PART I

MY DAMASCUS ROAD

(a Brief Testimony of a Great Personal Experience)

"Sirs, what must I do to be saved?"

"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ,

and thou shalt be saved, and thy house"

(Acts 16 : 30-31)

FOREWORD TO THE FIRST EDITION

by the REV. F. W. MARTIN, L.TH., former Editor of "The English Churchman" and Rector of Great Horkesley, Essex

IT is with great pleasure that I accede to a request to contribute a short foreword to Don Francisco Lacueva's testimony. I have had the joy of meeting him and hearing him testify to the saving grace of Christ which he has personally experienced. This experience--spoken of by him as his "Damascus Road"--led him to leave the Church of Rome, counting all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus his Lord.

I find this testimony of great value for several reasons.

First, it shows the Church of Rome as it really is today. Don Lacueva points out, simply and without malice or bitterness, that the Church of Rome is astray from the Bible. Judged by the Word of God, that Church is still in grievous error.

Secondly, it bears eloquent testimony to the sovereign grace of God, calling out our dear brother from the darkness and error, by wonderful paths, into the full light of Gospel Truth. May this little book lead many to the only Saviour of sinful men and women!

Thirdly, it underlines the dangers of some aspects of the modern ecumenical movement. Unity at the expense of truth is worthless. We see from this book that there can be no peace with Rome till Rome makes peace with God. "Unity with any belief which does not have as its basis the rule of faith of Holy Scripture is impossible", says Don F. Lacueva. That is a significant warning for our generation--impatient of true doctrine as it often is.

I wish this book every blessing. May God graciously use it to awaken Roman Catholics to their need, and nominal Protestants to their dangers.

FRANK W. MARTIN.

AUTHOR'S PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION

THE first edition of "My Damascus Road" was written in 1962, shortly after my conversion to the Gospel. The book was used of the Lord to help many people, and this more than compensated me, in view of adverse criticisms on the part of many of my former co-religionists.

The six years which have elapsed since I wrote it enable me now to assess calmly and impartially its value and its defects.

Its value as the testimony of a sincere and total conversion to Christ remains undisputed. I cannot deny a single doctrinal or spiritual assertion contained in it; I feel the same as I felt then and my opinions remain unchanged. My decision to leave the Church of Rome was premeditated and based on what I considered evidence of its falsity, although this conviction was not so strong then as it is today.

But, perhaps the tone of the book held something of the exaltation of a recent convert. A certain air of challenge, defiance, and self-confidence lay in its pages. On the other hand, the size of the book did not allow me to make a detailed refutation of the basic doctrines of Roman Catholicism. For both these reasons, my brief exposition, almost superficial and somewhat rough and ready, presented weak points, vulnerable to criticism as easy as it was bitter.

Since then, the Lord has allowed me to pass through a serious spiritual crisis which, under the title "What Happened!", I have endeavoured to present in the second part of this book. This crisis has taught me many profitable lessons, and these I should like to share with my readers, so that my experience may bear testimony and bring a message of real help to all who may pass through times of perplexity and spiritual affliction.

I have decided, therefore, to modify somewhat the text of the first edition, omitting nothing of my story or personal convictions, but improving its tone and doctrinal exposition. At the same time, certain details which experience has proved to be weak, unnecessary, and even harmful. I have left out.

Another change in this Second Edition has been made necessary by the book, "Tu Camino de Damasco?" ("Your Damascus Road?"), written by Dr. Manuel Fernández, a former pupil of mine, later fellow-Professor in the Seminary and in the Chapter of the Cathedral of Tarazona, and today Magister Canon of Santander (Spain). He wrote it to refute my own booklet, "My Damascus Road".

Although my future book, "The Problem of Christian Unity", is a complete and detailed reply to all his objections, I have considered it advisable to answer briefly, with the use of foot-notes, the most outstanding of his criticism. It is to be regretted that an author who presumes to be "my best friend" [1] should have written more than fifteen pages (15-30) of personal allusions, some humiliating and in very bad taste, under the pretext of exposing certain weaknesses of my character as the only explanation for my conversion to the Gospel.

Contents

Foreword

PART I

Foreword to the First Edition

Author's Preface to the Second Edition

Introduction

The Road to Damascus

A Light from Above

There is only One Gospel

A Nefarious Principle has become the Leaven of Corruption

Union with Rome?

