ROMAN
CATHOLICISM REFUTED
Click to navigate site
BORN FUNDAMENTALIST, BORN AGAIN CATHOLIC
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 book is to make people decide for themselves whether
or not sending their children to the Catholic Church for religious instruction
is a good thing.
BORN FUNDAMENTALIST, BORN AGAIN
CATHOLIC
BY DAVID M CURRIE
The thesis of the book: Roman Catholicism is
the religion of the Bible which is the word of God. It is the religion the Bible teaches.
The truth: The book distorts the Bible to make it seem so. The Bible contradicts and therefore God
condemns nearly every major doctrine of the Roman Catholic faith.
LIE 1, Fundamentalist Evangelicals believe that Catholics are going to Hell because
they try to earn their salvation (page 16).
THE TRUTH: All Evangelicals believe that there are Catholics who have
trusted in Jesus alone and not good works for salvation but hold that this
happened in spite of their faith and not because of it.
LIE 2, The doctrine
of separation which forbids Evangelicals to work with liberal ministers, and
even conservative evangelicals who work with liberals (second degree
separation) is not biblically justifiable (page 21).
THE TRUTH: Because the Bible says
that loving God alone is the chief commandment it is clear that believing in
God is more important even than loving your neighbour as yourself. So when belief comes first anybody
associating with liberals and working with them is advertising the lack of faith
and increased scepticism which characterises liberalism so the Bible does
forbid it. The Bible demands that
heretics be thrown out. A book that
wants homosexuals dead and barred from the kingdom for once-off harmless sexual
act couldn't have it any other way.
LIE 3, The Catholic Church regards evangelicals as 100% brothers in
Christ (page 33).
THE TRUTH: The Catholic Church regards them as branches partly broken off
the vine for only those who know and accept the full Catholic faith and who are
free from serious sin are proper members of the Church. They are more like defective Catholics than
full brothers.
Evangelicals believe there is always sin in us and they believe that all
sin is mortal and deserves Hell and rejects God totally. So how could Evangelicals be brothers in
Christ with this belief for it means they claim to be mortal sinners all the
time which means they are guaranteed Hell as long as they do that according to
Roman theology? The Roman Church refuses
to call evil baptised people Christians.
The deliberate hypocrisy of the Roman Church is plain.
LIE 4, At the last supper had Jesus meant to teach Lutheranism, that the
Eucharist contains the body of Christ but does not become it, he would have
said, "This bread contains my body" or evangelicalism he would have
said, "This bread represents my body" but he said it was his body so
that is what it is (page 35).
THE TRUTH: Too bad Jesus couldn't use symbolism with people trying to
read too much into it. The Bible never
gives any hint that Jesus meant this literally.
The Calvinists say, "This is my body," over bread without
believing it becomes the body of Jesus and we don't say they should be saying,
"This represents my body". So
when they can do it why not Jesus?
And even if the Catholics are right it doesn’t prove their doctrine of
transubstantiation to be true. Luther
seems to have believed at times not that the substance of the bread turned into
Jesus but that Jesus made the bread a part of him like your fingernail is part
of you. This theory is called
incarnationism.
LIE 5, Jesus' saying we must eat his body and drink his blood took place
near Passover time just about a year before Jesus celebrated the last
supper. This was to indicate that what
would happen at the supper would be transformation of bread and wine into the
body and blood of Jesus (page 35).
THE TRUTH: Evidences like that are so weak that they are useless. The crowd were not at the last supper so
there is no value in the books reasoning.
LIE 6, Jesus saying he was the bread of life was just an analogy. He says he will give this bread as his flesh
for us to eat and that it is the same flesh that will be nailed to the cross
(page 37). If the flesh we are to eat is
figurative so is the flesh for the crucifixion (page 38). Jesus physically died on the cross so we
physically eat his body.
THE TRUTH: The discourse never mentions that Jesus will die or become a
sacrifice. The Roman Catholic faith
teaches that it is Jesus' body and blood as they are now in their
supernaturalised and resurrected state that is the Eucharist. So there is no need for Jesus to be dead or
have been dead to feed us with his body and let us drink his blood.
He says his flesh will be given up for the life of the world which does
not amount to saying he will be crucified or sacrificed.
He told the Jews that they cannot be saved unless they eat his body and
drink his blood. If
you take the passage literally then take this literally too. It was spoken to Jewish people who would
mostly never become Christians. It is
likely that none of them would when they all went away because of Jesus’ silly
talk. If you are a missionary you do not
tell you hearers to go to communion to be saved for they cannot do that unless
they are believe repent and are baptised first.
