Truth Magazine

By Michael Garrison

That Mary, the mother of Jesus, is worshiped by Romans Catholics is both affirmed and denied by Catholic sources. In The Faith of Our Fathers, James Cardinal Gibbons, one time Archbishop of Baltimore, wrote: “The liturgies of the Church, being the established formularies of her (Mary) public worship. . . ” (emphasis mine, m1g, p. 172, published in 1876). Yet, in the May 1, 1988 issue of Parade Magazine, in an advertisement published by the Knights of Columbus – the Catholic Information Service, they tell us that Catholics “do not worship her.” Have Catholics changed since Mr. Gibbons wrote his book and which went through 110 editions? I think not!

I recently received information to “Join the Universe in Honoring Mary the Mother of God on Her Birthday September 8 and Throughout the Whole Year” from Catholics in Australia. We are also informed by the advertisement how long this celebration has been going on: “For over 1500 years Christians have kept September 8 as the birthday of the blessed Virgin Mary. It is of Eastern origin and was first celebrated in Jerusalem in the 5th century.” But, that is too late to be in the “doctrine of Christ” (2 Jn. 9). To keep the birthday of Mary is to not do what 1 Peter 4:11 says: “If anyone speaks, let it be as with word of God.” (Note: unless otherwise mentioned, all Scripture references are from the Saint Joseph New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible, Confraternity Edition.) Let all be content with God’s revealed will, “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3) and let us learn not to “transgress what is written” (1 Cor. 4:6).

We do realize that Jesus Christ is God (Jn. 1:1), but Mary is never called “the Mother of God” nor “The Mother of the Church” as Roman Catholics refer to her. Mary is referred to in the Bible as “mother of my Lord” (Lk. 1:43) and “mother of Jesus” (Jn. 2:1).

Certainly, the Scriptures teach the divine nature of Jesus as being existent from all eternity, and in no way dependent on Mary for his eternal being! In John 8:58, Jesus affirmed his eternal existence by saying, “I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I am.” This is the same language God used to Moses to tell the Israelites who sent him (see Exod. 3:13-14). If Mary is designated as “The Mother of God” would not that imply she existed before God? If not, why not?

The only emphasis to Mary we find in the Spirit inspired Bible is that she was the mother of Jesus. “. . . concerning his Son who was born to him according to the flesh of the offspring of David”; “But when the fullness of time came, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under the Law” (Rom. 13; Gal. 4:4). Let us abide in the Word!

That Mary was “blessed among women” (Lk. 1:43) we do not deny, but when Jesus was born in the flesh, and Mary fulfilled her motherly responsibilities to him, her part in God’s divine plan was over. We do not worship her! When the apostle John worshiped an angel, the angel said, “Thou must not do that. I am a fellow-servant of thine and of thy brethren who give the testimony of Jesus. Worship God!” (Apocalypse, Revelation 19:10). Dare we not obey?! As blessed as Mary was to give birth to the fleshly body of Jesus, we should be aware that some are even more blessed! In Luke 11:27-28, we read, “Now it came to pass as he was saying these things, that a certain woman from the crowd lifted up her voice and said to him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore thee, and the breasts that nursed thee.’ But he said, ‘Rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God and keep it.”‘ Catholics don’t like this reading, so James Cardinal Gibbons in Faith of Our Fathers (p. 179) defines the word “rather” by “or yea, likewise.” Thayer’s Greek Lexicon informs us that the word “rather” means, “nay surely, any rather; three times in answers by which what was previously said is corrected” (p. 399). So, the idea is not likewise but rather.

In his fascinating two volume work, Catholicism Against Itself, O.C. Lambert has the following quote (Vol. 2, p. 124):

It is undeniable that the cult of Mary, like everything else of a delicate nature, has been subject to numerous exaggerations and corruptions. Yet Mariology, in spite of this, is bound up with the whole system of Catholic truths.

