Some time ago, a Fundamentalist Christian brother, well-known as a televangelist, wrote a pamphlet entitled, "A LETTER TO MY CATHOLIC FRIENDS." Reverend X's reason for writing this little book was, and we quote, "I would like to share my feelings and the Scriptures that I believe will verify my answers to the many inquiries coming into the office."
And what were the inquiries or questions that needed an answer from him? Here in his pamphlet, he tells us:
"DEAR BROTHER X, if Roman Catholics become saved (born again), what about their relationship to the Catholic Church? Can they remain in the church or should they come out of it?"
Well, that's the question the Reverend X attempts to answer in the next fifty-four pages of his pamphlet. This brochure will attempt to answer his "open letter" with an "open response." His mere suggestion that a Catholic should leave the Church because he or she has been "saved," or "born again," is very sad. Many Christians are saved and born again and decide to join the Catholic Church, to join a church that follows the teachings of Jesus.
The Reverend X, though he didn't mention it in his letter, did state publicly on TV that Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa of Calcutta would be damned to hell if they were not "born again."
Born again . . . key words to salvation. The Reverend X in his pamphlet says, "Any time hearts cry out to God, meet God's conditions by believing Jesus Christ is the only Savior of mankind, and allow the Lord, Jesus, to come into their hearts, those people are born again."
How many people would question that Mother Teresa and Pope John Paul II fall into that category? Very few.
But he adds, "After a person is saved (and perhaps filled with the Spirit), many things are required of that person. He is expected to walk in the light as God gives the light. He is expected to grow in grace and knowledge of the Lord. He is expected to follow the Lord, Jesus Christ . . . according to the WORD OF GOD." Are you really saying, Friend, "according to the Word of God as the Reverend X interprets it"?
Keep in mind that he is attempting to answer the question of whether a "born again" or "saved" Catholic should leave the Church.
About this he writes, "If that person has been involved in error, wrong teaching, or in a church that doesn't really believe in God, he is expected to come out of that church, to straighten his ways and to allow God to work within his heart and life." Through the rest of the pamphlet, he proceeds to give reasons (through Scripture quotations) why the Catholic Church is "in error and wrong teaching." He uses the Bible in an effort to convince Catholics of how they are being misled by the Church as he boldly states, "I maintain that the bulk of the 'traditions' of the Catholic Church is anti-Bible and anti-God."
In this open letter to you and to whomever you may have succeeded in confusing, we want to take some of our Catholic traditions, which you attacked through the use of the Scriptures, and offer reasons why your attack is nothing more than your personal interpretation of Scripture -- the word of God according to the Reverend X.
Everyone is certain that Fundamentalists have faith. But , what is faith? FAITH IS BELIEVING IN SOMETHING WE CANNOT PROVE, BUT IT'S NOT BELIEVING IN SOMETHING WITHOUT REASON.
You have faith, not because you have proof, but because you have reasons and your reasons are the WORD OF GOD. But we, too, have faith, not because we have proof, but because we have reasons, and our reasons, too, are the WORD OF GOD. Quoting from Scripture, you stated your beliefs that the Catholic Church is in error and guilty of wrong teaching. You also claimed that we are "anti-Bible and anti-God." We will now show that we are NOT by referring to Scripture, as well as history.
Religion, whether it be Jewish, Protestant, or Catholic, requires faith, and what "faith" we believe in often is determined by the reasons presented to us. Example:
Think of a can of beans. When we go to the store to buy a can of beans, how are we going to know that the can we take from the shelf will, in fact, have beans in it? Because Campbell or Heinz, or whatever the manufacturer, has labeled it. Right? -- Of course.
So we trust the manufacturer's word that the can will contain what the label indicates. But the label doesn't really prove it. Someone could have mislabeled it. It's not proof there are beans inside, but it is reason to believe there are. Most often we're going to trust the label of a brand name that has been around for a long time because it has persevered, regardless of the competition. People have investigated the product, and its quality has been tested. Millions of people have faith that the can does contain beans because of the label.
