The Catholic church isn't going to save us

The Roman Catholic church exhibits the same authoritarian tendencies as the globalists

Photo by Ashwin Vaswani on Unsplash

Over the last few years I haven’t written or spoken much about the Roman Catholic church. This is partly because we’re not living in the sixteenth century any more, but also because my philosophy is that, in general, it’s better to build something positive than to tear something down. “It’s easy to criticise,” as the saying goes.

However, sometimes there is a need to speak out critically, and I think this is one of those times. As I said in my previous piece about Catholicism, it seems to me that the Catholic church is increasingly being promoted by many right-wing commentators as the answer to the spiritual problems in our society. The most recent example of this I’ve seen was Emma Webb interviewing Gavin Ashenden on her GB News show, where the topic of conversation was about how the Church of England is inadequate to save Britain’s soul and only Catholicism will do. Also, the Bible Society’s “Quiet Revival” report, which I have mentioned a few times lately, showed that the biggest growth in church attendance was among Pentecostals and Roman Catholics. It does seem that many people are turning to Catholicism for answers.

It’s easy to see why people would turn to the Roman Catholic church at the moment — I mean, who in their right mind would go to a Church of England church to find the traditional Christian message? You’re more likely to hear a sermon about climate change and asylum seekers from CofE pulpits these days than you are to hear about Jesus! It seems that many of the protestant denominations are in more of a mess than anybody else, and I can see how attending a Catholic church might be an attractive proposition.

However, it struck me the other day that going to a Catholic church might be a case of ‘out of the frying pan and into the fire’. I was thinking about someone like Candace Owens, who recently went public about converting to Catholicism. She has done a lot of good work exposing the globalist / authoritarian agenda of the elites (e.g. the expose of how Brigitte Macron is actually a man — no, I’m serious, do check it out if you missed it). But I find it strange how she can’t seem to see that the same authoritarian tendencies she sees in the world are operating in the Roman Catholic church too.

This has become clear to me over the last few weeks while I’ve been reading this history of the English Reformation. The way that the Catholic church acted back then is similar to the way the globalist authoritarians are acting today. Although I do appreciate that things have moved on since the sixteenth century, I fear that nothing substantially has changed in the Catholic church and I will try to demonstrate that here.

What I am going to do for the rest of this post is explore a couple of ways in which I think there are parallels between the Catholic church and the globalist leaders of today. I have already written about some of the problems I have with Catholicism, so I won’t go over the same ground — if you haven’t read it already you might like to go back and read that as well:

Catholicism and why the Reformation still matters

Who’s in charge?

The first thing is the simple question of who’s in charge — of a country, that is. Is it the head of state, whether that be the king or queen or an elected president, or is there a higher authority over the head of State? We know the answer when it comes to most nations today — monarchs and elected representatives are no longer in charge, they are simply the figureheads. The real power has moved to transnational organisations such as the WEF, WHO, UN, EU, and so on. (Too many acronyms!)

What struck me is how similar things were back in the sixteenth century: one could see the Reformation in England as a battle between the sovereignty of the king and the government versus a transnational institution — the Catholic church in this instance. You can see this in the way the Catholic church handled the question of Henry VIII’s request for permission to divorce Catherine of Aragon. The pope (and the hierarchy of the Church) didn’t see the question as a moral or theological issue. It was, instead, a political decision: Clement VII was caught between Charles V (Catherine’s nephew) and Henry VIII. He didn’t want to upset the Emperor, but neither did he want to upset Henry. On several occasions used underhand tactics (such as stalling) instead of making a principled stand.

Henry grew fed up with this, and eventually declared himself to be the head of the Church of England (a title which was amended under Elizabeth I to be ‘supreme governor’). They were clear that it was necessary to ensure that secular power ultimately rested within England. Look at what it says in Article 37 of the 39 Articles:

The King’s Majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other his Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign Jurisdiction … The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.

This article starts to make sense when one understands the context in which it was written. It wouldn’t have needed to be included, unless some foreign powers (namely the pope — the Bishop of Rome) had started to feel that they had some power in this Realm of England…

The thing is, this was not an aberration for the Catholic church. It has, throughout history, wielded plenty of secular power. Especially in the middle ages, when Christianity and the church was much more of a political force than it is today. It’s similar to the relationship our elected representatives have today with unelected transnational organisations who nonetheless have far too much power and influence over our governments.

Someone might say, “well, that was 500 years ago. Surely the real problem today is the secular powers, not the Catholic church?” I do agree that this is the biggest battle that we are facing today. But it seems to me the solution to the problem is not going to be found by putting our faith in yet another transnational institution, even if it claims to be ‘the church’ (in the Biblical sense). Can we really have confidence that the Catholic church are going to focus solely on salvation, and not get involved in secular matters? Especially given the late pope’s advocacy for migration, for example?

Dogmatic beliefs

Another aspect of the globalists is the way that they are pushing pseudo-religious belief systems to advance their agenda. The big one is climate change, but it has also been covid and various other things. One of the main things about these pseudo-religions is that they Cannot. Be. Questioned.

You or I, ordinary citizens who want to make our own minds up on these matters, can’t simply look into climate change science and decide it’s a load of nonsense. Or we can’t weigh up the pros and cons of something like Net Zero and decide, on balance, that impoverishing ourselves while China are building coal-fired power plants like they’re going out of fashion is really a worthwhile endeavour.

When it comes to the globalists, it’s their way or the highway. No questions, no independent thinking allowed.

