The church at Rome enjoys the high privilege of having an epistle named for itself. That was long before there was one solitary bishop in town. Has this ancient church kept its first faith? The faith of the apostles is the right faith: "But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed." (Galatians 1:8). Any "other" gospel is not a better gospel, informed by superior insight, but a ruined and distorted one. Does the modern church of Rome preach and practice as the apostles did, or has it allowed elements of the faiths of the nations to infiltrate?

No one with an internet connection can be unaware of the triumphalist claims made in the modern era by web ministries such as Catholic Answers. The contemporary Roman Catholic apologetic enterprise wants it understood that 'fundamentalists' are not only anti-intellectual: ". . .fundamentalism's spirit is antitheological. . .This makes for endless difficulties when Catholics and fundamentalists sit down to talk, since the latter are suspicious of syllogisms." (Karl Keating, Catholicism and Fundamentalism, p. 278),— but they are wrong, wrong on the Bible, their guide and foundation. Has this highly visible and very noisy contingent made good on its claims to demonstrate the error of others' ways?

Some people are under the impression that the Roman church is conservative and traditional, but the perplexed observer must wonder if there is any novelty, from Marian apparitions to images to indulgences, to which this church is not open and welcoming. Is the church at Rome ancient and conservative as its defenders claim, or does it wander restlessly into novelty and innovation?

Mary

The single most striking feature of Roman Catholicism is its devotion to Mary. To evangelicals she is a heroine of the faith, but her status in Roman Catholicism may seem to outsiders almost that of a goddess. What are the teachings by which Rome justifies the elevation of this woman to such a high and exalted status?

Perpetual Virginity

Roman Catholics believe that Mary was a virgin, not only at the time of Jesus' birth as the scriptures teach, but throughout her life. Unlike the Immaculate Conception, which is a medieval doctrine, Perpetual Virginity finds supporters in the early church, though much of the early support is based on works like the Protevangelium whose authenticity cannot be defended. Is there any evidence for Mary's perpetual virginity in the Bible?

Immaculate Conception

Since the middle of the nineteenth century Roman Catholics have believed and taught as dogma that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin. Is this concept Biblical?:

Idolatry

Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis, was scandalized when, in his travels, he came across something unheard of in a church. Knowing the scriptures, he removed the offending object right away:

What did this holy man know that modern Catholics have forgotten?:

Graven Image

"You shall not make for yourself a carved image -- any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments." (Exodus 20:4-6).

The Second Commandment

Call a Spade a Spade

Some Roman Catholics insist that they do not "worship" Mary, they "venerate" her. But look it up in the Catholic Encyclopedia, and you'll discover that 'veneration' is a "kind of worship": "In the theological sense veneration means the kind of worship given to the saints and Mary as distinct from the kind of worship given to God alone." (Catholic Encylopedia, 1965). And some Roman Catholics freely admit to "worship" of Mary in any case: "Equally easy is it now to understand why the Christian heart overflows with love and gratitude to Mary; why Christians recur to her with so much confidence in the efficacy of her prayers, the success of her intercession; and why Catholics offer her the highest worship below the supreme worship offered in the Holy Sacrifice, but never offered except to God alone." (Orestes Brownson, Selected Writings, p. 282). Confronted with such quotes, Roman Catholics bring up instances where 'worship' is used carelessly in common speech, like 'I worship the ground you walk upon,' and 'Your Worship,' addressed to an English judge. This seems a perilous game, because there is no more fundamental command God gave to His people than to worship Him only.

Catholics and the Bible

Catholics and History

History is the strongest claim made by Catholics. By contrast with evangelical churches who can trace their continuous institutional existence back no more than a few centuries, the institutions that define Roman Catholicism have been around a long time. But history is also the most implacable accuser of Roman Catholicism. Only by averting one's eyes from much of this history can one continue to see Roman Catholicism as a church, much less the church:

Fruit of the Spirit

"But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control." (Galatians 5:22).

So if someone claims to be filled with the Holy Spirit, we know what fruit to look for...and what not:

"Cadaver Synod. One of the most gruesome events in papal history, held in January 897 by Pope Stephen VI (VII) during which the corpse of Pope Formosus (891-896) was exhumed and placed on trial...Having stirred up anti-Formosan sentiment among the populace and nobility of Rome, Lambert commanded Stephen to convene a synod to try the dead pope on assorted charges such as perjury, canonical violations, and ambition in seeking the papacy. What made the proceeding so grotesque was Stephen's decision to have Formosus appear personally. The rotting corpse was taken out of the tomb, dressed in vestments, and propped up in a chair. A deacon, standing behind the body, answered on its behalf. To no one's surprise, Formosus was found guilty." (The Pope Encyclopedia, Matthew Bunson, p. 58).

What is missing in this account, is not only any reminiscence of the early church writers' pastoral tale of one bishop sitting at the feet of his predecessor, learning the faith, but even any veneer of civilization. One must marvel at the vogue for swimming the Tiber; given all the bodies down there, it's a wonder the Board of Health doesn't shut it down for swimming.

Mass Murder

Jesus gave a simple test for discerning His followers: "By this all will know that you are My disciples, if you have love for one another." (John 13:35).

