It is fair to say that the Roman Catholic Church has rarely, if ever, been entirely free of scandal. This holds true for the hierarchy. Especially during the Middle Ages, the practice of priests, bishops and even popes having concubines drew the Church's com­mitment to clerical celibacy into serious question. In more recent times, the Roman Catholic Church has been besieged by alle­gations of sexual misconduct. In Canada, the Mt. Cashel Orphanage fiasco remains a shameful episode. Another low point was the barbarism inflicted upon Canada's First Nations at many residential schools. In modern-day Italy, numerous nuns have been infected with HIV/AIDS because of clerical lusts. We could go on to the point of nausea.

However, it would be wrong for us to judge the Roman Catholic Church based on these scandals. The Roman Catholic Church is a global institution with millions of members. Scandals of lesser and greater notoriety have occurred in Reformed churches as well — perhaps even in dispro­portionate numbers. Would we want our churches to be judged solely by the misbe­haviour of a proportionately small number of its members or ministers? No, there is a better way: we should examine the doctrine of the Church in question and compare it with Scripture.

So, let's now look at what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about several important points and compare these with the teaching of Scripture. In doing this, we'll take the modern standard of Roman Catholic doctrine as our guide. The Cate­chism of the Catholic Church was pub­lished in several languages in 1994 and is an excellent compendium of Roman Catholic teaching. If you regularly have contact with Roman Catholics with an eye to evangelism, it would definitely be helpful to have this book in your library.

The Most Important Issue⤒🔗

Let's start with the most important is­sue. In my experiences with educated Ro­man Catholics, this is where any discussion will lead you. We tend to focus in on hot-button issues: Mary, the Mass, purgatory, and the like. However, when we get into some heavy discussion on these issues, ap­peals are made to authority. The Reformed person appeals to Scripture. But the Ro­man Catholic is not persuaded by appeals to Scripture. In his mind, Scripture belongs with tradition and tradition stands on an equal footing with Scripture. The two will never contradict each other. Thus, in any discussion with Roman Catholics, things will always get bogged down over the ques­tion of authority.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) maintains that both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture come from the same source: God. There is one common source, but two distinct ways in which God's reve­lation comes to the Church:

Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit ... Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.

Those statements come from Article 81. Then we read the following in Article 82:

As a result the 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. '

Tradition is more tightly defined in the 83rd article as what has been handed down from the apostles via oral transmission. The apostles, in turn, received the tradition from the Lord Jesus. The Roman Catholic Church also distinguishes between the great Tradition, which is unchangeable, and "various theological, disciplinary, litur­gical, or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time." The latter "can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church's magis­terium (body of authoritative teachers)." In short, the Roman Catholic view can be de­fined as Scripture plus tradition — but both are regarded as having a divine origin and so both are equally authoritative.

Sola vs. Solo←⤒🔗

Oftentimes, the Biblical or Reformed view is defined as Sola Scriptura, Latin for "by Scripture alone." Unfortunately, this often degenerates into what some have called "Solo Scriptura." Solo Scriptura is the caricature of the Biblical view and it is maintained by many evangelicals. It is the reason why one writer stated, without hyperbole: "...Evangelicalism has created far more novel doctrines than Roman Catholicism."¹ With this view of Scrip­ture, the Bible stands with me all by itself. I will come with my private interpretation of the Bible and it is valid and authorita­tive for me. This "Solo Scriptura" view is not Biblical.

The Biblical view is that the Bible alone is the most clear and authoritative source of revelation — the only other source being "the creation, preservation and government of the universe" (Belgic Confession, Art.2). The Bible alone is where God reveals all we need to know for our salvation. Scripture must be acknowledged as the ultimate and infallible norm for Christians. However, Scripture must always be interpreted in an ecclesiastical context — after all, it is the Church which has been entrusted with the Scriptures. We may not have an individu­alistic approach to the Bible. The Bible al­ways has to be understood not only in its own context, but also in the context of the true Church. This is why astute Bible stu­dents (including ministers) place great value upon commentaries. Good commen­taries (like those of John Calvin) give Bible students an excellent sense of how the Scriptures have been understood by those who have gone before us.

At the same time, it is very clear in our Belgic Confession (Article 7) that we cannot consider "any writings of men, however holy these men may have been, of equal value with the divine Scriptures." According to the same article, we may not place custom or tradition on the same level as God's Word either. This is a direct jab against the teaching of the Roman Catholics. The reason given is Biblical: "for all men are of themselves liars, and lighter than a breath." So, the Biblical view of the authority of Scripture ac­knowledges several things: the supreme and ultimate authority of the Bible, the importance of the Church in interpreting the Bible, and the sinfulness of man has an impact on his interpretation and un­derstanding of the Bible.

