In the year 1917, the Roman Catholic magesterium taught her people:

“The Catholic church CANNOT BE REFORMED. The doctrine is perfect and hence, can NEVER BE REFORMED” (Faith of Our Fathers, Gibbons, 61) (Emphasis mine). .

I attended St. Paul’s Catholic school between 1959 and 1967, and was therefore present before, during, and after Vatican II Council. Many changes took place after that council which not only affected my family’s life, but Catholics everywhere. I can honestly say that as a child, I did not understand why my dad was so angry about the changes made; after all, I preferred the “folk mass” to the old Latin mass with all its chantings. His fears were much deeper. As an adult, I’ve come to understand what those changes meant for my dad. It must have been like watching his sand foundation wash away with the rising tide, leaving him homeless and destitute. Since I’ve come to know Jesus Christ as my Lord and Saviour (the true Rock and sure foundation - Matthew 7:24-27), I’ve made a point of examining the changes that Vatican II made and have come to realize the validity of my dad’s concerns.

I was taught, before Vatican II, that it was a “sin against faith” to attend another church, let alone partcipate in their services. Vatican II opened up the door for “dialogue” with other religions and in the process has reaped some very interesting results, such as the compromise of Roman doctrine, leading to the Catholic Charismatic Movement, characterized by baptism in the “Holy Spirit” through the manifestion of “speaking in tongues”, etc.

Last summer, while on vacation in the mountains of Colorado, I had the opportunity to talk to an old Catholic friend, who had attended the same school. We discussed the issue of salvation and my friend confessed that he believed he was going to heaven based on the fact that Jesus effected his salvation by dying on the cross (not a Catholic teaching). As we continued discussing this issue, he informed me that it didn’t matter what religion you follow. If a Buddhist is a “good Buddhist” and obeys all that he understands, learning only from his parents, he will still go to heaven. Now, here’s my friend, believing his own salvation is secured by the blood of Jesus, yet denies the blood as a requirement for the salvation of the Buddhist.

His was just another voice echoing the same doctrinal error we’ve heard for years, “...there are many roads that lead to heaven,” even though the Bible teaches:

“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Mt.7:13-14)

Interestingly enough, my friend was not conveying the same doctrine we had learned as young Catholic students together. Mother Teresa must have believed the same unscriptural philosophy. Her biographer, Desmond Doig, quoted her as saying:

“What we are all trying to do by our work, by serving the people, is to come closer to God. If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are, and then by being better we come closer and closer to Him. If we accept Him fully in our lives, then that is conversion. What approach would I use? For me, naturally, it would be a Catholic one, for you it may be Hindu, for someone else, Buddhist, according to one’s conscience, WHAT GOD IS IN YOUR MIND YOU MUST ACCEPT” (A Planned Deception, Constance E. Cumby, 101-102) (Emphasis mine).

Mother Teresa, knowingly or ignorantly, helped further New Age philosophy. With influential Catholic leaders making such bold statements, is it any wonder my friend feels compelled to follow those who “know what they’re talking about”?

Accepting “what God is in your mind” is a strong component of the New Age Movement. In Mystery Mark of the New Age, Texe Marrs exposes the method of “creating an image of ‘God’ in the mind”:

“Repeat this breathing exercise several times. Next, try to imagine God; keep searching in your mind (for however long it takes) to form an image of God. When the image is there, you will know it. Do not worry if this first exercise takes a long time. After the image is clear, focus on it for as long as you can. You may have to fine-tune it by focusing on each part of the image and visualizing yourself with that image. Eventually it will speak to you....” (138)

On Oct.24, 1975, Mother Teresa spoke at the Temple of Understanding (a New Age “temple” with Luciferic connections) and impressed the New Agers so much she was asked to speak at their other conferences.

The doctrine of “unity-in-diversity”, which Mother Teresa so openly promoted, was well-received among the New Agers pushing for a one-world religion and government. Carl Matrisciana’s God of the New Age (1985), relates this information:

“Unity-in-Diversity Council is a powerful New Age promotional network...which [in 1982] linked arms with the international network of ‘Mind, Body, and Spirit Festivals.’ This formed a vast army dedicated to the merger of all religions into one, under a world leader” (Now is The Dawning of the New Age New World Order, Cutty, 147).

