Apostolic Succession and the Roman Catholic Church

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church ^

[Alex Murphy]

Question:

I have a few questions for you about the "OPC." First, do you teach apostolic succession, and, if so, do you believe ministers outside of the OPC are not really ministers? Second, do you believe that the "gifts of the Holy Spirit" are for today, i.e., are healing, tongues, prophetic revelation, and miracles as led by the Holy Spirit actively manifest in our modern churches? Finally, how are you different from the Roman Catholic Church?

Answer:

Thank you for your questions. Let me take them one at a time.

1. "Do you teach apostolic succession, and, if so, do you believe ministers outside of the OPC are not really ministers?"

It is helpful to distinguish between "apostolic succession" and "apostolicity." By the doctrine of apostolic succession the Roman Catholic Church asserts its claim of an uninterrupted and continuous line of succession extending from the twelve apostles through the bishops they ordained right up to the bishops of the present day. According to this doctrine, the apostles appointed the first bishops as their successors, granting to them their own teaching authority, which continues until the end of the age (see paragraph 77 of Catechism of the Catholic Church).

Let me direct you to other relevant passages of the Catechism of the Catholic Church. The significance of the Roman Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession is immediately apparent in its definition of a "particular church." A particular church "refers to a community of the Christian faithful in communion of faith and sacraments with their bishop ordained in apostolic succession" (paragraph 833). "[I]t is for bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the 'gift of the Spirit,' the 'apostolic line'" (paragraph 1576). Without apostolic succession there is no church.

In close connection with the idea of apostolic succession is the transmission from generation to generation of the "Tradition." By Tradition, Catholics refer to that part of the church's "doctrine, life, and worship" that is distinct from Scripture (paragraph 78). This Tradition, Catholics argue, does not contradict Scripture, and maintains faithfully the unwritten but authoritative teachings and traditions of the apostles and early church fathers. Tradition is to be believed by the members of the church. It is the apostolic succession of bishops that perpetuates and guarantees both the faithful teaching of Scripture and Tradition.

Protestants have reacted strongly against the doctrine of apostolic succession. They have done so in a number of ways, historical and theological. One of these ways is by affirming the apostolicity of the church. Apostolicity may be defined as receiving and obeying apostolic doctrine as it is set forth in the New Testament. In matters of doctrine and life, Protestants permit no ultimate appeal to traditions that are distinct from canonical Scripture. For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.10 says this:

The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

Absolutely no provision is made for an authoritative, unwritten tradition. In fact, it is to the touchstone of Scripture that all traditions, including those of Roman Catholicism, must be brought.

Protestants have correctly observed that it is the appeal to Tradition that has made possible many doctrines and practices of Roman Catholicism that have no basis in Scripture. These include (to name only a handful) the papacy, papal infallibility, purgatory, the mass, the immaculate conception, and the assumption of Mary.

Even if it were historically provable that there was an unbroken succession of bishops from the first century to the present day Roman Catholic bishops (and it is not), Protestants would still demur to claims of Roman authority based upon apostolic succession. It is the apostolicity of the church that counts. And it is precisely by the standard of apostolicity that the Roman Catholic Church is measured and found wanting.

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church recognizes as ministers those men ordained to that office by true churches, which are identified by the attribute of apostolicity.

2. "Do you believe that the 'gifts of the Holy Spirit' are for today, i.e., are healing, tongues, prophetic revelation, and miracles as led by the Holy Spirit actively manifest in our modern churches?"

Orthodox Presbyterian are cessationists with regard to the word gifts. For a very careful exposition of scriptural teaching regarding the word gifts and healing, I refer you to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church's "Report of the Committee on the Baptism and Gifts of the Holy Spirit," which may be retrieved at http://opc.org/GA/giftsHS.html.

3. "How is the Orthodox Presbyterian Church different from the Roman Catholic Church?"

Thousands of books and articles have been written that carefully distinguish between Roman Catholicism and churches, like the OPC, which belong to the historic Protestant tradition. Please permit me to point you to two articles that will assist you in your studies.

