The foundational issue in the debates between Roman Catholics and Protestants is authority. God has placed numerous authorities over us as Christians. Husbands have a level of authority over their wives. Parents have authority over children. Masters/employers have authority over slaves/employees. Elders have authority over the congregation. The issue is not authority itself. The question is the nature of that authority. No authority on earth is absolute or infallible. Rome believes her authority to be infallible on the main issues of doctrine and practice. This does not mean that her priests and bishops cannot sin, but rather that when the Roman Catholic Church speaks with authority she cannot err. This presents numerous problems, which we will get to in a minute. Here are some relevant quotes from the RCC (Roman Catholic Catechism).

“The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s Successor, ‘is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.’ ‘ For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.” (p.234) Note here that the Pope is to be unhindered in his work. On a practical level that means what Nathan did to David cannot be done to the Pope. The Pope is above being called to repentance. The irony is that the “First Pope,” Peter was called to repentance at least three times. (Matthew 16:22-23, Matthew 26:68-75 with John 21, and Galatians 2:11-14)

“The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ…Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals.” (p. 235)

“The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful…he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith and morals. The infallibilty promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium, above all in an Ecumenical Council. (p. 235)

Finally, after a lengthy discussion of the Magisterium and its purpose, the RCC says this, “The supreme degree of participation in the authority of Christ is ensured by the charism of infallibility. This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of Divine Revelation; it also extends to all those elements of doctrine, including morals, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, explained, and observed.” (p. 492)

The errors associated with this doctrine of infallibility are many.

First, Paul specifically says in Romans 11:16-21 that the church at Rome must be careful. If God could cut off the natural branches (Jews) then he most certainly can cut off those who were grafted in (Gentiles). The great irony here is that this is exactly what the Roman Catholic Church says cannot happen. She cannot be cut off.

Second, there is no indication in the Scriptures that infallibility was given to anyone. Now Paul wrote infallibly when inspired by the Spirit, but even he made it clear that he could fail. (I Cor. 9:27) He never said that he was infallible and thus above reproof. Also Peter is plainly rebuked three times in Scripture, with one of those coming after Pentecost. I have never read a Roman Catholic apologist on this, but I would be interested in knowing what they do with this.

Third, what does this doctrine do to the idea of sin in the Bible? It is clear that all men are sinners. (Psalm 51, Romans 1-3, I John 1:8, etc.) But now we have a man who cannot sin in certain situations and a group of men who cannot sin in certain situations. The RCC is not simply saying the past councils were right or the Pope said some things that were correct, but rather it is impossible for these men to sin when they are in certain settings. Scripture is against this idea. All men are sinners and in any given situation a man or group of men can sin. History as well as Scripture bears this out.

Finally, the greatest problem is that they have institutionalized this view of infallibility. There is no doubt in my mind that there are Baptist, Presbyterian, and Episcopal pastors/ministers who deep down believe they can do no wrong. Of course, they would not say that, but they still believe it. They pontificate from the pulpit with bluster and with very little accountability. The difference between these pastors and the RC position is that the RC position is official and in writing. We all know how hard it is to change “tradition” whatever it may be. It is especially difficult when that tradition is one of the defining marks of your organization. For the RCs to change their view on infallibility would require not just a shifting of doctrine here or there, but a wholesale turning from centuries of teaching. I do not see that happening. It would require too much repenting, which I am not sure the Catholic leaders are ready to do.

I was tempted to save this until the end of the series, but I thought it best to be as gracious as possible at the beginning. There are several areas where the Roman Catholic Church is better or has at least thought about things on a deeper level than the Protestants. I thought I would briefly mention these things. Protestants need to do a better job of learning from other traditions while still rejecting their errors. This is not an easy thing to do, but wisdom requires sifting the wheat from the chaff. In some places this is easier than others, but with Roman Catholicism we are dealing with a group that once held the Gospel in all its purity. So here are some things they do well.

1. They have thought more in depth about various ethical issues on a corporate level. In the RCC (Roman Catholic Catechism), there is an extensive exposition of the last six commandments, which are commonly called the second table of the Law. In this section, the RCC deals with things like suicide, abortion, homosexuality, incest, sale of arms by countries, scientific research, divorce, use of common goods among people in a nation, social justice, and use of media for communication. The point is not that Protestants haven’t thought about these things, though it must be confessed that much of it has not been well thought out by Protestansts, but rather that Protestant denominations rarely speak with a unified voice on these matters. At least the Catholics have attempted to address these things publicly and corporately.