You give them the minimum. You
certainly do not suggest anything that will puzzle them like yarns about food
and drink becoming God or a man. The way
Jesus spoke shows the passage is not literally true. When Jesus came close to teaching the Roman
doctrine in this passage and retreated it shows only one thing: he does not
want us to believe in it and it is blasphemous.
Eating the body of Jesus is a synonym for believing and drinking his
blood is a synonym for accepting the suffering and love he offered to God to
atone to him for sins.
LIE 7, The eating of flesh is literal for Jesus
used the word chew for eat (page 38).
This word was never used symbolically anywhere.
THE TRUTH: Any word can be used symbolically - that is what symbols mean:
using words that are literal in a non-literal way! So he never used it symbolically anywhere you
say! Jesus never wrote cookery books so
what would you expect?
He would have to use the word chew in a literal context elsewhere so that
we would be able to tell he meant it all literally according to the books logic. But he didn't so what does that say?
LIE 8, He who eats the bread without discerning the body eats judgment to
himself 1 Cor 11) so this is clearly saying that we must see that the bread is the
body of the Lord (page 39).
THE TRUTH: There were heretics around who didn’t believe Jesus was a man
but thought that he was a vision. Paul
could have meant without discerning that Jesus had a body not that the bread
was the body. Paul would have written he
who eats the bread without discerning that it is the body had he believed the
bread turns into Jesus.
Discerning the body could also mean that the substance of the body of the
Lord is fed to the soul of those who take the bread without it being in the
bread. It could mean that the body of
the Lord is spiritually fed to the eater of the bread which means eating the
bread is as good as eating the body though the substance of the body is not
eaten or given to the soul.
LIE 9, Satan worshipers parody the Mass because they know there is something
in it and that Jesus established it as the centre of Christian life (page 45).
THE TRUTH: The Eucharist is the ritual at the heart of Christianity and
naturally anti-Christians would parody it.
Nearly all Satan worshippers believe that Christianity is superstitious
nonsense. The use of real wafers consecrated
at Masses is rare which illustrates the point.
Their use is not an essential.
Would Satanists believe that there is power in having the real body of
God on the altar and desecrating it? If
they believed it was God they would know that he would thwart them every time!
Spiritualist mediums do more to convince their flocks that they commune
with the dead than priests ever do that Jesus becomes the communion wafer and
yet they encourage the flock to disbelieve in mediums! It is frightening that people would believe
the priests so easily and it is bigoted how they encourage it. The mediums have more right to the respect
the priest demands. They are more
believable in every way.
LIE 10, Melchizidek was said to be a priest forever and he offered bread
and wine to God. Jesus was called by God
a priest like Melchizidek so he offered bread and wine to God at the last
supper (page 47).
THE TRUTH: Jesus did not offer bread and wine at the last supper - he
just used them. How could you offer God
created things? He owns them to start
with and has no need of them. It would
be a bizarre and eccentric thing to do.
Melchizidek brought out bread and wine to Abraham for he was priest of
God the Bible tells us. That does not
mean he offered them to God.
LIE 11, Hebrews 10:3 and Leviticus 24:7 use the word remembrance to mean
sacrifice so when Jesus said at the last supper do this in remembrance of me he
meant offer this sacrifice for me (page 47).
THE TRUTH: Hebrews only says there is a reminder of sin in the sacrifices
which does not mean that sacrifice and remembrance are necessarily
inseparable. Remembrance and sacrifice
are two separate activities. Jesus lived
in different times from Leviticus and different times use words
differently. Worse Leviticus was written
in Hebrew and the gospels were written in Greek and worse again Jesus had been
speaking in Aramaic! So there is no
reason to believe the words for remembrance mean sacrifice as well.
LIE 12, The sacrifice of the Mass and the food
and drink being literally the body and blood of Jesus Christ were unanimously
believed in by the early Christians (49).
THE TRUTH: We know the early Christians had many divisions and we have
barely any statements that show the Church believed what this crazy book says
and yet it has the cheek to say that the early Church was Roman Catholic in its
eucharistic theology.
LIE 13, The Law of Moses has so much missing in it that God through Moses
must have wanted the people to get the rest of his word through oral tradition
(page 52). Jesus defended the oral
tradition of the Pharisees and the scribes in Matthew 23:2,3
when he commanded his hearers to do all they tell them but not to do what they
do. 2 Thessalonians
Incidentally, this would mean Jesus agreed that homosexuals should be put
to death for that was part of what the Pharisees and scribes would have
instructed the people what to do.