I recommend "Resolutions for Roman Catholic & Evangelical Dialogue," which may be retrieved at http://www.modernreformation.org/default.php?page=articledisplay&var1=ArtRead&var2=876&var3=authorbio&var4=AutRes&var5=1. This statement is quite short, but points to a number of crucial differences between historic Protestants and Catholics.

Michael Horton has written an excellent article pointing to the differences between historic Protestants and Catholics on the doctrine of justification. "Justification, Vital Now & Always" may be retrieved at

http://www.christianity.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086|CHID597662|CIID1415598,00.html.

Let me also suggest a brief survey of the history and beliefs of the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, which may be retrieved at http://opc.org/what_is/the_opc.html.

While the differences between the Roman Catholic Church and historic Protestantism are many, let me focus on the one difference that must always be kept in mind, namely, the issue of authority. In every debate between Roman Catholics and historic Protestants, whether it be over the nature of the papacy, the place of tradition, justification, the role of Mary, the sacraments, or any other disputed matter, the question of authority will always surface. By what standard are matters of religious controversy judged? Historic Protestants will appeal to the Bible as the final authority in all matters of Christian faith and practice.

Roman Catholics, on the other hand, appeal to Scripture and Tradition as authoritatively interpreted by the papacy and its courts. The >i>Catechism of the Catholic Church claims this:

The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope. The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered' (paragraphs 881-882).

People often express surprise at the broad differences between Roman Catholics and historic Protestants. The differences are not only understandable, but also necessary, when examined from the standpoint of authority. As long as Protestants and Catholics appeal to two different authorities, an unbridgeable gulf separates them.

The Westminster Confession of Faith states clearly the historic Protestant position on the question of authority:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men. (Westminster Confession of Faith, 1.6).

The additions to which the authors of the Confession refer include not only the traditions of the papacy, but also the papal institution itself. The source of the irreconcilable differences between the Roman Catholic Church and historic Protestantism rests here. Reconciliation between historic Protestants and Roman Catholics would require either that Catholics abandon the papacy and its traditions, or that Protestants surrender their bedrock conviction that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. The issue of authority leaves no room for compromise.

[metmom]

It appears that you have a difficulty in distinguishing between being a Protestant and being a Christian.

The two are not synonymous.

One can be a Protestant and not be a Christian.

One can be a Christian and not a Protestant.

If you really understood what made one a Christian, you’d know that.

[metmom]

caww quoted Scripture that you countered with *Not Scripture*.

It most certainly was Scripture she posted. Read the Bible and try again.

[CynicalBear]

CB “Paul established the church in Rome.”

JCBreckenridge “Not in scripture.”

Jesus “Acts 23:11 11 The following night the Lord stood by him (Paul) and said, “Take courage, for as you have testified to the facts about me in Jerusalem, so you must testify also in Rome.”

[metmom]

That’s an awful lot of passages stating the Paul is the apostle to the Gentiles.

It’s staggering the depth of deception which could cause someone to STILL deny it.

I mean, really.... The Holy Spirit breathed it out and some anonymous internet poster denies it and I have a choice of whom I am going to believe.

It’s really a no-brainer.

[daniel1212]

The Roman Catholic Church consists of a total of 23 Rites, often called Churches. The are all in communion with the Holy See, at Rome. There is no division,

While this may be the case for rites, Rome abounds with disagreements over interpretations of Roman teaching and of tradition, even to the point of the SSPX sect and the sedevacantist schism.

Meanwhile, the Orthodox have substantial disagreements with Rome on what Tradition, Scripture and history teaches. Thus under both the Roman means of establishing truth (sola ecclesia) as well as SS you have disagreements and divisions.

But Scripturally the church did not begin under the premise that being stewards of Divine revelation renders them the perpetually assuredly infallible interpreters of it, contrary to the presumption of Rome.

[daniel1212]

You said that all protestants are in union with one another.