So, what about the Catholic church? Can you, as an ordinary Christian — through a process of reading your Bible, prayer, studying the writings of theologians, and so on — come to believe for yourself what Christianity teaches? Nope. The Catholic church has its teaching, either you agree with it or you’re gone.

This came home to me the other day when someone left a comment here:

I have a Catholic friend trying to bring me into her sect of faith, and I’m curious if you have any comments on the Catholic Church as an institution. In my reading of the Bible so far, much of it seems to be against the idea that you need intermediaries for your prayers, worship, or faith- so I’m not sure how they justify all the hierarchy within their church.

This person had, through their own reading of the Bible, come to understand that the Christian faith doesn’t need intermediaries for “prayer, worship or faith” — no mediator apart from Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). However, if you join the Catholic church, that’s not a conclusion you can come to. That option is forbidden.

How does the Catholic church manage this? Firstly, by elevating ‘tradition’ to the level of Scripture. The Catholic church is the holder of ‘tradition’, which is supposedly oral tradition that has been passed down from the days of the apostles. Crucially, this is placed on the same level as Scripture. Don’t take my word for it, take it from the official Catechism of the Catholic Church:

As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence."

Unwritten oral tradition which has been passed down is equal to Scripture. This seems to me very much like the way ‘consensus’ functions in the climate change scam: you can’t question it, because we are the holders of the consensus / tradition, and it says whatever we say it does.

Secondly, people are discouraged from thinking for themselves. When I was a student, we once had an ‘any questions’ session with the Catholic chaplain. I remember one of my fellow students, a Catholic, asking why it was that Catholic churches weren’t very good at doing Bible studies. I suspect the uncomfortable answer is that beliefs of the Catholic church contradict things found in the Bible, so it’s best not to encourage people to start exploring it for themselves. One of the biggest things that happened during the Reformation was people gaining access to the Bible in the vernacular (rather than Latin), and being encouraged to read and study it for themselves. Guess who stood four square against this? It’s very much like today when politicians rely on “the science”, rather than encouraging people to study and go to the source data themselves.

Some people will point out that not all Catholics believe what the Catholic church teaches. This is true, and has in fact been a thorn in the side of conservative Catholics over the last few years - e.g. bishops agitating for same-sex marriage. But it seems to me that this undermines the case for Catholicism. One of the reasons why people think Catholicism is best is precisely because it has dogma — dogma which cannot be changed. In contrast with the Church of England, which seems to pretty easily change its teaching when it feels like it (the introduction of women priests, for example).

However, having dogma is not enough — it needs to be enforced. Otherwise you end up with the Church of England — a ‘paper church’, as Martyn Lloyd-Jones called it. If Catholics don’t actually have to believe in Catholic teaching — then what’s the value in having it?

The only answer

It seems to me, as I have argued many times before (most recently here), that the solution is not going to be found in any human institution. Look at the revivals and awakenings that have happened throughout history:

• The Reformation was not simply a debate that happened within the church, but it had great spiritual effect — it saw many thousands of people turning to Christ. This movement breathed new life into many countries and spawned denominations like the Anglican churches, which have had a huge impact over the last few hundred years.

• The 17th Century Great Awakening in America, spearheaded by Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield, was largely a protestant phenomenon.

• John and Charles Wesley in the 18th century came were forced out of the Church of England, but founded Methodism. John was influenced by the Moravian Church, a church that found its origins in the Reformation.

• The Welsh Revival in the early 20th century didn’t come from within the established church, but was simply an outpouring of the Holy Spirit leading to repentance and faith in many people.

• The Azusa Street Revival shortly after is credited with giving birth to the pentecostal movement.

Revivals are always marked by powerful, Spirit-empowered preaching which calls people to repent of their sins and put their faith in Christ, a thirst for the Word of God, and a deep dependence upon God in prayer. As far as I know, no revival in history has happened by doubling down more and more on the Latin Mass.

What I am trying to demonstrate here is that revivals are often begun outside of traditional denominations and institutions — in fact, traditional denominations often exclude and even persecute those whom God is using to bring about revival. The Church of England is just as guilty of this as the Catholic church.

I think God does this because he wants to demonstrate that he is bigger than any human institution. In the Old Testament, although God was worshipped in the temple he was not confined there (as much of Stephen’s speech in Acts 7 is at pains to demonstrate). The Spirit blows where he wills (John 3:8); the Lord fills heaven and earth (Jeremiah 23:24); the word of God cannot be chained (2 Timothy 2:9).

The main point that I’m trying to make here is that, if we want to see this country reclaimed for Christ, we mustn’t put our faith in any flawed human institution. If we want God to step in and act, we need to get on our knees and plead with him to send the Spirit to revive us. Revival will not come from people embracing more formal structures, but through the sovereign work of God.

I think Isaiah 35 is a wonderful picture of what we are to hope and pray for:

The desert and the parched land will be glad;
the wilderness will rejoice and blossom.
Like the crocus, it will burst into bloom;
it will rejoice greatly and shout for joy.
The glory of Lebanon will be given to it,
the splendor of Carmel and Sharon;
they will see the glory of the Lord,
the splendor of our God.

Isaiah 35:1-2

Rivers bursting out in the middle of the desert — that is what we need, and that is something which only God can provide.

If you use Telegram, do join the Sacred Musings channel.

If you appreciate Sacred Musings, you can help me out in a few ways: 1. Becoming a subscriber - free or paid; 2. Sharing Sacred Musings on social media or with anyone you think might like it; 3. If you’d like to contribute to help keep this running but becoming a paid subscriber is not the right option for you right now, you can give one-off via PayPal. Thank you so much!