Mother Teresa’s Crisis of Faith
August 24, 2007
Mother Teresa was a devout Roman Catholic and given the apostacy of the Roman Catholic Church and Mother Teresa’s own words, it is unlikely she ever had a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ. I know what you are going to say, only God knows that. And to that statement I would agree, it is true that only God knows. However, it is reasonable to assume that a person who lives their life following a dead religion, when they die, will be without Christ. Mother Teresa’s gospel was not the Gospel of Jesus Christ and Galatians 1:6-9 addresses this.
Galatians 1:6-9 (English Standard Version)
No Other Gospel
6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel — 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
All the above being said, the following cover article in the Sept. 3, 2007 edition of Time Magazine is an interesting read.
Jesus has a very special love for you. As for me, the silence and the emptiness is so great that I look and do not see, listen and do not hear.
— Mother Teresa to the Rev. Michael Van Der Peet, September 1979
Read the complete article here.
Related Resources:
- The Myth Of Mother Teresa
- The Death of Discernment In The Church
- Mother Teresa’s ‘40-year faith crisis’
- Mother Teresa’s diary reveals her crisis of faith
- Apprising Ministries
Posted in Catholicism, Mother Teresa, Roman Catholicism, Time Magazine
August 25th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Hello Pope Shane,
First, I admire that you see something special in the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church is either the antichrist or she is who she says she is which is the one true Church of Jesus Christ. So, in this world of relativism, I am glad you are standing for what you see as truth.
With that said, I am wondering if you are infallible. If not, why should I believe your fallible interpretation of your subtracted version of the Gospel than the true Gospel that has been protected and proclaimed by the Catholic Church since her founder, Jesus Christ started her?
Lastly, do you believe it is sin to bear false witness against another? Do you believe it is a sin to lie or misrepresent someone else? If you do, and if you believe as your crony Mike Gendron does, I admonish you to reexamine what you say about what the Catholic Church teaches because it is full of misrepresentations and lies. If you need help, I would be more than willing to help you.
August 25th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Phil,
I would never take the title of Pope and although it is a completely different topic, neither should the leader of the Roman Catholic Church.
You have a very good point regarding taking a black or white position on the Roman Catholic Church. She is either a harlot, the embodiment of the antichrist or a part of the Body. And, yes, I do take a stand as we all should, a stand for the truth. We must remember that believing something to be true does not make it so.
With regards to your question about my fallibility, I can without hesitation confirm I am fallible, just like any man, including the Pope and the Magisterium. So don’t take my word for it, be like the Bereans, search the Word of God and ask for understanding by the Holy Spirit.
When you speak of the Church or the Catholic Church you are speaking of buildings and people. Jesus did not start a church made of brick. Anyone who has been born again is part of God’s church.
So, Jesus did not establish the Roman Catholic Church, men did. Jesus did however establish the Church, the Body of Christ.
As for bearing false witness, this is a serious issue and I do not take it lightly. Matthew Henry, the great bible commentator, says this about the ninth commandment:
Finally you suggest that I am a crony of Mike Gendron. Well, let me respond to that. I had been doing research and study regarding the Catholic Church for a least a year before I heard of the ministry of Mike Gendron. Therefore, my understanding and concern regarding the Catholic Church came way before I ever know about Mike Gendron. However, I do commend his ministry and we have quoted him several times here at blog.shanetrammel.com. Crony however is not a label I wear or accept.
In His service,
Shane Trammel
August 26th, 2007 at 10:38 am
Shane,
Going back to my question of your fallibility… I have and continually do mimic the
Bereans, I examine the Scriptures daily. So where do we go from here? Through prayerful study of the Scriptures I have found that what the Catholic Church teaches is true. I have found that my protestant brothers have made the word of God void by believing the traditions of man. Traditions of man like the unbiblical belief of sola Scriptura and that we are saved by faith alone. So where do we go from here? Why should I believe your fallible interpretation of the bible? You say you are fallible, yet you say the Catholic Church is wrong. If you are fallible, could you then be wrong about what the Scripture teaches?
I am glad you take bearing false witness seriously, I too take it very seriously. I believe you are sinning against me and I want to show you your fault. If you do not listen, Scripture tells me to bring two or three witness. And if you do not listen to them, I should tell it to the church… My question for you is what church should I take this to? Your church? My church? Who in your church can act with such authority?
Since you endorse Mike Gendron website, I assume you believe the propaganda he is pushing. I was looking at the so called hard questions to ask Catholics, and I my heart broke. It is one thing to disagree with what we teach, but its another to misrepresent and distort what we believe, distort the Gospel of Christ. For example from His website he poses these questions, “Why do you call Jesus the Savior when you have to save yourself?, Did you know there is only one way to be saved?” He implies that grace has nothing to do with the Catholic belief on salvation and that we can saved by our own doings. Come on Shane, you are smarter than this. Even a shallow reading of the Catechism, will clear up these lies. How can you cooperate with this propaganda? So in the spirit of Mt 18, I ask you to repent of bearing false witness against me and my church
August 26th, 2007 at 10:46 am
You keep going back to the Catholic Church as though she is the only ‘true’ Church. There is no one ‘true’ Church in the since you are thinking. All who are born again are a part of the family of God, the Body, His Church.
With regards to the ‘traditions of men’, the Catholic church has a long history of following after that as well.