If I might add a final characteristic, I should say that this aspect of Catholicism has the distinctive mark of freedom. According to the faith and discipline of the Church, devotion to Mary is not necessary for the winning of God’s love; otherwise, the first six centuries would stand condemned. The creeds hardly speak at all of the Virgin. The liturgy of the sacraments does not mention her. The prayers of the Mass rarely name her (The Virgin Mary, Guitton, 178-179).

Yet, in spite of the truth, the cult of Mariology has grown over the years to what we see today. It was not known for the first six centuries, as admitted by a Catholic writer! But, it is hoped that some with good and honest hearts will respond to the truth of God as given in the Bible. We can unite on that – but never can we unite on so-called traditions followed by the Roman Catholic Church. Let us ever ask for a “thus saith the Lord” in all things!

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 3, p. 76
February 1, 1990

By Luther W. Martin

From May 17, 1410 until May 29, 1415, Baldasarre Cossa served as the “pope” of the Roman Catholic Church. Cossa took the name “Pope John XXIII” and was one of the Pisan line of Popes during the Great Schism (1378-1417).

The Popes Rule From France For Seventy Years!

From 1305 until 1370, the Popes had reigned from the city of Avignon, France. The Popes during this three generation span, were all Frenchmen, and included: Clement V, John XXII, Benedict XII, Clement VI, Innocent VI, Urban V, and Gregory XI.

The Story of the Great Schism!

The Church was torn from top to bottom by the schism, both sides in good faith (it was impossible to know to whom allegiance was due), which lasted with its two lines of popes (and at one time three) till the election of Martin V in 1417 (Catholic Dictionary by Attwater, Macmillan, 1952, p. 452).

During the “Great Schism” contenders for the Papal throne represented the Pisan line, the Roman line, and the Avignon line. On June 26, 1409, the Council of Pisa elected the Archbishop of Milan, as Pope, under the name Alexander V. He reigned less than a year, and died May 3, 1410. Meanwhile, a Pope of the Avignon line, Benedict XIII; and another of the Roman line, Gregory XII also reigned. As soon as Alexander V died, a three day conclave at the castle of Bologna elected Cossa as Pope John XXIII.

The Roman Church Would Like To Forget The First John 23rd!

John XXIII created eighteen new cardinals during his reign. He also convoked the Council of Constance, in the German city by that name, which held its first session November 16, 1414.

The solitary permanent achievement of the council (Constance), was its condemnation of John Wyclif (A History of the Church, by Philip Hughes, Vol. III, Sheed & Ward, 1947, p. 280).

The Council of Constance deposed John XXIII, on May 29, 1415; and deposed Gregory XII, on July 4, 1415. Then, for a period of two years and nine months, there was no pope and the Council of Constance was the ruling body of the Catholic Church.

A Catholic Publication Makes Some Embarrassing Admissions!

There now existed the sad spectacle, so tragic to Christendom (Roman Catholicism, LWM), of three great prelates, each supported by a considerable party, claiming the papal honor. John, for a time, had the greatest following, although today (1942 A.D.), with the clouds of contemporary confusion and distortion and clamor removed, Pope Gregory stands as the validly elected pontiff. How then was the dilemma to be solved? Surely not by the entrance of John XXIII upon the historic stage for ‘of all the miserable consequences of the disastrous Synod of Pisa,’ states Pastor, ‘this election was the worst.’ John was not, indeed, the moral monster his enemies afterwards endeavored to represent him, but he was utterly worldly minded and completely engrossed by temporal interests. An astute politician and courtier, he was not scrupulously conscientious and was more of a soldier than a churchman.

