Bible Headquarters

CATHOLIC BELIEFS AND THE SCRIPTURES

By Adam Bartlett

    The catholic church has many traditions and doctrines that are contrary to the Bible. The teachings are listed along with the Biblical response, decide for yourself.

    I have received many emails regarding this page and its (supposed) errors regarding the catholic church and Beliefs. I have yet to receive ONE email that contained Scriptures to the contrary of the issues stated below. I have yet to have anyone show me that; 1 - The beliefs listed below by the catholic church are not still accurate and 2 - that the Scriptures indicated to show the complete heresy of those beliefs by being contradictory to the Holy Scriptures is wrong. For those that want to write me and inform me of how wrong this page is, I ask that you show me how the Scriptures I have indicated in regard to each heretical belief of the catholic church is incorrect! Click on this link to see an example of some emails I have received - Emails from catholics

I have not even included the heretical belief by the pope that evolution is compatible with Creation. Nor the fact that the pope openly indicated that "Hell" was not a real physical place.

    MIKE WRITES: The opening paragraph seems a little combative. Please read it objectively. I have actually counciled Catholics who have defended the Catholic faith who have also seemed a little combative. The Truth should be presented soundly but this does not mean with aggression.
It seems off the bat that you take every word of the Bible literally. I'm sure this is done with great respect and honor for God's Word. However, perhaps every word was not meant to be taken literally…some things yes, some things no. We know that Jesus was not an actual vine or door. Perhaps the world is older than 4,500 years. If we are to take it literally the earth would be about that old but again perhaps it is not. Would you quote the Pope exactly and not out of context? He said Hell isn't real? Maybe Heaven and Hell are spiritual places. Indeed, I need to do more studying.

    ADAM WRITES: Mike, the pope did actually say that hell was not a real physical place and it was printed by the Associated Press all over the country on July 29-30, 1999. You are welcome to look it up and see for yourself. I have also copied the article in which he also stated that evolution was compatible with creation. I have also added my own commentary with this article.
    Chicago Tribune, Friday, 10/25/96, "POPE BOLSTERS CHURCH SUPPORT FOR EVOLUTION", by Stevenson Swanson, Tribune Staff Writer, Dateline: New York. "In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church's position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is 'more than just a hypothesis' and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith. In a written message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope said the theory of evolution has been buttressed by scientific studies and discoveries since Charles Darwin ... "It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge', the pope said in his message Wednesday. 'The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes, in itself, a significant argument in favor of this theory..."
    "If taken literally, the Biblical view of the beginning of life and Darwin's scientific view would seem irreconcilable. In Genesis, the creation of the world, and Adam, the first human, took six days. Evolution's process of genetic mutation and natural selection-the survival and proliferation of the fittest new species-has taken billions of years, according to scientists ..."
"The Pope's message went much further in accepting the theory of evolution as a valid explanation of the development of life on Earth, with one major exception: the human soul. 'If the human body has its origin in living material which preexists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God', the Pope said."
    I do not intend to treat this subject from the aspect of scientific debate, for writers with much greater scientific expertise than I will effectively write about this story from that angle. Rather, I wish to simply point out two succinct facts about this ludicrous statement:

1) In this statement, the Pope contradicts the current religious teaching of his own Roman Catholic Church!! In the latest "Catechism of the Catholic Church", published in 1994, we read this teaching on Creation, "Our profession of faith begins with God, for God is the First and the Last, the beginning and the end of everything. The Credo begins with God the Father, for the Father is the first divine person of the Most Holy Trinity; our Creed begins with the Creation of heaven and earth, for creation is the beginning and the foundation of all God's works."1 While this teaching does not actually say, "God Created", it certainly leaves that unmistakable impression because of the context in speaking of God the Father. However, all doubt about what their teaching is, concerning the beginning of the universe, is removed later, under "Paragraph 4.

The Creator", when they say, "Conversely, the mystery of Christ casts conclusive light on the mystery of creation and reveals the end of which 'in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth': from the beginning, God envisaged the glory of the new creation in Christ."2 Then, a little later on, we read, "God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order."3 Teachings about God creating the universe are repeated in many other places, and in many other contexts, in this newest of the Catechisms. There is no doubt about what the Catholic Church teaches about the beginnings of this world: God created the Heavens and the Earth!4

"God created heaven and earth" is the clear teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.

But, what about the creation of man? What is the clear teaching of the Catechism? We read, "The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator..."5 Man was created by his Creator, implying God the Father. Paragraphs 306-308 further speak of God and his creatures, including human beings.

I could find no listing for the subject of "Evolution" in this Catechism. Pope John Paul II cannot have it both ways. The dictionary defines evolution as "a gradual process in which something changes into a significantly different and usually more complex or more sophisticated form". And, it defines the word, evolve, "to develop gradually ... to develop by evolutionary process."6 The theory of Evolution is Godless, has been Godless from the beginning, and will always be Godless! It is pure, unadulterated blasphemy for Pope John Paul II to declare that evolution is compatible with the Christian faith!!

2) The second concept to be grasped from the Pope's statement concerns what he asserted about man's soul. Let us review what he said about man's soul. 'If the human body has its origin in living material which pre-exists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God', the Pope said."

    Now, when you think about this statement, in context with the Pope's assertion that Evolution is compatible with Christian teaching, you create a ridiculous scenario. Think of it: God, in Heaven, seeing the progress of Evolution on Earth, seeing that man has slowly, over billions of years, evolved from primordial slime, through several stages, to an intelligent man, suddenly decides that He needs to intervene to create an immortal soul and implant it within each man!!

    If God can create everything out of nothing7 then He created the primordial slime, and He created man's immortal soul!! Where was God in the middle? Was He on vacation for 4.5 billion years, as man slowly emerged, through many interim stages, to finally become man?

    While this is logically ludicrous, the Catechism may come close to teaching it. On page 87, paragraph, 337, it teaches that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine 'work', concluded by the 'rest' of the seventh day." In other words the Catechism does not teach that God created the world in 6 days, saying His creation was "symbolically" presented as having taken place in 6 days of work. This teaching leaves the door open for Evolution. This slightly opened door to Evolution is probably the door through which John Paul II is walking when he states that Evolution is compatible with the Christian faith, at least with the "faith" as espoused by the Roman Catholic Church. Still, John Paul II cannot reconcile the Godless nature of Evolution as compared with the teaching that God created the world. So, what is going on here? How can the Ultimate Authority in the Roman Catholic Church, the Vicar of Christ, who is infallible in this office, publicly pronounce something that is totally at odds with the clear teaching of the latest, most authoritative Catechism? Not to mention the Bible!!

     As for the combative suggestion, I do not look at it as combative when trying to exhort the truth to those that have been blinded by contrary teachings. Sometimes it takes a direct approach to break through. I also mentioned in my page that the directness is directed at the leadership and not at the common person that might be reading the page.
1. Catholics believe that the scriptures alone are not enough and that only the priests are able to interpret the meanings. That's why the apocryphal writings and other traditions are accepted as having equal authority with the Bible.
  
  MIKE WRITES: I'm a Catholic and I don't believe as you say. From here on please say "the Catholic Church teaches:" and then site it exactly (in context too). I can find you Catholics, Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Pentacostals, etc that believe and say wrong things. We must go to the official written down teaching doctrines, the dogmata as the bible says. Individual beliefs can vary greatly. Scripture alone is not enough for what? The Church doesn't teach that only Priests can interpret it. Please site your reference. Using Scripture alone as the sole rule and authority of faith is unscriptural. Please show me where scripture says: that scripture alone is all that we shall use. And yes the Church would agree it's profitable, will make you wise, useful for instructing etc. Certainly!! The Catholic Church loves scripture so much it claims that only the canon of scripture is inspired, that is, initiated from God Himself! The Catholic Church established the Canon of 27 books for the NT out of the 120-150 books floating around in the first centuries claiming to be inspired. The Catholic Church picked them out. Have you read the Epistle of Barnabus or the Gospel of Peter? Or the other 125? You'll be happy to hear that for the last 1600 years (NT was Canonized in ~400AD) Catholics at Mass have always stood when any of the Gospels are read.
  
  The Catholic Church has held on to the written and oral paradosis (greek word for tradition) that St. Paul tells us to hold onto is Thes.2:15. We didn't just give up on the oral stuff. How do we know it's right? Jesus said He would be with His Church to the end of time. And that the gates of Hell would not prevail against it. He said other things which aren't even recorded in the Bible (see last verse in John) but we are certainly still supposed to follow His commands even if they weren't written down as John says.
  
  The Church does guide us in interpreting the scriptures, sure! To let everyone, on their own, without Church guidance would yield thousands of different interpretations. As soon as no guidance individual interpretation was put into practice,…well we see what has happened. Even Luther saw it at the end of his life. He commented on it and thought it was sad. Looks like God got it right in the first place when He established an authoritative Church.
  THE BIBLE SAYS:
  1. The scriptures alone are sufficient; Deut. 4:2, Isa. 8:20, 2Tim. 3:15-17, Rev. 22:18-19.
  2. That the commandments of God are made of no effect by the traditions of men. Matt. 15:1-9. And that in vs.9 that those who teach the commandments of men as doctrine worship God in vain.
  3. That there is no redemption in corruptible things received by tradition. 1Pet. 1:18.
  4. The scriptures are for ALL. John 5:39, Acts 17:10-12, 1Pet. 2:2, 2Pet. 1:19-21, Rev. 3:1, and especially Mark 9:38-41.
  NOTE: You might ask; If you alone have the right Bible, then why do you keep it from the people and only allow the priests to study it?
  MIKE WRITES: Please show me (the document and sentence(s) where the Church says people aren't to read the Bible. Catholics have and study the Bible. The Church didn't try to stop me. But I'm sure they caution me to not read without Church guidance. Perhaps I might say the Trinity is a false tradition of the Church. Heck, you can't find the word in the Bible! Again, the Church doesn't keep the Bible from the people. But you can bet that in the days before the printing press hardly anybody had a Bible. Nobody had books of any sort except the rich. We shouldn't assume everyone was rich. And yes the Church did nail down and chain the Bible down inside the Church. That seems cruel doesn't it? How could they do that? How terrible! Again, the year is 1476AD not 2002AD. There might be one book in town if you were lucky and it was the Bible. If you were in charge what would you do with the one book in town that was extremely expensive? You'd better chain it or it is gone! Been to a phone booth lately? Yup chained books. The telephone companies aren't trying to keep something from us . Also, the Protestants did the same thing in their early years.
  
