THE PAPACY IN BORN FUNDAMENTALIST, BORN AGAIN CATHOLIC BY DAVID M CURRIE
FOREWORD
I have many concerns about the Roman Catholic Church. I fear that fanaticism
starts off with bizarre teachings such as that the bread of communion can be
equal to a human being for it is a human being who is also God, Jesus Christ.
When you can get people to believe that you could have got them to believe in
sacrificing homosexuals to God just as easily for one seems as hard to believe
as the other. The purpose of this page is to make people decide for themselves
whether or not sending their children to the Catholic Church for religious
instruction is a good thing.
We are leaving out his statements about bread and wine being changed by priests into the body and blood of Jesus as Mass as it is enough to show the Catholic clergy has no authority but has misappropriated it to show that its claims about the Mass are suspect and possibly downright false.
CURRIE SAYS, when the apostles chose a replacement for Judas Iscariot in Acts
1 that shows they had the power to pass on their office. The bishops have
inherited their authority from the apostles. The Bible never says that any
Christian at all can administer the Eucharist or the sacrament of absolving
sins. Only properly ordained men can do it. The doctrine that the Church is the
body of Christ means that when the Christian acts in the name of Christ it is
really Christ who is doing the good work so in this context priest forgiving
sins makes perfect sense.
THE TRUTH: They did it because they thought the scriptures told them to do it
and predicted the event. Acts quotes a scripture that runs, let another his
office take. They did not claim to make this man an apostle - they thought God
had already chosen him as one and they were only acknowledging that. Also, it is
stated in the Bible that Matthias, the replacement, was an eyewitness, being an
eyewitness was essential for being an apostle. The Matthias episode has nothing
in common with Roman Catholicism picking clergy who are not predicted in the
Bible, who have never met Jesus and who do not claim to be apostles but the mere
inferior stand-ins for the apostles.
In Catholicism, you feel a call from God. The Church will then ordain you. This
is not recognising you as an apostle but making you one. It is entirely
different.
To say that it is really Christ who does the good work is to deny human agency.
If priests forgiving sins like they were Jesus makes sense because they are
parts of the body of Jesus then they are Jesus and so their claiming to be God
would make perfect sense. The distortion and obfuscation in this book is
horrendous.
CURRIE SAYS, The priest is just the assistant of the bishop and has no right or
authority to teach anything that does not fit the teaching of the bishop (page
69). When Jesus said call nobody teacher he did not mean this literally for even
Evangelicals talk about Sunday-School Teachers.
THE TRUTH: These teachers do not see themselves as teachers but as vehicles
through which Christ teaches so that Christ is the only teacher. So they are not
literally teachers.
CURRIE SAYS, Since Jesus called Simon rock or Peter that was showing that Peter
had a new role as the rock (page 75). Evangelicals argue that Peter's faith was
the rock not Peter to avoid saying Peter was the first pope. But theirs is a
strange interpretation.
THE TRUTH: Peter could be the rock without having a role. We must remember that
Peter was chosen as the rock because of his faith meaning that the faith was the
real rock so the Evangelical interpretation is not strange. Even Catholics hold
that a pope without faith isn't much of a rock and that only a man of faith
should be elected to the papacy. They agree with the Evangelical interpretation.
The other ten or so Evangelical interpretations are conveniently omitted.
CURRIE SAYS, No group taught that the rock was anything other than Peter in the
first few centuries (page 76).
THE TRUTH: Some fathers taught that the rock was Peter's faith or Christ
himself.
Why is the fact that even the pope cannot be the rock without rocklike faith not
mentioned? Because it shows that being the rock is conditional on faith. If
Peter lost his faith he would be the rock no more. This would mean that Jesus
could not have a papacy in mind for you can't appoint a new pope every time you
think the pope has betrayed the faith or showed lack of faith.
CURRIE SAYS, Isaiah 22 speaks of the key representing the power to rule and pass
on that power in reference to the Prime Minister Eliakim. This was the meaning
Jesus had when he said he gave Peter the key of the kingdom of Heaven (page 80).
It shows that Jesus meant for Peter to have a successor.
THE TRUTH: There is no evidence that Jesus was thinking of Isaiah 22 at all.
Peter and the popes could not rule the kingdom of Heaven. They just had the key
to open it up by their teaching.
