Today, I will seek to demonstrate that Catholicism is not aligned with the worship of the true Christ or the authentic Gospel of Christ, drawing on insights from various Catholic theologians.
Karl Adam, a renowned German Catholic theologian born on October 22, 1876, is best known for his influential 1924 book, The Spirit of Catholicism. A leading figure in the 20th-century Catholic intellectual renewal, Adam sought to bridge traditional Catholic doctrine with contemporary theological and cultural currents.
In his book he shed light on a core theological concern: the Catholic Church’s divergence from “primitive Christianity” and even from “the Gospel of Christ” itself, as Adam concedes:
"We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame, nay with pride that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ"
He goes on to say:
"And we go further and say that thousands of years hence Catholicism will be even richer, more luxuriant, more manifold in dogma, morals, law and worship then the Catholicism of the present day"
This acknowledgment raises serious questions about the Church’s authority, particularly regarding its evolving doctrines, traditions, and practices. By openly recognizing that Catholicism doesn't align with primitive Christianity—and will continue to expand in dogma, morals, law, and worship—Adam implicitly suggests a trajectory that departs from the early Christian faith, as practiced by the apostles and recorded in Scripture.
This tendency toward doctrinal evolution seems at odds with the Gospel’s unchanging nature, as outlined in Scripture.
Galatians 1:8-9
"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 I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed."
Paul warns against adding to or modifying the Gospel, declaring that any “other gospel” is condemned, emphasizing that the original message, as preached by Christ and His apostles, is both complete and sufficient. Adam’s endorsement of continued expansion implies a dynamic approach that, by its nature, moves beyond the simplicity and sufficiency of the early Christian faith. In effect, such a stance suggests that human tradition and evolving interpretation overrides the clarity and authority of Scripture.
Additionally, Adam’s perspective challenges the biblical portrayal of Christ as the immutable foundation of Christian faith. As 1 Corinthians 3:11 reminds us,
“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”
If the Church’s expanding doctrines evolve in ways not grounded in Christ’s original teachings, they risk shifting the foundation to institutional tradition rather than the unalterable message of Jesus. When believers depend on complex doctrines and practices not rooted in Scripture, they may be encouraged to place their trust in the Church itself, potentially elevating human authority over divine truth.
This institutional emphasis, seen in Catholicism’s integration of traditions, rituals, and doctrines absent from Scripture, appears to lead believers toward reliance on the Church rather than on Christ alone. Jesus Himself warns against this substitution in Matthew 15:9, where He critiques those who “teach for doctrines the commandments of men.” His admonition serves as a call to prioritize divine command over human interpretation—a call seemingly at odds with Adam’s portrayal of an evolving Catholic faith.
Adam’s own words suggest that this expansion could potentially overshadow the transformative simplicity of the Gospel that Jesus originally imparted. By shifting focus from the direct, liberating message of Christ to a complex system of doctrines and traditions, the Church may obscure the core message of salvation. Such a departure raises the fundamental question: Does this expansion truly serve the cause of Christ, or does it lead believers further from the unadulterated faith that Christ entrusted to His followers?
Adam's concept of revelation as a “living reality” that can be adapted over time contradicts the Bible’s emphasis on the finality and unchangeable nature of God’s Word. Hebrews 13:8 reminds us that “Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever,” reinforcing that the core message and truths of the Gospel are timeless. Adam’s approach, which allows for doctrinal development and adaptation, may unintentionally open the door to human error and deviation from the original, divinely revealed truth.
Adam’s assertion that the Church’s Magisterium acts as the authoritative interpreter of revelation suggests a dependency on an institution to understand and experience God’s truth. However, the New Testament emphasizes the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding individual believers into all truth (John 16:13), without reliance on a centralized, hierarchical authority. The early Christian community modeled a reliance on Scripture and the Spirit’s guidance rather than institutional authority.