  ADAM WRITES: Mike, there are many things to be said when it comes to the differences between tradition and scripture. I am well aware that the catholic church puts great emphasis on its tradition and oral teachings. However, the scripture references to these traditions and oral teachings were never to contradict the scriptures. The teachings and traditions were to corroborate what was plainly taught in the scripture. The catholic church on the other hand has taken liberty to insert many unbiblical traditions and oral teachings using these scriptures as a justification.
  - Mary worship? Is not in the Bible, but believed because it is passed down as God given tradition by the so-called infallible pope. The pope is supposed to be infallible when giving spiritual instruction yet all of these so-called inspired instructions that are given in the form of tradition or teachings are contradictory to the Bible.
  - The eucharist? In the Bible you can only find how God said don't drink blood.
  - Purgatory? The word and concept are not in the Bible.
  - Co-redemptrix? In the Bible you find there is only ONE Redeemer and Saviour.
  His name is Jesus.
  A catholic explains:
  "I hope you understand was is meant by Tradition, it is not "tradition" with a small "t". It is Sacred "Tradition", with a capital "T" meaning the oral teachings of Christ and the apostles..."
  Oh, so there is a whole bunch of stuff I CAN'T know from the Bible because it was only given orally and the catholic religion has somehow been able to get this spoken word from somewhere and tell me what it was. I see and I reject this nonsense. First let's see what Jesus says about man's tradition "Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? [Y]e made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites." --Jesus Christ
  Matthew 15:3, 6, 7
  What else does Jesus say about Tradition?
  Then the Pharisees and scribes asked [Jesus], why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands?
  He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is WRITTEN [Jesus is quoting the Bible], This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me.
  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.
  Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye. Mark 7:5-9, 13
  THIS is the scripture catholics need to read! But alas, instead they listen to their apologists and try to support their man-made traditions with the Book they once burned and outlawed! It would seem very strange that Jesus would berate them about "traditions" if they were to be followed and passed down to be followed by generations to follow. What Jesus was referring to is EXATLY what the catholic church is doing today; He was referring to traditions and doctrines that are contrary to HIS teaching. Jesus never condoned what the Pharisees and Saducees were doing because it violated the very heart of what He was teaching. This is what the catholic church does every day with the non-biblical traditions and teachings that it introduces and then demands its followers adhere to.
  
  If that wasn't bad enough now they have the nerve to go to THE BIBLE for proof of their tradition. What scriptures do they give as biblical proof of catholic Tradition?
  1 Corinthians 15:3, 11 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
  Where does it say, "Listen to catholic Tradition?" Where does it say this was passed down by oral tradition?
  2 Tim 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
  Where does it say, "Listen to catholic Tradition?" Where does it say this is oral tradition?
  John 21:25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
  This does not commend us to the Traditions of the catholic religion. Where does it say this is oral tradition?
  1 Corinthians 11:2 Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the ordinances, as I delivered them to you.
  Where does it say, "Listen to catholic Tradition?"
  2 Timothy 2:2 And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.
  Where does it say, "Listen to catholic Tradition?"
  2 Thessalonians 2:15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.
  Where does it say, "Listen to catholic Tradition?" Paul is instructing people who heard him and his fellow laborers. In none of the scriptures above nor any other that the catholic church uses does it state that we are to follow a tradition, oral teaching, or anything else that is outside of scriptural corroboration. As I stated before, it is simply a means of justification for the catholic leadership to use these verses to condone their heretical insertions.
  One catholic said this...
  "...You must admit that before the Bible was compiled as it is now, much of it was passed to people by word of mouth."
  I must admit no such thing. The written word of God, the scriptures, have always been available to true believers. Not only that, the written word has always been operative in God's dealing with mankind. The Ten Commandments were written in stone! It wasn't this memory business. The Jewish people were the careful custodians of the written scriptures:
  What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. Romans 3:1-2
  Most of us know how carefully the written word was kept by God's chosen people, Israel.
  God has always emphasized the importance of keeping His written word:
  This BOOK OF THE LAW SHALL NOT DEPART OUT OF THY MOUTH; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is WRITTEN therein... Joshua 1:8
  Psalm 119 is the longest chapter in the Bible and it is ALL about the importance of knowing the scriptures.
  But what about in the New Testament? Jesus read from the BOOK Isaiah in the synagogue:
  Luke 4:17 And there was delivered unto him the BOOK of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was WRITTEN, Paul read the gospel of JESUS IN THE WRITTEN WORD! Listen:
  1 Corinthians 15:3-4 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day ACCORDING TO THE SCRIPTURES
  We know Timothy had the WRITTEN word of the gospel as a child:
  ...from a child thou hast known the holy SCRIPTURES, which ARE ABLE TO MAKE THEE WISE UNTO SALVATION THROUGH FAITH WHICH IS IN CHRIST JESUS. 2 Timothy 3:15 The Bereans didn't just listen to what the apostles said, but they compared their teaching to the SCRIPTURES to see if those things were so. These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Acts 17:11
  We are told in the New Testament to study the word and RIGHTLY divide it. That means don't be misinterpreting! Tell the truth about the Bible, not lies: Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. 2 Timothy 2:15 Well, what is the truth? Jesus told us:
  Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. John 17:17
  I could go on and on examining this issue of us true believers always having the scriptures...
  - The apostles' WRITTEN epistles were read to the churches (e.g., James, Hebrew, Thessalonians, Colossians, etc.)
  - Peter referred to Paul's epistles as SCRIPTURE.
  - The Ethiopian eunuch was READING THE SCRIPTURES when Philip came up to his chariot.
  Did the catholic religion give me the scriptures?
  I can't believe they are even forming their mouths to say this. The catholic religion hates the Bible. The Catholic religion killed upwards of 50 MILLION PEOPLE because they wanted to stop the reading of the Bible. What gall they have to mention this thing about giving me the scriptures. They BURNED the scriptures.
  Do not be under the false assumption that there was ever a time when the catholic religion had control of all Christendom. True Bible believers have always been around living, growing and thriving in isolated areas--people like the Waldensians and the Lollardsands. Read Foxxe's Book of Martyrs and see for yourself what happened to all those that would dare oppose the catholic monarchy. You talk about hypocrisy; the catholic church burned Joan of Arc at the stake for heresy because she formed her own opinions out of the scriptures that did not agree with the catholic church. Less than one hundred years later, they named her a "saint!" I challenge you to read the account of all of these people and then sound your horn for what you call the "true church."
  
  Is the Bible enough?
  The ctholic religion says, "No, the Bible is not enough. You have to keep it in perspective." But the Bible says something entirely different. Revelation says the BIBLE IS COMPLETE. That means the Bible ain't missin' nothin! There is nothing to be added and nothing to be taken away. For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
  And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18-19
  An example of tradition in action.
  Let us take an example of one grievous error--the worship of Mary. It simply CANNOT be justified through the scriptures. It simply CANNOT be done. But it can be REFUTED from the Bible! That is why they are always bringing up the "sola scriptura" mumbo-jumbo mix and want to argue with you about it. The ONLY way that you can assert that Mary was a "perpetual virgin" is through catholic Traditions. You CANNOT find this error in the Bible. You cannot. It is same thing with practically everything else they introduce as a tradition and try to justify it by verses out of the very Bible that condemns it.
  Either you believe the written word or you will believe what MEN tell you about the written word. Catholics will tell you, "I believe the Bible is 100% true and I believe that catholic Tradition is 100% true." I have news for you; two contradictory documents cannot both be 100% true. Needless to say I stand with the Bible and it's accuracy over that of what men want to tell me or persuade me to believe.
  
  Matthew 15:8-9, "This people draweth nigh unto me with their mouth, and honoureth me with their lips; but their heart is far from me. But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men."
2. Catholics believe they are the only true church, and if you are not catholic, you are not saved.
MIKE WRITES: Please so me this teaching of the Church. Please quote your source as always. The Catecism is what the Church teaches. Is what you say in there? Again, I guess you could find a Catholic to say this but there is a misunderstanding (see below). Heck, I could find one that says all you have to do is works to get into heaven but that is not the majority or what the Church has ever taught. We do believe we are the one true Church. Christ made the Church in ~33AD. It was first called Catholic in 106AD by Ignatius the longtime student of John.
Please know the Catholic Church counts you as Catholic! A non-practicing one, but a Catholic nonetheless. Please show me where the Catholic Church has ever officially taught that if you were a Baptist that you are surely going to Hell without a doubt.

ADAM WRITES: The Roman catholic Church claims to be God's true Church and all members are to promise obedience to the Bishop of Rome, whom she claims is successor to Saint Peter, Prince of the Apostles and Vicar of Jesus Christ.
The Roman Catholic Church is built on the assumption that in Matthew 16:13-19 Jesus appointed Peter the first pope and so founded His Church and established the papacy. If this is true, then all true Christians must become catholic. If it is false, the whole catholic religion is false and cultic and no true Christians could be identified with such a system. We must, then, search the Scriptures in order to know what is true. The Scriptures are not merely the writings of men, "But holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (II Peter 1:21). "All Scripture is inspired by God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work: (II Timothy 3:16-17). "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words (the Bible) shall not pass away" (Matthew 24:35). Both Scripture and history testify to the authenticity, reliability, efficiency, and sufficiency of the Bible. Though some catholic translations are better than others, all are reliable enough for general study with catholics.
When Jesus, in Matthew 16:18, said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" He used the demonstrative "this" (taute), pointing to Peter's confession, "Thou are the Christ, the Son of the living God" as the rock. Jesus said, "Thou are Peter (petros, a stone - all believers are stones, see I Peter 2:5 and Ephesians 2:21), and upon this rock (petra, a huge rock foundation - the confession that Jesus is the Christ), I will build my church". He did not promise to build His Church upon Peter. Jesus would not have trusted such a precious possession as His Church to the leadership of even one fallible man much less a whole succession of them. The pope of Rome is called the Vicar of the Son of God (Vicarius Filii Dei). In the Bible we find that the Holy Spirit, not a pope, was sent to take the place of Jesus on earth. That is what Vicar means. The Holy Spirit was given to guide us into all truth (John 16:7-15) and the Scriptures were given for teaching, for reproving, for correction, and for instruction (II Timothy 3:16). Christ did not leave His Church to human leadership. Jesus Himself is still the Head of His Church. He speaks to us through His infallible Word, the Holy Scriptures, by His ever present and infallible Holy Spirit.
Let us remember that Ch
I Corinthians 10:4. The rock was Christ.
Ephesians 1:22,23. Head over all the Church.
Ephesians 2:20. Christ Jesus... the chief corner stone.
Around thirty-four times in the Old Testament God is call a Rock or the Rock of Israel. You see, the Bible clearly teaches that when Jesus founded His Church, He was to be the only Head, the Holy Spirit the Vicar and Guide, and the Bible the only authority for faith and practice. All true Christians constitute THE TRUE CHURCH (those in whom the Holy Spirit dwells, who believe and obey Christ's teachings). True believers were called "Christians", not "Catholics".
Acts 11:26 Disciples were first called Christians.
Acts 26:28 Persuade me to become a Christian.
I Peter 4:16 Suffer as a Christian
There were no Roman Catholics until Christianity was merged with paganism into a state religion around 315 A.D. The true Christians obeyed God's Word, they never joined in the pagan corruption. The gates of hell have never prevailed against the true believers, they are few, their way is narrow, and they would rather suffer martyrdom than compromise the Word of God or deny their Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. "Go out from her, my people, that you may not share in her sins, and that you may not receive of her plagues" (Apocalypse 18:4). Believers must not be identified with compromising or counterfeit Churches! As for your assertion that I am considered to be a catholic but not an acting one, I most adamantly deny that, I have never been, nor ever will be a catholic in any consideration. You stated yourself that you believe, as all other catholics do that you are the only true church. That only leaves to reason that anyone outside of the catholic church or its teachings are outside of the "true" church. You have admitted yourself what I have been saying.