The Council of Constance was probably the greatest assemblage of its kind ever yet convened. At the Imperial invitation came cardinals and prelates of the three obediences (Pisan, Roman, and Avignon, LWM) and significantly there also came ambassadors from seven kingdoms. The balloting was not the privilege alone of the great and care was taken to allow each nation an equitable share in the discussions. Indeed the convention can be said to have been conducted on democratic lines for to offset the schemes of a highly placed few, votes were given to parish priests and representative laymen and doctors of divinity as well as to ambassadors and prelates. John arrived with a great display of pomp to preside at the assembly but instead of a submissive flock he found an unfriendly throng, united in its intention to oppose him.

A long document, accusing him of almost every crime, had been drawn up by canonists, and realizing the campaign against him the second pope of Pisa accepted defeat: fearing for his personal safety he ignominiously fled the conference (Pageant of the Popes, by John Farrow, Sheed & Ward, 1942, pp. 202-203).

An English Archbishop Writes To John 23rd!

Archbishop Arundel is cited as an authority for the fact of Wyclif’s translation on the strength of the letter which, conjointly with the English bishops, he wrote to Pope John XXIII. In 1412, in forwarding the list of grave errors which a Commission of twelve Oxford theologians had detected in the works of Wyclif (The Old English Bible and Other Essays, by Francis Aidan Gasquet, George Bell & Sons, 1908, p. 145).

John Hus Executed By Council Of Constance!

. . . John Hus was now thirty-three years of age, rector of the university (of Prague – LWM), and incumbent of the Bethlehem Church lately founded for the preaching of sermons in Czech, and already, through the sermons and lectures of Hus, ‘a university for the people.’ Hus was not a particularly good theologian, but he was a great orator and preacher, a severe critic of the ways of his clerical brethren and a man of extremely austere life. Once he was won over to the English theories (Wyclif’s – LWM) all Prague would soon be taking sides for or against them.

The fight opened when, in the next year (1403), the ecclesiastical authority in the Czech capital condemned the twenty-four Wyclifite theses condemned at Oxford in 1382 and another twenty-one also extracted from his works. There was a second condemnation in 1405, at the demand of Innocent VII, and a third in 1408. Hus had accepted the condemnation of 1403, but five years as a reformer had turned him into an extremist. The clergy’s attachment to goods, he was now saying, was heresy, and as for Wyclif – who had thundered against it in much the same terms – Hus prayed to be next to him in heaven. Hus was now suspended from preaching, but as the king continued to favour him he disregarded the prohibition. There was a schism in the university – where the German, anti-Czech element was strongly anti-Wyclif – and presently a solemn burning of Wyclifite literature. Hus was now excommunicated, first by the Archbishop of Pragt!e and then by Cardinal Colonna acting for John XXIII, and Prague was laid under an interdict, so long as he (Hus) remained there. In 1411 he appealed from the pope to a General Council; in 1412 a still heavier excommunication was pronounced against him; he began to organize his following among the Czech nobles, and when, at the king’s request, he left Prague, it was to spread his teachings by sermons in the country villages and the fields. Prague, and indeed all Bohemia, were now in great confusion. The king still supported Hus and exiled his Catholic opponents, even putting two of them to death, and the crisis was the first topic to occupy the General Council summoned at Rome by John XXIII in 1413, from which came a fresh condemnation of Wyclifite doctrine. When it was announced by the emperor that a new council was to meet at Constance, Hus declared that he could appear before it, to defend the truth of this teaching, and on October 11, 1414, with body of associates and an escort of Czech nobles, he set out from Prague. He reached Constance on November 3, two days after the solemn entry of John XXIII. For both of them the city was to prove a prison, but for Hus a prison (from) whence he was to go forth only to his execution.

The story of the trial of John Hus at the Council of Constance is too important in its detail to risk a summary history’s distortion of it. His heresy was manifest and the longer the discussions continued the more clearly it was proved. He refused to abandon his beliefs, and, declared a heretic, on July 6, 1415, he was handed over for execution to the town authorities, and burnt at the stake that same day. One year later his associate, Jerome of Prague, a layman, after trial before the council, suffered the like fate (A History of the Church, by Philip Hughes, Sheed & Ward, 1947, pp. 312-313).

