EARLY CHURCH WAS NOT ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH
Roman Catholicism admits that it is not like the early Church. How can these
differences be explained? Rome following the idea of Cardinal Newman claims that
the apostles gave Roman Catholic Doctrine but left it up to the Church to
clarify it and understand it and work out the implications. This is the
Development of Doctrine. It is an idea based on total fabrications.
KENNY ON THE DEVELOPMENT THEORY
In Anthony Kenny’s Religion and Reason we read a good rational assessment of the
Catholic Church’s new doctrine that she developed over the centuries after Jesus
died. This is a summary.
He noted that from the start the Church taught that instead of developing and
improving the faith of the Church is unchangeable and complete.
He quoted Paul who condemned anybody who taught anything different (difference
here just means difference not necessarily contradiction. Two reports about the
same event can be different but that doesn’t mean they are contradictory) from
what he taught as implying that people who added to the gospel were doing wrong
and changing the gospel even if they never contradicted it (Galatians 1:8).
Some centuries later, Pope Simplicius said that the apostolic doctrine has not
changed from the time of the apostles to his time. The syllabus of Pius IX in
1864 censured the view that doctrines can develop. Kenny said that this position
was completely contradicted by history. To me that shows what an untrustworthy
and shifty religion Roman Catholicism is.
He observed that the Church defining doctrines as belonging to the faith of the
apostles does not constitute development of doctrine because the idea was that
the Church had always held these doctrines and used her infallibility to show
that they were binding when they were being challenged. The Church has never
defined infallibly that Jesus was a male but if a heresy comes along claiming
that Jesus was a woman it will do it then. To me this suggests that the Church
is to be believed by Catholics to be always right even when it does not employ
its alleged infallibility.
Kenny finds that it is impossible to find any doctrine that was believed until a
heresy came along to attack it thus requiring an infallible statement that the
doctrine was true. I would correct this to say that this could only be true of
doctrines that were very basic and which are in the Apostles’ Creed. Kenny wrote
that many theologians agree with St Vincent of Lerins that that truth is
whatever the whole Church has believed before heresy appeared. If they are
correct, this would mean that the only truth we can find is in the Apostles’
Creed. But then again, I have to ask, how are we to know what Christians
believe? Do a census? Vincent’s theory implies that Church infallible
declarations are invalid unless there has been worldwide census taken first.
Kenny criticises Vincent’s view because the Church officially accepted many
doctrines that were not unanimously accepted before and today’s orthodoxy is
tomorrow’s unorthodoxy. I would add that since the Church and Christ said that
only a tiny number would be true brethren that it makes no sense to talk about
the unanimous faith of true Christians being right for nobody knows who they
are.
Kenny observed that there has been no unanimous agreement on the Trinity, three
persons in one God, until after the Ecumenical Councils which made the doctrine
binding and official. Even Newman admitted this. He observed that it couldn’t be
determined that Father, Son and Spirit were really one person and not three in
the theology of the early writers. They could have thought them to be three Gods
who were somehow entitled to be called one God in some way like a man and woman
can be called one flesh. There were problems with determining what the earliest
writers saying Jesus was divine or God meant. Newman confessed that St
Hippolytus probably did not believe that Jesus was always God the Son. St
Methodius erred on the incarnation.
Pope John XXII denied that the saved go to Heaven immediately after death which
was the majority belief in the Church some time before. St Bernard of Clairvaux
had taught the same denial as the pope. The Church rejected this doctrine under
Pope Benedict XII.
The Church strongly taught that usury was forbidden, for centuries. It was
sanctioned against far more strongly than birth-control is in our day. Even as
late as 1745 it was still teaching it. Nowadays that doctrine is gone.
Kenny observes that the doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was not known before
the fourth century and since 1950 Catholics are bound to believe it. This
doctrine is one of the worst threats to the idea of an unchangeable faith.
Kenny admits that the idea that the apostolic doctrine might imply new doctrines
that the apostles never thought of but he sees that Rome has used this as an
excuse to make doctrines that were never really implied at all. They cannot be
deduced from what has gone before. Catholics might say that you can deduce from
the fact that Mary gave birth to the Son of God that God would raise her body
and soul to Heaven to give her special treatment. This raising called the
Assumption is infallible Catholic dogma. But what about those people who did as
much good for God and did not give birth to him? The Church says that baptised
babies who have died have given birth to Jesus in their souls and hearts for he
lives in them. Is that not more important than physically giving birth to Jesus?
Why should Mary get her special treatment then?
The deduction idea denies that God needs to do or allow bad things to happen for
some of his mysterious good purposes. Perhaps he could let Mary rot for it. Thus
the idea is blasphemous. This is my observation.
Kenny then cites the teaching of theologians who say that the deduction process
works not through logic as we know it but through God’s logic which is different
to ours and which makes little sense to us for we are not as intelligent as him.
He calls this dangerous. It opens the way for the Church to change whatever it
likes as long as it pretends it has not changed truth but that God sees how its
contradictory doctrines can be reconciled even if we can’t or the Church is left
able to command whatever evil thing it likes.