THE TRUTH: When the Law claims that nothing must be added to it and it
needs adding to it only means that the Law is wrong not that the Law expects to
be supplemented by oral tradition. Oral
tradition is always dangerous for nothing is as easy to fabricate as a false
oral tradition. Catholicism knows this
which is why it claims it has the charism of infallibility to protect itself
from false tradition but Judaism was never infallible or claimed to be.
As an ex-evangelical the writer of this evil book knows fine well that
Evangelicals hold that 2 Thessalonians refers to what people heard the apostles
say and what they wrote not traditions.
He's lying. He also knows that
Jesus condemned Jewish tradition (Mark 7).
Jewish tradition condemned him as a false Messiah so if he was the true
Messiah then this shows how dangerous it is.
Jewish tradition expected a warlike Messiah empowered by God who would lead
his people successfully into triumph over the enemies of the Jews. Jesus didn’t fit the bill at all.
LIE 14, 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.
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.
LIE 15, Evangelicals are shocked at how the Catholic Church wont throw
out wicked Christians. But Jesus said we
must let them stay in the Church and leave it to him to throw them out on the
last day (Matthew 13).
THE TRUTH: The real reason the Church behaves so generously is because it
is the key to much of its power and money.
A corrupt Church that invites bad morals is sure to be popular.
Jesus said that he did not want the weeds pulled out for some of the
wheat would be pulled up too. All he is
saying is that there are times we must give the sinner the benefit of the doubt
for he or she might be trying to be loyal to Jesus and holy. He is not saying that we must let evil people
do what they want in the name of the Church.
He would want us to throw them out.
LIE 16, 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.
LIE 17, 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.
LIE 18, 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.
LIE 19, 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
THE TRUTH: There is no evidence that Jesus was thinking of Isaiah 22 at
all. Peter and the popes could not rule
the
LIE 20, Clement of Rome, a pope, wrote to the
THE TRUTH: The book assumes that because there is no record of
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
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.
LIE 21, 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. Its 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!
LIE 22, Protestants recognise the book of Ezekiel as scripture but not the
portions from the Apocrypha added to the book of Daniel. The Catholic Church accepts the portions as
scripture. The prophet Daniel was only a
boy when Ezekiel wrote so when Ezekiel 14 mentions Daniel it can only be the
other Daniel from before Ezekiel's time who was mentioned in the Apocryphal
part of the book of Daniel (chapters 13-14) which shows that the Apocrypha is
the word of God (page 104).
THE TRUTH: The Catholic New American Bible footnote says that this Daniel
is the one mentioned in Canaanite literature.
It only says it is possible that he is the one in Daniel 13-14 which is
the apocryphal part of Daniel. Maybe he
is but if he is that does not make the two chapters to be scripture especially
when Daniel chapter 14 has a dragon in it!
LIE 23, When Peter the apostle gave messianic prophecies that Jesus was
the Messiah he would have used the Apocrypha which contains many such
prophecies (page 105).
THE TRUTH: the Apocrypha does not present the material taken as messianic
prophecy as prophecy. Don't assume
predictions when you don't need to. And
even if it did, the prophecies could have been plagiarised from the prophecies
in the real Bible. And there is no
evidence that Peter considered the Apocrypha as scripture or quoted it as
such. Even if he had quoted it as the
word of God that would not mean it was infallible scripture for all false
scriptures contain some value and may have pieces in them that originated with
real prophets.
LIE 24, Only people who did not want to see the truth would agree with
Christians who do not believe in the Apocrypha as the word of God (page
106). The Septuagint which contained the
Apocryphal books was without a doubt the Bible used by the apostolic Christians
(page 106)
THE TRUTH: The evidence in the book for the Apocrypha is sub-standard so
how dare its author attack those who disbelieve in the inspiration of these
books.
Currie has a nerve trying to get us to believe in the Apocrypha for the
reason he gives for he knows fine well that
LIE 25, James 2 teaches that justification is by faith and good works and
not faith alone (page 114). Evangelicals
ignore the James passage because it contradicts their theology (114).
The parables of Jesus eg of the good Samaritan and the talents teach
salvation by faith and works (page 115).
Jesus said that those who cry Lord but who do not do the will of God will
not be saved which rejects salvation by faith only.