The Catholic view that unwritten traditions hold authority comparable to Scripture is problematic because many of these traditions are not explicitly supported by biblical texts. Jesus Himself warned against elevating human traditions to the level of divine commandments, saying in Matthew 15:9
“But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men"
Karl Adam’s view of revelation, as he presents it in The Spirit of Catholicism, suggests that the Church’s understanding of divine truth is not fixed but is an ongoing process that can unfold and adapt over time. According to Adam, as new insights and cultural contexts emerge, the Church may gain a deeper understanding of certain doctrines or even express them in new ways to address the needs of modern believers. This perspective aligns with the idea that revelation is not only preserved but also actively interpreted and adapted by the Church, enabling doctrine to evolve in response to new challenges and understandings.
However, this approach contrasts with the teachings of earlier popes, who consistently argued that the Church’s core doctrines—its dogmas—are immutable and should remain unchanged, regardless of changing cultural or philosophical contexts. Popes such as Pius IX, Pius X, John XXIII, and John Paul II articulated this view through a series of influential encyclicals, which serve as authoritative statements of Catholic belief. For example:
The teachings on marriage, especially in relation to divorce and Communion for the divorced and remarried, have brought this issue to the forefront. In his apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (2016), Pope Francis opened the door to the possibility that divorced and remarried Catholics might receive Communion under certain conditions. This position has caused significant debate within the Church. Some argue it contradicts the clear, unchanging moral teaching reaffirmed in Veritatis Splendor, where Pope John Paul II stated that certain acts, including adultery, are intrinsically evil and can never be justified regardless of circumstances. For many Catholics, Amoris Laetitia appears to represent a departure from what previous popes asserted about the constancy of moral dogma.
Pope John Paul II strongly reaffirmed the uniqueness of Christ as the sole mediator of salvation in his encyclical Redemptoris Missio (1990), emphasizing that salvation comes only through Jesus Christ, as traditionally held by the Church. However, actions such as Pope Francis’s participation in interfaith events, including the signing of the 2019 Abu Dhabi document on “Human Fraternity,” which states that “the pluralism and the diversity of religions...are willed by God,” have been seen by some as conflicting with this exclusive claim. Critics argue that affirming religious pluralism in this way risks implying that other religions provide equally valid paths to God, which appears to challenge the doctrinal exclusivity affirmed in Redemptoris Missio.
Moreover, Even though Pope John Paul II claimed Christ was the sole mediator he had a deep and profound devotion to Mary, the mother of Jesus, which shaped much of his personal spirituality and papal ministry. His Marian devotion was evident in his papal motto, *Totus Tuus* (“Totally Yours”), a phrase he adopted from St. Louis de Montfort’s Marian consecration, which reflects a complete dedication to Jesus through Mary. This motto embodied John Paul II’s belief that Mary was an essential, guiding figure in his life and his faith.
Throughout his papacy, John Paul II frequently emphasized Mary’s role in salvation history and in the life of the Church. He credited her intercession with saving his life during the 1981 assassination attempt, linking his survival to the date of May 13—the feast of Our Lady of Fátima. As a result, he dedicated the rest of his life and papacy to her protection, even going so far as to place the bullet that wounded him into the crown of the statue of Our Lady of Fátima in Portugal.
His writings often highlighted Mary’s unique role as Mother of the Church and emphasized that devotion to her could deepen one’s relationship with Christ. In his encyclical *Redemptoris Mater* (“Mother of the Redeemer”), he explored Mary’s role in the mystery of Christ and the Church, seeing her as a model for all Christians and a powerful intercessor. He also emphasized Marian doctrines, including the Assumption and Immaculate Conception, and strongly encouraged Marian devotions, such as the Rosary.
John Paul II’s focus on Mary was sometimes viewed as excessive by those who worried it might overshadow Christ’s central role in the faith. However, he consistently argued that Marian devotion ultimately leads believers closer to Jesus. His teachings on Mary were deeply influential and contributed to a Marian revival within the Catholic Church, inspiring many to deepen their own devotion to her.