My New Birth

PART II

Foreword

An Appreciation

Introduction

A Serious Danger

The Dark Night of the Spirit

Escape from the Desert

An Example of Roman Curial Proceedings

The Final Stages

My Return Home

Notes to Part I

PLATES

With my late Mother

The Cathedral of Tarazona

Main Entrance to Monastery of the Benedictines

With my Wife and Daughter

Introduction

I SHOULD like to commence this account of my deep and intimate experience of my conversion to Jesus Christ and the sublime truth of His Gospel by cordially greeting all my compatriots and Spanish-speaking readers, and especially my former colleagues in the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church. I would to God that all who read this "were such as I am" (Acts 26:29) except for the sufferings of my recent spiritual crisis! I earnestly pray God that they may all be enlightened by His Holy Spirit, and thereby enter into the same happy experience which changed the whole course of my life.

Oh that I could bear testimony of my conversion to the Gospel from the very pulpit in the Cathedral of Tarazona, where for thirteen years I was the official preacher of the Chapter! Unfortunately, this is impossible even after the recent promulgation (A.D. 1967) of the law of religious liberty in my country.

From the outset I would make it quite clear that I have left the Roman Church fully persuaded of the anti-biblical falseness of many of her dogmas [2]. I have come out with the sole purpose of following Christ with sincerity and humility, and I have no ulterior motives. I would redeem the past years of a colourless life, and dedicate myself to a constant and fervent testimony of Christ, as the only "name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12), and to "shew forth the praises of Him ,who hath called us out of darkness into His marvellous

light" (1 Peter 2:9).

I have not run away with any woman, nor have I been bribed to leave the Roman Church in which I enjoyed a very good living and held a high position. Quite to the contrary, the servants of God who led me to Christ did not hide from me the fact that I should be prepared for material loss [3]. But for the true Christian, this should never be a matter for concern, and it is not so for me. I believe in the Providence of God and I know that our heavenly Father only asks that we should "seek first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto us" (Mt. 6:33).

If anyone thinks that I have strayed from the fold I beg him to pray for me and, in grateful response, I shall also pray for him and for all my former co-religionists who remain enchained by a false system, contrary to the Word of God. It should not be forgotten that official representatives of the Jewish faith furiously faced the Apostle Paul with the infamous insult of "this pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition ... throughout the world" (Acts 24:5). Paul's reply is well worth meditation: "But this I confess unto thee that after the way which they call heresy, so worship I the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the law and in the prophets" (Acts 24:14).

This shows how, by a way which religious officialdom regarded as mistaken and "heretical", Paul found the true "orthodox" road to worship God according to the Scriptures! Similarly, the Roman hierarchy have branded as apostates and heretics all who rise against the "another Gospel" (Gal. 1:6), and go in search of the pure waters of the Word of God.

I am not attempting now a treatise on apologetics, but wish to set down simply my own personal experiences. I have no personal animosity against any one in particular. Moreover, I am ready, like Paul, to be "anathema" for my former co-religionists. I have only gratitude for many of them and my only desire is that they all may open their eyes to the great truth that the only ground for our salvation is "The righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;

"Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:

"Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness for the remissions of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God" (Rom. 3:22-25) [4].

We must be convinced that the Holy Scriptures are the only touchstone by which to discover whether a doctrine is truly "orthodox" or not. This is why even the preaching of an Apostle such as Paul, who spoke what he was taught "by the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. 1:12) could be tested according to the Scriptures of the Old Testament by a group of Jews who, far from having any ecclesiastical authority, were not yet members of the Christian community, as we read in Acts 17:11 of the Berean Jews:

"These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, AND SEARCHED THE SCRIPTURES DAILY, WHETHER THOSE THINGS (which Paul was preaching) WERE so".

Therefore, I exhort all my readers to read the Bible daily, to ponder it closely and to study it deeply with fervent prayer to the Holy Spirit which inspired it. I recommend to my former companions to read also evangelical literature and commentaries on the Scriptures devoid of dogmatic prejudice and mystification. Do not fear the empty "anathemas" of men. The real "anathema" from God Himself, as promulgated by Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, is found in Gal. 1:8,9, and threatens not only those who deny the only true Gospel of justification by faith, but also those who try to mystify it by adding something to the revealed truth:

"But though we or an angel from heaven, preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL unto you than that which we have preached unto you, LET HIM BE ACCURSED.

"As we said before, so say we now again. If any man preach ANY OTHER GOSPEL unto you than that ye have received, LET HIM BE ACCURSED."