"Forgive our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against
us" rejects salvation by faith only for only those who forgive will be
forgiven. Paul would not have called us
to work out our salvation by fear and trembling if faith alone saves for then
there would be nothing to fear.
THE TRUTH: James teaches salvation by faith that is expressed by good
works and says that faith without works is not a gift from God and cannot
save. The mark of faith that is a gift
of God is that it produces good works.
When he says we are not saved by faith alone he means the kind of faith
the Devil has, a faith which does not change the heart.
The assertion of the book that evangelicals ignore James is simply a
slur. It shows how Currie's agenda is to
smear his former faith to make the Catholic Church look good. I have read many evangelical studies of James
and it is not ignored in their Bible commentaries. They say that Paul is speaking of a person who is made
righteous by repentance and having their sins wiped away - they are saved
without any requirement for good works. They James is discussing a person
who has already been justified this way. This person is not genuinely
saved if they don't do good works for good works are the fruit of faith that
saves without good works.
Believers in justification by faith alone hold that though they are
guaranteed heaven they still need to repent the sins they commit after they are
justified not because God rejects them as sinners but because they are not
getting the best out of God. Sins are
forgiven before you repent them if you are saved in this theology but in the
fellowship sense forgiveness is still required.
In other words, God does not hold your sins against but you still have
repent and be forgiven in the sense of restoring your fellowship in the
practical sense with him.
The good Samaritan parable (Luke 10) never mentions salvation and all it
says is that everybody who needs help is your neighbour. Currie must see that. That doesn’t stop him trying to use it
against the Protestant theology of justification by faith alone.
The two sons parable (Mt 21) does not defend
salvation by faith and works. Currie
says it does. There Jesus says that one
son said he would do what his father asked and didn’t. The other refused but then had a change of heart
and did it and got a reward while the other didn’t. Then he said that tax collectors and
prostitutes are entering the
The parable of the Sheep and Goats (Mt 25) which is another attempt by
Currie to prove salvation by faith and works fails to do what he wants. In it Jesus says he will reject those who
have done no good works. But Catholicism and Christianity have always taught
that deathbed repentance without good works will save.
The Catholic and evangelical faiths teach that without faith you cannot
do good works that please God. They say
that works done without the grace of God are unacceptable to him and he doesn’t
reward them. Therefore Jesus could be
taken by them to mean that those who are barred from Heaven for not doing good
works were barred because they failed to do the good works that result from
proper faith. Perhaps they did do good
works but were not purified so that the Lord could accept their works.
The Bible never gives any hint that there is such a thing as sin that
isn't bad enough to make God disown you.
In other words, there is no hint of the doctrine of venial sin in the
Bible. The Bible would say if there was
such a thing as venial sin for it makes such a difference to understand what
the Bible says about salvation. If
venial sin exists then it is possible that the doctrine that Jesus imputes his
goodness to the account of the unrighteous is false for then you can commit
these sins and still go to Heaven. But
if venial sin does not exist then all sin rejects God totally and nobody will
be saved meaning that the only hope is a substitute earning salvation for
sinners in their place. This is the
doctrine that lies behind salvation by faith alone and not good works. The silence of the Bible on venial sin proves
that justification and pardon by faith alone and not by good works as taught by
Protestantism is Bible doctrine and that Roman Catholicism is apostate and
dangerous Christianity for denying this.
The letter to the Romans which was intended to convince Roman Christians
that good works had nothing to do with salvation because all were sinners would
have mentioned venial sin had it existed for it does not block salvation.
Roman Catholicism teaches that good works can atone for venial sin but
the Bible is clear that the blood of Jesus is the only thing that can atone for
sin. Hebrews 10 even says that the
sacrifices of animals the Jewish priests offered to God for atonement did not
work and stresses that there is no need for anything added on to the blood of
Jesus to atone for sins.
Hebrews 10 says that Jesus offered one sacrifice that perfects the
forgiving of sin by forgiving all sin and that when all sins have been pardoned
there is no need for any more sacrifices.
The purpose of the letter is to stop us thinking we can be pardoned by
Jesus and need to make more offerings to God for sin. We would not be thinking that unless we had
sinned since we accepted Jesus and his mercy.
But these sins have been forgiven anyway meaning the substitution theory
that Jesus has done it all for us is true according to the Bible.
LIE 26, Saying believe on Jesus and be saved in the Bible was a shorthand
way of saying believe and be baptised (page 139).