It’s important to consider that personal experiences may have shaped Pope John Paul II’s deep devotion to Mary, particularly the early loss of his own mother at the tender age of eight. This profound loss likely influenced his view of Mary as a spiritual mother, a figure of comfort, protection, and guidance throughout his life. His personal devotion to Mary became not only a central aspect of his own faith but also left a lasting impact on the faith of millions worldwide. Through his teachings, writings, and example, he encouraged a renewed focus on Marian devotion within the Catholic Church, potentially shaping how countless believers understand and relate to Mary. This influence reflects how a personal history can resonate through a leader's guidance, shaping spiritual practices on a global scale.
This raises the question: did his personal suffering, including the loss of his mother, influence his role and teachings within the Church of Christ?
Pope Pius X explicitly condemned Modernism in Pascendi Dominici Gregis, calling it the “synthesis of all heresies” because of its tendency to reshape doctrine according to modern thought. Pius X was adamant that the Church’s teachings cannot be adapted or reinterpreted to fit contemporary culture, as this would compromise their divine origin. Yet in recent years, there has been an increasing emphasis on adapting Church teachings to align with contemporary societal values, especially regarding issues such as gender and sexuality. Statements by Pope Francis that seem open to civil unions for same-sex couples, for instance, have sparked considerable debate over whether the Church’s stance on marriage and sexuality is being modernized in ways that echo the Modernist tendencies condemned by Pius X.
While Pope John XXIII at the outset of Vatican II asserted that the Church should develop its expressions of doctrine without altering its substance, critics have argued that certain interpretations stemming from the Council have, in fact, transformed traditional dogma. The Council’s documents on religious freedom and the nature of the Church’s relationship with other faiths, for example, represented a marked shift from previous teachings. Many traditionalists argue that these changes have led to a doctrinal ambiguity that contradicts the intention of Quanta Cura, where Pius IX condemned the notion that the Church should conform to modern liberal views.
It appears that recent popes have, in some cases, diverged from the strict adherence to immutable dogma that previous popes insisted upon in their encyclicals. While they may argue that they are only developing doctrine or adapting its expression, critics contend that these adaptations represent substantive changes that risk diluting or contradicting the original doctrines. This shift has led to significant debate within the Church, with some questioning whether these developments align with Christ’s command for His followers to be unwavering in faith, rather than adapting to the “spirit of the age.”
Here are some of the most notable examples of endless changing dogma in the Roman Catholic Church:
Pope Honorius I was posthumously condemned by the Third Council of Constantinople (681) for allegedly supporting the Monothelite heresy, which claimed that Christ had only one will (divine) rather than both a human and divine will. Although Honorius did not formally declare this belief as Church doctrine, his correspondence with Monothelite leaders appeared to endorse or at least tolerate the teaching, leading to accusations that he compromised on a matter of Christology—a core aspect of faith.
Honorius’s case has been cited in discussions about papal fallibility, as he was condemned by an ecumenical council and by later popes for his stance. This incident remains controversial and is often referenced to illustrate that popes can err in personal theological judgments, though Honorius’s writings did not constitute formal, ex cathedra teachings.
Pope John XXII taught in a series of sermons that the souls of the faithful departed do not see the beatific vision (the direct presence of God) until after the Last Judgment. This was contrary to the traditional understanding that the souls of the blessed experience the beatific vision immediately after death.
John XXII’s views were not presented as official Church doctrine but rather as his personal theological opinion. However, his teaching caused widespread concern and opposition, especially from theologians and cardinals. After John’s death, his successor, Pope Benedict XII, issued an official declaration affirming the traditional view that the souls of the faithful see God immediately after death if they are free from sin.
Pope Francis’s apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia raised questions about the Church’s teaching on marriage, the Eucharist, and the moral implications of divorce and remarriage. Specifically, Amoris Laetitia includes a footnote suggesting that, in certain cases, divorced and civilly remarried Catholics who have not had their first marriage annulled might be allowed to receive Communion.
This guidance led to considerable controversy because it seemed to contradict previous teachings on the indissolubility of marriage and the requirements for receiving the Eucharist. Familiaris Consortio, an apostolic exhortation by Pope John Paul II, clearly stated that those in “irregular” marriages could not receive Communion unless they committed to live “as brother and sister.” Some bishops interpreted Amoris Laetitia as a departure from this teaching, leading to significant debate within the Church about whether Francis’s approach constituted a change in doctrine or merely a pastoral adaptation.
