Pity Junk Age's Corner!

Got 2 articles from a friend of mine in Philippines, so I have published it here. Think it will be a good read for all! Thanks! :)

How Many Books Are in the Bible?

Even the most casual Bible student knows that there are more books in the Catholic Bible than in the one used by Protestants. Where did these differences originate? On what basis were some books selected to be in the Bible, and why were others rejected?

Upon reflection, we could expect that there would be some dispute regarding these matters. After all, the Bible did not come down from heaven bound in beautiful leather and adorned with gold gilded pages. It is a very human book that reflects the styles of the writers and the cultural setting of the times. Yet, it is also a divine book, inspired by God, and therefore free from error in the original manuscripts. Like Christ who was truly God and truly man, so the Bible has a dual authorship. Questions about which books meet this criterion are to be expected.

The word canon comes from the Greek word kanon which means a ruler or measuring rod. In a metaphorical sense, it came to refer to the standard by which various books of the Bible were judged as worthy of being called the Word of God. Within time, the word kanon was applied to the books themselves; Athanasius is the first one known to have used “canon” in such a context.

How the Books Were Collected?

Some of the Old Testament books were immediately recognized as authoritative. Moses, after he wrote a book, put it in the Ark of the Covenant (Deut. 31:24-26). After the temple was built, the sacred writings were kept there (2 Kings 22:18). Early on, God commanded the kings to write for themselves a copy of the law. “And he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God” (Deut. 17:19). As the prophets spoke God’s word, saying, “Thus saith the Lord,” they also recognized that their message had to be recorded for future generations.

The Jews realized that special revelation ceased with the prophet Malachi (c. 400 B.C.). In the Talmud (a handbook of Jewish traditions) we read, “Up to this point [the time of Alexander the Great] the prophets prophesied through the Holy Spirit; from this time onward incline thine ear and listen to the sayings of the wise.”

But what determined whether a book was considered part of the canon? Obviously, there were other books in existence that did not merit classification with the sacred writings. Examples are “The Book of the Wars of the Lord” (Num. 21:14) and “The Book of Jashar” (Josh. 10:13).

The criterion was, first, that the book had to agree with the Torah, the first five books of Moses. But this was not the only test. Some books that agreed with the Torah were also excluded. For example, Elijah wrote a book that likely met this standard; yet it was not a part of the canon. And, of course, we must ask how the Torah itself became accepted.

Second, and most important, these books were accepted because they were believed to be inspired by God. In other words, they were selected because they were recognized as having divine authority. This is not to say that the Jews gave these books their authority; these books were believed to have inherent authority. If a book is inspired by God, it would have authority whether men recognized it or not. A jeweler may recognize an authentic diamond, but his recognition does not make it so.

We must guard against the notion that the church has a right to make a book canonical. But at best the nation Israel or church body can only recognize a book as authoritative because it is inspired of God.

The Discovery of Canonicity

But how was canonicity discovered? First, the books had the ring of self-vindicating authority. Moses claimed to be the mouthpiece of God. The Old Testament prophets repeatedly said, “And the word of the Lord came to me.” The lives of the prophets and the strong affirmation that their message came from God was accepted by the Jewish nation.

This explains why the canonicity of the Book of Esther was, for a time, in doubt. Since the name of God does not appear in the book, some thought it lacked self-vindicating authority. But closer inspection showed that the providence of God was so evident in the story that it had the authenticity that gave it acceptance.

A second test was that of authorship. it had to have been written by a man of God. Was the author, they asked, a spokesman for “redemptive revelation,” either a prophet in the Old Testament times or an apostle in the new?

For example, Paul in the New Testament argued that his message was authoritative because he was an apostle, “not sent from men, nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father” (Gal. 1:1). The Book of 2 Peter was disputed in the early church because some doubted that it had been written by Peter. The writing style appeared different from 1 Peter, hence the doubt. But within time the church was convinced that Peter the apostle was the author, therefore the book was accepted.

Yet in other instances the identity of the author was not always determinative. For example, the authorship of the Book of Hebrews is unknown, but the book was accepted without serious questioning because it bears the unmistakable stamp of the transforming power of God.

