This is a subject that has always intrigued me, as it is quite obvious to the Bible Christian that not only are the "four marks of the church" unbiblical, their application is pure fiction.

Before we get to the actual marks, we will introduce the subject as does Jesuit Priest Devivier. His first quote is from Cardinal Newman, "It is plain that if the Church is to be an available guide to (all), its notes and tokens must be very simple, obvious and intelligible. They must not depend on education or be brought out by obtuse reasoning, but must . . . bear with them a sort of internal evidence which supersedes further discussion and makes the truth self-evident."

We will see how the reasoning of Priest Devivier lines up with this.

Devivier's use of the word heresy is technically correct, although the term is out of popular usage, heretics having been promoted to separated brethren. However, separated brethren are still guilty of heresy, which means the rejection of one or more dogma embraced by the (Roman) Catholic Church. Of course, the unmasking of heresy depends on who is the judge. One group's heresy is God's truth, whichever way you define heresy.

Heresy is called "a Christian sect," so I would presume the author would still call a person who denies dogma a Christian. That, of course, would depend upon ones definition of a Christian, and it is hard for a Bible Christian to accept heretics as fellow-believers. This is, of course, going by the Roman Catholic definition of the term; the term heretic can be applied correctly to anyone who makes a choice rather than accept a mandated religion.

The marks or "notes" of the Church are said to be real properties, and are present only in the Church that Christ founded which, according to Devivier, is the Roman Catholic Church. He says, "Once we prove their existence in a religious society we are authorized to conclude that this society is the true Church."

Unity

Devivier says, "The Church is one in doctrine." If the Church is the totality of its members, there is a problem. If the Church is the voice of its Bishops, there is a problem. If the Church is the Voice of its Supreme Pontiff, there is even more of a problem.

Devivier, seemingly a champion in wishful thinking, states, "Throughout the world we find the children of the Church chanting and proclaiming the same creed, accepting the same precepts, the same sacrifice, the same sacraments."

This article was originally written in 1882, and perhaps this was true, to a large extent, then. Now we would have to be more cautious in defining who is a Catholic. Is Pope John Paul II a Catholic? Is Archbishop Rembert Weakland a Catholic? Is Sociologist and sex-writer Priest Andrew Greeley a Catholic?

Some time ago I had a seminar in Rochester, Minnesota and a group of traditional Catholics joined our question and answer period. When confronted with the varient views of Weakland, Greeley, McBrien & Co., they merely said that these men were not truly Catholic. Maybe so - but who decides? With all his un-Catholic remarks, has Andrew Greeley be defrocked or excommunicated? If unity is claimed, who decides what everyone should believe, and disciplines or ousts those who don't believe it? Probably the most likely candidate would be the Pope's right-hand man, Cardinal Ratzinger. But for all the growling that this head of the modern Inquisition has done, very little enforcement has been seen.

The Catholic apologist will tell us that wheat and tares must grow together in the church loses its pungency when we realize that the field is not the church, it is the world.

Having committed himself to a unified Church, Devivier makes the outlandish statement, "If we go back to Apostolic days we find the same identity of doctrine."

Which Apostle prayed for the dead, had a Confessional, celebrated Mass, prayed to Mary? The Acts of the Apostles is a wonderful Book, but it is poison to the Catholic system of religion, for an unvarnished reading will testify most clearly that Romanism was unknown in apostolic days.

"It can never be proved that the Church of Rome has ever ceased to teach a single dogma contained in the Apostolic writings," claims Devivier. It is only very recently that Catholic apologists have made a very belated and futile effort to claim the Catholic Church adheres to Ephesians 2:8,9 and Romans 10:16. They have never been able to satisfactorily explain their position on Hebrews 10:14.

As we continue in our reading, statements blandly made are absolutely staggering. It was in the days of the writer that papal infallibility and immaculate conception were defined, but we are told they were taught "from the beginning of the Church; they are truths implicitely contained in the deposit of revelation."

To swallow this, you would have to cut Galatians 2 from your Bible. Perhaps Deviviers didn't realize that these very dogma would spring up as mustard seeds and dominate Romanism to the extent that the pope's infallibility has promoted belief that he has always appointed the Catholic clergy (forget Matthias in Acts 1), and that Mary has been elevated and now is part of what a Roman Catholic Cardinal called "The Quartet in Heaven."

The development of doctrine within Romanism is often misunderstood - the author says that "progress in the Church is only development of principles laid down by Jesus Christ." Every progression of doctrine within Romanism has aided the papacy, Mariolatry or ecumenism - all of which are having their part in the formation of Satan's super Church.

Deviviers tries to answer some apparent problems, one of which is the fact that two popes were reigning during the Great Schism of the West. Urban VI was reigning in Rome and Clement VII at Avignon. Devivier admits that some Christian nations gave allegiance to Urban, others to Clement. He asks, "Did not this destroy for nearly half a century the Church's unity of ministry or government?"

His reply, ". . . various circumstances made it difficult to discern clearly the veritable supreme head of the Church . . . Both sides sought the truth, and never desisted until every doubt was dissipated, and THE ENTIRE CHURCH (caps mine) acknowledged Martin V, elected in 1417 by the Council of Constance."

This is untrue. Both Urban and Clement refused to surrender their "popeship," thus making three "Supreme" Pontiffs.

Devivier finished his argument by admitting one part of Christianity (read "the Church") erred in their choice; but they erred in good faith, and the obedience of both sides was conscientiously given.

Holiness or Sanctity.

Devivier writes, "The Church is holy in her final end, which is the sanctification and the salvation of the faithful."