Let's suppose now that just as the manufacturer canned the beans, TRUTH was also canned. Here we have rows and rows of cans labeled TRUTH, and each denomination has put its label on them. We have Methodist truth, Lutheran truth, Jehovah's Witness truth, Mormon truth, Jewish truth, Baptist truth, Greek Orthodox truth, Roman Catholic truth, and, yes, even Reverend X truth -- and it goes on and on.
Now, someone who is seeking TRUTH is going to have to choose which can. Which can he will pick depends pretty much on the label he trusts the most. We know the Catholic Church has been around the longest . . . no one will question that. And it certainly has withstood the competition. There must be reasons why so many people have faith in the Catholic label, that it really offers TRUTH. Remember, all the other labels indicated that they contained TRUTH too . . . and we have faith that other religions, including yours, have truth. The TRUTH doesn't vary, but how we see it does vary. Look at the image below. What do you see?
Do you see a white cross on a dark background? It is there, so it is true, is it not?
Look again. This time put the white cross in the background and what do you see? Four dark squares. And that is true. There really are four dark squares.
Both perceptions are true . . . there is a white cross on a dark background and there are four dark squares on a white background.
You see, Reverend, anyone can make that truth into an error. If we say there is only a white cross there, that truth is no longer true. And if we say there are only four dark squares, that truth is no longer true. Both truths exist.
We have used this example to illustrate a point. Reverend, this is what you have been doing. You're taking the true WORD OF GOD and making a picture of dark squares, then saying, "This is the truth." What you say is true, but it's not the only truth present. You keep saying, "It's in the Bible, it's in the Bible, it's in the Bible. . . ."
Refer to the fourth chapter of Luke, the passage where the devil tempted Christ. Incidentally, if you recall in this particular reading, Jesus fasted. We call this to your attention only in an effort to dissuade you from criticizing us Catholics for abstinence. If Jesus saw the merit in sacrificing food, why do you so violently disagree and condemn us for employing the same practice?
Getting back to Luke 4:9-12, Jesus went into the desert to fast and pray. It was during this time that the devil tempted Him. When the devil promised riches and kingdoms to Christ if He would kneel and give homage to him (the devil), Jesus answered that "Scripture has it that you shall give homage to the Lord, your God, and Him only shall you adore." Then the devil told Jesus to throw Himself down and let the angels save Him. The devil also quoted Scripture, " ' He will bring his angels to watch over you'; and again, 'With their hands, they will support you, that you may never stumble on a stone.' " Again, Jesus used Scripture and answered the devil's temptation by saying, "You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test."
The reason we use this particular passage is to demonstrate how people use the Bible to prove a point or convince others. But there is a precise danger in this. ONE MUST NEVER USE SCRIPTURE TO DECEIVE. And even if deception is not the motive, one must be very careful HOW one uses Scripture, because translations, interpretations, and language can be misleading.
Fundamentalists believe that the Bible and the Bible alone is the sole teacher of truth and therefore the sole reason for faith. Reverend, you say that the Bible was here before the Church. Where do you think the Bible came from? Did Jesus hand a Bible over to His apostles? To dispute that statement, let us look at the history of the Church. . .and the Bible.
Jesus died between A.D. 30 and 33. He left behind a body of believers to whom he gave power. He told them that they had authority to "go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit," with His authority (Matt. 28:18).
That body of believers with His authority and His power were first called Christians at Antioch in A.D. 44. Regarding the New Testament, St. Mark's Gospel was written around A.D. 42-52, while St. Matthew's and St. Luke's Gospels were written about A.D. 63-70, and John's Gospel was probably not written until at least A.D. 97. The Gospels were some fifty-five years in the making. Nine years had elapsed after Christ's death before even one piece of the New Testament was written. And it was sixty-four years before the last Gospel was completed. So there were sixty-four years without the twenty seven books of the New Testament. Do you believe that no Church was in existence before those sixty-four years? What about those people who died in those sixty-four years who did not know the Gospels of John, Matthew, or Mark?