Of course, the book had to be consistent with previous revelation. Martin Luther thought that James taught salvation by works so he questioned its position in the canon. Later, when he revised his preface to the book, he dropped his criticism. A closer reading indicates that James does not contradict Paul’s teaching of salvation by faith. The early church was quite correct in receiving it as authoritative.

There is evidence that when an inspired book was written, it enjoyed immediate acceptance. For example, Peter accepted the epistles of Paul as being worthy of recognition as inspired Scripture (2 Pet. 3:16). Thus, the canon of the New Testament formed gradually as the books were written. Because communication was cumbersome in biblical times, it is understandable that the complete list of authoritative books was not agreed upon until a few centuries had passed. The Books of Revelation and 3 John were not immediately accepted, in part because they were unknown in some parts of the New Testament world. As their circulation grew, so did the recognition that they had the marks of divine inspiration.

The bottom line, of course, is that the books of the Bible were recognized as authoritative by the people of God. There is little doubt that we must exercise faith that God superintended his Word so that only inspired books were chosen to be in the canon. Equally important is the fact that the final list of books was not chosen by a synod or council of the church. These met to ratify the books that the people of God had already chosen.

The Apocrypha

Both the Roman Catholic and Protestant Bibles have thirty-nine books in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New. The difference is that a Roman Catholic Bible has an additional eleven books inserted between the Testaments. Where did these books come from?

To begin, we must realize that both branches of Christendom acknowledge the existence of books that are false writings that have never laid serious claim to canonicity. The Book of Enoch and The Assumption of Moses are known to have existed, but all agree that they lack the stamp of inspiration. In the New Testament the Shepherd of Hermas was thought by some to be authoritative, so it hovered around the canon for sometime before it was dismissed as a forgery

But there was another group of books that are accepted by the Roman Catholic church but rejected by Protestants. These books originated in a canon in Alexandria in Egypt. It was in this city in 250 B.C. that the Old Testament was translated into Greek and called the Septuagint, meaning “seventy.” (Allegedly the translation was made in seventy days utilizing seventy scholars.) This explains why some of the earliest manuscripts of the Septuagint that exist today (dating back to the fourth century) contain these additional books.

These books, commonly called the Apocrypha (the word means “hidden”), are interwoven among the books of the Old Testament. In all, there are fifteen books, eleven of which are accepted as canonical by the Roman Catholic church. But because four of the eleven are combined with Old Testament books, the Douay Version contains only seven additional books in its table of contents.

There are several reasons why the Roman Catholic church considers the wider Alexandrian list of books to be canonical. Briefly, they are (1) the New Testament quotes mostly from the Septuagint, which contained the Apocrypha. Then, (2) some of the early church fathers accepted the Apocrypha as canonical—Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria for example. Also, (3) Augustine and the great councils of Hippo and Carthage, which he led, are said to have accepted them. Finally, (4) the Council of Trent called to respond to the inroads of the Reformation pronounced them canonical in A.D. 1546. The council said that if anyone does not receive these books in all of their parts, “let him be anathema.”

Reasons to Reject the Apocrypha

Protestants give numerous reasons for rejecting these additional books:²

1. Though there are some allusions to the apocryphal books by New Testament writers (Hebrews 11:35 compares with 2 Maccabees 7, 12) there is no direct quote from them. Also, no New Testament writer ever refers to any of these fourteen or fifteen books as authoritative. Quotes from the accepted books are usually introduced by the phrase, “It is written,” or the passage is quoted to prove a point. But never do the New Testament writers quote the Apocrypha in this way.

2. There is no evidence that the books were in the Septuagint as early as the time of Christ. Remember, the earliest manuscripts that have them date back to the fourth century A.D. Even if they were in the Septuagint at this early date, it is noteworthy that neither Christ nor the apostles ever quoted from them.

3. Though some of the early leaders of the church accepted them, many did not—Athanasius, Origen, and Jerome, to name a few.

4. The evidence that Augustine accepted the Apocrypha is at best ambiguous. For one thing, he omits Baruch and includes 1 Esdras, thus accepting one and rejecting another in contrast to the Council of Trent. For another, he seemed to change his mind later about the validity of the Apocrypha.

Jerome, while making a Latin translation of the Bible, disputed with Augustine about the value of these additional books. Though Jerome did not want to translate them, he eventually made a hurried translation of them but kept them separate from his translation of the Bible. However, after his death, these books were brought into his Latin translation.