This Biblical view can be truly labelled as Catholic in the good sense of the word. This was the view held during the first three centuries of the Church. It was the view that found acceptance by the major­ity of the Church through most of the Mid­dle Ages. Finally, this was the view that re-emerged during the Great Reformation under men such as Martin Luther and John Calvin.²  The Roman Catholic view as it stands today actually originates around the 12th century. As Keith Mathison puts it, "The historical novelty (of this view) is sim­ply not in debate among patristic and me­dieval scholars." ³ In other words, the view expressed in the CCC may be Roman, but it is certainly not Catholic.

The Doctrine of Man←⤒🔗

We spent a lot of time on that ques­tion of authority because it is so critically important. It lies at the root of most of the other doctrinal problems in the Roman Catholic Church. We could touch on many other issues, but let's stay where the fire is hottest. Let's briefly examine what the Ro­man Catholic Church teaches about man. The Roman Catholic Church holds to a po­sition called "Semi-Pelagianism." Pelagius, a fifth-century British monk, taught that man is not conceived and born in sin. Man is born essentially good and he learns evil by imitation. Augustine of Hippo opposed Pelagius and insisted on man's corruption. Likewise, the Roman Catholic Church adamantly maintains that Pelagius was wrong. They maintain a doctrine called "Original Sin" and assert that "original sin is transmitted with human nature by prop­agation, not by imitation." (CCC, Art.419)

Though the Roman Catholic Church holds to original sin, it is defined in a special way:

Although it is proper to each individ­ual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a depriva­tion of the original holiness and jus­tice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted; it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it; subject to ignorance, suffering, and the domin­ion of death; and inclined to sin — an inclination to evil that is called 'con­cupiscence.' Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

CCC, Art.405

Take note of the view of human nature here: it has not been totally corrupted, it is wounded, inclined to sin. This is a more pessimistic view than Pelagius, but more optimistic than the Biblical view. For this reason, we rightly label this doctrine Semi-Pelagianism. Under this doctrine, man is given a significant role in his own salvation. He is weakened, but once he is baptized, original sin disappears, though its effects may still be seen. At the end of the day, man retains some good within him. With a little push from God's grace, man can help to save himself.

The true Catholic view is quite a bit dif­ferent. In Article 15 of the Belgic Confes­sion, the truth of Scripture is summarized like this:

We believe that by the disobedience of Adam original sin has spread throughout the whole human race. It is a corruption of the entire nature of man and a hereditary evil which in­fects even infants in their mother's womb ... It is not abolished nor eradi­cated even by baptism, for sin continu­ally streams forth like water welling up from this woeful source.

The direction of the Belgic Confession seems clear enough. However, in the 17th century, the followers of James Arminius tried to weaken the interpretation of the Belgic Confession. The Synod of Dort in 1618-19 answered with its Canons that make very clear that man is totally depraved. The Canons of Dort, following Scripture, state without reservation that all men are not merely wounded, but "dead in sin, and slaves of sin. And with­out the grace of the regenerating Holy Spirit they neither will nor can return to God, reform their depraved nature, or pre­pare themselves for its reformation" (CoD, 3/4.3). This view is the truly Catholic one, for it encapsulates the doctrine of the apostles that has been maintained by true believers around the world (including Au­gustine, Calvin and others) for centuries. This view alone gives all the glory for man's salvation to God.

Worship and Mary←⤒🔗

The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the place of Mary, the saints, the Mass and other sacraments, and the use of images are especially objec­tionable to Bible-believing Christians. All of these teachings can be lumped together un­der the general heading of worship. It has often been noted that worship was one of the central issues in the Great Reformation of the 16th century. It only makes sense, then, that we ask what the Roman Catholic Church believes about worship.

We can do this by looking at how the Catechism of the Catholic Church deals with the first and second commandments The RCC traditionally puts the first and sec­ond commandments together and calls them the first commandment. Yet, the Cat­echism does divide the explanation. What we call the first commandment is explained as forbidding the honor of other gods as well as a prohibition against superstition and irreligion. What we call the second commandment is first explained as pro­hibiting the "representation of God by the hand of man" (Art. 2129). However, the doors are quickly opened with the follow­ing articles:

"2130 Nevertheless, already in the Old Testament, God ordained or per­mitted the making of images that pointed symbolically toward salvation by the incarnate Word: so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim.

2131 Basing itself on the mystery of the incarnate Word, the seventh ecu­menical council at Nicaea (787) justi­fied against the iconoclasts the veneration of icons — of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, the angels, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new 'economy' of images"

What is striking about the Roman Catholic understanding of the second commandment is that there is no recogni­tion that this commandment originally pertained to the worship of God through graven images. This is exactly where the Roman Catholic Church goes wrong in its understanding of worship. In Art. 2132 of CCC, it is stated plainly:

Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinc­tive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.