Shane
September 14th, 2007 at 6:55 pm
(sorry for my long absence. I didnt think i was going to write you back, i guess i changed my mind)
(Just curious, have you ever read authentic Catholic Church documents and tried to understand them as a Catholic would, meaning not in the eyes of a Protestant? Yes or No? The reason i ask is because you have a link to Mike Gedron website and that is a horrible representation of the Catholic Church)
I keep going back to the Catholic Church being the only true church is because its true. I agree the church is the family of God. I agree the church is his body. I agree the church is made of people who have been born again. None of these issues are in dispute. My problem is the consistent taking away from the Gospel. If we take the principle given to us in the book of Revelation, the tree of life will be taken away from us if we add to or take away from Gospel. And it is that taking away that I see Protestants consistently doing. With your bible alones and faith alones, always taking away from the Good news of Jesus Christ. Same thing does for Protestants view of the church. Did Jesus just give us an infallible book with out an infallible interpreter? I don’t think so. Jesus the good Shepard knew the chaos it would cause- we see it first hand in Protestantism. Seriously Shane will you answer my questions. In the spirit of Mt 18, what church should I take you to? How am I going to have this fulfilled in your view of church. Should I gather together a couple of people who have been born again have them decide that you are in the wrong?
I know that Paul when he had a question about doctrinal matters he didn’t just open up his bible and pray to the Holy Spirit to decide the matter. I also know he didn’t gather up some local Christians to decide the matter. What did he do? He took it to the people who Jesus instructed to lead his Church. He took it to Peter who had the keys to the kingdom of God. How in your view of church does this work? In Hebrews 13:17 it says, “17Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” Do members of your Christian community take seriously the authority of their minister; or is the individual still the primary source of authority (you did tell me to search the scriptures and decide for myself)? Would the new testament church tell me to do that? I know in 1 tim 3:15, Paul says that I should look to the church because it is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” Please help me understand how this works in your view of church.
Last question, If the Holy Spirit could so preserve fallible, sinful men from fallible mistakes and render their work infallible (the writing of the bible) so the church could receive Christ’s truth without error, then why couldn’t God raise up fallible and sinful men and fill them with the same Holy Spirit so He could infallibly transmit sure and reliable interpretations of the Word?
September 17th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Wow! Phil, you use so many logic errors in your statements. It is funny to see you write so many unsupported statements, and then turn around and rip on Shane for doing the same.
You should be fair in your dialogue.
The basics of this argument stem from basically two things:
1. You, Phil, believe that the church was built upon Peter, although that cannot be backed up by looking at the original greek texts. There is a very clear and distinct difference in the two words “Petros” and “Petra” used in the text (Matthew 16:18)
2. The Catholics believe in things that are not found in (and cannot be supported by) scripture.
Phil, here is a quote from one of your earlier statements… “I have found that my protestant brothers have made the word of God void by believing the traditions of man.”
Have not the Catholics done the same thing? And Phil, have you not read the statements from the Council of Trent wherein the ‘Tradition’ have been made equal to the scripture?
Let’s examine a few of the Catholics ‘traditions’ or ‘traditional’ teachings…
Purgatory. You got any proof for the existence of purgatory? It’s not in scripture.
How about the worship and veneration of Mary? That’s not in there either.
And, what about the beliefs in things such as perpetual virginity, perpetual adoration, praying to the saints, the infallibility of the pope (and the list goes on and on)? Can you give us a reason as to why these things are TRUE? You see, acceptance of an idea(regardless of length of time) does not make it true. Just because Catholics for many years have embraced these things does not make it true. You must remember that there were many people who used to believe that the earth was flat. They were sincere, but they were sincerely wrong.
So, in your dialogue, please provide support for a statement to validate it. Otherwise this argument is useless.
September 17th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Phil,
You also referred to your ‘protestant brothers’ as though this were a possibility. But I take issue with that. Let me explain…
In paragraph 841 of the Catholic Catechism (http://www.carm.org/catholic/muslims.htm), it states that Catholics and muslims worship the same god. The god of Islam and the God of Christianity are certainly not the same, and I can give a great deal of scriptural evidence if needed. It is no small offense to true Christians to claim that their God is the same one guiding the muslims. And we know by the teachings in the Quran and the Hadith concerning the prophecies of the Mahdi (Islams awaited messiah) and the Biblical prophecies of the anti-Christ are in harmony.
So, Phil, do you worship the god of Islam? Or are you willing to admit that paragraph 841 of the Catechism is wrong?
I look forward to your response.
September 18th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
Phil,
I wanted to take the time to respond to some of your most recent comments.
The answer is yes, I have read many of the documents of the Catholic Church. More import than that however, is my reading of the Word of God. I would point you to this statement regarding the Scriptures:
Holy Scripture does not support the Petrine primacy of the Pope through Peter. Most Catholics would use the text of Matthew 16:16-20 to support this heresy. However, when this portion of scripture is reviewed in the original Greek, it is very clear that the ‘Church’ was not and is not built on Peter. If you are open to the truth, as found in the Word of God, I would ask that you review this document.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Both Peter and Paul where apostles, ordained by God to preach the Gospel. Although Peter preached to Gentiles, his primary mission was to the Jews and for Paul the main mission was to the Gentiles although he preached to Jews as well. If we want to turn to Scripture for a minute, lets look at Galatians 1:1 which says:
Paul was an apostle and thus carried the authority such an office brings. We should also consider Galatians 1:11-12:
It is clear when we consider Holy Scripture that Paul was given a divine revelation of Christ and the Gospel of Christ. To be clear, it is actually Paul who brings correction to Peter in one instance. I am sure you are aware of Galatians 2, where Paul had to ‘rebuke’ Peter for his inconsistency in dealing with the Gentiles. In Galatians 2:2 we read:
Again, Paul has a direct revelation. In Galatians 2:14, Paul says that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel and he called Peter on it. So if you look at Galatians 2:11-21, not only do we see Paul addressing heresy with Peter, we also see that Justification is by Faith in Jesus Christ.
