ROMAN CATHOLICISM

Most of this information was obtained from the Christian Research Institute's 5 Part Series "What Ye Think of Rome", at least partially written by Norman Geisler.  Click here to visit the Christian Research Institute Website. Included are highlights from each of the 5 Parts.  More information from various sources will be included from time to time.

There are extreme views among Protestants concerning Roman Catholicism ranging from essentially no difference to essentially no similarity. Both of these views are partially true. This paper examines some of the key points of Catholicism and, where different, compares them to Protestantism.

Evangelical essentials

General Information

Types of Catholics

American Catholicism

There is a shortage or priests and nuns - one out of ten US parishes had no regular priest in 1990. This has resulted in an increase of lay involvement in ministry. Many duties once performed exclusively by the priest are now authorized for laity.  One bright spot is the parochial educational system - some of the best institutions of education in our country.

Common Ground with Protestants

There is a trend amongst many Catholic scholars to agree with Protestant Reformation, as far as justification by faith  (seems as if I read this happened officially in the last year)

Evangelical Protestants have more in common with orthodox Catholics that with liberal Protestants. The same hold true for Catholics, orthodox and liberal.

Is Roman Catholicism a Cult?

The Christian Research Institute regards Roman Catholicism as neither a cult (non-Christian religious system) nor a biblically sound church, but a historically Christian church which is in desperate need of biblical reform

Why Not a Cult?

From evangelical Protestant perspective, Cults are "not enough"; Catholicism is "too much"

What separates Roman Catholics from Evangelical Protestants?

AUTHORITY

Problems - great concern about placing tradition on par with God's written word, infallibility of church, believer's interpretation of Scripture subordinate to church, infallibility of pope and Apocrypha into Bible.

The Bible is for tradition where it supports the teachings of the apostles (2 Thess. 2:15) and is consistent with biblical revelation. Yet, it is against tradition when it "transgresses the commands of God" (Matt 15:3). By Jesus' own words, tradition is not to transgress or contradict the commands of God. In other words, it should be in harmony with biblical teaching and not oppose it in any way.

Protestant Understanding of sola Scriptura

Catholicism insists that Bible AND extrabiblical apostolic traditions are needed. Also, a teaching core or magisterium (pope and bishops) must rule on what is authentic apostolic tradition.

The Council of Trent said Bible alone is not sufficient. God has ordained tradition in addition to Bible to guide. In accordance with "The Profession of Faith of the Council of Trent" (Nov. 13, 1565), all faithful Catholics must agree: "I shall never accept nor interpret it ['Holy Scripture'] otherwise than in accordance with the unanimous consent of the Fathers."

Catholicism teach that the Bible doesn't teach that the Bible alone is the basis of faith and morals. They point to passages that indicate traditions (learned and oral) - 2 Thessalonians 2:15, 3:6, 3 John 13)  The first generation of Christians did not have the New Testament, only the Church.

Protestant Response
The Bible doesn't have to explicitly teach sola Scriptura to be true (i.e. Trinity never mentioned directly).  Scripture is God breathed and allows believers to be competent and equipped (2 Timothy 3:16-17). .Jesus used Bible as final court of appeal - "It is written" - 90 times in New Testament.

Jesus and disciples - their word was oral - but then written - first generation of Christians used their words before it was committed to writing (2 Thessalonians 2:5). Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for negating the Word of God by traditions (Matthew 15:3,6). He never rebuked them for not following the traditions of old. Paul warned to not go beyond what was written (1 Corinthian 4:6). Moses also (Deuteronomy 4:2), Solomon (Proverbs 30:5-6), John again (Revelation 22:18-19).

The Pharisees were seeing the Word of God "within" their sacred tradition. Jesus, in contrast to this, cited the Word of God to judge their traditions. The apostles, likewise, continuously admonished their people to check their teaching against the Scripture (Acts 17:11), thereby substantiating the position that even what they taught was subject to God's Word.

Prophets weren't infallible in all they said - only what God revealed - and they were not to add or subtract a word. While acknowledging the existence of apostolic tradition, J. D. N. Kelly concluded that "admittedly there is no evidence for beliefs or practices current in the period which were not vouched for in the books later known as the New Testament."