CURRIE SAYS, Clement of Rome, a pope, wrote to the Church of Corinth and gave it
commands (page 89). This would have been interfering had he not being the head
of the Church.
THE TRUTH: The book assumes that because there is no record of Corinth being
offended by these commands from Rome that it was accepted that Rome had
authority over it. Silence in this case is no help for most ancient records have
been lost. We only have a few documents from Clement’s day that have to do with
the Christian religion so this argument is totally worthless. When we don't know
if the Corinthians were offended clearly the author has no right to dare to say
that this silence means they did approve.
Maybe Clement was asked to write to that Church. Many leaders in the early
Church considered themselves as a invested with the right to rule the church as
a unit so leaders/bishops could lecture Churches that were on the other side of
Europe. Bishops did have to step in if the bishop of an area was not carrying
out his duties properly.
In the letter Clement gave out about schism in Corinth. He uses the scriptures
of the Christian religion and the traditions to justify what he says to them so
he does not claim any authority of his own. He is only telling them what
scripture commands. He is not acting like a pope. To act like a pope would
involve claiming that God has put him in a position of authority so he should be
obeyed. Clement doesn’t tell them that if they go into schism they are breaking
away from him and he is the head of the Church. The letter has nothing to do
with defending the papacy at all.
Clement uses we and not I like a pope would. He is speaking on his own behalf
and on behalf of the other bishops as a whole. He is only spokesperson. When the
other bishops like Clement could preach at other cities why couldn't Clement do
it without being pope? I mean if you are pope you are head of the Church, the
one that does the commanding. Bishops were also missionaries in those days and
the diocese system wasn’t set up. They could preach and write to whatever city
they wished even if there were bishops already in that city.
And when Clement wrote that the apostles had all their doubts laid to rest when
Jesus rose from the dead it shows that he had no links with the apostles though
he claimed to have traced his succession from them. He would not count as a true
pope because there is no way if the gospels are true that Jesus raised people
from the dead and did incredible miracles before the resurrection that anybody
could possibly wait until the resurrection to have their doubts cast aside.
CURRIE SAYS, The evil Vigilius stole the papacy to teach heresy and yet when he
became pope he did the reverse and taught the correct doctrine (page 95-6). This
indicates that God protects the pope from error.
THE TRUTH: There is no evidence that Vigilius did this because of virtue or
because he let God be his guide.
What about the fact that many Catholics say they are unsure if Vigilius was a
real pope? Some rock for the Church to be built on when nobody knows for sure if
all the listed popes were real popes! Yet Catholics give this rock of theirs the
right to advocate hatred against homosexuals and contracepting couples and
divorcees!
What if the Great Western Schism when there were two and then three claimants to
be the true pope had never been healed? There was no proof that any of them was
a fake. The schism was started by cardinals who claimed they had rigged the
election of the Roman Pontiff. You would have three men giving out allegedly
infallible statements so what use is the papacy as a tool for uniting the Church
and ruling it and keeping its faith pure? What use is infallibility when nobody
knows which one is infallible? The fact that another schism like that could
happen is proof enough that the papacy is a conscious deception. Men of
outstanding craftiness and malevolence, Pius XII, John XXIII and John Paul II,
have been popes.
Roman Catholics tell us about heresy against the Catholic faith being avoided by
the popes. But what about their heresies against humanity? Catholicism is a
cult. It tells you that instead of worrying about what the neighbours think, you
should worry about God for God is all that matters - that is dangerous for
affection for God is volatile and it is the fear of what others think that often
keeps us civil. It makes it impossible to care if anybody dies young and
tragically because the person is better off being away to meet God. It means
that you can only be a Catholic who helps people the less you believe in your
faith though nobody dares admit it! Putting God first just means you are willing
to put a concept first no matter how much you feel you have met God in life. It is
an intrinsically fascist idea and calls the world to hatred. That is what hatred
is, putting an idea before a person and wanting the person hurt for the idea.
The Catholic Church excommunicates any Catholic who rejects the notion of Mary
being assumed into Heaven. If the same Catholic is a terrorist and maims and
kills women and children in explosions he will not be excommunicated. That is
warped. Of course he will be excommunicated if he kills a bishop!