As mentioned, in 2019, Pope Francis signed the Abu Dhabi Declaration on “Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living Together,” which included the statement that the “pluralism and diversity of religions… are willed by God.”
The statement raises significant theological concerns, as it appears to conflict with the core Christian belief in the uniqueness and universality of Christ as the sole path to salvation. According to Scripture, God has revealed Himself definitively in Jesus Christ, who declared, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”
(John 14:6)
This exclusive claim underscores the Christian understanding that while God’s grace and mercy are available to all, salvation is ultimately found only in Christ.
While God allows religious diversity in the sense that He grants humanity free will, which includes the freedom to seek or reject Him, this does not imply that God actively wills all religious paths as equally valid. Rather, in Christian doctrine, God desires that all people come to know Him through His Son (1 Timothy 2:4), who is the fullness of truth and revelation. The existence of multiple religions, therefore, is not a reflection of God’s will for religious plurality but of human responses—imperfect and varied—to the divine call.
By suggesting that religious pluralism is divinely willed, there is a risk of relativizing truth, implying that various religions are equally paths to God, which contradicts the Church’s mission to proclaim Christ as the ultimate revelation and savior of humanity. Jesus Himself commissioned His disciples to “teach all nations” (Matthew 28:19), affirming the Church’s responsibility to share the Gospel universally, rather than viewing diverse religions as parallel or complementary paths to God.
Therefore, while respecting people of all faiths and affirming the dignity of every person, Christian teaching holds that God’s ultimate desire is for all to come into a relationship with Him through Jesus Christ. To equate religious diversity with God’s will risks diminishing the unique role of Christ and the essential mission of the Church to bring His saving message to the world.
This phrase caused considerable debate because it seemed to imply that God actively wills the existence of various religions.
Supporters, however, contended that Pope Francis intended the statement as a recognition of religious freedom rather than as an endorsement of doctrinal relativism.
Well, of course they would say that—after all, they also uphold that the “Holy Father” is Christ’s representative on earth, despite Christ’s own words:
“And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven” Matthew 23:9
So when they claim that “pluralism and diversity of religions…are willed by God,” it’s as if they’re overlooking Jesus’s clear statement:
“I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”
John 14:6
It seems a bit convenient, doesn’t it, to promote religious diversity as divinely sanctioned while setting aside Christ’s own exclusive claim to truth and the mission He gave to “teach all nations” Matthew 28:19. If anything, this line of thinking risks turning the Church’s mission on its head, putting human interpretations above the very words they claim to follow.
Furthermore, following the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI oversaw substantial changes to the Catholic liturgy, including the introduction of the Novus Ordo (New Order) of the Mass. Traditionalists argued that these changes affected both the faith and moral teaching by altering the liturgical expression of core doctrines, such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and the sacrificial nature of the Mass.
Although the intention was to make the liturgy more accessible and participatory, critics argued that these reforms went too far and led to a weakening of reverence and doctrinal clarity in worship. The debate over these liturgical changes has continued within the Church, with Pope Benedict XVI’s 2007 decision to allow broader use of the Traditional Latin Mass and Pope Francis’s 2021 restrictions on it highlighting the ongoing tensions.
In each of these cases, the actions or statements of a pope appeared, at least to some within the Church, to diverge from traditional teachings on faith or morals. These examples reveal the complexities that arise when popes address contemporary issues, interpret doctrine, or provide pastoral guidance in ways that seem to challenge established beliefs.
While these statements might not be ex cathedra, they still contradict the divine spirit of God, relying on fallible and illegitimate human authority.
