A Brief Review and Response to Roman Catholicism
Peter Goeman
Apologetics – TH701
November, 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
Introduction
1
Brief History of the Roman Catholic Church
1
Review and Critique of Roman Catholic Doctrines
3
View of the Word of God
3
View of Mary
5
View of Infallibility
7
View of Salvation/Justification
11
View of Purgatory
14
Conclusion
16
Bibliography
17
Introduction
The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) is the largest church denomination within
Christianity, boasting over one billion members.1 The RCC’s influence has been spread over the
entire world, especially western culture. Due to its widespread influence in the world, especially
in the Americas, it is beneficial to be familiar with the doctrine of the RCC.
This paper will take a brief survey of the history of the RCC, as well as provide a focus
on the RCC’s arrival and reception in the United States of America. To do this most effectively,
after giving a brief history of the RCC, this paper will move on to the specific doctrines of the
RCC, examining its teaching in light of Scripture. The presuppositions held by this author will
influence this study in so far as this author believes that Scripture is the final authority on all
issues, and it must have the final say.
Brief History of the Roman Catholic Church
The RCC claims that Jesus himself formed the Catholic Church when he appointed the
twelve apostles and organized them.2 At Pentecost (Acts 2) the public ministry of the church
began.3 The RCC teaches that they are the one true church, and have always existed since the
time of Christ.4 The separations of denominations did not exist in the earliest ages and are
deviations away from the true Catholic Church.
1
ZENIT: The World Seen from Rome, Number of Catholics On the Rise, April 27, 2010,
http://www.zenit.org/article-29058?l=english (accessed November 2, 2012).
2
Thomas Bokenkotter, A Concise History of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday Publishing,
2005), 18.
3
Beatriz Scaglia, Catholicism: a History (Webster's Digital Services, 2010), 23, Electronic Format.
4
John Thavis, “Vatican Congregation Reaffirms Truth, Oneness of Catholic Church,” Catholic News
Service, July 10, 2007. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0703923.htm (accessed November 2, 2012).
1
2
The church did exist as one definable entity in the early ages. There was no Lutheran or
Catholic denomination as such, rather there was only one church—Christian.5 By the time of 400
A.D. two powerhouse churches had emerged and were to remain until the official division of the
church in 1054 A.D. These churches were located in Rome and in Constantinople.6 In 1054 A.D.
the Christian church divided, Constantinople forming what become known as the Eastern
Orthodox church, whereas the church of Rome stayed a part what had become the RCC.7
The year 1377 A.D. brought an interesting twist to the RCC because there had been a
shift in power, resulting in a papal schism. This led to more than one pope being recognized.
“The French king and his allies (Scotland, Spain, and Naples) recognize Clement VII in Avignon
as the legitimate pope. Countries opposed to France (England, Germany) supported the Roman
pope.”8 In order to solve this crisis, the cardinals from both sides got together and elected a third
option, thus resulting in three popes presiding at one time.9 The RCC eventually was able to
work itself through this situation, but many people’s confidence in the RCC had been shaken.
The RCC made its way to the United States of America on April 14, 1528 when a
Spanish exploration team, which included five RCC priests landed on the west coast of Florida in
an effort to explore and to find any treasure.10 This marked the first of many expeditions of the
5
RCC scholars claim a papal succession that began with Peter in Matthew 16 and has been preserved down
through the ages. Evangelical scholars are divided as to when the bishop of Rome began acting as a pope. In the
mind of this author, it appears the best evidence for the first real pope of the Catholic church would be Leo I in the
mid-fifth century. See John Vidmar, The Catholic Church Through the Ages (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2005), 53.
6
Norman Tanner, New Short History of the Catholic Church (London: Burns & Oats, 2011), 67.
7
Ibid, 82.
8
Vidmar, 158.
9
Ibid.
10
James T. Fisher, Catholics in America (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 11.
3
Spanish, and also gave testimony to the determination of the RCC in an effort to proclaim their
teaching worldwide.
The RCC influence has continued to grow worldwide, especially in the United States.
Comparing the numbers of Catholics in 2000 to 2008, the United States alone saw an increase of
10.93%.11 As this brief historical survey has indicated,12 the RCC has never stopped pressing
forward as a persuasive religious influence on the planet. Therefore, it would be good for the
wise individual to examine the RCC doctrine, know where they stand, and evaluate it properly.