In other words, the Roman Catholic Church worships God through these images. Ro­man Catholics will say the same about their "veneration" of Mary and the other saints: we are worshipping God through them and thus the "veneration" is no idolatry. This is nothing less than a plain violation of the second commandment.

This was recognized during the Refor­mation. The Heidelberg Catechism states that we may not have images "in order to worship them or to serve God through them" (QA 97). Further, the Reformed Cat­echism also asserts that the second com­mandment gives us a basic principle for our worship: we are not "to worship Him in any other manner than He has com­manded in His Word" (QA 96). The same principle is found with the Belgic Confes­sion in Article 7, "The whole manner of worship which God requires of us is writ­ten in it at length," and then also in Arti­cle 32, "Therefore we reject all human inventions and laws introduced into the worship of God which bind and compel the consciences in any way."

The Roman Catholic Church follows a different route when it comes to worship: we may add to or take away from the wor­ship of God as we please. Thus, the RCC has an elaborate ritual for baptism that ob­scures the simplicity of the sacrament as found in Scripture: sprinkling or immersion with plain water. Following their unscrip­tural worship principle, the RCC adds im­ages, choirs, drama and countless other innovations. The whole procedure and doc­trine of the mass, though it often uses the words of Scripture, not only twists those very words, but also adds or takes away from the teaching of our Lord Jesus.

Other Examples←⤒🔗

Numerous books have been written documenting the differences between the teaching of the Papacy and the teaching of Scripture. This article could quickly turn into one of those books! Before we finish off, here are two more examples of the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church contrasted with the teaching of Scripture as summarized in our Confessions:

Regarding justification, Rome teaches: "Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Jus­tification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith."

Art. 1992

But the Bible teaches: "Therefore we rightly say with Paul that we are justified by faith alone, or by faith apart from works of law. Meanwhile, strictly speaking, we do not mean that faith as such justifies us, for faith is only the instrument by which we em­brace Christ our righteousness; He imputes to us all His merits and as many holy works as He has done for us and in our place."

Belgic Confession, Art. 22

Note the difference between an infused jus­tification ("conferred in Baptism") and an imputed justification that is by faith alone.

Regarding the extent of Christ's atone­ment, Rome teaches:

"The Church, following the apostles, teaches that Christ died for all men without exception: 'There is not, never has been, and never will be a single human being for whom Christ did not suffer."

Art.605

But Scripture teaches us: "For this was the most free counsel of God the Father, that the life-giving and saving efficacy of the most precious death of His Son should extend to all the elect ... This means: God willed that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which He confirmed the new covenant) should effectually redeem out of every people, tribe, nation, and tongue all those, and those only, who were from eternity chosen to salvation and were given to Him by the Father."

Canons of Dort, Chapter 2.8

Here the difference is between a universal atonement, and an atonement restricted to God's elect.

On these and so many other points, the Roman Catholic Church has departed from the teaching of Scripture. We may say without hesitation that the RCC repre­sents the spirit of Antichrist. In fact, the Westminster Confession is not off the mark when it implies that the Roman Catholic Church is a synagogue of Satan (25.5). And certainly we may agree that the Pope is not in any sense the head of the church of Jesus Christ, "but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the church against Christ, and all that is called God." (25.6).

Through the Apostles' Creed, we con­tinue to confess that we believe a Catholic Church. Through the course of our brief examination, we have seen that there is a true Catholicism and a false Catholicism. There is a church chosen to everlasting life which experiences the unity of true faith ­a true faith built upon submission to God's Word alone. This is the true Catholic Church. There is also a church that "assigns more authority to itself and its ordinances than to the Word of God" (BC Art.29). This is the false Catholic Church — the Roman Catholic Church. We are the true Catholics and we should not be ashamed to say so. Moreover, we should also be eager to bring the true gospel to those enslaved to the manifold diabolical errors of Rome.

Discussion Questions:←⤒🔗

1. In the Apostles Creed we confess that we are part of "a holy catholic Christian Church" but at the same time we certainly aren't Roman Catholic. So how can we be both Catholic and yet not Catholic? What does the word "catholic" really mean? And is the Pope Catholic?
2. What is the difference between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura? Why would Solo Scriptura be a dangerous approach?
3. In Exodus 32 Israel bows down before the Golden Calf and Aaron tells them "This is your god, O Israel, who brought you out of Egypt." Where they worshipping the calf, or were they worshipping God through this image? Is there a difference between worshipping an image, and worshipping God through an image? (See the first and second commandment — Deut 5:7, 8)
4. Roman Catholics argue that making and bowing downs to images of Mary is permissible because God has, in the past "permitted the making of images that jointed symbolically toward salvation ... so it was with the bronze serpent, the ark of the covenant, and the cherubim." Do they have a point? What happened when the bronze serpent became an object of worship? (See 2 Kings 18:4) What happened when the Israelites looked to the ark to save them? See 1 Samuel 4).