Augustine, as mentioned, argued in favor of the Apocrypha, though he later seemed to give them a kind of secondary canonicity. His testimony, though important, is not entirely clear.

5. Even the Roman Catholic church made a distinction between the Apocrypha and the other books of the Bible prior to the Reformation. For example, Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Luther at Augsburg, in 1518 published A Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. His commentary, however, did not include the Apocrypha.

6. The first official council of the Roman Catholic church to ratify these books was at the Council of Trent in 1546, only twenty-nine years after Luther posted his ninety-five theses on the door of the church at Wittenberg. The acceptance of these books at this time was convenient since the books were being quoted against Luther. For example, 2 Maccabees speaks of prayers for the dead (2 Macc. 12:45-46) and another book teaches salvation by works (Tob. 12:19).

Even so, the Roman church accepted only eleven of the fifteen books; we naturally would expect that these books, since they were together for so many centuries, would be either accepted or rejected together.

7. The content of the Apocrypha is sub-biblical. Some of the stories are clearly fanciful. Bel and the Dragon, Tobit, and Judith have the earmarks of legend; the authors of these books even give hints along the way that the stories are not to be taken seriously.

What is more, these books have historical errors. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 B.C. and also when Jeroboam revolted against Judah in 931 B.C., which would make him at least 209 years old; yet according to the account, he died when he was only 158 years. The Book of Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon.

These inaccuracies are inconsistent with the doctrine of inspiration which teaches that when God inspires a book it is free from all errors.

8. Finally, and most important, we must remember that the Apocrypha was never part of the Old Testament Hebrew canon. When Christ was on earth, he frequently quoted from the Old Testament but never from the Apocryphal books because they were never a part of the Hebrew canon.

In Christ’s time, there were twenty-two books in the Old Testament, but the content was identical to the thirty-nine books in our present Old Testament (several of the books in the Hebrew Bible were combined, which accounts for the different figure). Genesis was the first book in the Hebrew canon and 2 Chronicles was the last. On at least one occasion, Christ referred specifically to the content of the Hebrew canon when he said:

Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar (Matt. 23:34-35)

In the Hebrew canon, the first book of the Bible was Genesis, where the death of Abel is recorded, and the last book was 2 Chronicles where near the end of the book the murder of Zechariah is described (24:21). In between these two events lay the entire content of the Old Testament. He assumed it ended with the Hebrew Scriptures and not the Apocrypha.

The Apocryphal books were written in Greek after the close of the Old Testament canon. Jewish scholars agree that chronologically Malachi was the last book of the Old Testament canon. The books of the Apocrypha were evidently written about 200 B.C. and occur only in Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament. Since Christ accepted only the books we have in our Old Testament today, we have no reason to add to their number.

The Lost Books

Occasionally we hear references to the so-called lost books of the Bible, books that some people think have been hidden from the general populace. In 1979, Bell Publishing Company of New York came out with a book entitled The Lost Books of the Bible. On the flyleaf it says that these books were not among those chosen to comprise the Bible, and “They were suppressed by the church, and for over fifteen hundred years were shrouded in secrecy.”³

These books are not really as secret as the authors imply. New Testament scholars have been well aware of their existence throughout the centuries, though perhaps these books were not accessible to the common man. Their credibility is rejected by both Catholics and Protestants.

These books include stories about the birth of Mary and of Christ. Also there are a dozen or more stories that took place during Christ’s lifetime. Three or four purport to relate to events in the Old Testament.

These books never even vied for a place in the canon. Unlike some other books that were actually disputed (the Shepherd of Hermas, for example), these books were recognized as legends from the beginning. These “forgotten books” are so obviously inferior to those in our Bible that they cannot be taken seriously.

Indeed, in the preface, Dr. Frank Crane admitted the point by saying that legends and apocryphal stories surround all great men such as Napoleon, Charlemagne, and Julius Caesar, so we can also expect that tales would grow up around Christ. He went on to say that Christ appealed to the “fictional minds” of his day. These writers, Crane admitted, do not pretend to write down what is strictly true, but tinge all events with their imagination.