Review and Critique of Roman Catholic Doctrines
This the main section of the paper will examine the core doctrines of the RCC and
evaluate them by Scripture. Because a full-fledged review and critique of the RCC is beyond the
scope of this paper, the purpose of this section is to briefly discuss what the RCC believes as
well as provide an adequate and reasonable defense against any views which do not coincide
with the biblical teaching.
View of the Word of God
The RCC teaches the Word of God is authoritative and binding. If this were enough, it
would indeed be enough. However, the RCC also claims that Scripture is not sufficient to direct
the believer. This is the different between Scripture being the authority, or an authority.
Catholics claim that Paul affirmed tradition as being a valid, infallible means of direction
when Paul wrote, “Hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you” (1 Cor 11:2; cf.
11
12
ZENIT: Number of Catholics On the Rise.
The purpose of this historical survey has not been to show any period of history in detail, but rather to
demonstrate that from the beginning, the RCC has had pervasive influence and continues to be an accepted religion.
4
2 Thess 2:15). “Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and
venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.”13
Part of the argument used to affirm the authority of tradition (the authority of the church)
is that the church chose the canon of Scripture. In essence, the RCC claims that it formed the
canon. The evangelical response to the RCC’s teaching on the Word of God is twofold. First, the
argument must be put forward that the RCC did not decide what is the Word of God. Rather,
throughout the early stages of the church, the Word of God co-existed along with the church and
was recognized as such. Dr. Foakes-Jackson states very plainly, “The Church assuredly did not
make the New Testament; the two grew up together.”14 Similarly, FF. Bruce concretely states the
following:
What is particularly important to notice is that the New Testament canon was not
demarcated by the arbitrary decree of any Church Council. When at last a Church
Council – the Synod of Hippo in ad 393 – listed the 27 books of the New Testament, it
did not confer upon them any authority which they did not already possess, but simply
recorded their previously established canonicity.15
Additionally, the idea that the Word of God and the RCC are on equal footing is
erroneous. There is no human institution that can claim to have divine authority. Only the writers
of Scripture can claim to have supernatural authority. For example, Jesus attributed the Holy
Spirit’s influence on David when he wrote Psalm 110 (Mark 12:35-36). Additionally, Jesus
taught that the words which comprised the Old Testament Scriptures were words spoken from
God directly. “And He answered and said, “Have you not read, that He who created them from
the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS CAUSE A MAN
13
Pope Paul VI Dei Verbum 2.9.
14
F. J. Foakes-Jackson, A History of Church History: Studies of Some Historians of the Christian Church
(Cambridge: Heffer, 1939), 21.
15
F.F. Bruce, The Books and the Parchments: How We Got Our English Bible (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H
Revell, 1984), 112-3.
5
SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND SHALL CLEAVE TO HIS WIFE; AND
THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH?’” (Matt 19:4-5, emphasis added).16 Jesus was also
quick to affirm that Scripture could not be broken, bearing the ultimate standard of authority—
eternality (John 10:35).
Given the tremendous authority and nature of God’s Word, it would be poor judgment to
claim equal authority of the leadership of the church or the church itself. The Pharisees had set
up a similar system, and Christ rebuked them by saying, “You are experts at setting aside the
commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.” (Mark 7:9).
This is the very foundation of the differences between the RCC and the Protestant
community. The Bible clearly claims sufficiency (Ps 19; 2 Tim 3:15-16), yet the RCC claims
that tradition is on equal footing with Scripture. This statement however does not have adequate
proof, for nowhere do the apostles affirm that. Rather, the apostles praise Scripture for its
superiority (2 Pet 1:18-21). Yet, this does not stop the RCC from claiming a special spot for
tradition, for as will be seen in what follows, the church must have authority so that it can
promote the doctrines which are clearly not taught in Scripture.
View of Mary
The RCC teaches that Mary was born sinless in what is known as an immaculate
conception. “The Immaculate Conception means that Mary, whose conception was brought
about the normal way, was conceived without original sin or its stain—that’s what ‘immaculate’
means: without stain.”17 This puts Mary on a divine level alongside of Christ.
