theos) my (Soter) Saviour.” Another excellent example is found in the Gospel of John, Chapter 20.

“But Thomas, one of the twelve, called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. The other disciples therefore said unto him, ‘We have seen the LORD.’ But he said unto them, ‘Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.’ And after eight days again his disciples were within, and Thomas with them: then came Jesus, the doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, ‘Peace be unto you.’ Then saith he to Thomas, ‘Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side; and be not faithless, but believing.’ And Thomas answered and said unto him, ‘ My LORD (kurios) and my GOD.’” (Theos) (John 20:24-28)

            There are literally scores of Scriptures from which we conclude that the Jews were not expecting their Messiah to have both a human and a divine nature. They were expecting a man – a man of great power – who would free them from Rome’s domination and restore the Davidic Kingdom. This simply cannot be doubted, for even after our Lord had died and risen again, the Apostles were still preoccupied with their Messianic expectation. “When they therefore were come together, they asked of him, saying, ‘Lord (Kurios) wilt thou at this time restore again the kingdom to Israel?’” (Acts1:6)

            When Elisabeth acknowledged Mary as the mother of her “Lord” she was referring to the Messiah whom she expected to be a man. In her mind Mary was to be the mother of the Messiah – Jesus – not the mother of God. It is a certainty that the Messiah would warrant the title of Lord. These Scriptures in Luke are the only ones in the entire New Testament that even faintly suggest that Mary was the mother of God; and when the Jews’ Messianic expectations are understood, they offer no real support for such an exegesis. This is especially obvious in the fact that throughout the Gospels Mary is referred to always as the mother of Jesus, but never as Theotokos, which is the Greek word for “God-bearer.”

            At the 5^th century Council of Ephesus, the title that applied to Mary from apostolic times - Christotokos, that is, “Christ-bearer” - was rejected. The Eastern Church insisted on calling her Theotokos, and the emerging Catholic Church acceded after some rigorous debate. But this was a council decision at once in conflict with the Scriptures, and a significant departure from sound reasoning as well. In Luke 1:35, the angel told Mary that the child she would bear would be called the Son of GOD. He did not tell her she would become the mother of God. There is a difference. In numerous New Testament Scriptures, Jesus is referred to as, “the only begotten Son of God.” Now we know that the Second Person of the blessed Trinity is an eternal being, not begotten, but co-equal and co-existent with the Father and the Holy Ghost. Thus, biblical references to Jesus as the “only begotten Son” identify the Christ, the Messiah, not the eternal Second Person of the Trinity. Jesus often used the term, “son of man” in reference to Himself. However he was nearly stoned by the religious Jews when He acknowledged that He was the Son of God. “Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of (Theos) God?” (John 10:36)

            It was not the Second Person of the Trinity that died on Calvary’s cross, for God cannot die. It was the man Christ Jesus whose precious, sinless blood was shed there to reconcile mankind to God. And it is the man Christ Jesus who now – in heaven – is the lone mediator between God and His creatures. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;” (1 Tim 2:5) It is notable that our Lord never called Mary His mother. In John 2:4 and 19:26 He called her “woman.” It’s as if He wanted posterity to have a proper view of Himself as the perfect man, the last Adam, and Mary as a vessel chosen for the achievement of God’s purposes but nothing more. A fitting wrap-up to this rebuttal of the Catholic heresy that Mary is the mother of God may be seen in the Gospel of Matthew. In an exchange with the oh-so spiritual Pharisees, who, by biblical accounts were as adept as the Vatican at teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, our Lord challenged them to answer a question that exactly equates to the one with which we are here dealing.

            “While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, ‘What think ye of Christ? whose son is he?’ They say unto him, ‘The son of David’. He saith unto them, ‘How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son?’ And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.” Mat 22:41-46.)

            The MAN Christ Jesus is, in fact, a “son of David.” The  Second Person of the blessed Trinity, is, in fact David’s GOD. Likewise, the MAN Christ Jesus is Mary’s firstborn son. The DIVINE Second Person of the Trinity is Mary’s GOD. Mary, the mother of Jesus, yes. Mary, the mother of God, never.

MARY EVER VIRGIN.

Of all the heresies concerning Mary which are taught to, and believed by, the practicing Roman Catholic, the one considered most ridiculous by born again Christians, is the representation of Mary as “ever-virgin” from the cradle to the grave, even after giving birth to the Lord Jesus. Of this strange doctrine the Bible is so contradictory, and in its own teaching so crystal clear, one is compelled to question the sanity of the minds that conceived it and believed it.

            Historically, Christians into the 5^th Century believed what the Scriptures clearly assert, that Mary had four sons in addition to Jesus, and at least two daughters. The idea of Mary “ever-virgin” came about as the result of a spurious document entitled the Prot Evangelium of James, also called, The First Gospel of James. Though it had been circulated for some time in the Eastern branch of Christendom, it was rejected as Scripture and disqualified for inclusion in the Bible. It purported to be written by one James the Lesser, and was ostensibly a narrative of Mary’s life, Christ’s birth, the slaughter of the infants by Herod, and the story of Zachariah, Elisabeth’s spouse. Among the unsavory episodes appearing in the manuscript, is a story about Mary and Joseph undergoing the immorality water test described in the Old Testament. (Cf.  Num 5:12-31) When an accusation of adultery was lodged against a married woman, the water test was administered to ascertain her guilt or innocence. Though Mary was only betrothed to Joseph at the time of the angel’s visit, Jewish law considered her a married woman. In the manuscript, Mary passes the water test and is thereafter the subject of an even more unsavory episode.

            Chapters 19 and 20 of the subject work carry a disgusting account that is at the very least highly insulting to this dear, sweet soul who became the mother of our Lord. Supposedly, a midwife who was present at the birth of Jesus, (information not found in God’s Word) tells one Salome who also was there, that Mary, a virgin, has borne a child and yet remains a virgin. Salome doubts this and is unconvinced of its truth until she has discovered it for herself, the description of which is disgusting.

            This admittedly false document, one of several that figure prominently in Roman Catholic theology, is thought to have originated with a sect known as the Ebionites. These were Jews who believed that Jesus was their Messiah but not a member of the Godhead. In their day, the unconverted Jews tried to counter the rapidly spreading Christian movement by calling Jesus a bastard, and Mary, his mother, an unwed woman of easy virtue. It is believed by historians that the Prot Evangelium of James was an Ebionite attempt to defend against that unholy charge. Be that as it may, there is not one hint in Scripture, nor is there any factual historical support for the belief that Mary retained her virginity from birth to death. And in spite of the subject manuscript, the “ever-virgin” heresy attracted very few adherents until the middle ages when it began to enjoy wider appeal among those who would have a queen in heaven as well as a King of Kings.