Finally, Crane said the common man can now make his own decision as to whether the early church did right in rejecting these books. He did not hesitate to say that common sense itself will show the superiority of the accepted canonical books.

I agree. Should there be any doubt about the accepted books, the best solution would be to read these so-called lost books. And for that matter, one should also read those books that laid more serious claim to canonicity. They also are so inferior to the books of the New Testament that we become convinced that the early church did not err.

In the upper room, Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would help them recall his teachings. “When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, He Will bear witness of Me” (John 15:26). That was a tacit confirmation of the New Testament that still needed to be written. The early believers recognized those writings that were either written by an apostle or by someone personally acquainted with one. After the apostolic period, no more books could claim the stamp of divine authority.

The Book of Revelation ends with a warning:

I testify to everyone who bears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to then; God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book, and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book (Rev. 22.18-19)

Although these words refer specifically to the Book of Revelation and not to the New Testament as a whole (there were still questions as to which books were properly in the New Testament when Revelation was penned), yet they are a warning to the many false cults who have claimed to add to God’s Word.

In our present New Testament we have the final word from God until our Lord returns and the Bible as we know it will no longer be necessary.

The Roman Catholic Church is by far the largest and wealthiest of all the so-called "Christian Denominations." It has consistently claimed to be the only true Church--the Church which was founded by Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry. In addition, especially in this generation, it has embellished its image and attracted and held members by the claim that it is the one Church which has never changed, All of these claims are false. How-ever, in recent years, the Roman Catholic Church has done a complete about-face, actually boasting of the many changes it has instituted to meet the changing needs of Catholics and non-Catholics alike in this modern age.

Is the Roman Catholic Church the one true Church? Are its past and present teachings and practices Scriptural? How has the Roman Catholic Church changed through the centuries? How much has it changed in our lifetime? Have these changes been basic or superficial? Where is the Roman Catholic Church headed?

The purpose of this article is to turn the spotlight of truth upon Roman Catholicism both as to its past history and present teachings. Our sincere desire is to be of help to Catholics, many of whom are well aware that, in recent years, their church has been Instituting many changes, most of which have left them confused, uncertain, and deeply troubled. For the first time in their lives, many Catholics are raising serious questions about t their Church, its leaders, its teachings and its practices. They now realize that their church is not united but divided over issues such as birth control, abortion, divorce, celibacy for priests, women clergy, gay clergy, Papal infallibility, prayer, worship, music, purgatory, confession and even the meaning of the Mass. The moral degeneracy and financial scandals which have rocked the Charismatic movement have also been exposed in the Roman Catholic Church, all the way from the Vatican to the local parish. Confusion reigns supreme and Catholics who take their religion seriously don't know which way to turn.

A source of further confusion for many is the fact that for centuries Roman Catholics were taught that all those outside its membership were heretics to be shunned, persecuted or even killed. It was not until the middle of this century that the Roman Catholic Church modified and softened its stand by first calling non-Catholics, "separated brethren." More recently, even that negative connotation has been eliminated so that today, Catholics are to consider "all Christians" to be "brothers and sisters in Christ."

However, these changed outward attitudes on the part of Roman Catholics toward non-Catholics, and their increasing usage of evangelical terminology, has unfortunately resulted in many evangelicals mistakenly believing that the basic false doctrines and heresies of Romanism have changed, something that simply is not true. Thus, both Catholics and non-Catholics alike should take a fresh look at Biblical, historical and current look-at this largest supposedly Christian denomination in the world. If it is the one true Church as it claims to be, then every believer in Christ should become a part of it. But, if it is and always has been a false church, then all who truly believe the Bible and trust Jesus Christ as Saviour will separate from it, warn about it, and urge others to do likewise.

Through our extensive radio and literature ministries, it has been a great blessing to hear from many former Roman Catholics who have been delivered from the bondage of the false doctrines of Romanism; who have experienced the new birth by faith in Jesus Christ alone; and who are doing their best to reach their Catholic loved ones and friends with the Word of God and the Gospel of Jesus Christ. At the same time, it has been a real heartache to realize that so many non Roman Catholics who profess to know Christ as Saviour, have been deceived by the new attitudes and vocabulary of Catholicism so that the Roman Catholic Church is now being accepted by many evangelicals as a sister church with only minor differences rather than the false church which it actually is.

