Scriptural Authority for the Catholic Church

I have recently been quite taken back by Catholic apologists who try to claim that the foundation of their faith, traditions, and dogma is the Bible. In fact, I have seen these Catholics challenge others to prove that their religion is not based on God's Word. Yet it takes only a casual look at the facts to see that they are not built upon the doctrines and practices outlined in the Scriptures and that the official Catholic Church doesn't pretend to be.

“Thus it comes about that the Church does not draw her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Hence, both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal feelings of devotion and reverence” (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Chap. 2, 9, p. 682).

Questions For Our Catholic Friends

• Where in the Bible do we find Peter assuming and exercising the role of a Catholic pope?
• Where does the Bible say the early churches treated Peter in a papal fashion?
• Where does the Bible say that one man is the head of all churches?
• Where does Bible say God established a special priesthood for the churches that is separate from the priesthood of the believers?
• Where does the Bible describe the office of such priests in the early churches?
• Where does the Bible say that New Testament priests are ordained after the order of Melchizedek?
• Where in the Bible do we find a requirement that pastors be celibate?
• Where does the Bible say the apostles passed on their authority through a succession?
• Where does the Bible give standards for apostolic succession? There are standards for pastors and deacons, but where are the standards for an ongoing apostleship?
• Where does the Bible describe nuns in the early churches?
• Where in the Bible do we find anyone praying to Mary or to any other person other than God?
• Where does the Bible call Mary the Mother of God?
• Where does the Bible say that Mary is the Queen of Heaven?
• Where in the Bible do we find the teaching that Mary is sinless?
• Where in the Bible do we find the baptism of an infant who is too young to believe in Christ?
• Where does the Bible teach us that the church can identify dead people as saints and can then pray to them?
• Where does the Bible teach that a dead person can intercede for the living?
• Where does the Bible teach about purgatory?
• Where does the Bible teach that churches should use the bones of dead men in any type of religious manner?
• Where does the Bible teach that the churches used indulgences?
• Where in the Bible do we find even one example of a Catholic mass being conducted or even described? If Christ established the mass and if it is central to the Christian faith as Rome claims, why is there not one example of it in the book of Acts and the New Testament epistles?
• Where in the Bible do we find Christians taking the Lord’s supper by partaking of the bread alone without the wine or grape juice?
• Where in the Bible does Paul or any of the early church leaders teach that there are seven sacraments?
• Where in the Bible do we find the churches practicing the sacrament of confirmation?
• Where in the Bible do we find the churches practicing any sort of extreme unction or last rites as a sacrament?
• Where in the Bible do we find the prayer of the rosary?
• Where in the Bible do we find that New Testament churches are to conduct elaborate rituals and ceremonies after the fashion of Rome?
• Where in the Bible do we find that the headquarters for the church is to be in Rome?

A Challenge to Return to a Biblical Faith in Christ

Consider one other question. I recently wrote an article entitled "The Blood-Bath of the Catholic Inquisition" in which I posed an incredibly practical question. For hundreds of years, the Catholic Church officially sponsored the execution of anyone who didn't adhere to their belief and practice. Yet today, the Catholic church proudly totes the idea that other religions are simply alternative paths to heaven. Who was right, the church then or now?

These are two mutually exclusive ideologies and yet both have been claimed by the Catholic Church at different periods throughout history. It is most likely, in fact, that this type of dogma was a direct result of the political and civil power that the church has been able to exact over its followers. When they were able, they executed infidels. When they were not in the ruling power, they talk of peace and brotherhood. Were these doctrines created out of political expediency? Very likely. Were they created as a divine revelation from God? Very unlikely.

“And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.” ~1 John 5:12-13

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” ~Ephesians 2:8,9

If you are a Catholic, I don't hate you, dislike you or have any negative feelings toward you. And although I may come across as hard-hitting and straightforward, I am not trying to be 'hateful.' I am simply trying to elevate and promote the truth. I am so firm about these truths because I want you to see the errors in the Catholic Church and turn to a Biblical faith in Christ.


For His Glory,

Nick

The Catholic Church or The Bible

Throughout the ages, the Catholic church has continued to evolve into the religious organization that it is today. They have, over time, replaced many of the key doctrines that Christ taught with traditions that counsels and pope's have enacted. The Catholic church has, in general, fallen guilty of the same crimes as the pharisees of Jesus' day. They have crafted a religion based on the philosophies of sinful men rather than relying on the finished work of God's Word. Just as the pharisees, the Catholic Church has fallen hard from where God had once intended.

"Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men... And he said unto them, Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition." ~ Mark 7:7-9

The Catholic Church has blatantly replaced God's commandments with their own dogma. For us to make this strong assertion, however, demands that we back it up with clear, specific examples. Although there are many points that could be made (Luther initially came up with 95), we will restrict our list to five.

1. The Catholic Church Adds Sacraments to Salvation. The Bible is very clear that there is only one way to enter into the gates of Heaven. In fact, every where that one turns in the New Testament reaffirms the simple fact that salvation is only found through faith in Jesus Christ with nothing else added or taken away.
   

   "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." ~ Eph. 2:8-9

   
   Many other verses are very clear that salvation is not found in penance or in good deeds. To quote them all would be an exhaustive study. It is always through repentance and faith that salvation is found.



2. The Catholic Church Forbid Their Leadership to Marry. This point is particularly interesting to me in light of the fact that scripture specifically mentions this doctrine as heresy.
   
   

   "Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils...Forbidding to marry..." ~ I Tim. 4:3-4
   
   "For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly." Tit. 1:5-6

   
   Paul goes into specific detail in addressing the family situation of elders and bishops in the Pastoral Epistles, or I and II Timothy and Titus. He very clearly describes bishops as being the husband of one wife (not zero) and having children that are not unruly...not non-existent.



3. The Catholic Church Baptizes Infants. In the book of acts, a young man came to Philip and after hearing the gospel he asked if he could be baptized. Pay attention to the response that Philip gave to this man.
   
   

   "And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized? And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." ~ Acts 8:36-37

   
   Philip placed one major prerequisite for this man to meet before he could be baptized. He had to have a clear understanding of his faith in Jesus Christ if he wished to stir the baptismal waters. Is it possible for an infant to meet this demand?
   
   Also, is it even necessary for an infant to be baptized. In II Samuel 12, David had fasted and prayed for God to spare the life of his newborn child. After seven days of prayer, the child died. Immediately he stood up and began to go about his business. He had no fear about where the child was even though the child had not been baptized. In fact, he seemed very confident that the child was in heaven.
   
   

   "But now he is dead, wherefore should I fast? can I bring him back again? I shall go to him, but he shall not return to me." ~ II Samuel 12: 23

As I stated at the open of this article, there are many reasons that could be listed yet I have chosen only to select a few. I invite you all to post any other reasons that you may think of. I also invite any Catholics to chime in and discuss this with me as I am always trying to learn more about different faith groups regardless of whether I agree with them or not. I want to continue learning.

A Forty-three-Year Fugitive from Justice

I heard an interesting debate on the radio yesterday morning during my commute to work. It was about an elderly man who was arrested recently.

About fifty years ago, Willie Parker committed armed robbery. He was apprehended, tried, and summarily sentenced to 40 years in prison. Willie served just ten of those years when he decided to walk off of a work detail and escape. For years he evaded the law and was not found until this past week.

Authorities apprehended the 81-year-old Willie Parker, on charges of armed robbery that he committed fifty years ago. This man now has severe medical problems including diabetes, a heart problem, hepatitis, and a recent stroke. He has not to anyone's knowledge been a threat to society in any way since his escape and some even argue that he never actually shot anyone during his armed robbery.

His case has been sent before a judge to decide whether or not he should be sentenced to serve the rest of his time in prison. There are a lot of people crying out for his release. After all, why should tax-payer money go to fund the incarceration of someone who is very much not a threat to society in any way? His past forty-years and his health both attest to that fact. Wouldn't it be a waste of money for us to lock him back up? It would make a lot of sense to just let him go free.

Of course, if you don't send him back to prison, you will be sending a message to the rest of the criminals in America that it is alright to escape from prison as long as you can evade the police for a while. It would also mean that justice is dependent on the health of the criminal and the financial ramifications rather than being determined by the nature of the crime.

Should Willie Parker be locked up or sent home? You tell me.

Peace, Justice, and the Islamic Way of Life

Sunday night I finished reading the amazing book entitled Infidel by Ayaan Hirsi Ali. I was able to view and come to a greater understanding of the Islamic culture from a firsthand narrative. The book is an autobiography of a woman who endured some of the most horrific treatment that you might imagine all in the name of Islam. Skeptics have tried to argue that her situation was an isolated incident, but she contends that she watched the same maltreatments take place to every other girl around her as she grew up.