Karl Adam’s emphasis on the Catholic Church as the exclusive mediator of salvation and grace, requiring believers to depend on its sacramental system, raises significant concerns about aligning the Church with worldly authority and, in doing so, creating a barrier to the direct, personal relationship with Christ. The New Testament consistently teaches that Jesus Himself is the only mediator between God and humanity (1 Timothy 2:5), inviting each believer into a personal relationship that does not rely on institutional intermediation. Jesus calls His followers to worship “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:24), underscoring a connection with God that is unmediated by earthly systems and based on faith rather than ritual or institutional tradition. When the Church positions itself as an indispensable gatekeeper of salvation, it places a layer of human authority between believers and Christ. Such reliance on human institutions risks fostering dependence on worldly power rather than on the sufficiency and simplicity of faith in Christ alone. The apostle Paul warns against becoming entangled in human systems and authorities, reminding believers that “the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God” (1 Corinthians 3:19).
By positioning itself as the sole avenue to God’s grace and salvation, the Church risks aligning with what Scripture describes as “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4)—a phrase often used to denote Satan and the worldly systems that oppose God’s kingdom. Throughout Scripture, religious institutions that aligned with earthly authority and controlled people’s access to God were criticized by the prophets as stumbling blocks to true faith.
For instance, the worship of Baal in ancient Israel frequently led people into a false sense of security, intertwining religious authority with political power, which drew the people away from authentic worship of God. In a similar way, by claiming exclusive authority to mediate salvation, the Church could inadvertently place itself in a role that mirrors worldly structures of control, resembling institutions built on influence and human authority rather than humble service. Jesus explicitly cautioned His followers against this type of authority in Matthew 20:25-28, saying that they should not “lord it over” others as earthly rulers do, but instead adopt a spirit of humility and servanthood. When human authority is elevated in matters of faith, it risks not only leading believers away from Christ’s direct invitation but also aligning itself with worldly power dynamics that the Bible equates with the kingdom of Satan, thereby obscuring the true Gospel message.
Adam references several other Catholic theologians in his book, and one that stands out is John of the Cross (1542–1591) a Spanish mystic, Catholic priest, and Carmelite friar known for his profound spiritual writings and his role in reforming the Carmelite order.
His concept of the “dark night of the soul,” which emphasizes extreme detachment, suffering, and spiritual purification, carries a risk of leading individuals toward spiritual despair and isolation. This focus can sometimes seem more aligned with the destructive aspects of darker influences than with the hope central to Christian faith. By advocating a path that emphasizes total renunciation of sensory experiences and worldly attachments, John’s teachings may inadvertently lead believers into a mindset of self-negation that could open the door to despair, a hallmark tactic of Satan, who seeks to separate individuals from God’s light, hope, and joy. This focus on isolation and detachment, taken to an extreme, can lead individuals away from the loving, communal, and sacramental life that characterizes authentic Christian spirituality.
The “dark night of the soul” suggests that intense suffering and interior darkness are not only unavoidable but necessary for union with God, a notion that may border on the glorification of suffering and deprivation. While self-denial and spiritual discipline are part of Christian practice, John’s approach could be seen as endorsing a path of suffering that, rather than drawing one nearer to God, leads to a focus on pain and isolation. This is reminiscent of a Satanic distortion, where suffering and emptiness are upheld as inherently valuable, rather than as temporary conditions that ultimately give way to the peace and comfort of God’s love. Scripture speaks of a God who offers comfort and who invites His followers to find joy even in trials (James 1:2), not to dwell in despair or seek suffering for its own sake.
Furthermore, John’s teaching on detachment from sensory experiences as a means to reach union with God risks disregarding the goodness of creation and God’s blessings in daily life. By distancing the believer from these experiences, John’s teachings might lead to a spirituality that is overly inward and abstract, potentially bordering on a rejection of God’s tangible gifts.
In extreme cases, John’s emphasis on suffering and detachment could lead individuals into a form of spiritual nihilism, where the joys and assurances of faith are overshadowed by an endless pursuit of self-denial. Such a perspective risks aligning more closely with a worldview that strips away meaning and purpose—echoing the Satanic aim of despair and separation from God’s goodness—rather than fostering a life in Christ, marked by hope, community, and a balanced approach to spiritual growth. In Christian spirituality, suffering and detachment are tools meant to refine faith, not ends in themselves. The essence of faith is union with a loving God who calls His people to rejoice in Him and live fully within His creation, not to become consumed by darkness and detachment.