The Truth About the Roman Catholic Church is that it always has been and continues to be a false church. Those Biblical doctrines it professes to believe and teach are vitiated by Roman Catholic dogma based upon tradition which contradicts God's holy, infallible Word, the Bible. Error is never more deceptive than when it is presented with a veneer of truth. Throughout its entire history, Roman Catholic leaders fit the description of the false teachers who God warned in advance would come on the scene in the last days, deceiving many by their "feigned' (pretended or hypocritical) words-their "great swelling words of vanity, " as described in 1 Peter 2:1.-3, 18, 19,

Before examining and refuting some of the well known false teachings of the Roman Catholic Church, it is essential to understand that two basic false teachings of Roman Catholicism (even apart from its many other errors), clearly classify it as a religious cult rather than a true church. These two basic errors are:

First- Roman Catholicism, although teaching that the Bible is the Word of God, adds the spurious apocryphal books to the Scriptures, and also elevates church tradition and the edicts of popes and councils (the words of men), to the same or an even greater level of authority than the Word of God. This amounts to adding to the Word of God, thereby placing Roman Catholicism under God's curse. Deut. 4:2; Rev. 22:18, 19.

Second- Roman Catholicism, although teaching that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation, actually denies the truth of the Gospel by adding sacraments, good works, and purgatory as additional requirements for forgiveness of sin and eternal life. This amounts to the preaching of a false Gospel which places the Roman Catholic Church under God's curse. Gal. 1:6-10.

Thus, by Scriptural standards, the Roman Catholic Church is a false church which can only expect God's judgment, not a true church which can claim God's blessing. No amount of outward change should be permitted to obscure this fact.

As for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church that its history can be traced back to Jesus Christ, Peter, or the other apostles, such claims lack both historical and Scriptural support. The true Church of Jesus Christ was not founded upon Peter, but upon Peter's confession of Christ's deity as recorded in Matthew 16:16: ".. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. " Peter was not the first pope nor is there any Scriptural justification whatever for such an office. Peter's own inspired testimony as to his position and ministry is given in I Peter 5:1-4. He further identifies himself in 2 Peter 1:1 as "a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ....' History confirms the fact that there were no popes in the early church nor even in the Roman Catholic Church during the first centuries of its existence.

Furthermore, the long-held claim that the Roman Catholic Church was the only church which never changed is not supported by church history not even Roman Catholic history. How sad to realize that this false claim influenced so many to join or to stay in this false church which actually is the product of centuries of changes. Most of these changes came as a result of yielding to heathen customs and practices which were subsequently incorporated into Roman Catholic teachings and worship. The following is a partial list of heathen, unscriptural practices which became a part of Roman Catholic dogma over a period of seventeen centuries. Some of the dates given are approximate. In many cases, these heresies were even debated for years before being given the status of required beliefs:

1 . Prayers for the Dead - 300 A.D.
2. Making the Sign of the Cross - 300 A.D.
3. Veneration of Angels & Dead Saints - 375 A.D.
4. Use of Images in Worship - 375 A.D.
5. The Mass as a Daily Celebration - 394 A.D.
6. Beginning of the Exaltation of Mary; the Term, "Mother of God" applied a Council of Ephesus - 431 A.D.
7. Extreme Unction (Last Rites) - 526 A.D.
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory 1 - 593 A.D.
9. Prayers to Mary & Dead Saints - 600 A.D.
10. Worship of Cross, Images & Relics - 786 A.D.
11. Canonization of Dead Saints - 995 A.D.
12. Celibacy of Priesthood - 1079 A.D.
13. The Rosary - 1090 A.D.
14. Indulgences - 1190 A.D.
15. Transubstantiation - Innocent III - 1215 A.D.
16. Auricular Confession of Sins to a Priest - 1215 A.D.
17. Adoration of the Wafer (Host) - 1220 A.D.
18. Cup Forbidden to the People at Communion - 1414 A.D.
19. Purgatory Proclaimed as a Dogma - 1439 A.D.
20. The Doctrine of the Seven Sacraments Confirmed - 1439 A.D.
21 Tradition Declared of Equal Authority with Bible by Council of Trent - 1545 A.D.
22. Apocryphal Books added to Bible - 1546 A.D.
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary - 1854 A.D.
24, Infallibility of the Pope in Matters of Faith and Morals, Proclaimed by the Vatican Council - 1870 A.D.
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (Bodily Ascension into Heaven shortly after her Death) - 1950 A.D.

