Whether Roman Catholicism can or cannot be identified with early Christianity depends
upon the definition of early Christianity.
My opponent will undoubtedly quote from some of the so-called early church fathers
to show that they held beliefs compatible with Roman Catholicism.
The earliest Christianity, however, is found in the Bible.
And anything, no matter how ancient, which contradicts Scripture, is not
Christianity at all.
Even the beliefs and practices of church leaders who were in the very next
generation after the Apostles cannot be relied upon as true Christianity,
much less those from later generations.
Why?
Because already in the days of the Apostles, many church leaders had gone
astray from the true faith.
Paul said that in his own day, all those in Asia had turned away from
him.
Apostates even arose from among the Ephesian elders whom Paul had personally
trained.
There was hardly a local church in the days of the Apostles that had not strayed
from the truth.
Most of the epistles were written to correct errors that were already rampant
among the very earliest Christians.
So we dare not look for true Christianity to the writings, beliefs, and practices,
even of contemporaries of the Apostles, much less of church leaders in the
following generations.
Early, no matter how early, isn't necessarily right.
The issue is whether or not it is true Christianity.
To know what that is, we turn to the highest authority, Jesus Christ himself
and his word.
There we find both the perfect example and the correction of errors which began
quickly to creep into the church.
And when we compare Roman Catholicism with true Christianity presented in the New
Testament, we discover many glaring contradictions.
I only have time to name a few.
Number one, in his book, Vicars of Christ, Peter De Rosa, himself a Roman Catholic,
points out that his church became, quote, the most persecuting faith the
world has ever seen, ordering in Christ's name all those who disagreed with her
dogmas to be tortured and burned, commanding the throne to impose
Catholicism on all its subjects under threat of torture and death.
Pope Urban II, who commissioned the first crusade, decreed that all heretics were to
be tortured and killed.
That became a dogma of Roman Catholicism, unquote.
As only one example, Pope Martin V commanded the king of Poland to
exterminate the Hussites, named after the martyr Jan Hus.
The pope commanded, quote, turn your forces against Bohemia, burn, massacre,
for nothing could be more agreeable to God than to exterminate the Hussites.
That's not Christianity.
The torture of millions in the Inquisitions and Rome's merciless
massacres of Christians for centuries cannot be equated with early Christianity.
It was the popes who created the Inquisitions, who decreed the torture and
murder of all whom they termed heretics.
De Rosa reminds us that, quote, Pope Innocent III murdered far more
Christians in one afternoon, 12,000, than any Roman emperor did in his entire
reign, unquote.
Historian Will Durant writes, quote, compared with the persecution of heresy in
Europe by the popes, the persecution of Christians by Romans in the first three
centuries after Christ was mild and humane, unquote.
Yet the Catholic Church, while rightly honoring the martyrs under pagan emperors,
never admits that she herself has slaughtered far more and done it in the
name of Christ.
Again, we must say, that's not Christianity.
The early Church, like Christ himself, never persecuted anyone, but was itself
cruelly persecuted.
Nineteenth-century eminent Catholic historian, Fon Dollinger, reminds us,
quote, Since 1183, the view of the Church was that every departure from its teaching
must be punished with death, and the most cruel of deaths by fire.
From 1200 to 1500 A.D., the long series of papal ordinances on the Inquisition,
ever increasing in severity and cruelty, runs on without a break.
Every pope confirms and improves upon the devices of his predecessors to the one end
of completely uprooting every difference of belief.
It was only the absolute dictation of the popes and the notion of their
infallibility that made the Christian world accept the Inquisition, which
contradicted the simplest principles of Christian justice and would have been
rejected with universal horror in the ancient Church.
That from an eminent nineteenth-century Catholic historian.
Torture and murder, even of genuine heretics, are an abomination to Christ.
Yet another Catholic historian writes, quote, Of eighty popes in the line from
the thirteenth century on, not one of them disapproved of the theology and apparatus
of the Inquisition.
On the contrary, one after another added his own cruel touches to the workings of
this deadly machine.
Such practices have never been abrogated or confessed as wrong, much less denounced
and renounced by the Catholic Church.
And how could they be, with eighty allegedly infallible popes affirming them?
Which brings us to the second point, the despotic powers of the popes.