THE BIBLE SAYS:
1. First let it be said that the word "catholic" does not appear in the scriptures anywhere. The church is referred to as having several names in the scriptures. MIKE WRITES: As mentioned previously, Catholic was the name given in 106AD to the Church just as Trinity was given for the three persons of God. Just because the word Trinity isn't mentioned in scripture doesn't mean it isn't or wasn't true before the name was given. Catholic was the name given in 106 for the whole New Testament Chruch. Does that mean it was a whole new completely different Church than in 105 AD? Certainly not. A) It is referred to as the "church of God" in many places; Acts 20:28, 1Cor. 1:2, 10:32, 11:16,22, 15:9, 2Cor. 1:1, Gal. 1:13, 1Thess. 2:14, 2Thess. 1:4, 1Tim. 3:5,15. B) It is also referred to by many other names; "church of Christ" Rom. 16:16, "church of saints" 1Cor.14:33, "church of Galatia" Gal. 1:2, 1Cor. 16:1, "church of Asia" 1Cor.16:19, "church of Thessalonica" 1Thess. 1:1, 2Thess. 1:1, "church of Macedonia" 2Cor. 8:1, "church of Judea" Gal. 1:22, and each of the churches in Rev. chapters 2&3 are named after each city. They are never referred to as "catholic". C) It should also be noted that the only title given to the followers other than saints, elect, sons, and other POSITION titles, was the name "Christians", Acts 11:26, 26:28, 1Pet. 4:16. Not catholic.
2. The Bible makes it clear that salvation is for "ALL" that believe, John 3:16, and vs. 36 says "He that believeth" not "He that believeth and joins the catholic church". Salvation is in a belief in Jesus, His death, burial, and resurrection, and deity, and atoning work; NOT IN A MEMBERSHIP IN A TRADITION RUN CHURCH, BE IT CATHOLIC OR ANY OTHER.
3. The Bible makes it clear that salvation is not based on ANY works that we can do, Eph. 2:8-9, 2Tim. 1:9, Titus 3:5, and others. Jesus made it clear in John 3:16 that He died for "the world": NO PLACE in the scriptures indicates that salvation is only for a "select" few that belong to a specifically named group. In fact Jesus tried His whole ministry to convey this to the "tradition enslaved" Jewish religious followers of the blind Pharisees.
4. Salvation is in your belief and faith, not in what "title" you may bear. In fact no believer should be concerned with what title the congregation they attend bears, but should be extremely concerned if the leaders of that group stray from the Bible in any way and enact doctrines contrary to it. Maybe we as believers should just be content with being called a "believer" when asked, and not be concerned with any other titles.
MIKE WRITES: Catholic was the name given in 106AD to the Church that was established by Christ in ~33AD. Christ said He would build His Church. We cannot believe that He would let His Church become fractured or fall into error. The gates of Hell would not prevail against it. I'm quite sure the evil one wishes to divide and destroy the Church Christ built.
Of course we are to believe, absolutely! I sure do! But we must do more than that. What? Yes! We must obey as well. We are told fornicators, murderers, etc will not enter into the kingdom of heaven. So we must obey Him too. I believe and love Jesus Christ. I know He is there and love Him. But if I kill somebody today on purpose because I got extremely angry and afterward said "hey,.. to heck with God, whatever!" Guess what?,.. I am not forgiven and will not enter heaven should I die at that second.
You are right! St. Paul does speak against the Judiazers for boasting of their works and believing that their ceremonial works (works of the Law) must be done in order for salvation. St. Paul attacks this belief completely. And so has the Catholic Church since St. Paul. The Church condemned a monk named Pelagius who said all you need is works to get into heaven. The Church condemned "semi-Pelagianism" where some said you need grace to start you off but after that you work your way to heaven. Yup, the Catholic Church condemned both of those heresies. Please watch St. Pauls language he is always talking about the works of the Law, or "boasting" when he talks about works. He is always meaning the Levitical/Mosaic Law. Indeed St. Paul never says all you need is faith alone. Yes, many times he says you need faith to be saved. Catholics say amen to that. But notice he never, I said never, uses alone with the word faith. This, even though St. Paul uses the word alone (Gr. monos) more than any other NT writer. He never says Faith alone. Luther came up with the doctrine of Faith Alone (sola fides). He added (and defended) the word alone into Romans 3:28 (For we hold that a man is justified by faith (alone) apart form the works of the Law.) He added a word to scripture and people followed him. He adamantly defended it. Today the Lutherans have taken the word out of their Bibles although they still hold to sola fides (as do all Protestants). We do find Faith Alone in the Bible however. James said a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. Now before you defend faith alone and say James is meaning something else please think about this. The man who came up with Faith Alone, Luther, not only defended his doctrine by adding a word to Romans 3:28 but also by denouncing James. That's right, he called the Epistle of James and Epistle of Straw. He also commented that he should throw it in the stove. To Luther's credit, he didn't try to twist James into saying something he wasn't. Luther knew what James was saying and denounced the Book outright. Luthers' friend Melanchathon convinced Luther to not mess with the canon of scripture in the NT as he did with the OT. Luther left James in and so Protestants have it. You can guarantee if Luther kicked it out Protestants today would think nothing of it. But since James is in today all Protestants tell me the Holy Spirit tells them that James is inspired. So the guy who gave us Faith Alone added to scripture and said a book that disagreed with his theory should be thrown in the stove. I was open to Protestantism at one point in my life but I must say this was a tell tale sign for me. I mean he made up this tenant (no one else in Christian history before Luther ever suggested Faith Alone even though there are numerous well documented cases of heresies the Church fought). He defended adding a word to scripture. And he denounced a book of the bible because it flat out opposed his tenant and he knew it.

ADAM WRITES: I have no idea what you are talking about or where you come up with your claim. My Bible does not add the word "alone" as you say Luther has done. I am not sure what the Lutherans have done with their Bible, but any King James Bible that I know of has not inserted the word "alone" as you suggest. You have rambled here about something that has no bearing on the truly important problems with catholicism and the heretical traditions they adhere to. 4. Catholics believe that Peter founded the church and it is built on him; he was the first Pope and head of the church and each Pope after was his successor, among many other beliefs like; the Pope is infallible, should be unmarried, and accepts worship.

MIKE WRITES: You always say Catholic's believe. Please be honest. I doubt I could find a Catholic that believes as you say. Please say "the Catholic Church teaches…." And so I ask you -Please state your sources for the statement you wrote above. Catholics don't believe Peter founded the Church. Christ was speaking of building a Church, not Peter. But Christ did say He would build it on Peter. We do believe he has an infallible charism. This is a gift of the Holy Spirit that prevents the Pope (which means papa, by the way) from teaching error. God said His Church would teach. It's not going to teach error. A couple of things: the pope isn't impeccable meaning unable to sin. The pope is a very holy man but still capable of sin. He does not invent anything new. He transmits the Truth on faith and morals down through the ages. If he did try to teach something wrong on faith and morals the Holy Spirit would not allow it and indeed could kill him. Sound fanciful? Well, the Holy Spirit is quite special and capable. The Pope can't tell you infallible sports scores or stock picks.
Oh, the pope doesn't accept worship either. Do you know what worship is? It is something different from profound respect. I have profound respect for Jesus and the Pope. But it is only Jesus who I worship. If you went up to the Pope and said " I love you, you are wonderful. God Bless you. I worship you." Guess what? He would call you on it. He would say "no, no, you must not worship me." I know of no Catholics that worship the Pope. Not one.

ADAM WRITES: The Pope is called "Our Holy Father". See encyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII in the Douay Version of the Bible. He is also called "Our Most Holy Lord", Pope Pius X. See Cardinals Oath. Moreri, a famous historian said, "To make war against the Pope is to make war against God, seeing the Pope is God and God is the Pope". Decius said, "The Pope can do all things God can do". Pope Leo XIII said of himself, "The supreme teacher in the Church is the Roman Pontiff. Union of minds, therefore, requires, together with a perfect accord in the one faith, complete submission and obedience of will to the Church and to the Roman Pontiff, as to God himself." Pope Pius X said, "The Pope is not only the representative of Jesus Christ, but he is Jesus Christ himself hidden under the veil of the flesh. Does the Pope speak? It is Jesus Christ who speaks." Pope Pius XI once declared, "You know that I am the Holy Father, the representative of God on earth, the Vicar of Christ, which means that I am God on the earth." All this is blasphemy!
Isaias 44:8 Is there a God besides me?
Matthew 23:9 Call no one on earth your father.
Ephesians 4:5 One Lord.
Philippians 2:11 Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.
I Peter 5:3 Nor yet as lording it over your charges.
I Peter 5:1-4 I, your fellow-presbyter.
Peter called himself a presbyter (pastor), not a pope. He refused honor (Acts 10:25,26) saying "Stand up for I myself also am a man". The apostles argued regarding who was greatest in the kingdom (Matthew 18:1) which indicates that even they did not accept Peter as head of the Church. The wealth and power of the Roman Popes could have come to Peter or any of the apostles. They had charisma, they could heal and raise the dead and perform many other miracles. They could have accumulated gold and land and conquering armies, but they gave away all that was placed at their feet (Acts 4:37, 3:6). They rejoiced that they were counted worthy to suffer for the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 5:41). How could anyone be so naive as to think that the papacy evolved out of such humility and simplicity. The office of Pope is of pagan origin and cannot in any way be substantiated in Scripture. Because of the work and ministry of the Holy Spirit, such an office is not necessary or even desirable.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ ordained the twelve apostles to the priesthood at the Last Supper and that the powers of the priesthood were handed down during the past two thousand years. This teaching is clearly contrary to the Word of God.
In the Old Testament the work of Christ was prefigured under the three offices of prophet, priest and king. The nation of Israel had each office. With the coming of Christ each of these offices found its fulfillment in Him. Thus in the New Testament there is no need for a human sacrificing priesthood. John 19:30. It is consummated.
I Timothy 2:5. There is one God, and one Mediator...Christ Jesus.
Hebrews 7:24. Because he continues forever, has an everlasting (non-transferable, intransmissible) priesthood.
Hebrews 7:25. He lives always to make intercession.
Hebrews 7:27. He does not need to offer sacrifices daily.
Hebrews 9:12. Having obtained eternal redemption.
Hebrews 10:10. We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
I Corinthians 12:28. God indeed has placed some in the Church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers...(no mention of sacramental priests). Ephesians 4:11. He Himself gave some men as apostles, and some as prophets, others again as evangelists, and others as pastors and teachers...(again no mention of sacramental priests).
I Peter 5:1-3. I, your fellow-presbyter and witness...(Nothing about being a priest).
The office of priest is not the same as minister. The concept of a mediating, sacrificing priesthood originated and developed under Cyprian, the theological authority in the West until the time of Augustine, and was part of the merger of paganism with Christianity. Nowhere in the Scriptures will on find evidence of a mediating, sacrificing priesthood after Christ.

You also keep requesting sources for what I have said and I will provide them. I am copying a page from my site that lists several different topics and how they were introduced. I have also many other sources which are not necessary to list because they are your very own sites. The catholic encyclopedia, catholic online, the catechism online, and other catholic resources online.