16
17
All Scripture will be quoted from NASB unless otherwise stated.
“Immaculate Conception and Assumption,” Catholic Answers,
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption (accessed November 2, 2012).
6
This has given birth to the Rosary, in which saints can pray to Mary for help. Catholics
are even told that if they are on the utter brink of depravity or heresy, praying the Rosary will
have a saving affect in their lives.18 This hinges on the belief that Mary is a capable mediator
along with Christ. Mary’s ability to grant grace is hinged on the old translations of Luke 1:28,
which will be discussed below.
In order for the RCC to adequately prove that Mary is without sin, one would have to
have ample biblical evidence. However, such biblical evidence of Mary’s sinless nature is
nonexistent. Instead, the Bible claims that holiness and being sinless belong to God alone. 1
Samuel 2:2 says, “There is none holy like the LORD.” Additionally, Revelation 15:4 proclaims,
“For you alone are holy. All nations will come and worship you, for your righteous acts have
been revealed.” Clearly it is the underlying assumption of Scripture that only God is sinless. All
others sin, die, and are judged (Heb 9:27).
In regards to the Immaculate Conception, this belief is based on Luke 1:28, where the
Catholic Bible reads, “And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is
with thee: blessed art thou among women.”19 The implication taught by the RCC is given as
follows:
The traditional translation, "full of grace," is better than the one found in many recent
versions of the New Testament, which give something along the lines of "highly favored
daughter." Mary was indeed a highly favored daughter of God, but the Greek implies
more than that (and it never mentions the word for "daughter"). The grace given to Mary
is at once permanent and of a unique kind. Kecharitomene is a perfect passive participle
of charitoo, meaning "to fill or endow with grace." Since this term is in the perfect tense,
it indicates that Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects in the present.
So, the grace Mary enjoyed was not a result of the angel’s visit. In fact, Catholics hold, it
18
John Ankerberg and John Weldon, Protestants & Catholics: Do They Now Agree? (Eugene, OR: Harvest
House Publishers, 1995), 97.
19
Quotation from Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition.
7
extended over the whole of her life, from conception onward. She was in a state of
sanctifying grace from the first moment of her existence.20
The problem with the idea that “Mary was graced in the past but with continuing effects
in the present,” is that it fails to identify when in the past this occurred. There is no need to say
that this was a habitual state of life for Mary. In fact, the use of this verb in Ephesians 1:6
indicates that this verb tells of one who is the recipient of grace and not the source. In his
comments on Ephesians 1:6, A.T. Robertson notes, “[This] late verb χαριτοω [charitoō] (from
χαρις [charis], grace), in N.T. attracted to case of antecedent χαριτος [charitos] only here and
Luke 1:28.”21
A further problem is that Romans 3:23 clearly states that “all have sinned.” This is the
reason why Mary cries out later in Luke 1:47 and she proclaims, “And my spirit has rejoiced in
God my Savior” (emphasis added). Clearly Mary knew she herself needed a Savior. To promote
a sinless nature of Mary would indicate that she would be one who did not need a Savior. Yet,
her joy was found in the fact that she herself would also benefit from God’s salvation. To claim
that she has some special role as mediator or anything else goes against the clear teaching of
Scripture and must be rejected (1 Tim 2:5).
View of Infallibility22
The RCC views the authority of the Pope and the RCC as divinely passed down, and
given direct authority from the Lord himself. This teaching holds that the church and the Pope
are able to teach with infallibility, without making mistakes.
20
“Immaculate Conception and Assumption.”
21
A.T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933), Eph 1:6,
Electronic Format.
22
A full discussion of all variations of the view of Papal infallibility is not the scope of this paper. For a full
treatment of the various views of papal infallibility, consult Mark E. Powell, Papal Infallibility: A Protestant
Evaluation of an Ecumenical Issue (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009).