The Code of Canon Law, Canon 333, paragraph 3, declares, quote, There is
neither appeal nor recourse against a decision or decree of the Roman pontiff,
unquote.
Vatican II says the same and demands absolute obedience.
Such dictatorial control over the Church is the antithesis of early Christianity.
Neither Peter, Paul, nor any other apostle ever claimed or exercised such tyranny.
Christ called mankind to come to him willingly.
Peter writes that Christ never coerced or threatened anyone, nor did the apostles.
But the Roman Catholic Church did so for centuries and has never admitted it was
wrong or apologized for it, and still holds millions in fear that without
submission to her rules, they're damned.
Number three, the Catholic Church has repeatedly sold salvation for money.
Popes listed every crime from piracy and murder to incest, with a price for which
they, by their absolute authority, would grant absolution from each.
That's not Christianity.
The sale of indulgences was one of the main issues sparking the Reformation,
and it continued for centuries thereafter.
In 18th century Spain, for example, the annual papal bull of the crusade had
to be purchased by everyone of seven years and older at least once each year.
No one could be buried without the current bull in the coffin.
Upon purchase of the bull, the Pope immediately granted absolution from all
sins except heresy and the vow of chastity.
That's not Christianity.
Columbus, a Catholic, sarcastically praised money because he said,
He who possesses it has the power of transporting souls into paradise.
Much of the fabulous wealth displayed by the Church in Rome today was acquired with
money from the sale of salvation.
That isn't biblical Christianity, nor is it a practice only in the past.
Today, one obtains a mass card from a mortuary, fills in the name of the
deceased, gives an offering to the Church in exchange for which the card will be
placed on the altar during a mass, allegedly to reduce the suffering of the
deceased in purgatory and move him or her a step closer to heaven.
A friend told me recently that his father had just died and $2,000 in mass cards had
been purchased at his funeral.
Wealthy Catholics often leave large sums to the Church for masses to be said on
their behalf after their death.
Such practices cannot be found in the New Testament and are not Christian.
But Vatican II condemns with anathema anyone who does not accept purgatory and
indulgences today.
If you're a Catholic in the audience and you don't believe in these things,
you have been anathematized by Vatican II whether you know it or not.
Point four.
Christ said he had nowhere to lay his head, and Peter testified, Silver and gold
have I none.
In contrast, the popes who live in more than one palace of 1,100 rooms each and
are surrounded with wealth that would make a Midas blush.
Visitors to St. Peter's, the Sistine Chapel, the Vatican Museum, and the other
Vatican properties find its treasures breathtaking.
Nino Lobello, former Rome correspondent for Businessweek, calls the Vatican,
quote, the tycoon on the Tiber, unquote, because of its incalculable
wealth and worldwide enterprises.
It owns fully one-third of Rome's real estate and is probably the largest holder
of stocks and bonds in the world.
Such mind-boggling riches and the pomp and splendor of ritual accompanying them are
not even remotely related to the apostles and the early Church.
De Rosa comments, quote, any suggestion that the pope should sell all that he has
and give to the poor is greed of his derision as impractical.
The rich young man in the gospel reacted in the same way.
Throughout his life, Jesus lived simply.
He died naked, offering the sacrifice of his life on the cross.
When the pope renews that sacrifice at pontifical high mass, no greater contrast
could be imagined.
Without any sense of irony, Christ's vicar is clad in gold and the costliest silks,
unquote.
Christ's naked body and blood-stained cross are mocked not only by gold crosses,
gold chalices, opulent altars, and costly vestments, but by the mass
itself.
The Eucharist is, according to paragraph 1129 of the New Universal Catechism,
quote, necessary for salvation, unquote.
Yet the Bible says, and the apostles and early Christians preached, that Christ's
one sacrifice on the cross obtained our salvation.
Denying that finished work, Vatican II says that our redemption is in the process
of being accomplished through the alleged re-presentation of one and the same
sacrifice repeatedly in the Eucharist.
Yet Hebrews 9.12 says that by his shed blood, Christ, quote, obtained eternal
redemption for us, unquote.
Both the Bible and Catholicism can't be right.
Which one will you believe?
Redemption can't be a finished work and at the same time be in process of being
accomplished on Roman Catholic altars.
Yet Catholicism insists that each time mass is celebrated, another installment of
forgiveness and salvation is imparted to the faithful.
