"The children of priests form an invisible legion of secrecy and neglect, a Spotlight Team review has found," wrote Michael Rezendes in his August 2017 article titled Father, my Father: Children of Catholic priests live with secrets and sorrow. In any country where the Roman Catholic Church has a notable presence, many thousands of illegitimate children have been sired by priests sworn to celibacy. These legions of kids tell sad tales about the heavy cost of growing up without the emotional and financial support of a father. We have no way of knowing how many others were lost to miscarriage and abortion, or were placed for adoption. It's one of a triad of problems centered around sexual misconduct within the Catholic priesthood—pedophilia and homosexual hookups comprise the other components of this ugly situation.
If the priests of the RCC are supposed to be holier than "normal" Catholics and lead local flocks by example, how can sexual deviance be so prevalent among this group? Why are so many of them not walking the walk? The answer lies primarily in the fact that the RCC has done exactly what the Scripture says not to do, and overwritten God's laws with their own. This is a serious problem that isn't confined to Catholicism, but exists to varying degrees in many monotheistic sects.
The Trouble with Tradition
Those who are in covenant with YHVH are not permitted to change or in any way neutralize his instructions. Judeo-Christianity is not an open canvas that anyone can add to, or a buffet where we are free to scoop up the portions that look best to us and leave the rest. The following quote from the Torah makes this abundantly clear:
You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you diminish from it, that you may keep the commandments of Yahweh your God which I command you. (Deut. 4:2)*
Anyone who is familiar with conservative Judaism will understand that the Jews have not obeyed Deuteronomy 4:2 very well. They have added thousands upon thousands of commands to Jewish religious practices for a variety of reasons. In contrast, the laws of YHVH total only about 600. Practically speaking, it's much less, because only a portion of those laws are applicable to any given individual. Y'shua called this a "light yoke" and claimed it as his own (Matt. 11:29-30). He invited everyone burdened by the "wise and learned" (v. 25) religious leaders to instead take up Adonai's much lighter burden.
Messiah Y'shua frequently railed against components of the Jewish oral law. In Mark chapter seven, for instance, we find him berating the Pharisees for keeping a tradition which they knew full well contradicted one of the Ten Commandments:
Messiah Y'shua frequently railed against components of the Jewish oral law. In Mark chapter seven, for instance, we find him berating the Pharisees for keeping a tradition which they knew full well contradicted one of the Ten Commandments:
He said to them, "Full well do you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition. For Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother;' and, 'He who speaks evil of father or mother, let him be put to death.' But you say, 'If a man tells his father or his mother, "Whatever profit you might have received from me is Corban, that is to say, given to God;"' then you no longer allow him to do anything for his father or his mother, making void the word of God by your tradition, which you have handed down. You do many things like this." (Mark 7:9-13)
These Pharisees had taken it upon themselves to devise rules for the Israelites to follow, heedless of the fact that their rules interfered with those of El Shaddai. The hubris of man is great, is it not?
Y'shua used the written scriptures as the final authority in every disputed issue. Although Y'shua often went along with Jewish traditions that were not at odds with YHVH's laws, he never even once appealed to the oral laws of the sages when teaching doctrine. Instead, he upheld the written Word while denouncing everyone who practiced a religion of their own making:
Y'shua used the written scriptures as the final authority in every disputed issue. Although Y'shua often went along with Jewish traditions that were not at odds with YHVH's laws, he never even once appealed to the oral laws of the sages when teaching doctrine. Instead, he upheld the written Word while denouncing everyone who practiced a religion of their own making:
"You hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying, 'These people draw near to me with their mouth, and honor me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. And in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrine rules made by men.'" (Matthew 15:7-9)
Read that last phrase again: "teaching as doctrine rules made by men." It's the same today as it was back then. We've got man-made doctrines in spades. Most people go along with it all because they were raised to do so, they were indoctrinated into a particular religious culture, and they aren't brave enough to test their culture by comparing it to Holy Scripture.
