“…the free gift of God is eternal life in Jesus Christ our Lord!” (Romans 6:23)
(Edited and compiled By Keith Green)
Roman Catholic Chronicles I ~ The Holy Eucharist
Roman Catholic Chronicles II ~ The Sacrifice of the Mass
Roman Catholic Chronicles IV~ What did Vatican II really change?
How blessed it is to know Jesus! His love, His mercy, His righteousness, His forgiveness! He has promised to “cast all our sins into the depths of the sea” (Micah 7:19) and to separate us from our sins “as far as the east is from the west!” (Psalm 103:12) . This is good news! (That’s the literal meaning of the word “gospel” — good news! That is what the true church of our God has the privilege of proclaiming — “liberty to the captives!!” (Luke 4:18).
The reason I begin this article on the Roman Catholic view of salvation with much rejoicing in my Saviour is because I have just finished reading a mountain of official (Roman Catholic) church literature on the subject, and I can honestly say that I have never had such joy in my heart of hearts about the finished work of Christ. A I scoured each page and read of penance, confession, venial and mortal sins, indulgences, purgatory, etc, I then had the infinite pleasure of searching the Scriptures to see what they had to say on these fundamental Roman Catholic doctrines.
Oh what relief my soul found in the Scriptures! What holy joy! What clarity of light I saw, as the simple brilliance of God’s mercy shone into my mind. If there is anything more beautiful than God’s love and patience with man, it has never been revealed to mortals!
All this is to say that I am bogged down with the information I have accumulated, and I will probably have to cover it all in this, Chronicle III, briefly touching on each subject, while always coming back to the question:
According to Rome, how can a man or woman be saved from the consequences of his sinful nature and actions, and how can they gain assurance that they are in a right standing before God?
If the future permits, I will come back in another installment and cover some of these subjects (particularly purgatory and indulgences) in far greater depth and detail. It is our desire to see people find the true salvation that Jesus died for — therefore, we must deal with that great (and most important) subject wholly, before taking the time to supply other necessary (and most revealing) subject matter.
Before we Can understand what Roman Catholics are taught about salvation, we must first see what they are taught they need to be saved from. In Matthew 1, the angel of the Lord speaks to Joseph in a dream about his betrothed, Mary, saying, “she will bear a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for it is He who will save His people from their sin” (verse 21).
Today, many evangelicals toss around the term “saved” without much thought. “When did you get saved?” someone might ask. It’s almost like a title, or a badge that a person wears to prove that he’s become part of the club — the “saved” club. Others are under in the impression that when a person talks of being “saved”, he is talking about being saved from many different things — sickness, death, the devil, hell, etc. But when the angel of the Lord used that precious word to prophecy that Jesus would fulfil all the predictions of the prophets, he made very clear that Jesus was coming to save His people from their sins!
In official Roman Catholic theology, this too is the main thing that people are taught they need to be saved from — their sins. But the only thing that Roman Catholic and evangelical teachings have in common on the subject of sin is the spelling! For when a Roman Catholic talks about his “sins”, you must find out first if he is talking about “mortal sins”, or “venial sins”. And then you must ask him, “How do you get rid of them?” The answer given will most likely confound a non-Roman Catholic. For words like “faith”, “repentance” and even “Jesus” will usually be missing in the answer. Instead, a whole new list of other words will have to be learned, defined and understood before the evangelical can fully grasp how a Roman Catholic is taught his sins (and the penalty due them) can be cancelled out.
The first of these unfamiliar words are the names of the two groups Rome has separated all sins into. Now if you’re a Roman Catholic, you might be wondering why I’m making such a big deal about it — for the dividing of sins into two distinct categories (each with its own set of consequences and remedies) has been part of Roman Catholic doctrine for a long, long time.
According to Rome’s definition, mortal sin is described as “any great offence against the law of God” and is so named because “it is deadly, killing the soul and subjecting it to eternal punishment”. Venial sins, on the other hand, are “small and pardonable offences against God and neighbour”.
Unlike mortal sins, venial sins are not thought to damn a soul to hell, but with the committing of each venial sin a person increases his need for a longer stay in the purifying fires of a place called “purgatory”. (Look that word up in your Bible dictionary — you’ll find in right next to “venial”!)
Now, there is no agreement among the priests as to which sins are mortal and which are venial, but they all proceed on the assumption that such a distinction does exist. The method of classification is purely arbitrary. What is venial according to one may be mortal according to another.
