Christian Debatorial Works | home
Catholic Church Errors
Opening Commentary
There are far more groups within Christianity than just Roman Catholics and Protestants. And while these groups connect on many levels, a fine wall seems to be fixed between fundamentalists, who claim the Bible holds supreme and ultimate authority for matters of doctrine, and Catholics, who maintain that the Bible should be combined with sacred Church tradition, and the ongoing work of the Magisterium, or order of Bishops, in union with the Papacy.
For this reason, fundamentalists may find many areas within Catholic doctrine that disagree with Biblical precepts, that the Catholic will defend and justify based on traditionalism and the continuing addition to doctrine by current church leaders.
With these obvious limitations in mind, this chapter will show major areas of difference between fundamentalist Biblical teaching, and Roman Catholic doctrine, not with the intent of solving differences between the two groups, but to uphold the teachings of the Bible over and above the traditions of the past. Again, it must be said that the focus of Christianity must be upon Christ, and Him only, otherwise, truth will not be found in us.
On a further note, Catholic Church history shows the problems with upholding tradition as authority for doctrine. Pope Eugene IV (1431-1447) declared Joan of Arc a witch and sentenced her to death, while Benedict IV in 1919 declared her a saint. Pope Sixtus V had a version of the Bible prepared which he claimed was authentic, while Pope Clement VIII, two years later, declared it to be full of errors and ordered another made.
In modern days, all Popes past and present were declared to be infallible while in Papal vestments, yet Popes Innocent III, Clement IV, Gregory XI, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV rejected the idea.
This presents us with the problem that if tradition in the Catholic Church is "sacred", how can it contradict itself? And which tradition should we follow, when several are at odds with one another?
Let us look to the Holy Spirit for guidance in such matters, and avoid the pitfalls associated with mankinds' interpretation of the divine.
Attack Point #1:
Article 82 of Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, states " The Church does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of reverence and devotion".
However, in Matthew 15:3, Jesus clearly condemns the Pharisees' for breaking the commandments of God for the sake of their traditions. Many commandments of God are broken for the sake of Catholic traditions, such as Exodus 20:4-5, which forbids making graven images of worship.
This being said, has not the traditionalism of the Catholic Church "invalidated the word of God" as Jesus said in Matthew 15:6?
Does this traditionalism also imply that Catholic worship is in vain (see Matthew 15:9), as it is teaching the precepts of men by following the example of past church (non Biblical) leaders?
Attack Point #2:
Article 85 of Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, states "It is clear therefore that, in the supremely wise arrangement of God, sacred tradition, sacred Scripture, and the Magisterium of the Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the others".
This statement implies that the Bible alone is incapable of providing a proper foundation for Church doctrine.
However, the Bible is quite clear that it can, on its' own, provide a proper foundation for Church doctrine, and for training and preparing the Christian for every good work. Consider 2 Timothy 3:16,17 (all scripture is God breathed, ..., making the man of God equipped for every good work).
Does this not indicate that Catholic doctrine mistakenly adds to the Bibles claims to alone be foundational to proper Church doctrine?
And does this not also grant support to many cult groups such as Baha'i, Jehovah Witnesses, and Mormonism, each of which also claim that the Bible cannot stand on its own, but much be understood in light of their own "revealed" teachings?
Attack Point #3:
Article 85 of Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, states, "The task of giving an accurate interpretation of the word of God, whether in written form, or in the form of tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone".
This indicates that correct Biblical interpretation comes only from the Bishops of the Catholic Church, in accordance with Papal authority.
But the Bible teaches that The Holy Spirit gives the man of God the correct interpretation of the Scriptures.
John 16:13 (But when He, the Spirit of truth, comes, He will guide you into all truth.)
1 Corinthians 2:12 (Now we have received the Spirit which is from God, that we might know the things freely given to us by God.)
Does not such teaching exalt the wisdom of man over the wisdom of God?
Probable Counter:
Bible passages do indicate that Church leaders are to give guidance over the flock.
Consider Ephesians 4:11-12 (He gave some as pastors....for the equipping of the saints for the work of service...)
Rebuttal:
But the Christian is given the right to test Church leaders to ensure their teaching is agreeable with Scripture.
Galations 1:8 (if anyone gives a different Gospel, let him be condemned).
This right is taken away by Papal authority.
As John 10:27 says, the sheep hear the shepherds voice, which does not take away the need of training up of good leaders in the Church, but does make us individually responsible to test all teaching to see if it agrees with the Word.
Furthermore, Catholic doctrine on this matter implies that the Church officers are above correction on matters of interpretation, however, the Bible clearly reveals that teachers in the Church will be judged harder, because of their influence (James 3:1).
Attack Point #4:
Article 966 of Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, says, regarding Mary, "You conceived the Living God, and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death".