September 20th, 2007 at 7:59 pm
(Shane how do i use the blockquote feature?)
Michael thanks for joining the discussion. I guess since you replied first I will reply to you and then Shane. Could you please answer each number?
1. You wrote that I have made a lot of logical errors and have made a lot of unsupported statements. Could you be fair and do me a favor and support those claims you just made?
2. Why does my argument stem from Mt. 16:18? I have never even used that verse. This whole exchange started on me asking some questions on how Shane views the church, which he or you have still not answered.
Have Catholics made the word of God void by following the traditions of man? No. I believe that all traditions are not bad because there are traditions that make the word of God void (for example- the doctrine of faith alone) and there are good traditions, traditions that the apostles demand that we hold fast to (the ones Catholics have held to and Protestants have protested against).
I have read statements from the council of Trent. But I disagree the council of Trent made the “Tradition” equal to scripture. St. Paul did. 2 Thes 2:15 says, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” Here Paul demands that we hold to the traditions either by their epistles (scripture) or by word (this is what Catholics call Tradition).
The Word of God has been handed on in two ways:
-orally- by the Apostles’ spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received – whether from the lips of Christ, or whether they learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit.
-In writing- by those same apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing. (Catechism of CC 76)
3. If you believe in the doctrine of the bible alone, how are you holding fast to the Traditions?
Purgatory, veneration of Mary, praying to the saints… Those are all good topics to discuss and I hope one day we could get to those. You state that these are not found in Scripture. I am not going to agree or disagree with that statement right now because I disagree with your assumption.
4.Where in Scripture (chapter and verse), does it say that everything has to be found in Scripture?
Yes I can give you reasons why it is true and yes I agree with you that just because Catholics have embraced these beliefs for years doesn’t mean it is true. (good analogy with the earth is flat).
Here are the questions I have asked numerous times, could you please give me your understanding Michael? If you need context look at above posts.
5. In the spirit of Mt 18, what church should I take you to? How am I going to have this fulfilled in your view of church. Should I gather together a couple of people who have been born again have them decide that you are in the wrong?
6. I know that Paul when he had a question about doctrinal matters he didn’t just open up his bible and pray to the Holy Spirit to decide the matter. I also know he didn’t gather up some local Christians to decide the matter. What did he do? He took it to the people who Jesus instructed to lead his Church. He took it to Peter who had the keys to the kingdom of God. How in your view of church does this work? (if you get hung up on the Peter part, just focus on “he took it to the people who Jesus instructed to lead his church)
7. In Hebrews 13:17 it says, “17Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” Do members of your Christian community take seriously the authority of their minister; or is the individual still the primary source of authority (you did tell me to search the scriptures and decide for myself)? Would the new testament church tell me to do that?
8. 1 tim 3:15, Paul says that I should look to the church because it is the “pillar and foundation of truth.” Please help me understand how this works in your view of church.
9. If the Holy Spirit could so preserve fallible, sinful men from fallible mistakes and render their work infallible (the writing of the bible) so the church could receive Christ’s truth without error, then why couldn’t God raise up fallible and sinful men and fill them with the same Holy Spirit so He could infallibly transmit sure and reliable interpretations of the Word?
I will answer your question about Islam in the next couple of days when I get a little more time. Thanks again for joining the discussion and I look forward to your reply to my questions.
September 25th, 2007 at 8:21 am
Is paragraph 841 wrong? No.
Do you worship God the creator? Do you worship the God of Abraham? If you said yes to these two questions than you to would agree with paragraph 841. By affirming what is true in the religion of Islam, does that mean Catholics agree with everything Islam teaches? No of course not.
Basically we can look at this in one of two ways, one- affirm what is true about their religion And use that as our starting point to bring them to the fullness of Truth- Jesus Christ as we know Him in Christianity. Or two we can just reject everything in their religion, ie throw the baby out with the bath water. The church after the second Vatican council has chosen to be more positive, chosen the first option and highlight what we have in common in hopes to bring them to Jesus Christ. Doesn’t that sound a lot like the new testament church how they affirmed what was true in the religion of the Jews and used that to lead them to Christ? Doesn’t that sound a lot like St. Paul in Acts 17 pointing out to the pagans who the their unknown God was? It sure sounds like that to me.
Also to put this in greater context, I would like to give you a different, but similar example. I could say that Protestant do not worship the one, true God because the one true God teaches that we are saved by faith and works, that He’s truly present in the Eucharist, that marriage is between one man and one woman, that he established one church and that church is the Catholic Church, ect, ect… Do you see where I am going with this? Catholics could just say you certainly don’t worship the one true God because the one true God certainly didn’t teach the heresy you guys believe or we could look at it more positively and affirm what we have in common and build on from there. Sort of like we are doing now. We both believe that Jesus is the divine Son of God, we both believe He has communicated to us through the bible, which is the inspired word of God and now we are building on what we have in common to hopefully draw us into greater intimacy with Him and each other.
So no the Catechism is not wrong. Did this help to give you greater understanding of what we believe?
October 14th, 2007 at 6:20 pm
Well, I see that no one replied to my questions. I really don’t understand. By having that link to ministry that focuses on Catholics, I would assume you want to reach out to catholics. So why don’t you reach out to me? I wonder if you guys just like to pick on Catholics who are ignorant of their faith. It almost like you want to find catholics who don’t know anything so that you can propose that distorted view of Catholicism (ie link to Mike Gedron site) and then they can fall for that junk. Is that it? Why don’t you reach out to me?