According to My Catholic Faith, by Bishop Louis LaRavoire Morrow, page 202:

"HOW DOES A CATHOLIC SIN AGAINST FAITH? A Catholic sins against faith by infidelity, apostasy, heresy, indifferentism, and by taking part in non-Catholic worship. We may lose our faith by: (a) not learning well the doctrines of the Church; (b) wilfully doubting truths that have been revealed to the Church: (c) reading books and other literature against our religion; (d) attending assemblies of people who are opposed to our religion; and (e) neglecting the practice of our religion."

Rome’s definition and judgment of indifferentism caught my interest since Mother Teresa put her stamp of approval on other religions, contrary to all that I had ever learned as a Catholic.

“INDIFFERENTISM is the ERROR OF THOSE WHO HOLD THAT ONE RELIGION IS AS GOOD AS ANOTHER AND THAT ALL RELIGIONS ARE EQUALLY TRUE AND PLEASING TO GOD, OR THAT ONE IS FREE TO ACCEPT OR REJECT ANY OR ALL RELIGIONS. Many a Catholic does not want to trouble himself about studying his religion, and gradually loses his faith. A soul is like a plant: it needs to be watered continuously by the truths and practices of religion. Unless it is so nourished, it will sicken and perish. Why should Christ, and after Him the Apostles, and after them a long line of Catholics, have suffered so much and resisted persecution so firmly, if it were of no importance what a man believed? It is absurd to suppose that God does not care whether men denounce His Son as an impostor and blasphemer, or worship Him as God” (My Catholic Faith, Bishop Louis LaRavoire Morrow, 202) (Emphasis mine).

According to Rome, not only had Mother Teresa sinned against the Catholic faith by equating Hinduism and other religions that denounce Jesus as the Messiah with her own religion, but she had insulted the finished work of Jesus Christ. Concerning the exclusiveness of His plan of salvation, Jesus said:

“...I am the way, the truth, and the life: NO MAN COMETH UNTO THE FATHER, BUT BY ME.” (John 14:6) (Emphasis mine)

Pope John Paul II sinned against the Catholic faith in 1986 when he gathered 130 leaders of the world’s 12 major religions in Assissi, Italy to pray for peace. If it is “absurd to suppose that God does not care whether men denounce His Son”, the activities of the pope should alarm any Catholic. Such activities as praying with snake worshippers, fire worshippers, spiritists, animists, witch doctors, Hindus, Buddhists and Muslims (all of whom reject Jesus as being the only way) would suggest a duplicity in the nature of the papacy. After all, before Vatican II, the Muslims (“infidels and heretics”) were the number- one enemy of Catholicism. It is well known that Allah is the name of a moon god (the pagan deity of Muhammed’s Quraish tribe that required human sacrifice), not the God of Abraham. Roman Catholicism had waged war against Muslims for hundreds of years because of their rejection of Jesus Christ as God. Peter De Rosa, in his book Vicars of Christ: the Dark Side of the Papacy, affirms the following:

“For two centuries, pulpits thundered out not the peace of Christ but the duty of war against the infidel. And so, on hill and battlefield, the [Catholic] Crusader dug his cross-shaped sword in the earth and prayed Christ to be with him in the slaughter of his enemies.” (157)

But the never-changing church of Rome now says:

“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 242-243).

To anyone remotely familiar with the New Testament, this statement should show the double- sidedness of this Janus-like system. Romans speaks of the true faith of Abraham:

“Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham; who is the father of us all...He staggered not at the promise of God through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God; And being fully persuaded that, what he had promised, he was able also to perform. And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification.” (Rom.4:16-25)

Abraham believed God! How can Catholicism suggest that the Muslims who reject Biblical Christianity have the faith of Abraham? Gal.3:16 again testifies:

“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”

And again in Galatians 3:29:

“...IF ye be Christ's, THEN are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Emphasis mine)

Should not the Catholic people be equally concerned that:

“The pope allowed his good friend the Dalai Lama, to replace the cross with Buddha on the altar of St. Peter’s Church ”[?] (A Woman Rides the Beast, Hunt, 424).