Catholic Traditions and Inventions
By Adam Bartlett

The catholic church since it's inception has continuously introduced traditions that are contrary to the Word of God. They consistently ignore warnings of scriptures on introducing these destructive heresies. Below is a brief background on where some of these practices originated. Saints
The ritual of praying to saints was adopted from pagan beliefs. Since pagans were accustomed to praying to gods in shrines, the church took martyrs as their heroes and their graves became shrines and places of prayer. As the pagans became Christians, this form of devotion was thought allowable because the saints were the servants of Christ who have died for him and must now be close to him in the Kingdom of God. During the early centuries, bishops consented to approve prayers in the shrines because people came in such numbers. Eventually each church was expected to assign a "patron saint" or guardian of the congregation with its relic to be kept under the altar.
It was also introduced that these "saints" (that is the patron saints, not of this world) possessed miraculous powers or gifts that aid people who pray to them. It was bishops who assigned these "gifts" to the saints, which coincidentally, resemble the power of the pagan gods. For example, "Asklepios was the Greek god of healing, and had temples to which non-Christians and even Christians took themselves or carried their sick in the hope of healing. To sack Asklepios as though he were a demon felt like pulling down a hospital where longed for cures happened. So a bishop saw that the right way to replace Asklepios with a saint or saints whom the people believed to have the power to heal. Then the same people went on going to the old temple, which was a new church to find healing. They now looked for the cure from a Christian power.
Idols/Images
By the 7th century the peoples love of saints made the icon into something more than a picture in wood. It was seen to have a kinship in spirit with the person painted on it; in this way it could receive the veneration and prayers addressed to the saint and transmit his or her blessing to the person praying before it. It presented a saint to the soul and they were not kept for the church only. An icon would be hung over the front door of a house to guard all in it from ill or a little icon could be worn on a journey to protect the traveler. Like some relics in the West this icon could transmit power. A person might be cured by touching it and the healing power was that of the saint but the icon passed it to the sufferer.
Pagans mocked the Christians for having no likeness of God in their church. The Christians retorted that men and women are the images of God and nothing made by an artist's hands ought to be there. The commandments said that no one should make an image and it was sinful to portray God for God is a Spirit and too high and holy to be drawn without error. However the converts who poured into the church brought with them the desire for pictures. From 726 the Eastern Orthodox churches were divided between the iconoclasts, breakers of icons and the iconodules, reveres of icons. In Armenia the debate led to a schism with the emperors on the side of the iconoclasts at first. God is impossible to picture therefore it must be wrong to attempt a portrait of Christ. But in the end the people won and among them the monks who wanted their holy pictures.
From 726 the Eastern Orthodox churches were divided between the iconoclasts, breakers of icons and the iconodules, reveres of icons. In Armenia the debate led to a schism with the emperors on the side of the iconoclasts at first. God is impossible to picture therefore it must be wrong to attempt a portrait of Christ. But in the end the people won and among them the monks who wanted their holy pictures.

Commandment
The first Christians did not believe that it was okay to kill and defend one's nation. All forms of killing were banned for the disciples of Christ. Lactantius stated that "human beings are scared creatures and no one may destroy them on purpose." Clement of Alexandria called Christians "the peaceful race," and early Christians looked for an age to come when wars would be no more. They were sure that nothing could do more to end war than for all people to follow Christ and seriously believed that when the Gospel was accepted war would end. There was widespread belief that bishops, priests, and deacons ought not to shed blood either by sitting as judge or serving as a soldier in a army. What happened to this early Christian belief during the Reformation?

Marriage
The proposal to ban marriage of bishops, priests, deacons and sub-deacons collapsed when Bishop Paphnutius stated "the result would only be immorality." But 60 years later it took hold of Rome under Pope Sirieius in 385. The text of the council showed it was not being observed and that the right to marry is a freedom which the priest ought to possess like any other Christian man or woman. Pope Gregory VII (reigned 1073-1085) set standards for the clergy that priests must not have wives or mistresses (but this didn't take effect until hundreds of years after his death.)

Mary
In the fifth century bishops came to verbal war over Mary the mother of Jesus. There was much debate on whether it was right to speak to Mary as "Mother of God." In the early days of Christianity the bishops were reluctant to call Mary "Mother of God" because they cared more about how we should look on Jesus whereas the lay people cared more about how we should look on Mary. Eventually it was the people that won. In the council of Ephesus (AD 431) the bishops approved the words "Mother of God" at the persistence of the people insisting on the phrase "Mother of God" which fit their love of her as a saint. This debate showed the people's desire to bring their affection for Mary into shrines and prayer which they so desperately wanted. By the 7th century there were feasts of St. Mary in the calendar, the Annunciation, the day of her birth (which like the birthday of Jesus no one know), the Purification, and the day of her death.

Pope
Pappas, a Greek word for "daddy" was used in the Eastern Church for abbotts and bishops and later for priests. Its first know use to describe a pope is in the tombstone of Pope Liberius who died in 366. The word came into use in the West during the 5th century. Pope Gelaius 1 (495) was the first pope to be addressed as "vicar of Christ" but it took six hundred years for this title to become common.

Purgatory
The idea of a future discipline after death that we die not yet ready for the glory of God but may be cleansed afterwards and so come to see God with pure eyes was slow to form. This state of cleansing was from the 11th century called purgatory or "the place of purging." By the beginning of the 13th century the vision of future hell had become frightening. There was difficulty in reconciling the vision of a merciful God with that of God as a stern judge. To preserve the idea of God's mercy it felt necessary to allow another kind of punishment. The early church had no idea of such a place as purgatory, Christians simply went to heaven.
Purgatory made possible the idea of an indulgence (that is a way by which in this life we can help our dear ones who have died and can lessen their time of cleansing and pain). We buy a certificate from the church authorities stating that we have done something good even if it is only paying for the certificate. The money thus given was needed for all sorts of good purposes such as building cathedrals or bridges. Thus there came to be a motive for preaching purgatory which was neither a desire that people should not do evil but simply the wish to raise money like a modern bazaar. There was trouble in store for the church.

Church
Early Christians met in houses to pray (hence the phrase "house church") and long after the apostles the congregation still met in houses. The word "church" comes from the Greek word kuriakos which means "belonging to the Lord." The word for congregation was ekklesia which meant "to you who are chosen and set apart in Rome." By AD 400 it also began to mean the place where Christian people met and was associated with the house or building. The start of separate congregations began when the house church could no longer hold the congregation. When asked by pagans why they did not meet in one spot they replied that God is not in one place but in all places. There was still no accepted idea of what a church building should look like.
The church became rich and it built soaring abbeys and churches. Motives were mixed; a town was proud to build a noble church which exhalted visitors and then villages started competing with each other to make higher and better churches than the next.
As you can see none of the above "traditions or inventions" have any Biblical origins nor backing. It is quite clear how that catholics are totally blind to the seriousness of these heresies because they do not feel the Bible is the final authority. Another heretical introduction by the catholic leadership, and the most dangerous one I might add. It opens the door for all kinds of doctrines and false teachings when you eliminate the Bible as your sole guide and rule of authority. It is amazing that the catholic following allows themselves to be led blindly without asking some serious questions. The recent scandal in catholicism with the molestation charges against priests should open their eyes to only one of the many heretical teachings of the church. That being they force priests to be celibate which is not a Biblical teaching. What will it take for the common catholic follower to realize the serious errors in this church?

THE BIBLE SAYS:
1. Peter denies that the church was built on him, 1Pet. 2:4-8.
2. The church was built on Christ, Matt. 16:18; In this verse the Greek word for Peter is " petros " which means, a piece of rock; and the Greek word for Rock ( referring to the church) in this verse is " petra " which means, a massive rock.
3. Peter never claimed to be the head of the church, in fact it is very clear in the scriptures that there is only one head. 1Pet. 2:4-8, Eph. 5:23, Col. 1:18.
4. Peter did not claim superiority. 1Pet. 5:1, neither did Paul, 2Cor. 11:5.
5. James not Peter, presided at the first church council at Jerusalem. Acts 15:13,19. In fact Christ taught them NOT to exercise dominion over anyone, Matt. 20: 25-28. NOTE: Isn't it odd that the first "Papa" or "Pope" mentioned is the sixth century!
6. They also claim that the Popes are successors to Peter, yet scriptures never indicate that; (man made tradition), in fact scriptures only indicate one such succession and that was only to complete the twelve. Acts 1:15-26. Notice the rule which applied to the successor also: Must have companied with Christ from the baptism of John to the ascension, Acts 1:21-22. Obviously the popes of our time are either extremely old, or they are above the requirements of God on this issue.
7. When James (who was scripturally the first leader of the church) was killed they did not meet and select a successor for him as with Judas, Acts 12:1-5.
8. If the Pope is infallible, then Peter was not a good one, for he was fallible many times, in fact Paul had to confront him publicly, Gal. 2:11-14. NOTE: If the claim is that Peter was only infallible in spiritual matters; well this was a spiritual matter.
9. That the Popes and priests should live in an unmarried state; obviously Peter was not a catholic Pope, he was married, Matt. 8:14, Mark 1:30, Lk. 4:38, and even Paul said Peter had a wife, 1Cor. 9:5.
10. The Popes in many ways are worshipped, priests and cardinals bowing down and kissing his ring(sound familiar; pagan kings), Peter would not allow it, Acts 10:25-26, neither would Paul, Acts 14: 11-15, Christ forbade worshipping of men, Matt. 4:10, not even angels accept it, Rev. 19:10, 22:8-9. I guess the Popes feel superior to all these.
MIKE WRITES: Why did Jesus name Peter rock? Why? "Hey Jesus this is my brother Simon" Jesus: "You are a Rock" Simon: "Huh?" If I addressed this email to you Dear Asbestos you would have good reason to wonder why. Nobody has ever been named Asbestos but here I am calling you Asbestos. How much more important if God called you Asbestos? And so it was with Simon. No other apostle was given a name. And God called him Rock! Not a fish or breeze or cloud. Petra means rock in Greek (Lithos means stone) but has the feminine gender associated with it just as all nouns have gender associated with them in Greek. Please tell me how would you name a man Rock in Greek? You wouldn't call him Petras would you? That's like calling me Michelle, my name is Michael. Nobody in Greek has ever had the name Rock before but here Jesus tells Simon he is Rock. All this is somewhat moot of course because we know Jesus and the apostles spoke in Aramaic. That's right. Jesus called him Kepha which is transliterated as Cephas. We see this in John 1:42. There is no doubt. There are no genders assigned to names in Aramaic. Jesus called him Kepha and that means Rock. The word for stone in Aramaic is evna but Jesus called him Kepha without a doubt.
Being unmarried in the religious life is a discipline, not a doctrine of God that must be obeyed without exception. St. Paul clearly recommends staying unmarried to focus on God instead of a family. St. Paul is dead on and any preacher will tell you that if a man's got a family-boy you got your hands full already. So it is recommended by St. Paul. The Church agrees and maintains the discipline. Please don't elevate it into a doctrine. Indded, it is very good to be unmarried and serve the Lord if He calls you to the Priesthood. You can serve Him full time. Priests put in a zillion hours a day worshipping and serving God. My life is filled up with work and other commitments and I haven't even started my family yet. St. Paul was right on target. Again the Pope doesn't accept worship. To someone not well educated in foreign manners, customs, and coloqialisms, somethings outside of his realm may seem different enough to stir up prejudice which of course is the tendency to not like anything different from ourselves. Well kissing a ring doesn't mean worship. It's possible that you can kiss a ring and worship someone I guess but the action of kissing a ring doesn't mean that is what is taking place. One might be worshipping someone or thing if you bow down before that person or thing but bowing doesn't mean that is what is taking place. If bowing means worship then many of the Asian countries have a worship problem. Please don't feel that the Popes feel superior. Respect hasn't disappeared in the Catholic Church. The Chruch is coming up on its 2,000 year birthday so yes some of the customs are old. Does that mean that they are "secret voodoo practices" because they look different from todays world? Of course not.

