Truth Magazine

By H.E. Phillips

Personal Reasons For Attending All Services

There are certain duties that I owe to myself in attending every service of the congregation where I regularly worship. We shall list some of them here.

1. God’s people are a called-out people from the world. They are called out for a purpose; that purpose being to serve God in spirit and truth. Having been called out of the affairs of this world, we have certain obligations to the institution into which we have been called. These obligations continue as long as we live on this earth. Could one continue in these obligations and be absent one or more times each week from the assembly? Could I claim to give my full support to that institution into which I have been called when I fail to attend the appointments? It is folly to make sure a claim, and yet a great many do.

Many young men have answered the call of the government to enter the armed forces. They are a called-out group; called from civilian life to military life. Do these called-out have any obligations to the forces into which they are called? We know they do. They are compelled to conform to every command alike. The church is called-out on the same principle. Every member is a soldier of the cross, each having the same duties as to attendance and worship.

2. Food is essential to our physical bodies. The same is true with our spiritual being. It must be fed the good things of the word of God that it might grow. I must digest all the spiritual food possible to grow properly (I Pet. 2:2). This food can be had at every service of the church. When I miss a service, I deprive myself of the spiritual food that is so vital to my spiritual growth.

Some say, “I can get that food at home by reading my Bible and praying and singing God’s praises.” That is true to a great extent. But how many do it? Where is the man who fails to attend Sunday evening service who will do that? If he has enough desire for the spiritual food to read his Bible and worship otherwise, he would have enough care to attend the Sunday evening service as well as all others. It is not a matter of what we are permitted to do in this respect, but what do we do? If a Christian really desires the spiritual food for his soul, he will attend every service of the church.

3. The Lord keeps a complete and perfect record of all my works. That record has my failures as well as my good works. When I appear before the judgment seat of the Lord, that record will face me. Could I claim to have been faithful over that which has been given me if I fail to attend the services of the church? Could I say: “Lord, I have kept the faith”? I am certain I could not.

If you were confronted with a record of your attendance for the past year, you may be astonished at the number of times you were absent from services. Yet a more accurate record will face you in the judgment. It behooves us then to take care that we keep the record as clean as possible for the judgment. Our excuses there will be of no avail. I ought to attend every service because God keeps a perfect record, and I will be judged according to all that I have done in the body, whether it be good or bad (2 Cor. 5:10).

4. We ought to attend every service because we need a closer association with other Christians. How can we be of the same mind when there is no fellowship between us? The encouragement received at at mid-week service is worth more than the association of a thousand men and women of the world. How can we love each other as we are taught to do in the Bible unless we are together more?

The idea that the less we are together the more we love each other is not true. Paul taught that evil companionship will destroy good intentions. The opposite of that would be good companionship will build character and reputation. Those who are weak will grow stronger in the fellowship of strong characters. We ought to attend every service of the church because there will be found the best people on earth.

5. When I attend every service of the church it helps me to overcome temptations. Sin enters by yielding to temptation. To defy sin we must resist the temptations that come to us daily. These temptations are the weapons in the hands of the devil to destroy us. There are enough temptations that come to us without inventing more. By being absent from any service we expose ourselves to the temptations of the devil to add more sin to that which we are already committing. It is easier for us to neglect other duties to God.

A failure to attend any service when we are able to do so is yielding to a temptation of the devil. If we resist that temptation all others become weaker and weaker. Just remember, when you neglect to attend a service you are playing right into the hands of Satan himself.

6. Another personal reason for attending all of the services of the church is that I do not miss work, school or play unless I absolutely can not help it. Most men go to work six days every week. They do not think of missing even one day. Is a man’s daily work more important than the Lord’s work? Should I put the temporal things of life above the spiritual things that are eternal?

The average man puts in about 40 hours each week working. Few congregations have more than four services during the week, lasting about one hour each. It takes not more than 8 hours, counting the time going and coming, to attend every service scheduled in the average congregation. Is that too much time to give to our spiritual development? Consider this seriously. One can not be considered very faithful to the Lord who will put the material things above worship.

We have considered thus far only those things that are personal, or that involve our own person, for attending every service of the church. If there were no other reasons, these are sufficient. But let us turn to others.

Reasons For Attending All Services And My Obligations To Others

Not only are there personal reasons”Why I should attend all services of the church, but I owe certain obligations to my brethren and others that compel me to be faithful in attendance.