The contradiction is fatal.
Hebrews 10 declares that the fact that the Old Testament sacrifices had to be
repeated daily proved that they could not remove the penalty for sin.
It then contrasts Christ's never-to-be-repeated one sacrifice on the
cross, which paid the full penalty and declares, quote, there is no further
sacrifice for sin, unquote.
Yet the Eucharist is claimed to be a sacrifice and one that pardons sin and
must be continually repeated.
That's not biblical Christianity.
Point number six.
As a consequence, Catholics have no assurance of salvation because it's an
ongoing process performed by the Church which never ends.
The Pope himself can't say how many more masses it may take to deliver from
purgatory and open the gates of heaven for anyone.
In direct contrast, 1 John 5, 13 says, quote, These things have I written unto
you that believe in the name of the Son of God that you may know right now that you
have as a present possession eternal life, unquote.
Jesus said, I give my sheep eternal life as a free gift and they will never be lost
again.
One can't have eternal life today and be damned tomorrow.
But Catholics live in continual fear of being damned.
Eating meat on Friday used to damn the soul.
That's not Christianity.
If a debt one owes to a creditor has been paid in full, there's no need to make
further payments.
Nor would it make sense or be of any value to speak of making this past payment,
quote, perpetually present, unquote, as it is claimed the Eucharist does for
Christ's sacrifice.
No past event can be made perpetually present.
And there's no need to do so with Christ's sacrifice at Calvary, even if that were
possible.
The debt has been paid in full.
But that full payment is denied by declaring that each celebration of the
Mass distributes a further payment to God for the participant's sins.
Such teaching is not Christianity, no matter how early it may be found in the
Church.
Consider point seven.
Consider the celibacy forced upon Catholic priests and nuns.
In the early Church, celibacy was optional for all.
Paul was a celibate and recommended this life, but noted that the other apostles,
including Peter, were married, and he too had the right to marry.
By forcing celibacy upon tens of thousands who want to be priests or nuns,
but are not capable of maintaining that unnatural life, Rome has created
widespread immorality and hypocrisy.
Pope Pius II himself said that Rome was the only city run by bastards,
the sons of allegedly celibate popes and cardinals.
The old joke was that Rome had more prostitutes than any other city because it
had the most celibates.
Such immorality is not confined to the past.
Today, the Archdiocese of Santa Fe, New Mexico, is going bankrupt because of
lawsuits against it for the sexual escapades of its priests.
The Franciscan Seminary in Santa Barbara has recently shut down because of its
priests' sexual affairs, and so it goes across America, with the Catholic Church
having paid out hundreds of millions in out-of-court settlements in the past few
years to keep the scandals out of the papers.
The problem is worldwide.
Six French women recently went to Rome to plead with the Pope to repeal celibacy,
saying that they represented thousands of women in sexual relationships with
supposedly celibate priests who have to keep their relationships secret and can't
tell their children who their fathers are.
The Pope refused to see them.
Required celibacy for clergy was unknown in the early Church.
It's not Christianity.
It's not biblical.
And on this point also, Roman Catholicism cannot be identified with early
Christianity.
Christ told Pilate, My kingdom is not of this world, and therefore my servants
don't fight.
Yet for centuries the Popes commanded armies and navies and fought wars in the
name of Christ to extend their earthly domain and slaughtered entire cities,
including women and children, in the process.
This is not Christianity.
It certainly was unknown in the Christian Church in the first three centuries,
and it's soundly condemned in the Bible.
But the Roman Catholic Church has never admitted this was wrong, and when in 1870
Italy achieved its independence from the Popes at last and Pius IX was confined to
the Vatican, he thundered damnation upon all who had liberated vast territories
over which the Popes had ruled as despotic kings for centuries.
Here again Roman Catholicism is the very antithesis of early Christianity.
Point nine.
It was the Popes who first put the Jews in ghettos, made them wear an identifying
badge, destroyed their synagogues and scriptures, and for centuries banished or
massacred those who would not convert to Roman Catholicism.
Hitler justified the Holocaust by saying he was only finishing what the Church had
done to the Jews for centuries.
This is not biblical Christianity.
Though she now claims to take a different stance vis-à-vis the Jews with her recent
treaty with Israel, Rome waited 46 years since 1948 before officially recognizing
Israel's right to the land God gave her.