When considered honestly and impartially, is it possible really to believe in the fundamental dogmas of the Roman Church? Every sincere reader both of the Bible and of the History of the Church will find immediately that many basic doctrines of the Roman Church such as the sacrifice of the Mass, transubstantiation, obligatory confession of sins made orally to a man and, above all, marian and papal dogmas solemnly defined since A.D. 1854, are not only strange to Scripture but even contrary to all the teaching of the New Testament. If any reader should believe in them sincerely, let him continue to read these pages, especially the second chapter ("A Light from Above") of this first part.

I would not conclude this introduction without expressing my very deep joy and happiness in the Lord, in spite of all my past crises and tribulations, for the blessed assurance of salvation which I share with all true believers. This is not an arrogant presumption, but humble and grateful acceptation of the explicit message of the Word of God, manifest in many passages. Let us read the most relevant of them:

"All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I WILL IN NO WISE CAST OUT ...

"And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I SHOULD LOSE NOTHING" (Jn. 6:37,39).

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me:

"And I give unto them eternal life; AND THEY SHALL NEVER PERISH, NEITHER SHALL ANY MAN PLUCK THEM OUT OF MY HAND.

"My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; AND NO MAN IS ABLE TO PLUCK THEM OUT OF MY FATHER'S HAND" (Jn. 10:27-29).

"The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

"And if children, then heirs . . . " (Rom. 8:16,17).

Will our Heavenly Father ever disinherit His children?

No!

"For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Rom. 11:29).

"For I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that He is able to keep that which I have

committed (all the precious things that Paul had put under God's care) unto Him against that day (obviously, the "Parousia") (2 Tim. 1:12).

And, finally, the wonderful hymn of Christian optimism:

"Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? ...

"For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come.

"Nor height, nor depth, NOR ANY OTHER CREATURE, SHALL BE ABLE TO SEPARATE US FROM THE LOVE OF GOD WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS OUR LORD" (Rom.

8:35,38,39).

The Apostle John emphasizes that this assurance is not presumption, but a sure and certain thing, so that to doubt it is to make God a liar:

"He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made Him a liar . . .

"And this is the record, THAT GOD HATH GIVEN TO US ETERNAL LIFE . .

"These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; THAT YE MAY KNOW THAT YE HAVE ETERNAL LIFE" (1 Jn. 5:10,11,13) [5].

The Road to Damascus

IN September, 1948, I was promoted by my bishop to the chair of Special Dogmatic Theology in the Diocesan Seminary of Tarazona (Zaragoza). One year later I was also appointed as Magister Canon, that is, the official preacher in the Cathedral.

Up to that time, all doubts and difficulties which I had experienced with regard to many of the doctrines of the Roman Church which her subjects are taught and obliged to believe as "de fide divina" (by divine faith), I had managed to suppress. This had been achieved partly because of the immediate and unconditional submission which, under the penalty of excommunication, all true Romanists render to the definitions of the Councils and the decisions of the Popes, whose infallibility is a fundamental postulate of Roman Dogmatics [6].

However, when my professional studies of theology led me to the fundamental concepts which became the framework of Romanist theological conclusions, I found myself in many a cul-de-sac out of which I could find no exit. I therefore found I could not give satisfactory answers to my pupils' questions, nor was I able to solve my own intellectual problems.

I see now that there were two main reasons why I could not find the answer to my difficulties:

(A) Firstly because Romanist Theology, in trying to uncover the mysteries of faith, seeks above all to find scientific solutions for every theological problem. Thence, the effort which we, Professors of Dogmatics, had to make in order to satisfy, in some way, the persistent questions of our pupils. The Church of Rome forgets that faith does not require for its defence the metaphysical niceties of a pagan mind, such as that of Aristotle, but the acceptance of divinely revealed truth. To the "we know" of Nicodemus in his dialogue with Jesus, recorded in Jn. 3, the Lord does not reply with reasons to supplement the religious knowledge of the Rabbi, but immediately emphasizes the necessity of a "new birth" in order to be able to "see the kingdom of God" [7].

(B) Another main reason for my not being able to find a satisfactory answer to the doubts that filled my mind, the more I entered into theological theses, was the very inconsistency of many Roman dogmas, studied impartially in the light of the Bible and of the history of the primitive Church, that is, of the oldest and purest "tradition". I shall never forget the powerful effect made during a discussion which flared up at a public theological academy in the main hall of my Seminary in 1957. The subject was auricular confession and the penitential discipline of the first centuries. As the discussion was over, I came to the conclusion that the primitive Church did not practice the confession of every mortal sin to a priest as something absolutely necessary for salvation "by Divine Right", as the Council of Trent defined solemnly (v. Denzinger, no. 1707, formerly 917). If the auricular confession of every mortal sin is necessary for salvation by Divine Commandment, why did not the Church observe this commandment from the beginning? In fact, the practice of putting outside the Church those who offended grievously their Christian communities with some notorious crimes, and the practice of reconciling them after a period of probation, had nothing in common with the "Sacrament of Penance" [8].