All apostolic Traditions are in the Bible. Not everything said, but all that God deemed necessary for faith and practice of the church and its people. Some traditions may have been authoritative, but not necessarily inspired or infallible. (All words of the pope are not considered infallible (except in seat of Peter)). The Bible is clear apart from Tradition. Tradition can be accepted and used, but cannot be considered to be infallible.

Infallible Traditions?

Missing Books of the Bible and the Apocrypha?

The 'missing books' in the KJV are the Apocryphal books which are generally not found in any Protestant translation (NASB, NAS, NIV, RSV, etc.). The Protestant church generally does not believe these books are inspired and therefore canonical, that is authoritative and deserving to be a part of the Bible as the Word of God. The books in question are considered apocryphal in most Protestant churches, but they are accepted as canonical in the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Armenian and the Ethiopian Oriental Orthodox Churches.

There are 14 of these books found in the Septuagint and included in the Vulgate but considered uncanonical by Protestants because they are not part of the Hebrew Scriptures. The Roman Catholic canon accepts 11 of these books and includes them in the Douay Bible.

The following explanation from the Encarta® 98 Desk Encyclopedia may help.

Apocrypha, term coined by the 5th-century biblical scholar Saint Jerome for the biblical books received by the church of his time as part of the Greek version of the Old Testament (see Septuagint), but not included in the Hebrew Bible.

Derived from the period 300 BC to New Testament times, the books of the Apocrypha included Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Tobit, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Baruch, and the two books of Maccabees. Also generally included with the Apocrypha are the two books of Esdras, additions to the Book of Esther (Esther 10:4-10), additions to the Book of Daniel (Daniel 3:24-90;13;14), and the Prayer of Manasseh.

Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians include all the Apocrypha in the biblical canon, except for the two books of Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh. They generally refer to the Protestant Apocrypha as deuterocanonical books, and reserve the term Apocrypha for those books entirely outside the biblical canon, which Protestants call the Pseudepigrapha.

The Reasons the Protestant Church excludes them is as follows:

  1. The early church fathers only accepted the thirty-nine books of the Old Testament. The only exception was Augustine (A. D. 400) who included the books of the Apocrypha (those "extra" books that some Bibles include between the books of the Old and New Testaments). However, he did acknowledge that they were not fully authoritative.
  2. The books of the Apocrypha were not officially recognized as part of the canon until the Council of Trent (A.D. 1546) and then only by the Roman Catholic church.
  3. There are some 250 quotes from Old Testament books in the New Testament by the writers of the New Testament, but none from the Apocrypha. All Old Testament books are quoted except Esther, Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Solomon.
  4. In Luke 11:51, the Lord said something definitive about the extent of the canon of the Old Testament which He accepted. In condemning the leaders of the Jewish people for killing God's messengers throughout their history, He charged them of being guilty of shedding the blood of all the righteous from Abel to Zechariah. Now the murder of Abel is recorded in Genesis 4, and the murder of Zechariah in 2 Chronicles 24 which in the arrangement of the Hebrew canon was the last book in order (as Malachi is in our arrangement). So the Lord was saying, "From the first to the last murder recorded in the Old Testament." Now, of course, there were other murders of God's messengers recorded in the Apocrypha, but the Lord does not include them. Evidently He did not consider the books of the Apocrypha to be of equal authority with the books from Genesis to 2 Chronicles.

Beyond the Apocrypha, there were many other books that were considered false and were called the pseudepigrapha. These were spurious writings, especially writings falsely attributed to biblical characters or times. They included a number of texts written between 200 B.C. and A.D. 200 and spuriously ascribed to various prophets and kings of the Hebrew Scriptures.

Jewish and Christian writings that began to appear about 200 BC and continued to be written well into Christian times; they were attributed to great religious figures and authorities of the past. Pseudepigrapha were composed in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek, and they include apocalyptic writings, legendary histories, psalms, and wisdom literature. In most cases, Pseudepigrapha are modeled on canonical books of a particular genre. Although Pseudepigrapha, in the sense of pseudonymous works, are included in the canon of the Old Testament (see Bible), Protestants and Jews customarily use the term Pseudepigrapha to describe what Roman Catholics would term Apocrypha- late Jewish writings that all scholars consider extracanonical (Encarta® 98 Desk Encyclopedia © 1996-97 Microsoft Corporation).