The truth is that Buddhist and Hindu techniques are being taught to Catholic children under the guise of enhancing education. This is a frightening scenario. Dave Hunt, in his book A Woman Rides the Beast, page 420-421, exposes these techniques:

“Spirituality of the Catholic Educator, presents a sampling of Catholic education today: New Jersey/New York area Catholic schools utilize a program titled Energetics for Living: A Curriculum Enhancement Program for Peace Education, developed by Sisters Vergilla Jim, O.S.F and Claire Langie, O.S.U. Its purpose is ‘nothing less than the transformation of the child from within’ through contact with the creative ‘energy’ found ‘at the very center of their being’ leading to an experience of ‘the interconnectedness and interdependency of all living creatures....’ Contact with the child's ‘sacred center’ is effected through ‘the regular practice of meditation, visualization, relaxation, breathing, etc.’ They have adapted the Hindu greeting ‘Namaste’, which means ‘The God in me greets the God in you!’ Once the student sees that he and everything is God, ‘who would do violence to God or any of his creatures?’”

One finds every doctrine of the occult, New Age and mysticism in the Roman Catholic church.

From my own personal experiences in Catholic schools I see a great change, not only in doctrine, but in the whole attitude of loyalty to the old Roman faith. Out of curiousity, I wonder why the Archbishop of Canterbury declined the invitation to the first World Council Parliament of Religions in 1893 saying that Christianity was the only true religion and that participation in such a conference implied that the other religions were equal to Christianity? At least the archbishop was faithful to what he believed, whereas Pope John Paul II has been “unfaithful” (according to their own doctrine). The scriptures say:

“...he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed. For let not that man think that he shall receive any thing of the Lord. A double minded man is unstable in all his ways.” (Jas.1:6-8)

I would also have to ask why Pope John Paul II allowed a priestess of Shiva to anoint his forehead, the rite of initiation into the worship of Shiva, the goddess of war and destruction? Did not the pope “sin against faith” according to Rome’s own definition? Is the pope exempt from obedience and fidelity? According to Carl Matrisciana’s Gods of the New Age (1985), the Shivites are:

“...recognizable by the three horizontal lines painted on their forehead. These disciples of the god Shiva consider madness, one of Shiva’s attributes, to be one of the highest levels of spirituality! Many Hindus believe insanity to be a form of god-consciousness.”

By way of contrast, the Biblical perspective is truly revealing. In the account of the demoniac of Gadara we see a man driven out of his home to live among the tombs, (Luke 8:27 and 29) could not be bound by the townspeople to keep him from harming himself or others, (Mk.5:4) tormented by demons to such an extent he resorted to cutting himself with sharp rocks in attempts to alleviate the intense suffering. (Mk.5:5) After Jesus cast out the demons, the people found the man “...clothed, and in his right mind....” (Lk.8:35) Evidently, Jesus knew it was neither “desirable”, nor a form of “god- consciousness”, for a person to be out of his mind. It WAS, and IS, simply demon possession. It is seemingly unthinkable for the pope to allow a Shivite priestess, one who holds madness as a desirable state of mind, to mark his forehead (see Rev.13:16-17). The scripture aptly describes Pope John Paul II:

“...thou hast a whore’s forehead, thou refusedst to be ashamed (Jer.3:3)...such is the way of an adulterous woman; she eateth, and wipeth her mouth, and saith, I have done no wickedness.” (Prov.30:20)

As you read the following quote you will see that Pope John Paul II continues to disobey the old pre- Vatican II Catholic doctrines of faith.

“WHY DOES A CATHOLIC SIN AGAINST FAITH BY TAKING PART IN NON- CATHOLIC WORSHIP?-A Catholic sins against faith by taking part in non-Catholic worship, because he thus professes belief in a religion he knows is false. 1. It is wrong to be present at Protestant or Jewish services even when we do not participate in them, because such services are intended to honor God in a manner He does not wish to be honored in. If He instituted a Church of His own, He must wish to be honored in the ways of that Church. When necessary, for social obligations, a Catholic may be present at a non- Catholic wedding or funeral, but he must not participate in the services. In no case may he attend other services of non-Catholic churches, such as the installation of their ministers, sermons, etc.” (My Catholic Faith, Morrow, 203)