2. Adding to the previous point, the Catholics have taken a very strong stand against abortion and divorce. Compare this to many Protestants churches where divorce is tolerated and rarely preached against and where abortion is silently opposed, which is to say not opposed at all. In fact, numerous Protestants voted for the most bloodthirsty president in history. Now, I think some Catholics did as well, but they would have been going against their leaders, whereas many Protestants would have been following their leaders.

3. They have thought more about beauty in the Christian life. Protestants of the last 200 years or so have been terrible in the area of aesthetics. We write bad books (Left Behind), we paint bad paintings (Kincade), we make semi-good movies, and build churches that look like basketball coliseums. This is a place where Protestants need to repent and learn from others. We shame the Gospel by leading ugly lives and worshipping in ugly buildings. We need to get back to a mindset that builds beautiful things to God’s glory. The Catholics can help us here.

4. Finally, they undestand that liturgy matters. They make numerous mistakes here, but at least it matters to them how their worship services are constructed. For many Protestants the shape of worship does not matter. Content does, which is, of course, very important. But Protestants have freqently ignored the way Scripture commands us to come to God in worship. In some ways it is easier to debate a Catholic on liturgy than a Protestant. At least a Catholic believes there is a right way to structure the service. Most Protestants are perfectly post-modern on this point. There is no right way, what really matters is the heart.

So here are a few areas we can learn from the Catholics. There are more than these and I may mention some of them as we move through this series

For several years now I have been involved on a small level in the controversy known as the “Federal Vision.” I agree with most Federal Vision men on their theology and understanding of what the reformers taught, as well as changes that need to take place in reformed theology. Because of my association with these men, my views have frequently been labeled Roman Catholic. This caricature has been thrown around often enough that I felt I needed to learn what the Roman Catholics really taught. So over the last three years I have read the Roman Catholic Catechism (hereafter RCC) twice. Lest you think this is a minor feat, since you are only acquainted with the Westminster Confession or the Three Forms of Unity, the RCC is 688 pages long. I read the English version from 1994 that was officially approved by Pope John Paul in 1992. As far as I know this is the official document containing Roman Catholic doctrine. There has been a 2nd edition published in 1997, but it is essentially the same. Thus I am not guessing at what they believe, I am quoting what they believe. I am going to write some posts on what I read commenting as I go on the problems with various doctrines.

Before beginning the posts it seemed wise to declare my perspective on the Roman Catholic Church.

1. From 1517-1845 or so the dominate position of the reformed world was that Roman Catholic baptism was valid. This means there was enough of the true Church within Rome for her baptisms to be accepted by Protestants. This changed as a baptistic worldview came to the forefront in the late 1800s and on into the 20th century. I still consider a RC baptism valid, that means I still consider the Roman Catholics a church.

2. However, there are many problems in the Roman Catholic Church and these problems are not minor side issues. Christ, the Gospel, and the Scriptures are obscured and marred by various traditions that are not in the Scriptures or worse contradict the Scriptures. I will be looking primarily at these errors in hopes of teaching those who read this and clarifying my own thoughts on some Roman Catholic doctrines. In my opinion several of the doctrines, in particular the doctrine of Mary, put the validity of Rome as a true communion on thin ice.

3. Finally, these posts are not meant to gloss over the heaps of errors currently buzzing around in Protestant Churches. We have so many planks in our eyes that it is hard for us to see clearly what is wrong with the Roman Catholic Church. I just finished reading John Calvin’s The Necessity of Reforming the Church. What struck me about the book was how many of the problems in the Roman Catholic Church of the 1500s are now found in the Protestant churches in the 21st Century. They are dressed in different clothing, but take off the garb and underneath we look a lot like Rome prior to the Reformation. How different is the marketing of the Gospel in contemporary churches from what Rome was doing to fund St. Peter’s Basilica? Rome obscured the true meaning of the Supper behind superstitions. We obscure it by infrequent celebration and often not even on Sunday morning. Rome had her priests and Pope. We have our celebrity pastors who sell millions of books and invite presidential candidates to debate at their churches. To quote Douglas Wilson, “Making all necessary adjustments for the changes in time and place, the modern evangelical Church, eyes fat as grease, bastion of born againism, is fully as corrupt as the Church prior to the Reformation.” (A Primer on Worship and Reformation, p. 9)