8
The doctrine of infallibility, which holds that the Church and the Pope are, in specific and
determined circumstances, not able to make a mistake when teaching matters of faith and
morals that must be held by all the faithful, has itself been declared to be—insofar as the
Pope is concerned—a matter of faith that has been divinely revealed. This definition of
faith was proclaimed at the first Council of the Vatican (1869-1870) during the
pontificate of Blessed Pius IX (1846-1878).23
This belief that the RCC Pope is infallible stems from the belief that Matthew 16 teaches
Christ gave Peter a special authority which is then succisively passed down to those who sit in
the seat of power in Rome. Thereby, the Catholic Church can teach the following:
[W]e teach and declare that it is a dogma of faith that the Roman Pontiff, to whom, in the
person of Blessed Peter, it has been said, among other things, by the Lord Jesus Christ, “I
have prayed for you that your faith may not fail and, when you have turned, strengthen
your brothers,” by the power of the divine assistance promised to him, is not able to err
when, exercising his office as supreme teacher of all Christians, he defines, by his
apostolic authority, what must be held as belonging to the faith or must be rejected as
contrary to the faith by the universal Church in matters of faith and morals; and his
decrees or judgments, irreformable [sic] of themselves, must be accepted and held with
the full submission of faith as soon as one becomes aware of them.24
These are very hefty claims by the RCC, and one should expect a likewise hefty defense
of this position by the RCC if it is to be justified. To claim that the RCC Pope is on equal footing
as Scripture attacks the Reformation principle of sola scriptura. In order to adequately refute this
idea of the RCC’s infallibility through the Pope, the key text of Matthew 16 must be addressed.
Before launching into the discussion, it is important to be reminded that the burden of
proof is on the RCC. They must be able to demonstrably prove that in Matthew 16, Jesus is
speaking to Peter, and identifying him as the rock on which the church is built. They must also
establish Peter as the first head of the Christian Church (i.e. the first pope). Also, that this
23
James T. O'Connor, The Gift of Infallibility: the Official Relatio On Infallibility of Bishop Vincent Gasser
at Vatican Council I, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008), 7.
24
O'Connor, 14.
9
passage teaches papal succession. Finally, the RCC must prove that the church has always
believed in the papacy of Peter.25
Did the early church hold to the infallibility of Peter? It appears almost an ironic setting
that after Jesus discusses the rock on which He will build His church, not just a few verses later,
Peter demonstrates his impetuous and sinful nature by playing the role of Satan, trying to hinder
Christ (Matt 16:22-23). There was also a similar occurrence in Matthew 17 at the Mount of
Transfiguration. Peter once again impetuously speaks and Luke reminds us that Peter did not
know what he was saying (Luke 9:33). Peter was not always concerned with behaving reverently
and properly when he was supposed to.
Additionally, a strong argument against the fact that Peter was viewed as supreme among
the disciples is that in Luke 22:24-30 the disciples were arguing about who among them was the
greatest. It appears that even up to the night when Jesus was about to be betrayed, the disciples
did not have any clear direction as to which of them was the greatest.
Peter’s own statements give strong evidence against viewing him as the first Pope. Peter
writes, “I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of
Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed” (1 Peter 5:1). This is not language
of the Pope. “Peter does not speak as a Pope, but as a fellow elder. He does not speak as the chief
pastor, but as a fellow pastor. There is no reference to Rome, the Papacy, or any other element of
Roman Catholic claims in this epistle.”26
Another glaring blot on the alleged papacy of Pope Peter is Galatians 2. Here Paul states
bluntly that he “opposed [Peter] to his face, because he stood condemned” (v. 11). Peter’s actions
25
James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy: Catholics & Protestants—Do the Differences Still
Matter? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1996), 106-7.
26
Ibid., 109.