1. I have a duty to the congregation where I am a member. This duty respects others as well as the Lord. I owe to my fellow man the encouragement and help that I expect from him. There is a command of Christ found in his Sermon on the Mount that is affected when we fail in this duty. “Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them” (Matt. 7:12). This is often called the “Golden Rule” of the Bible. How can I follow this instruction of my Lord when I shirk my duty to help my fellow man by failing to attend the scheduled services of the church? The answer is evident: it can not be done. We expect the preacher, the elders and deacons to be present at every service, and they should be – must be – but do not they expect each of us to be just as faithful in attendance? If each member followed the “Golden Rule” as Christ laid down, we would have no problem such as absenteeism.

Another thing. We have many duties to be done in these services. Certain obligations rest upon each member of the church, no matter how small he may be, and when one is absent from his duty the burden becomes heavier on someone else. When one so neglects his duty and places a greater burden on his brother, he is in direct disobedience to the rule Christ gave. As we want others to take their part of the obligations in the public worship, we ought to be sure that our duty is not neglected by our absence. This is a vital issue.

2. By every act of my life I am influencing someone to serve either God or the devil. No one lives without leaving some trace of his having been here. All Christians (some of them so called) are either glorifying God or disgracing him before others. Christ said in the same sermon mentioned above: “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16). By failure to attend every service when it is possible to do so, am I letting my light shine as to glorify God? Is it possible to glorify God with an influence that breeds neglect? I do not believe any would affirm this, yet they apparently think so, for they practice this very thing. We ought to attend every service of the church, and by so doing we glorify God before men in our conduct. Our influence is a mighty thing. It reaches where we can not go. Generations to follow may be influenced by the very things you do now. Your influence will reach great grand-children you may never see. What a terrible thought! Many may be lost because I was not faithful to my duty to God and my fellow man.

3. Would you tell your brother in Christ that he is pleasing to God when he has no interest in the mid-week service, or in Sunday evening service? Could you conscientiously encourage, a young Christian to stay away from the Sunday morning Bible study, the Sunday evening service, or the midweek service? Could you tell the weak church member that he doesn’t need such teaching and encouragement as is given in these services? You would answer these questions with a big “no.” Then if one would not say these things, why will he act them? One’s actions speak as loud as his words; sometimes louder. The life that one lives teaches as much as his tongue.

To the Romans Paul wrote: “Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest a man should not steal, dost thou steal?” (Rom. 2:21) Are you guilty of doing the very thing that you would tell others not to do? You could not claim to be faithful in your Christian duty and so do. Therefore, in order to teach others to do the right thing, I must attend every service of the church.

Every father and mother has a responsibility that is most important. The children must be taught the way of the Lord. Children untaught in Christianity are to be pitied above all others. Now could I as a faithful Christian father bring up my children to be in the Way of the Lord when I do not set the example before them? Could children really believe in Christianity when the parents care so little that they don’t attend the scheduled services of the church? These questions invoke serious thought on the part of every father and mother.

If there is one on earth in whom we ought to be interested it is our children. We brought them into the world, and it is our solemn duty to care for them in every way. The spiritual being of our children is by far the most important. Thousands of parents come to preachers, weeping that their children have grown up and now have no interest in the church. Some weep and grieve away their lives because their children are lost forever to the sin of the world. What is the matter? The right example was not set before them in earlier days.

Paul said, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right” (Eph. 6:1). Then in verse 4 he says: “And, ye, fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.” Can this possibly be done without setting before them the right example? Absolutely not. I must attend every service of the church so that I can properly influence my children to obey the way of the Lord. These are obligations we owe to our children.

5. We also have a responsibility to the preachers, teachers, elders and deacons. We expect them to be present at every service, and would disown them if they didn’t. You would say: “A preacher, teacher, elder or deacon who will not attend all the services is not qualified for his position; he is not interested in the Lord’s work.” How many times has this been an objection to someone being appointed to the eldership or deaconship? It is certainly right to object in such cases, but where does the Scripture say that a preacher or elder must attend every service of the church, but others do not have to attend every service? Just what Bible principle would apply here? God requires exactly the same thing of you in attending all services of the church that he does of preachers, teachers, elders and deacons.

Then, too, you owe an obligation to preachers, teachers, elders and deacons to work with them to the building up of the church in your locality. Every work of the church is made to include you, and if you fail in this duty you impose upon these men. Even men of the world frown upon such conduct. If one does not intend to perform his work in the church, please tell me why he ever obeyed the gospel? The Lord did not add anyone to the church just as an ornament or special guest, but every one has a place and duty to perform. Certainly he can not expect to gain heaven while behaving himself in such a manner. “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven” (Matt. 7:21). We all contend that it is the will of God for preachers, teachers, elders and deacons to attend all services of the church, and if one must do the will of God to enter heaven, we conclude that each one of us must do just as we expect the elders, preachers, teachers and deacons to do in doing the will of God. We owe these men and the church our presence at every service.