Ultimately, while John of the Cross’s theology on the “dark night of the soul” may intend to purify the soul, it risks leading believers into a path of extreme detachment and suffering that could align more closely with the despair and isolation characteristic of Satanic deception rather than the hope, joy, and relational nature of Christian faith.
In the Bible the purification of the soul is consistently depicted as an act of God alone, achieved through His grace and the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit. Scripture teaches that human beings, in their own efforts, cannot achieve true purification; rather, it is God who cleanses, sanctifies, and transforms the soul.
In Psalm 51:10, for example, King David cries out,
“Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.”
Here, David acknowledges his own inability to purify himself, appealing to God alone to create purity within him. Similarly, in Ezekiel 36:25-27, God promises to cleanse His people Himself, saying,
“Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you.”
This passage powerfully underscores that the transformation of heart and spirit is God’s work, not a result of human effort.
In the New Testament, 1 John 1:7, 9 further illustrates this truth by affirming that it is
“the blood of Jesus Christ his Son [that] cleanseth us from all sin.”
The passage assures believers that, if they confess their sins, God is faithful to forgive them and to “cleanse [them] from all unrighteousness.” This teaching reveals that true cleansing comes from God’s grace, made accessible through Christ’s atoning sacrifice.
Moreover, Titus 3:5 emphasizes that salvation and purification are “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy...by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”
This passage highlights that spiritual rebirth and renewal are the work of the Holy Spirit, not a product of human deeds. Finally, Hebrews 9:14 reinforces this teaching by describing how “the blood of Christ...purge[s] your conscience from dead works to serve the living God,”
again pointing to Christ’s sacrifice as the true means of purifying the conscience and freeing the believer from sin.
The Bible consistently presents the purification of the soul as an act of divine mercy and grace. Through faith in Jesus Christ and the transforming power of the Holy Spirit, believers are cleansed and renewed. This teaching makes it clear that the cleansing of the soul is not something achieved by human striving or self-purification but is instead a gift from God, grounded in the unchanging love and mercy He offers to all who seek Him.
In The Spirit of Catholicism, Karl Adam makes it unmistakably clear that Catholicism has diverged from the simplicity and purity of original Christianity and the true Gospel of Christ. Through his own admissions, Adam portrays a Church that embraces evolving doctrine, a hierarchy of intercession that places saints and sacraments as intermediaries, and a sacramental system that shifts reliance away from a direct, saving relationship with Christ. Rather than adhering to the Gospel as preached by the apostles—a message centered on faith in Christ alone and the authority of Scripture—Catholicism, as Adam describes, constructs a complex system that leans heavily on human authority, tradition, and institutional structures. This approach stands in stark contrast to the biblical call to a faith that is personal, immediate, and rooted in the unchanging Word of God.
Jesus warned in Matthew 12:30
“He that is not with me is against me,”
underscoring the impossibility of a divided allegiance in matters of faith. Given Adam’s own portrayal, it is evident that the Catholic Church, with its additions to the Gospel, its exaltation of tradition over Scripture, and its institutionalized layers of mediation, has placed itself in opposition to the very Gospel it claims to uphold. Far from being “for” Christ in the simplicity and truth of His message, Catholicism, as Adam inadvertently confirms, stands against the purity of the faith entrusted to the saints, offering instead a gospel altered by human hands.
Confused? You’re not alone. How could this tangled Catholic mess possibly be a path to salvation?
God’s Word has remained unchanging throughout the ages, offering a clear and unwavering path to salvation. Scripture teaches us that true salvation comes through heartfelt repentance, faith in Jesus Christ, and belief in the Gospel. This path isn’t subject to reinterpretation or alteration; it stands as an eternal truth, grounded in God’s promises. Through turning away from sin and fully embracing Christ, we are offered the gift of salvation—a gift that doesn’t shift with human trends or opinions but rests on the unchanging foundation of God’s love and truth.
댓글