It seems you are misrepresenting what she said by leaving out one word.

She said

The Unity most Protestants have is in the person of Jesus Christ..

Bishop Vicky Gene Robinson is a protestant. You are a protestant. Therefore, I can only conclude that you are in unity with him.

As your premise is in error, so is your conclusion. She (caww) is not in union with him, and can separate from such, yet you are stuck with a majority of liberal RCs as Rome counts and treats them as members in life and in death.

IF you are not in unity with him - how does one determine which protestants are in unity with one another

Since historically there has been a sect of Protestants (broadly defined) which separate from clearly aberrant Balaams and are marked by an overall shared consent to basic core truths, and who thus manifest a common contention against those who deny them ("cults") as well as against Catholic additions, then there must be a basis for this.

And Catholicism has here divisions over interpretations of Rome, and of Tradition, Scripture and history.

And even in the latter day declension of the church today this class testifies to greater unity in basic moral values and many truths than your brethren.

since you are saying that not all of you are in union with one another despite both of you calling the other, ‘protestant’.

"Protestant" is a broad and inaccurate term as it typically includes even those who deny the core essentials the Reformers and Rome both held to (one RC writer estimates that at 80%). If we identify a group based on a common denominator such as dissent from Catholicism, then cults could likewise be identified as Catholic as they both typically operate under sola ecclesia.

But as there must be divisions because of truth, (Lk. 12:15; 1Cor. 11:19), thus there is a conservative class of Prots know as fundamentalists, or evangelicals.

However, your basic premise is that Rome is infallible, and thus is be the supreme authority on what is Truth, and that this infallible authority is necessary to preserve truth, and thus those she rejects have no real authority. Correct?

[daniel1212]

Correction, “are perpetually the assuredly infallible stewards of it” should read, “assuredly infallible interpreters of it.” Sorry.

[boatbums]

Since the Scriptures make no mention or allowance for any so-called “apostolic succession” what can one say about the teaching that there is except such teaching is false? Yes, I know some will quote a verse or two they say supports the idea but those quoted verses have nothing to do with any imagined “succession”.

We know that the Christians in that first century gathered together in worship and teaching as a community. They shared their resources and ministered to the poor. The actual Apostles went throughout the known world preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ and ordaining elders in each community to carry on the teachings they handed down to them. Rather than there being some kind of "Apostolic Succession" where an Apostle could name his own successor and give to him the mantle of Apostle to then pass down to whomever he chose, the succession was one of DOCTRINE and it was in this that the authority could be claimed. And, just because a church was established by an Apostle, did not guarantee that that church would ALWAYS continue to be faithful to the Apostolic teachings. In fact, we learn from http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01634a.htm, that:

The epithet Apostolic (apostolikos) occurs as far back as the beginning of the second century; first, as far as known, in the superscription of Ignatius's Epistle to the Trallians (about 110), where the holy bishop greets the Trallian Church (en apostoliko charakteri): "in Apostolic character", viz., after the manner of the Apostles. The word Apostolic becomes frequent enough from the end of this century on, in such expressions as an "Apostolic man", an "Apostolic writing", "Apostolic Churches."

All the individual orthodox churches could, in a sense, be called Apostolic Churches, because they were in some more or less mediate connection with the Apostles. Indeed, that is the meaning in which Tertullian sometimes uses the expression Apostolic Churches (De Praescriptionibus c. xx; Adversus Marceonem, IV, v). Usually, however, especially among the Western writers, from the second to the fourth century, the term is meant to signify the ancient particular Churches which were founded, or at least governed, by an Apostle, and which, on that account, enjoyed a special dignity and acquired a great apologetic importance. To designate these Churches, Irenaeus has often recourse to a paraphrase (Adv. Haer., III, iv, 1), or he calls them the "oldest Churches". In the writings of Tertullian we find the expressions "mother-Churches" (ecclesiae matrices, originales), frequently "Apostolic Churches" (De Praescriptionibus, c. xxi).