            For Catholics to believe in the perpetual virginity of Mary, they must first believe that she and Joseph had a marriage in name only, a lifetime platonic relationship. This is a radical contradiction of Rome’s own teaching about marriage and its alleged chief purpose - procreation. Even more serious is the conflict set up between this doctrine and God’s Scriptural instructions to married couples. “The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.” (1Cor 7:4, 5)

            Married couples are here instructed in the very Word of God, to engage in normal conjugal relations. They may for a time – by mutual consent – abstain, but they are commanded to come together again to avoid the temptations arising from overlong abstinence. Neither the husband nor the wife has the right to unilaterally decide on abstention. So, a “sinless” Mary denying Joseph the privileges of the marriage bed would have been committing sin by doing so. For both of them to permanently abstain would have been doubly sinful according to Scripture. Bluntly stated, Mary could not have been both sinless and ever-virgin at the same time, as the Vatican instructs the faithful to believe.

            The ever-virgin doctrine also requires Catholics to accept Rome’s explanation that the half-brothers of Jesus– James, Joses, Simon, and Jude – specifically named in three of the Gospels, were really not Christ’s brothers at all, but merely close relations. The following is from page 126 of the 1994 Catechism.

Against this doctrine (Mary ever virgin) the objection is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact, James and Joseph, ‘brothers of Jesus’ are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St Matthew significantly calls ‘the other Mary.’ They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.”

In chapter one it was pointed out that the Vatican has given itself absolute authority over the Scriptures and their interpretation. It also was pointed out that when Catholicism’s doctrinal “patches” conflict with the Word of God, Rome invokes its self-assumed right of interpretation. The laity then is bound under penalty of sin to believe what Rome says the Scriptures mean. The foregoing is a premier example of this self-assumed authority in action, and an excellent indication of why Rome has never really encouraged the faithful to read and study the Bible.

            In this and numerous other instances, what the Vatican says the church has always understood and what the Scriptures really say, are as far apart as New York is from Los Angeles. That there was another Mary who had sons named James and Joses (Mat 27:56) in no way changes or negates Scriptures that specifically name Christ’s half brothers, and call them His brothers, not kinfolk or relations. In Christ’s day, as in our day, certain names were very popular. This is obvious when one begins to count how many Marys how many Simons, how many James, Johns, Josephs, Judes, etc., are named in the Bible. It’s very clever of the Catholic apologists to suggest that two of Christ’s specifically named half-brothers are the sons of another Mary. But what about the other two half-brothers? Whose sons were they? What was their mother’s name? And whose sisters were they whom Scripture calls Christ’s sisters?

            In the Greek, one of the most precise languages the world has ever known, the word for brother is adelphos; for sister it is adelphee. And even a very shallow investigation of the way these words are used in the Bible leads to an unshakeable conviction that Mary, the mother of Jesus her firstborn, had four other sons and at least two daughters. In the 4^th chapter of Matthew’s Gospel we are told that “Jesus… saw two brothers, Simon called Peter, and Andrew his brother.” (Mat 4:18) The Greek word used for “brother” both times is adelphos. Throughout the New Testament we are told that Simon, called Peter, and Andrew were, in fact, blood brothers. Certainly the Catholic apologists would not suggest that these men were merely “close relations” according to an “Old Testament expression”

            Again, in the same chapter, Jesus saw “other two brothers – James (another James), the son of Zebedee, and John his brother.” (Mat 4:21) Once again the Greek word adelphos is used to establish the blood-brother relationship of James and John. Would the Vatican deny this? Are these men merely close relations in the eyes of the Catholic Church? John the Baptist, (another John) got in trouble for denouncing the marriage of Herod to Herodias who was the wife of Herod’s adelphos, Philip. This episode is recorded in Matthew 14. It is an historical fact that Herod and Philip were blood brothers, not just close relations. Rome has never been known to say these men were only cousins.

            In the parable of the Prodigal Son recorded in the Book of Luke, Jesus uses the Greek word adelphos to identify the father’s two sons as blood brothers. And the Father, speaking to his eldest son in Luke 15:27, says, “Thy adelphos (brother) is come…”  In verse 32, same chapter, the father says, “…thy adelphos (brother) was dead…” Had the men in the parable been merely close relations and not blood brothers, the parable would have made no sense at all.

            One of the most thrilling miracles performed by our Lord was the raising of His friend, Lazarus, from the dead four days after his interment. This astounding act is related in the 11^th chapter of the Gospel of John. Five times the Greek word adelphos is used to describe the relationship of Lazarus as blood brother to Mary (another Mary) and Martha. Moreover, the Greek word adelphee is used the same amount of times to describe the blood sister relationship of Mary and Martha to each other and to Lazarus, their adelphos. To my knowledge, the Catholic Church has never denied the blood brother/sister relationship of Mary, Martha and Lazarus. Catholic theologians have never suggested that they were merely close relations.

            As one reads and studies the Word of God, it becomes crystal clear that in every single instance where the Greek words adelphos and adelphee are used in association with a specific name or names, the relationship described is blood brother or sister. There are no exceptions, period! Hence, when we read in the Gospel of Matthew, that Jesus had four specifically named half-brothers and at least two sisters, it is impossible to conclude that they were merely close relatives. “Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence then hath this man all these things? (Mat 13:55, 56) As expected, the Greek word used to describe the relationship of James, Joses, Simon, and Judas to Jesus is adelphos. And the Greek word used to describe the relationship to Jesus of His sisters is adelphee.

            “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? And are not his sisters here with us? And they were offended at him.” (Mar 6:3) Here again, the words adelphos and adelphee are employed to ascertain the relationship to Jesus of the named brothers and unnamed sisters.

            In Matthew again, on an occasion when our Lord’s family attempted to interrupt Him while He was teaching a crowd, the Bible tells us; “Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy (adelphos) brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.” (Mat 12:47) Based on Roman Catholic theology, the brothers referred to in the passage cited were merely close relatives. But there is neither biblical evidence nor references in the writings of the apostolic church saints to confirm this belief. And, why would someone say our Lord’s mother and brothers were outside if he was only guessing at their identities? Wouldn’t he have said what you or I would have said? “Sir, some people outside wish to speak with you.”

            The Word of God mentions only two relatives of Mary – an unnamed sister, (adelphee, Mat 19:25) and Elisabeth, her cousin, who, in her “old age,” gave birth to John the Baptist. This reference of Elisabeth’s relationship to Mary appears in the very first chapter of Luke’s Gospel. The angel Gabriel, as he nears completion of his mission to inform Mary of her selection as the Messiah’s mother, says: “And, behold, thy cousin Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son in her old age: and this is the sixth month with her, who was called barren.” (Luke 1:36) In this passage, the Greek word translated cousin is suggenes. Appearing 12 times in the New Testament, this Greek word – suggenes – is always translated cousin or kinfolk. It is worthy of note that just as Elisabeth is the only cousin of Mary mentioned in Scripture, John the Baptist is the only relative of our Lord that is mentioned other than His immediate family and his unnamed aunt. So, in order to cling to the “ever-virgin” doctrine, one must conclude that the brothers of Jesus referred to in Matthew 12: 46, 47, in Mark 3:31, 32, in Luke 8:20, 21, and John 2:12, really were the brothers of John the Baptist, and therefore only “close relations” of Jesus according to an “Old Testament expression.” Once that conclusion is drawn, though, Elisabeth’s “Old-age” pregnancy wasn’t such a big deal after all because she would have had four more sons and at least two daughters following the birth of John. The only other possibility is that the four boys were the named sons of Mary’s unnamed sister; Mary’s nephews, Christ’s first cousins. But the Bible says they were our Lord’s (adelphos) brothers, not his (suggenes) cousins.