The New Testament, the twenty-seven books that were written in the first century, were not gathered into one book and added to the existing Bible, the Old Testament, until A.D. 393 at the Council of Hippo. The existing Church, the leaders of which we call bishops, gathered in council, prayed to the Holy Spirit for guidance, decided on those twenty-seven and excluded other writings from the first century. They said these books and these books alone are the WORD OF GOD. Who decided that? The bishops at the Council of Hippo. It was they who gave us this extended Bible. It was confirmed at the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397 by another council of bishops. From then on, it was definitely referred to as the New Testament and as part of the Bible.
We have a four-hundred-year gap before the New Testament was considered a part of the Bible. What did the people in the first centuries do? Who taught them?
The Church is the "mother" of the Bible, not the "daughter." Historically, we can prove the Church was here four centuries before the New Testament was even in the Bible. Remember, when we say "Church," we're referring to this body of believers who are authorized with power from Jesus in Matthew 28:19.
Please keep in mind that in no way are we trying to undermine the importance of Sacred Scripture; rather, we are trying to keep it sacred and not play "Scripture Smorgasbord" -- take a little of this and a little of that -- the things that please my palate or, in other words, the things that suit my PERSONAL preference. Notice, we say PERSONAL, because that too is the issue -- PERSONAL INTERPRETATION.
We have two factors that lead to misunderstanding of the Scriptures and they are translation and interpretation. Going back as far as Martin Luther, we can see how these two issues were so very vital. In the first years after separation from the Roman Catholic Church, Martin believed and preached that the Bible could be interpreted by everyone, and he said, "even by the humble miller's maid, nay, a child of nine." Some time later, when others contradicted his views (namely Calvin and Zwingli), he referred to the Bible as a "heresy book" which was most obscure and difficult to understand. In 1525, he no longer could tolerate the religious anarchy that aspired to private interpretation. To quote Martin Luther: "There is no rustic so rude but that, if he dreams or fancies anything, it must be the whisper of the Holy Spirit and he himself is a prophet."
Luther finally, in 1552, translated his Bible into German. Future scholars found over 3,000 mistranslations. Scholars today say there were over 2,600 errors in the King James version when it was translated, but God's word is not being questioned; rather, it is the translation that men have made of it that should be questioned.
To take the Scripture literally can be misleading. For instance, refer to a Scripture that you quoted in your letter, Matthew 23:9 . . ." And call no man your father upon the earth; for one is your Father, which is in heaven." These words were spoken by Jesus. You have used that Scripture to attack Catholics for addressing their priests as "father." But why are you not taking Jesus' words literally? What do you call your male parent, the man married to your mother? Do you not call him your "father"? And also in the same Scripture, Christ says, "Avoid being called teachers, only one is your teacher, the Messiah." But even Fundamentalist denominations have Sunday School teachers, do they not? If you read 1 Corinthians 4:15, Paul refers to himself as a "father" to his followers. What is your interpretation of that, Reverend?
You see, it's all language. One passage may take on a different meaning in another language depending on how it is translated and interpreted. For instance, take the word "homely." In the United States, if you refer to persons as being "homely," you are referring to their outer appearance -- that they are not very attractive -- that they don't have any fine features, or good looks. However, if you were to describe someone as "homely" in England, you would be saying that person keeps a nice home -- that she's hospitable, that one can feel "at home" in her house. So, if you went to someone's home in England or Ireland and you enjoyed the hospitality of that home and you wanted to compliment the hostess, you would say, "Thank you, you are very homely." And that person would feel complimented because you have shown your appreciation. But if you experienced the same hospitality and felt at home in someone's house in the United States and you decided to compliment that person, saying "you are very homely," the hostess would be quite offended. She would most likely think that you were being very insulting to her, a complete opposite of what you meant to say.