6. We are in debt to our brethren and fellow man to do good at all times. For one to fail to do that which is good, when he knows what is good, is to rob others and God of the virtues he has. I believe without a doubt every reader will admit that all men ought to prove what is good and do it. The opposite of good is evil. All things are either good and right, or else wrong and evil. If it is wrong for you to attend every service of the church, it is wrong for all Christians to attend. But if it is right and good for others to attend, it is right and good for you and me to attend every service. James says it in this way: “Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin” (Jas. 4:17). Then if you know it is good to attend all services, and fail to do so unless health prevents, it is sin; and sin when it is finished brings death.

These are obligations we each owe to our brethren in the Lord, to our children and to others with whom we come in contact. No one can fail to attend every service of the church where he lives and be faithful in these requirements.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 23, pp. 707-709
December 3, 1987

By A.W. Goforth

The word of the Lord came to Jeremiah as he was imprisoned after 23 years of preaching. God told him to write a book, which he did through his secretary Baruch (Jer. 36:1-6). Evil king Jehoiakim sent Jehudi to get the roll and read it. What he heard did not please him. As the scroll was being unrolled to read, the king with penknife in hand, would cut off each unrolled leaf and cast it into the fire (36:20-24).

There are thousands alive today who have the spirit of Jehoiakim. But notice, the book was replaced (36:27-32), and exists this day as the book of Jeremiah. But Jehoiakim has long since died. The point is: we can cut out, blue pencil or just refuse to believe any part of God’s Word, but long after we have passed, God’s Word will remain the same. Let us look at the modern day penknife:

1. Of the Infidel. Jehoiakim heard only three or four pages of the message and desired to hear no more. He never considered the truth of it. After three or four pages of Genesis, many wish to hear no more. They don’t want to hear “In the beginning. . . ” nor about the fall of man and the origin of sin. Therefore, they deny God and his Word and “refuse to have

God in their knowledge” (Rom. 1:28).

2. The penknife of modern theology and philosophy. This has been called the “Trojan Horse of the church” and rightfully so. It comes to us saying “You can believe the Bible and harmonize it with modern science in this way.” “You start with believing that God used evolution to carry out his will, you then believe that the Israelites fled in the shallow Red Sea marsh instead of dry ground in the deep Red Sea; then you compromise morals – but you must certainly believe in Jesus. . . its just that he really did no miracles, and oh, by the way, he was not born of a virgin, just a young woman, and certainly did not rise from the dead, they only thought he died and the coolness of the tomb revived him!” To think they say we should believe in a Christ who was a liar and imposter! I am reminded of the young preacher who began telling his congregation, “Jonah is not an inspired book, Mark 16:16ff is not in the better manuscripts, etc.” This same preacher was visiting an elderly and ill man of the congregation and asked if he would read the Bible for him. The preacher picked up the man’s Bible and realized that all it was the cover. The preacher, yet puzzled, began to ask when the old man said, “Son, each time you would say this is not inspired, I tore that page out, that is all you left me.” The apostle Paul said, “See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men” (Col. 2:8, NASB).

3. The penknife of Denominationalism. Unlike the above, they claim to believe the Bible. They just simply say the Bible doesn’t say what it means! A denominational once told me, “Yes Mark 16.16 says, ‘He that believeth and is baptized . .’ .’ but that isn’t what it means.” When I asked how she knew that, she replied because baptism isn’t commanded! Many modern versions have a footnote at the end of Mark 16:16 which states “The oldest and best manuscripts do not contain these verses.” Two questionable manuscripts (Vaticanus and Sinaiticus) hardly make up the oldest and best. It is worth notice that these same manuscripts also omit the entire of Revelation 22, yet this sugar stick of premillennialism has no such note! The penknife of denominationalism also cuts away at the one church (Eph. 4:14), the name (Acts 11:26; Rom. 16:16), singing (Eph. 5:19, and the list could and does go on to ad nauseam!

4. The penknife of some church members. We claim to believe that we must obey all the will of God, but though our beliefs may differ from the denominations, our practice is very much the same in many ways. We say we believe Mark 16:16 is a command to be followed, but we don’t seem to think the command of the verse before it is important . . . the command of teaching others. We cut away passages dealing with the importance of study by coming up with excuses. We cut away at Hebrews 10:25 by revising it to say, “Forsake not the assembly unless company has come in from out of town.” We set back and say, “We believe James 1:27 and Galatians 6: 10 are individual and not the work of the church.” Then we set back with our doctrinally correct mind while sitting on the stump of do nothing and whittle on the stick of do less.