            The more the doctrinal disaster of Mary’s alleged perpetual virginity is studied, the more contradictory evidence from Scripture and other sources keeps turning up. Quoting from Paul’s epistle to the Galations: “But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.” (Gal 1:19) This is strong internal evidence that the Apostle, Paul, knew James was a blood brother of our Lord. The other James, one of  Zebedee’s sons, had already been slain by Herod (Cf. Acts 12:2) so the James Paul refers to must be the one who presided at the first church council in Jerusalem, a description of which is recorded in Acts 15. As in other verses cited, the Greek word adelphos is the one used for brother in Galatians 1:19.

            The great Jewish historian, Josephus, understood that Jesus was not Mary’s only child. In his ANTIQUITIES XX, 200, he reports that “James, the brother of Jesus called the Christ,” had been put to death. To apostolic church saints – Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Clement, John Chrysostom, Clement, and others – it was a matter of fact that Mary had other children after the birth of Jesus. “James the Lord’s brother” is referred to by early church historian, Eusebius in his Book 2, Chapter 1:3. And in his Book 3, Chapter 20:1 he refers to “Jude…the Lord’s brother according to the flesh.” Even Jerome, later in the 4^th century, knew that our Lord had several half-brothers. But the Catholic popes, the men who supposedly are infallible when it comes to faith and morals and interpretation of God’s Word, began as early as the 6^th century to promote the perpetual virginity of Mary.

            Undoubtedly influenced by the spurious Prot Evangelium of James from the previous century, Gregory I, in the middle of the 6^th century, led the “ever-virgin” movement. Hermisdas picked up on Gregory’s effort, and then Martin I, at the Synod of Rome, AD 649, issued the following opinion: “Mary gave birth incorruptibly, keeping her virginity intact even after giving birth.” He condemned those who were not of like mind, but, of course offered no Scriptural support for his position. In the last years of the 7^th century, the Council of Toledo issued this unsubstantiated claim: “Mary conceived as a virgin, gave birth as a virgin, and after childbirth, conserved without losing the modesty of her integrity.” It is the great paradox of Catholicism that popes who claim infallibility and the exclusive ownership and interpretation of Scriptures, line up one after another in opposition to those very Scriptures that reveal Mary had other children after the birth of Jesus. And to make matters worse, they command the laity to believe what they say, thus denying the truth of what God says.

            But God’s Word says what it means and means what it says. God is not in the deception business, that’s Satan’s specialty. Nor, as has been previously pointed out, did He give us a partial Gospel requiring periodic doctrinal “patches” to complete it. Had God wanted us to believe in the perpetual virginity of His earthly mother, His Word would have stated clearly that James, Joses, Simon, Jude, and the unnamed sisters were merely suggenes - kinfolk - and not adelphos and adelphee – brothers and sisters. His Word did not so state.

            An incident involving the Lord’s brothers related in John’s Gospel is not there by accident. It emphasizes the near universal rejection of Christ’s message by revealing the unbelief that existed in His own immediate family. “His (adelphos) brethren therefore said unto him, Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also may see the works that thou doest. For there is no man that doeth any thing in secret, and he himself seeketh to be known openly. If thou do these things, shew thyself to the world. For neither did his (adelphos) brethren believe in him. (John 7:3-5) Citing the unbelief of mere close relations rather than blood brothers could never have as effectively shown the extent of resistance to Christ’s ministry that existed among the Jews. Remember, our Lord’s family was Jewish. However, the most important reason for inclusion of this incident in God’s Word was to reveal the fulfillment of another Messianic prophecy. “I am become a stranger unto my BRETHREN and an alien unto my mother’s CHILDREN” (Psa 69:8) From prophecy it is obvious the Messiah was not to be an only child. His mother was to have other children in addition to Himself, children who would treat Him as an imposter and would become estranged from Him.

            In the Catechism entry cited earlier, Rome states that Christ’s named brothers are only “close relations of Jesus according to an Old Testament expression.” The O.T. expression, however, is not identified and is really of no importance to this issue. What is important is to pay close attention to how the Word of God describes the birth of our Lord in Matthew’s Gospel. “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.” (Mat 1:24, 25) There are two phrases critical to the “ever virgin” issue in those Scriptures

            In any language, the word “until” denotes, and precedes, a future change in current status. With the phrase, “knew her not till,” God informs us that Joseph’s initial celibate condition preceded a change in that condition that took place after our Lord’s birth. In other words, Joseph and Mary refrained from normal marital relations during her pregnancy but not afterwards. That other births would result - namely four more males and at least two females – is certainly a very strong possibility.

            The second phrase, “brought forth her firstborn son,” appears only twice in the entire Bible, once in Matthew 1:25, and again in Luke 2:7. In both cases, of course it is in reference to the birth of our Lord. The word “firstborn” is found 90 times in the Old Testament and 7 more times in the New Testament, but never in conjunction with the action of birthing a child. Put another way, no woman in either Testament, other than Mary, is described as bringing forth a firstborn son or daughter or child. In all cases in the Bible where the word “firstborn” is used it indicates that other births followed. God, speaking at our Lord’s baptism called Jesus His “ONLY begotten Son.” Why, in Matthew 1:25 and Luke 2:7, does God not tell us Mary brought forth her ONLY son?

            From the many Scriptures reviewed here, from the lack of evidence in the writings of the patristic saints, from the dearth of factual historical evidence, one can only conclude that – contrary to published Catholic doctrine – Mary, the mother of Jesus, had a normal marriage that produced four sons besides our Lord, (half-brothers of Jesus) and at least two daughters, (half-sisters of the Lord). That these things are true is not in the least demeaning to Mary or Jesus. On the contrary, they show Mary to be a loving and beloved wife and mother, virtuous and yet human in every way, the ideal example for every young Christian girl who is drawn to the vocation of wife and mother. They show Jesus, the Second Person of the trinity, to be a compassionate and considerate God who would not deny Mary the joys of a normal marriage, or the rewards of a large family just because she was the vessel chosen to give human life to the Messiah.

            Upon entering life as one of His own creations, our Lord removed the veil of His mother’s virginity, so that she thereafter might enjoy fully the privileges and pleasures of a made-in-heaven marriage. Upon departing this life as the spotless, unblemished, once-for-all sin sacrifice, He rent the veil of the temple so that we who believe according to His Word might have forgiveness of our sins and access to the very throne-room of heaven. Mary’s Vatican-invented cradle-to-the-grave virginity can be dismissed as one more heresy of the apostate church.

