Letters    

TO A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST

Dear M. K.                                                                                                          May 19, 1988

     Let me begin my saying that since the resurrection and ascension of our Lord Jesus Christ, there has been no priesthood except the priesthood of the Son of God; no sacrifice except the sacrifice of Christ which we are told He offered once for all time "and having obtained eternal redemption for us" (Heb. 9:12; 1:3), He "sat down." His cry "It is finished" means the transaction in which He gave His life a "ransom for many" is completed. We have no altar now: Christ is our altar.

      Peter wrote to "the saints" that they were a "kingdom of priests" by which he means all believers comprise a universal priesthood. That this priesthood is a spiritual, and not a temporal priesthood, is seen in the fact that we are called to "offer up spiritual sacrifices" (I Pet. 2:5). "There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins" (Heb. 10:26).

     May I be so bold as to pose a question? "By what authority did Rome proclaim herself the earthly head of the Church?" Rome is certainly not the oldest center of Christianity. Her Christian roots are not as old as those of Antioch, nor were those of Antioch as old as the roots of Jerusalem. It was simply an arrogant display of power on the part of Rome when she proclaimed herself the "earthly head of the Church." Allow me to pose another question: "Why has the Roman Catholic Church excommunicated pious Huguenots, Lutherans, and Baptists who diligently labored to present themselves before God without `blemish, spot or wrinkle' (Ephesians 5:7), but has allowed Nazis, and the mobsters in every age to die in her good graces?" The leaders of Germany's death camps died in communion with Rome; so did Al Capone, Genovese, etc. Nor has Rome ever publicly confessed her sins in shedding the blood of millions of martyrs of Jesus.

     The most serious issue separating us, however, is the issue of authority. Paul maintained the Christian's authority is the Holy Scriptures, for he said, "But though we, or an angel from Heaven preach any other Gospel unto you than that we have preached unto you, let him be `anathema maranatha'" (Galatians 1:8).

      Peter himself, while testifying of the voice of God which the disciples heard in the Holy Mount, and while testifying of the Divine glory that emanated from our Lord, he nevertheless stated, "We have a more sure word of prophecy whereunto ye do well that ye take heed ..." (II Peter 1:16-21). He gives two reasons for so saying: first, "We have not followed cunningly devised fables ...but were eyewitnesses of His majesty" (vs. 16); and second, "No prophecy of the Scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (vs. 20,21).

     I do not entertain any false notions that my writing to you will effect any appreciable change in your thinking. My purpose in writing is to deliver a faithful witness to God's truth, and thereby to be free from guilt in the event you are condemned.

Part II—The Questions Posed

l.      A. Concerning the "sign of the cross"—Your argument, that since Scripture nowhere forbids making the sign of the cross that it is proper to do so, is an example of eisegesis rather than exegesis. It is not a valid posture to argue from the silence of Scripture.

     The danger of making such a sign is that it degenerates into a form of magic which you as much admitted when you said, "Over time, Catholics, and others, have come to use the sign of the cross in prayer as a reminder of the redemptive sufferings of Christ and as a prayer that God will rule our minds and our hearts, and that He will grant us the grace to do good works in His name."

     If to make the sign of the cross is "as a prayer," are we not excused from actually praying? Where did such a thought originate that to make the sign of the cross was "as a prayer"?--certainly not in the Word of God.

      B. Concerning "Prayer for the Dead"—You as much as admitted that prayer for the dead is a man-made practice that has no validity in Scripture. Since the Apocrypha is of spurious origin, Christians have rejected its contents.

       A greater heresy is involved, however, when it is postulated that it is possible that by our prayers "atonement might be gained for the sins (of the dead)." The doctrine of the atonement is an Old Testament doctrine. The sins of the saints of old were "covered", while the single sacrifice of Christ, in which He shed His blood for His people, propitiated their sins. Yet, in neither the Old nor in the New Testament is the work of God earned: it is rather God's gift (Ephesians 2:8,9; Romans 6:23).

      Your statement that such practices while "not recorded does not mean that they were unknown (to the early church)" is again to argue from silence. Such logic is invalid. What we know is what is recorded.

      The fact that such practices, although not recorded in Scripture, are an integral part of Roman Catholic worship, means that Rome has added to God's Word. Luther said rightly when he declared, "Whom God intends to destroy, He gives leave to play with Scripture."

     The prophets inveighed against the cult of Jehovah that worshipped at Dan and at Bethel because they sought to worship God without any true repentance. Amos called the two golden calves "Baal." Apostate Israelites thought God could be placated by their sacrifices; but what the Lord demanded was obedience.

Contents

Previous  Next