Alumbrados – The Illuminated

Edited and compiled by Keith Green

An Introduction

Again this month, we have been receiving quite a lot of response to our series “The Catholic Chronicles”. It has been completely amazing how many different reactions there have been, especially from Catholics themselves.

Some of the negative reactions ranged from the obvious, “You are doing an injustice to the cause of unity in the body of Christ…” to, “You don’t know what you’re talking about — your articles are completely false…” to, “Yes, it’s true, that’s the way we used to believe, but all that’s changed now…” to “You were extremely accurate in your presentation of what we teach, but you haven’t changed my mind…”

Don’t get me wrong, the overwhelming majority of our mail has been warmly appreciative of the articles. And every day, testimonies continue to pour in about many who are coming to know Jesus–their lives being completely changed because of the “Chronicles.” Each and every soul that is being set free is worth reading a mountain of negative mail!

But getting back to those critical letters, I must admit I did not know what to make of the many different – and often contradictory – reactions to our series, not only from laymen¹, but also from priests, nuns and seminary students alike.

My confusion was somewhat eased though, when I received a very enlightening letter from a Catholic theological student. He wrote: “Keith, you have made the mistake of assuming that most Roman Catholics agree on doctrine. As you might guess, the Catholic Church is as fragmented in their beliefs as the many different Protestant denominations. Therefore, your presentation of Roman doctrine will never apply or be valid for all the different groups of Catholics.” The writer then proceeds to divide Catholics in “4 main categories”:

“1: Traditional Catholics–Those who like the way the Catholic Church was before Vatican II. They cling to the old forms of worship and do not approve much of any reform.
“2: Charismatic Catholics–Those who are part of the ‘Charismatic Renewal’ in the Catholic Church. These are the ones who speak very much like evangelicals, and talk of the ‘born-again experience.’ They are also the most open to establishing unity and fellowship with non-Catholics.
“3: Liberal Catholics–These are very much like liberal Protestants. They do not believe in the authority of the Church or the authority of the Scriptures, yet they like to retain their Catholic identity.
“4: And finally, Social Catholics–Those who were born Catholic, and still identify themselves as Catholics, although they rarely go to Mass (except possibly at Christmas or Easter with their families) and do not have very solid religious convictions.”

I cannot tell you how much this letter, with these four distinct categories, helped to clear up my confusion as to why we received so many varied and contradictory responses from Catholic readers. Nevertheless, I still must say that it doesn’t matter to me what category someone might fit into. I still have to go by what the Vatican currently teaches (and encourages others to teach) as doctrine, if I want to understand what the Roman Catholic Church as a whole “officially” believes. I cannot (God spare me!) answer doctrinal discrepancies or write articles about every Catholic school of thought. For these are always changing, and differ from country to country, and from culture to culture. It is obvious to any observant traveller that the Catholicism practised in the United States is worlds apart from the religion of the same name practised in South and Central America (and anywhere else in the 3^rd world for that matter). No, it is what Rome officially believes and teaches as doctrine and dogma that we must look at–for that is the common denominator for all Roman Catholics world-wide.

In the U.S., things might be very different–people might not go to confession anymore inside an official “confessional booth.” They may sit on a couch with the priest and just share “like a brother to a brother.” But that does not change the fact that Rome still solemnly warns that, “If you don’t go to confession at least once a year… you have committed a mortal sin, and if you die in that state, you go directly to hell with no hope!” Yes, there may be guitars at Mass now, there may be more casual dress and the priest may share from his heart or preach a sermon, instead of just conducting a stiff liturgy and ceremony, but the truth has not changed as to the meaning of the Mass–”The Mass is identical to Calvary–it is a sacrifice for sin–it must be perpetuated to take away sin.”²

It is interesting that many Catholics believe that the Second Vatican Council, conducted from 1962-65, really changed much of Roman Catholic belief. I have received numerous remarks from Catholics complaining that I have used “too many pre-Vatican II materials” in researching my previous chronicles. They point out, for instance, that I quote too much from the “Council of Trent” which was held over 400 years ago.

But did Vatican II really change Roman Catholic belief and doctrine? Have any of the fundamental issues that have separated Catholic and evangelical theologians for over four centuries now been reformed to such an extent that true Christians everywhere can now breathe a sigh of relief and say “She has changed! Rome has really changed!” That is what we will be looking into in Chronicle IV–”What did Vatican II really Change?”

We again want to express our purpose for this series of articles: 1) To cause Catholics to see the great, yet simple truths of God’s Word concerning the salvation of their souls and 2) To enlighten true Christians everywhere as to the nature and teachings of the Roman system so that they may be able to secure the conversion of many who are caught up in the various deceptions that are found there.

It is truly from a heart of love that we publish these articles–a love for Catholics…a love for their souls!