The long history of the Roman church is Catholicism's main selling point. But inspection of this lengthy history is not for the faint of heart. Does the history of the Roman Catholic Church show the Lord's principle in action?:

Apostolic Succession

When Marcion arose in the early church, claiming that his gnostic theology was just what the apostle Paul meant by his letters, critics realized that the churches founded by Paul, or guided by Paul subsequent to their founding by others (like Rome), represented a useful way of checking this claim. Would Paul have taught the congregations he was gathering a different gospel than he described in his letters? So why was Marcion's novel, unheard-of gospel not the gospel anyone could remember hearing on grandma's knee? In the early years of the church, the doctrine taught at churches of apostolic foundation did provide a useful check against 'wild' interpretations of scripture.

These early authors stressed how short was the chain and how few the links leading back to the apostolic generation. Modern Roman Catholics invert this claim, looking at it through the wrong end of the telescope. They glory in how many links there are in the chain, even though a transmission chain with many links gives no guarantee the message hasn't been garbled. Apostolic succession supposes that each bishop of Rome in turn learned his doctrine by sitting at the feet of his predecessor. Even in a healthy state of the church this was not always so. But in those ages when bandit chieftains vied over this lucrative office, buying it outright, of what worth is such a 'succession'?:

"Gregory VI Pope 1045 to 1046, the godfather to the infamous Pope Benedict IX, John Gratian (or Giovanni Graziano) was a participant in the reprehensible effort of Benedict to sell the papacy in 1045. John possessed a reputation for virtue and was known in some circles for his reforming zeal. He was consulted by his godson as to whether it was possible to resign the papacy because Benedict had become infatuated with a woman and was anxious to wed. John replied in the affirmative, and was suddenly offered the throne himself in return for a large payment of money. While technically paying the pope to step down, John in effect purchased the throne of St. Peter." (The Pope Encyclopedia, Matthew Bunson, p. 157).

This office would change hands for money many times in years to come. Norman Rockwell produced an illustration showing a long line of tale-bearers, calling one another up and reporting a juicy bit of gossip. The chain ended where it began, with the first gossip starting back in shock at what she heard. What she heard was not the same tale she had told at the start of the chain. That is what is prone to happen with long transmissions chains.

The Bishop of Rome

This distinctive institution almost defines the modern Roman Catholic Church. Unlike my own church, the Baptists, who govern themselves democratically, Rome is a strict autocracy, governed from above. A stronger contrast could not be imagined in form of government. Which practice is Biblical? Which apostolic? When did these practices start?:

Transubstantiation

The idea that there is a physical change in the elements of communion is a controversial Roman Catholic teaching, disputed at great cost by heroic men like John Wycliffe and Jan Hus. Is it Biblical?

What's in a Name?

The word 'catholic' means 'universal.' It's a wonder more churches don't use the word. My regular commute used to take me past a somewhat dilapidated structure with a great big sign outside that read, 'THE CHURCH OF GOD.' I used to wonder, if that's the church of God, then what are all the other churches?

Hobgoblin of Little Minds

Evangelicals are belatedly waking up to the flood of derogatory material about their faith unloosed upon the world by Roman Catholic apologetic ministries like Catholic.com:

"The expression 'personal relationship' comes neither from the language of the Bible nor from the history of Christian faith. The expression comes from the humanist psychology of the last hundred years, principally that of Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers and Eric Fromm. It also has its roots in over emphasis on the attitude of rugged individualism of the early development of America. In using the expression 'personal relationship' there is a danger in attempting to harmonize the formulas of the Bible with the formulas of psychology, psychiatry, and/or American nationalism." (CatholicApologetics.org).

Here we read that the evangelical quest for a 'personal relationship' with Jesus "comes from the humanist psychology." Hmmm...

"But it is in the Church that you will find Jesus Christ, who is the same yesterday, today and for ever (cf. Heb 13:8). He loves you and he has offered himself on the cross for you. Seek a personal relationship with him within the communion of his Church, for he will never betray your trust! He alone can satisfy your deepest longings and give your lives their fullest meaning by directing them to the service of others. Keep your eyes fixed on Jesus and his goodness, and shelter the flame of faith in your heart." (Pastoral Letter of Pope Benedict XVI to the Catholics of Ireland, Section 9)

Unto the Least

To end on a positive note, here's one thing the Roman Catholic Church does right:

"Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.' Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.'" (Matthew 25:34-40).

To their shame, many evangelical churches make no special effort to assist the poor. In addition, some evangelicals seem to believe the Lord said, 'Blessed are the war-mongers' (provided the name of the country targeted for invasion begins with the letter 'I,' not 'L'), while the Roman Catholic Church more consistently does the Lord's work in witnessing for peace. It's a shame that this good testimony is vitiated by unworthy practices like the veneration of Mary, not to mention atrocities such as those committed in the Irish orphanages. A good start for this church to make in restoring its first love would be to return to the ancient practice of electing bishops by the popular suffrage of the clergy and laity of the place; the adoption of autocracy and top-down governance during the Middle Ages would seem to be at the root of many of their problems.