Anyway my purpose of visiting your site was to hopefully be able to clear up your misunderstandings so to hopefully bring you closer to the fullness of truth. You see the Catholic Church is “the fullness” of Christ(Eph 1:22-23). Everything Christ has done in the past He is now doing through his body, the Church. For example, He is now ministering His forgiveness of sins through the Church (and I don’t just mean the proclamation of His forgiveness). The Catholic sacrament of reconciliation is not the Catholic Church putting “another mediator” between God and man. The sacrament of reconciliation is God’s amazing gift to the church. God is using the priest to draw us into deeper union with him by allowing us to experience his love and forgiveness. This is the way God set it up, this is God’s gift to us (jn 20:22). Another example, the Catholic Eucharist is not Catholics way of adding to the things you need to do in order to be saved, as your link would like us to believe. All the sacraments, especially the Eucharist are means to end, which is our salvation (the Triune God). God uses the Bible or his love letters to draw you into a closer relationship with Him. In the same way (and I would argue an even greater way), God uses the sacraments. Receiving the Catholic Eucharist is the most intimate way you can know God on this earth. Can you be intimate with your wife by reading love letters she has written to you? Yes of course. Is there even a deeper intimacy you can have with your wife? Yes of course- loving marital intercourse. In a similar way, the Eucharist is God’s “marital intercourse” with his bride the church. I know this might be a radical way of thinking of Catholicism, especially if you subscribe to the “Catholicism” that Mike Gendron pushes. But this is the true Catholicism. This is the faith of the apostles, the faith of the early church. And in closing this faith is a gift from God that He is inviting all of us, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, to enjoy.
So Shane and those who visit his blog, I ask you to at the very least to examine why the Catholic church teaches what she does (and I don’t mean examine what protestants say the catholic church teaches.) I ask to allow yourself to try and read it without the possible misconceptions you have been taught. I pray that you try and read it with an open heart and mind. Even if you never come to see the Catholic Church the way I believe God sees her, you will at least become better protestants. You will know with even greater clarity what you are protesting against. Thank you.
October 15th, 2007 at 8:53 am
I want to apologize for my past comments that came off as sarcastic or arrogant. I came on with a chip on my shoulder, so I apologize. In this last post, my intent was not to be sarcastic or sound like I think Catholics are better than anyone else. I do we believe we are better off, but not better than. I would hope Protestants would believe the same about what they believe. With that said, I also believe that the Mike Gendrons of the world are not to blame for the misconceptions about Catholicism. I believe the fault lies with Catholics like me who do not live out all that we have been given. A number of years ago I left the Catholic Church because of what I believed they taught and from the lack of passion I saw from those who looked like devout Catholics. Eventually my love for Christ brought my heart home in the Catholic Church. And it out of that love and the same past misconceptions I had that I come to you. Again I apologize for my past arrogance.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
Hunting the Whore of Babylon
Some anti-Catholics claim the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon of Revelation 17 and 18. Dave Hunt, in his 1994 book, A Woman Rides the Beast, presents nine arguments to try to prove this. His claims are a useful summary of those commonly used by Fundamentalists, and an examination of them shows why they don’t work.
#1: Seven Hills
Hunt argues that the Whore “is a city built on seven hills,” which he identifies as the seven hills of ancient Rome. This argument is based on Revelation 17:9, which states that the woman sits on seven mountains.
The Greek word in this passage is horos. Of the sixty-five occurrences of this word in the New Testament, only three are rendered “hill” by the King James Version. The remaining sixty-two are translated as “mountain” or “mount.” Modern Bibles have similar ratios. If the passage states that the Whore sits on “seven mountains,” it could refer to anything. Mountains are common biblical symbols, often symbolizing whole kingdoms (cf. Ps. 68:15; Dan. 2:35; Amos 4:1, 6:1; Obad. 8–21). The Whore’s seven mountains might be seven kingdoms she reigns over, or seven kingdoms with which she has something in common.
The number seven may be symbolic also, for it often represents completeness in the Bible. If so, the seven mountains might signify that the Whore reigns over all earth’s kingdoms.
Even if we accept that the word horos should be translated literally as “hill” in this passage, it still does not narrow us down to Rome. Other cities are known for having been built on seven hills as well.
Even if we grant that the reference is to Rome, which Rome are we talking about—pagan Rome or Christian Rome? As we will see, ancient, pagan Rome fits all of Hunt’s criteria as well, or better, than Rome during the Christian centuries.
Now bring in the distinction between Rome and Vatican City—the city where the Catholic Church is headquartered—and Hunt’s claim becomes less plausible. Vatican City is not built on seven hills, but only one: Vatican Hill, which is not one of the seven upon which ancient Rome was built. Those hills are on the east side of the Tiber river; Vatican Hill is on the west.
#2: “Babylon”—What’s in a Name?
Hunt notes that the Whore will be a city “known as Babylon.” This is based on Revelation 17:5, which says that her name is “Babylon the Great.”
The phrase “Babylon the great” (Greek: Babulon a megala) occurs five times in Revelation (14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2, and 18:21). Light is shed on its meaning when one notices that Babylon is referred to as “the great city” seven times in the book (16:19, 17:18, 18:10, 16, 18, 19, 21). Other than these, there is only one reference to “the great city.” That passage is 11:8, which states that the bodies of God’s two witnesses “will lie in the street of the great city, which is allegorically called Sodom and Egypt, where their Lord was crucified.”