Apparently, the pope doesn’t believe in his own corrupt system enough to be faithful to it. He continually endeavors to ensnare even more unsuspecting, ignorant souls into his orbit of unquestioned obedience to the supposedly “true faith” he so blatantly prostitutes. (Matt.23:15)

Vatican II altered many things for the average Catholic. What used to be considered a “mortal” sin, such as eating anything past midnight before receiving communion, has now been changed to not eating anything one hour before. Listen to pre-Vatican II instructions:

“He [Communicant] must be fasting, at least from midnight; for so the Church commands, agreeable to a most ancient and apostolical tradition. So that if through inadvertence a person has taken anything, though it were no more than one drop or crumb, after twelve o’clock at night, he must by no means receive (Communion) that day; it would be A CRIME TO ATTEMPT IT" (The Catholic Christian Instructed in The Sacraments, Sacrifice, Ceremonies, etc., Most Rev. Dr. Challoner, 100) (Emphasis mine).

Eating meat on Friday was considered for years to be a “mortal” sin (deserving of hell for all eternity). Now Catholics are taught this was only a “discipline,” practiced voluntarily, with no penalty for non-compliance. I wonder how those damned to hell for this infraction would feel about this turnaround which leaves them guiltless on this charge, but with no recourse. Their eternal destination rests solely on the whims of a very fallible papacy.

At one time the recipient of the communion was forbidden to touch the host, or chew it in any way. Now they may do both. Just listen to the strict rebuke of one priest before Vatican II, “Rev.” George Searle in his book How To Become A Catholic, 83-85:

"It is very difficult for the priest to give Communion [God] to people holding their mouths shut without striking it [God] against their teeth, in which case it is very probable that it [God] may be broken, or at any rate that some particle of it [God] may be knocked off. Don't follow their bad example then, but hold your mouth wide open, and your tongue well out; then the priest can lay the Communion [God] on it without fear, and without danger of accident. When it [God] is laid on your tongue, withdraw your tongue immediately, and then close your mouth, being careful not to do so till the tongue is inside; then swallow it [God] as soon as possible. It [God] must not be allowed to melt in the mouth; if it [God] does, you do not receive the Sacrament [God] at all. If, however it [God] should adhere to the roof of the mouth, so that it [God] cannot immediately be swallowed, do not be disturbed, but loosen it [God] with your tongue; you will pretty certainly be able to do this before it [God] is all dissolved. DO NOT ON ANY ACCOUNT, TOUCH IT [God] with your fingers. And take care NOT TO CHEW it [God], or even touch it [God] with your teeth. Having swallowed it [God]you have now received; and now is the time, more than any other, for fervent prayer, when the Real Presence of our Lord is with you. THIS REAL PRESENCE ONLY REMAINS WHILE THE BLESSED SACRAMENT [God] STILL CONTINUES UNDESTROYED, WHICH WILL ONLY BE FOR A FEW MINUTES AT MOST, for it [God] will usually be acted on more quickly by the stomach than by the mouth; but even AFTER IT [God] HAS PASSED AWAY, prayer and thanksgiving for what has been received should be continued for some time...if possible, for as much as a quarter of an hour" (Emphasis mine).

At one time, Limbo, a place for babies who died and were not baptized (they would never be permitted to look on the face of God), was taught as doctrine. Today it is just an out-dated idea. Can you imagine the torment, the grief and the sorrow that whole families endured when they could not, for whatever reason, baptize their babies in the Catholic church?

Many modern theologians are changing their ideas on purgatory as well. Some teach it is like “summer school”, and deny the old belief that it is a place of torment to “cleanse” (or purge) sins. Jesus took all our sins and nailed them to his cross. (Col.2:13-14) A Christian goes to be with the Lord immediately upon death. (Lk.23:42-43; 2 Cor.5:8; Phil.1:23) The false doctrine of purgatory, a place where you must suffer for your sins, is an invention of the papacy designed to keep the laity in fear and subservience to their priests who say masses to “shorten” the time dead loved ones spend there before they’re “allowed” into heaven.