26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Church - 1965 A.D

Although some of the preceding Roman Catholic heresies are now being questioned by many, both inside and outside the church, none have been officially repudiated and all continue to be practiced by millions of Catholics around the world. The urgent need today is for Roman Catholics; yes, and all who claim to be Christians, to examine their own beliefs and the teachings of their churches by the only sure standard-the Bible. Whatever contradicts, adds to or subtracts from the sixty-six books of the Old and the New Testaments, is error no matter how many may cling to it.

Roman Catholics who read the Bible will soon discover that many Catholic teachings and practices are specifically forbidden by Jesus Christ Himself. Note carefully the following warnings given by the Lord Jesus Christ to the religious leaders of His day concerning vain worship, vain tradition and vain repetitions. All of these are particularly applicable to Roman Catholicism today.

Vain Worship-In Matthew 15:8-9, Jesus said, 'This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth and honoreth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the command men of men." All worship is indeed vain when it is based upon the commandments of men rather than the Word of God.

Vain Tradition-In Matthew 15:6b, Jesus said, 'Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. "

(Note): Valid tradition is based upon Scripture and confirms it. Vain tradition is based upon man's teachings and violates it. In Roman Catholicism, tradition is consistently elevated above the Scripture which results in vain worship (no matter how sincere) and makes the commandment of God of no effect-a very serious matter.

Vain Repetitions-In Matthew 6:7, Jesus said, "But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." A basic part of Roman Catholic worship is the frequent repetition of The Rosary whose origin is clearly tied to heathen religions such as Hinduism, Islam, and Buddhism. Roman Catholics should listen to the words of Christ forbidding vain repetitions, rather than using the vain repetitions of Catholicism.

During the past forty years, at least three important trends in the Roman Catholic Church are clearly observable. These are: (1) A greater emphasis upon the place of Mary. (2) A major emphasis upon ecumenical activities with a view to seeking the full visible unity of all religions. (3) The acceptance of the so-called Charismatic renewal within the Church with new emphasis upon the claimed "ministry of the Holy Spirit." There is every reason to believe that all of these major trends will continue and increase; and, all of them are very deceptive, very dangerous, very unscriptural.

The place accorded Mary in the Roman Catholic Church is not Scriptural nor is it new, but it cannot be denied that, during the last one hundred years, veneration of Mary has dramatically increased, Note in the historical chart given earlier in this article that the exaltation of Mary and the term, Mother of God, became official Catholic dogma in 431 A.D.). with prayers to her proclaimed in 600 A.D. But, note also that the "Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mat)@" was not proclaimed until 1854; her "Assumption" not until 1950; and her title "Mother of the Church" not until as recently as 1965.

Some Roman Catholic observers believe it may not be much longer until Mary is officially proclaimed "Co-redemptrix with Christ." In fact, the premier issue of a new Roman Catholic publication, Catholic Heritage (Vol. 1, No. 1, Sept.-Oct. 1991) has the front page title: "Mary, Mother of the Church," and, in a Question and Answer column, the question is asked, "At the foot of the cross, Mary shared in the mystery of the passion. True or False? Answer: True. Mary united her sorrows to those of hey Son. The sorrowful and immaculate heart of Mary bled with her Son for all of mankind. For this reason, we invoke her under the title of Co-- redemptrix."

All of the popes during the past thirty years have done their part to increase the influence of Mary in the Roman Catholic Church based completely on tradition rather than upon the Bible. In the August 28, 1975 issue of the official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, Pope Paul VI, speaking of the ceremony celebrated the day before in St. Peter's in honor of the Madonna at the Feast of the Assumption of Mary said, "Her venerated image, known as Salus Populi Romani' was carried in procession from St. Mary Major's as part of the Holy Year ceremonies, so that the overflow crowd of pilgrims, coming from all parts of the world, could see it and thus increase their devotion to her. In this way we should all be reminded of the meaning and practice of the cult of Mary, inseparable from the unique and central cult of Christ …Let us pray to her with humble, trusting and childlike faith."