According to Rome, the Pope is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine. He should then be able to settle this important matter by accurately cataloguing those sins which are mortal as distinguished from those which are venial. However, there are some definites in the “mortal” category: blatantly breaking one of the ten commandments, practically all sexual offences (whether in word, thought or deed) and a long list of transgressions which have changed throughout the centuries.
For instance, until VaticanII it was a mortal sin to attend a Protestant church, to own or read a Protestant Bible, or to eat meat on Friday! Oh, and it’s still a mortal sin to “miss Mass on Sunday morning without a good excuse” (which means that considerably more than half of the claimed Roman Catholic membership throughout the world is constantly in mortal sin!) Venial sins include things like thinking bad thoughts, having wrong motives, losing your temper, etc — things that do not necessarily “lead into actual sin” but still, nevertheless, are sins that need to be eradicated in some way.
The Bible makes no distinction between mortal en venial sins. There is in fact, no such thing as a venial sin. ALL SINS ARE MORTAL! It is true that some sins are worse than others, but it is also true that all sins if not forgiven bring death to the soul. The Bible simply says: “The wages of sins is death” (Romans 6:23). And Ezekiel says: “The soul that sinneth, it shall die” (18:4).
James says that “whosoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all” (2:10). He meant, not that the person who commits one sin is guilty of all other kinds of sin, but that even one sin unatoned for shuts a person completely out of heaven and subjects him to punishment, just as surely as one misstep by the mountain climber plunges him to destruction in the canon below.
In the light of these biblical statements, the distinction between mortal and venial sins is shown to be completely absurd. In fact, the very act of classifying sins into “greater and lesser” is immoral in itself. We know how quick human nature is to grasp at any excuse for sin. Rome seems to be saying “these sins are really bad! But those? Well … you can get away with a few of them and not really suffer too much”. Speaking of “getting away” with something, let’s get right down to how Rome teaches that you can “get rid of” your sins.
The Roman Catholic system starts to get really complicated when we begin to look at the ways in which one can erase both mortal and venial sins.
“Two kinds of punishment are due to mortal sin: eternal (in hell for ever), and temporal (in purgatory). Eternal punishment is cancelled by either baptism or confession to a priest.”
The Baltimore Catechism defines confession as follows: “Confession is the telling of our sins to an authorised priest for the purpose of attaining forgiveness.”
The important words here are “authorised priest”. And to be genuine, a confession must be heard, judged, and followed by obedience to the authorised as he assigns a penance, such as good works, prayers, fastings, abstinence from certain pleasures, etc.
A penance may be defined as a “punishment undergone in token of repentance for sin, as assigned by the priest” — usually a very light penalty.
The New York Catechism says, “I must tell my sins to the priest so that he will give absolution. A person who knowingly keeps back a mortal sin in confession commits a dreadful sacrilege, and he must repeat his confession”.
Canon law 888 says: “The priest has to remember that in hearing confession he is a judge.” And the book Instructions for Non-Catholicssays: “The priest does not have to ask God to forgive his sins. The priest himself has the power to do so in Christ’s name. Your sins are forgiven by the priest the same as if you knelt before Jesus Christ and told them to Christ himself.”
“The priest forgives the guilt of mortal sins which saves the penitent from going to hell, but he cannot remit the penalty due for those sins, and so the penitent must atone for them by performance of good works which he prescribes. The penitent may be, and usually is, interrogated by the priest so that he or she may make a full and proper confession. Stress is placed on the fact that any sin not confessed is not forgiven, any mortal sin not confessed in detail is not forgiven, and that the omission of even one sin (mortal) may invalidate the whole confession. very loyal Roman Catholic is required under pain of moral sin to go to confession at least once a year. But even after a penitent has received pardon, a large but unknown amount of punishment remains to be suffered in purgatory.”
Technically, venial sins need not be confessed since they are comparatively light and can be cancelled by good works, prayers, extreme unction, etc, but the terms are quite elastic and permit considerable leeway on the part of the priest. It is generally advised that it is safer to confess supposed venial sins also since the priest alone is able to judge accurately which are mortal and which are venial. The Baltimore Catechism says, “When we have committed no mortal sins since our last confession, we should confess our venial sins or some sin told in a previous confession for which we are again sorry, in order that the priest may give us absolution. What chance has a poor sinner against such a system as that?