MARY’S BODILY ASSUMPTION.

It was on November 1, 1950, that Pope Pius XII added one more heresy to the already crowded Roman Catholic list of man-made, doctrinal “patches.” In a document with the impressive Latin title of Minificentissimus Deus, he declared that the body of Mary, the mother of Jesus, was not subject to corruption after her death. Instead, said he, by a singular act of God, her body had been “assumed” into heaven, there to be reunited with her soul and spirit. Thus was confirmed into doctrine an unscriptural belief that originated in forged documents traceable to the 5^th century.

            I was twenty and a Roman Catholic when the Assumption doctrine was formalized by papal decree, and my typically Catholic reaction was, “If the pope says so, it has to be true.” But thirty-two years later, after my first reading of the entire New Testament had been completed, my reaction was markedly different. “Where,” I wondered aloud, “Is the Assumption of Mary? How did I miss it?” The patient lady who had given me my first ever Bible, and was later to become my wife, had this response: “You didn’t miss it. It’s not there.” And so, like the Immaculate Conception, the Mother of God and the Ever-Virgin doctrines, Mary’s Assumption was just one more invention of sinful, mortal men.

            It seems eminently fair at this juncture to raise another question, one that Roman Catholics themselves would be well advised to ask. The question is this. If God is the Author of all the Marian doctrines that have been “patched” into Catholicism from time to time over a period of 1500 years, why didn’t He reveal them all at once to His Apostles and their immediate successors and have done with it? For at least the first 500 years of Christendom, before emergence of the Catholic church, Christians were denied the “opportunity” to worship Mary as the immaculately conceived, sinless, ever-virgin, mother of God, Queen of Heaven, and co-mediatrix with Christ. Why would God, who is all just, have denied the early Christians the “opportunity” to believe in these key doctrines and petition Mary for their various needs as Catholics do today? And, what about the many other doctrines Rome has “patched” in at various times? Why the delay? What possible purpose was served by dragging out over hundreds and hundreds of years their elevation to doctrine status? For example, have popes only become infallible since the year 1870 when Pius IX said they are? And why would God who is described in His Word as immutable, change from “It is finished” at Calvary, to “Standby for Further Developments” starting at Rome, but not until the 6^th century? Unthinkable! When the temple veil was ripped from top to bottom, the Old Testament was ended. The New Testament Gospel of salvation by grace through faith in Christ’s work was complete, fellowship with God fully restored. The doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven adds absolutely nothing to the good news that Jesus became sin for us in order to give us His righteousness. It and the other Marian doctrines serve only as a distraction from our Lord’s sacrifice and triumphant victory over death through His bodily resurrection.

            If these doctrines, the Assumption included, could be found in the Scriptures, it would be one thing. Then Catholics would have solid backing for believing Mary was given special privileges from conception to the grave. But the way God’s Word reads, there really is no Scriptural support for any of the Marian doctrines. “…there is no respect of persons with God.” (Rom 2:11) And…”…your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him. (Eph 6:9) And…”But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as transgressors.”  (Jas 2:9) And finally…”And if ye call on the Father, who without respect of persons judgeth according to every man's work.” (1 Pet 1:17) Thus, any special honors heaped upon Mary would conflict with the clearly stated truth that God is not a respecter of persons.

            It was earlier noted that Mary – based on the statements of Jesus Himself – was no greater than John the Baptist, and certainly no more than equal in the eyes of Christ with “whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven.” (Mat 12:50) Rome rationalizes these many signal honors it has heaped upon the earthly mother of Jesus with the excuse that they really honor our Lord by showing the extent of His love and respect for her. But God’s own Word says He will not give His glory to another: “I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.” (Isa 42:8) From that Scripture alone, investing Mary with special honors and titles, petitioning her as though she were an omniscient goddess, and venerating statues of her, are actions expressly condemned in the divine Word of God. In truth, Mary was created to give glory to God, not to be glorified by God. “…bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth; Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him (her, too) for MY glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him. Isa 43:6, 7) The Vatican promotes the idea that it was a great honor for Jesus to have Mary as His earthly mother; that He was so indebted to her for bearing Him that He instructs the Vatican every now and then to add some new honor, some new glory to her memory. This is utter nonsense. Mary is the one who was honored above all other women in all history when God chose her to bring His only begotten Son into this sinful world. To hold any other view is to contradict God’s immutable Word.

            As one of the proofs for the validity of the Assumption doctrine, Catholic apologists point to the lack of relics identified as having come from Mary the mother of Jesus. This is supposed to prove that her body was removed to heaven before anyone could “raid” her remains and acquire such “mementos” of her. However, history is not favorable to this postulation. It was not until the persecutions began that the relics of martyred saints became a popular pursuit of those who admired their bravery, and falsely believed that possession of such relics imparted some special spiritual powers. There is no record anywhere to foster a belief that Mary was martyred, and therefore the object of that kind of admiration. As a matter of fact, her death is not reported at all in the Scriptures or the writings of the patristic church saints. Clearly, if Mary’s death and alleged bodily Assumption into heaven were events God wanted us to believe He would have caused them to be included in His inspired Word. Remember He did not leave us a partial Bible or a partial Gospel.

            Scripture reports that two men – Enoch and Elijah – escaped death by being taken alive to heaven. “And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.” (Gen 5:24) “…and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” (2 Ki 2:11) These incidents, say the Catholic apologists, are evidence that Mary’s Assumption would not have been without precedent. And, because of a Scripture in the Book of Jude, they feel that the body of Moses was assumed into heaven much as Mary’s supposedly was. “Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee. (Jude 1:9) What the dispute over the body of Moses was all about is not explained in Scripture, but the Word of God quite clearly states the fact that Moses was buried. “So Moses the servant of the LORD died there in the land of Moab, according to the word of the LORD. And he (God) buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. (Deu 34:5, 6) As further evidence that Mary’s alleged Assumption – that is, her restoration to life through the reunification of her body, soul and spirit - was quite feasible, Rome points to the bodily resurrection of deceased saints after our Lord’s Resurrection. “And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.” (Mat 27:52, 53) Rome concludes that these saints did not die again but were assumed alive into heaven, a foreshadowing of what Mary later experienced. One faction within Catholicism believes that Mary never really died, but only slept – this known as her dormition – and while asleep was taken by angels to heaven.

            But none of the above proves that Mary’s body was assumed into heaven. What is in question is not the feasibility of such an occurrence. What is in question is did it really happen, and if it did, why did God not see fit to so inform us? He wanted us to know about Enoch, about Elijah, and about the saints restored to life at Christ’s Resurrection. Why then is God completely silent about the alleged Assumption of Mary, and, in fact, all of the Marian doctrines? It seems that if Jesus so loved Mary and wanted her invested with such great honors, the first action He would have taken was to have them – not just included – but highly featured in His divine Scriptures. After the first chapter of the Book of Acts, however, there is not one mention of Mary in the 22 additional books of the New Testament, two of which were compiled by men identified as her sons, the half-brothers of our Lord.