At the time of the Christological controversies in the fourth and fifth centuries some of these Apostolic Churches rejected the orthodox faith. Thus it happened that the title "Apostolic Churches" was no longer used in apologetic treatises, to denote the particular Churches founded by the Apostles. For instance, Vincent of Lérins, in the first half of the fifth century, makes no special mention in his "Commonitorium" of Apostolic Churches. But, towards the same epoch, the expression "the Apostolic Church" came into use in the singular, as an appellation for the whole Church, and that frequently in connection with the older diction "Catholic Church"; while the most famous of the particular Apostolic Churches, the Roman Church, took as a convenient designation the title "Apostolic See" (Vincent of Lérins's Commonitorium, c. ix). This last title was also given, though not quite so often, to the Antiochian and to the Alexandrian Church.

Many of the Roman Catholics on this forum absolutely insist that "their" church is the same church that Christ established in the first century. They claim this Apostolic character is EXCLUSIVELY theirs, but they must be held to the same measuring rod as any Christian church should be and that is by Scripture. God ensured that we would have an objective and static resource in order to know the SAME doctrines the Apostles were given and so that any claims of apostolicity could be determined by it - the New Testament Scriptures. If what a church teaches doesn't square with the Bible, then it doesn't matter what the sign says outside the doors. Christianity has a rule of faith. It doesn't change and it is found in Scripture.

[boatbums]

So, when it's time to make Protestantism look bad, a Catholic will drag an episcopalian into the fray. Is that the same Episcopalian denominations that the Catholic church is accepting priests from to become Catholic priests?

Good point! "Vicky" Robinson would probably feel much more at home there than in an Evangelical church.

[count-your-change]

As Jesus’ parable of the wheat and weeds makes clear it only when, in the last days, each produces its fruitage that they can be separated by the angels.

Hence no matter the claims of age and martyrs, Israel had both when the Roman armies came, it is that production of wheat-like fruitage that is the criteria.

It is noteworthy that all the individual congregations of Christians were designated by their location and not by any founding apostle. Paul's vigorous objection to elevating ones self because of who baptized them would argue against calling individual churches after a certain apostle.

“Christianity has a rule of faith. It doesn't change and it is found in Scripture” is a good sum up of it all.

[HarleyD]

Protestants must either accept that the Church indeed has authority to declare what is canonical and what is not

This is false reasoning. The very reason the early fathers gave for creating the bible is that they understood how we would corrupt it. That is why they made a distinction between what is "inspired" by God and what is not inspired. The Church's position now is that everything the Church say is inspired. This doesn't elevate the scriptures as the final authority but it cheapens it to be no more that what Pope Fred and his group might have said. This is exactly the same issue that our Lord Jesus had with the Pharisees:

Mar 7:10 For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother'; and, 'Whoever reviles father or mother must surely die.'

Mar 7:11 But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever you would have gained from me is Corban"' (that is, given to God)—

Mar 7:12 then you no longer permit him to do anything for his father or mother,

Mar 7:13 thus making void the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And many such things you do."

...

Mar 7:21 For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery,

Mar 7:22 coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness.

Mar 7:23 All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person."

All men's hearts are corrupt and we will bend the scripture to this corruption. This is what happened to the Pharisees. This is plainly illustrated in what has happened to Catholic teaching over the centuries. The early fathers recognized this and that is why we have the INSPIRED word of God.

Protestants do not recognize the Gnostic gospels because the early fathers didn't. And the early fathers based their Old Testament version on what was handed down by the Hebrew fathers. The real struggled for the early fathers was what to include in the New Testament.

A better question is why do Catholics accept books 1000 years later that the early church fathers rejected as inspired?

[caww]

I think you might be underestimating God. It’s His Word and He can and does certainly reveal it to whom He chooses...

In fact we as members of His Body, thru His Spirit, are told to confirm what is taught in the churches by searching the scriptures ourselves...and His Spirit will teach us.