“The great city” is symbolically called Sodom, a reference to Jerusalem, symbolically called “Sodom” in the Old Testament (cf. Is. 1:10; Ezek. 16:1–3, 46–56). We also know Jerusalem is the “the great city” of Revelation 11:8 because the verse says it was “where [the] Lord was crucified.”
Revelation consistently speaks as if there were only one “great city” (”the great city”), suggesting that the great city of 11:8 is the same as the great city mentioned in the other seven texts—Babylon. Additional evidence for the identity of the two is the fact that both are symbolically named after great Old Testament enemies of the faith: Sodom, Egypt, and Babylon.
This suggests that Babylon the great may be Jerusalem, not Rome. Many Protestant and Catholic commentators have adopted this interpretation. On the other hand, early Church Fathers often referred to Rome as “Babylon,” but every references was to pagan Rome, which martyred Christians.
#3: Commits Fornication
Hunt tells us, “The woman is called a ‘whore’ (verse 1), with whom earthly kings ‘have committed fornication’ (verse 2). Against only two cities could such a charge be made: Jerusalem and Rome.”
Here Hunt admits that the prophets often referred to Jerusalem as a spiritual whore, suggesting that the Whore might be apostate Jerusalem. Ancient, pagan Rome also fits the description, since through the cult of emperor worship it also committed spiritual fornication with “the kings of the earth” (those nations it conquered).
To identify the Whore as Vatican City, Hunt interprets the fornication as alleged “unholy alliances” forged between Vatican City and other nations, but he fails to cite any reasons why the Vatican’s diplomatic relations with other nations are “unholy.”
He also confuses Vatican City with the city of Rome, and he neglects the fact that pagan Rome had “unholy alliances” with the kingdoms it governed (unholy because they were built on paganism and emperor worship).
#4: Clothed in Purple and Red
Hunt states, “She [the Whore] is clothed in ‘purple and scarlet’ (verse 4), the colors of the Catholic clergy.” He then cites the Catholic Encyclopedia to show that bishops wear certain purple vestments and cardinals wear certain red vestments.
Hunt ignores the obvious symbolic meaning of the colors—purple for royalty and red for the blood of Christian martyrs. Instead, he is suddenly literal in his interpretation. He understood well enough that the woman symbolizes a city and that the fornication symbolizes something other than literal sex, but now he wants to assign the colors a literal, earthly fulfillment in a few vestments of certain Catholic clergy.
Purple and red are not the dominant colors of Catholic clerical vestments. White is. All priests wear white (including bishops and cardinals when they are saying Mass)—even the pope does so.
The purple and scarlet of the Whore are contrasted with the white of the New Jerusalem, the Bride of Christ (Rev. 19:8). This is a problem for Hunt for three reasons: (a) we have already noted that the dominant color of Catholic clerical vestments is white, which would identify them with New Jerusalem if the color is taken literally; (b) the clothing of the Bride is given a symbolic interpretation (”the righteous acts of the saints;” 19:8); implying that the clothing of the Whore should also be given a symbolic meaning; and (c) the identification of the Bride as New Jerusalem (Rev. 3:12, 21:2, 10) suggests that the Whore may be old (apostate) Jerusalem—a contrast used elsewhere in Scripture (Gal. 4:25–26).
Hunt ignores the liturgical meaning of purple and red in Catholic symbolism. Purple symbolizes repentance, and red honors the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs.
It is appropriate for Catholic clerics to wear purple and scarlet, if for no other reason because they have been liturgical colors of the true religion since ancient Israel.
Hunt neglects to remind his readers that God commanded that scarlet yarn and wool be used in liturgical ceremonies (Lev. 14:4, 6, 49–52; Num. 19:6), and that God commanded that the priests’ vestments be made with purple and scarlet yarn (Ex. 28:4–8, 15, 33, 39:1–8, 24, 29).
#5: Possesses Great Wealth
Hunt states, “[The Whore’s] incredible wealth next caught John’s eye. She was ‘decked with gold and precious stones and pearls . . . ’ [Rev. 17:4].” The problem is that, regardless of what it had in the past, the modern Vatican is not fantastically wealthy. In fact, it has run a budget deficit in most recent years and has an annual budget only around the size of that of the Archdiocese of Chicago. Furthermore, wealth was much more in character with pagan Rome or apostate Jerusalem, both key economic centers.
#6: A Golden Cup
Hunt states that the Whore “has ‘a golden cup [chalice] in her hand, full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication.’” This is another reference to Revelation 17:4. Then he states that the “Church is known for its many thousands of gold chalices around the world.”
To make the Whore’s gold cup suggestive of the Eucharistic chalice, Hunt inserts the word “chalice” in square brackets, though the Greek word here is the ordinary word for cup (potarion), which appears thirty-three times in the New Testament and is always translated “cup.”
He ignores the fact that the Catholic chalice is used in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper—a ritual commanded by Christ (Luke 22:19–20; 1 Cor. 11:24–25); he ignores the fact that the majority of Eucharistic chalices Catholics use are not made out of gold, but other materials, such as brass, silver, glass, and even earthenware; he ignores the fact that gold liturgical vessels and utensils have been part of the true religion ever since ancient Israel—again at the command of God (Ex. 25:38–40, 37:23–24; Num. 31:50–51; 2 Chr. 24:14); and he again uses a literal interpretation, according to which the Whore’s cup is not a single symbol applying to the city of Rome, but a collection of many literal cups used in cities throughout the world. But Revelation tells us that it’s the cup of God’s wrath that is given to the Whore (Rev. 14:10; cf. Rev. 18:6). This has nothing to do with Eucharistic chalices.