Since no man can see the Church's final end, and previously Devivier had written, "We call notes of the Church sensible and permanent characters proper to her by means of which the true Church may be READILY and UNERRINGLY RECOGNIZED by ALL MEN. (caps ours)

How can all men readily and unerringly recognize something that hasn't happened yet, especially when what they can recognize is a Church that centuries ago was ruled by monstrosities that called themselves Holy Father, yet had no practical moral sanctification and were rampant in their profligate living and nefarious schemes?

We would be tempted to just leave it at that, but the ludicrous claims set forward by Devivier call for some comment. He writes, "her dogmas (are) attacked only because of their sublimity." Think of the sublime dogma of purgatory, where unsaved men burn for centuries to complete a cleansing denied to them by the Son of God, Who Himself effected their purgation from sin (Hebrews 1:3, Confraterniy Roman Catholic translation says, "Christ has effected man's purgation from sin.")

Devivier calls the Church's worship "the most spiritual that ever existed" when the very substance of her chief act of worship, the Mass, consists in actively blaspheming our perfect Saviour every day.

We are told that "only those who refuse to conform to her teaching . . . fail to witness to her sanctity." Is it a sanctity that is realized by conforming to her teaching and if so, one point of disobedience of the Law being the disobedience of all (James 2:10) , does the refusal to obey one tenet of the Church make the offender not a part of the Church; if so, where is the Church?

It would be difficult, the author tells us, to enumerate the legions of holy children which the Church has borne. The biblical laws of clean and unclean teach us that one instance of uncleanness will make a vessel unclean, but one instance of cleanness cannot make the unclean vessel clean. (Haggai 2:12,13)

We have no reason to doubt the histories of virtuous men and women, some of whom may have been truly saved and very probably never subscribed to Roman legends like the Mass. Their true worship of God superceded their Catholicity (even though the Church of Rome, controlling the flow of literature for more than a millennium, has doctored and embellished their biographies.). We don't have to conjecture about them; a minority of holy saints do not make a church holy. All we have to do is to look at the practical holiness of a man or women raised in Romanism and converted to Christ - and compare that with any who may have strayed back to Rome from dead Protestantism. I have read many testimonies of converts to Rome, but have never heard of one whose practical holiness was enhanced by his embracing Rome. At the same time, I have read numerous accounts of saints who have come out of Rome and embraced a lifestyle that was, in the words of Devivier, "readily and unereringly recognized by all men."

When Devivier talks about miracles, we remember the Catholic saint whowas beheaded and walked two miles with his head in his hands, or Saint Christina the Astonishing, who flew to the treetops because she disliked the smell of humans.

Catholicity

Why does Devivier take such pleasure in noting that the name Catholic, from the time of Augustine, exclusively designated members of the Church of Rome, when earlier Church Fathers used the designation Catholic to describe the universality of the Church of Christ? Many have wondered how a Catholic (universal) Church could likewise have the local adjective Roman to describe it. Devivier states, "(Roman Catholicism) has always been distinguished by this glorious title (Catholic), and no dissenting communion has ever dared to assume it." Yet broad and low church Anglicans, for generations, held the title "Catholic" to apply to them rather that Rome. They never talked about the Roman Church except to call it Roman Catholic.

We may have to concede that "the Church never ceased to spread and win new subjects," but we may well wonder how many "converts" were absorbed by a Church that used the sword from the days of Charlemagne through the days of the Spanish Conquistadors .Were any of the "new subjects" truly converted to the Christ of the Bible rather than just receiving "Holy" baptism.

"Having Catholics everywhere", which delights Devivier, very probably has about as much significance as "Having 'Jehovahs Witnesses' everywhere." Perhaps it could be proved that the success of Mormon missionary work is at least on a par with Catholic proselytising, and Mormons don't even use swords!

Devivier writes, "Let us pass in review the most distant countries, the most obscure islands of the ocean, and we shall find Catholics everywhere." Possibly, in trying to prove the authenticity of the Catholic Church by sheer numbers, Devivier had never read Matthew 7:14, "few there be that find it (the way to life)." Today's Catholic apologist might counter by saying that, although the church be huge, relatively few will be able to go directly into the presence of God at their death.

Apostolicity

This is perhaps the most ludicrous claim of Romanism, but Devivier is not without arguments that, probably to most Roman Catholics would make some sense. The argument goes like this:

The Church claims to be Apostolic.

Protestants claim some Roman Catholic usages are not of apostolic origin.

Protestants cannot prove these allegations.

What is stated without proof can be denied without proof.

Therefore, the Church of Rome is under no obligation to prove Apostolicity.

Let us state categorically that Christians can prove many Roman Catholic usages not to be of Apostolic origin. We have the Word of God which gives us a history of the early church plus epistles written to early Christians, in which a multitude of Roman Catholic usages are simply not there. Rather than list all the things that are not there, we can ask our Catholic friend to show us one that was there.

"Breaking of Bread" means the Sacrifice of the Mass; prayer for the sick means Extreme Unction; the prayer for mercy for the house of Onesiphorus (2 Timothy 1:16) means Purgatory, and many such gems are read into scripture. The Catholic church has never been famous for scriptural exegesis, but has formulated many doctrinal positions with the help of Gnostic sacraments and pagan sacramentals for which they now seek biblical basis in a vain hope of proving Apostolicity.

In closing, Devivier states, concerning the Church he claims to possess all these notes or marks, that it is the true Church of Jesus Christ, "whose mission it is to lead man to eternal salvation."

Yes, lead men through baptismal regeneration to the other sacraments, none of which has power to give assurance of salvation, and even their totality is unable to save anyone. Make sure they attend a blasphemous sacrifice every week, and cheer their hearts with the cozy fires of purgatory which could never live up to its claim to purge or cleanse from the punishment due for sin. Do a thousand and one things, but never tell men what they really need to know - that Jesus Christ completed a work for them and is willing to save to the uttermost all that come unto God by Him.

To Index

To Home Page