THE TRUTH: Speculation. The Bible
never says that Baptism has anything to do with salvation.
LIE 27, The doctrine that each person is a member of the body of Jesus
shows that the idea of an invisible true Church is unscriptural (page 152).
THE TRUTH: the body parts are physically separate from the head so only
the head knows which person is really a body part. The concept supports an invisible
Church. A fake Christian cannot be a
member of the body of Christ though he or she seems to be but to all practical
intents and purposes he or she can be a member of a visible Church.
LIE 28, The doctrine of Evangelicals that man can do nothing good does
not fit what we see of people (page 170).
THE TRUTH: Evangelicals teach that even if we seem to be good we are not
being good. We want good on our terms
not on God's so the good is really evil.
LIE 29, the woman in Revelation wears a crown of twelve stars so she must
be queen of Heaven - so Mary is Queen of Heaven.
THE TRUTH: You can wear a crown without being Queen or King. Many royals have their own crowns though it
is the king or queen who has the authority.
The lady could be queen of
LIE 30, Natural Family Planning leaves sex open to creating a new life if
God so wills (201). It does not try to
stop God creating life like contraception does.
The main purpose for having children is so that they will be able to
praise God forever in Heaven for that is what God wants (page 202). The main reason should be nothing else not
even love for the children. Artificial
birth control is selfish (page 206) and Onan was put to death for committing
that sin by God. To want the pleasure of
procreating and not the responsibility that comes with it is selfish (page
207).
THE TRUTH: It is selfish to decide there is a God and to put the children
you can see and touch second to him.
That is putting something you like believing in before what you can
sense is real. After all there might be
no God at all. If God wants to be
praised let him make his praisers himself.
If it is wrong to try and stop God creating life then it must be wrong to
try and make it harder for him as well. If
condoms are sinful for they stop God creating life then it follows that using
Natural Family Planning makes it harder for him to create life. If stopping God creating life is bad then
making it harder for him though less bad is bad too.
An all-powerful God can make sure a woman gets pregnant even if condoms
are used. Yet the Church forbids condoms
even if the users believe they are open to letting God create life. If the condoms are immoral then so is any
attempt to make it harder for God to make babies. You are not allowed to use a condom when you
put a pin prick in it so that God may still be able to create life though
pregnancy is unlikely.
If you use Natural Family Planning it is certainly true that you want the
pleasure of sex but don't want the responsibility of a child. You are taking the risk that life will occur
but you are minimising that risk. You
still don't want a child. Yet people who use birth-control are criticised for
this. Damn the hypocrisy of Currie and
his Church! They say that even if you
use Natural Family Planning what you are doing is wanting
the responsibility of a child only if God wills. That contradicts their view that Natural
Family Planning may be used if the wife cannot have another child for it will
kill her and is an act of love wishing to keep her alive. The man who wants the responsibility of a
child under any circumstances when he has sex with his wife under such circumstances
doesn’t think much of her. He should go
and live with the pope for the pope comes first anyway. And if the wife has any sense she will help
him pack.
CONCLUSION
The Roman Catholic Church is one of the most remarkable religions of all time. Not only are nearly all its major doctrines not in the Bible but they do not stand up to the scrutiny of history or commonsense. The doctrines have sinister implications and religions that teach such should be abandoned.
No matter what book you read on Catholic
Apologetics the same thing is true, they all depend on lies and errors to look
like a defence of that faith. What does
that say about the Roman Church? What
needs to be defended by lies is false.
Roman Catholicism admits that most of its doctrines cannot be found in
the Bible. It supplements the Bible with
tradition that is said to be the word of God too. But the Bible claims to be the word of God in
the strongest possible way. It says it
is god-breathed (2 Timothy
* BORN FUNDAMENTALIST,
BORN-AGAIN CATHOLIC, by David M Currie, Ignatius Press,
BOOKS CONSULTED
A GREAT LEGACY, Rev RJ Coates,
A ROMAN CATECHISM WITH A REPLY THERETO, John Wesley Protestant Truth
Society,
A WOMAN RIDES THE BEAST, Dave Hunt, Harvest House,
ALL ONE BODY – WHY DON’T WE AGREE? Erwin W Lutzer,
AN ACCOUNT OF ARCHBISHOP JAMES USHER 1581-1656, ND Emerson MA PhD,
APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, James Heron, Outlook Press,
BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND CHURCH DOCTRINE, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press,
BUT THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY SO, Rev Roberto Nisbet, Church Book Room
Press,
CATECHISM OF THE
CATHOLICISM AND CHRISTIANITY, Cecil John Cadoux, George Allen & Unwin
Ltd, 1928
CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press,
CHRISTIANS GUIDE TO ROMAN CATHOLICISM, Bill Jackson, Colonial Baptist
Press,
CITY OF
DAWN OR TWILIGHT? HM Carson, IVP, Leicester, 1976
DEAR CATHOLIC FRIEND, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord,
DIFFICULTIES, Mgr Ronald Knox and Sir Arnold Lunn, Eyre &
Spottiswoode,
DOCUMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, edited by Henry Bettenson, Oxford
University Press,
ENCHIRIDION SYMBOLORUM ET DEFINITIONUM, Heinrich Joseph Denzinger, Edited
by A Schonmetzer,
EVANGELICAL CATHOLICS A NEW PHENOMENON,
HOW SURE ARE THE FOUNDATIONS?