ADAM WRITES: And I say to thee. thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18) The purpose of this study is to determine from Scriptural evidence who Christ really established His church upon. When we arrive at a definite conclusion from Scripture, as to who the "rock" Christ is speaking of in Matthew 16:18 is, we will then have our answer.
Much rests upon the meaning of this verse. It is far too important to be taken lightly. It would be very unwise to jump to conclusions, judge by appearances or take anything for granted. Too much is at stake to chance arriving at the wrong meaning. If Peter is the rock who Christ established His church upon, then most Protestants today are neglecting and failing to give recognition where it is due. However, if Peter is not the rock who Christ established His church upon, then someone is assuming that Peter and his successors were given an authority which in God's sight does not actually exist. The positive method and evidence which we are about to make use of, should give to anyone who is willing to take God at His word, the answer to this question, beyond a shadow of a doubt. First of all, let us determine whether or not we can arrive at more than one meaning to this verse. If it can appear to have more than one meaning, then it is a verse of Scripture which requires interpretation. You say that Peter is the rock. Another will say, no, that Christ is the rock. So we have two possibilities. This of course places the verse in a position of one that requires interpretation. Now let us go from there.
The following is considered by many to be the best known and accepted method for arriving at the correct interpretation of Scripture. When confronted with any verse of Scripture which can be interpreted with more than one meaning, then the verse in question, must be considered in the light of all other Scriptures throughout the Bible which pertain directly to the subject in question. By way of illustration, it is much like assembling the pieces of a jig saw puzzle. One piece of the puzzle in itself usually does not reveal very much. In the puzzle it has a definite place and can only be correctly used in that one place, where it fits. However, when we set about joining other pieces directly connected with this single piece, the picture becomes easier to understand. Depending upon the number of pieces correctly joined together will determine how much of the picture will be clearly understood.
Now let us apply this thinking to the Scriptures. Any verse of Scripture inspired by the Holy Spirit and contained in the Bible has one particular meaning by its Author. God, who is the Author of the Bible, had one definite meaning for everything He said and for which He inspired writers of the books of the Bible to write. At the same time, we are aware of the fact that God never contradicts Himself. Also that the Word of God in itself, cannot contain error. All true Christians uphold the inerrancy of the Scriptures.
These facts, again comparing with our illustration, would be the equivalent of this; although, not knowing exactly where each piece fits, yet we have the assurance and guarantee by God, that all pieces do belong to the puzzle. In addition, that each has its correct place, according to the intention of its Author. By joining other Scriptures pertaining directly to this subject, from throughout the Bible, to the one in question, the Bible MAKES ITSELF CLEAR AS TO ITS MEANING. Truly, it may be said that Scriptures (plural) interprets Scripture (singular). In other words; whatever God says in one place in the Bible, will usually be repeated, confirmed, and in perfect harmony in other places throughout the Bible.
The only positive way to arrive at a meaning which we can be absolutely certain is correct, is to use only parts which belong in the picture. In interpretation, personal opinion, human reasoning, logic, assuming or judging by appearances only, is like putting foreign pieces belonging to another puzzle, into the picture. They can never possibly fit correctly. They cause confusion. They deceive and detract from the true meaning. Lets face it, we cannot expect to be able to understand what God's Word says unless we become thoroughly familiar with its contents. For the Christian, nothing can equal earnest, diligent, consistent, prayerful study of God's Word to prepare him for this task. It is highly desirable to be so familiar and absorbed in the contents of the Bible that along with the leading of the Holy Spirit, the Christian may clearly see where and how the truths obviously fit together to form sound Christian doctrine.
Use all care to present thyself to God as a man approved, a worker that cannot be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth. (II Timothy 2:15) All Scripture is inspired of God and useful for teaching, for reproving, for correcting, for instructing in justice; that the man of God may be perfect, equipped for every good work. (II Timothy 3:16, 17)
Now we should be prepared to apply this method, in order to find God's answer to our question. Once again our question. In Matthew 16:18 is the "Rock" upon which Christ established His church Peter? Or is the "Rock" Christ? God's answer:
For other foundation no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus. (I Corinthians 3:11)
And all drank the same spiritual drink (for they drank from the spiritual rock which followed them, and THE ROCK WAS CHRIST). (I Corinthians 10:4) emphasis add
Jesus said to them, "Did you never read in the Scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected. has become the corner stone; by the Lord this has been done; and it is wonderful in our eyes?" (Matthew 21:42) (Compare with Psalm 117:21, 23)
For they stumbled or the sturnbling-stone, as it is written, "Behold I lay in Sion, a stumbling-stone and a ROCK of scandal: and whoever believes (trusts) in him (Christ) shall not be disappointed" (Romans 9:33)
Let us see what the apostle, St. Peter, had to say concerning this.
Draw near to him (Christ), a living stone, rejected indeed by men but chosen and honored by God . . . Hence Scripture says, "Behold. I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, chosen, precious; and he who believes in it shall not be put to shame." For you. therefore, who believe is this honor; but to those who do not believe, "A stone which the builders rejected, the same has become the head of the corner," and, "A stumbling-stone, and a ROCK of scandal," to those who stumble at the word, and do not believe. (I Peter 2:4. 6-8)
This is "The stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the corner stone." Neither is there salvation in any other, For there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved. (Also the words of St. Peter, speaking of Jesus Christ, as recorded in Acts 4:11, 12) Turning to the Old Testament we find the following:
O Lord, my ROCK, my fortress, my deliverer. My God, my ROCK of refuge. Psalm 117:3 (18:3).
O Lord, my ROCK and my redeemer. Psalm 18:15 (19:15).
To you, O LORD, I call; O MY ROCK. Psalm 27:1 (28:1).
Be my ROCK of refuge, a stronghold to give me safety. You are my ROCK and my fortress; for your name's sake you will lead and guide me. Psalm 30:3, 4 (31:3, 4).
I sing TO GOD, MY ROCK: "Why do you forget me?" Psalm 41:l0 (42:10).
Only in God is my soul at rest; from him comes my salvation. HE ONLY IS MY ROCK and my salvation. (Psalm 61:2,3).
Only in God be at rest, my soul, for from him comes my hope. He only is my ROCK and my salvation, my stronghold; I shall not be disturbed. With GOD is my safety and my glory, HE IS THE ROCK of my strength; my refuge is in God Trust in him at all times, O my people! Pour out your hearts before him; God is our refuge! Psalm 61:6-9 (62:6-9).
Be my ROCK of refuge, a stronghold to give me safety, for you are my ROCK, and my fortress. Psalm 70:3 (71:3). While he slew them they sought him and inquired after God again, remembering THAT GOD WAS THEIR ROCK and the Most High God, their redeemer. Psalm 88:27 (89:27).
Declaring how just is THE LORD, ROCK. in whom there is no wrong. Psalm 91:16 (92:16).
Yet the Lord is my stronghold, and MY GOD THE ROCK of my refuge. Psalm 93:22 (94:22).
Come, let us sing joyfully to THE LORD; let us acclaim THE ROCK of our salvation. Psalm 94:1 (95:1).
The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone. By the Lord has this been done; it is wonderful in our eyes. Psalm 117:22, 23 (118:22, 23).
Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Behold. I will lay a stone in the foundations of Sion, a tried stone, a corner stone, a precious stone, founded in the foundation. He that believeth, let him not hasten. (Isaiah 28:16).
For I will sing the Lord's renown. Oh, proclaim the greatness of OUR GOD! THE ROCK-- how faultless are his deeds, how right all his ways! (Deuteronomy 32:3,4).
They spurned the GOD who made the and scorned their saving ROCK . . . Your were unmindful of the ROCK that begot you, you forgot the GOD who gave you birth. (Deuteronomy 32:15, 18).
And he said: THE LORD IS MY ROCK, and my strength, and my saviour.(II Kings 22:2 (II Samuel 22:2)
FOR WHO IS GOD BUT THE LORD? OR WHAT ROCK IS THERE BUT OUR GOD? Psalm 17:32 (18:32).
Will you take God at His Word and give honor to the only true Rock and Head of Christ's Church, Jesus Christ Himself? Or will you take man's word for it that Peter is that rock?
All Scripture quotations and references are taken from the Catholic Bible. The Confraternity of Christian Doctrine Translation of the New Testament and the Confraternity Translation and Douay Version of the Old Testament.
I find it totally amazing that the catholic church would think to teach that fallible man could assume the role as head of the church. Especially in light of the fact that the scripture clearly states that Jesus is the head of HIS CHURCH.
5. Catholics teach that the priest is the means of access between the sinner and God.

MIKE WRITES: Priests are special. They are God's duly appointed agents. Each Preist can trace his Holy Orders across 2,000 years in an unbroken chain to an original apostle! Those Holy Orders are not hocus pocus. Some might think the Holy Spirit is hocus pokus but it is real. Catholics like some Protestants believe that the Holy Spirit descends upon a person when he is being baptized. (That's why babies can be baptized: the Holy Spirit does it's work no matter how old you are). The preacher isn't giving the grace at Baptism -God is. But God works through human instruments at times like for Baptism. The person, Priest or Preacher, isn't the maker of the grace but is the instrument God uses to depart it on this special occasion.

ADAM WRITES: I am sorry but that is the biggest tale I believe I have heard yet, but it shouldn't surprise me considering how the catholic church institutes its dogmas and traditions with no backing whatsoever. I could easily say that I can trace my ancestry to an apostle also and no one could disprove it. Anyone can say anything and for thousands of priests, all over the world to believe this is ludicrous. Regardless, I have already covered this but I will repeat it here for you regarding the priests.
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Jesus Christ ordained the twelve apostles to the priesthood at the Last Supper and that the powers of the priesthood were handed down during the past two thousand years. This teaching is clearly contrary to the Word of God. In the Old Testament the work of Christ was prefigured under the three offices of prophet, priest and king. The nation of Israel had each office. With the coming of Christ each of these offices found its fulfillment in Him. Thus in the New Testament there is no need for a human sacrificing priesthood. John 19:30. It is consummated.
I Timothy 2:5. There is one God, and one Mediator...Christ Jesus.
Hebrews 7:24. Because he continues forever, has an everlasting (non-transferable, intransmissible) priesthood.
Hebrews 7:25. He lives always to make intercession.
Hebrews 7:27. He does not need to offer sacrifices daily.
Hebrews 9:12. Having obtained eternal redemption.
Hebrews 10:10. We have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
I Corinthians 12:28. God indeed has placed some in the Church, first apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly teachers...(no mention of sacramental priests). Ephesians 4:11. He Himself gave some men as apostles, and some as prophets, others again as evangelists, and others as pastors and teachers...(again no mention of sacramental priests).
I Peter 5:1-3. I, your fellow-presbyter and witness...(Nothing about being a priest).
The office of priest is not the same as minister. The concept of a mediating, sacrificing priesthood originated and developed under Cyprian, the theological authority in the West until the time of Augustine, and was part of the merger of paganism with Christianity. Nowhere in the Scriptures will on find evidence of a mediating, sacrificing priesthood after Christ.