            Prior to making his declaration, Pius XII, called “Hitler’s Pope,” by some, reportedly asked all the Catholic bishops throughout the world their opinion of the Assumption doctrine. Their nearly unanimous endorsement of it is cited by Catholic apologists as another proof of its validity. Said Pius XII, himself: “…the universal teaching of the authorities of the Church by itself gives us a proof.” It is worthy of note, however, that at one time the “authorities of the Church” were nearly unanimous in their belief that Earth, not the Sun, is the center of our galaxy. They were dead wrong. And, if the “authorities of the Church,” of our day are in agreement with John Paul II that Darwinian Evolution is an established fact, they are dead wrong again. Point? In the absence of proof from God’s Word, the fact that all “the authorities of the Church,” approved of the Assumption doctrine is no proof at all.

            Catholics as a body are so gullible. They accept without a whimper of disapproval, the proposition that popes need not disclose where in their “Tradition Bank” an extra-biblical doctrine was found. But Pius XII, in formalizing the Assumption dogma, went to great lengths attempting to make it believable. He said Mary was always sharing the lot of Jesus, so she was not required like the rest of us to wait until the end for the resurrection of her body. And, because of her alleged Immaculate Conception her body was not liable to the corruption of the grave anyhow. He also said he found the dogma mentioned in some old time liturgical books, adding that after the apostolic church age, the Assumption doctrine was a subject of study by scholastic theologians. At least one of them, a 15^th century theologian, believed it fitting that not only the soul and body of a man – Jesus – should already have attained heavenly glory, but also the soul and body of a woman – namely, Mary. More opinion; still no proof. Continuing with his rationalization of the doctrine, Pius XII cited an early belief that cast Mary as the “new Eve,” sinless and holy, a fitting queen of heaven ruling jointly with the King of Kings, Christ Jesus our Lord. The “new Eve” was alleged to have been closely allied with the “new Adam” – Jesus – in the battle to defeat sin and death. Therefore, Pius reasoned, the common cause should produce a common effect, a glorification of Mary paralleling the glorification of Christ. Finally, as our Lord perfectly fulfilled the commandments, He would have perfectly honored His earthly mother, and one of the ways He could have chosen to do this was to assume her lifeless body into heaven.

            But there is not a shred of evidence in Scripture to support any of this. As a matter of fact, Mary was not always sharing our Lord’s work; she was not allied with Him in the battle to defeat sin and death; and she already was honored above all the other women who ever lived by being chosen to give birth to God’s only begotten Son. As for the “new Eve” thing, it is dangerously close to the Babylon Mystery Religion that had a goddess queen intimately involved with her own son and ruling jointly with him. Certainly, Jesus was the “last Adam,” but a “new Eve” is nowhere to be found in Scripture.

            “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:” (Rom 5:12) “Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Rom 5:14) “For if by one man’s offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.” (Rom 5:17)

            In these Scriptures it is obvious that it was not the sin of Eve that brought death into the world, but the sin of Adam who was the “head” of Eve. It is also clear that there was to be a second “Adam,” but not a second Eve. Lastly, Jesus had no one allied with Him or sharing His lot in the redemption. He did it all by Himself with no help from Mary. Only His blood was shed. Only He deserves the glory that He has justly received from born again Christians, but not from Rome.

            In his efforts to justify the Assumption doctrine, Pius XII tried his best to give it an aura of antiquity in keeping with Rome’s standard practice. But history is not at all cooperative in the matter. There simply is no evidence that the early church espoused such a doctrine or had even heard of it. But right around AD 300 a manuscript attributed to the Ebionite sect began to circulate. In it was the first suggestion that Mary’s body had not decayed but been taken by angels to heaven. Then, early in the 5^th century there followed a book variously entitled “Holiest Mother of God Rests,” and “The Passing of Mary.” Soon after, the same material turned up in a volume entitled, “Dormitio Mariae,” compiled by the Ebionite heretic, Leucius. It purported to contain the account of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven. Like the numerous other spurious documents that figure in the theology of Catholicism, “Dormitio Mariae” was merely a religious fairy tale. It contained serious historical and doctrinal flaws that eliminate any doubt about its authenticity.

            To begin with, the account has Jesus demoted to the status of an angel, rather than the Second Person of the triune Godhead, a sure mark of the Ebionite influence. Secondly, salvation is not a free gift of God, but is achieved by various works instead of by faith alone in Christ’s Calvary sacrifice. That bit of heresy was later adopted by Catholicism and continues as church doctrine to this day. Thirdly, Paul is not granted equal status with the other Apostles as he is in the Scriptures, another belief linking the whole myth to the Ebionites. Nor is it historically dependable, for it has all the Apostles from all over the known world assembled in Jerusalem, something for which there is no record whatever anywhere.

            Briefly, this is the myth – the “Dormitio Mariae.” Jesus, as an angel and not the Son of God, tells Mary of her impending death. Mary goes home and gets ready to die by going through a series of rituals to ward off demons. The Apostles come from all over the known world to be there in Jerusalem for Mary’s demise. As she sleeps away (dormition) into eternity, her soul is protected by Jesus and Michael the archangel, while her body is buried in a brand new grave located in the biblically famous Kidron Valley. The Apostles remain in Jerusalem for three more days, at which time Paul appears on the scene wanting to know what great mysteries have been revealed to them. Peter, however, opposes giving Paul any information at all. Thereafter, the Apostles leave Jerusalem, returning to their previous places of ministry. End of story? Not quite. Three full days having now expired, Jesus and Michael, this time assisted by Gabriel, return with a celestial chariot; they disinter Mary’s body, place it in the chariot, and, all together, ascend into heaven.

            Such fantasy found but few “takers” in the early centuries of Christianity, and even after the emergence of Catholicism, it was only sparsely subscribed to before the middle ages. Its general acceptance among Catholics had to wait until the 13^th century when a forged document falsely attributed to Augustine of Hippo made its appearance. Even then, and until November of 1950, the Assumption doctrine was a “believe it or not matter,” no sin attached if an individual chose to reject it.

            All in all, there is no legitimate foundation underpinning the Assumption doctrine. There is no biblical support for it, no record of its existence among the patristic saints, no endorsement of it in the annals of church history. Like the other Marian doctrines it’s a maverick unsupported and unpredicted in God’s Word. Our Lord’s Resurrection was clearly foretold in the Book of Psalms: “For thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” (Psa 16:10) Accounts of this prophecy’s fulfillment are found in all four Gospels and throughout the remaining 23 books of the New Testament. There are sixty-six books total in the entire Bible. Not one of them contains a prophecy about Mary’s body being assumed into heaven, and, of course, where there is no prophecy there is no fulfillment.