..... you make the church body sound like it has to be subject to a ‘Government’ over it’s people...Church leadership does not ‘Govern’ the body...it’s members do...with Jesus Christ as the Head.

Furthermore...God Gave us the Scriptures...the church did not “create” the scriptures. They come from Him.

[HarleyD]

I'm puzzled by your post so perhaps I wasn't clear. God gave us the scriptures-not the church. These scriptures were handed down to us. All the early fathers did was simply reaffirmed the inspired works. This isn't anything different than what went on for centuries and is documented in scripture (see King Josiah).

What the Catholic Church did was after 1,000 years of accepted inspired works by both the Hebrew and Gentile fathers, they introduced OTHER text that was never accepted as inspired works of God. Not even by their own Church. So Catholics have some explaining to do as to what constitutes "inspired" writings and how the inspire writings of God differs from others.

As far as underestimating God and to what He wants to reveal to who...to be perfectly honest I'm about the very last person on this site you should question about that.

[smvoice]

Thank you for your post, Harley. That is EXACTLY what the Catholic Church did. Placed uninspired “scripture” into Scripture and called it ALL Holy Spirit Inspired Scripture. By WHOSE authority did they do this? By their own...”infallible”...”authority”: that’s who. And then issued anathema to anyone who disagreed with them on the subject, the authority, and the meaning of these “scriptures”. Just a joke of a religious system of deceit and denial that the world is supposed to be impressed with and frightened of.

[daniel1212]

Many of the Roman Catholics on this forum absolutely insist that "their" church is the same church that Christ established in the first century. They claim this Apostolic character is EXCLUSIVELY theirs, but they must be held to the same measuring rod as any Christian church should be and that is by Scripture.

The RC model of authority is one in which the magisterium of those which were the stewards of Divine revelation, and which magisterium has historical descent (allowing RC's claim here) from that which God established, has perpetual supreme authority, so that those it rejects have no legitimacy.

Where have we seen this before? What are the implications of tis claim?

[daniel1212]

"Vicky" Robinson would probably feel much more at home there than in an Evangelical church. Indeed .

[daniel1212]

This is false reasoning. The very reason the early fathers gave for creating the bible is that they understood how we would corrupt it. That is why they made a distinction between what is "inspired" by God and what is not inspired. The Church's position now is that everything the Church say is inspired.

While Rome makes a distinction btwn the inspiration of the Scriptures and her (claimed) infallibility, the effect is to make the Roman church the supreme authority over the Scriptures .

. This is exactly the same issue that our Lord Jesus had with the Pharisees:

And according to the RC model, the people should have followed the magisterium which sat in Moses seat, having historical descent and being the stewards of Divine revelation, and thus rejected the anointed holy man in the desert who reproved them, and the Itinerant Preacher from Galilee who did the same based on Scripture. And indeed that is what Rome has done to those who corrected her, even murdering some (but as one RC said, for the Catholic Church cannot be wrong, as she defines what is right and wrong).

All men's hearts are corrupt and we will bend the scripture to this corruption.

RCs will argue that this is why you have divisions, and thus necessitates an infallible authority that defines what Scripture means.

However, this magnifies the problem of individual error to a executive level, for while the teaching office is needed, assured infallibility is not promised in Scripture (regardless if Rome "infallibly" defined that she is), and the presumption of assured veracity by leaders can result in corporate error and persecution of those who do speak truth to positional power. But by raising up true men of God from without the magisterium was often how God preserved truth. And thus the church began - being established (as often said) upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power - and thus it has been preserved as the body of Christ, and manifest as the salt of the earth, with shortcomings for sure.

This is what happened to the Pharisees. This is plainly illustrated in what has happened to Catholic teaching over the centuries. The early fathers recognized this and that is why we have the INSPIRED word of God.

Referencing the so-called "fathers" can have its place (as in establishing the Christians met on the first day of the week in the 1st century) but they were nor unified in all things, and could teach things that were wrong or skewed, and even engage in wresting Scripture for support, as seen here .

A better question is why do Catholics accept books 1000 years later that the early church fathers rejected as inspired?