And Rome still opposes her control of Jerusalem, wanting it to be in
international hands.
Prayers to Mary.
Point ten.
Prayers to Mary were unknown in the early Church, and no justification for them can
be found in the Bible.
Yet Roman Catholics direct prayers to Mary, which she would have to be God to
answer.
In the Holy Father's prayer for the Marian year, for example, the Pope asked Mary to
comfort, guide, strengthen, and protect the whole of humanity.
To do so, she would have to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and everywhere
at once.
Moreover, his prayer ends, quote, Sustain us, O Virgin Mary, on our journey
of faith, and obtain for us the grace of eternal salvation.
Unquote.
This is blasphemy.
Christ obtained eternal salvation and offers it to all as a free gift without
any help from Mary.
To sustain all Roman Catholics on their journey of faith, Mary again would have to
be God.
In fact, God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit guide and sustain us.
But for the Catholic, it's Mary.
This is not Christianity.
The Rosary concludes with this final petition.
Hail, Holy Queen of Heaven, of course, Mother of mercy, our life, our sweetness,
and our hope.
To Thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve.
To Thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this valley of
tears.
Turn then, most gracious Advocate, Thine eyes of mercy toward us,
and so forth.
Do Mary's eyes of mercy actually see everyone in the world?
Is she really the Mother of mercy?
Didn't God's mercy exist long before Mary was even born?
We read of the God of mercy, Psalm 39, 17, and are encouraged to trust in the
mercy of God, Psalm 52, 8, Luke 1, 78, and many other verses.
But never a word in the entire Bible about Mary's mercy toward mankind.
Those who know God's mercy have no need of Mary's.
In fact, she would have to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent in order to
extend mercy to all mankind.
The Bible mentions often mercy and peace coming from God to believers, but nowhere
is there a hint that mercy is bestowed by Mary on anyone.
Yet the Rosary teaches dependence upon her mercy.
To Thee do we cry, rather than upon God's.
As for Mary being the Queen of Heaven, the Bible says Christ is the King,
but never that there is a Queen of Heaven, much less that she is Mary.
If there were a Queen, it would be Christ's Bride, the Church, but she is
never referred to as the Queen of Heaven.
The only Queen of Heaven mentioned in Scripture was an idol, worshiped by the
pagans and to which the Jewish women gave offerings, bringing God's wrath upon them.
The New Universal Catechism, quoting Vatican II, states, From the most ancient
times, the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of Mother of God.
Not so, never in the Bible.
Mary is the mother of the body of Jesus, but not of him as God, for as God he
existed long before Mary was born, and is in fact her creator.
The Catechism goes on to say of Mary, To whose protection the faithful fly in
all their dangers and needs.
Here is official Roman Catholic doctrine from the highest level, attributing to
Mary authority and power which belong to God alone.
For her to protect all Catholics from all dangers and to supply all their needs,
Mary would have to be God.
In the entire Bible, there is not one prayer to Mary, not one instance of her
miraculously helping anyone, nor any promise that she would or could.
From Genesis to Revelation, protection and help are sought from, promised by,
and found in God and Christ alone.
This fact is attested by hundreds of verses.
The infinitely powerful and loving God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, has
protected as promised all who trusted in him through the centuries.
Then why would anyone call upon Mary?
Yet Catholics send up far more prayers to Mary than to God and Christ combined.
This is not Christianity, but Mary religion.
Finally, it is argued that if the Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church,
but went into apostasy, then Christ's promise failed that the gates of hell
would not prevail against his Church, for the Catholic Church was the only
Christian Church in existence for 1,500 years, so it is said.
On the contrary, there have always been numerous groups of thousands of true
Christians who gave no obedience to the Popes.
They were slaughtered by the millions for not conforming to Roman dogmas.
They were called Albigensies, Waldensies, Katari, Lollards, Vaudois, etc.,
and were falsely accused of being Manicheans and of all manner of
immorality.
Current encyclopedias perpetuate these lies from Catholic sources.
However, there are numerous records preserved from the very days when these
alleged heretics were being tortured and massacred, which prove that they were true
biblical Christians.
That's the issue, not how ancient the record may be, but whether it conforms to
the Bible, which is the authority to which we must look in deciding the question
before us.
Thank you.