10
were in opposition to the gospel that both he and Paul had endeavored to preach. This situation
would clearly give opportunity for a discussion on the primacy of Peter, or of an opportunity to
discuss his infallibility. However, Scripture is silent. In fact, Scripture is silent about any claim
of special authority for Peter. An examination of Acts (the history of the beginning of the
church) would surely yield any special consideration as to papal authority. “The Book of Acts
gives us the clearest insight into the function of the early Church. Here if anywhere we would
find clear and unequivocal evidence of Petrine primacy and the function of the Papacy. Is such
evidence there? No, we find just the opposite.”27
One final hole in the defenses of the RCC claim of papal succession becomes evident
upon examination. Even if one were to admit that Christ set up a seat for a vicar; a seat on which
Peter was to sit with a special type of authority. Even though this may be true, there remains a
need to prove that this seat of papal authority is passed down through the generations. “There are
two important steps in the doctrine of apostolic succession. First, it must be demonstrate that
Jesus set up and the apostles practiced this apostolic succession. Second, it must be shown that
there is an unbroken apostolic chain from Peter to the current pope.”28
Yet while examining Matthew 16 (and all Scripture for that matter) there is no reason to
read a statement of apostolic succession into the text. Even if Peter is being granted what some
would see as primacy, there are no grounds to see the special privileges of Peter passed on to
others. Rightly it can be affirmed, “there are no good arguments for the apostolic primacy of
Peter, which is basic to his having any apostolic power to pass on to anyone. Second, the
arguments for the infallibility of Peter fail, and this is the kind of apostolic authority Peter is
27
28
Ibid., 111.
Normal L. Geisler and Joshua M. Betancourt, Is Rome the True Church?: A Consideration of the Roman
Catholic Claim (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008), 149.
11
supposed to have passed on to his successors.”29Convincingly then, it seems apparent that if one
holds to the authority of Scripture it is impossible to come away with the teaching of Petrine
supremacy or apostolic succession which leads to the belief in the Pope’s infallibility. Such
beliefs have to originate outside of Scripture.
View of Salvation/Justification
One of the most dangerous doctrines to get wrong is obviously is salvation and
justification. These two doctrines are intrinsically related, and will be discussed together. A good
preface to the discussion is the need to discuss the RCC view of sin, a topic which is also related
to this discussion.
RCC theology gives two definitions of sin: venial and mortal. A venial sin is described as
follows: “An offense against God which does not deprive the sinner of sanctifying grace. It is
called venial (from venia, pardon) because the soul still has the vital principle that allows a cure
from within.”30
This differs from the RCC view of mortal sins. A mortal sin is defined as follows:
“An actual sin that destroys sanctifying grace and causes the supernatural death of the soul.
Mortal sin is a turning away from God because of a seriously inordinate adherence to creatures
that cause grave injury to a person’s rational nature and to the social order, and deprives the
sinner of a right to heaven.”31
In regards to dealing with sin, the RCC teaches that an individual enters the state of grace
through baptism. Venial sins impede the Christian’s progress in their spiritual journey through
29
Ibid., 161. Earlier in chapters 3 and 5 the authors demonstrates conclusively that Peter was not given
primacy, and also that succession was not possible. The author goes on to conclude that history itself does not
uphold the RCC’s claims of the Christian church always being able to trace the apostolic succession.
30
John Hardon, Pocket Catholic Dictionary (New York: Image Books, 1985), 449.
31
Ibid., 271.
12
this life, yet these sins can be dealt with through “sorrow, prayer, works of charity and
abstinence, [and] reception of Holy Communion.”32 If one dies with a mortal sin that has not
been confessed, it results in separation from God. “To die in mortal sin without repenting and
accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever [sic] by our own
free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is
called ‘hell.’”33
It can be seen then through this brief interaction with the RCC’s sources that the work of
confessing sins and penance is essential to attaining eternal life. In essence, the RCC teaches that
the death of Christ is not enough to save someone. There must be human effort involved.
If anyone says that after the reception of the grace of justification the guilt is so remitted
and the debt of eternal punishment so blotted out to every repentant sinner, that no debt
of temporal punishment remains to be discharged either in this world or in purgatory
before the gates of heaven can be opened, let him be anathema.34
Man’s effort is essential to the RCC. True, they align it with the work of Christ, but it is
essential to their sanctification and salvation nonetheless. One RCC theologian states it this way:
Man, for his part, in order to arrive at full sanctification, must cooperate with the grace of
the Holy Spirit through faith, hope, love of God and neighbor, and prayer; but he must
also perform other “works.” It is a universally accepted dogma of the Catholic Church
that man, in union with the grace of the Holy Spirit must merit heaven by his good works.
These works are meritorious only when they are performed in the state of grace and with
good intention.35
32
Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers, 1974), 433.
33
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., 1033.
34
J. Waterworth, Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Ecumenical Council of Trent (Whitefish, MT:
Kessinger Publishing, 2010), 48.