Conclusion

You can do many things to God’s Word. You can cut, tear, disobey and rationalize, but this does not do away with his Word (Psa. 119:89). It is this Word that will judge us Qn. 12:48) and it will never pass away (Matt. 24:35). Destruction is the fate of those who have the spirit of Jehoiakim (2 Thess. 1:7-9; 2 Pet. 2:20; Rev. 22:18-19). Let God’s Word be true, and every man a liar!

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 22, p. 693
November 19, 1987

By Larry Ray Hafley

Wayne Camp was once a Missionary Baptist preacher. He was of the old Bogard school, and, as such, identified with such men as Vernon L. Barr, Hoyt Chastain, and Albert Garner. Now, however, Mr. Camp is preaching Hardshell, Primitive Baptist doctrine concerning election and atonement. Camp always speaks his mind, even if it is wrong. His candor, if not his content, is refreshing. Sometimes, though, Wayne slips out of Baptist doctrine long enough to say some helpful things. What follows below is an example. In a day when some churches of Christ have all but taken up Christmas, it is provoking to see a Baptist assail this sacred icon of .denominationalism. Mr. Camp ,’does so with plainness and vigor.

He says:

It finally began to dawn on me that I would not find Christ in Christmas. Since Christmas means the “mass of Christ” I realized I would not find Christ in Christmas because he is not a Catholic and, therefore, does not go to mass.

Also, since it is the “mass of Christ” or “sacrifice of Christ,” Jesus would not go to mass, any mass, because he was crucified once and for him to condone the mass by his sense would indicate his “one sacrifice” was not enough for the salvation of his people . . .

After several years of searching for Christ in Christmas and not finding him, it was obvious to me that Christ does not celebrate Christmas and neither should 1. He said for us to observe those things which he commanded. While I searched for Christ in Christmas, I also searched for a commandment for us to observe Christmas. You guessed it. Both searches turned out to be fruitless. Christ does not celebrate Christmas, and he did not command his people to do so.

If you look for me December 25, I plan to be in my study, cleaning and lubricating the printing press, cleaning the office and doing some needed trim work.

I, too, am sure that Christ is not a Catholic, hence, does not go to mass. But neither is he a Baptist. He does not, therefore, attend the Baptist church, whether it be Southern, Missionary, Primitive or Free Will. A search for such institutions in the Bible will be fruitless.

But let us not detract from the impact of Baptist Camp’s words regarding Christmas. Some brethren need to act more like they know the truth on Christmas. It is amazing that a Baptist can sound a stronger warning about the error of Christmas than can the Gospel Advocate. If liberal brethren would follow Camp’s example and go to their study on December 25, instead of promoting holiday themes and organizing “Christmas sings,” they might learn the truth, too. However, I fear that some will renounce Christmas about the same time that Mr. Camp renounces the Baptist Church. Sadly, the latter is probably more likely than the former.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 23, p. 705
December 3, 1987

By Luther W. Martin

Compared to the life-span of man, Catholicism’s history is not brief. However, when compared to the Jewish Religion of the Old Testament, it is brief. Also, when contrasted with the church of the New Testament, Catholicism is a “Johnny-come lately.”

Typically, a person celebrates a day of birth and a year of birth. Most religious movements trace back to a year or decade of development. But Catholicism is unique, in that it has slowly evolved over decades and centuries, with each change or new doctrine and practice, contributing to the over-all super-structure.

When a building of brick and stone is built, a date is selected for the “laying of the corner stone.” At one time, the corner-stone was put in the place at the early start of construction, so that it could be used for sighting out the rest of the foundation walls, etc. In modern times, the laying of the corner-stone is a ceremony, culminating all construction. Some large structures have been centuries under construction. Such is the case with the Catholic Church.

The New Testament Church

Christ referred to his church in the future tense in Matthew 16:18. He later instructed the apostles to “tarry in Jerusalem” until they would receive power from on high. This power was then received in an overwhelming (baptismal) measure on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2). From this time onward, the church was referred to in the present tense. The Lord’s church or kingdom came with “power as had been promised (see also Dan. 2:44). The place was Jerusalem, and the time was circa 30 A.D. It can therefore be readily demonstrated that any religion not having Christ’s authorization for its beginning; not starting in Jerusalem; and, not beginning circa 30 A.D., cannot be and is not the New Testament church.

Man-Made Churches Easily Traced

The greater number of man-made churches are only a century or so old. For this reason, they can be easily traced backed to their respective beginnings. Numbers of them seemingly with pride, point to some mere man as their founder. The specific date of their start may be identified by a certain happening in history. Followers of Catholicism point to the beginning of some younger sect, and exclaim: “See there, 1830 was when the Mormon Church began, but just show us the date that Catholicism began!” This, we now propose to do!