As an example, a minister friend of mine who was brought up in the Roman Catholic Church, tells the story of how his older brother went to confession every single week and confessed the same sin to the same priest and was given the same penance in order to receive absolution. This went on week after week, year after year. One day, while on a trip away from home, he decided that he would not break his pattern of going to weekly confession, so he went to another Roman Catholic Church in the city he was visiting, He went into the confession box and confessed the same sin to a different priest. He began with “Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned”, and then began confessing the sin once again, but this time he was shocked when the priest said:
“But, my son, that’s not sin!” My friend’s brother got up, and hurried out through the door, and from that day on he has never set foot in any church again.
We search in vain in the Bible for any word supporting the doctrine of “auricular confession”. It is equally impossible to find any authorisation or general practice of it during the first 1 000 years of the Christian era. Not a word is found in the writings of the early church fathers about confessing sins to a priest or the anyone except God alone. Auricular confession is not mentioned once in the writings of Augustine, Origen, Nestorius, Terullian, Jerome, Chrysostem, or Athanasius — all of these and many other apparently lived and died without ever thinking of going to confession. No one other that God was thought to be worthy to hear confession or grant forgiveness.
Confession was first introduced into the church on a voluntary basis in the fifth century by the authority of Leo the great. But it was not until the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 under Pope Innocent III that private auricular confession was made compulsory and all Roman Catholic people were required to confess and to seek absolution from a priest at least once a year. If they did not obey this command, they were pronounced guilty of mortal sin and damned for eternity to hell.
The scriptures teach that “only God can forgive sins” (Matthew 9:6). Dr Zachello tells of this experience as a priest in the confessional before leaving the Roman Catholic Church, in these words: “Where my doubts were really troubling me was inside the confessional box. People coming to me, kneeling down in front of me, confessing their sins to me. And I, with the sign of the cross, was promising that I had the power to forgive their sins. I, a sinner, a man, was taking God’s place. It was God’s laws they were breaking, not mine. To God, therefore, they must make confession; and to God alone they must pray for forgiveness.”
In fact, the only word in the Bible about confessing sins to anyone other than God is found in James: “Confess you sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed” (5:16). It is obvious the Lord meant what He says in Revelation, chapter 1, that “He has made us to be a kingdom, priests to His God and Father (Verse 6) and Peter calls the church “a royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9). Believe it or not, the only mention of New Testament believers being priests is used in a context where all true believers are included, not just a select few. That is why James could say that we should confess our sins “to one another”.
Roman Catholics love to quote the verse in John 20:23 to prove that priests do have the power to “forgive and retain” sins. “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.” The powers of forgiving and retaining sins were given to the apostles as proclaimer of the Word of God, not as priests. As we have just pointed out, there are not Christian “priests” in the New Testament teaching and doctrine. Pastors, yes, deacons, yes. Apostles, prophets, teachers, evangelists, yes. Priest, no!
Jesus was telling His followers that by preaching the gospel they were being given the power to declare that a person’s sins were forgiven them by God! And if an individual or group did not receive them and the forgiveness they offered in the name of Jesus then they were instructed to “shake the dust off their feet” as a protest against them;
And warn them that it would be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for them (Matthew 10:14-15). In other words, if a person rejected the apostles’ preaching of the gospel, they had the right to tell that person that his sins were not forgiven. Because he had rejected God’s only provision for atonement of sins. “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you, rejects Me.” (Luke 10:16). This power to forgive and retain sins, contrary to Rome’s teaching, belongs to everyone who preaches the true gospel of salvation.
In the Roman Catholic system, penance is one of the seven sacraments. The Baltimore Catechism defines penance as “the sacrament by which sins committed after baptism are forgiven through the absolution of the priest”. Another catechism published in New York says, “the priest gives penance to help me to make up for the temporal punishment I must suffer for my sins. The penance given to me by the priest does not always make full satisfaction for my sins. I should therefore do other acts of penance … and try to gain indulgences.: And inInstructions for Non-Catholics, we read: “After confession some temporal punishment due to sin generally remains. You should therefore perform other acts of penance also so that you may make up for these punishments and avoid a long stay in purgatory.”