So, I said to myself: where, then, is the infallibility of the Church? And, if the Church is not infallible in this particular subject of the confessional, how can I believe that she is infallible in other matters? Because the Roman system is so strongly bound together under the claims of an infallible and irreformable teaching, that if a particular dogma falls down at the evidence of the facts, the whole system must altogether fall down.

But, my discoveries with respect to the inconsistencies in Roman doctrines were, of necessity, as exceedingly slow for me as for any other Roman Catholic priest or layman, for the following reasons: (a) The false security that the Church of Rome seeks to impose on her subjects, that she alone is the repository of all Truth; which obliged us thus, to submit blindly, even in the face of the most serious theological difficulties. (b) The excommunication with which the Canon Law threatens all who dare to buy, sell, read, retain or pass on to others, "prohibited books", amongst which are included all which criticise and pass judgment on the dogmas of Rome. (c) The tendentious, and even slanderous, manner in which the doctrines and characters of the great Reformers of the sixteenth century were presented to us in the Manuals of Theology and History of the Roman Church. There are still Roman Catholics who believe that the Bible is a "Protestant" book, and who, upon hearing the term "protestant", believe it to be associated with heretics to be shunned, enemies, not only of the Church, but, above all, of the Virgin Mary, and even of Jesus Christ Himself; and who teaches doctrines so immoral as that "as long as you believe, you may sin as much as you want".

I do have to acknowledge, however, that during the last ten years, the Roman theologians and historians have been taking a more sympathetic approach to the persons of the Reformers of the sixteenth century. In the official organ of the Roman Catholic Missions in Spain, "Catolicismo" ("Catholicism") in its issue of June, 1961, the Roman priest Manuel de Unciti presented the person of Calvin with considerable impartiality to the point where it even appeared as a rehabilitation of this Reformer. The same author wrote rather on the same lines about Knox in a following issue of the same magazine. The strange thing about this further article is that the "weaknesses" of Cardinal Beaton and other high ecclesiastics of the Roman Church of the time are not glossed over.

Alongside the growing desire on the part of multitudes of Roman Catholics to know the Word of God, another encouraging sign is the foundation of Chairs of Protestant Theology in some Seminaries; and also the meeting together, openly or clandestinely, of Roman Catholics and Evangelicals in some Spanish localities (and even more so in other countries) in order to discuss mutual differences and Biblical foundations of the Christian faith, in a calm, peaceful and friendly manner. I know of evangelical preachers who have been allowed to proclaim the true Gospel in Roman Catholic churches, to the great satisfaction of all in attendance.

Returning to my own experiences I would add that, in view of the insoluble difficulties which the study of theology presented to my mind in the light of the Bible, and not having at my disposal truly Evangelical information, I began to slide down the slope of scepticism, towards religious agnosticism, with all the lamentable consequences of such a state, both in the intellectual and in the moral side.

On the other hand, from a child I had been brought up to the niceties of human behaviour and self-control by trusting in my own strength, trying always to do good deeds and obtain "merits" before God. From my childhood I had been taught, also, to flee to the Virgin Mary in moments of temptation or spiritual danger; whose intercession is presented by Romanist theologians not only as omnipotent, but also as more accessible and certain than that of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself. How contrary this is to such biblical passages like Jn. 14:6; Acts 4:12; 1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 4:16; 10:19-22, etc. But these passages were either unknown to us or overlooked in the Lectures of the Professors and in the addresses of our "Spiritual Directors".

Only later I realized, by the reading of evangelical literature and the unprejudiced study of the Bible, that: (a) The spiritual victory of a Christian is granted not upon his "efforts" or "merits", but upon his docility to the Spirit of God (v. Rom. 8:14); (b) we are not saved for being righteous, but as repenting and believing sinners, hanging only on God's mercy, saved by pure grace through faith, which is as well a pure gift of God (v. Rom. 3:21-28; Eph. 2:8,9) ; (c) we are justified by the bestowal upon us, sinners, of the righteousness of Christ, our Substitute on Calvary's Cross: "For He hath made Him to be sin for us, Who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him" (2 Cor. 5:21). (d) We do not need any other Mediator but Christ, "for if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life" (Rom. 5:10).