Article 969 says "by her (Marys') manifold intercession, continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation".
Article 971 says "to whose (Marys') protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs".
Such statements infer that Mary is {1}an intercessor between God and man.
{2}capable of providing salvation for her followers.
{3}capable of offering protection for her followers.
But such conclusions completely disagree with the Bible.
First of all, Hebrews 7:25 says that Jesus saves to the uttermost those that come to God "through Him", that is, through Jesus, not Mary or anyone else.
Romans 8:26,27 indicates that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us with "groans that words cannot express".
This leads us to the question "If you can have the Son of God and His Holy Spirit interceding for you, why would you want or need any other intercessor?"
Second, God alone can protect His people.
Phil 4:19 (My God shall supply all your needs according to His riches by Christ).
If we have a God who is all knowing and all powerful, who promises to care for us and protect us, why would we want or need someone else to protect us or supply our needs?
Third, 1 Tim 2:5 says Jesus alone is the mediator between God and Man. How then can Mary intercede for us in the role of mediator?
*see also John 16:23.
Attack Point #5:
Article #971 of Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, states "The Churchs' devotion to the Blessed Virgin (Mary) is intrinsic to Christian worship".
Article #972 states "The Church is awaited by the one she venerates as Mother of our Lord".
Now while the Roman Catholic Church insists that the veneration of and devotion to Mary is different than its' worship of the one true God, to all practical purposes, the distinction between the two is non-existant.
As well, the titles the Catholic Church uses to refer to Mary, "Mother of all mercy", article 2677, is alarming in that 2 Corinthians 2:3 calls God the "Father of all Mercies", and such usage of terminology seems to elevate Mary to the level of a Goddess.
But Hebrews 12:2 states "fixing our eyes on Jesus, the author and perfecter of our faith".
Such a passage makes it plain that we need not look anywhere other than the Son of God to perfect our faith.
Why would we need to venerate Mary, then?
Attack Point #6:
Article 966 of Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, states that Mary was "preserved free from all taint of original sin".
The Catholic Church has always presented a sinless Mary, but the Bible indicates different.
Luke 1:46-47, a song of praise to God from Mary herself, shows Mary being grateful for the Lord sending her a Savior, someone she would not have needed had she actually lived a sinless life.
Romans 3:23 indicates that no one except Jesus (Hebrews 4:15) has lived a sinless life.
Attack Point #7:
Article #966 of Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, states "she (Mary) was taken up body and soul into heaven".
Article #969 states that Mary was "taken up into heaven".
But John 3:13 indicates that Jesus is the only one who ever ascended into heaven.
The doctrine of the Assumption of Mary was only created in the Catholic Church by Pope Pius XI in 1950.
Isn't this yet another example of the Catholic Church perpetrating another lie just to further exalt Mary?
Attack Point #8:
Article #882 of Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, says "The Roman Pontiff has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power he can always exercise unhindered".
Article #937 states "the Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls".
But the Bible says:
1 Peter 5:1-3 "Shepherd the flock of God which is amongst you, not as lords over those entrusted to you, but as examples".
Ephesians 1:22-23 "and gave Him (Christ) as head over all things to the Church".
Overall, Christ told the leaders of the Church to be servants and not Lord themselves over others, Matthew 20:26-28. Therefore, any leadership of absolute authority in a Christian church other than Christ himself is un-Christian.
Attack Point #9:
Article #884 of Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, states that "the Lord made Peter the Rock of his church, giving him the keys to the church and instituting him as head over the flock. This office of Peter is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope".
This notion that Peter was made the Rock upon which the Christian Church would be built is based on Matthew 16:13-19. Here, Christ says that upon this rock (petra) He would build His church. But the correct Greek word for Peter is Petros, meaning little stone, and is not the word Christ used, thus it was not Peter that was made the Rock of the Church, but Christ Himself.
We know the Rock was Christ due to 1 Corinthians 10:4, and Isaiah 26:4, which states so.
Also, Peter later denied Christ, Matthew 26:69-75, but was later restored by Christ, John 21:15-23, indicating that Peter was a pretty shaky rock.
Isaiah 44:8 clearly says the Rock is God Himself, the only one truly stable.
As well, had Christ in Matthew 16 truly meant that upon Peter He would build His Church, the apostles would not have been arguing over who would be greatest in Christs' Kingdom, something they did only 2 chapters later, Matthew 18:1.
1 Peter 5:1 (Peter declares himself to be a fellow elder, not the Church leader).
Acts 10:25-25 (Peter tells a worshipping man to stand up, for he is also a man).
Yet today, thousands every year bow down before and kiss the ring of the Pope.
Is this not false worship?