Some, but not all, while it is clear Luther was not alone in questioning or rejecting some books, even within Trent, which provided the first indisputable canon for RCs - over Luther's dead body.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

-— And according to the RC model, the people should have followed the magisterium which sat in Moses seat, having historical descent and being the stewards of Divine revelation, and thus rejected the anointed holy man in the desert who reproved them, and the Itinerant Preacher from Galilee who did the same based on Scripture. ——

Before He established His Church, what did Jesus recommend?

Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2 “The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. 3 So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.

Jesus later established His Eternal Davidic Kingdom (Rev. 3:7), with Peter as It’s Prime Minister (Matt. 16:19), similar to the prime minister of the House of David in the Old Testament (Is. 22:22).

Matthew 16:19

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Isaiah 22:22

I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

Revelation 3:7

“To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

The papacy couldn’t be any more biblical.

[daniel1212]

However, as has been written greatly on this forum previously, the practice of relying solely on Scripture is found wanting, as the canon of Scripture can’t reference itself.

However, as has been written greatly on this forum previously, the practice of relying solely on Scripture is a straw man or an extreme fringe position, as SS neither rejects the office of magisterium nor other things needed to understand Scripture (reason being one) which Scripture provides for. But SS most basically holds that Scripture alone (sola) is supreme as the only wholly inspired authority and standard for faith and practice, which the church is not, but is subject to it.

In addition, Scripture being alone as the only supreme transcendent material standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims is abundantly testified to in Scripture.

Essentially, these writings were progressively established as being from God like as men of God are, that being by their Heavenly qualities, attestation and conformity with what was previously established as being Divine. While the powers that be are to confirm such, Scripture shows they often did not, yet God preserved faith by raising up true men of God to reprove the magisterium. Thus the church began and continues.

it is worth noting that without Apostolic Succession, there is a lack of authentic Authority with which to settle disputes.

"Authentic" is a favorites word for RCs, as she autocratically declares herself to be so.

But it is not so that there is a lack of authentic Authority with which to settle disputes, as in principal this is done, as every church has a magisterium for its members. But what is lacking is a centralized magisterium for all Christians.

Yet which Rome does not have either, but can only claim such, while not even being able to truly chastise the EOs for their "rebellion." The NT did not have that problem, as it was led by true foundational apostles with manifest power to deal with disobedience by the spiritual rod if necessary. Those who claim to be apostles or have thier power must fit the qualifications, which Rome does not (nor do i, but do not claim to be one).

And the lack of even one command to submit to Peter to any NT church in the Pauline letters to them, nor any record of them looking to him as their supreme head (and it was James who gave the definitive sentence in Acts 15, while he is listed 2nd after John in Gal. 2, and while Paul called the elders of Ephesus to council), versus a leader sitting on even ground with others and exercising a general pastoral role, and who has no known successor, is in stark contrast to the perpetuated demigod infallible pope ruling like a Caesar that Rome invented.

[AEMILIUS PAULUS]

Interesting. In addition, I believe that human history-Gibbon comes to mind-alone refutes the claim by the Roman church to be the “True Church.” The false legends; i.e. pieces of “The True Cross;” Idolatry, the general equality of bishops in the First few centuries, the Rise of the Roman bishop due to the fact Rome was the European world capital at that time; false miracles passed off as true. The accumulation of great wealth the opposite of Christ, the seizure of political power increasing so over the centuries, murders. Bishops exhibiting gross immorality. In short Christ and his apostles were the opposite of the minions of that great organization before whom kings trembled. The Roman Catholic will always claim that the sin of the priest simply does not matter-no matter how gross in intensity and duration. Nonsense! Sin always matters the Jewish sects at the time of Christ became rotten and their teachers false and corrupt and as a result-in part-God’s blessing passed from them. The same thing happened to Rome and that church needed the Reform that came to them after centuries of abuse. Indeed the Counter Reformation itself is implicit recognition of the rot that was Rome.