Can A Christian Remain A Roman Catholic?

by John Phillips
© Copyright 1982 Moody Bible Institute of Chicago. Reprinted from the April issue of MOODY MONTHLY. Used by permission. All rights reserved. This article may not be reproduced in whole or in part, except for brief quotations in a review, without written permission from the copyright owner.


Rarely in all its long and colorful history has the Roman Catholic Church been in such internal disarray as it as today. For centuries the Catholic Church presented to the world a united front. It appeared before men as a powerful monolithic structure, one Church under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Beneath the facade, of course, there were differences and power struggles, but the Church as a whole gave the appearance of unity and strength.
This is not so today. Not only has Rome lost a great deal of its secular power
but its very life seems threatened from within. There are five major
theological cleavages discernible in the Roman Catholic fold today, and any
evaluation of Catholicism needs to take them into account:
The liberal theologians are convinced that almost everything Rome has stood for
down through the centuries is hopelessly out of date. They are challenging all
the traditional dogmas of their Church Ñ Papal authority, an exclusively male
priesthood, even the idea of God and belief in ChristÕs resurrection. These
theologians are up in arms against the ChurchÕs ban on homosexuality, on
abortion, on the celibacy of the priesthood. They represent a powerful liberal
faction. Their weight in the underdeveloped countries of Latin America is
thrown on the side of social change even if it means an outright alliance with
communism. Maryknoll priests, for instance, have been vocal and active in
insurrectionist movements in numerous countries around the world (TIME
magazine, July 6, 1981, p.36). So have many Jesuit priests, (TIME, Sept. 7,
1981).

The charismatics have made deep inroads into the Roman Catholic community and
are, probably, the most disruptive force with which the Roman Catholic
Establishment has to deal. The charismatics insist that the Catholic Church can
only be saved by the exercise of the various gifts of the Spirit such as
tongues. They would like to see the practice of these gifts become a regular
part of the life of the Church in every parish and congregation. The idea sends
shivers down the spines of Catholic conservatives.

The traditionalists look upon the liberals and the Marxists within the Roman
Catholic communion with horror as heretics. This faction in the Church regarded
the policies of Pope Paul VI as suicidal. His view was that Marxism was
changing and that communism was on the wavelength of the future. The Church,
therefore, should make its peace with communism while it still could.

The conservatives occupy a half-way position between the traditionalists and
the activists. They think the Church should become more liberal, but not at the
expense of old-time dogmas nor at the expense of well established methods of
Church government.

The radicals would go much farther than the conservatives. They think the
church should give up all its social, political, and financial interests. In
their opinion the Roman Catholic Church should fall back upon its dogmas and
approach mankind with these well-proven assets.

For a full discussion of these differences see Malachi MartinÕs, The Final
Conclave  (Stein and Day).

The Roman Catholic church has a long history of absorbing challenges and change
and, at the same time, of maintaining the Establishment which changes very
little.

The present Pope is a doctrinal conservative, an advocate of human rights, and
a determined foe of communism. He uses his great personal charm to make friends
around the world, but he stands firm on all the traditional dogmas of Rome. At
his inauguration, for instance, he twice paid homage to the Virgin Mary who is
venerated with extraordinary zeal in his native Poland. He also spoke of
himself as ÒBishop of Rome,Ó (TIME, Oct. 30, 1978, p.56). In his tour of the
United States he make a tremendous impression everywhere, but firmly and
repeatedly voiced his unyielding stand on traditional Catholic dogma despite
the fact that some of his positions are distasteful to many American Catholics
(TIME, Oct. 15, 1979, p.15).

This is what we must remember when considering the position of a born-again
believer who elects to remain within the Roman Catholic fold. Roman Catholicism
does not change. At heart it is the same as it ever was. Dissidents come and
go, but the Church remains impassively the same. It will make every effort to
accommodate and absorb what it can of the opposition, but its basic structure
and beliefs will remain unchanged.

