The Fallen Nature of Churches Today - Is the Roman Catholic Church Fallen?

To be fair, let us examine the Roman Catholic Church by its own version of the ten commandments in Exodus 20 from the Douay-Rheims Version of 1899.

(Exo 20:1) And the Lord spoke all these words:

(Exo 20:2) I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

(Exo 20:3) Thou shalt not have strange gods before me.

(Exo 20:4) Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth.

(Exo 20:5) Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me:

(Exo 20:6) And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments.

(Exo 20:7) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain.

(Exo 20:8) Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day.

(Exo 20:9) Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works.

(Exo 20:10) But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates.

(Exo 20:11) For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it.

(Exo 20:12) Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayst be longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee.

(Exo 20:13) Thou shalt not kill.

(Exo 20:14) Thou shalt not commit adultery.

(Exo 20:15) Thou shalt not steal.

(Exo 20:16) Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

(Exo 20:17) Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house; neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.

Verses 2 and 3 refer to God by the pronouns ”I” and ”me”. This is an accurate reflection of the original Hebrew. The words are singular. When more than one person is meant, we always use the pronouns ”we” and ”us” or their corresponding words in other languages. It would be astounding, awkward and highly unusual even for a committee of three to use the words ”I” and ”me” instead of ”we” and ”us”. The text clearly presents ”the Lord thy God” as a single personage. If the Roman Catholic Church, or any other for that matter, either denies the existence of this One God Almighty who is speaking these words according to the text, or make Him out to be a plurality of persons, that is more than one, that is one other than the single speaker here, then it fails the first test in the criterion. That in itself is enough to classify the church or denomination as fallen.

Does the Roman Catholic Church pass the first test? Let us see. Three quotations from among scores of the same kind in the Roman Catholic catechism should suffice. Article 249 ”From the beginning, the revealed truth of the Holy Trinity has been at the very root of the Church's living faith,...” Article 258 ”The whole divine economy is the common work of the three divine persons....” Article 266 "Now this is the Catholic faith: We worship one God in the Trinity and the Trinity in unity, without either confusing the persons or dividing the substance; for the person of the Father is one, the Son's is another, the Holy Spirit's another; but the Godhead of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is one, their glory equal, their majesty coeternal" (Athanasian Creed: DS 75; ND 16).” By this doctrine the Roman Catholic church places itself in conflict with the criterion of the Decalogue and shows itself to be a fallen church. No more evidence is needed than this.

But let us go further. Verses 4 and 5 prohibit making, adoring and serving images. Does the Roman Catholic Church pass this second test? Article 2132 ”The Christian veneration of images is not contrary to the first commandment which proscribes idols. Indeed, "the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype," and "whoever venerates an image venerates the person portrayed in it." The honor paid to sacred images is a "respectful veneration," not the adoration due to God alone: Religious worship is not directed to images in themselves, considered as mere things, but under their distinctive aspect as images leading us on to God incarnate. The movement toward the image does not terminate in it as image, but tends toward that whose image it is.”

Just as the doctrine of the Trinity seeks to maintain the oneness of God while imposing a pagan, Trinitarian view, this principle seeks to justify the use of images in devotion by the claim that the devotion is directed to God and not to the image itself. While this is doubtless true, this rather disarming claim does not take into consideration, it seems, the specific requirements of the commandment not to ”make, adore, serve”. Even if the Catholic argument is accepted, the practice lies somewhere in an undefined area in the word ”adore”. At least half of the commandment is broken.

Does the Roman Catholic Church measure up to the idea of verse 7? Article 2143 ”Among all the words of Revelation, there is one which is unique: the revealed name of God. God confides his name to those who believe in him; he reveals himself to them in his personal mystery. The gift of a name belongs to the order of trust and intimacy. "The Lord's name is holy." For this reason man must not abuse it. He must keep it in mind in silent, loving adoration. He will not introduce it into his own speech except to bless, praise, and glorify it.” This expression seems to adhere to the commandment. Those who interpret the commandment to prohibit swearing altogether, will find fault with Article 2154 ”Following St. Paul, the tradition of the Church has understood Jesus' words as not excluding oaths made for grave and right reasons (for example, in court). "An oath, that is the invocation of the divine name as a witness to truth, cannot be taken unless in truth, in judgment, and in justice." And by the same token, there is fault in Article 2155 ”The holiness of the divine name demands that we neither use it for trivial matters, nor take an oath which on the basis of the circumstances could be interpreted as approval of an authority unjustly requiring it. When an oath is required by illegitimate civil authorities, it may be refused. It must be refused when it is required for purposes contrary to the dignity of persons or to ecclesial communion.” It is our view that the Roman Catholic Church is correct in its interpretation of the law that swearing may take place. However, there is concern that the dignity of the Church is placed above law. This article would prevent, for example, a person from giving sworn witness to the act of pedophilia perpetrated by a priest. Perhaps the Church makes a distinction in that regard, but in any case, it does so upon authority that is placed above morality. It reserves the right to define morality, and this is not acceptable.

If verse seven is equivocal, so that we might give the benefit of the doubt to the Church of Rome, verses 8-11 are not. The Roman Church clearly sets itself against the literal meaning and practice of the Sabbath commandment through the institution of Sunday. Article 2175 ”Sunday is expressly distinguished from the sabbath which it follows chronologically every week; for Christians its ceremonial observance replaces that of the sabbath. In Christ's Passover, Sunday fulfills the spiritual truth of the Jewish sabbath and announces man's eternal rest in God. For worship under the Law prepared for the mystery of Christ, and what was done there prefigured some aspects of Christ: Those who lived according to the old order of things have come to a new hope, no longer keeping the sabbath, but the Lord's Day, in which our life is blessed by him and by his death.”

Even if we accepted the rather irrational quibbling on the matter of the Trinity, the rational quibbling on the matter of images, and the somewhat questionable interpretation of giving oaths, the position in regard to the Sabbath is so hostile to the clear intention of the text that it proves the Roman Catholic Church to be fallen.

While at this point it is not necessary to go further in the investigation, it might be pointed out that for the most part the Roman Catholic Church upholds the rest of the commandments. There is an attempt to bolster its own authority by adding to the meaning of honoring parents. There is the development of the concept of just war, but it is so circumscribed in theory, that the practice ought to be prevented, if the stated position of the Church is accepted in all points. Giving the Roman Catholic Church the benefit of the doubt on all possible points, it still remains fallen on the issues of the oneness of God and the Sabbath, replacing these with the Trinity and Sunday.

There are certainly both mitigating circumstances and damning ones that we have not investigated. But the criterion we have followed adequately shows the Church of Rome to be fallen.