At one time the church taught that one did not receive the sacrament of the Eucharist unless he did both “eat” the bread AND “drink” the blood. But Rome eventually changed that doctrine under the pretense of fear the people would “spill” it on the ground. People must have been much neater before the 15th century!

“Communion under both kinds [bread and wine] was the prevailing usage in Apostolic Times" (Cath. Encyc., IV, 176). "In the fifth century Pope Gelasius commanded the laity to receive under both kinds" (Question Box, 446, 1913 edition)"...Gelasius emphatically condemned persons who abstained from the chalice" (Cath. Dict.., 202). "Communion 'under both kinds' entirely and formally abolished in 1416 by the Council of Constance" (Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs, Chevalier Artaud de Montier, I, 111).

These are, after all, just “small” changes. The discarding of a law may seem to be of no real significance, but the tragic scars inflicted by those laws are not so easily healed. The instability of this system leaves the thinking person to wonder just what new law Rome may come up with to condemn her subjects, or which old law she’ll drop, while through clenched teeth, adamantly maintaining she does not change! Proverbs warns:

“...her ways are moveable, that thou canst not know them.” (Prov.5:1-8)

One of the great changes that came about after Vatican II was the “Novus Ordo”(New Order) or “New Mass”. Despite the decree Quo Primum by Pope Pius V on July 19, 1570 which stated:

“We determine and order that NEVER shall anything be added to, omitted from, or CHANGED in this Missal...We specifically warn all persons in authority, of whatever dignity or rank... NEVER to use or permit any ceremonies or Mass prayers other than the ones contained in this Missal ordered by the Sacred Council of Trent...We herewith declare that it is in virtue of our Apostolic Authority that we decree and determine that this our present order and decree is to last IN PERPETUITY AND CAN NEVER BE LEGALLY REVOKED OR AMENDED AT A FUTURE DATE...And if anyone would nevertheless ever dare to attempt any action contrary to this order of ours, given for all times, let him know that he has incurred the wrath of Almighty God and of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul” (The Dawning Of The New Age New World Order, Cutty, 148) (Emphasis mine).

Needless to say, the Mass was amended AND changed. The promise that one could go anywhere in the world and hear a Latin Mass was now gone.

In Our Sunday's Visitor's The Catholic Answer, Volume 11, No.6, Jan./Feb. 1998, pages 11 & 12 we read of one Catholic’s concerns:

“Q. Here in England the words ‘that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God the almighty Father’ are used at the offertory. Yet in the papal document ‘The Holy Eucharist’ (Feb.24, 1980, section 9, paragraph 5) the Holy Father, reflecting on the presentation of the gifts, has the following words: ‘that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable...’ He actually has this phrase in quotation marks. He goes on to say in the next sentence, "These words are binding since they express the character of the entire Eucharistic Liturgy and the fullness of its divine and ecclesial content." The dictionary says that "binding" means to be obeyed or carried out. Has the Church shifted its position regarding these words? -P.L., England”

“Father” Peter M.J. Stravinskas attempts to answer:

“A. The Holy Father, of course, published this document in Latin and was therefore using the original Latin text of the Mass as his source for the citation. The Latin speaks of ‘ac meum ac vestrum sacrificium’ (‘my sacrifice and yours’). The official English translation has conflated that to ‘our sacrifice.’ This is but ONE OF THE HUNDREDS OF INACCURACIES with which the English version of the Mass is riddled; and it is why it is so important for the revision, currently underway, to be carried out with total attention given to fidelity to a real translation--and not a MERE PARAPHRASE. Several times in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you will also find that the editors (in order to make a theological point using the Sacred Liturgy) had to circumvent the approved English text and provide a more literal translation: this should not have to happen, especially because of our principal of lex orandi, lex credendi (the law of prayer establishes the belief). The St. Gregory Foundation for Latin Liturgy has been involved in the retranslation process for almost a decade now and has produced its own translation of the Mass as a contribution toward the effort to obtain A MORE FAITHFUL RENDERING of the Missale Romanum. Copies are available for $10, plus $1 postage by writing to: St. Gregory Foundation, 21 Fairview Avenue, Mt. Pocono, PA 18344. The bottom- line answer to your query, however, is that while INADEQUATE AND INACCURATE, the official English translation is not heretical” (Emphasis mine).