THE BIBLE SAYS:
1. There is ONLY ONE mediator between God and man and that is Christ, 1: Tim. 2:5,
2. Jesus said, "Come unto me", Matt. 11:28, not "go to Peter or some priest".
3. The book of Hebrews tells us that Christ is the only means of access, Heb. 9:11-22, 10: 10-15.
4. Christ has the only unchangeable priesthood, Heb. 7:11-24.
5. The Bible speaks of only one earthly priesthood, and it involves EVERY believer, 1Pet. 2:5&9, Rev. 1:5-6.
6. Catholics say the priests should be called "father", and that they can absolve sins, even though they are sinners themselves
MIKE WRITES: If I was going to be operated on Thursday and asked you to pray for me would you? You can because we should pray for each other. Members in the Body of Christ can pray for other members and even help restore them. Would you say St. Paul and St. Peter are in heaven? Are they members of the Body of Christ? Even though they are dead? They are more alive then we are! Can they hear us? Sure can. Can I ask them to pray for me. Sure can. If you can pray for me they can. We are all in the Body of Christ whether on Earth or in heaven. NOTE: Please don't be miffed by the phrase "pray to Saints". When I asked you to pray for me about my operation I just prayed to you. You see, Pray to Saints is an old term. Today we generally associate the word pray with worship. But people a century or two ago used to say Pray tell, or I pray thee. It means to ask. Indeed a woman in the Bible says I pray thee to her son in the Bible. She was not worshipping her son. So if I pray to a Saint we must fight the prejudice and understand I am simply asking them to pray for me. Will you pray for me? You see, I just prayed to you. Surely you are not going to say go straight to God. I hope you will pray for me as will any saint in heaven. I will pray for you too!

ADAM WRITES: There is a big difference between asking another person (on earth) to pray for you regarding something and asking a deceased person to pray for you. That practice is no where authorized in the Bible nor is it condoned. Again I ask you to show me scripture that teaches us to pray to ANY deceased person. There is also a big difference in praying for someone else and believing that the priest has the power to forgive you or absolve your sins. That priest has NO power to absolve even his own sin, nonetheless someone else's.

THE BIBLE SAYS:
1. Jesus said "call no man your father upon the earth", Matt. 23:9: obviously indicating that no one on earth should take a title reserved for God alone. If you read the entire chapter (which is recommended) you can plainly see that Jesus is not referring to calling your birth father "father", but clearly speaking of a spiritual usage. The priest will say that Paul referred to himself as a father, but you read the section of scripture yourself and find ONE PLACE where Paul tells them to call him father, 1Cor. 4:10-16. What they do is make a scripture fit their tradition as they always do, in fact Matt. 23:1-36 is a very accurate description of the catholic priesthood. What Paul is saying is that these people were saved under his preaching and in that manner he is their " spiritual father ", but nowhere asks them or any of his converts to call him "father".
MIKE WRITES: Wow he's their spiritual father? I agree. They can call him father. So you are saying there are spiritual fathers but you just can't call him that? Well, Jesus calls Abraham Father Abraham. St. Jude also uses Father for spiritual father. Are going to take Jesus literally or not? Because if you can't call anyone father then biological fathers are out. If you try to interept what He's saying then indeed look at it rightly. He doesn't approve of these Jews taking the title of Master or Rabbi as well as Father. They are boastful and Jesus assails against that. So if we follow Matt 23:9 can we not call someone a Master Craftsman. Or is it that only the title of Apprentice and not Master is allowed in Plumbing? Here again we must use common sense and the guidance of the Church Christ gave us. Christ said call no man father period. Did he say that our biological fathers were an exception? Then I can't call my Dad Father ever again. Should the Jews not call their male leader in the temple Rabbi -that's wrong?

ADAM WRITES: Mike, I will assume that your sarcasm is only skin deep and truly hope that you are not as spiritually blind as you are indicating by your statements above. It is very clear that Jesus was referring to spiritual titles when He was discussing this issue. It is also clear that you did not read the paragraph which I listed above your statements. Your vigor to defend this only solidifies the rest of what I have been saying about the traditions and dogmas that the catholic church refuses to let go. For you to confuse the matter that Paul was the one that led them to Jesus in salvation was what he was referring to only exposes the blindness to scriptural exegesis, whether willingly or ignorantly.
1. It wasn't until the Council of Trent that the catholic hierarchy decided that the priests could absolve sin, unfortunately the forgiveness of sins is reserved only for God. Mark 2:6-10, 1John 1:9, 2:1. Isn't it interesting that in Mark 2:6-10 that even the priests knew that only God could forgive sins, but apparently the priests of the catholic church are superior to the priests who followed the law for 2000 years.
MIKE WRITES: Again this is twisted. The priests don't do all the stuff the God alone does. Priests didn't create the world or save it or anything like that. They don't claim anything like that. They don't claim to forgive sins. Please ask a priest: I hereby challenge you. Ask a priest point blank in the face. Ask him if he is the one who is doing the forgiving during the Sacrament of Confession. We both know full well what the answer will be. God does the forgiving and every Priest knows it. Just as with any group of humans I am sure if you searched far and wide enough you could find a priest to that says something untrue. They are human and are capable of sin. This goes for Baptist preachers of Lutheran ministers. But I'm telling you straight the Priest knows who is forgiving and he will tell you that. Just like when John Baptized Jesus. Was John the Baptist a Godhead? Heck no, he was a great, great man to be sure, and he baptized Jesus but the Holy Spirit did the work at Baptism not John. But Jesus used John didn't He? So we see from God's example the Holy Spirit can (but doesn't have to) work through human instruments. And hence we have the Priests of God's Church. They don't do the forgiving but are the human instruments through which the sacraments are given. One last thing. People are only human. We have figures of speech even when we talk of spiritual or church stuff. If you ever hear someone say "the priest forgave me…" please recognize it for what it is…a figure of speech. The Truth of what took place was much different.

ADAM WRITES: That is not the assumption by catholics that I have spoken with nor even several priests that I have spoken with as well. It is also not common knowledge by most of your own catholic sites. The priest does in fact take the place of God when catholics are expected to step into the confessional and recount their sins to him instead of God. This is where you are confusing the matter of praying for one another and going to a priest to expose all our sins. We are not directed to go to any other individual and convey to them all our sins and then have them pray for our forgiveness. There are certain things that we may struggle with individually that we ask prayer for such as surgery, financial matters, illness, or other things. That is completely different from the concept of what is done in the confessional and the part the priest plays.
6. Catholics believe there is a place called Purgatory where the dead go to suffer punishment in order to be purified. (introduced in the sixth century and made a church doctrine in the Council of Florence in 1439) Isn't it odd that most of these traditions that infiltrated the church took so long to come about ( almost like they had to have time to invent these heresies).

THE BIBLE SAYS:
1. Scriptures teach against this doctrine, Hebrews 9:27.
2. Jesus made it clear there was no second chance even for someone desperately wanting one, Luke 16:19-31.
  NOTE: The word Purgatory nor the concept appear anywhere in scripture.
MIKE WRITES: The concept of purgatory was much more in scripture but Luther took out several of the OT books that contained it. The Catholic Church retains the OT that it has had for 2,000 years. I guess it comes down to this: you are a sinner. Me too! We both hate it but we are. Even when we die we will be sinners. Of course Christ has provided the opportunity for us to be saved. You and I know we will be judged. If we are judged to go to heaven we will go and if not down we go. Nothing unclean (ie sinful) will enter heaven. So Purgatory is simply the change in state between sinner to able to pass through the pearly gates. This last remnants of sin will be purged (ie purgatory) away. If you think that that's an instant for you, okay.

ADAM WRITES: Mike, I find it very hard to believe that someone with your intelligence can actually find credence in this doctrine. It is totally unscriptural and against Jesus' own teaching. It is only found in one book, that being a brief reference made to it in the book of Maccabees. Catechism states:
"All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven." (Pg. 291, #1030)
Jesus purifies from ALL sin
Jesus is Enough and His one-time sacrifice alone saves us to an eternity with God. Jesus nailed our sins to the cross. He took care of business and left none of it undone.
...the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. -1 John 1:7
[Jesus] Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the way, nailing it to his cross. -Colossians 2:14
For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. - Hebrews 10:14
In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. - Colossians 1:14
Jesus said that His crucifixion completes the payment for sin. He hung suspended between the earth and heaven for six hours taking the brutal payment for your wickedness and mine. After He had taken on the sins of this whole wicked world, He said these words just before He died,
"It is finished."
John 19:30
Everytime a person says, "I gotta go to purgatory to pay for the rest," he calls Jesus a liar. Out of a love that cannot be comprehended, Jesus died for every sin, past, present and future. All we have to do is believe on Him. He said,
This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. -John 6:29
You cannot pay for your crimes (sins) against God for they are eternal in nature. THAT is why Jesus came. The Everlasting God shed His blood which eternally blots out your transgressions if you'll believe on Jesus Christ. If you think you have anything to offer God outside of believing on Jesus, read on about yourself:
But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. - Isaiah 64:6
To say, "We must purify ourselves" negates the work that Jesus did and puts our salvation in your own hands. You'll NEVER make it in on your own. Turn while there is time. Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved. Purgatory is an intermediate to heaven

Catechism states: "The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect.." (Pg. 291, #1031)
"The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent." (Pg. 291, #1031)

Heaven or hell
(a) Nowhere in Scripture does it say one will have to undergo "purification" after death. There is no detour to heaven. "And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgement." -Heb. 9:27
No amount of purification is necessary in a fictitious place called purgatory. When one accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Saviour, he gets the "free gift" of Salvation, and is immediately justified. Justified means to "declare free from blame." If you are a born again believer, your justification is by the BLOOD (not a limited time in purgatory). There is no punishment for sin in the afterlife.
"Much more then, BEING NOW JUSTIFIED BY HIS BLOOD, we shall be saved from the wrath through him." -Rom. 5:9
"...by the righteousness of one [Jesus] THE FREE GIFT came upon all men unto JUSTIFICATION of life." -Rom. 5:18
"Being JUSTIFIED FREELY by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:" -Rom. 3:24
"And such were some of you: but ye are WASHED, but ye are SANCTIFIED, but ye are JUSTIFIED in the name of the Lord Jesus.." -Cor. 6:11
(b) To insist that one must go through purification after death before one can get to heaven, is to say the sacrifice of Christ on the cross was
insufficient. This would wipe out many passages in the New Testament which tells us of our stand before God now, and after death. God says if you believe on Him, you will not come into condemnation:
"...He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, HATH EVERLASTING LIFE, and SHALL NOT COME INTO CONDEMNATION; but is passed from death to life." -John 5:24
For a born again believer, to die is to gain and to be present with the Lord, not a limited time in purgatory: "For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain." -Phil. 1:21
"We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord." -2 Cor. 5
(c) Should you worry about a place called "purgatory?" Can it be found in the Bible? No. The Church itself ADMITS that it is their own invention. The Council of Trent took place in 1545 and approved this superstitious belief along with many others. The decrees were made by the council of MEN, not the God of the Bible. And those who would refuse to believe the decrees of Rome were under the threat of "anathema," and the curse has not yet been lifted to this day while they cry for unity with Bible believing Christians. Some people are being purified in purgatory right now