Rome did not arrive at its dogmatic positions hastily nor lightly. She is the
product of many centuries of gradual departure from the true faith of the
Church found in the Word of God. For instance:

¥ Prayers for the dead were introduced in 310 ¥       The lighting of candles
in 320 ¥       The worship of saints about 375 ¥       The mass was adopted in
394 ¥       The worship of Mary began to develop about 432 ¥       Priests
began to assume distinctive robes in 593 ¥       The doctrine of purgatory was
introduced in 593 ¥       Worship in Latin (since repealed) was mandated in 600
¥       Claims to Papal Supremacy took form foot in 606 ¥       Feasts in honor
of the Virgin Mary began in 650 ¥       The worship of images and relics was
authorized in 788 ¥       The invention of holy water was about 850 ¥       The
canonization of saints was formalized in 993 ¥       Feasts for the dead were
introduced 1003 ¥       The celibacy of the priesthood was declared 1074 ¥
The dogma of Papal infallibility was announced 1076 ¥       Prayer beads were
introduced in 1090 ¥       The doctrine that there are seven sacraments was
introduced in 1140 ¥       The sale of indulgences began 1190 ¥       The wafer
was substituted for the loaf in 1200 ¥       The dogma of transubstantiation
was was adopted 1215 ¥       Confession was instituted 1215 ¥       The
adoration of the Wafer began 1220 ¥       The Ave Maria was introduced 1316 ¥
The cup was taken from the laity in 1415 ¥       Purgatory was officially
decreed in 1439 ¥       Roman tradition was placed on the same level as
Scripture 1546 ¥       The Apocrypha was received into the Canon 1546 ¥
The immaculate conception of the Virgin Mary was announced 1854 ¥       The
doctrine of the temporal power of the Pope proclaimed 1864 ¥       The personal
corporeal presence of the Virgin in heaven 1950 [TranscriberÕs note:
Homosexuality declared an acceptable alternate lifestyle in 1990]

This is Rome. These are the dogmas we associate with Rome. They are
unscriptural. All of them are the very antithesis of New Testament doctrine. In
deference to a more educated and enlightened constituency, the Church might
well make a modification here and there. For instance, in 1966 Pope Paul VI
proclaimed an end to the traditional obligation that Catholics abstain from
eating meat on Fridays. He abolished the Index of Forbidden Books, and demoted
a whole host of saints who had been canonized by the Church in previous ages
and revered and prayed to by the faithful ever since.

Changes such as these have not changed Romanism. Roman Catholics today are
permitted to read the Bible with a measure of approval by the Church, but the
Church itself does not really like the Bible. It banned it for centuries from
the laity, burned it, and persecuted those who loved it.

Roman Catholics today are permitted to look upon their Protestant neighbors as
Òseparated brethren,Ó but what the Church would really like to do is to welcome
them back into the fold of Roman Catholicism.

We will believe that Rome has changed when it repudiates the Papacy, removes
all images from its churches, denounces the dogma of purgatory as unscriptural,
sets aside the confessional, renounces the mass, and calls an end to the
veneration of the Virgin Mary. Until Rome does these things, it remains Rome Ñ
a vast, formal system of religion.

That is not to say, of course, that there are not a number, perhaps a very
considerable number, of genuine Christians within the Roman Catholic Church.
Why do they stay there? That is a question each one would have to answer for
himself.

Some stay there because it is the easiest thing to do. The pressure of family,
friends, and fond memories perhaps makes a break very difficult. Others stay
out of ignorance of the essentially unbiblical nature of the Roman Church.

Some stay because they feel they have a ministry there. They hope that,
perhaps, they can influence others toward a more Scriptural Christian belief.

Some stay because they have not seen that while Rome often uses the same words
as evangelical Christians Ñ grace, confession, regeneration, baptism and so on
Ñ she does not by any means mean the same thing by those words.

Should a believer stay in the Roman communion?

The Word of God is uncompromising:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath
righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with
darkness? and what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that
believeth with an infidel? and what agreement hath the temple of God with
idols? for ye are the temple of the living God... Wherefore come out from among
them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and
I will receive you, and will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and
my daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (2 Corinthians 6:14-18).

In a day and age of general compromise, toleration, and ecumenicalism, such a
statement of Scripture rings out to some as harsh and uncompromising. But then,
the Holy Spirit never compromises with error. The early Church did not make its
lasting impact on society by compromising with the religions by which it was
surrounded. Down through the ages those who have counted for God in this world
have been those who have taken their stand with God against the world.

It was Archimedes who said that, given a long enough lever and a fulcrum far
enough out of the world, he would be able to lift the world. One cannot lift a
barrel be remaining in the barrel. It is necessary to get out first, then the
barrel can be lifted. It was not Lot who made as impact with God on behalf of
sin-ridden Sodom. He had become too much part and parcel of its system. It was
Abraham, the separated believer, well removed from Sodom and all that it stood
for, who counted in the hour of crisis (Genesis 14).

So, whether it be Rome or anything else that spells out compromise in our
lives, let us take to heart the call of the Holy Spirit to separate ourselves
from all that in unscriptural and then to count for God.