#7: The Mother of Harlots
Now for Hunt’s most hilarious argument: “John’s attention is next drawn to the inscription on the woman’s forehead: ‘THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH’ (verse 5, [Hunt’s emphasis]). Sadly enough, the Roman Catholic Church fits that description as precisely as she fits the others. Much of the cause is due to the unbiblical doctrine of priestly celibacy,” which has “made sinners of the clergy and harlots out of those with whom they secretly cohabit.”
Priestly celibacy is not a doctrine but a discipline—a discipline in the Latin Rite of the Church—and even this rite has not always been mandatory. This discipline can scarcely be unbiblical, since Hunt himself says, “The great apostle Paul was a celibate and recommended that life to others who wanted to devote themselves fully to serving Christ.”
Hunt has again lurched to an absurdly literal interpretation. He should interpret the harlotry of the Whore’s daughters as the same as their mother’s, which is why she is called their mother in the first place. This would make it spiritual or political fornication or the persecution of Christian martyrs (cf. 17:2, 6, 18:6). Instead, Hunt gives the interpretation of the daughters as literal, earthly prostitutes committing literal, earthly fornication.
If Hunt did not have a fixation on the King James Version, he would notice another point that identifies the daughters’ harlotries with that of their mother: The same Greek word (porna) is used for both mother and daughters. The King James Version translates this word as “whore” whenever it refers to the mother, but as “harlot” when it refers to the daughters. Modern translations render it consistently. John sees the “great harlot” (17:1, 15, 16, 19:2) who is “the mother of harlots” (17:5). The harlotries of the daughters must be the same as the mother’s, which Hunt admits is not literal sex!
#8: Sheds the Blood of Saints
Hunt states, “John next notices that the woman is drunk—not with alcohol but with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus . . . [cf. verse 6].” He then advances charges of brutality and killing by the Inquisitions, supposed forced conversions of nations, and even the Nazi holocaust!
This section of the book abounds with historical errors, not the least of which is his implication that the Church endorses the forced conversion of nations. The Church emphatically does not do so. It has condemned forced conversions as early as the third century (before then they were scarcely even possible), and has formally condemned them on repeated occasions, as in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 160, 1738, 1782, 2106–7).
But pagan Rome and apostate Jerusalem do fit the description of a city drunk with the blood of saints and the martyrs of Jesus. And since they were notorious persecutors of Christians, the original audience would have automatically thought of one of these two as the city that persecutes Christians, not an undreamed-of Christian Rome that was centuries in the future.
#9: Reigns over Kings
For his last argument, Hunt states, “Finally, the angel reveals that the woman ‘is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth’ (verse 18). Is there such a city? Yes, and again only one: Vatican City.”
This is a joke. Vatican City has no power over other nations; it certainly does not reign over them. In fact, the Vatican’s very existence has been threatened in the past two centuries by Italian nationalism.
Hunt appeals to power the popes once had over Christian political rulers (neglecting the fact that this was always a limited authority, by the popes’ own admission), but at that time there was no Vatican City. The Vatican only became a separate city in 1929, when the Holy See and Italy signed the Lateran Treaty.
Hunt seems to understand this passage to be talking about Vatican City, since the modern city of Rome is only a very minor political force. If the reign is a literal, political one, then pagan Rome fulfills the requirement far better than Christian Rome ever did.
December 10th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
The Anti-Catholic Bible
Not so long ago people were saying that anti-Catholicism was going the way of the dinosaur. If so, it looks like the dinosaur has made an unexpected comeback, because anti-Catholicism is healthier and more widespread now than it has been for years.
Since the late 1970s several new anti-Catholic organizations have been founded, and some older ones have been revitalized. A partial lineup includes Chick Publications, Mission to Catholics International, Lumen Productions, Research and Education Foundation, Osterhus Publishing House, Christians United for Reformation (CURE), Harvest House, and Bob Jones University Press. Combined they turn out more anti-Catholic tracts, magazines, and books than ever before—millions of copies each year.
*************
The above comment was originally submitted as a complete cut and paste of a lengthy post at Catholic Answers. We do not allow this kind of quoting. If you wish to read the complete post, you may do see by visiting this link http://www.catholic.com/library/the_anti_catholic_bible.asp.
For future reference to those making comments on this blog, we thank you for your comments, not the long quotation of others.
*************
December 10th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Is Catholicism Pagan?
If few Fundamentalists know the history of their religion—which distressingly few do—even fewer have an appreciation of the history of the Catholic Church. They become easy prey for purveyors of fanciful “histories” that claim to account for the origin and advance of Catholicism.
Anti-Catholics often suggest that Catholicism did not exist prior to the Edict of Milan, which was issued in 313 AD and made Christianity legal in the Roman Empire. With this, pagan influences began to contaminate the previously untainted Christian Church. In no time, various inventions adopted from paganism began to replace the gospel that had been once for all delivered to the saints. At least, that is the theory.
Pagan Influence Fallacy
Opponents of the Church often attempt to discredit Catholicism by attempting to show similarities between it and the beliefs or practices of ancient paganism. This fallacy is frequently committed by Fundamentalists against Catholics, by Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, and others against both Protestants and Catholics, and by atheists and skeptics against both Christians and Jews.
The nineteenth century witnessed a flowering of this “pagan influence fallacy.” Publications such as The Two Babylons by Alexander Hislop (the classic English text charging the Catholic Church with paganism) paved the way for generations of antagonism towards the Church. During this time, entire new sects were created (Seventh-Day Adventists, Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses)—all considering traditional Catholicism and Protestantism as polluted by paganism. This era also saw atheistic “freethinkers” such as Robert Ingersoll writing books attacking Christianity and Judaism as pagan.
