Dear K,

Thank you for taking time to write to me. I note the sharpness of your tone and accept that when one is passionate about a matter one can be very emphatic. I reserve the right to, at times, return the compliment!

Please find attached a copy of the new statement by the Pope. Actually, there is nothing new in it as it agrees with his earlier piece (Dominus Iesus) issued when he was head of the office of the inquisition, now know as the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. You take issue with me for stating that the Pope believes he is essential for our salvation. Do you not realize that this is a treasured doctrine held by your church? Benedict merely reaffirms, in his recent document, the old and worn position that the one true Church is found in Rome. Her conclusions, based on this claim, are that she is the true church, the church of Jesus Christ: thus she argues that salvation rests and abides in her alone and thus the vital salvivic role of the Vicar of Christ, the Pope.

Now before you blow a head gasket, you need to be aware that this is the official position of your Church. Consider the following:

“Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff”

Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302)
http://www.newadvent.org/library/docs_bo08us.htm

“Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore, with the approval of the present sacred council, for the salvation of the souls of the same faithful, for the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff and of this holy see,---”

Leo X, Fifth Lateran Council, Session 11 (December 19, 1516): On the abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction

http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm

That you take issue with me for stating matters most surely believed by Rome leaves me puzzled. Just because the Pope in his recent statement did not say the actual words, “You need me for salvation” means nothing. The Roman Church has for years declared the necessity of the Pope for salvation. They, of course, downplayed this matter during the phase when they were promoting their ecumenical agenda; but this new Pope has taken the mask off and has, according to offended Protestant ecumenists, reversed the work of years. The World Alliance of Reformed Churches, for example, said his first document “makes us question the seriousness with which the Roman Catholic Church takes its dialogues with the Reformed family and other families of the church”. This new document has also excited fury from those who had been exploring unity with Rome: now they see that unity means that we all swim the Tiber and submit to the pontiff and his damning teachings.

Regarding your accusation that I twist things by stating that in Rome’s opinion Christians like me and our respective Churches ‘do not count,’ I would ask you to read the Pope’s recent words on this matter. If they do not amount to ‘not counting’ in the grand scheme of things I don’t know what does. If not qualifying to be called Churches is not another way of saying we don’t count, I don’t know what is! Here’s the quote:

Fifth Question: Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of "Church" with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

Response: According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called "Churches" in the proper sense[20].

Furthermore, if the following does not amount to a total invalidation of all who, like me, reject the authority of the Bishop of Rome what is?

“Christ "established here on earth" only one Church and instituted it as a "visible and spiritual community"[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] "This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him"[7].

Do you not know the doctrine of your own church? Your church teaches that salvation is within her, and the Pope, as the chief bishop of the church which dispenses salvation, is ultimately himself the dispenser of Salvation. This is most surely held and taught by Rome. Shame on you for saying I change things to suit my agenda. And just in case you think I am twisting things, check this out:

6. … “Christ our Lord instituted His Church as a perfect society … which should carry on in the future the work of the salvation of the human race, under the leadership of one head … and by the ministry of the sacraments …

11. Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors.… Let them hear Lactantius crying out: "The Catholic Church is alone in keeping the true worship. This is the fount of truth, this the house of Faith, this the temple of God: if any man enter not here, or if any man go forth from it, he is a stranger to the hope of life and salvation. Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned, which will be lost and entirely destroyed, unless their interests are carefully and assiduously kept in mind." Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, §§ 6, 11 (1928)

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19280106_mortalium-animos_en.html

Note that in using this quote from Lactantius we find Rome up to its old tricks of once more distorting history. Whereas it is true that Lactantius (AD 240-320) made this statement, Rome fails to point out that he was not referring to the Roman Church when he did so. The Catholic Church in those days was composed of the Churches at Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Rome and others. The Roman Bishop was not recognized as the head of the Church, he was but an equal among bishops—although he was afforded the honor of being seated in the imperial city of Rome ----an honor equally shared by the Bishop of New Rome, Constantinople.