Although this book is non-fiction, it reads like a fictional storybook. Once I dove into the first chapter and began reading about her child-hood, I could not put the book down. The pages are filled with story after compelling story.

I challenge anybody to read this book and then describe to me how Islam can be described as a religion of peace. Islam is not a religion of peace. If anything, it is a religion of oppression of women. It is a religion of brutality, mutilation, honor killings (An honor killing is the title given to a murder committed by a father or brother because a lady did not live up to the honor of the family.), and worse. In fact, in a Muslim country, if a woman is raped, she is either killed or shamed for her 'crime.' The man who committed the rape, on the other hand, is allowed to go without any feeling of guilt or shame.

Societies like that of Saudi Arabia live to the very letter of the Koran and they provide very clear verses in which they are able to justify their treating of woman like dogs. In fact, I can't imagine that they would treat their dogs as poorly as they would treat their woman.

Within just the past few years, Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been a powerful spokesperson for women's rights. She has lobbied in Holland for Islamic women within that nation to have the same rights as every other woman within Holland. The result of her cry against Islam was death threats and the murder of her close friend, Theo Van Gogh.

'How dare you claim that we are not a religion of peace, Infidel!' they cry out as they sawed his throat open with a butcher knife.

Theo Van Gogh was ruthlessly murdered in cold blood for his part in the production of a ten minute video entitled 'Submission.' The video displays the sad plight of women who are forced to live in an Islamic society. The video was written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali and is the typification of her personal experiences and of the experiences of people she knew.

The response to this situation has been absolutely appalling. Instead of blaming the crazed killer or the ideology that drove him to murder this man, the public sphere blames Theo because, after all, he was the one who provoked them by speaking out against their beliefs. What right did he have to speak out and say those things? Consider, for example, this response that I found posted below the video at Youtube.

"Theo deserved it - first crating *stuff* like that and then wondering why all Muslims are *complaining*. That "video" is a shame for all good Muslims in this world"
*Edited

Van Gogh deserved to have his throat sawed open for speaking his beliefs? I am absolutely appalled that people can believe garbage like this. In fact, I think that the quote above is a grand display of ignorance and naivety. Yet, as rude and as insulting as I think it is, I would not make death threats against this person for expressing himself nor would I expect others to. Yet when statements are made against this 'religion of peace' they are responded to with the force of bullet shots and butcher knives. Ironic?!

If you read the book 'Infidel' by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, you will be glad you did. Your eyes will be opened to a culture of oppression of cruelty. You will see Islam for what it truly is.

P.S. I challenge anyone to debate my claim that Islam is not a religion of peace! The truth demands that they are a religion of oppression, cruelty, and violence!

The Blood-Bath of the Catholic Inquisition

Throughout the history of the Catholic Church, they have been known from time to time to promote the execution of those who would disagree with their tenants and dogma. They would, in the name of God, murder anyone who opposed their ever-expanding religious hierarchy. They conducted these gleanings through a series of inquisitions including the Medieval Inquisition, the Spanish Inquisition, the Portuguese Inquisition, and the Roman Inquisition.

Some very famous and intelligent men have been condemned by the Catholic church throughout the ages for simply ridiculous reasons. A simple glance through the history of these inquisitions will reveal that thousands and thousands of men and woman were murdered for freely expressing their conscience toward God. The Catholic church officially supported the hanging, beating, torturing, beheading, drowning, and the many other forms of murdering those who didn't share their view of religious matters. It disgusts me to even think about some of the ways in which the Catholic church took life during these Inquisitions.

Even Galileo Galilei was banned by the Pope himself, Pope Urban VIII, from promoting the idea that the earth moved around the sun. He was forced to recant at the threat of death. He recanted and his sentence was reduced to imprisonment and was even forbidden to be buried with his family in the local cemetery.

These acts of inquisition were later renounced by the Catholic Church when modern society began to place political pressure on them to take such action. Consider this quote from the pope:

"The institution of the Inquisition has been abolished...the children of the Church cannot but return with a spirit of repentance to 'the acquiescence given, especially in certain centuries, to intolerance and even the use of violence in the service of the truth.'"
~ Pope John Paul II

Yet this becomes an even a greater difficulty to the open-minded Catholic because according to church dogma it is the Pope who speaks directly on the behalf of Christ. How is it then that these men could have been wrong? Unless, of course, the Catholic church leadership has been guided over the centuries by that which is the most politically safe for them rather than being guided by the voice of God as they claim. An objective look at history will reveal this very fact.