Letter to an Anti-Catholic

A letter to Dr. Ed DeVries regarding his webpage, 

“Are We Being Led To Rome”¹

Gary Hoge

Dear Dr. DeVries,

I read your web page, and I felt I needed to respond. I am a convert to Catholicism from evangelical Protestantism (I was a Baptist), and in the spirit of Christian love, I must tell you that you have no real understanding of the Catholic Church, or the doctrines it teaches. None of the seven differences you listed between Catholicism and “Bible Christianity” reflect the actual teachings of the Catholic Church. What you have attacked is not the Catholic Church as it actually is, but a caricature of it. I will prove that by citing the relevant sections of the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC).

1. Catholics Preach A False Gospel

You wrote that the Bible teaches that we are saved by grace through Faith and not of works, but that Catholicism denies this. That is untrue. According to the Catholic Church, “Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men . . . Our justification comes from the grace of God . . . This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God’s gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself . . . no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification.” (CCC 1992, 1998, 2010). The Council of Trent, convened in response to the Protestant Reformation, declared the same thing: “we are therefore said to be justified freely, because that none of those things which precede justification—whether faith or works—merit the grace itself of justification. For, if it be a grace, it is not now by works, otherwise, as the same Apostle says, grace is no more grace.” (Decree on Justification, January 13, 1547).

2. Catholics Grant Salvation Before Repentance

You state that the Bible is in “firm opposition to the doctrine of Baptismal Regeneration.” How then do you account for the fact that this doctrine is not only the teaching of the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Churches, but also the majority of Protestants? If yours is the true gospel doctrine, how do you account for the fact that no one believed it before the Reformation? Have you ever read the writings of the very first Christians, sir? Their writings, more than anything else, persuaded me that the early Church was Catholic, not Protestant. Among other things, they were quite emphatic in their belief in “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins” (Nicene Creed). 

However, this doctrine is not as bad as you may think. In the case of adults, repentance is always required in order for their baptism to be licit. And if some unrepentant sinner were illicitly baptized, the Catholic Church teaches that he would not receive the fruits of baptism (regeneration and the forgiveness of sins). There is no forgiveness without repentance, not even in the Catholic Church. “There is no one, however wicked and guilty, who may not confidently hope for forgiveness, provided his repentance is honest.” (CCC 982).

May I ask what you think happens to infants who die before they reach the age of reason? In my Baptist church it was commonly taught that all such infants would be saved, because Jesus said that the kingdom of heaven belonged to such as these (Matthew 19:14). So, although we taught that faith and repentance are required for adults, we felt that God made an exception in the case of infants. The Catholic Church (and just about every other church, too) makes exactly the same exception, so I don’t understand the basis for your objection to that practice. Also, remember that the Catholic Church, along with the Eastern Orthodox and most Protestant churches, believes that it is possible to forfeit salvation. So if that baptized infant grows up to be an unrepentant sinner, he will not be saved. God cannot be mocked, nor can he be “tricked” into granting salvation to the unrepentant.

3. Catholics Belittle Our Lord Jesus Christ

You seem to be saying here that because there is “one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” that therefore no one else can serve as a mediator between God and man, not even in a secondary sense. If so, let me just ask you this: Do you intercede with God on behalf of your brothers and sisters? Do you ask them to intercede for you? If you do, are you not acting as a mediator between them and God? Are they not acting as a mediator between you and God? Of course. Intercessory prayer, in which a Christian goes before God on behalf of another, is the very definition of “mediator.”

Look at the verses immediately preceding the one you quoted: “I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone—for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quite lives in all godliness and holiness. This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (1 Timothy 2:1-4). God commands all of us Christians to be mediators. Why? Because “there is one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5). Jesus is the only mediator of the New Covenant. Our own mediation on behalf of our brothers and sisters depends entirely upon his.

In saying that “every time the Mass is performed they [Catholics] ceremonially re-crucify our savior” you have made a common, but elementary blunder. This is not the teaching of the Catholic Church. On the contrary, the Church teaches that “Christ, our Lord and God, was once and for all to offer himself to God the Father by his death on the altar of the cross, to accomplish there an everlasting redemption. But because his priesthood was not to end with his death, at the Last Supper ‘on the night when he was betrayed,’ [he wanted] to leave to his beloved spouse the Church a visible sacrifice (as the nature of man demands) by which the bloody sacrifice which he was to accomplish once for all on the cross would be re-presented, its memory perpetuated until the end of the world.” (CCC 1366). Christ is not ceremonially re-crucified in the Mass. He was crucified once for all on Calvary.

Also, your charge that we are performing “religious cannibalism” actually backfires on you, because it encourages me to remind you that the second century pagans made the same accusation against the early Church. Turtullian and Minucius Felix devoted much of their writings to refuting the charge of cannibalism. This demonstrates that the early Church, within living memory of the apostles, also believed in transubstantiation, as you would know if you read their writings. I’ll give you one example: Ignatius of Antioch wrote, 

Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. … They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes” (Letter to the Romans, A.D. 110). 

Ignatius is thought by many to have been a disciple of John, the “disciple whom Jesus loved.” If that’s true, then he learned about the Eucharist directly from the mouth of the man who quoted Jesus as saying “my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink” (John 6:55). Do you really think that John (and the other apostles) were such incompetent teachers that they weren’t able to explain something as simple as a symbolic memorial supper? I guess they must have been, because the symbolic interpretation that you advocate was unheard of for more than a thousand years after Christ. (Berengerius of Tours, who died in 1088, was the first known Christian to advocate it).

