Note Worthy

Wrong on Both Ends?

Generally speaking, our battle with the Roman Catholic religion has centered upon Rome’s insistence that justification [acquittal from sin] is based upon participation in their Sacramental System. In Rome’s system of meritorious works done in faith, justification is said to begin at baptism and increase in proportion to the faithfulness one gives to the Sacramental System. This foundational error of Rome has spawned numerous other anti-Christian doctrines among which are Purgatory, Indulgences, Baptismal regeneration and Magisterium Infallibility to name a few.

All of Rome’s doctrinal heresies are found neatly arranged in the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent (Schroeder) and in The Sources of Catholic Dogma (Denzinger). These two primary sources are augmented by The Catechism of the Catholic Church and various documents from Vatican I and Vatican II.

However, a change in Rome has caused us to re-think our apologetics. With the full impact of Vatican II still being worked out by Roman Catholic theologians, we see a perilous Rome. On the one hand, Rome wishes to protect her Sacramental System of incremental justification and infused grace through the Sacraments. But, on the other hand, Rome wishes to acknowledge other religions as bonafide worshiping communities which have, to a degree, the approbation of the Lord. The way this is expressed by Rome is that Rome has the fulness of communion with the Lord while all outside of Rome have varying degrees of communion with God. What this has led to is a full blown ecumenism [bringing all together under the Christian Banner] among some Roman Catholic leaders.

This double edged sword presents problems for Christian Apologists. We can no longer address only the dogma and doctrine of Rome. We must address the ecumenical side of Rome as well.

At the outset, we must resist the notion that Rome has the authority to declare anyone as more or less in communion with the Lord. Rome, herself, is not in communion with the Lord. It is utter usurpation for Rome to put Herself in this position. It is tantamount to an illegitimate child probating the will of the legitimate family.

Secondly, we need to see with clear eyes the horror of Roman ecumenism. A picture of what is to come with Rome is given to us in an article published by the Dallas Morning News on Saturday March 20th, 1999.

This article is a report of an ecumenical meeting held in Dallas under the rubric of Thanksgiving World Assembly. What is important about this meeting is that it was attended by a Nigerian Cardinal of the Roman Catholic religion named Francis Arinze. Many people think that Arinze, the Pope’s Deputy for Outreach, is heir apparent to John Paul II. But even if he is not, his comments are chilling and revealing.

When asked if Christianity in its particulars excluded Jews because of their rejection of Christ, Arinze uses an analogy of the Apostle Paul’s understanding of slavery to transition into an "elastic" understanding of Christianity. Arinze comments that the Apostle Paul did not condemn slavery. But now the world is aware that slavery is wrong and unacceptable. Likewise, according to Arinze, we must grow in our understanding. This growth, ostensively, would include a re-appraisal of the status that Jewish people, who reject the Gospel, may have with the Lord. Listen to the logic:

"St. Paul the Apostle, even though he was a great theologian, didn’t condemn slavery as such. But now we realize that slavery should be condemned as such. It was not so clear at that time. Even in the Catholic Church we do not hold that we have the clearest idea on every point... we can grow in our understanding."

It is a non-sequitur [does not follow] to connect a dis-interest in the apostle’s willingness to address the social customs of his day with the Roman Catholic Church’s interest in tampering with the Apostle’s main and clear preoccupation, namely the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But this little bit of twisted logic is just the tip of the ice-berg when it comes to Roman Catholic ecumenical thinking. When Arinze was asked if he believed one could be right with God while not believing in Jesus Christ, Arinze appealed to Vatican II.

".....God’s grant of salvation includes not only Christians but Jews, Muslims, Hindus and people of good will."

When pressed as to the meaning of John 14:6: "Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.", Arinze had this answer:

"If a person were to push what you said a little further and say that if you’re not a Christian you’re not going to heaven, we’d regard that person as a fundamentalist...and theologically wrong..."

Arinze goes on to extoll the virtue of a Pakistan Muslim and a Japanese Buddhist whom he had met and been impressed to believe that the Muslim was going to heaven and that the Buddhist had the grace of God working in him. Arinze then champions a mystical "language of the heart" and actually promotes the idea that each man should be more intensely devoted to his own religion.

"I noticed that the more they were devoted to their religion and I to my religion, the more we met one another even though I didn’t know their language."

The final illustration of Roman Catholic ecumenism, which ices out the Gospel and makes mockery of the ministry of Jesus Christ, is found in Arinze’s answer to the question, "Can you still get to heaven without accepting Jesus?"

His answer, not surprising, but chilling and ominous, is:

"Expressly, yes!"

The evidence is clear that Rome is anti-Christian on both ends of the stick. Whether it is the carefully crafted heretical teachings exhibited by the Council of Trent; or the Gospel annihilating proclamations of modern Romanist ecumenists, it all ends the same. Rome is wrong on both ends. We need to understand that there are those in the Romish community who would call the current Pope and a successor, such as Arinze, " heretical." These traditional conservative Romanists await their day armed with the decrees of Trent and Florence among other ancient Roman Councils. They are very much alive in the Roman Catholic community and need to be resisted with much vigor and all the courage we can muster.

On the other hand, ecumenically minded men, like Arinze, and men of his ilk, seek to first trump all of Christianity by declaring they have the authority to determine who is close to God. After this, they ruin the Gospel of Christ and obliterate Christianity by giving validation to every manner of heresy and every kind of anti-Christian religion the World over.

Whether it is ancient Rome, pronouncing all outside of Rome lost, or modern Rome, pronouncing Rome, and everyone else, as saved, the poison is deadly to the Lord Jesus Christ and must be resisted with equal zeal on both ends.

We further shudder to think of the ramifications if Arinze should become the next Pope. No doubt all religions of the world would be declared to be a part of the Body of Christ. This, of course, would be the same as announcing the end of Christianity.