The New Testament Warned of Future Apostasy!

It comes as no surprise, that religious movements departed from the New Testament church. The New Testament itself foretells of such apostasy or failing away. Note the following passages: “For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after themselves” (Acts 20:29-30). So the apostle Paul spoke to the Ephesian elders, and Luke recorded it.

“For it has been declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by those of Chloe’s household, that there are contentions among you. Now I say this, that each of you says, ‘I am of Paul,’ or ‘I am of Apollos,’ or ‘I am of Cephas,’ or ‘I am of Christ.’ Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor. 1:11-13) Here, Paul was reprimanding the Corinthian Christians, because they were beginning to wear the names of their preferred preachers.

“Let no one deceive you by any means; for that day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God” (2 Thess. 2:34). So Paul wrote to the church in Thessalonica.

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth” (1 Tim. 4:1-3). Thus, Paul warns Christians, in writing to the preacher Timothy.

The four foregoing Scriptures are examples of the New Testament warnings concerning an apostasy that would develop.

The Greek Orthodox Church

Egypt had its succession of Pharaohs, Rome had its series of Caesars, and Rome, as an Empire, had eleven “Constantines,” who reigned from Constantinople. Constantine the Great, was thefirst of the Constantines. He decreed that the new religion of Christ (new compared to paganism and Judaism) should be the official religion of the Roman Empire. Constantine the Great also called for the “First Ecumenical Council” to be convened at Nicaea, in 325 A.D.

The first eight of the General Councils, or Ecumenical Councils, were each convened at the directive of the Emperor, not by an ecclesiastical personage. The first seven of these Ecumenical Councils are acknowledged by both the Greek Orthodox Church and by the Roman Catholic Church, as being “Ecumenical.” We give below, the attendance which shows the ratio between Greek and Latin members present.

I Council of Nicaea	325 A.D.	315 Greeks	3 Latins
I Council of Constantinople	381 A.D.	150 Greeks	1 Latin
Council of Ephesis	431 A.D.	67 Greeks	1 Latin
Council of Chalcedon	451 A.D.	350 Greeks	3 Latins
II Council of Constantinople	553 A.D.	158 Greeks	6 Latins
III Council of Constantinople	680 A.D.	51 Greeks	5 Latins
II Council of Nicaea	787 A.D.	370 Greeks	7 Latins

There were 1,487 in attendance at the first seven councils. Of that total, only 26 were Latins, while 1,461 were Greeks. The proceedings of these seven councils were recorded in the Greek language. The proceedings of the eighth council, the IV Council of Constantinople, were recorded in both Greek and Latin in 869-870 A.D.

In the early centuries, there were numerous heresies and schisms that plagued the New Testament church, and later the Greek Church. It was not until 1054 A.D., that the Western Churches seceded from the Greek Churches of the East.

Some Doctrines And Practices Of The Greek Orthodox Church

This religious movement rejects the idea of the Roman Bishop being a world-wide bishop, over all churches. They also reject the idea that the Bishop of Rome is in any sense “infallible”; i.e., “incapable of being wrong in matters of faith and morals, when speaking for the church.” This Greek church also rejects the doctrine of “purgatory” as taught by Rome; they reject the teaching of “immaculate conception”; their priests are allowed to marry and they have refrained from using instrumental music in their worship.

The Eastern Church is divided into six basic “Rites”: Coptic, Maronite, Chaldean, Syrian, Armenian and Byzantine. The Byzantine Rite is by far the major element among the Eastern congregations. It is divided into five different groups: Rumanian-Byzantine Rite, Slavonic-Byzantine Rite, Georgian-Byzantine Rite, Arabic-Byzantine Rite, and Green-Byzantine Rite.

The United Greek Church – Or Uniat(e) Church

The Greek Orthodox Church and the Greek Uniate Church are different! They are not the same movement! The word “Orthodox” indicates that they are separated from Rome; while the Uniate Church includes: the Ruthenian Church of Galicia, the Rumanian Church of Austria-Hungary, the Bulgarian Church of Turkish Bulgaria, the Melchite Church of Syria, the Georgian Church, the Italo-Greek Church, and the Church of the Greeks in Turkey or in the Hellenic Kingdom – all of them Catholic, and in communion with Rome.

The Ruthenian-Greek Church united with Rome in 1596.

The Rumanian-Greek Church united with Rome in 1700.

The Syrian (Melchite) Greek Church united with Rome in 1700.

The Italian-Greek Catholics, in extreme southern Italy, never parted from Rome.