            Scripture is crystal clear about Enoch being caught up to heaven. “And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.” (Gen 5:24) It is equally clear in the matter of Elijah’s departure. “And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.” (2 Ki 2:11) On such a critical matter as Mary’s alleged Assumption the holy Bible is eloquently silent. Why don’t Catholics wonder “WHY?”

            In chapter 8 it will be seen that just four years after Pius IX declared the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception in 1850, a young girl saw visions of a beautiful “lady” who eventually identified “herself” as the “Immaculate Conception.” Thus, heaven itself seemed to lend its endorsement to Pius IX’s declaration. Not surprisingly, a similar occurrence followed by less than three months Pius XII’s declaration of Mary’s Assumption.

            One Maria Valtorta, (AD 1897-1961) of Viareggio, Italy, had a vision on December 8, 1951, (the feast of the Immaculate Conception), in which she saw the Apostle John witnessing the Assumption of Mary’s body into heaven. Valtorta is touted as one of the 18 greatest mystics of all time by at least one highly placed Catholic official, but her vision bears little in common with the “Dormitio Mariae” of the 5^th century. Jesus, Michael, and Gabriel are replaced in her vision by a band of angels complete with wings, who carry Mary’s body off to heaven. Once again, it appeared heaven had given its approval to a highly controversial doctrine. Valtorta’s vision certainly was good news to Pius XII. It is reported that when he read her “The Poem of The Man-God,” in which the Assumption vision is related, he ordered, “Publish this work as it is…Whoever reads it will understand.”

            Summing up this entire Assumption matter, the evidence from early church Christians and subsequent archeological finds indicate that Mary had a normal, quite unremarkable death. Her grave was reported to be in the Kidron Valley. Some accounts even pinpointed the grave’s location. Churches have been built atop a couple of the locations thought to have contained Mary’s remains, and until 1950, the Roman Catholic Church maintained a site known as Mary’s Tomb for the edification of pilgrims visiting Jerusalem. It is more than rumor that when the Assumption doctrine was declared, Rome sold the “Tomb of Mary” to the Armenian church. Conclusion? The Assumption is one more heresy declared an article of faith by an imposter whom we know as the Roman Catholic pope. (Cf. chapter 3) And we must ask what “god” revealed to him this biblically unsupported belief. It certainly was not the holy God of Scripture, for He has clearly stated that His glory will not be given or shared with another.

MARY CO-MEDIATRIX.

In Roman Catholic theology Mary has been elevated to a position of co-mediatrix (with Jesus) and supposedly is thereby empowered to act as an advocate for us with our heavenly Father. It is this doctrine that encourages the Catholic faithful to direct their prayers and petitions to Mary instead of directly to the Father in the name of Jesus. Not only is this another flagrant breach of Scripture, it also has given rise to some of the most heart-wrenching practices on the part of both the Catholic laity and clergy. As people look to Mary rather than to our Lord Jesus Christ for intercession with the Father, they perform rites and rituals akin to those of the religious Jews of Jerusalem who caused Christ to weep at their folly. Many clergy and laity alike wear certain medals that are guaranteed – supposedly by Mary – to secure one’s eventual acceptance into heaven. Others – making reparation to Mary’s “immaculate heart” for the insults of men - attend Mass and receive communion on five consecutive first Saturdays, expecting as a result, Mary’s intercession at the hour of death. Frequent recitation of the rosary, a string of beads used for counting fifty prayers to Mary, supposedly imparts special graces and benefits in the quest for salvation.

            Of course, endowing Christ’s earthly mother with the role of co-intercessor is a blasphemous affront to the blessed Lord Jesus. He earned His place as our only advocate with the Father by His bloody sacrifice on Calvary. He alone is our advocate with the Father. (1 John 2:1) He alone is our high priest, able to intercede for us. (Heb 3:1) He alone has been touched with our infirmities, tempted as we have been tempted but without sin, (Heb 4:15) and burdened by burdens far greater than ours. He is the One to Whom and through Whom we are to direct our prayers. (John 15:16) He is the one alone to Whom and through Whom we are to offer our praise and thanksgiving, our worship. (John 4:24) It is in His sweet name and His alone that we can barge boldly into the very throne room of heaven. (Heb 4:16) In time of abundance and in time of want, it is in and through the name of Jesus, and only Jesus, that we can obtain fulfillment of our petitions.

            Although the Catholic hierarchy will deny again and again that Mary is worshiped, she is, in fact, an object of worship for Roman Catholics. Following is a quote taken directly from the 1994 Catholic Catechism, page 253:

“The Church’s devotion to the Blessed Virgin is INTRINSIC to Christian WORSHIP.”

It cannot be denied that prayer is a very specific form of worship. By encouraging Catholics to pray to Mary, by fostering numerous devotions to her and veneration of her statues, the church is undeniably promoting worship of her who Scripture says should not be worshiped. The most precious Word of God expressly condemns worship offered to anyone or anything other than God Himself. The children of Israel’s worship of strange idols and false gods is what brought the judgment of the true God – Jehovah – upon their apostate nation.

            Try as they might to assign a co-mediatrix role to Mary, the Vatican crew cannot alter the divine Scriptures. Mary is not, cannot be, a co-mediatrix. She is an abundantly blessed believer who did God’s will to the best of her ability. Lacking Scriptural and historical information to the contrary, Mary’s body is asleep in Christ Jesus awaiting the time of His return, when both the living and the dead in Christ shall be caught up to heaven, there to remain for all eternity. (1 Thes 4:17) Her soul and spirit certainly are with the Lord, and it is a foregone conclusion that, as the mother of God’s only begotten Son, she enjoys a high place in her Father’s “house.” (Cf. John 14:2) But she is not there as a co-mediatrix to be prayed to and worshiped, else God’s Word is lying. “For there is one God, and ONE MEDIATOR between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim 2:5) “But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.” (Heb 8:6) “And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament….” (Heb 9:15) “Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us.” (Rom 8:34) “…And to Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant…” (Heb 12:24)

            It could not be made clearer in God’s Word that the lone mediator between us and our heavenly Father is the man Christ Jesus. One of the most cherished chapters in the entire Bible is the 14^th chapter of John’s Gospel. In verse 13, our Lord says to His Apostles: “whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.” Verse 15: “If ye shall ask anything in my name, I will do it.”  Earlier in that same great chapter, Jesus told Thomas: “I am the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father but by me.” (John 14:6) It is sheer folly for Roman Catholics to pray to Mary, or, for that matter, to other dead people classified as “saints” by Rome. Mary is not omnipresent to hear the prayers of millions of believers lifting their voices at the same time on every continent of the earth. Nor is she omniscient, knowing the hearts and minds and the very thoughts of earthbound mortals. Only the omnipotent triune God possesses those attributes; only God whose vastness is far beyond our most extensive imaginings. Only God who is so unlimited in his power and intelligence that He could create out of nothing (ex nihilo) us and the universe in which we live.

