The Inconsistencies of Rome
By G. W. Caviness
Teaching Contradictory Doctrines — Yet Claiming Infallibility LATELY I have been very much interested in reading the Bible in Latin together with the translation into Spanish, by Felipe Scio, of San Miguel, and his notes and comments on the text. This work is authorized and approved by the Catholic Church, so it ought to be good Roman Catholic doctrine. Almost the first note on the New Testament is on Matthew 1, and is with reference to the genealogy of Christ. He says, “As Jesus Christ came to save sinners, He did not refuse to be born of sinners.” Then he calls attention to the fact that among the ancestors of Christ were a number of bad men and women, some of whom were of another race than the Jews. This note is in harmony with what the Bible teaches in other places; that is, that Jesus Christ took upon Himself the nature of man, that He was tempted in all points as we are, but that in spite of His human nature, He lived a perfect life, showing that it is possible for human beings to live a holy life here in the world. But the Roman Church, although having approved this teaching, which was written some time ago, now teaches an entirely different and contradictory doctrine. She teaches the immaculate conception of Mary the mother of Jesus. She teaches that Mary was born holy, like Christ Himself, and sinless by nature. If this be true, then Christ was not born of sinners, and did not partake of the sinful nature of man, and could not have been tempted in all points as we are. There is here an out-and-out contradiction, and both doctrines have been taught and approved by the Church of Rome. She declares herself infallible; but one has only to read the doctrines and teachings of Rome at one time, and compare them with her doctrines and teachings in another age of the world, to see that far from being infallible, she is the most fallible, contradictory, and unreliable church or sect that has ever existed. BOTH REPUDIATES AND AFFIRMS THE COUNCILS
On reading farther, I came to Matt. 7: 28, 29, “When Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at His doctrine: for He taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.” Commenting on this passage, this Catholic writer said as follows: “The scribes and Pharisees based their teachings and doctrines on the opinions of their great men and teachers of the past, and on the decisions of their councils, and on traditions, which, said He, were purely human. Hence the great difference in their teaching and the teaching of the Greatest, who based His doctrines on the Scriptures.” If the opinions of learned men and traditions among the Jews were entirely human, it is true also in our time that doctrines based on traditions and the opinions of men and councils are purely human. It is certainly just as true now as it was then; and the Roman Catholic Church, which bases so much, indeed almost all its doctrines and practices, on tradition, and decrees of councils and popes, has no other than a purely human foundation. The early writers of the Catholic Church understood the matter very well, but those of our time have degenerated very much from first principles. WHY THEN PRAY FOR THE DEAD?
On Matt. 24: 44, where it says, “Be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh,” this learned author says: “This has application primarily to the end of the world, and the signs that are to take place at that time. But for every one, the day of death is uncertain, and every one should take heed and be prepared, that it may not overtake him unprepared; for the condition in which death finds us fixes our destiny forever.” If the destiny of every one is fixed forever at the time of his death, then what can be the use of saying masses for one after he is dead? The Catholic Church has made a great deal of money by saying masses for the dead in order to get them out of purgatory. In the city of Mexico, after nearly four hundred years, they are still saying masses for the repose of the soul of Cortez, although his destiny was settled at the hour of his death. All these masses have been useless; and indeed from their own action in the matter, it seems that they are not of much value, being said for such a length of time, and still going on without end. Cortez left some property, with the proviso that the interest on it should be spent for masses for the repose of his soul. I suppose that as long as the property lasts, masses will continue. But certainly Cortez will be no better because of them; for the Bible says that the prayer of him who turns away his ear from hearing the law, is an abomination to God. Prov. 28: 9. In his comment on Acts 8, the Catholic translator says that during the time of the apostles, and for a long time afterwards, baptism was administered by immersion only. It is a fact that many of the early writers of the Catholic Church explained the Scriptures just as we do now. In later time they have gone far away from the truth as taught in the early church. A wonder is that a church which claims to be infallible can sanction teachings that are entirely contradictory; but such is the case. In explaining the prophecies, they take the same position we take with reference to the beasts of Daniel, and say that the little horn of Dan. 7: 25 represents antichrist; but they do not attempt to explain it any further. When they reach that point, apparently they dare not go further. Certainly there is a reason for this.