The Western Church: Roman Catholic

The differences in doctrines and practices that contributed to the Great Schism, between the Eastern Churches and the Western Churches, in the year 1054 A.D., are the doctrines and practices that have become peculiarly Roman Catholic.

It is interesting to note that the use of the Greek word, catholic, is not Peculiar to the Roman Church. The word catholic, is not found in Holy Scripture, so was never used to either describe the New Testament church, or as its proper name. The word actually means “universal,” and therefore appropriately describes the worldwide scope of the gospel of Christ, which, when proclaimed, results in the establishment of congregations of the Lord’s church. It is most inappropriate to take a word meaning “universal” and then limit it to Greek, Roman, or some other restrictive limit. Yet that is exactly what has been done by the various religious movements that choose to use the term “catholic.”

Since the word “catholic” has been used by several different religious groups, it cannot be used to identify, or serve as an identifying characteristic of the Church of Rome. However, we will now list a number of peculiar teachings or practices that are identifying characteristics of the Roman Church.

(1) World-wide bishop over all the churches – Pope of Rome.

(2) World-wide councils – issuing decrees for all congregations.

(3) College of Cardinals.

(4) Papal infallibility – incapable of error when speaking on faith and morals for the entire church (ex cathedra).

(5) Worship or veneration of images and relics.

(6) Praying to dead saints – invocation of saints.

(7) The Immaculate Conception of the mother of Jesus.

(8) The Bodily Assumption of Mary directly into Heaven.

(9) Purgatory and Indulgences – prayers in behalf of those already dead.

(10) Transubstantiation – Christ’s literal body and blood, produced by priestly prayers, changing the unleavened bread and the juice of the vine.

There are numerous other doctrines and practices of the Roman Church, but these ten will serve to demonstrate that “The Roman Catholic Church as it is known and recognized in the year 1987, is vastly different from what is was in earlier years, decades and centuries.”

(1) World-Wide Bishop Over All The Churches – “Pope of Rome.”

The Roman Catholic Church did not exist as we know it today prior to the year 606 A.D., inasmuch as that was the year in which the Bishop of Rome was first given the title “Universal Bishop.” This title had first been given to the Patriarch of Constantinople, known as John the Faster, in 588 A.D. But when the bishop of Rome, heard of his fellowreligionist being given such a title, Gregory wrote: “Whoever adopts or effects the title of ‘Universal Bishop’ has the pride and character of Antichrist, and is in some manner his forerunner” (History of the Christian Church, William Jones, p. 217).

Just eighteen years later, another bishop of Rome, named Boniface, sought the title from Emperor Phocas (as if the Emperor possessed such authority), and wrested the title from the Patriarch of Constantinople. After the death of Phocas, both the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Bishop of Rome assumed the title (see History of the Church of Christ, Joseph Milner, Vol. 1, p. 514).

(2) World-Wide Councils – Issuing Decrees For All Congregations.

The Roman Catholic Church could not have existed as we know it today prior to the year 325 A.D., since that is the date of the first Ecumenical Council (I Council of Nicaea). This Council was assembled at the directive of Emperor Constantine. The Roman Catholic Church now has a list of some twenty such councils. Down through the centuries, councils have contradicted councils, and also contradicted bishops of Rome. Most of these councils lacked much of actually being “world-wide” in representation. (See McClintock and Strong’s Theological and Ecclesiastical Cyclopedia, Vol. 2, pp. 537-538.)

(3) College of Cardinals.

The Roman Catholic Church did not exist as we know it today, prior to the year 1059 A.D., in view of the fact that in that year, Nicholas 11, authorized such a group to be established. It was composed of only seven cardinals. These are the men who nominate and elect re-placement popes; thus conferring “infallibility” upon whomsoever they choose (see McClintock and Strong, Vol. 2, p. 119).

(4) Papal Infallibility – Incapable of Error When Speaking Er Cathedra.

The Roman Catholic Church did not exist as we know it, before the year 1870, when the Vatican Council proclaimed the pope’s infallibility. This subject had been bandied about over the years, with differing viewpoints existing within the Roman Church. If a Council can pronounce popes “infallible,” then the Council possesses higher authority than the one so pronounced! There had been schools of thought in Catholicism that held Councils to be infallible; others said that it took a combination of pope plus council for infallibility to exist. The 1870 council had a very turbulent session before approving “papal infallibility.” Turbulence is not surprising, when one considers that:

(1) Popes have contradicted popes! John XII and Nicholas 11 uttered contrary decrees on the question as to the possession of property by Christ and his apostles.

(2) Pope Innocent III and Celestine contradicted each other in the matter of divorce when either the husband or wife were heretics.