35
262.
Matthias Premm, Dogmatic Theology for the Laity (Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers, 1977),
13
Later the same author states in summary, “We have shown that according to Holy
Scripture the Christian can actually merit heaven for himself by his good works.”36
The Protestant view of justification and salvation is significantly different than the view
of the RCC. Whereas the RCC views justification as a process in which the individual plays an
important key role, Protestants view Justification as an act of God.
Justification is said to be an act of God as judge wherein He declares the believer
righteous. It is, therefore, a legal, forensic declaration on the part of God concerning the
believer… Justification is an act undertaken by God, and it is not based on anything done
in or done by us as believers. It is an act of sovereign grace, because it is something God
does, not something we do.37
Clearly this approach to justification is far different than the RCC view. In fact, it is
different enough to be easily seen teaching two different views of salvation. And so it truly is
that the Protestant view of justification and the RCC view of justification are at ends with regard
to how an individual is really saved.
The Bible clearly teaches that it is antithetical to include human works in justification.
Paul writes, “Nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but
through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified
by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will
be justified” (Gal 2:16). This verse clearly teaches that the works of the Mosaic Law cannot be
used to justify flesh. Some would want to say this verse cannot be applied to other works of
righteousness, but this argument fails for two reasons:38 1) The works of the Mosaic Law are
seen in Scripture as the highest and strictest standard of devotion and holiness to God, therefore
making this an example of arguing from the greater to the lesser—if the Mosaic Law cannot
36
Ibid., 263.
37
White, 143.
38
Ibid., 149.
14
justify someone, then nothing can. 2) Within the context, Paul’s point is a juxtaposition of works
versus faith. Both here in Galatians 2 and in Romans 4, Paul contrasts any attempt at
supplementing faith with works as hopeless and in vain. There can be no doubt that Paul was
arguing on the broad scale of how there can be nothing added to faith. It is God alone who
justifies.
Justification takes place then in a marvelous exchange where the sinner is imputed with
righteousness and Christ takes on his guilt (2 Cor 5:21). It is Christ’s righteousness alone that
gives the believer access to God and to heaven. There is no additional effort put forward by the
believer himself that merits anything. This is one of the key and sharp distinctions between the
RCC and Protestant belief. “The righteousness by which we stand before God, according to the
Protestant, is the righteousness of Jesus Christ alone. No one will ever stand before God clothed
in the righteousness of Christ, Mary, the saints, and himself.”39
Although there is much more that could be said in relation to critiquing the RCC’s view
of justification, it serves the purpose of this paper to simply note the heavy emphasis on the
synergism of the believer in being actively involved with his own salvation. This is not the
message that one sees in Scripture, and this belief that individuals can help earn their salvation
by being involved in the process of justification leads to many other mistaken views, as will be
shown in the following discussion of Purgatory.
View of Purgatory
The RCC doctrine states: “All who die in God’s grace and friendship, but still
imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo
purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.”40 The Catechism
39
Ibid., 153.
15
goes on at this point to describe the doctrine of purgatory as something that is derived from the
Councils of Florence and Trent, as well as 2 Maccabees 12:39-46.
In RCC thinking, purgatory becomes a place where individuals can go to clean their
venial sins and/or attain the holiness that is required by God.
If those truly penitent have departed in the love of God, before they have made
satisfaction by worthy fruits of penance for sins of commission and omission, the souls of
these are cleansed after death by purgatorial punishments; and so that they are of
advantage to them, namely, the sacrifices of Masses, prayers, and almsgiving, and other
works of piety, which are customarily performed by the faithful for other faithful
according to the institutions of the Church.41
The very words of RCC dogma indicate that an individual is not fit to enter heaven by the
righteousness of Christ alone. He must work to attain cleansing and penance, and if he is unable
to achieve an acceptable state before death, then purgatory will cleanse him and make him
acceptable for the presence of heaven.42
The clear teaching that human beings can pay for their sin through merit-based activities
is in clear contradiction to Scripture. It is impossible to look in detail at the main passages used
from Scripture to support the doctrine of purgatory.43 However, it is important to note that, as the
RCC Catechism states (quoted above), purgatory is mainly derived from Church Councils and
also from 2 Maccabees, which is not considered Scripture by Protestants. Therefore, the Catholic
view of Scripture continues to play a big part in their formation of doctrine.