For $10 you can buy a “more faithful rendering” of the Mass that, according to Vatican 1, could “NEVER...be added to, omitted from, or CHANGED”. Does this mean that the magesterium of Vatican II will incur the “wrath of Almighty God”? What does this say for those who agree with them and attend the changed Mass? Does not the Bible warn us:

“...And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.”[?] (Mt.15:14)

How blind are the leaders of Rome? The following statement seems to indicate that a real problem exists within the walls of the Vatican:

“Catholic scholar Dr. Malachi Martin, formerly a Jesuit professor at Georgetown University and a confidant of Vatican insiders, flatly declared in a recent New York City interview: ‘Yes, it’s true, Lucifer is enthroned in the Catholic Church’” (Flashpoint, Texe Marr, July 1997).

When confronted about Satanists in Rome, Dr. Malachi Martin replied:

“Anybody who is acquainted with the state of affairs in the Vatican in the last 35 years is well aware that the prince of darkness had and still has his surrogates in the court of St. Peter in Rome.”

Archbishop Emmanuel Milingo also stunned an international audience of bishops, priests, nuns, and laity in Rome by exposing Satanic worship by the Catholic hierarchy. As far back as 1976, Pope Paul VI shocked a papal audience by confiding:

“The smoke of Satan has entered the very sanctuary of St. Peter’s Cathedral” (Flashpoint, Marrs, July 1997).

Peter De Rosa makes some interesting observations in his book Vicars of Christ: the Dark Side of the Papacy:

“The Second Vatican Council, 1962-5, was aimed at liberalizing the Roman Church. No sooner was it over than the old bureaucrats took charge; they have been in charge ever since, interpreting liberal decrees in an illiberal way. Even the First Vatican Council, summoned by Pius IX in 1869 to declare him infallible, refused to discuss the draft decrees drawn up by the Curia. They did not represent, the bishops said, the faith of the church, only one biased school of theology. But, in the end, the bureaucrats always win. They remain in place when the more liberally minded men have dispersed. Curial officials, many of whom are present at this mass, have always hated councils for daring to threaten their infallibility. As one embittered diocesan bishop said recently: ‘The Curia is a Church Council in permanent session’” (19-20).

He goes on to say:

“Pius IX, like the present pontiff, was convinced that the church has managed to go doctrinally unchanged throughout the ages. The faithful in St. Peter's share that conviction, believing that the papacy is chiefly responsible for this almost miraculous continuity. The fact is, the church has changed radically in even vital areas such as sex, money and salvation. To take two of the more interesting examples. EVERY PONTIFF UP TO AND INCLUDING THE NINETEENTH CENTURY CONDEMNED THE TAKING OF INTEREST ON LOANS (USURY) UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES. It did not matter whether the interest charged was high or low, whether the loan was made to a poor peasant or an emperor. Centuries after peasant communities ceased to be the norm, the church went on condemning interest-taking and, surprisingly has never officially withdrawn its ban. Yet today the Vatican has its own bank, established in 1942 by Pius XII, which has recently been the focus of terrible financial scandals. A second proof of radical change concerns the Catholic teaching, ‘There is no salvation outside the church’. It was first formulated to exclude all the unbaptized, such as Jews and unbelievers. Even babies born of Christians who died before baptism were said to be excluded from heaven. Today, John Paul still teaches there is no salvation outside the church but ‘church’ and ‘salvation’ are so widely interpreted that all people of goodwill, even atheists, can be saved. This linguistic trick stops Catholics seeing that traditional teaching has been reversed. To admit change would expose too much of the past as a bad dream. That is why, like all authoritarian bodies, the Catholic Church refuses to admit she has changed in essentials, even when she has improved. Apart from these pointers, it is enough to suggest that almost every document of Vatican II would have been condemned as heretical by Vatican I" (21-22) (Emphasis mine).

With all these changes going on, how can Rome maintain, “She is the one institution that never changes”[?] (Faith of Our Fathers, Gibbons, 83). Cardinal Gibbons goes on to say:

“If only one instance could be given in which the Church ceased to teach a doctrine which had been previously held, that single instance would be the death blow of their claim of infallibilty” (Faith of Our Fathers, Gibbons, 61).