(3) Alexander III, in a council held at Rome, in 1179 A.D., consisting of three hundred in attendance, condemned Peter Lombard, master of the sentences, of a heresy concerning the incarnation. Innocent III, in 1215 A.D. (36 years later), absolved him without repentance or recantation of his sentiment (see Elliott’s Delineation of Roman Catholicism, Drawn from the Authentic and Acknowledged Standards of the Church of Rome, Vol. 2, pp. 356-357).

(4) Popes have issued officially impious and wicked decrees (Elliott, p. 357)!

(5) Popes have contradicted Scripture (Ibid., p. 357)!

(6) Popes have made ignorant and foolish decisions (Ibid., p. 358)!

(7) Popes have been heretics and taught heresy (Ibid., p. 358)!

(8) Popes have contradicted councils (Ibid., p. 359)!

Hans Kung, a faculty member at Tubingen University, Tubingen, Germany, a prolific writer, has authored a book entitled: “Infallible? An Inquiry” (1971). We copy from the dust jacket of said book:

The pope is not infallible, even when exercising the full authority of his office as Vicar of Christ on earth and Supreme Head of the Roman Catholic Church, he passes judgment on a matter of faith and morals. This is the startling thesis posited by the distinguished and controversial theologian, Hans Kung, in this forceful, dramatic challenge to the most basic concept of authority in the Catholic Church: papal infallibility.

(5) Worship or Veneration of Images and Relies.

“Veneration. The word commonly used to express in English that worship given to the saints either directly or through images or relics, which is different in kind from the divine worship given to God only” (A Catholic Dictionary, Donald Attwater, p. 512).

“Worship. The unique adoration and reverence paid to God, called latria, the word is sometimes used also for the honor paid to saints, dulia, but this is better distinguished by some such word as ‘veneration… (Ibid., p. 529).

“Relic. The corpse of a saint or any part thereof; any part of his clothing; anything intimately connected with him . . .”

“Honor may, and ought, to be paid to those relics whose genuineness is morally certain. . .”

“The Church does not guarantee the genuineness of a single specific relic. . . . “

“Honor given in good faith to a false relic is nevertheless profitable to the worshipper and in no way dishonors the saint. . . “

“Relics in their cases may be exposed on an altar during sacred ceremonies, presented to the people for veneration, carried in procession, and blessing given therewith. . . “

“It is forbidden to buy or sell relics. It is necessary for the valid consecration of an altar, whether fixed or portable, that it contain, sealed into the sepulchre, relics of at least one martyr” (all the above excerpts from Attwater’s Catholic Dictionary, pp. 423-424).

The Second Council of Nicaea, in its 7th Canon, decreed in Summary: “A bishop who in future is found consecrating a church without relics shall be deposed” (787 A.D.). This decree was issued in reaction to the “Iconoclasts,” the image-breakers. In earlier centuries, those opposed to the use of images and relics, had entered church-buildings and destroyed the idols or icons. The Council in 787 A.D., termed the Iconoclasts – heretics!

(6) Praying To Dead Saints: Invocation of Saints.

The Creed of the Council of Trent, contained in the bull, Injunctum Nobis, issued by Pius IV, on November 13, 1594, states in part:

I firmly hold that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained there are helped by the prayers of the faithful. I likewise hold that the saints reigning together with Christ should be honored and invoked, that they offer prayers to God on our behalf, and that their relics should be venerated. I firmly assert that images of Christ, of the Mother of God ever Virgin, and of the other saints should be owned and kept, and that due honor and veneration should be given to them. I affirm that the power of indulgences was left in the keeping of the Church by Christ, and that the use of indulgences is very beneficial to Christians” (The Church Teaches – Documents of the Church In English Translation, p. 8).

(7) The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of Jesus.

On December 8, 1854, Pius IX, issued a bull, Ineffabilis Deus, wherein he defined that: “the most Blessed Virgin Mary … was preserved free, from all stain of original sin” (Ibid., p. 207).

An earlier Council, the Council of Trent, was aware that when they passed a “Decree On Original Sin,” they were pronouncing a state of sinfulness upon Mary, the mother of Jesus. Therefore, on June 17, 1546, this Council stated: “Nevertheless this same holy council declares that it is not its intention to include in this decree on original sin the blessed and immaculate Virgin Mary, Mother of God” (Ibid., p. 160).

(8) The Bodily Assumption of Mary Directly Into Heaven.

On November 1, 1950, Pius XII, issues a bull, Munificentissimus Deus, which he defined as a dogma for Roman Catholics to believe. We copy in part:

Bishops from all over the world with almost perfect unanimity have petitioned that the truth of the corporeal Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary into heaven be defined as a dogma of the divine, Catholic faith. . .”