Here indeed is salvation by works. For penance, as the catechism says, involves confession of one’s sins to a priest and the doing of good works as the only way by which sins committed after baptism can be forgiven. The Church of Rome thus demands acts of penance before she grants forgiveness, inferring that the sacrifice of Christ was not sufficient to atone fully for sin and that it must be supplemented to some extent by these good works.
But what God demands is not acts of penance but repentance, which means turning from sin. “Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; and let him return to the Lord, and He will have mercy upon him; for He will abundantly pardon” (Isaiah 55:7)
The easy way in which the Church of Rome deals with sin is seen in this doctrine of penance. The penitent receives pardon on comparatively easy terms. He is assigned some task to perform usually not too hard, sometimes merely the recital of a given number of “Hail Mary’s”. The result is that he has no qualms about resuming his evil course. It shocked Martin Luther when he read the Greek New Testament edited by Erasmus, that Jesus did not say “Do Penance” as had been translated by the Roman Catholic Church, but “Repent“.
Penance is a wholly different thing from gospel repentance. Penance is an outward act. Repentance is the work of the Holy Spirit. What God desires in the sinner is not a punishment of oneself for sins, but a change of heart, a real forsaking of sin, shown by a new life of obedience to God’s commands.
In short, penance is a counterfeit repentance. It is the work of man of his body; true repentance is the work of God in the soul. The divine Word commands, “rend your heart and not you garments” (Joel 2:13). Penance is “rending the garments” — an outward form without inward reality.
While Roman Catholicism does teach that Christ died for our sins, it also teaches that Christ died for our sins, it also teaches that His sacrifice alone was not sufficient, and that our sufferings must be added to make it effective.
In accordance with this, many have tried to earn salvation by fasting, rituals, flagellation’s and good works of various kinds. But those who attempt such a course always find that it is impossible to do enough to earn salvation.
Dr CD Cole says, “Romanism is a complicated system of salvation by works. It offers salvation on the installment plan, then sees to it that the poor sinner is always behind in his payments, so that when he dies these is a large unpaid balance, and he must continue payments by sufferings in purgatory, or until the debt is paid by the prayers, alms and sufferings of his living relatives and friends. The whole system and plan calls for merit and money from the cradle to the grave and even beyond. Surely the wisdom that drew such a plan of salvation is not from above.”
Good works, of course, are pleasing to God and they have an important and necessary place in the life of the Christian, They naturally follow if one has true faith, and they are performed out of love and gratitude to God for the great salvation that He has bestowed. Good works, in other words, are not the cause and basis of salvation, but rather the fruits of proof of salvation — ” Not by works done in righteousness which we did ourselves, but according to His mercy He saved us through the washing of regeneration and the renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Titus 3:5). The born-again Christian produces good works as naturally as the grapevine produces grapes. They are a part of his very nature. He performs them not to get saved, but because he is saved.
Grace, just because it is grace, is not given on the basis of proceeding merits. By not stretch of the imagination can a man’s good works in this life be considered a just equivalent for the blessings of eternal life. But all men because of pride naturally feel that they should earn their salvation, and a system which makes some provision in that regard readily appeals to them. But Paul lays the axe to such reasoning when he says: “If a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law” (Galatians 3:21). Time and again the Scriptures repeat that salvation is of grace, as if anticipating the difficulty that men would have in accepting the fact that they would not be able to earn it.
The Council of Trent, in its opposition to the reformer’s doctrine of justification by faith, and in defense of its doctrine of penance, declared:“Whosoever shall affirm that men are justified solely by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ … let him be accursed.” And the Catholic Almanac says, “Penance is necessary for salvation … and was instituted by Christ for the forgiveness of sins.”
The modern church teachings completely concur: “Many things are necessary for salvation. All these things work together — faith, baptism, the Eucharist, the doing of good works, and others as well. Redemption is one thing, salvation is quite another. There is nothing lacking on Christ’s part; there is much to be done on ours.” Also, in a booklet published in 1967, under the sub-heading,
“We Must Atone Too”, it says that “even though the satisfaction of Christ was complete and universal, nevertheless all adult Christians are obliged to imitate their suffering Master and make personal satisfaction for their sins by good works. But the apostle Paul in his masterpiece on justification by faith says “Having now been justified by His blood we shall be saved from the wrath of God through Him” (Romans 5:9). “And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned unto him as righteousness. Now to the one who works, the reward is not reckoned as grace, but as debt. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness” (Romans 4:3-5).