Bishop Noll, in Catholic Facts, on page 27, gives people a sure test of the claims of Catholicism:

“If it be not identical in belief, in government etc., with the primitive church, then it is not the Church of Christ.”

Needless to say, Catholicism is not the Church of Christ, and never was. She was apostate from the day of her conception. The evolution of her pagan doctrines and practices are full proof that she is not identical to the primitive church of which we have record in the Bible. Proverbs 24:21 warns, “...meddle not with them that are given to change.” Malachi 3:6 reveals, “For I am the LORD, I change not....” The word of God is settled in heaven (Psa.119:89) and not subject to change as is the words of men.

Jeremiah (44:16-19) warned the men of Judah to turn from their wickedness and to stop walking after the imaginations of their own hearts. They replied:

“As for the word that thou hast spoken unto us in the name of the LORD, we will not hearken unto thee. But WE WILL certainly DO WHATSOEVER THING GOETH FORTH OUT OF OUR OWN MOUTH, to burn incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and were well, and saw no evil. But since we left off to burn incense to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, we have wanted all things, and have been consumed by the sword and by the famine. And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her, without our men?”

The Jews thought that their well-being depended upon their worship of the “queen of heaven”. They admit in verse 17 that these commands were not of God, but rather their own words. Catholicism has fallen into the same trap of trusting in her own words instead of obeying the word of God. The Lord’s anger was kindled against the Jews for putting their own words above His so that he punished them severely. Jeremiah relayed a message from God to those who would escape, “...[and they] shall know whose words shall stand, mine or theirs.” (Jer.44:28)

The prophets always warned Israel about the consequences of rejecting His word:

“For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as iniquity and idolatry. BECAUSE THOU HAST REJECTED THE WORD OF THE LORD, he hath also rejected thee....” (1Sa.15:23) (Emphasis mine)

The leaders of Israel caused the people to fall into apostasy over and over again because they would not heed the word of God, but rather leaned on the imaginations of their own hearts.

“But if they had stood in my counsel, and had caused my people to hear my words, then they should have turned them from their evil way, and from the evil of their doings.” (Jer.23:22)

Seeing then that the words of Rome have changed, would it not be wise to believe something that is reliable and eternal?

“Heaven and earth shall pass away: but MY WORDS SHALL NOT PASS AWAY.” (Mr.13:31)

In 1229, the Bible was placed on the Index of Forbidden Books by the Council of Toulouse, thereby effectively taking the word of the Lord out of the people’s reach. Rome’s attitude toward the word of God as a “dead and speechless book” (Question Box, 67) can be found in many of her writings. Two such examples are:

“The very nature of the Bible ought to prove to any thinking man the impossibility of its being the one safe method to find out what the Saviour taught” (Question Box, 67, 1913 edition).

“The Scripture indeed is a divine book but it is a dead letter, which has to be explained, and cannot exercise the action which the preacher can obtain” (Our Priesthood, 155).

Of course, if any Catholic would pick up the word and read it, they’d find out that it is not “dead and speechless”, but rather “quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword.” (Heb.4:12)

“Is not my word like as a fire? saith the LORD; and like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?” (Jer.23:29)

With the invention of the printing press, and the ability to have the Bible accessed by the common people, there also came a change of tactics on the part of the Catholic hierarchy. If the laity could not be kept from reading the scriptures, “Mother church” would provide her own version, from corrupt manuscripts, that would reinforce her unbiblical dogmas.

Rome continues to minimize the effect the word has on people by telling them such things as:

“...it has ever been practically impossible for men, generally, to find out Christ from the Bible only” (Question Box, 70).

Rome dreads the power of the word, so they keep their people fearful to read and interpret it. Most Catholics do not realize the promises that come with seeking God in His word. After all, did not the Lord Jesus say , “Sanctify them through thy truth: THY WORD IS TRUTH.”[?] (Jn.17:17) (Emphasis mine)

“Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, That I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?” (Pr.22:20-21)

And again:

“I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.” (Ec.3:14)

By Rebecca Sexton and the Staff of FCFC

Free Home Page