Did you know that the present pope, John Paul II, has dedicated himself completely to Mary? In 1985, during his visit to Vancouver, B.C., the special souvenir edition of B. C. Catholic carried a full I page color photo of the pope under the caption, Totus Tuus which, in Latin, means" all yours ."The following explanation was given, "When Karol Wojtyla was consecrated bishop of Cracow by Pius XII in 1958 he took, 'Totus Tuus' (all yours) as his motto, thus presenting himself to Mary. In his first Urbi et Orbi message immediately after being elected pope he said, "At this difficult hour, full of fear, we must turn our thoughts with filial devotion to the Virgin Mary who always lives in the midst of Christ and exists as his mother. We must repeat the words, Totus Tuus which 20 years ago were inscribed into our heart and soul."'

Pope John Paul II has visited many of the major Shrines to Mary. He attributed his escape from death at the hands of a would-be assassin and the overthrow of communism in Eastern Europe to the intervention of Mary. Millions of Catholics are making pilgrimages to the various Marian shrines, seeking and often claiming miracles of healing and answers to their prayers to Mary. New apparitions of Mary and special messages from her are being claimed in various parts of the world. Yet, there is absolutely no Scriptural foundation for any of these beliefs or practices. Mary was indeed a virgin (pure sexually) so that she could fulfill the Old Testament prophecy that Christ would be born of a virgin (Isa. 7:14). She was a godly woman, but not sinless. As with all true believers in Christ, when Mary died, her soul and spirit went to heaven, but her body awaits the resurrection; she did not bodily ascend to heaven as did Jesus Christ. Nothing in Scripture indicates that prayers were ever offered to Mary nor that she was worshipped by anyone. Most of Roman Catholic teaching concerning Mary is based entirely on human tradition and contradicts the Bible, the Word of God.

The present ecumenical emphasis and activities of the Roman Catholic Church are also of recent origin. When Vatican Council I was held in 18691870, the invitation of the pope to the Orthodox Churches to participate was refused; and, his public appeal to "Protestants and all non-Catholics" to return to the only true fold" received resentful refusals. However, in the intervening years it became increasingly obvious to the Roman Catholic hierarchy that their church needed some serious updating, particularly with regard to relationships with other churches. In 1960, Pope John XXIII established the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity; and, in 1962, he convoked Vatican Council II which he called "An ecumenical council for the universal church."

Less than a year later, Pope John XXIII died, but his successor, Pope Paul VI, who had attended four sessions of Vatican 11 before becoming pope, did everything possible to continue and expand the ecumenical emphasis. His expressed position was that the Roman Catholic Church could best demonstrate the validity of its teaching, not by condemnation or severity, but with the "medicine of mercy." His emphasis was upon "working for the full visible unity in truth among all Christians" and that this unity should extend also to non-Christians. This new approach of Vatican 11 was successful in gaining the co-operation of the major Orthodox Church bodies as well as 38 delegated observers from almost all the major Protestant denominations. Of course, Pope John Paul 11 has expanded the ecumenical emphasis in the Roman Catholic Church to unprecedented heights. While this has received high praise from religious leaders and denominations, the kind of unity sought by the Roman Catholic Church is contrary to the Bible. All unity purchased at the expense of doctrinal purity is satanic and deceptive. 2 Cor. 6:14-18, Eph. 5:11, 2 Tim. 3:1-17; 4:1-8. All who join hands in ecumenical fellowship with those who preach a false Gospel are under God's curse. Gal. 1:6-10.

The Roman Catholic Church was infiltrated by the false teachings and unscriptural practices of the Charismatic Movement in the early 1960's. Its influence within Roman Catholicism is growing rapidly. As always, the devil has a very clever way of compounding error while giving the results a more respectable appearance. Space limitations prevent a more comprehensive consideration of its past and present approaches but we have prepared other articles providing important details to all who might be interested in knowing why the Charismatic Movement and its teachings are so deceptive and dangerous. Once this movement became entrenched in the Roman Catholic Church, RCC leaders were quick to see that it would be to their advantage to encourage these teachings rather than to oppose them. They discovered that they could use the Charismatic doctrines and practices to help build the Roman Catholic Church by considering it a logical and needed "renewal movement within the church." An added factor was that those who had supposedly experienced the baptism of the Holy Spirit felt a greater love and respect than ever for the Roman Catholic Church, including the Mass, the other sacraments, the veneration of Mary and all the other false teachings of Roman Catholicism. Many people are attracted to the displays of hearings, miracles, and other supposed demonstrations of Holy Spirit presence and power, not realizing that if this were a true ministry of the Holy Spirit it would lead them to a recognition and repudiation of the false teachings of Roman Catholicism. The Charismatic Movement, both within and outside of the Roman Catholic Church is not a movement of the Holy Spirit, but of a false spirit. John 16: 7-14; 2 Cor. 11:13-15.