Catholics say that if there is no record of a doctrine being ancient it does not
matter for it was in oral tradition that was passed down from one generation to
the next. Kenny writes that for the fathers and all the great Scholastics the
truths necessary for salvation are all in the Bible. Tradition was declared by
them not to be a new source of revelation but only a help in interpreting the
Bible. The first person to come up with the oral tradition idea was William of
Ockham who died in 1349. How could the idea be true when it took that long to
appear? Kenny mentions Cardinal Pole attacking with the approval of the Catholic
Church the doctrine of Henry VIII which claimed that both scripture and
tradition were parallel sources of revelation. Kenny write that third century
and later Christians never appealed to oral traditions and made a little use of
liturgical traditions for liturgy was a fixed thing and apparently all believed
that the Bible alone had the information about the doctrine the Church of Christ
should follow. Origen could not depend on tradition to learn the identity of the
true author of the book of Hebrews so he examined its writing style and
contents. No good God would use a medium for the transmission of revelation that
could not be proven. Anybody could invent a doctrine and say it was known in the
early days and was not written down.
Kenny says that the pope can only make infallible doctrines relating to matters
which are necessary for salvation. He says there is no way of knowing if a pope
only thought he was using his infallibility but was mistaken for the doctrine he
was defining was not necessary for salvation. I say then that the popes and
Church have no right to say that doctrines like the assumption of Mary into
Heaven or whatever are necessary for salvation for if any are, the most basic
ones like the deity of Christ, the atonement he offered for us, the resurrection
of Christ, Heaven and Hell are the only doctrines necessary. To say that God
cares about whether or not we believe that Mary was taken up into Heaven bodily
is foolish and blasphemous for it makes him really petty.
To say the pope is right that he can only make new dogmas that are necessary for
salvation is to say that the pope must infallibly know what is necessary for
salvation first. And then he must infallibly know that he really knows this and
is not mistaken. So before the pope can tell us infallibly that Mary was taken
bodily up into Heaven he has to infallibly know himself and also know how the
dogma is necessary. This requires a vast amount of infallibility as to his own
psychological processes and the intricacies of theology. He would need to be
very infallible indeed. The Church of Rome would never dare teach such a foolish
doctrine but it does teach it by implication.
It is also worth remembering that the Church has always insisted that there were
doctrines necessary for salvation. Nowadays it is said that you will lose your
salvation if you know that a doctrine is true and refuse to believe it. But that
could not possibly have been what the Church meant in the past. The Athanasian
Creed for example condemned anybody who denied any of the several articles of
faith in it to hell and excommunication. If it had just meant that it would have
said so. It meant that sincere or not you would not get into Heaven if you
denied anything it said. The Church officially taught for most of its existence
that error excluded from Heaven and it was the belief that sincerity was not
good enough that led to the persecution of heretics.
The Church often said that certain doctrines were necessary for salvation. This
could only mean that sincere disbelief after initial belief would cost one one’s
salvation for otherwise it would just say that any doctrines true or false that
you believe to be true and then reject will exclude from salvation. The Church
never went that far for it encouraged pagans and atheists to abandon their
doctrines. So doctrines necessary for salvation means exactly what it says, that
sincerity is not enough. Explicit membership in the Church and belief in it is
essential in the same way as having a gangrenous foot amputated is necessary.
Conclusion
Roman Catholicism is not the Church supposedly founded by the apostles of Jesus
Christ. It tells the worst lies possible to hide this fact.
WORKS CONSULTED
Catholicism and Christianity, Cecil John Cadoux, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1928
Catholicism and Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, San Francisco,
1988
Encyclopaedia of Bible Difficulties, Gleason W Archer, Zondervan, Grand Rapids,
Michigan, 1982
Evangelical Catholics, A New Phenomenon, Stanley Mawhinney, Christian Ministries
Incorporated, Dundrum, Dublin, 1992
How to Interpret the Bible, Fr Francis Cleary, SJ, Ligouri, Missouri, 1981
Lectures and Replies, Thomas Carr, Archbishop of Melbourne, Australian Catholic
Truth Society, Melbourne, 1907
Lions Concise Book of Christian Thought, Tony Lane, Lyon, Herts, 1984
PAPAL SIN, STRUCTURES OF DECEIT, Garry Wills, Darton Longman and Todd, London,
2000
Reason and Belief, Bland Blanschard, London, George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1974
Roman Catholic Claims, Charles Gore, Longmans, London, 1894
Secrets of Romanism, Joseph Zachello, Loizeaux Brothers, New Jersey, 1984
The Bible Does Not Say So, Rev Roberto Nisbet, Church Book Room Press, London,
1966
The Church and Infallibility, BC Butler, The Catholic Book Club, London, undated
Traditional Doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church Examined, Rev CCJ Butlin,
Protestant Truth Society, London
Vicars of Christ, Peter de Rosa, Corgi, London, 1993
Whatever Happened to Heaven? Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1988