That you are unaware of the damning nature of Papal teaching is a mystery to me. That you should be annoyed that I flagged to my readers that which Rome has taught for years, is also a matter of great surprise. Rome is not afraid of boldly asserting her belief that salvation rests in her; why then are you offended when I tell my readers that this is her position? Why are you offend when I say that if Rome is believed in her claims of being the one true church that the position of the Pope as dispenser of salvation is established. This has been the position of Rome for years! Are you really unaware that your church teaches that the Pope is the key to salvation? If so, you had best read this:

“They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.” Pius XII, Mystici Corporis, § 41 (1943)
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_29061943_mystici-corporis-christi_en.html

Note, in this statement, people like me are told that because we do no adhere loyally to the Pope we can neither see nor find salvation. Yet you are annoyed at me for warning my readers, “--- this man propagates lies; lies which if believed establish his position as the sole dispenser of salvation.” Yet all I am doing is stating that which every serious Roman Catholic knows and ROME ITSELF teaches and that is, Salvation is in Rome and the Pope. Every one who loves the Lord Jesus in truth should warn people about this rascal in Rome.

Another reason I oppose Rome and you should too, is that your Church has continually, while claiming to be the Church which Christ founded, stood against the very gospel which it should have been proclaiming. In fact, Rome has been the greatest enemy of the Gospel that the world has ever seen. Listen to the official teaching of your church where it curses me and all others who hold to the Gospel.

“If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation … and that … men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification … let him be anathema. Council of Trent, Seventh session, On the sacraments in general, Canon IV
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct07.html

If any one saith, that baptism is free, that is, not necessary unto salvation; let him be anathema. ibid., On baptism, Canon V

If any one denieth, either that sacramental confession … is necessary to salvation … or saith, that the manner of confessing secretly to a priest alone … is alien from the institution and command of Christ, and is a human invention; let him be anathema. Council of Trent, Fourteenth session, On the most holy sacrament of penance, Canon VI
http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct14.html

I, Pius, bishop of the catholic church, with firm faith believe and profess each and every article contained in the profession of faith which the holy Roman church uses, namely … I profess also that there are seven sacraments of the new law … necessary for salvation …Vatican I, Session II, Profession of faith
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#SESSION%202%20:%206%20January%201870

Just in case you think that Rome has changed in its approach to those of us who hold to the Gospel of Christ alone, consider this:

I, Pius, bishop of the catholic church, with firm faith believe and profess … the sacred canons and the ecumenical councils, especially the sacred Trent, I accept unhesitatingly and profess; in the same way whatever is to the contrary, and whatever heresies have been condemned, rejected and anathematised by the church, I too condemn, reject and anathematise. This true catholic faith, outside of which none can be saved … Vatican I, Session II, Profession of faith
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum20.htm#SESSION%202%20:%206%20January%201870

Nor did Vatican 2 change anything in this regard. Consider the following:

“Therefore, following in the footsteps of the Council of Trent and of the First Vatican Council, this present council wishes to set forth authentic doctrine …” Vatican II, Dei Verbum, ¶ 1
http://www.cin.org/v2revel.html

“This Sacred Council … proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicaea, the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent.” Vatican II, Lumen Gentium, § 51
http://www.cin.org/v2church.html

Rome is Satan’s magnum opus, a masterpiece of half truths, big lies and distortions: Like all cults, she deceitfully poses as the true church and the dispenser of salvation. She has interposed herself in the place of Christ Jesus and thus is His enemy. She denies the Gospel and curses all of us who hold to the truth of righteousness in Christ alone.

You ask about which Roman teachings you should run---here are but a few!

The Mass---The Roman Mass is a blasphemy and an attack on the precious Lord Jesus Christ. The Mass provides an ongoing sacrifice for sins. However, the Christ of the Bible has already paid for His people’s sins in full so the Mass must be seen as a rival to and enemy of the gospel. Redemption has been completed and finished in Christ. Indeed, His words concerning redemption were, It is Finished! When Jesus laid down his life on the cross at Calvary, He fully and totally bore our sins in His own sinless body, and endured their punishment (I Corinthians 15:3; Hebrews 9:28; I Peter 2:24; 3:18; Isaiah 53:5, 11). What need, therefore, is there to offer Him again in the Mass? To offer Him continually for our sins, as does Rome, is to deny the sufficiency and finality of His redemption. By taking part in the Mass you are saying on a personal level that Christ did not accomplish redemption. You, therefore, attack him and profane Him while telling Him you love him. You should flee from the wrath to come! Remember this when next you take the Mass.