Catholic Council Seeks Vengeance Against Wyclif!

It was in the eighth session (May 4, 1415) of this same Catholic Council of Constance that decreed some thirty years after Wyclif’s death, that his body was to be dug up, and his remains were to be burned, and his ashes scattered in the stream which flows by Lutterworth.

Summary Of Actions By Pope XXIII (1410-1415)

Archbishop Arundel wrote to Pope John XXII in 1412, concerning the alleged false teaching of the late John Wyclif.

John XXIII summoned a General Council at Rome in 1413, which issued condemnations of Wyclif and Hus.

John XXIII created eighteen new cardinals during his reign.

John XXIII presided at the early sessions of the Council of Constance (1414-1418), which had John Hus burned at the stake; had John Wyclif’s remains exhumed, burned and scattered; and which also had Jerome of Prague executed.

Pope John XXIII Duplicated!

In the year of 1958, the Roman Catholic Church was headed by another John the 23rd. He died in 1963.

There is no record of a Pope John XX. Why didn’t they use that Roman numeral?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 3, pp. 74-75
February 1, 1990

By Larry Terry, HCN Staff Writer

The following article is reproduced from the Community News (P.O. Box 280, Channelview, TX 77530) and submitted by Bill Murff of Cosby, Texas. We appreciate him sharing this with us.

• Brutal killings are not to be presented in detail.
• Methods of crime shall not be explicitly presented or detailed in a manner calculated to glamorize crime or inspire imitation.
• Obscenity in words, gesture, reference, song, joke or by suggestion, even when likely to be understood by only a part of the audience, is forbidden.
• Blasphemy is forbidden. Reference to the Deity, God, Lord, Jesus Christ shall not be irreverent.
• Complete nudity, in fact or in silhouette, is never permitted.
• No film or episode shall throw ridicule on any religious faith.
• The sanctity of the institution of marriage and home shall be upheld. . . Adultery and illicit sex, sometimes necessary plot material, shall not be explicitly treated, nor shall they be justified or made to seem right and permissible.

These statements were taken from “The Motion Picture Production Code,” which served as a moral guideline for American film makers for 35 years.

Based on the majority of today’s films, it is difficult to believe such guidelines were ever formulated, much less adhered to.

During the early years of the motion picture industry, major studios submitted scripts to representatives of the largest church denominations, according to a foreword to the production code. Films that met the code’s requirements were granted the Motion Picture Seal of Approval. Those that did not, often were held up until adequate revisions were made.

The code was enforced largely through the prospect of fines or that films might not be distributed to major theaters.

Whether we have been desensitized by the onslaught of profanity, promiscuity and violence in so many of today’s films or whether we attempt somehow to rationalize overstepping the boundaries of dignity and decency by defending such films as realism or “freedom of expression,” we have grown accustomed to accepting the unacceptable.

Even those who composed The Motion Picture Production Code were not trying to avoid unpleasant subjects or sanction only films that ignored the realities of life. Theirs was an effort “to bring the motion picture to a still higher level of wholesome entertainment for all concerned.”

Some films manage to do that; most do not.

A portion of the production code reads, “The treatment of low, disgusting, unpleasant, though not necessarily evil, subjects should be guided always by the dictates of good taste and a proper regard for the sensibilities of the audience.”

Many films today not only ignore our “sensibilities,” but pummel them with images, words and ideas that only a few could construe as entertainment.

Does the proliferation of such films indicate that we want our sensibilities to be attacked? Are we impressed by the profanity thrown into a script simply because a writer thinks it is what the audience wants to hear?

Many of us are offended by profanity. Yet even movies that have PG ratings or purport to be family-oriented often sprinkle profanity throughout the dialogue, as if all American families accept profanity in their households.