Even although I had turned my back on Him, God, from eternity, had had a merciful plan and purpose for me. There is an axiom in Roman Theology which says: "God abandons no man, unless that man first abandons God". But the Word of God tells us something very different: "I was found of them that sought me not; I was made manifest unto them that asked not for me" (Isaiah 65:1; Rom. 10:20). God is not only merciful, but also sovereign in His choice and gifts (Rom. 9:18). Whereupon, when, like Martin Luther, I had completely failed in my struggle for sanctification, and had become a religious agnostic (although not everything worked out for me, even intellectually, since there are certain things in the Gospels, such as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which I could not succeed to explain by natural reasoning), then it was that, like Saul, "kicking against the pricks" (Acts 9:5) and blaspheming the name of Jesus, I journeyed along my Damascus Road. Then it was that, without thinking of conversion, but by some mysterious design of Providence, came to my soul . . .

A Light from Above

TEN years before my spiritual experience, I had read in a Romanist magazine, "Cultura Biblica" ("Biblical Culture"), the name of a Spanish evangelical pastor, Rev. Don Samuel Vila. He was attacked for some remarks he made in his book "To the Fountain of Christianity" with reference to the brothers of Jesus.

After so many years, I still happened to remember the name of this pastor. But, how to find his address? Ten years ago, it was not easy for a priest to contact a Protestant minister. Another providential thing happened. As I was talking with a group of priests along the street in Tarazona, the conversation arose about a pastoral letter of Cardinal Segura against Protestants. "I think there is in Barcelona a Protestant pastor, whose name is Samuel Vila"--I said with circumspect timidity. "No"--the answer came immediately from one of my colleagues--"he lives in Tarrasa".

This is all I wanted to know. Immediately I went to the telephone directory, my eyes went down quickly: A, B, C, D. . . . Vila, Don Samuel: 113 Moragas Barret. This was the address I wanted. The next day I wrote him a letter describing with utter sincerity my spiritual problems.

Pastor Vila replied with a letter full of understanding, serenity, and unction of the Holy Spirit, in which he explained many of the fundamental truths of the Word of God, which nevertheless amazed me.

Against everything which I had supposed, Mr. Vila did not ask me to become a Protestant but told me candidly which was the real matter with me in the following terms:

"My dear friend: the solution of your spiritual problems does not lie in changing from one religious denomination to another, but IN A TRUE CONVERSION TO GOD THROUGH CHRIST. Your salvation depends purely and entirely on your reception, by faith, of Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour. Then, you must consider Christian life as a spiritual, intimate, idyl with Christ, for nobody ought to be called a Christian unless he or she could openly proclaim that the love of Christ has conquered in an irresistible manner his or her heart".

This was to me extraordinary. So these were the maligned Protestants!

Up until then, I was convinced that the justification of the sinner, and his personal salvation, consisted in the duty of keeping oneself in the baptismal grace, and, when necessary, recovering the same by means of an act of confession made to, and absolution received from, a fellowpriest. Like so many Roman Catholics, I did not understand how the sinner could be justified and saved simply by receiving Jesus Christ by faith, as his own personal Saviour. The poetic term "idyl" used by Vila in connection with Christ should have been familiar to me, since we have it in both Testaments. In the Old Testament, Yahweh (Jehovah) calls Himself the "Husband" of His people Israel (Is. 54:5; Jer. 3:14, etc.) and the Church is called the "Bride" of Jesus Christ (v. Mt. 22:2; Jn. 3:29; Eph. 5:23-32; Rev. 19:9; 21:2). And so I had no reason to be surprised. Nevertheless, accustomed as I was to the doctrine of the efficacy of the sacraments "ex opere operato" (that is to say, "by the very performance of the sacramental rite"), and to the spiritual coldness of the great mass of Roman Catholics in their personal relationship with Christ,

this manner of defining true Christianity was, in the truest sense of the word, a complete revelation to me.

I continued my correspondence with Pastor Vila, and, after the first letters I received, he sent me a great deal of chosen evangelical literature. I shall always remember the impression I received from the reading of such books like the above quoted "To the Fountain of Christianity", by Vila (a simple and thorough refutation of Roman dogmas in view of the Bible and the History of the primitive Church); "Evangelical Christianity along the centuries", by the same author; "Peace with God", by Billy Graham (a blessed book for many souls, although I do not agree with the author in his evangelistic methods and ecumenical mind); "Your Christian Life", by Pastor José M. Martínez of Barcelona; "A Great Protestant: The Apostle Paul", by the Spanish ex-priest José M. Rico Avila; the "Commentary on Romans", by W. Newell; the "Commentary on Hebrews", by J. Calvin; and the fascinating book "Christianity is Christ", by Prof. Griffith Thomas.