            Our Lord is the “Door” – the only Door – to the “sheepfold” of heaven. (John 10:7) To seek admittance thereto, either in prayer or through faith in something or someone else, classifies the individual who does so as follows: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.” (John 10:1) Roman Catholics are taught to be “thieves” and “robbers.”

 “Taken up to heaven she (Mary) did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.” (Page 252 ’94 Catechism.)

Conceding to Mary a “saving office” and an advocacy position equal to that of the Lord Jesus is an insult to a holy God who was “pleased” to “bruise” His only begotten Son – His Beloved – so that His demand for justice might be satisfied, and unworthy mankind restored to Adamic fellowship with Him. (Cf. Isa 53:10, 11) It is an insult to the man Christ Jesus who willingly underwent the excruciating physical, mental and emotional pain of Calvary to buy our pardon. And it is an insult to the mother of Jesus, blessed by God above all other women, but never by Him elevated to worship-worthy deity. The Vatican’s rationale for declaring Mary to be man’s “Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix” is stated as follows on page 252 of the 1994 Catechism:

 “In a wholly singular way she (Mary) cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the Savior’s work of restoring supernatural life to souls.”

Those words are a lavish compliment to Mary, but they and the conclusion drawn from them are in conflict with the divine Scriptures. “But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one offering hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.” (Heb 10:12-14) It was our Lord alone who performed the work of redemption. Only His precious blood was shed. Only He was the “Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29) Jesus had no one – needed no one – to assist, cooperate, or contribute in any way toward the payment of man’s sin debt. Had the cooperation of others been necessary, there were many of His followers whose “obedience, faith, hope and burning charity,” would have qualified them for such a role. But only Christ’s blood was precious. Only Christ’s blood was shed. And the Word of God tells us that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins. (Cf. Heb 9:22) Mary shed no blood; couldn’t have as a creature born of Adam’s seed and therefore in need herself of a Savior. She was not, is not, and never will or can be co-mediatrix with Jesus no matter how many declarations are forthcoming from the Vatican under the guise of “Sacred Tradition.”

            I am asked about the great volume of answered prayers attributed to petitions directed to the mother of Jesus, and about the multitude of apparitions claiming to be Mary. Aren’t answered prayers and these many apparitions proof of Mary’s awesome power and position as co-mediatrix with our Lord? No, these simply are further proof that the divine Word of God never contradicts itself, and is to be trusted in all things. In chapter 8 of this book the subject of Marian apparitions and prayers allegedly answered by her are covered in some depth, and will confirm the truth of the statement just made.

MARY QUEEN OF HEAVEN.

As has been the case with each of the other Marian heresies we have looked at in this chapter, when we turn to the Scriptures, we find no record whatsoever of Mary being crowned Queen of Heaven. Moreover, there is no historical evidence of any kind indicating the early church fathers, the apostolic successors, subscribed to such a belief. What we do find in Scripture – in the Book of Jeremiah – is a negative reference to a queen of heaven worshiped by the children of Israel. A major part of Jeremiah, chapter 44, deals with the vows, incense burnings, cake and drink offerings, etc., that constituted Israel’s defiant worship of a so-called queen of heaven, thus angering Jehovah and inviting His divine judgment upon their flagrant idolatry. In Jeremiah 7:18, there appears the first reference to this imagined queen of heaven: “The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the QUEEN OF HEAVEN, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger.”

            Later on, in chapter 44, we are privy to the defiance of the children of Israel, paralleled in our day by the Vatican’s insistence that Mary the mother of Jesus is the Queen of Heaven. To Jeremiah’s admonitions, the children of Israel responded as follows: “Then all the men which knew that their wives had burned incense unto other gods, and all the women that stood by, a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying, ‘As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee. But we will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?’” (Jer 44:15-19)

            Rome, the self-appointed keeper and interpreter of the Scriptures, ignores God’s expressed anger at Israel’s worship of an invented queen of heaven, invents one of its own and crowns her the new Queen of Heaven.

 “Finally the Immaculate Virgin, preserved free from all stain of original sin, when the course of her earthly life was finished, was taken up body and soul into heavenly glory, and exalted by the Lord as Queen over all things, so that she might be the more fully conformed to her Son, the Lord of Lords and conqueror of sin and death.” (Page 252 ’94 Catechism.)

Is not the Roman Catholic church as defiant as were the children of Israel in insisting that Mary, a mere creature, is queen of heaven and therefore worthy to be worshiped? What justification is there for the Vatican making such a declaration and commanding the faithful to believe it under the pain of sin? For the answers to these questions, the reader is invited to turn back the clock with me to the 18^th century. There, history tells us, was a certain monk named Alfonse Liguori (AD 1696-1787), who began applying the title Queen of Heaven to Mary, the mother of Jesus. It is a distinct possibility that he appropriated this appellation from the writings of a mystic – Maria de Agreda (AD 1602-1665) - who penned a monumental work entitled “The Mystical City of God,” a pseudonym for Christ’s mother Mary.

            Although in Liguori’s day, “The Mystical City of God” was a work banned by the Catholic Church, it was not unavailable. And because so much of what Liguori espoused appears in the visionary work of Maria de Agreda, it’s almost impossible to believe he was not greatly influenced by her. This will be very apparent when the “Mystical City” manuscript is studied in chapter 8. However, whether Liguori was or wasn’t so influenced, it is he who popularized the Mary Queen of Heaven idea, as well as the belief that it was easier to obtain favors from her than from Jesus. This latter belief Liguori based on a silly legend embraced by the monks of his order.

            In the legend, there are two ladders, each reaching from earth to heaven. At the top of one ladder – a red one – stands the Lord Jesus. At the top of the second ladder – a white one – stands Mary, our Lord’s mother. According to the legend, monks who tried climbing the red ladder to Jesus were unsuccessful. But when they switched their efforts to the white ladder leading up to Mary they made it to heaven quite easily. Thus, via Liguori, was born the belief that is rampant today among the Roman Catholic faithful, that getting to heaven is easier going through Mary than through “the way, the truth and the life,” Christ Jesus the Lord. That is blasphemy! There is no other name for it but blasphemy, for it promotes the belief that there are two salvation roads, a very hard one through Jesus and another very easy one through Mary. That, of course, is the “ANOTHER GOSPEL” twice condemned by the Word of God as recorded in Paul’s letter to the Galatian churches – Galations 1:8, 9. “Aw, c’mon, Alfonse Liguori is a canonized saint of the Catholic Church; he didn’t really believe that did he?”

            So convinced was Liguori of the dual paths to salvation that he wrote, “If my redeemer should reject me, I will throw myself at Mary’s feet.” But according to God’s divine Word no born again believer need ever fear rejection from the One who loved us so much that He left the glory of heaven, and, as a man, shed His precious blood on the cruel cross of Calvary to expiate the dreadful sins of all mankind. Nevertheless, once Liguori had convinced himself of Mary’s redemptive powers, it was an easy step to visualize her as the crowned and reigning Queen of Heaven. It was Liguori’s contention – almost certainly gleaned from Maria de Agreda’s work – that Mary received her queen’s crown from the Blessed Trinity, the Father giving her His power, Jesus giving her His wisdom, and the Holy Ghost giving her His love. Incredible! Astounding! For what Liguori promulgated was God literally breaching His own Word – endowing Mary, a creature, with His own divine attributes, in effect establishing a goddess beside Himself.