40
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., 1030.
41
Council of Florence (1439): DS (1304) [De novissimis]. Cited by The Companion to the Catechism of the
Catholic Church: A Compendium of Texts Referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (San Francisco:
Ignatius Press, 1994), 406.
42
43
This is also clearly taught in the Catholic document, Pope Paul VI Indulgentiarum Doctrina.
The RCC uses Matthew 12:32 and 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 primarily. Upon examination, these have
nothing to do with purgatory without importing the presupposition that purgatory exists.
16
Conclusion
The purpose of this paper has been to briefly examine the influence of the RCC
throughout history and focus specifically on certain key components of RCC doctrine. After
examining in brief the beliefs of the RCC, the RCC doctrine has been found inaccurate and
incapable of supporting itself with Scripture. It is impossible to exhaustively survey the RCC, but
the goal of pointing out some major flaws of RCC doctrine which does not coincide with
Scripture has been accomplished. It is important for the Bible-based church to be aware of
Catholic teaching because it is prominent on every front of the United States of America, as well
as all over the planet. In order to be able to interact with the RCC in an intelligent way, leading
as many as possible from their state of darkness into the true church, we must endeavor to
engage them and point out their error in accordance with Scripture.
17
Bibliography
Ankerberg, John, and John Weldon, Protestants & Catholics: Do They Now Agree? Eugene,
OR: Harvest House Publishers, 1995.
Bokenkotter, Thomas. A Concise History of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday
Publishing, 2005.
Bruce, F.F. The Books and the Parchments: How We Got Our English Bible. Old Tappan, NJ:
Fleming H Revell, 1984.
Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church: Revised in Accordance with the Official
Latin Text Promulgated by Pope John Paul II. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana,
1997.
Dei Verbum: "De Divina Revelatione: the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation of
Vatican Council, Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, November 18, 1965."
Fisher, James T. Catholics in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Foakes-Jackson, F. J. A History of Church History: Studies of Some Historians of the Christian
Church. Cambridge: Heffer, 1939.
Geisler Normal L., and Joshua M. Betancourt. Is Rome the True Church?: A Consideration of
the Roman Catholic Claim. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2008.
Hardon, John. Pocket Catholic Dictionary. New York: Image Books, 1985.
Ignatius. The Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church: A Compendium of Texts
Referred to in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1994.
Indulgentiarum Doctrina: "Indulgentiarum Doctrina: Whereby the Revision of Sacred
Indulgences is Promulgated, Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, January 1, 1967."
“Immaculate Conception and Assumption.” Catholic
Answers.http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-andassumption (accessed November 2, 2012).
O'Connor, James T. The Gift of Infallibility: the Official Relatio On Infallibility of Bishop
Vincent Gasser at Vatican Council I. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2008.
Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers, 1974.
Powell, Mark E. Papal Infallibility: A Protestant Evaluation of an Ecumenical Issue. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009.
18
Premm, Matthias. Dogmatic Theology for the Laity. Rockford, IL: TAN Books and Publishers,
1977.
Robertson, A.T. Word Pictures in the New Testament. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1933.
Electronic Format.
Scaglia, Beatriz. Catholicism: a History. Webster's Digital Services, 2010. Electronic Format.
Tanner, Norman. New Short History of the Catholic Church. London: Burns & Oats, 2011.
Vatican Council, and George H. Tavard. De Divina Revelatione: The Dogmatic Constitution
on Divine Revelation of Vatican Council , Promulgated by Pope Paul VI, November 18,
1965. Glen Rock, NJ: Paulist Press, 1966.
Vidmar, John. The Catholic Church Through the Ages. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 2005.
Waterworth, J. Canons and Decrees of the Sacred and Ecumenical Council of Trent. Whitefish,
MT: Kessinger Publishing, 2010.
White, James R. The Roman Catholic Controversy: Catholics & Protestants—Do the Differences
Still Matter? Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 1996.
ZENIT: The World Seen from Rome. Number of Catholics On the Rise. April 27, 2010.
http://www.zenit.org/article-29058?l=english (accessed November 2, 2012).