But the correspondence with Vila and the reading of these books stimulated me above all to devote myself to the detailed and assiduous study and meditation of the Word of God, accompanied by much prayer in which I sought abundant grace of the Holy Spirit to discover the real sense of the Word as He inspired it, to treasure it in my memory and heart, to live it through in my life and communicate it by my conversation and preaching. In a little over a year I read the whole Bible through twice and the New Testament many times. I also studied the best Romanist and Protestant commentaries.

I was soon enjoying the fruits of this very pleasant task. My students were often amazed at the pertinent and varied biblical references with which I supported my theological explanations.

As I say in the second part of this book, it takes many months and sometimes many years for a priest to change completely his mind, however converted he may be, because all the theological background accumulated from the childhood. This was one of the motives of my spiritual crisis in the years shortly following my conversion. But even so, from the very beginning, I saw with meridian clarity, for the first time, the falsity of many of the doctrines which are "dogmas" of faith in the Roman Church, and I could grasp immediately the main points of the message of salvation which constitute the kernel of the Reformed faith, although at that time I did not understand exactly the root of the matter, namely the problems of unity and authority of the Church.

Why had I not realised before the errors of the Roman Church? The answer is quite simple. A Roman Catholic brought up from childhood in the belief that the Church of Rome is the only true Church of Christ, and that she alone possesses the Truth, finds it an almost insuperable difficulty (even though he reads the Holy Bible) to be convinced that all the religious teaching he has received is contrary to the Word of God. This is especially true when he has been moulded in Roman Catholic Philosophy and Theology for thirteen years in a Seminary. There, he has been taught with insistence that the Roman Catholic Hierarchy alone is able correctly to interpret the Bible, since it is "the only really binding rule of faith", and it is enough for him to accept blindly, and without doubts, what the Hierarchy presents as "object of divine and catholic faith". On the other hand, should he be a person with an extremely sensitive conscience, he will not dare to listen to, or read, anything which questions the legitimacy of the authority which the Church claims for herself in matters of religion. To be saved he needs only "believe what the Holy Mother Church believes". This is what is called "implicit faith", --as if one could "believe for another". It is for this reason that a great number of Roman Catholics, and even the majority of the clergy, continue in the false doctrines of their Church, without ever opening their eyes to the pure truth of the Gospel. After all, why should they trouble to "search the Scriptures" (Jn. 5:39), and by so doing avoid exposing themselves to error, as Christ warned in Mt. 22:29, if all they have to do, according to the teaching of their Church, is to know and to acknowledge the decisions of the same Holy Mother Church who claims to be "the only true and sure rule of faith"?

But this ecclesiastical "rule of faith" which has produced the Denzinger or Manual of Symbols, Definitions and Declarations, containing the unappealable decisions of the Councils and of the Popes, in many of its teachings is contrary to the only rule of faith which is the Word of God, indisputable deposit of divine revelation. Where does the Word of God teach the doctrines of the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Transubstantiation, the obligatory auricular confession at the feet of a man, of Purgatory, the dogmas on the Virgin Mary, the infallibility of the Pope, all fundamental doctrines of the Roman Theology? Nowhere in Scripture. [9]

Let us give a brief summary which will convince anyone who has studied THE WHOLE OF SCRIPTURE without dogmatic prejudice, for there is no better interpreter of the Bible than the Bible itself (of course, by the guidance of the Holy Spirit) with its admirable network of references and parallel passages which mutually illuminate, interpret and explain each other. It is not lawful to take one loose Scriptural phrase and from it elaborate a dogma (even the devil can do this (v. Mt. 4:6; Lk. 4:10,11), when the whole weight of the message of God openly teaches the contrary. Let us take a few instances.

1. THE SACRIFICE OF THE MASS.

According to the Council of Trent, Christ offers Himself in every Mass, "by the ministry of priests", so that the salutary effects of Calvary may be applied as propitiation for the sins which we daily commit and as expiation for the departed souls who left this earth without having fully satisfied for their sins (v. Denz. 1739-1743, formerly 938-940, and 1751-1754, formerly 948-951).

But the Bible says : "But this man (Christ), after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God" (Heb. 10:12), meaning clearly by this highly symbolical sentence that He has totally finished His offering, since the priest must always stand while he is offering a sacrifice. Now the Holy Spirit goes on saying: "For by one offering he had perfected for ever them that are sanctified . . . Now where remissions of these (sins and iniquities--v. 17) is, there is no more offering for sin" (Heb. 10:14,18). Note here another two important things: (1) Believers are "perfected (Greek "teteleíoken") for ever", so that nothing can be added to the sacrifice on the Cross; (2) Because of this perfection, there can be no more sacrifices for sins.