Adding to the religious confusion of our day is the inconsistent, compromising position taken by the world's two outstanding evangelical leaders, Dr. Billy Graham and Dr. Bill Bright. Both of these men now praise and work with ecumenical apostates, charismatic deceivers and Roman Catholics which represents a complete reversal of their original, Biblical positions. Both are widely respected and have charming personalities, but their present willingness to work with anybody who "calls Jesus, Lord" completely ignores the warning Christ gave in Matthew 7:21-23. Billy Graham now sends Catholics who make "decisions" in his crusades back to the Roman Catholic Church with no warning of the false Gospel it preaches. Bill Bright even has Roman Catholics on his Campus Crusade staff. Both men thus disobey the Bible.

What about the Mass which lies at the very heart of Roman Catholic theology and worship? Is its observance based upon Scripture or Catholic tradition? What does Roman Catholicism teach as to its meaning and importance?

The Baltimore Catechism says: "It is a mortal sin not to hear Mass on a Sunday or a holy day of obligation, unless we are excused for a serious reason. They also commit mortal sin who, having others under their charge, hinder them from hearing Mass without a sufficient reason."

The Creed of pope Pius IV, an official creed of the Roman Catholic Church says, "I profess that in the Mass is offered to God a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice (that is, a sacrifice which satisfies the justice of God and so offsets the penalty for sin) for the living and for the dead; and that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there is truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ; and that there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which the Catholic Church calls Transubstantiation."

The Council of Trent declared: "The sacrifice (in the Mass) is identical with the sacrifice of the Cross, inasmuch as Jesus Christ is a priest and victim both. The only difference lies in the manner of the offering, which is bloody upon the cross and bloodless on our altars"; and, in Canon I stated: "Whosoever shall deny that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there are truly, really, and substantially contained the body and the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, together with his soul and divinity, and consequently Christ entire, but shall affirm that he is present therein only in a sign and figure, or by his power, let him be accursed.,,

But what does the Bible say concerning the sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross? Hebrews 10:10-14, "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: But this man [Jesus Christ], after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God,- From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sanctified. "

What a difference there is between what the Bible teaches and what Roman Catholicism believes and teaches regarding the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the Cross! The supposed continual offering up of Christ by the priests negates His finished work on the Cross. The Bible says, "For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit." I Peter 3:18.

Roman Catholicism makes salvation a long, complicated process with no assurance of eternal life and forgiveness of all sin; to faith in Jesus Christ is added Baptism, the Mass, Confession, prayers to Mary and the Saints, good works, and purgatory. By contrast the Bible teaches salvation by faith in Jesus Christ alone, not by sacraments, prayers or works. Eph. 2:8, 9; Titus 2:13. Bible salvation is God's free gift to any sinner who believes with the heart that Christ died for his sins and rose again for his justification. I Coy. 15:1-4; Rom. 10:9-13. Bible salvation gives immediate assurance of eternal life. I John 5:10-13. Carefully read and believe John 1: 12; 3:1618; 3:36; 5:24; 14:1-6; 20:30, 31. No church ever saved anyone, but Christ can and will save everyone who will come and trust Him as their Saviour. Acts 4:12; John 6:37; 10:27-30. Trust Christ today and be saved for all eternity!

Guess this will be a short entry for now. I think I am going to start rebuilding this site. Still having a lot of things to do in the meantime. Also I would need to ponder on what to do with this site. Let's see how things work out.

If there are any that are going to post destructive comments on this site, I may just close it forever. So let's just take a little step each time and see how things move from here. Live free, die well. Yosh!