1 Peter 2:4-8 expressly show Christ is the Rock, written by Peter himself. How, then, can the Catholic Church promote the idea that Peter is the Rock, at the expense of Peters own words, and at the risk of causing their followers to lose focus on Jesus as the Rock of their salvation?
Attack Point #10:
Article #2131 of Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, states "The seventh ecumenical council at Nicea (787 a.d.) justified against the iconoclasts the veneration of idols - of Christ, but also of the Mother of God, and all the saints. By becoming incarnate, the Son of God introduced a new economy of images.
But worshipping (or venerating) any idol, of God or anyone else, is anti-Biblical.
Exodus 20:4-5 (Ye shall not make for yourselves any image).
For several centuries after Christ, no images or idols were found in Christian Churches, as these early Christians knew no image could accurately represent the eternal God of Heaven, and that to make such images of veneration was a sin. Several centuries later, when artists began capturing images of Jesus and the saints, they used their imagination as to what likeness to use, as no pictures of Jesus existed.
As well, the fact that Jesus was God incarnate poses an obstacle for making images in His likeness, as only His human nature can be represented, not His divine nature.
Thus, any image of Christ cannot represent the true Biblical Christ for these reasons.
Considering Deuteronomy 4:23-24, isn't it clear, then, that the Catholic Churchs' use of idols and imagery is forbidden by God?
And, when considering Romans 1:21-23, does not this make fools out of those who bow to such idols?
Attack Point #11:
Article #958 of Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, states "because it is a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead that they may be loosed from their sins, the Church offers suffrages for them. Our prayer for them is capable of not only helping them, but also of making their intercession for us effective".
Article #1032 "The Church also commends almsgiving, indulgences and works of penance on behalf of the dead. Let us help and commemorate them. Let us not hesitate to help those who have died and offer our prayers for them".
But the Bible says:
Isaiah 8:19 (Should not the people call upon their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living?
Hebrews 7:27 shows that Jesus death on the cross is the only way people can be freed from their sins, and, in keeping with Hebrews 9:27, this must take place before death, not after.
Attack Point #12:
Article #1030 of Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, states "All who die in Gods' grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation, but after death undergo a purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven".
Article #1031 "The Church gives the name Purgatory to this purification of the elect; we must believe that before the judgement there is a purifying fire.
But the doctrine of purgatory is hardly verified in the Scriptures.
Hebrews 9:27 (For it is appointed for men to die once, and after this the judgement).
2 Corinthians 5:8 ( For we are pleased to be absent from the body and be at home with the Lord).
Hebrews 10:17-18 ( Their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more. Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there no longer is any offering for sin).
1 Corinthians 3:11-15 is used by Catholics to support their doctrine of purgatory. However, this passage is actually referring to the Judgement Seat of Christ ( Rev. 20:11), where all believers will have their work done in the flesh tested for its eternal qualities, to determine their eternal rewards. No mention of punishment is made in this passage.
Indeed 1 John 1:7 completely refutes this doctrine of purgatory, as it teaches that Jesus blood makes us clean, not temporal after- life sufferings.
Does not these passages and Luke 16:19-31 ( Rich man and Lazerous story) teach that there is no secondary after life chances of redemption?
Is it not true that Christs' blood is sufficient to cleanse us from all sin? see Romans 5:9.
Finally, how many people over the millennia have found themselves in hell after death, wondering where the "second chance" they were promised is?
Attack Point #13:
Article #971 of Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, states " Marian prayer, such as the Rosary, is an epitome of the entire Gospel, expresses (our) devotion to the Virgin (Mary)".
*prayer to Mary is covered under Attack Point # 4.
The Rosary, and the Catholic Churchs' use of repetitive prayer during their worship, finds no basis in the Bible.
Matthew 6:7 (do not pray using repetitions as the heathen do).
Is not the Biblical model of prayer to pray to God the Father, through Jesus, with the help of the indwelling Holy Spirit?
Why then pray to anyone else?
Attack Point #14:
Article #1456 of Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, states "Confession to a priest is an essential part of the sacrament of penance".
Article #1461 "Bishops and priests, by virtue of the sacrament of Holy Orders, have the power to forgive all sins".
Article #1459 "But a sinner must recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin; he must expiate his sins. This is called penance".
But the Bible says:
1 John 2:1-2 " If anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sake of the whole world".
Daniel 9:4 ( and I prayed to the Lord, and made my confession".
If we can go directly to God, the eternal God of the Heavens, with our confession, and He, through Christs work at Calvary, can forgive us, what need is there, then, of telling our sins to a priest?
Ezra 10:11 (Make your confession to God), spoken by an Old Testament priest, who did not tell the people to confess to him.
1 Timothy 2:5 (for there is one mediator between God and man, that is, the man, Jesus Christ). Does not this passage do away with mediators in the form of Catholic priests?
