What about the RCC? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
Okay. I made a goof. Somehow, I skipped over chapter 15 which is about the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, we’re going to go back and look at that one and see what has to be said. The original source can be found here.
In chapter 7 of his book: “An Understandable History Of The Bible”, Reverend Gipp gives us some insight into the Roman Catholic ‘Church’. He first begins with a contrast:
“It is necessary to salvation that every man should submit to the Pope.” (Boniface VIII Unum Sanctum, 1303.) [S1P80].
So I did my looking up (Which is more than Johnson did I am sure) to find different responses to this just out of curiosity. One source said this would happen when we entered into Heaven. Others indicated that the church is not as dogmatic. One source said that the Protestant churches are rife with heresy and immorality. This might be interesting to look into more later, but it is not relevant now.
“FOR BY GRACE ARE YE SAVED THROUGH FAITH; AND THAT NOT OF YOURSELVES: IT IS THE GIFT OF GOD: NOT OF WORKS LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST.” (Ephesians 2:8-9) [S1P80].
As Reverend Gipp says: “Here lie two totally contradictory statements. They cannot both be correct. The one which you believe will depend on the authority you accept” [S1P80].
I am sure Catholics have their own interpretation here. Again, this is not the goal of this research.
“The Roman Catholic Church has always been antagonistic to the doctrine of salvation by grace. If salvation is by grace, who needs mass? If salvation is by grace, who needs to fear purgatory? If Jesus Christ is our mediator, who needs the Pope? If the Pope cannot intimidate people into obeying him, how can he force a nation to obey him?” [S1P80]
“Rome can only rule over ignorant fear-filled people. The true Bible turns ‘unlearned and ignorant’ men into gospel preachers and casts out ‘all fear’ [S1P80-81].
For this latter one, I know some devout Catholics and these are the last words I would use to describe them.
“The true Bible is the arch-enemy of the Roman Catholic Church [S1P80-81].
Therefore, Rome wanted a ‘different’ Bible. So:
“Rome received the corrupted … text … and further revised it to suit her own needs” [S1P81]. “This text suited the Roman Catholic Church well since it attacked the doctrines of the Bible. Rome is wise. To attack salvation by grace directly would expose her plot to all. So instead she used subtlety. The Roman Catholic Church strips Jesus Christ of His deity, separates the divine title “Lord” and “Christ” from the human name Jesus, having the thief on the cross address Him as “Jesus” instead of “Lord” (Luke 23:42). It also removes the testimony to His deity in Acts 8:37, and it eliminates the Trinity in I John 5:7″ [S1P81].
Well, Gipp doesn’t tell us where this happened. I went and looked up these verses in the Douay-Rheims Bible online. Acts 8:37 and 1 John 5:7 are there and Luke 23:42 refers to Jesus as Lord. Awfully strange how the RCC decided to hide those by putting them in their Bible.
And so, summarizing the corrupted Minority Text: “Its two outstanding trademarks are that orthodox Christianity has never used it, and that the Roman Catholic Church has militantly (read that ‘bloodily’) supported it” [S1P69].
Waiting for some argument for this in light of the above.
As to the gospel of Christ: “Would not a weakening of the place of Jesus Christ weaken the Roman Catholic Church’s reason for even existing? The answer is ‘No’. The Roman Catholic ‘Church’ does not even claim to represent the gospel of Jesus Christ” [S1P81].
I would like to know where this is.
Romanist Carl Adam admits this:
“We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame – nay with pride – that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the gospel of Christ” [S1P81]
Thus we see the TRUE ‘doctrine’ of Rome! Now, let’s find out what Rome substitutes in place of the gospel of Jesus Christ:
First, it’s Karl Adam. Second, this sounds convincing, but as one who has seen political statements either made up or taken out of context, I wanted to look further. A deeper look at this section shows that
“We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame, nay with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ, in the same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn. There is no mechanical identity, but an organic identity. And we go further and say that thousands of years hence Catholicism will probably be even richer, more luxuriant, more manifold in dogma, morals, law and worship than the Catholicism of the present day.”
Anyone can read it here.
“The vacancy left by the removal of Christ would be easily filled by Mary and other ‘saints’ along with a chain of ritualism so rigid that no practitioner would have time to ‘think’ about the true gospel” [S1P82].
Asserted but not shown and has nothing to do with textual history.
What else does history record about Rome? Some samples:
1) “In the fourteenth century the church of Rome … canonized Buddha as a saint” [S3P140].
If done, this was done in error not realizing the figure was Buddha and was seen as St. Josaphat. If this did happen, then what I have found is that it has been undone.
2) It was Rome who: “… burned persons who provided the Bible in a language the laity could read for themselves” [S3P140].
This did happen with Tyndale at least.
3) In the 16th century: “… the Roman Catholic Church put out the Majority Greek New Testament text, then placed the Textus Receptus, on ‘The Index’ of forbidden books” [S3P140].
This appears to be accurate, though likely not because of a conspiracy or cover-up. Anyone could go and get that if they really wanted to from a Protestant publisher.
4) It was Rome who was responsible for crucifying Christ (Matt.27:35).
This assumes that the nation of Rome is equal to the RCC.
5) It was Rome who was responsible for throwing Peter into prison (Acts 12:4 ).
6) It was Rome who was responsible for cutting off James’ head (Acts 12:1). and ….
7) It was Rome who was responsible for killing Paul (2 Tim 4:6).
And more of the same.
Next time, we will return to the Jesuits.
(And I affirm the virgin birth)