It shouldn't be this way. YHVH's people are supposed to be courageous and fearless, challenging any part of culture that doesn't align with the words of Elohiym. This is what the apostles, whom we look up to, did in their day:
It shouldn't be this way. YHVH's people are supposed to be courageous and fearless, challenging any part of culture that doesn't align with the words of Elohiym. This is what the apostles, whom we look up to, did in their day:
But Peter and the apostles replied, "We must obey God rather than any human authority." (Acts 5:29, NLT)
Catholic Sacred Tradition
Like most Jewish sects, the Roman Catholic Church has strayed far from biblical precepts because they have given themselves permission to make declarations that have the same weight as Scripture. They call their official declarations of truth dogma.
According to Wikipedia, "dogma is a definitive article of faith (de fide) that has been solemnly promulgated by the college of bishops at an ecumenical council or by the pope when speaking in a statement ex cathedra, in which the magisterium of the Church presents a particular doctrine as necessary for the belief of all Catholic faithful."
In the opinion of Catholicism, rejection of Church Magisterial teachings is rejection of divine revelations.
The problem is that the scriptures never gave the Assembly of Y'shua (in any of its forms) the authority to make divine declarations. We are not allowed to add to the instructions which God has already given through the Hebrew prophets. Not even the apostles did that! They interpreted the preexisting scriptures by the Spirit, in light of the life of Messiah, but they always pointed back to the Torah and Prophets to confirm their teachings.
The RCC believes that it can issue dogma because it embraces an idea called apostolic succession, for which there is no scriptural support unless certain verses are taken out of context. For the sake of (relative) brevity, I'm not going to present a full argument against the concept of apostolic succession, but one very important thing to note is that Catholics aren't the only ones claiming to have received apostolic authority. The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, and Anglican traditions all claim apostolic succession. These churches are divided precisely because they cannot agree on doctrines, so how can they be receiving their doctrines by divine revelation? Is there a different God for each church? The only sane answer is that they don't have the power to speak for God.
Besides which, even if these churches did have the authority to declare, "Thus saith the Lord," it's impossible that the Lord would contradict his own teachings.
According to Wikipedia, "dogma is a definitive article of faith (de fide) that has been solemnly promulgated by the college of bishops at an ecumenical council or by the pope when speaking in a statement ex cathedra, in which the magisterium of the Church presents a particular doctrine as necessary for the belief of all Catholic faithful."
In the opinion of Catholicism, rejection of Church Magisterial teachings is rejection of divine revelations.
The problem is that the scriptures never gave the Assembly of Y'shua (in any of its forms) the authority to make divine declarations. We are not allowed to add to the instructions which God has already given through the Hebrew prophets. Not even the apostles did that! They interpreted the preexisting scriptures by the Spirit, in light of the life of Messiah, but they always pointed back to the Torah and Prophets to confirm their teachings.
The RCC believes that it can issue dogma because it embraces an idea called apostolic succession, for which there is no scriptural support unless certain verses are taken out of context. For the sake of (relative) brevity, I'm not going to present a full argument against the concept of apostolic succession, but one very important thing to note is that Catholics aren't the only ones claiming to have received apostolic authority. The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, and Anglican traditions all claim apostolic succession. These churches are divided precisely because they cannot agree on doctrines, so how can they be receiving their doctrines by divine revelation? Is there a different God for each church? The only sane answer is that they don't have the power to speak for God.
Besides which, even if these churches did have the authority to declare, "Thus saith the Lord," it's impossible that the Lord would contradict his own teachings.
Blatant Contradictions
Catholic dogma is the main culprit in the widespread deviance of their clergy.
The RCC forces celibacy upon priests, but the Word of Elohiym explicitly grants bishops (i.e., shepherds/pastors) permission to have a wife and family (1 Tim. 3:2; 1 Cor. 9:5). A similar permission is extended to the Levitical priests (Lev. 21:10,13). So where did the RCC get the idea that priesthood requires eternal chastity?
The apostle Paul prophesied that there would come a time when certain hypocrites associating themselves with the Faith would embrace demonic doctrines, to include celibacy:
The RCC forces celibacy upon priests, but the Word of Elohiym explicitly grants bishops (i.e., shepherds/pastors) permission to have a wife and family (1 Tim. 3:2; 1 Cor. 9:5). A similar permission is extended to the Levitical priests (Lev. 21:10,13). So where did the RCC get the idea that priesthood requires eternal chastity?