Paradoxically, perhaps, in the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision regarding flag burning, another of the code’s tenets would become passe: “The use of the flag shall be consistently respectful.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 3, p. 73
February 1, 1990

By Lewis Willis

I was given an article from the TV Guide (3-11-89) by Dan Wakefield, entitled, “We Need More Religion In Prime Time.” The article was of special interest to me since only last week in our adult Bible class we had discussed the dangers which television poses to the morals of our nation. The article concerned a scene in a recent prime time program in which a leading character, in the midst of a crisis, had turned to religion for answers. Wakefield described it as “. . . an emotionally moving and genuinely spiritual scene but an extremely rare one for prime-time TV.” His point was that more scenes of this nature are needed to reflect the way it is in contemporary life.

He quoted the pollster, George Gallop, Jr., in a speech called “The 1990s – Decade of ‘The People’s Religion,”‘ who reported that his latest surveys reflected that “levels of religious belief and practice in the U.S. are extra ordinarily high . . . The large majority of Americans believe in … God . . . and say that religion is either ‘very’ or ‘fairly’ important in their lives. . . Only 4 percent of Americans are totally ‘non-religious. “‘ Wakefield asked why the writers and producers of prime-time TV, who constantly search for the latest “hot” subject to use in their stories, have so neglected God and religion as a source for dramatic possibilities. He then explained why it is neglected. He referred to a recent Newsweek article by Los Angeles lawyer and authority, Benjamin J. Stein, who said, “It would be hard right now to imagine a more atheistic community than the people who make prime-time TV and feature movies.” Therefore, he said we do not see TV characters who make decisions based on religion. Stein predicted that this would change. He said Alcoholics Anonymous is “sweeping Hollywood” with its message of reliance on God or a “Higher Power” for help in getting off booze and drugs. Wakefield noted how some programs have experimented with religious subjects in recent seasons and offered some suggestions about how other highly rated shows might inject the national trend toward religion into their programs. He suggested that Michael J. Fox of NBC’s Family Ties might discover what contemporary, successful, over-achievers have discovered, that is, material possessions do not satisfy all of the longings of man. Wakefield quoted a successful young man, writing in New York magazine, who had returned to his faith. He said, “Once you’ve played all the tennis you can play, what then?” Too many people have nowhere to turn when they realize that materialism and worldliness do not offer solutions to life’s problems. It is here that religion offers the answer and TV needs to turn to religion if it is going to be “true to life.”

I do not believe that screen writers will accurately depict the religion of Christ. Nor do I trust them to develop a religious consciousness for America. However, I remember a time when my peers unashamedly confessed their faith in the doctrines of denominationalism and, at that time, I remember that America had a higher standard of morality than it does today. In those days homosexuality, fornication, divorce, alcohol, drugs, etc., were all considered by most people to be WRONG! It was not that all religion was right in those days – it was simply a fact that a religious society has higher moral standards than does a non-religious society.

People in those days were materialistic but they knew that “things” would not supply what they needed in times of sickness, distress and death. In those circumstances, they turned to their faith. As television has depicted modern man, he has no place to turn on those occasions because, supposedly, he cannot turn to God. Screen writers would have us believe there is no God. Surveys indicate the screen writers are wrong – most Americans still believe in God and give religion a place of importance in their lives. Most Americans turn to God in their times of trouble, even though the screen writers choose not to recognize this. Perhaps, if given enough publicity, this fact about the modern American will one day be reflected in its popular television fare like the Cosby show. Such will not solve all of our problems but it surely will not hurt.

It will always be the role of the Church to teach the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. We are trying to do that. However, it would help if so important a factor as television is in our lives, would at least acknowledge that there is a God to whom we can and must turn. Having seen the effects of glorified sin on TV, I am ready to see the effects of a return to a recognition of God. It couldn’t hurt – it has to help. Parents, in raising their children, need all the help they can get! Don’t you agree?

Guardian of Truth XXXIV: 4, pp. 98, 118
February 15, 1990