            One would think that such fantasies would have been met with accusations of heresy and threats of excommunication because of the way God punished the nation of Israel for its idolatry of the same genre. But, no, the allegedly infallible Leo XIII (AD 1878-1903) led the way to acceptance of this Liguori silliness, saying: “…just as no one can draw close to the Father except through the Son, no one can draw near to Christ except through His mother.” This from an individual Rome says has sovereign authority over God’s Word, and is infallible when proclaiming matters having to do with faith (as above) and morals. Can’t draw near to Jesus except through Mary? Did he – Leo – never read, “Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.” (Rev 3:20) Jesus craves acceptance by every soul. Can’t draw near to Him except through Mary?

            Imagine saying that of the Holy One who was thronged by crowds wherever he went when He walked the earth. Imagine saying that of the One who rebuked His Apostles when they tried to keep the little children away from Him. Imagine saying that of the One who ate with Publicans and sinners. Imagine saying that of the One who – against all Jewish custom – deliberately traveled to Galilee through Samaria so he could save a poor lost Samaritan adulteress; the One who called a Publican out of a tree so He could save him; the One who gave Blind Bartimaeus sight when His Apostles rebuked the man for calling to Jesus. How Rome demeans our blessed Lord by inferring that He is stern and unapproachable. In truth, Jesus is the approachable One; the anxious listener to every prayer and supplication of poor needy sinners. He is the almighty King of Kings and Lord of Lords who invites every soul to receive Him by faith, and then come boldly in His name into the throne room of heaven to be heard and comforted.

            Following Leo XIII’s endorsement of Liguori’s hallucination in which Mary is crowned Queen of Heaven, other “infallible” popes began, one after another, to express their approval and support of the myth, and even to add to it. Pius X (AD 1903-14), for example opined that Mary as queen was not just a participant with God in passing out graces, but that she was, in fact, the principal party in that Godly function. In other words, God who is the source of all grace, turned over the distribution of those graces to a created being. Benedict XV agreed. He said Mary “…is the mediator with God of all graces.” Pius XII in a radio message to Fatima on May 13, 1946, said, “…Mary is queen by grace, by divine relationship, by right of conquest, (whatever that means), and by singular choice of the Father.”

            And where is the Scriptural foundation for all of this? Rome’s apologists point without the least bit of embarrassment to Genesis 3:15 and Revelation 12:1, two Scriptures that clearly identify the nation of Israel, not Mary, as the subject woman. Pius XII, by some highly creative inductive reasoning expressed in Fulgens Corona, September 8, 1953, was able from Genesis 3:15 alone to arrive at both the Immaculate Conception and Queendom doctrines. He it was who stated that Mary shared in redeeming us. LG Paragraph 56 of Vatican Council II adds to Pius XII’s statement. “…by being obedient, she (Mary) became a cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.” Mary a cause of salvation? What heresy! What blasphemy! Bluntly put, Catholicism teaches that Mary literally participated in her own redemption, and is one of two causes that brought about the redemption of mankind.

            “Neither is there salvation in any other (name): for there is none other name (but Jesus) under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” (Acts 4:12) Mary’s alleged Immaculate Conception, lifetime virginity, bodily Assumption and crowning as Queen of Heaven are illicit doctrines that purloin the glory that is due Christ Jesus alone. This stolen glory is then given to Mary, a mere - though highly blessed – creation of Him who has been victimized by the theft. But God is not mocked. Nor will He share His glory with anyone, Mary included. We have his immutable Word on that. “…before me there was no God formed; neither shall there be after me.” (Isa 43:10)

            No matter how many ways the Roman Catholic Church finds to deify Mary, she will not be deified. She will always be Mary, the mother of the man Jesus, wife of Joseph, mother of Christ’s half brothers and sisters, cousin of Elisabeth, sinner saved exclusively by the Grace of her Creator, God. No twisting of the Scriptures, no amount of inductive reasoning, no amount of confusing, obfuscating, apologetics will change the truth found in God’s divine Word. In Isaiah 44:6 we read: “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.” And no goddess, either. Mary is a created being. She is neither queen nor mediatrix. According to Jesus, she was not even “good.” In the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke, Christ informed a young ruler that, “…there is none good but God.” (Mat 19:17; Mark 10:18; Luke 18:19) From the context, our Lord’s meaning is clear: only God is perfect, and no created beings – His mother Mary included – can make that claim, or have it made about them.

            Like all of us, Mary was a servant assigned a specific task that she carried out admirably. Of such faithful servants, Christ had this to say: So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do” (Luke 17:10) In doing her duty, Mary did not qualify for deification. When she visited her pregnant cousin Elisabeth, she first acknowledged her need of a Savior, “…my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.” (Luke 1:47) Secondly she acknowledged her imperfection when she said, “For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden:” (Luke 1:48) The Greek word for the phrase low estate is tapeinosis, which conveys one’s regret of his or her own moral littleness and guilt.

            “…there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.” (Isa 45:21, 22) In closing this chapter on the heretical Marian doctrines of Catholicism it bears repeating that God alone is our Savior through Christ Jesus our Lord. From other Scriptures quoted we can be sure that only Jesus was born sinless and remained sinless from the cradle to Calvary’s cross. He and He alone is our propitiation for sin, and He alone is our advocate with the Father. We can be sure God had no mother, and there is no queen reigning in heaven. Our Lord had no co-savior, no co-mediartix, no “new Eve.” Mary was conceived with the same sin nature that all descendents of Adam inherit. She needed salvation just like John the Baptist, Peter, Paul and every believer since. Hers was a normal highly blessed marriage that produced four named sons and at least two unnamed daughters in addition to her firstborn, Jesus. History places her grave with her in it in the Kidron Valley o outside of Jerusalem. That said, for our salvation, we need only look to Him – Jesus – not to Him and her.

            In the final analysis, the Marian doctrines simply have to be satanically inspired, for they more than any other Catholic teachings, demean the Lord Jesus, disparage His sacrifice, and rob Him of the glory that is His alone. They assign to Mary, His earthly mother, attributes only God Himself possesses. They elevate her to a position to which no created being may aspire or attain. As a result, Mary has become – in the apostate Catholic religion – THE GODDESS MAN HAS MADE. May God have mercy on all who are deceived into worshiping her.

Order Book

Heresies of Catholicism...The Apostate Church, by John Schroeder
Publisher is iUniverse; ISBN 0-595-27499-4. Amazon.com  and Barnes & Noble both ship in 24 hours, Booksamillion in 2-3 days.