4. Catholics View the Pope as Equal with God

This would come as quite a surprise to the pope! The Catholic Church teaches that no one is equal with God. On the contrary, the Church teaches that “Christian faith differs from our faith in any human person. It is right and just to entrust oneself wholly to God and to believe absolutely what he says. It would be futile and false to place such faith in a creature” (CCC 150). As for the pope allegedly being sinless, I’m afraid you have confused “infallibility” (absence of error) with “impeccability” (absence of sin). The pope is a sinner saved by grace, just like you and me. He is certainly not sinless, and the Church does not teach otherwise. In fact, there have been a handful of popes (during the Renaissance) who were so busy whoring they hardly had time to run the Church! We are blessed that the current pope is a godly and moral man, but Catholic theology does not guarantee that any given pope will be so.

Also, the concept of infallibility doesn’t mean that everything the pope says is the word of God. Most of the pronouncements of the popes are just as fallible as yours and mine. However, the Church does hold that when the pope, in his official capacity, makes a declaration regarding either faith or morals, that is binding upon the whole church, the Holy Spirit prevents him from teaching error. This is extremely rare; most popes never make such a declaration. Further, the pope is bound by the previous 2,000 years of Church teaching (and that includes written Scripture). He cannot go against that.

5. Catholics Worship Idols

This is silly. Catholics worship the triune God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and him only. You don’t seem to understand the difference between “worship” and “honor.” Catholics honor (show respect to) statues of Jesus, for example, in the same way patriotic Americans honor (show respect to) the flag. The flag is just a piece of colorful cloth, but we honor it because of what it represents. In the same way, a statue of Jesus is just plaster and paint, but we honor it because of who it represents. A Catholic no more worships a statue of Jesus than a patriotic American worships the American flag.

6. The Catholic Church is a Church of Bondage and Butchery

You said, “The Catholic Church has always discouraged its members from reading their Bibles.” Where do you get that idea? On the contrary, the Catholic Church has always encouraged Bible reading:

St. John Chrysostom (344/354 -407 AD), Doctor of the Church, wrote, 

This is what has ruined everything, your thinking that the reading of scripture is for monks only, when you need it more than they do. Those who are placed in the world, and who receive wounds every day have the most need of medicine. So, far worse even than not reading the scriptures is the idea that they are superfluous. Such things were invented by the devil. (quote taken from St. John’s Homily on Matthew 2:5).

      

Pope St. Gregory I (died 604 AD) wrote, 

The Emperor of heaven, the Lord of men and of angels, has sent you His epistles for your life’s advantage-and yet you neglect to read them eagerly. Study them, I beg you, and meditate daily on the words of your Creator. Learn the heart of God in the words of God, that you may sigh more eagerly for things eternal, that your soul may be kindled with greater longings for heavenly joys. (Letters, 5, 46).

 

St. Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153 AD), Doctor and Father of the Church, wrote, 

The person who thirsts for God eagerly studies and meditates on the inspired Word, knowing that there, he is certain to find the One for whom he thirsts.” (quote taken from his Commentary on the Song of Songs, Sermon 23:3).

 

Pope St. Pius X (1903-1914 AD) wrote, 

Nothing would please us more than to see our beloved children form the habit of reading the Gospels - not merely from time to time, but every day. (Papal document of 1907).

Finally, the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “The Church forcefully and specifically exhorts all the Christian faithful … to learn the surpassing knowledge of Jesus Christ, by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures. Ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ.” (CCC 133).

You wrote, “During the dark ages the Catholic Church shed the blood of over 68,000,000 Baptists in an attempt to prevent the Bible from being placed into the hands of the common people.” Where do you get your facts, sir? For one thing, there were no Baptists in the dark ages, since the Baptist denomination did not exist prior to its foundation in Amsterdam in 1607. Yet you say the Catholic Church killed 68 million (!?) alleged Baptists. Do you have even a shred of evidence to back up such a wild accusation? (see my paper, “Objection: The Catholic Church butchered 68 million people during the Middle Ages.”

7. Catholicism Denies the Inspiration and Authority of Scripture

Here’s what the Catholic Church really teaches about the “inspiration and authority of Scripture”: 

The inspired books teach the truth. Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures. (CCC 107).

You wrote, “In 300 AD, our Baptist forefathers decided to live in caves rather than surrender their churches to Rome.” With all due respect, sir, your understanding of Church history is pure fantasy. The first Baptist didn’t see the light of day until one thousand, three hundred and seven years after 300 AD! I’m sure you’d like to be able to show historical continuity for your denomination back to the time of Christ, but you simply can’t do it. The Baptist Church prior to 1607 exists only in your imagination. Who were these alleged early Baptists? What were their names? Where are their writings? And please don’t tell me the Catholic Church destroyed their writings and suppressed all memory of them (if that were true, how do you know about them?) The writings of the ancient heretics (the Arians, Monophysites, Nestorians, Docetist, etc.) survive to this day. Would you claim that the Catholic Church only erased the writings of these mythical early Baptists, but allowed all the others to survive? Wishful thinking, and pure fantasy.

Finally, you wrote, “I could write an entire book that will explain that Catholicism is not Christianity.” I’ll bet you could, but only because your “facts” have no basis in reality. What you have done is create a straw-man, a caricature of the Catholic Church chock-full of ridiculous doctrines that the Church doesn’t really teach. Of course your straw-man is not Christianity, but neither is it Catholicism. I challenge you, sir, to learn what the Catholic Church says about its own doctrines, then try to prove that those doctrines are not real Christianity.  I tried to do that, but could not, and that is why I left Protestantism. I found that not only were Catholic doctrines in harmony with the Bible, but they were also clearly the same doctrines that were held by the early Church, as evidenced by the writings of the people who were actually in the early Church.

I assume that you are, in good faith, trying to lead people to what you perceive as the truth, and God bless you for it. But I pray that he will lead you to the true fullness of Biblical Christianity, which is found only in the Catholic Church.

God bless you!

Gary