The pagan influence fallacy has not gone away in the twentieth century, but newer archaeology and more mature scholarship have diminished its influence. Yet there are still many committing it. In Protestant circles, numerous works have continued to popularize the claims of Alexander Hislop, most notably the comic books of Jack Chick and the book Babylon Mystery Religion by the young Ralph Woodrow (later Woodrow realized its flaws and wrote The Babylon Connection? repudiating it and refuting Hislop). Other Christian and quasi-Christian sects have continued to charge mainstream Christianity with paganism, and many atheists have continued to repeat—unquestioned—the charges of paganism leveled by their forebears.
Use of a round wafer implies sun worship?
Hislop and Chick argue that the wafers of Communion are round, just like the wafers of the sun worshippers of Baal. They don’t bother to mention that the wafers used by the same pagans were also ovals, triangles, some with the edges folded over, or shaped like leaves or animals, etc. The fact that a wafer is round does not make it immoral or pagan, since even the Jews had wafers and cakes offered in the Old Testament (Gen. 18:1-8, Ex 29:1-2).
Unfortunately for Chick and other Fundamentalists, their arguments backfire. An atheist will take the pagan connection one step further, saying, “Christianity itself is simply a regurgitation of pagan myths: the incarnation of a divinity from a virgin, a venerated mother and child, just like Isis and Osiris, Isa and Iswara, Fortuna and Jupiter, and Semiramis and Tammuz. Beyond this, some pagans had a triune God, and pagan gods were often pictured with wings, as was your God in Psalms 91:4. The flames on the heads of the apostles were also seen as an omen from the gods in Roman poetry and heathen myths long before Pentecost. A rock is struck that brings forth water in the Old Testament . . . just like the pagan goddess Rhea did long before then. Also, Jesus is known as the ‘fish,’ just like the fish-god Dagon, etc.” Unless the Fundamentalists are willing to honestly examine the logical fallacies and historical inaccuracies, they are left defenseless. Fortunately, like the attacks on Catholicism in particular, all of the supposed parallels mentioned above self-destruct when examined with any scholarly rigor. If not guilty of historical inaccuracies, they all are guilty of what can be called “pagan influence fallacies.”
Anything can be attacked using fallacy
The pagan influence fallacy is committed when one charges that a particular religion, belief, or practice is of pagan origin or has been influenced by paganism and is therefore false, wrong, tainted, or to be repudiated. In this minimal form, the pagan influence fallacy is a subcase of the genetic fallacy, which improperly judges a thing based on its history or origins rather than on its own merits (e.g., “No one should use this medicine because it was invented by a drunkard and adulterer”).
Very frequently, the pagan influence fallacy is committed in connection with other fallacies, most notably the post hoc ergo proper hoc (”After this, therefore because of this”) fallacy—e.g., “Some ancient pagans did or believed something millennia ago, therefore any parallel Christian practices and beliefs must be derived from that source.” Frequently, a variant on this fallacy is committed in which, as soon as a parallel with something pagan is noted, it is assumed that the pagan counterpart is the more ancient. This variant might be called the similis hoc ergo propter hoc (”Similar to this, therefore because of this”) fallacy.
When the pagan influence fallacy is encountered, it should be pointed out that it is, in fact, a fallacy. To help make this clear to a religious person committing it, it may be helpful to illustrate with cases where the pagan influence fallacy could be committed against his own position (e.g., the practice of circumcision was practiced in the ancient world by a number of peoples—including the Egyptians—but few Jews or Christians would say that its divinely authorized use in Israel was an example of “pagan corruption”).
To help a secular person see the fallacy involved, one might point to a parallel case of the genetic fallacy involving those of his perspective (e.g., “Nobody should accept this particular scientific theory because it was developed by an atheist”).
Whenever one encounters a proposed example of pagan influence, one should demand that its existence be properly documented, not just asserted. The danger of accepting an inaccurate claim is too great. The amount of misinformation in this area is great enough that it is advisable never to accept a reported parallel as true unless it can be demonstrated from primary source documents or through reliable, scholarly secondary sources. After receiving documentation supporting the claim of a pagan parallel, one should ask a number of questions:
1. Is there a parallel? Frequently, there is not. The claim of a parallel may be erroneous, especially when the documentation provided is based on an old or undisclosed source.
For example: “The Egyptians had a trinity. They worshiped Osiris, Isis, and Horus, thousands of years before the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were known” (Robert Ingersoll, Why I Am an Agnostic). This is not true. The Egyptians had an Ennead—a pantheon of nine major gods and goddesses. Osiris, Isis, and Horus were simply three divinities in the pantheon who were closely related by marriage and blood (not surprising, since the Ennead itself was an extended family) and who figured in the same myth cycle. They did not represent the three persons of a single divine being (the Christian understanding of the Trinity). The claim of an Egyptian trinity is simply wrong. There is no parallel.
2. Is the parallel dependent or independent? Even if there is a pagan parallel, that does not mean that there is a causal relationship involved. Two groups may develop similar beliefs, practices, and artifacts totally independently of each other. The idea that similar forms are always the result of diffusion from a common source has long been rejected by archaeology and anthropology, and for very good reason: Humans are similar to each other and live in similar (i.e., terrestrial) environments, leading them to have similar cultural artifacts and views.