Catechism states:
"But at the present time some of his disciples are pilgrims on earth. Others have died and are being purified, while still others are in glory..." (Pg. 270, #954)
The dead are either in heaven or hell
He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. - John 3:36 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal. -Matthew 25:46
The most important question pertinent to religion is, "how may a man obtain the forgiveness of (his) sins?" Here is where the most significant deviation occurs. The Bible teaches that "faith" secures the remission of sins (Acts 10:43) while Roman Catholicism teaches that the "sacraments" (in addition to faith) do. We must be very precise here for the Apostle Paul said that any different way of salvation, even if given by an angel, would be accursed. Jesus said that the seed sown on good ground "understood" the way of salvation (Matthew 13:23). We urge you to embrace the Lord's way and let go of the former way. The Scripture says, "Having been justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Romans 5:1). One Catholic writer is defending his Church made a statement that we all should heed. He said that if faith alone saves "the whole traditional structure of Christianity is a needless empty show, the Mass, the sacraments, the sacrificing priesthood, the teaching hierarchy, the papacy, practices of penance, asceticism, habits of self-restraint, prayer. Nay, these things are a hindrance, an enormous sham, a terrible system of lies, and therefore to be utterly swept away and destroyed." Philip Hughes, A POPULAR HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, p. 176. True Biblical Christianity rejects the notion that salvation is a moral process, that the sinner is "made" just, or "works out" his salvation by his own deeds.
Heed what God teaches in the following texts:
John 3:3. Unless a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
John 3:16. For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that those who believe in him may not perish, but may have life everlasting.
John 5:24. He who hears my word, and believes him who sent me, has life everlasting, and does not come to judgment, but has passed from death to life.
Acts 4:12. Neither is there salvation in any other.
Romans 4:5. but to him who does not work, but believes in him who justifies the impious, his faith is credited to him.
Romans 4:6. David declares the blessedness of the man to whom God credits justice without works.
Romans 3:28. We reckon that a man is justified by faith independently of the works of the Law.
Romans 5:1. Having been justified therefore by faith.
Romans 10:3. Ignorant of the justice of God, and seeking to establish their own, they have not submitted to the justice of God.
Titus 3:5. Not by reason of good works that we did ourselves, but according to his mercy...
7. Catholics believe in "Penance", that the priests can forgive sins committed after baptism. (Lateran Council 1215) The concept is that by paying a price to the priest to pray for the forgiveness of sins. Also that sinners can be prayed out of purgatory by paying the priest.

THE BIBLE SAYS:
1. Forgiveness of sins belongs to God alone, Mark 2:6-10, 1John 1:9, 2:1. 3. Redemption cannot be purchased with silver or gold, 1Pet. 1:18.

MIKE WRITES: We have talked and sincerely hope that you believe me: priests don't do the forgiving. This has never been taught and cannot be found in doctrine. Secondly, there is no doubt that committing sins justly deserves punishment. We will indeed repay every last farthing. God has justice and reason. We are forgiven should we ask properly and mean it in our hearts but nonetheless we will repay what we owe. This is what penance is. It's like a punishment chore. I unfortunately earn them through my sin. At confession we receive a penance (chore). I must say, money out of my wallet isn one way to sting me. But I've never been asked to pay a dime by a Priest for penance…NEVER. But I tell you that would be a good way to make me think twice about sinning. What would the priest do with the money anyway I wonder? Hmm, buy a DVD player? Nope probably not. They'd make good use of it by giving to the poor or building an inspiring church.
So it's not a pay to get out. If people have ever thought that they were flat out wrong. If a priest ever tried to get money and stick it to a Catholic

ADAM WRITES: It is the same concept when you state that you must pay for your sins, then you have not only combined "works" with the atonement, but you nullify the power of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross. That was the whole purpose of Him shedding His blood and by accepting the price He paid we don't have to carry those burdens around anymore. How in the world can you assimilate what you consider penance and use scripture to support it? It absolutely cannot be done and it is a slap in the face to the power of the sacrifice that Jesus offered. It is also demoting His power in forgiveness and when He says that HE will remember our sins no more I guess He was lying.

7. Catholics teach that the bread and the fruit of the vine become the real body and blood of Christ at the consecration of the mass ( adopted in 1215, Council of Lateran). They also teach that the fruit of the vine is only to be taken by the priests, ( Introduced in the Council of Constance 1414). They say that the mass is the same sacrifice as that on the cross, only "unbloody".

MIKE WRITES: We do believe in the Eucharist but it was not invented in the middle ages as you claim. However the name for the bread and wine becoming the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ did come about centuries later. Just like Trinity.

THE BIBLE SAYS:
1. Christ was materially present "outside" of the bread and the fruit of the vine when He said, "This is my body," and "This is my blood", Matt. 26:26-28.
2. When Jesus said He was a vine (John 15:1) and a door (John 10:9), He did not become a literal vine or door.
3. The Lord's Supper commemorates a "FINISHED" sacrifice, Luke 22:19.
4. Repeating of Christ's sacrifice is strictly forbidden, Hebrews 6:6, 9:25-26, 10:11-12.
5. The Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice, but a remembrance, 1Cor. 11:26.
6. The bread and the fruit of the vine are to be given to all Christians, Matt. 26:27, Mark 14:23, 1Cor. 11:28.
7. A bloody sacrifice is the only one acceptable, Heb. 10:10, and only one sacrifice of Christ, Heb. 10:12.

MIKE WRITES: Ther was no doubt Jesus was being metaphorical when He said He was a door and a vine. He described how people could pass but only through Him and how someone could have life but only through Him. But when it came to eating the flesh and drinking the blood He spoke literally. This is evidenced by the Jews murmuring. Please check it out in John chapter 6. Jesus didn't let them off the hook. He said the had to eat the flesh and drink the blood for He to abide in them. His flesh is food indeed. Please read it. He didn't say He was being symbolic. If He was then you are accusing Him of being a terrible teacher. Disciples left Him by the thousands that day over what He said. He could have said "wait, come back. I was being symbolic" But He didn't. He turned to His apostles and didn't let them off the hook either. Surely, this was powerful stuff but the whole thing of what God did is truly powerful. "Do this in memory of me" What was Jesus doing that we should continue to do? What did He say about the bread and wine? At the first Passover, did the Jews have to eat the lamb that night to save their firstborn? Or was painting the blood on the doorposts and lintnel enough? Did they have to eat the Lamb?

ADAM WRITES: I would also like to share with you what the Greek Lexicon by Spiros Zodhiates, whose native tongue is Greek, has to say. This is also what is found in the Vine's Concordance of Greek and Hebrew Words, concerning the word "remembrance."
364. Anamnesis; remembrance. A commemoration (Hebrews 10:3). A memorial (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25), as applied to the Lord's Supper. In remembrance of Me means that the participant may remember Christ and the expiatory sacrifice of His death. The memory of the greatness of the sacrifice should cause the believer to abstain from sin. Deriv. anamimnesko (363), to call to mind.
This is in stark contrast to your interpretation which implies that this word "remembrance" means for it to become real blood and flesh. It is true that there were many references and shadows to the first Passover as related to Christ and the death on the cross. I don't believe it was ever Jesus' teaching nor desire that this occasion to remember the price He paid was to become a re-enactment each time it was observed. As I mentioned in the scriptures above from the site, if you are going to use the same analogy with this particular scripture then you also have to say that Jesus is an actual Door and Vine.
I believe that Jesus even made it clear Himself that this was to be something to reflect on and not something to re-enact. Hebrews makes it clear that Jesus was crucified ONLY once and to do what the catholic doctrine teaches has clearly crucified Christ millions of times over. The semblance of the "manna" in the wilderness was exactly that, a shadow of what was to come, but nowhere does this indicate that they would be actually eating the flesh of Christ each time the Lord's Supper was observed. If we are to use that comparison then we must also remember that their clothes never wore out while they were in the wilderness, so how do we associate that with any part of our Christian walk?
I believe that all of the shadows of the Passover that were fulfilled in Christ were extended solely for the Jewish people to recognize their Messiah. After all they faithfully observed this ritual for thousands of years and now this "Prophet" or teacher as they seen was bringing out it's spiritual meanings. It was for them to recognize that He was indeed the Messiah they had long awaited, not that they would try to re-enact His One time sacrifice for all sins. The lamb that they sacrificed was only to introduce them to Jesus as John did at the Jordan River when he proclaim "The Lamb Of God." John knew that Jesus was the Messiah and was trying to show the many Jews there this same thing.
Jesus' blood was to cover all sins of all times and only once was it to be offered. There is no need to offer it daily, as Jesus already paid the price and to re-enact this each time the Lord's Supper is observed is to re-crucify Christ, which is needless and defeats His power. I challenge you to read Hebrews chapters 6-10 and find where it indicates that Jesus' sacrifice was inadequate and needs to be re-performed on a regular basis. This is a very blasphemous statement to proclaim that Jesus must be re-crucified each time this observance is done. It is DIRECTLY against the scriptures I indicated and I would be interested in how you can overlook them and justify this erroneous doctrine. 9. Catholic teaching is that Mary is immaculate, the Mother of God, spouse of the Holy Spirit, Propitiary of the world and the Gate (and Queen) of Heaven ( Introduced as church doctrine by Pope Pius IX in 1854).

THE BIBLE SAYS:
1. The scriptures NEVER call Mary by these titles.
2. The scriptures teach that Mary was like other women, subject to the same laws and weaknesses, Luke 2:22.
3. Jesus gave Mary no special recognition and only considered her to be human, Matt. 12:46-50, Mark 3:31-35, Luke 8:19-21, John 2:3-5.
4. Mary realized Jesus was her Savior, Luke 1:47. You wouldn't think the "Mother of God" would need a Savior.
5. The angels directed the shepherds to "the babe", not Mary, (Luke 2:12) and the worship was directed to Jesus not Mary, (Luke 2:15-20).
6. Mary did not hold any position of authority in the first church, Acts 1:4.
8. Mary commands men to follow Jesus, not her, John 2:5.

MIKE WRITES: IS everything that we need to know in scripture? Does scripture contain everything. Here again you base your position on sola scriptura. Is Jesus leading His Church into all Truth. What is the pillar and foundation of Truth? We do not worship Mary? We honor her. "Adam, behold your Mother"

ADAM WRITES: Again you use the same old evasion tactic as do all catholics when they know that they have no support for a heretic doctrine. The old "sola scriptura" line, well, needless to say without Biblical support you have to lean on man made traditions. In answer to your question as I have answered many time over, YES, SCRIPTURE DOES CONTAIN ALL WE NEED TO KNOW! You admit that you have not scriptural support for these doctrines about Mary and therefore prove my point.
9. Catholic teaching says it is not unscriptural to worship images, (Introduced in the Council of Trent) and then tried to soften the heresy by saying that they do not worship the image, but the one the image represents.

MIKE WRITES: Really? Does Catholic teaching say that? Which document at the Council of Trent? Does the Catecism teach that? Where? We do NOT worship images. But indeed we have them. Just as you have pictures. Are those not images? If I see you kiss a picture of your girlfriend should I think you are worshiping a piece of photoprint paper? Or would it be more right to say "He really loves his girlfriend"?