The apostle Paul prophesied that there would come a time when certain hypocrites associating themselves with the Faith would embrace demonic doctrines, to include celibacy:
But the Spirit says expressly that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to seducing spirits and doctrines of demons... forbidding marriage... which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. (1 Tim. 4:1-3)
Paul even stated that it is better to marry than to white-knuckle through a celibate life while burning with passion (1 Cor. 7:9), because sooner or later that resolve will crumble. So, in many cases, the marriage bed is salvation from fornication.
Most of the men who join the ranks of Catholic clergy are not cut out for the celibate lifestyle. They take an oath of celibacy because their church demands it, not because Elohiym asks it of them.
Speaking of oaths, Scripture says not to make vows (other than those designed by YHVH, such as the marriage vow or the Nazarite vow):
Most of the men who join the ranks of Catholic clergy are not cut out for the celibate lifestyle. They take an oath of celibacy because their church demands it, not because Elohiym asks it of them.
Speaking of oaths, Scripture says not to make vows (other than those designed by YHVH, such as the marriage vow or the Nazarite vow):
"Let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'No.' Whatever is more than these is of the evil one." (Matt. 5:37)
Now someone may object that the oath taken by Catholic clergymen is the modern equivalent to the Nazarite vow, but that would be comparing apples and oranges. Unlike Catholic celibacy, which is a lifelong vow required of anyone who feels called to the ministry, the Nazarite vow was completely voluntary, and, more importantly, temporary.
The RCC contradicts the Bible in many other ways—performing baptisms that are not by submersion, denying the priesthood of all believers, using repetitious prayers, etc. All of these things add up to a heap of sins that leaves Catholics—especially leaders—vulnerable to spiritual attack. Believe me, the Adversary is taking full advantage of these openings.
The RCC contradicts the Bible in many other ways—performing baptisms that are not by submersion, denying the priesthood of all believers, using repetitious prayers, etc. All of these things add up to a heap of sins that leaves Catholics—especially leaders—vulnerable to spiritual attack. Believe me, the Adversary is taking full advantage of these openings.
No Group is Immune
When Y'shua taught his disciples that they should call no man Father--which is another command that the RCC overrides—he also old them not to wear the title Rabbi (meaning "great one"). This is a very explicit directive; there's not a lot of wiggle room here. He even explained why he didn't want them using the term: "for One is your Rabbi, but you are all brothers" (Matt. 23:8).
Despite this explanation, most of the people in my Messianic congregation still refer to our primary congregational leader as Rabbi. It constantly gets under my skin. (However, it's not worth breaking fellowship, since every family has deficiencies, and my church family is overall quite healthy.) The brethren in my congregation are very devoted to Scripture, so this goes to show that no group of believers, however well-meaning, is immune to traditions.
Despite this explanation, most of the people in my Messianic congregation still refer to our primary congregational leader as Rabbi. It constantly gets under my skin. (However, it's not worth breaking fellowship, since every family has deficiencies, and my church family is overall quite healthy.) The brethren in my congregation are very devoted to Scripture, so this goes to show that no group of believers, however well-meaning, is immune to traditions.
Conclusion
Tradition is wonderful when it falls into line with divine revelation, but it's a monster to be battled when it strays from the inspired texts. It will inevitably lead to harmful practices. (Case in point: the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle admitted in AD 836 that abortions and infanticide were taking place in convents and monasteries to cover up the deviations of clerics.)
We shouldn't viciously attack the people who are caught up in unscriptural traditions, but we should boldly speak the truth in love at every opportunity. You'll either get expelled from fellowship and can rejoice in persecution, or the situation will change for the better.
We shouldn't viciously attack the people who are caught up in unscriptural traditions, but we should boldly speak the truth in love at every opportunity. You'll either get expelled from fellowship and can rejoice in persecution, or the situation will change for the better.
*Scripture quotations are from the World English Bible unless otherwise noted.
RSS Feed