Colin Badger, Wayside
HOW TO CHOOSE YOUR VOCATION IN LIFE, Thomas Artz C.SS.R, Liguori
Publications,
INFALLIBILITY IN THE CHURCH, Patrick Crowley, CTS,
IS THE
IS THERE SALVATION OUTSIDE THE
LETTERS TO A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST, H A Ironside, Loizeaux Brothers,
LION CONCISE BOOK OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT,
LIVING IN CHRIST, A Dreze SJ, Geoffrey Chapman,
London-Melbourne 1969
LOOK! THE
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Joseph Rickaby SJ, Stonyhurst Philosophy Series,
Longmans, Green and Co,
NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, The Catholic University of America and the
McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
OUGHT I TO SEND MY CHILD TO A
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS, Charles Gore MA, Longmans,
ROMAN CATHOLIC OBJECTIONS ANSWERED, Rev H O Lindsay, John T Drought Ltd,
ROMAN CATHOLIC TEACHING CONTRASTED WITH BIBLE TEACHING, Bernard Burt, The
Bible Student Press,
ROMAN CATHOLICISM TESTED BY THE SCRIPTURES, John A Coleman, New Litho
Pty. Ltd,
ROMAN CATHOLICISM WHAT IS FINAL AUTHORITY? Harold J Berry, Back to the Bible,
ROMAN CATHOLICISM,
ROMANISM AT VARIANCE WITH THE BIBLE, Rev James Gardner, Protestant Truth
Society,
SALVATION, THE BIBLE AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM, William Webster, Banner of
Truth,
SECRETS OF ROMANISM, Joseph Zacchello, Loizeaux Brothers,
THE ADVANCE OF ROMANISM, S M Houghton, Cotswold Bible Witness, 1964
THE BIBLE OR THE CHURCH? Ken Camplin, Printland Publishers,
THE BIBLE REFUTES ROMANISM Philip H Rand Protestant Truth Society,
THE
THE CHURCH AND INFALLIBILITY, BC
THE CHURCH OF ROME AND THE WORD OF GOD, Rev Eric C Last, Protestant Truth
Society,
THE DEVELOPMENTS OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM, John A Bain MA, Oliphant Anderson
& Ferrier,
THE EARLY CHURCH, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987
THE GREAT MEANS OF SALVATION AND OF PERFECTION, St Alphonsus De Ligouri,
Redemptorist Fathers,
THE MOTHER OF GOD AND OUR INTERIOR LIFE, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP,
TAN,
THE PRIMITIVE FAITH AND ROMAN CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENTS, Rev John A F Gregg
BD, APCK,
THE RICHES OF
THE STUDENT’S CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, Rev Charles Hart BA, Burns & Oates,
THE
THE
TRADITIONAL DOCTRINES OF THE
TREASURES FROM GOD’S STOREHOUSE, Dr Bill Jackson, Colonial Baptist Press,
VICARS OF CHRIST, Peter De Rosa, Corgi Books,
WHAT HAPPENED! Francisco Lacueva,
Evangelical Protestant Society,
WHY BE A CATHOLIC? Fr David Jones
OP, Catholic Truth Society,
WHY I AM NOT A ROMAN CATHOLIC, Rev Canon McCormick DD, Protestant Truth
Society,
YOU CAN LEAD ROMAN CATHOLICS TO CHRIST, Wilson Ewin,
www.catholic.com/library/The_Anti_Catholic_Bible.asp
Christians versus the Lies of Catholicism
20 December 2007