Does not 1 John 1:9 (If we confess, He is faithful to forgive us our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness) eliminate any need for a further "penance" to "expiate" our sins?
Probable Counter:
John 20:23 is used by the Catholic Church to back up the need of a Catholic priest to forgive sins.
Rebuttal:
But notice that when Jesus said this, it was to His chosen apostles, giving them special insight, such as Peter showed in Acts 5:3. While we must interpret this passage in the light of the whole of Scripture, we can see that this passage gives us the right to proclaim whether or not someone has been saved based on how they react to our preaching of the Gospel message.
To understand it as meaning that we can forgive or not forgive anothers sin is to go against the rest of the Bible.
Attack Point #15:
If Titus 1:5 and Acts 14:23 seem to restrict bishops and elders to a single congregation each, how does the Catholic Church account for its' doctrine of bishops being head over many congregations?
Attack Point #16:
If Matthew 23:9 says not to call earthly religious leaders "father", how does the Catholic Church account for its' doctrine of priests being called "father"?
Attack Point #17:
If 1 Peter 2:9 and Revelation 5:10 indicate that all the people of Gods' Church be called a "holy priesthood", how does the Catholic Church account for the separation between its priests (clergy) and the lay-people (parishioners)?
Attack Point #18:
If Romans 1:7, 2 Corinthians 1:2, and Philippians 1:1 all indicate saints to be the living believers of the Lord Jesus present in His Church body, how does the Catholic Church account for Papal authority to declare sainthood, and that to deceased Church members?
Attack Point #19:
If both elders (1 Timothy 3:2-5) and deacons (1 Timothy 3:12) are connected with having wives and children, how does the Catholic Church account for imposing celibacy on its clergy?
Is this not the "doctrines of demons" spoken of in 1 Timothy 4:1-3?
Attack Point #20:
Article #1250 of Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, states "Born with a fallen nature and tainted by original sin, children also have need of the new birth in baptism to be freed from the powers of darkness...The Church and the parents would deny a child the priceless grace of becoming a child of God were they not to confer baptism shortly after birth".
But Mark 10:14 says "Permit the little children to come to me, and do not hinder them. For the kingdom of Heaven belongs to such as these".
Clearly, infants then, do not need salvation from their sins.
Attack Point #21:
Article #841 of Companion to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, states "(Islamics) together with us adore the one merciful God, mankinds judge on the last day".
But the Bible is clear that whoever comes to know God, comes through Christ (Romans 3:22-24, 1 John 5:12), something the Muslim community has not done.
Is this not a clear contradiction of Biblical and Christian teaching?
Article #847 goes on to indicate that those who seek God with a sincere heart and under the dictates of their conscience may also receive eternal life, a clear contradiction of Biblical teaching which maintains we must be saved through faith in Jesus (Ephesians 2:9).
In relation to Matthew 7:13-14, where Jesus said narrow is the way and few will enter in, does it not appear that the Catholic Church is trying to make the way as wide as possible?
While God wants all men to be saved, He wants us to come to salvation His way (Jesus), not our way. He wants us to know His truths, not our truths.
Attack Point #22:
Article #1376 of Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition, states "by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change in the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood. This change has been called transubstantiation".
This change of the elements into the actual flesh and blood of Jesus allows for worship of the elements (as under Article #1378 of Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1994 edition).
But the Bible says:
1 Corinthians 11:24 "This is my body which is broken for you. Do this in remembrance of me".
In Matthew 26:17-30, where Jesus initiated the Lords' Supper, the bread and wine did not turn into Jesus body and blood before the disciples eyes. As well, Jesus said in the original language "touto esti" regarding the elements, which translates to "represent"; He did not say "touto ginetai", which would have translated to "changed into".
Therefore, is not worship of these elements simply idolatry?
Probable Counter:
Most Catholics refer to John 6:53ff to backup the Catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation. Thus, it appears that Catholics take these passages literally, while non-Catholics would take them as symbolic.
Rebuttal:
It seems that had Jesus intended us to take eating His body and drinking His blood literally, then He would have made that abundantly clear at the Last Supper by cutting Himself and allowing His blood to drip into the cup. However, this did not happen. As well, Jesus had an earthly body, not glorified until after His resurrection. Believing components of this earthly body to be essential for salvation is missing the broader picture of the atonement. We are saved because Jesus sacrifice of His life is imputed to us and covers our sins. Portions of His earthly body (such as His blood) do not literally, of themselves, save us, but rather it is the placement of Jesus sinless life as atonement for ours that is the basis of salvation.
Essentially, the real problem of transubstantiation is that it limits the essential elements of salvation to earthly elements, when these earthly elements are meant as symbols of the eternal elements that are unto salvation.
see also:
|