ADAM WRITES: Again, I have offered the proof and even gave the source and it is clear that catholics place more than just an homage to the idols they have in their homes and in the churches as well. Just like the "patron saints" that they pray to and expect to protect them and guide them.

THE BIBLE SAYS:
1. The use of images is forbidden (no exceptions given), Ex. 20:4, Isa. 42:8.
2. In the same scripture (Ex. 20:4) it clearly states "no graven images".
NOTE: catholicism ascribes to different images of the same personage different attributes, so this does make the image the object of worship.
10. Catholics also believe it is proper to pray to angels and dead saints, (introduced in the sixth century).

MIKE WRITES: Are saints spiritually dead? Ther more alive than you and I are. We talked about this before but I can ask anybody in the Body of Christ to pray for me. What document in the sixth century?

ADAM WRITES: Mike, this is one of the easiest heresies to expose and it is quite humorous that catholics do not differentiate between those that are believers in Christ which are "saints" as well as those that have died and were "saints."
Regardless, the practice of praying to saints and angels is an absolute heresy and forbidden in the scripture. I will list the site from your own catholic source that list the literally thousands of patron saints that you can pray to for just about anything you desire. It is not only utterly preposterous but an extreme heretic teaching.
http://www.catholic.org/saints/patron.php
How would you like to be the saint of hemorrhoids, or the saint of constipation? It is a joke and not a very funny one at that. It only shows the level of degradation that one can come to when we get away from Biblical foundations and introduce false doctrines. It is actually sickening to see a page such as this and then to think of all the people being misled with many other doctrines like this. You have to be spiritually blind or willfully turn your head to this kind of nonsense.

THE BIBLE SAYS:
1. Scripture says that the dead hear, and are aware of nothing, Eccl. 9:6.
2. Scripture is VERY clear that there is only ONE mediator between man and God, John 14:6, 1Tim. 2:5.
3. Scripture forbids angel worship, Col. 2:18.
4. Angels are created servants and it would be IDOLATRY to worship them, Heb. 1:5-13, Rev. 22:8-9.
5. From Genesis to Revelation, there is only "ONE" reference of anyone praying to a dead person(saint). This only reference is in 1Sam. 28 where Saul goes to a witch to have her bring up the spirit of Samuel so he can ask him for instructions because God would not hear his prayers. First let us look at the setting here; Saul has to go to a witch because God would not answer him because of disobedience. This does not present a very Godly atmosphere for this practice, in fact just the opposite.

SUMMARY
There are many other areas that could be added, but hopefully this is enough to show the enormous error of traditions with no scriptural support. The scriptures are the "foundation" of the Christian belief and it is vitally important to never stray from the guideline that gives us the structure and principle's to keep us from error. Paul seen this apostate church coming and warned the elders of Ephesus, Acts 20:29-30. He warned that grievous wolves would arise to leadership and enter in from among ambitious elders and Peter admonished against lording over God's heritage, 1Pet. 5:3.
There was a plurality of bishops or elders in each church, ( Phil. 1:1, Acts 14:23, Titus 1:5) but no bishop or elder ever ruled over a plurality of churches until the apostasy came. The apostasy came when bishops or elders were appointed over a district, archbishops over many districts, cardinals over all these, and finally a pope over all. Authority was usurped in writing creeds and binding them on the consciences of men (sound familiar? the Pharisees, Matt. 23). Paul said, "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 and commanding to abstain from meats", (1Tim. 4:1&3). NOTE: Isn't it interesting that the catholic church forbids priests to marry, and commands the church members to abstain from meats on certain days?
Peter saw the same apostasy approaching and told that false teachers would arise, 2Pet. 2:1. Jude also saw the same thing and realized it was a fulfillment of all the apostles had spoken concerning the falling away, Jude 17-19. catholics have added to the scriptures so much over the years, that most Catholics can not see the teaching of God's Word. What they do see is ritual and tradition that have been piled on top of God's Word over hundreds of years by the catholic church. Many of these rituals and traditions have kept catholics from knowing the simplicity of God's true Word. The catholic church has added doctrines, traditions, and ideas of men which are not found in the Scriptures and which are in fact contrary to them.
The catholic church has continued to teach these doctrines and traditions as if they are scriptural. It was not until 1545, at the Council of Trent, that the roman catholic church declared for the first time it's official position that tradition was now to be in equal authority with God's Word, the Bible. Once the church made tradition equal in authority with God's Word, it had the freedom to add more and more traditions, including such ideas as the immaculate conception of Mary, that she was born without original sin, that Mary lived a life of sinlessness, that she was lifted into heaven, and that she did not die. In the eyes of roman catholics, Mary truly became the Mother of God and the Mother of the church. Many things could be added such as monks, nuns, monasteries, convents, a 40-day Lent, Holy Week, Ash Wednesday, All Saints Day, etc.. I think you can see the point.
For Protestants, the Bible is sufficient as the standard of our faith. For roman catholics, the Bible is not the sufficient rule of faith, but the Bible plus TRADITION. The catholic church does not encourage its members to follow Scripture, but the traditions it has established and placed above the Bible. The real rule of faith for a roman catholic is not the Bible, or even the Bible and tradition, but the roman catholic church itself. The church with its decrees and dogmas, has become the final authority for roman catholics. I challenge any catholic who reads this, (and I pray that many do) to read "Foxxe's book of Martyrs", and see what you think. Don't go to the priest and ask his permission; of course he will not want you to find out the truth. Do it for yourself, what have you got to lose? I challenge you to follow Biblical instruction, " Study to show YOURSELF approved unto God. . . rightly dividing the word of truth." 2Tim. 2:15; because "from a child YOU have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make YOU wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is PROFITABLE for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness: That the man of God (that is all who believe in, and have accepted Jesus as their Savior) may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works." 2Tim. 3:15-17. After reading these verses, can you say that from a child you were encouraged to study the scriptures yourself. The truth is that the priests have always kept the scriptures hidden from the people to keep them ignorant of the truth. This way the people are dependent upon the priest to get spiritual guidance instead of the scriptures; this is how the catholic church has kept control of it's people, because they don't know what the scriptures really say and depend on the priest for all their answers. It is a means of control and the scare tactic to keep this control is to tell the people that the catholic church is the only true church and if they depart from the church or reject the priests authority, they are condemned to hell. If your salvation was dependent upon following the priests or church's guidance; then doesn't that take out the factor of "believing by faith in Christ, His word, and His work"? If you have any questions, I would love to help in whatever way I can, feel free to contact me.

Adam Bartlett

MIKE WRITES: As the Church teaches the Bible is inspired by God. It is from Him. But I think God gave us the Church in addition to scripture. Why? Well since the Reformation, over thirty thousand different Protestant denomination have come into existence, and there are 3 being formed every week in the world. Every single one of them claims to be following the Holy Spirit and the plain meaning of Scripture. God knew we must need something more.

Think when our nation's founders gave us the Constitution, they didn't leave it at that. Can you imagine what we'd have today if all they had given us was a document, as good as it is, along with a charge like 'May the spirit of Washington guide each and every citizen'? We'd have anarchy-which is basically what Protestants do have when it comes to church unity. Instead, our founding fathers gave us something besides the Constitution; they gave us a government-made up of a President, Congress and a Supreme Court-all of which are needed to administer and interpret the Constitution. And if that's just enough to govern a country like ours, what would it take to govern a worldwide Church? And so I've come to see that Christ didn't leave us with just a book and His Spirit. In fact, He never mentions a thing about writing to His apostles anywhere in the Gospels; besides fewer than half of them even wrote books that were included in the New Testament. What Christ did say-to Peter-was 'Upon this Rock, I will build my Church......, and the gates of hades will not prevail against it.' So it makes more sense to me that Jesus left us with His Church -made up of a Pope, bishops and councils-all of which are needed to administer and interpret Scripture.

What Scripture does teach about the Word of God is that it nowhere reduces God's Word down to scripture alone. Instead, the Bible tells us in many places that God's authoritative Word is to be found in the Church: her Tradition (2 Th 2:15; 3:6) as well as her preaching and teaching (1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 1:20-21; Mt 18:17). That's why I think the Bible supports the Catholic principle of sola verbum Dei, 'the Word of God alone', rather than the Protestant slogan, sola scriptura, 'Scripture alone'. Nowhere does Scripture say or alude to "use Scripture as the sole authority." Nowhere. No Christian believed this until the middle ages. Sola Scriptura is unscriptural.

I know you think you are fighting for God against a false church. Saul did the same thing. I hope someday you see it for what it is. I know it seems foreign to us Americans. The Catholic Church is certainly not of 20th century origins. I'm telling you the Truth. The Catholic Church was founded 2,000 years ago. Please check it out with an open heart. Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura are not what God wanted. Yes the Bible is the only inspired Word of God we have. That what the Church teaches. I'll say it again: The Bible is the only inspired Word of God. All the Church does is that when it is challenged it grows because it must defend the Truth given it 2,000 years ago. Often this means deepening it's own understanding of the Truth. I've studied Catholicism. The Pope is only preserved from error only under very specific conditions. Even then there is no claim that the Holy Spirit is inspiring Him to say all sorts of things. It only protects him from errors on the matters of faith and morals. Could God do that? Did God preserve men fro error in the past? I know it must seem crazy to have something as terrific as this in our present day.

I was willing to leave the Catholic Church and go anywhere God wanted me to. My mind and heart were open. Please pray about it. Please see prejudice for what it is.

Love,
Mike Christiano

ADAM WRITES: Mike, I can see that you are truly sincere and that is honorable but I can also see that you are willingly overlooking all of the corruption's of the catholic church and it's traditions and doctrines they introduce. I have never said, nor will I, that the Protestant church is right on line. They are not, in fact they are very much off target as I attest to in my article, "Why is the Church on Life Support?" However, even as bad a shape as the Protestant church is in, they still hold to the basic foundations of Salvation, Biblical inerrancy, and the Deity of Jesus as well as other important foundations. They do disagree on many other things, such as gifts of the spirit, grace, and orders. I have pointed out some very serious areas in which the catholic church teaches and allows heresy. That is much different than the differences in the Protestant realms. I do agree that there are many that are teaching some bad doctrines but that is still not a valid justification to adhere to false teachings.
It is obviously your prerogative to believe whatever you choose and my only purpose for my site is to proclaim the truth and expose error. I find great error in the catholic church and its teachings.
I strongly disagree with you and your assessment on why the church is needed and your comparison to the political and judicial system of this country. That is a very dismal comparison to such a spiritual entity that it does not even deserve attention.
Every time I question traditions that are clear heresies you come back with the "sola scripture" argument. We will never come to an agreement in this area because I will never agree that we are in need of more than the Scriptures and the Holy Spirit. I will never be able to see the compatibility of things like (praying to saints, angels, and Mary, the confessional, penance, eucharist, purgatory, pope infallibility, and many others) with the scriptures and until they are supported by the Bible they are heresies.
I also think it amusing your comparing me to Saul and his blindness, if anything that shoe is definitely on the other foot. The difference is Saul found the truth and the catholic church continues to reject it.
I hope that this satisfies your ambition out of this paper and if not I am not sure if we will ever agree, except to agree to disagree.
In Christ, Adam
Bible Headquarters