What a significant coincidence it is that this doctrine of justification by faith is given such prominence in the epistle to the Romans, since Rome later became the seat of the papacy! It seems to be written there as if intended as a strong and permanent protest against the errors of the Roman Catholic Church.
The first consequence of the doctrine of penance (as well as the doctrines of purgatory and indulgences) is that the Roman Catholic, though baptised and confirmed, can never have that assurance of his salvation and that sense of spiritual security which is such a blessing to the true Christian. In proportion as he is spiritually sensitive, the person who holds to a works religion knows that he has not suffered as much as his sins deserve, and that he can never do as much as he should in order to be worthy of salvation.
A dying Roman Catholic, after he has done all that he can do, and after the last rites have been given to him is told that he still must go to purgatory. There he will suffer unknown torture, with no assurance as to how long it will continue, but with the assurance that if his relatives pray for his soul and pay with sufficient generosity to have candles lit and have special Masses said for him, his sufferings will be shortened somewhat.
Oh, what a contrast with all of that is the death of the true believer who has the assurance that he goes straight to heaven into the immediate presence of Christ! (Philippians 1:23). What a marvellous blessing is the true faith of the Christian, both in life and especially at the time of death!
The Council of Trent even pronounced a curse upon anyone who presumed to say that he had assurance of salvation, or that the whole punishment for sin is forgive along with that sin. Such assurance is pronounced a delusion and a result of sinful pride. Rome keeps her subjects in constant fear and insecurity. Even at death, after extreme unction has been administered and after thousands of rosary prayers have been said “for the repose of the soul”, the priest still cannot give assurance of salvation. The person is never “good enough” but must serve in purgatory prison to be purified of venial sins before he can be admitted to the celestial city. No one can be truly happy or truly at peace. And particularly in spiritual matters a state of doubt and uncertainty continues for one’s whole life, and right into the grave.
But God wants us to be saved and, according to the Bible, the Holy Spirit can give us assurance that we have salvation when we have a true, intimate relationship with the Son of God (1 John 5:9-12). But in Roman Catholicism one must work hard it and pay dearly for it and, after he has done all the priest has prescribed, he still cannot know whether he has it or not. And through it all there stands the anathema of the Council of Trent against all who affirm the certainty of their salvation. Hence, there cannot truly be found anywhere a Roman Catholic, consistent to what his Church teaches, who enjoys the true assurance of eternal life.
It is obvious by even this brief glimpse into the doctrines mortal and venial sins, confession, penance and purgatory, that the Roman Catholic Church has constructed one of the most unbiblical doctrinal systems that has ever been considered “Christian”. The fear, anguish and religious bondage that such a system “reward and punishment” creates has tormented millions of lives for centuries, and continues to prey on those who are ignorant of the biblical way of salvation.
Merely to call such a system “a cult” would be to throw it into the vast category of religions and quasi-religions that are currently making the rounds of our college campuses and city streets, snatching up many unsuspecting youth. No, the Roman Catholic Church is not a cult. It’s an empire! With it’s own ruler, it’s own laws, and it’s own subjects! The empire has no borders, it encompasses the globe with it’s eye on every person who does not vow allegiance. It calls the members of other faiths “separated brethren” and has as it’s goal the eventual bringing together of everyone under it’s flag.
I know that many will not be convinced or moved by this article (or any of the others) to make such a conclusion. They are impressed by what they’ve heard about recent stirrings among Catholics in the “charismatic renewal”. Many evangelicals (especially charismatics) have been thrilled by the reports of Catholics speaking in tongues, dancing in the Spirit, having nights of joy and praise, even attending “charismatic Masses”.
Mouths that used to speak out boldly against the Church of Rome have been quited by the times. It no longer is in vogue to speak of the pope as “the antichrist” or the Roman Catholic Church as the “whore of Babylon”. Now Protestants unwittingly believe that “our differences are not so great”. Ah, that is just what she wants us to think!
I’ve never completely understood why God led me to write these articles. But it becomes more clear with each day of study, and each page of research. Never has something so black and wicked got away with appearing so holy and mysteriously beautiful . . . for so long!
Roman Catholic Chronicles I ~ The Holy Eucharist
Roman Catholic Chronicles II ~ The Sacrifice of the Mass
Roman Catholic Chronicles IV~ What did Vatican II really change?