So we're back to translation and interpretation and use of the Scriptures to reinforce truth which we are seeking. The Catholic Church has always been aware of the need for guidance in Scripture interpretation and it is, in fact, a teaching Church. We should never begin quoting the Bible to each other unless we know what we are talking about. It cannot always be taken literally until it's translated properly into the meaning of the day. What did it mean then, when Christ said it? If we take things literally, we will be more confused by passages that seemingly contradict each other. Yet both are the WORD OF GOD.
In Galatians 3:1-9, we are told faith alone will justify us. Then in James 2:24 we read, "You must perceive that a person is justified by his works, and not by faith alone." We are reading two different things, but both are the WORD OF GOD. We are reading that faith alone will justify us, but we are also reading that it's no good to have faith alone. Furthermore, both Scripture passages take Abraham and use him as an example to prove the argument. Which is correct?
Certainly, you would agree that they both are correct, but one would need some guidance in the interpretation of these Scripture readings. To take the words literally, there would be contradiction, but to take the ideas in context would be enlightenment if explained properly. This is why it is so vital to have guidance in the study of Scripture. Martin Luther realized it after he saw what was happening with private interpretation.
But if you insist on taking the Bible literally with no regard for the fact that these words have been translated many, many times, that they were spoken in Aramaic, written in Greek and translated in many different versions of the English language . . . if you still insist on the literal interpretation, how do you accept this quotation from St. Peter? Referring to Paul's epistles, he says, "There are certain passages in them hard to understand. The ignorant and the unstable distort them (just as they do the rest of Scripture) to their own ruin" (2 Peter 3:16). Peter also tells us (2 Peter 1:20): "First, you must understand this: there is no prophecy contained in Scripture which is a personal interpretation."
Your letter to Catholics, which tried to convince them that their Church was in "error and wrong teaching," was filled with your personal interpretations. To quote from you, "I would like to share with you my feelings and the Scriptures that I believe will verify my answer." We're glad you said the words "I believe," because that's your personal interpretation. You question the Pope's infallibility. Where did you get yours? You speak with the authority of the Reverend X, an individual. The Catholic Church teaches what was handed down to them from St. Peter, the Catholic Church which you claim didn't exist for the first three hundred years after Christ. In the following pages, we will prove that it did.
You have been bold enough to justify your criticism of the Catholic Church with the statement, "I must reveal the truth as it has been given to me." That sounds downright profound. But we're certain that leaders of over three thousand fundamentalist denominations feel the same way. You don't deny the work of the Holy Spirit in your individual revelation. Why won't you accept that it's the Holy Spirit working when representatives from all over the world gather to pray and share and teach? We call this "the Council of Bishops." You call it "error and wrong teaching."
Before we conclude this section which concentrated on Scripture, its translation and interpretation, we want to illustrate for your benefit and for all of those who have been confused by you, that the Catholic Church has never been opposed to the reading of the Holy Bible. The Catholic liturgy, the Mass, offers Scripture readings each and every day; it is part of the Mass itself. It is called the Liturgy of the Word. For those of you who may not know it, the word Catholic means "universal." It is quite appropriate because whether a Catholic attends Mass in Rome, Alabama, Hawaii, Poland, California, or New York, he or she will read the same Scripture readings that day at Mass.
So that you, Reverend X, may not be confused any longer, please know these facts. We are Catholic. We are universal. Our position is that the Bible is the WORD OF GOD. It is the inspired WORD OF GOD. It is not the WORD OF GOD that is not truthful; it is man's understanding of God's Word that divides. And since man, by his own strength and powers, may not find the truth in God's Word, we need a teaching Church to guide us.
The reasons you offer for proving that the Catholic Church is in "error and wrong teaching" are Scripture quotations taken from the Word of God according to the Reverend X. It is your interpretation. That doesn't make it Divine Revelation!