We therefore, . . . by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by Our own authority, do pronounce, declare, and define as a divinely revealed dogma: The Immaculate Mother of God, Mary ever Virgin, after her life on earth, was assumed, body and soul, to the glory of heaven (Ibid., p. 213).

Dogma (Greek, ordinance). A truth directly proposed by the Church for our belief as an article of divine revelation . . . the content of a dogma is truth revealed by God and therefore must be believed: it is not assumed to be true because many believe it” (Attwater’s Catholic Dictionary, p. 154).

(9) Purgatory and Indulgences Prayers In Behalf Of Those Already Dead.

During the sixth session of the Council of Trent, which was assembled from June 21, 1546 until January 13, 1547, the following excerpt from its decree is copied:

30. If anyone says that after receiving the grace of justification, the guilt of any repentant sinner is remitted and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such a way that no debt of temporal punishment remains to be paid, either in this life or in pugatory, before the gate to the kingdom of heaven can be opened: let him be anathema (The Church Teaches, p. 246).

During the last year of the Council of Trent (1563), a decree on the subject of “purgatory” was issued. We copy some portions of it:

The Catholic Church, by teaching of the Holy Spirit, in accordance with Sacred Scripture and the ancient tradition of the Fathers, has taught in the holy councils, and most recently in this ecumenical council, that there is a purgatory, and that the souls detained there are helped by the prayers of the faithful, and especially by the acceptable Sacrifice of the Altar. Therefore, this holy council commands the bishops to be diligently on guard that the true doctrine about purgatory, the doctrine handed down from the holy Fathers and the sacred councils, be preached everywhere, and that Christians be instructed in it, believe it, and adhere to it (The Church Teaches, p. 352).

(10) Transubstantiation – Christ’s Literal Body and Blood, Produced By Priestly Prayers,

Changing the Unleavened Bread and Juice of the Vine.

In the year 1215, the Fourth Council of the Lateran, defined the subject wherein Christ’s body and blood were “changed” into the bread and juice of the vine.

Indeed, there is but one universal church of the faithful outside which no one at all is saved and in which the priest himself, Jesus Christ, is the victim; his body and blood are truly contained in the Sacrament of the Altar under the species of bread and wine, transubstantiated by the divine power – the bread into his body and the wine into his blood -that, for the enacting of the mystery of unity, we may take from his substance as he himself took from our substance. And no one can consecrate this sacrament except a priest who is rightly ordained according to the Church’s powers that Jesus Christ gave to the apostles and to their successors (The Church Teaches, p. 259). In the year 1274, the Second Council of Lyons, stated:

. . . The same Roman Church consecrates the sacrament of the Eucharist from unleavened bread, and she holds and teaches that in this sacrament the bread it truly transubstantiated into the body of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the wine into his blood (The Church Teaches, p. 260).

Additional Information Concerning the Greek and Roman Churches.

The first eight councils that are accepted by both the Greeks and the Romans as being “ecumenical,” were all convened at the eastern region of the Mediteranean Sea. Nicaea in Bithynia, Constantinople in Thrace, Ephesus in Asia, and Chalcedon in Bithynia. The last of these eight councils was held in 869-870 A.D. The year 1054 A.D., as we mentioned earlier, saw the complete split of the Eastern and Western churches. Rome broke away from the Greek Church.

Sixty-nine years later, the next “ecumenical” council was held in Rome; the year was 1123. Then three more “ecumenical” councils were held in Rome: 1139, 1179, and 1215 A.D. In the interest of accuracy, I should point out, that the Greek Orthodox Churches had nothing to do with these supposedly “ecumenical” councils. Therefore, they were somewhat less than ecumenical.

Conclusion

The dates of the various innovations embraced by the Catholic religions, as heretofore listed, can generally be found in encyclopedias and church histories now extant. Also in the interest of accuracy, we must point out that changes and new doctrines and dogmas first were subscribed to by minorities; then gradually, a given teaching would attract more followers and proponents. Next the new teaching would be a subject in some council, where a conclusion might be reached; either for or against the teaching. Finally, the new teaching would be approved by a council or decreed by a pope, and from that date forward, the “faithful” would be required to subscribe to or agree with the decreed doctrine. Previously, the Catholic parishioner could choose to accept or not accept the teaching while it was a matter of controversy and discussion. But once it is decreed or has become the subject of a “dogmatic” utterance, then on pain of sin, the parishioner must accept it.

Source material covering the foregoing statements will be gladly provided.

Guardian of Truth XXXI: 22, pp. 688-692
November 19, 1987