For more information on the issue of canonicity, see the study, Bibliology: The Doctrine of the Written Word here. Or see the "Bible Studies / Theology / Bibliology" section for other studies on canonicity (www.bible.org).

Papal Infallibility?
It was pronounced a dogma in A.D. 1870 at the First Vatican Council. Roman Catholic scholars acknowledge that the pope is not infallible in everything he teaches, but only when he speaks ex cathedra. He is only infallible on issues related to "faith and morals". He is not absolutely infallible, as this is limited to God. The pope's infallible pronouncements cannot be recalled, nor can he recall previous 'infallible' pronouncements of other popes. There is some disagreement whether the pope is infallible on his own, or only in agreement with the bishops.

Protestant Response
Scripture is infallible, but no human being or institution is infallible interpreter. Matthew 16:18 (upon this rock I will build my church) is often used to support papal infallibility. The same authority given to Peter was given to all the other apostles as well. (Matthew 18:18). Ephesians 2:20 indicates that the church is built on the foundation of all the prophets and apostles, with Christ Jesus as the capstone. Peter is but one stone along with the other eleven apostles. Peter was not necessarily the most prominent apostle, as Paul's ministry is dominant in the book of Acts. Peter's own admission indicated that he was not the pastor, but a fellow elder (1 Peter 5:1-2). Peter did have a significant role in the early church, but it faded as Paul became the dominant apostle.

John 21:15ff - Feed my sheep - Roman Catholic scholars show this gave Peter the position of supreme pastor. Even if this were so, there is no reference to infallible authority. If infallible, Peter would never have preached a gospel that Jewish believers had to separate from Gentile believers. This is an issue of faith and morals, as this discrepancy was taught by his actions. There is a total lack of support from Scripture.

Theological Problems with Papal Infallibility

Historical Problem with Papal Infallibility

The question of authority is perghaps the biggest riff between Catholicism and Protestantism. While both believe in the infallibility of the Bible, the Protestant view of sola Scriptura will not allow agreement of the church or the pope having an infallible interpretation of it.

JUSTIFICATION

Problems - fails to recognize justification is an act of God changing our status, not our state, based upon the righteousness of Christ as opposed to our own (which can never be enough), assurance is not known, and Catholic view makes man the integral part of salvation (working with God).

Early Views of Justification

Common Views on Salvation

Council of Trent - response to the Reformation

Trent's Conclusion was that a sinner may be justified only by becoming righteous - not merely reputed righteous. Good works are required for ultimate justification (It is possible and necessary to keep the law of God). Humans can't will salvation - God brings about the will. Concerning the sacraments, justification is "increased" by participation. Or if one does not commit a mortal sin, they are allowed on their goodness. Absolute certainty of salvation cannot be determined. Good works allow a man to acquire a claim to supernatural rewards from God.

Protestant Response to Trent
The Hebrew word for justify means to declare judicially that one is in harmony with the law. Righteousness is only sinlessness in the sense that God doesn't count a man's sin against him (2 Corinthians 5:19). Grace and merit are mutually exclusive, according to Scripture (Romans 11:6). Grace means unmerited favor - any reward based on works in merited.

Trent declared that those who work well unto the end are given grace promised through Christ. Eternal life in the Bible is a present possession (John 3:36, 1 John 5:13), but according to Roman Catholic view, justification cannot be known until death. One condition throughout John for eternal life is belief. The only work necessary is to believe (John 6:29). The rest of it is done by Christ. Any work that counts is reward for status in heaven, not whether we will be there.

We work from salvation, rather than for salvation. (Philippians 2:12-13). Salvation by faith alone is not eliminated by Catholicism, but it is obscured. From a Protestant perspective, we are saved by faith but for works. The key difference is that salvation can be made clearer, in that believers can know they have right standing before God by faith alone, and their minds will not be cluttered with works that determine salvation.

MARIOLOGY

Problems - most Evangelicals believe that Catholic Mariology undermines Catholic Christology Catholicism does not sanction worship or saints or Mary, but seem to do little to hinder it

SACRAMENTS AND MASS

Problems - In particular, the Eucharist (Holy Communion, bread and wine become Christ's body and blood) and sacrificial nature of mass have direct Christological implications.

RELIGIOUS PLURALISM

Problems - While Catholic theology assures all the redeemed are ultimately saved through Christ alone, Vatican II opened a road to universalism