For example, Fundamentalists have made much of the fact that Catholic art includes Madonna and Child images and that non-Christian art, all over the world, also frequently includes mother and child images. There is nothing sinister in this. The fact is that, in every culture, there are mothers who hold their children! Sometimes this gets represented in art, including religious art, and it especially is used when a work of art is being done to show the motherhood of an individual. Mother-with child-images do not need to be explained by a theory of diffusion from a common, pagan religious source (such as Hislop’s suggestion that such images stem from representations of Semiramis holding Tammuz). One need look no further than the fact that mothers holding children is a universal feature of human experience and a convenient way for artists to represent motherhood.
3. Is the parallel antecedent or consequent? Even if there is a pagan parallel that is causally related to a non-pagan counterpart, this does not establish which gave rise to the other. It may be that the pagan parallel is a late borrowing from a non-pagan source. Frequently, the pagan sources we have are so late that they have been shaped in reaction to Jewish and Christian ideas. Sometimes it is possible to tell that pagans have been borrowing from non-pagans. Other times, it cannot be discerned who is borrowing from whom (or, indeed, if anyone is borrowing from anyone).
For example: The ideas expressed in the Norse Elder Edda about the end and regeneration of the world were probably influenced by the teachings of Christians with whom the Norse had been in contact for centuries (H. A. Guerber, The Norsemen, 339f).
4. Is the parallel treated positively, neutrally, or negatively? Even if there is a pagan parallel to a non-pagan counterpart, that does not mean that the item or concept was enthusiastically or uncritically accepted by non-pagans. One must ask how they regarded it. Did they regard it as something positive, neutral, or negative?
For example: Circumcision and the symbol of the cross might be termed “neutral” Jewish and Christian counterparts to pagan parallels. It is quite likely that the early Hebrews first encountered the idea of circumcision among neighboring non-Jewish peoples, but that does not mean they regarded it as a
religiously good thing for non-Jews to do. Circumcision was regarded as a religiously good thing only for Jews because for them it symbolized a special covenant with the one true God (Gen. 17). The Hebrew scriptures are silent in a religious appraisal of non-Jewish circumcision; they seemed indifferent to the fact that some pagans circumcised.
Similarly, the early Christians who adopted the cross as a symbol did not do so because it was a pagan religious symbol (the pagan cultures which use it as a symbol, notably in East Asia and the Americas, had no influence on the early Christians). The cross was used as a Christian symbol because Christ died on a cross—his execution being regarded as a bad thing in itself, in fact, an infinite injustice—but one from which he brought life for the world. Christians did not adopt it because it was a pagan symbol they liked and wanted to copy.
Examples of negative parallels are often found in Genesis. For instance, the Flood narrative (Gen. 6-9) has parallels to pagan flood stories, but is written so that it refutes ideas in them. Thus Genesis attributes the flood to human sin (6:5-7), not overpopulation, as Atrahasis’ Epic and the Greek poem Cypria did (I. Kikawada & A. Quinn). The presence of flood stories in cultures around the world does not undermine the validity of the biblical narrative, but lends it more credence.
Criticism, refutation, and replacement are also the principles behind modern holidays being
celebrated to a limited extent around the same time as former pagan holidays. In actuality, reports of Christian holidays coinciding with pagan ones are often inaccurate (Christmas does not occur on Saturnalia, for example). However, to the extent the phenomenon occurs at all, Christian holidays were introduced to provide a wholesome, non-pagan alternative celebration, which thus critiques and rejects the pagan holiday.
This is the same process that leads Fundamentalists who are offended at the (inaccurately alleged) pagan derivation of Halloween to introduce alternative “Reformation Day” celebrations for their children. (This modern Protestant holiday is based on the fact that the Reformation began when Martin Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door in Wittenberg, Germany, on October 31, 1517.) Another Fundamentalist substitution for Halloween has been “harvest festivals” that celebrate the season of autumn and the gathering of crops. These fundamentalist substitutions are no more “pagan” than the celebrations of days or seasons that may have been introduced by earlier Christians.
Historical truth prevails
Ultimately, all attempts to prove Catholicism “pagan” fail. Catholic doctrines are neither borrowed from the mystery religions nor introduced from pagans after the conversion of Constantine. To make a charge of paganism stick, one must be able to show more than a similarity between something in the Church and something in the non-Christian world. One must be able to demonstrate a legitimate connection between the two, showing clearly that one is a result of the other, and that there is something wrong with the non-Christian item.
In the final analysis, nobody has been able to prove these things regarding a doctrine of the Catholic faith, or even its officially authorized practices. The charge of paganism just doesn’t work.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:15 pm
Jan,
In your comments you discuss the question: Is Catholicism Pagan? Actually, you cut and paste from this link: http://www.catholic.com/library/Is_Catholicism_Pagan.asp
I have an answer for you. Catholicism need not be considered pagan to be considered apostate and heretical.
Many of the doctrines of the Catholic Church, when placed in the light of scripture, are shown to be seriously in error. We have discussed these doctrines many times in other post and comments.
Finally, please do not cut and paste as you have in this comment. Rather, give your own thoughts or comments and make refereces to supporting material. If we recognize it, we will not accept large cut and paste quotes like this.
Editor
December 10th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
Jan,
Fundamentalist, just like Protestant, can mean different things to different people. Let me assure you however, there are a good number of bible believing Christians who know what they believe and why they believe it. There needs to be more, let’s make that clear, but again, there are people out there who really do follow Jesus and understand what and why they believe what they do.
It is also true, contrary to what you might want to communicate, that there are a growing number of Christians who understand the doctrines of the Catholic Church and see the error in them.