What, then, must believers do to propitiate God for their daily sins, that is, to apply to themselves "the salutary effects of Calvary"? Only to "come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy" (Heb. 4:16), "having . . . boldness (Greek "parrhesía=familiar confidence to speak) to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus" (Heb. 10:19), Who is there always ready to intercede for any repenting believer: "If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: AND HE IS THE PROPITIATION FOR OUR SINS" (1 Jn. 2:1,2).

Does it mean that we "Protestants" are without daily sacrifice or that the prophecy of Malachi (Mal. 1:11) on the universal sacrifice has no meaning at all? No! Paul tells us what is meant by the perennial sacrifice of believers. Romans 12:1 tells us: "I beseech you . . . that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto ,God, which is your reasonable service". And Hebrews 13:15 remarks: "Let us offer the sacrifice of praise to God continually, that is the fruit of our lips giving thanks to His name". Thanksliving and thanksgiving (the true "Eucharist")! These are the perennial sacrifices of all believers! This is why Peter refers not to a special class of priest but to all Christian people, when he says of all believers: "a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a peculiar people . . . of God" (1 Pet. 2:9). Note well that nobody in the New Covenant, except Christ, is called "hiereús" = priest [10].

2. TRANSUBSTANTIATION.

According to the Council of Trent, Christ is truly, really and substantially, with body, blood, soul and divinity, in the Sacrament of Eucharist, by virtue of the "singular change of the whole substance of the bread into the body and the whole substance of the wine into the blood" (Denz.

1651-1652, formerly 883-884).

The Bible teaches us that Jesus, having obtained eternal redemption for us, "entered in once into the holy place" (Heb. 9:12). This "holy place", or `tabernacle", is not the altar nor the "sacrarium" of Roman Churches, but Heaven itself (v. Heb. 4:14-16; 6:18-20; 8:1-4; 9:11, 12,24-28; 10:11-22), and from there HE WILL NOT DESCEND, CORPORALLY, until His Second Coming (compare the references cited with Acts 1:11 --“This same Jesus, which is taken up from you into Heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into Heaven".)

But, did He not say that He would remain with us for ever? Yes, by His Spirit: "It is expedient for you that I go away; for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you: but if I depart I will send Him unto you" (Jn. 16:7). It is His Spirit that He has left with us, and not His "flesh", and in order to dispel all misunderstanding, He Himself said: "The flesh profiteth nothing; the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life" (Jn. 6:63).

How, then, are we to understand the words, "This is My body"--"This is My blood" (Mt. 26:26,28, and other references), and also, "My flesh is meat indeed, and My blood is drink indeed" (Jn. 6:55)? In a figurative sense (a form of speech familiar to the Apostles), in order to express the truth that our salvation consists in "eating", or making our own, spiritually (Roman Theology admits that the Eucharistic Body of Jesus is not digested), and "drinking" in the same sense. This means that, as true believers, we eat by faith the Body of Christ broken for us on the Cross, just as we eat bread to nourish our physical bodies. This is the communion of the Body of Christ, and a symbol of His death ("shewing the Lord's death until He come" (1 Cor. 11:26). And we "drink" the blood of Christ, thus "making our own" the propitiation obtained for us by the shedding of His blood on Calvary. It is only in the light of Jn. 6:27-29,35,40,47 that we can understand the true meaning of "eat" and "drink" found in verses 51 ff. of the same chapter. It is faith alone, and not the eating of the bread and drinking of the cup, that gives "eternal life" (Jn. 3:16), and satisfies the spiritual hunger and thirst of man. Compare these two key-verses of Christ's sermon in Jn. 6 :

"I am the bread of life: he that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst" (verse 35).

"Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, ye have (Greek "échete"--present tense) no life in you" (verse 53, in the Latin Vulgate, 54).

Christ's words clearly indicate a "necessity of means" (something absolutely necessary for salvation), whilst Roman Theology declares that the reception of the Eucharistic Sacrament is necessary by "necessity of commandment" (only because communion is commanded). It is clear, then, that Christ did not mean to command that His body should be eaten "literally", nor His blood "literally" drunk.

Finally, it is noteworthy that Jesus, after saying: "This is My blood", goes on to say: "I shall not drink again OF THE FRUIT OF 'THE VINE until I drink it new with you in the Kingdom of My Father" (Mt. 26:29; Mk. 14:25). But, according to Rome itself, there will not be sacramental communion in Heaven. Besides, if there should be such a thing as transubstantiation, Jesus could not have said "the fruit of the vine", but "My blood".