In summary, the Christ you follow, if you believe in the Mass, is not the Christ of the Bible. He is a new Christ who is in the hands of the priests and who partners with them in an ongoing scheme of redemption. This is not the Christ of the Bible. In spite of what Rome teaches, the true Christ fulfilled and satisfied God’s justice as sin's penalty was paid in full by His death (Romans 3:21-26).

At the cross we transferred our sins to Jesus and He transferred His righteousness to us (Romans 4.22-25; II Corinthians 5.21; I Peter 2.24). We did not, and could not, earn or deserve this; nor can we merit it or add to it in any way (e.g. sacraments, etc.). It is entirely the gift of God, which we receive by grace through faith (Romans 3:28; 5:1-2, 15-19; 9:30-32; 10:3-11; Galatians 2:16; Philippians 3:9).

2) Flee from Mariolatry---to teach that Mary is Co-redemptrix ---- (see http://www.marymediatrix.com/kb/kb7/8.shtml ------- is another blasphemy and attack on our Savior and the work which was uniquely His. Furthermore, to present Mary as the friend of sinners who prays for us now and at the hour of our death is an attack on the High Priestly ministry of the Lord Christ. Mary was wonderful but not sinless! She, according to her own admission, needed a savior-----see her words in the Magnificat (Luke 1:46ff). There she proclaims, ‘my spirit has rejoiced in God my savior.” Now I would remind you, only sinners need a savior; so Mary, by her own admission, was a sinner!

Although Mary was present at the cross, Jesus gave her no instructions about becoming a co-redemptress or a co-intercessor. But maybe He forgot to do so because He was in too much pain. Well then why, when He was giving His final instructions to his disciples (Matt 28 etc.), did He not introduce this vital role for her? Why also, as we read the book of Acts, is there no mention of any saving role for Mary? Why also does Paul stay silent on the subject? ----WHY? Because the present day role of Mary is an invention of men who, while masquerading as the true church to which we all must bow, actually attack the precious Lord Jesus as our only hope!

Furthermore, if Mary is the Co-redemptress, and we accept Rome’s position of the redemptive and salvivic nature of the mass, this means, according to logic, that Mary has to be present at every Mass. But this is an impossibility, unless, that is, she is Omnipresent. But if she is Omnipresent then she must be God! Also, if Mary is so necessary for redemption why was she not present at the Last Supper----the event which Rome says establishes the sacrifice of the mass? (By the way, it is impossible for the Last Supper to have been a "sacrifice" since Jesus was still alive – but that’s another story---read Heb.9:16-17).

Along with this I would add that you should flee from any group that prays to the dead for favors! This is paganism pure and undefiled.

You should also flee from any group which claims the right to interpret the Bible while denying you yours!

You should also flee Rome because in the matter of eternal life she has replace Christ with the Church, salvation with sacraments and loyalty to Christ with loyalty to the Pope.

If I was in your position, I would flee a church that teaches they can get the dead out of purgatory and then receives money for the privilege of doing so----heartless beyond belief!

I would flee from a church that makes me depend on some man giving me Extreme Unction before I die----I’d rather trust in Christ alone and if you loved Jesus you would too!

I’d flee a church that says it infuses me with a saving righteousness through sacraments: if I believed this, I could never know how much righteousness I had obtained---and no one would be able to tell me. I would, therefore, be robbed of the assurance which comes from knowing that Christ alone is my entire righteousness. I would be robbed of the joy of knowing that all His good works, deeds and righteousness are reckoned by the Father as mine. In addition, I would not trade my perfect peace, which depends on my Savior and His accomplishments on my behalf for an insecurity which would necessarily follow if I depended on some priest to give me some sacrament to infuse me with an unknown and perhaps imaginary amount of righteousness.

In short, I would flee from Rome because to follow her would mean I have to abandon the true gospel of Christ alone, Faith Alone and Grace Alone. Furthermore, I would flee Rome because to stay in her, I would have to surrender the scriptures as my rule of faith and conduct and would have to trade the glory of God for the glory of a man made system of false doctrine and superstition. And there’s lots more but this is enough for now.

“When He shall come with trumpet sound;
O may I then in him be found;
Clothed in his righteousness alone;
Faultless to stand before the throne.
On Christ the Solid Rock I stand;
All other ground is sinking sand.”

Sincerely,
Miles

Back to letters

Home