Speaking of the Lord's Supper, Paul repeatedly uses the words "bread" and "wine", in remembrance of the broken Body and the shed Blood (v. 1 Cor. 11:20, 23-29). The subterfuge of Roman Theology, that he spoke in this way because in the Sacrament the Body and Blood of Christ are contained under the "accidents" or appearances ("sub speciebus"--says the Council of Trent. V. Denz. 1652, formerly 884) of bread and wine, is to put into the divinely-inspired pen of the Apostle an error and inexactness that could only be found in the tendentious commentaries of Roman Catholic expositors [11].

3. AURICULAR CONFESSION.

I have quoted in a previous chapter the definition of Trent about the necessity to confess every single mortal sin to a priest. But, not once do we find such an obligation in the New Testament. Nor was it known to the primitive Church, as modern Roman theologians themselves admit. The New Testament speaks only of confessing our faults "one to another" (Jas. 5:16), and of forgiving one another (v. Mt. 5:24; 6:12; 18:15-35. The careful reading of this passage reveals that it does not refer to "the sacrament of Penance"), and of the disciplinary function that the local community and not a "priest" ought to exercise towards the believers (Mt. 16:19 and Jn. 20:23 must be interpreted in the light of Mt. 18:17,18).

The only confession necessary for the believer who may sin (and we all sin as we can see in 1 Jn. 1:8,10; Jas. 3:2) in order that our fellowship and full communion with the Lord be maintained and restored, must be made to God alone, through Christ, our Advocate:

"If we walk in the light (by faith--see Jn. 8:12)

...we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin.

"If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

"If we CONFESS OUR SINS, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness".

"My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. AND IF ANY MAN SIN, WE HAVE AN ADVOCATE WITH THE FATHER, JESUS CHRIST THE RIGHTEOUS: "AND HE IS THE PROPITIATION FOR OUR SINS" (1 Jn. 1:7-9 and 2:1,2).

The only "mortal" sin, in the sense that it leads to eternal perdition (v. 1 Jn. 5:16), is to refuse to believe in Jesus (cf. 1 Jn. 5:1, with 1 Jn. 5:10-12; 16-18; and Jn. 3:18; 8:24; 9:41; 12:48; 15:24), and thus deliberately reject the light (cf. Mt. 12:32 and parallel Scriptures, with Jn. 3:19 and Heb. 6:4-8; 10:26,27--Scriptures which, through lack of Biblical perspective, the Manuals of Roman Theology find extremely difficult to interpret).

If there were Biblical authority for "auricular confession, with absolution from a priest", the most appropriate places to speak of it would be in Acts 8:22 (where the Apostle Peter calls to repentance, without mentioning the confessional), and Heb. 6:6 (where "to renew again unto repentance" is excluded as impossible unless there first be faith--not apparent or superficial, but authentic--vv. 4,5). However, in neither of these Scriptures do we find any mention of the so-called "priestly power of the keys in the Sacrament of Penance" [12].

4. DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory (as also that of indulgences, penances and sacramental satisfaction or expiation) is based upon the false assumption that, although sins as far as guilt is concerned, are pardoned, this is not always true in respect to the full punishment such as sins deserve ("dogma of faith" according to the Council of Trent. See Denz., 1712-1715, formerly 922-925).

This is in open contradiction to the New Testament. Hebrews 10:12-18 assures us that Christ, by offering one sacrifice for sins for ever, put away our sins, never more to remember them, and opened for us the way to heaven (see also 9:28). We are told in Rom. 8:1 that there is now "no condemnation", or guilt to be expiated, since Christ has nailed to the Cross the complete list of all our debts to the Law (Col. 2:14) and God laid all the punishment which our sins merited (Is. 53:5) upon the shoulders of His Son, so that we might be entirely cleansed and clothed in the very righteousness of Christ Himself (2 Cor. 5:21).

In a few words: It is impossible for God to demand payment twice for the same debt. Very well--Jesus Christ on the Cross paid the full debt of our sins. So, for God to demand a supplementary payment would be blasphemy against Christ, and slanderous to those whom Christ has washed in His own blood (Rev. 1:5; 3:5; 7:9,13,14; 19:8; 22:14).

This is true not only for those who accept Christ for the first time, by faith in His redemption, but for those who are already justified, since John says of them : "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us FROM ALL SIN" (1 Jn. 1:7), and repeats it in verse 9: