Roman Catholic Priesthood

Roman Catholic Priesthood.

The rights and power of the Catholic Priests

What does it mean when the Bible calls us Priests?

In our global and interconnected society, it is quite common to encounter Roman Catholic Priests. There are thousands of them throughout the world, and they often are known for their distinctive and extravagant attire that are perceived as symbols of holiness and spiritual authority.

However, is the Roman Catholic priesthood biblically supported? Unfortunately, no. Consequently, the Roman Church must look beyond Scripture to its traditions to justify the Roman Priesthood’s role.

As part of our study, we will examine the historical perspective and doctrines of the Roman Church in order to determine the extent of the priesthood and how it fares against the evidence of scripture.

The rights and power of the Catholic Priests

We would expect Catholic priests to have a pastoral role that comforts, cares, and compassionately helps. Instead, the Catholic dogma expresses their functions as legislative, judicial, and disciplinary.

Catholic priests are entrusted with the authority to formulate and enforce ecclesiastical laws, holding the faithful accountable to the tenets of the Church. This legislative power is complemented by a judicial role, where priests arbitrate and impose sanctions on those who transgress these laws. Historically, the range of penalties has been broad, extending from excommunication—a separation from the Church—to, in certain periods, execution for heresy or apostasy.

Priests also claim to possess ‘sacerdotal power’, which simply refers to the ability to impart grace to others through sacraments. The following quote is from the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma;

“By the sacrament of order, the priest receives a new and special grace and a particular help by means of which he can cope in a worthy fashion and with unfailing courage with the high obligations of the office he has assumed and fulfill the duties.”
(The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, Page 456)

We are all priests

The Reformers rejected the Roman Catholic idea of a ‘special’ category of priests in favor of a ‘general’ priesthood of all believers.

Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church strongly opposed this view and declares that anyone who opposes the ‘special priesthood’ as damned and accursed.

Charles Spurgeon, the great reformed preacher, said this;

“When a fellow comes forward in all sorts of curious garments and says he’s a priest, the poorest child of God may say, ‘Stand away and don’t interfere with my office; I am a priest…..The priesthood belongs to all the saints.…“You are God’s klēros – you are God’s clergy.”

Spurgeon further stated;

I wonder men are not ashamed to take the title. When I collect what priests have done in all ages, what priests connected with the Church of Rome have done, I repeat what I have often said. I would sooner a man pointed at me in the street and called me a devil than call me a priest, for bad as the Devil has been, he has hardly been able to match the crimes and cruelties and villainies that have been transacted under the cover of a special priesthood; from that may we be delivered.

“But the priesthood of God’s saints, the priesthood of holiness which offers prayer and praise to God, this we have because thou hast made us priests.”

The Reformed view, as echoed by Spurgeon, recognizes the priesthood of all believers, a priesthood of holiness characterized by prayer and praise. It is a priesthood not delineated by distinctive garments or titles, but by the shared calling and sanctification of every believer in Christ.

Scripture does not advocate for priestly distinctions among believers. Instead, it asserts a collective and universal priesthood, where every child of God, irrespective of their status or position, embodies the role of a priest in the spiritual sense. This universal priesthood is rooted in the work of Christ, who, by His sacrifice, has rendered every believer capable of approaching God with confidence, offering their prayers and praises as a holy and living sacrifice.

What does it mean when the Bible calls us priests?

1 Peter 2:9 (NKJV)
But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

As described in this scripture, all believers in Christ are called to fulfill priestly duties. But what does this entail?

In contrast to the Old Testament, where a priestly class interceded between God and people, the New Testament introduces a transformative concept: the priesthood of all believers. Now, through Christ’s victory on the cross, every Christian has direct access to God, a privilege once limited to Levitical priests.

Being a priest in the Christian sense isn’t about conducting religious rituals. Instead, it involves living a life of service and worship and representing God to the world. As priests, believers are called to bring others to God, sharing the Gospel and demonstrating God’s love and grace.

Hebrews 4:16 emphasizes the access we have under the new covenant: “Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need.” This boldness in approaching God is a radical shift from the Old Testament practice and signifies our intimate relationship with God through Christ.

2 Corinthians 5:18-21 NKJV)
Now all things are of God, who has reconciled us to Himself through Jesus Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation, that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were pleading through us: we implore you on Christ’s behalf, be reconciled to God. For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.

The above scripture outlines our role in the ministry of reconciliation, indicating that Christians are ambassadors for Christ, tasked with reconciling the world to God. This ministry is at the heart of our priestly role – it’s not about religious ceremonies but about sharing the transformative power of the Gospel.

As part of our priestly duties, we have the responsibility and privilege to share the good news of Jesus Christ with others. This sharing is an extension of God’s grace and mercy and a vital aspect of our calling as a royal priesthood.

In summary, being called priests in the New Testament context means embracing a life of service, worship, and Gospel proclamation. It’s about being a bridge between God and the world, fulfilling our role in the great commission of reconciliation through Jesus Christ.

Celibacy of the Catholic Priests

Celibacy (abstaining from marriage and sexual relations) has become an obligatory law that the Roman Church imposes on all priests. In support of their view, they often quote Matthew 19:12, where Jesus mentions eunuchs who have chosen celibacy “for the kingdom of heaven’s sake.”

Matthew 19:12 (NKJV)
For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”

However, this verse cannot be used to mandate celibacy for all priests unless taken out of its proper context. Jesus speaks of three types of eunuchs: those born incapable of marriage, those made so by others, and those who voluntarily choose celibacy for spiritual reasons. His statement is an acknowledgment of different life circumstances and personal choices, not a commandment for all believers, let alone clergy, to remain celibate.

Furthermore, some Catholic interpretations attempt to portray Peter as an unmarried man by twisting the meaning of 1 Corinthians 9:5, which clearly states that the apostles, including Peter, had the right to bring a believing wife along with them: “Do we have no right to take along a believing wife, as do also the other apostles, the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?” (NKJV)

In some Catholic translations, the word ‘wife’ is rendered as ‘sister,’ implying a spiritual companion rather than a marital spouse. However, this is misleading because the original Greek word used here is ‘gunē,’ which specifically means ‘wife’ in the context, not ‘adelphē,’ which means ‘sister.’ This translation choice seems to downplay the fact that Peter and other apostles were married, and that early Christian ministers were not required to remain celibate.

Making celibacy mandatory for priests is unbiblical and not something the scriptures prescribe.

In fact, Paul, in his letter to Timothy, warned against those who forbade marriage and called them hypocritical liars.

1 Timothy 4:1-3 (NKJV)
Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.

Celibacy is a clear sign that satan has taken control of the catholic system, forbidding marriage, which God has ordained as a sacred act.

But why prevent Priests from marrying?

In the past, Priests became influential and powerful individuals as a result of their role and involvement with their followers. Consequently, they were often gifted things that made them very wealthy.

When the Priests had families of their own, their inheritance was passed from generation to generation, and they accumulated a lot of wealth. As a result of this cycle, many influential and wealthy families owned land and had an enormous amount of influence.

During the reign of Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085), he determined that priests controlled too much wealth and that the church should take it over. So he issued a decree preventing priests from having families and by doing so, they prevented wealth from being passed down to their families and instead given to the church.

The purpose of all this was that if the church wanted to take over the state and rule the world, it had to first take over the country. In order to do this, they had to first steal the wealth and property of the people in power.

It was around this time that priests became obligated to adhere to celibacy. (There were initial celibacy mandates as early as 300 A.D.; however, it was only enforced by churches in the western provinces. It took some time for the eastern region to fully implement it).

In his book (History of the Christian Church, Volume V), Philip Schaff, the historian, said “the motive for opposing the marriage of priests was to prevent the danger of a hereditary line that might appropriate ecclesiastical property to private use and impoverish the church.”

The bizarre effects on priests who were married

Voluntary celibacy has its place; as Paul describes it in 1 Corinthians 7, it is a blessing and a gift to those who possess it.

However, denying someone a normal family life and denying them normal relationships is harsh and cruel. And for what purpose? Just to maintain power within the system?

In 1123 AD, the Council of Trent issued a mandate that classified all existing marriages (among the priesthood) as invalid. As a result, historical records note that wifes of the priests were cut off from any means support. Many of them even committed suicide, were homeless, or became prostitutes.

It is also important to note that the lives of priests living in celibacy shouldn’t be considered heavenly bliss. There is a constant struggle. They are stripped of their past and made to give up all their possessions and relationships.

Additionally, they are often quoted verses out of context, such as Luke 14:26, which states, “If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life also, he cannot be My disciple.” When taken in context, this verse is not a command to reject or despise one’s family but rather a call to prioritize one’s commitment to Christ above all else, even above the most important earthly relationships. It speaks of a complete devotion to Christ, not a literal hatred of family or abandonment of one’s responsibilities.

So as we can see, the lives of the priests are neither appealing nor healthy for the human mind. They are made to cut themselves out of their past and hate everything concerning their families.

They are also removed from their present because they cannot share their life with anybody (by taking a spouse), and so neither do they have a future.

Their loss of their past, their abandonment of the present, and their forfeiture of the future is a tragic reality.

Pastor John MacArthur, in his sermon titled “The Scandal of the Catholic Priesthood”, said this about priests’ lives;

Priests are broken, shattered, tragic, sad, disconnected people. No past, no present, no future. They belittle the sanctity of the marriage relationship. They are denied normal relationships, the friendship of marriage. They are victims of a terrible system with no biblical basis whatsoever. It is a soul-destroying process that leaves them in a situation of rampant temptation, exposure to the worst, and the only way to fulfill these drives is sinfully. And they do not have the restraint of a transformed or sanctified life.

Emmett McLoughlin, an ex-priest, had this to say concerning the life of a priest.

“The life of a priest is an extremely lonely one. He lives in a large rectory. He is still lonely. Other priests are not interested in him or in his doubts and scruples. If he is in the only priest in a solitary parish or desert mission, he’s still more alone. As his years slip by and the memories of seminary and its rigidity fade away, the realization may dawn that his life is not supernatural, but a complete mental and spiritual and physical frustration.

He sees in his parish and his community that a normal life from which he has been cut off. He sees the spontaneous childhood which he was denied. He sees the innocent, normal companionship of adolescence which for him never existed. He performs the rites of matrimony as starry-eyed young men and women pledge to each other the most natural rites and pleasures. He stands alone and lonely at the altar as they turn from him and confidently, recklessly, happily step into their future home, family, work, and troubles, and the successes of a normal life.

“More than anything else, he seeks companionship; the companionship of normal people, not frustrated, disillusioned victims like himself. He wants the company of men and women young and old through whom he may at least vicariously take part in a relationship with others that he has been denied, and for which at least subconsciously the depth of his nature craves.

No priest who has heard priests’ confessions and has any respect for the truth will deny that sexual affairs are extremely common among the clergy. The principal concern of the hierarchy is that the priests keep such cases quiet.”

Sexual immorality among the Catholic priesthood

What happens when you restrict an individual who has a natural tendency to have sexual needs? It only increases the temptation for all kinds of immorality.

Imagine unsaved men with normal sexual passions being driven by lust with no divine power to restrain them because they hold to an abhorrent theology of God and sin.

Now you put those men in a confined space with other men who have similar pent-up sexual frustrations. The same men are then confined to confessional booths every day, listening to everyone’s deepest iniquities.

Is this a healthy environment for anyone? Is it possible for an unconverted man to think holy thoughts in this situation?

No, definitely not. It is no wonder that priests have committed the vilest sins throughout history.

On a more extensive level, even though the priests must take a vow of celibacy (forbidden to marry), there is no vow of chastity (restraining from sexual relations). And according to Roman church law, the vow of celibacy is broken if the priest marries, but it is not considered broken if they engage in sexual relations.

Additionally, if a priest commits a sexual sin, they only need to confess it to another priest for absolution. However, if they get married, only the Pope can pardon them and such an act is often followed by a severe penalty.

But think about it? Is there any reason to care more about the priest’s marriage that immorality? Yes because marriage threatens the church’s power and property.

Moreover, isn’t it strange that the Roman Catholic Church regards marriage as a sacrament, but denies this fundamental right to the most ‘holy’ people such as priests and nuns?

Do not call anyone on earth father?

In Roman Catholicism, priests are often addressed as “Father,” a title that carries significant respect and honor.

However, this practice seems contradictory to Jesus’ teachings, particularly in His rebuke to the Pharisees, where He instructs His followers not to call anyone on earth “father” in a spiritual sense. Jesus says;

Matthew 23:9 (NKJV)

Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

However, some might counter this by saying that the Apostle Paul openly called himself as father to the Corinthian church;

1 Corinthians 4:15 (NKJV)

For though you might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet you do not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

At first glance, these scriptures seem contradictory. Jesus commands us not to call anyone on earth “father,” while Paul refers to himself as a father to the Corinthian Church.

How do we reconcile these statements? Let’s look at the context of both verses.

In Matthew 23:9, Jesus was addressing the Pharisees’ misuse of spiritual authority. The Pharisees sought honor and recognition, positioning themselves as the source of spiritual life and wisdom for the people. They desired titles and reverence that belonged solely to God, thus misleading people to see them as the originators of their faith.

On the other hand, Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 4:15 reflects a different context and meaning. Paul did not claim to be the source of spiritual life. Instead, he acknowledged his role as an instrument used by God to lead the Corinthians to faith. He was not seeking honor or elevating himself but was emphasizing his part in God’s work.

The key difference lies in the intent and the understanding behind the title “father.” The Pharisees used it to elevate themselves and claim undue spiritual authority. Paul used it to describe his role in God’s plan without claiming any inherent spiritual power.

The distinction is crucial: it is wrong to call someone “father” if it elevates them to a position that only God should hold, but it is acceptable to recognize the role someone has played under God’s guidance in bringing us to faith.

For the most part, Roman Catholics elevate priests to a position higher than necessary, often viewing them as the essential intermediaries through which they receive the blessings or good graces of the church. This perspective can lead to an over-reliance on human figures rather than on God, who is the true source of all spiritual life and blessings.

This elevation can obscure the biblical teaching that Christ alone is our mediator and high priest, and that all believers have direct access to God through Him. It is crucial to recognize that while spiritual leaders can guide and nurture faith, they should not be seen as the ultimate source of spiritual authority or blessing.

The Pope

Why not rome

The Pope

Who is the Pope?

Speaking Ex-cathedra

Contradictory messages of the Pope

Is the Pope a successor from Peter

Was Peter an infallible Pope?

Who is the Pope?

The Pope, recognized as the head of the Roman Catholic Church, is a figure surrounded by tradition and reverence. Alongside him are the ‘Cardinals,’ who serve as his top advisors, overseeing the administrative matters, while Archbishops, Bishops, and Priests manage the church’s day-to-day operations.

The Pope has full supreme power over the Church on matters of doctrine and practice, and its members must diligently follow whatever he says.

He is also called the “Vicar” of Christ, meaning he serves as a substitute or agent of Christ on earth (a role stolen from the Holy Spirit – John 14:26). This designation, originating from the Latin word “vicarius,” which means “instead of” However, it is erroneous to call the Pope the “Vicar of Christ” because it implies that he has the same power and authority that Christ has over the Church. This designation, carries a profound theological implication, suggesting a stewardship over Christ’s flock until His return which is a role performed by the Holy Spirit as outlined in John 14:26.

The famous preacher Charles Spurgeon had some harsh but true words to say about men who hold the Pope’s position;

“A man who deludes other people by degrees comes to delude himself. The deluder first makes dupes out of others and then becomes a dupe to himself. I should not wonder but what the Pope really believes that he is infallible and that he ought to be saluted as ‘His Holiness.’ It must have taken him a good time to arrive at that eminence of self-deception. But he’s got to it, I dare say, by now, and everyone who kisses his toe confirms him in this insane idea. When everybody else believes a flattering falsehood concerning you, you come at last to believe it yourself. Or at least to think it may be so.

The Pharisees, being continually called the ‘Learned Rabbi,’ ‘Father,’ the ‘Holy Scribe,’ the ‘Devout and Pious Doctor,’ the ‘Sanctified Teacher,’ believed the flattering compliments. They used very grand phrases in those days, and doctors of divinity were very common – almost as common as they are now. And the crowd of doctors and rabbis helped to keep each other in countenance by repeating one another’s fine names till they believed they meant something.

“Christ did not redeem His church with His blood so the Pope could come in and steal the glory. He never came from heaven to Earth. He never poured out his very heart that he might purchase his people, that a pour sinner, a mere man, should be set upon high to be admired by all the nations and to call himself God’s representative on Earth. Christ has always been the head of His church.”

Pastor John MacArthur, in his sermon titled “The Pope and the Papacy”, said the following concerning the idolatry of the Pope;

“J. C. Ryle was right when he said it’s a huge, organized, idolatry. A man wearing a gold crown, triple decked, with jewels worth millions? A cardinal’s garb that costs tens of thousands of dollars? Peter said, “Silver and gold have I none.” Paul said, “I coveted no man’s gold, no man’s silver, no man’s clothing.”

The Pope is surrounded by a dazzling display of arrogant overindulgence. It is theater; it is nothing more than theater, to give the illusion of God, the illusion of transcendence, the illusion of spirituality. It is a pompous display of wealth. It is a lavish indulgence in ridiculous buildings, ridiculous robes, crowns, thrones, to cover and mask a sinful system like the whitewashed tombs that Jesus referred to. There was never such a thing as a papal coronation before the tenth century. And now the world has gone berserk over this as if it was true religion.”

Jesus, in all His teachings and instructions, never established the papacy as a hierarchical authority for the church. In fact, He instructed the apostles not to govern the church in this manner.

Matthew 20:25-26 (NKJV)
But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.

Leaders who assumed high positions of authority were often criticized by Jesus. Yet today, within the Roman Catholic Church, there is an enormous structure of monsignors, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, and a pope ruling over the lay people.

As the scriptures repeatedly warn, we should not trust in the teachings of men but rather in God and His word (Jeremiah 17:5-7 / Psalm 118:8 / Psalm 49:13-14).

Speaking Ex-cathedra

The doctrine of ‘ex cathedra’ plays a pivotal role in the theological framework of the Roman Catholic Church, denoting the Pope’s capacity to define doctrines concerning faith and morals ‘infallibly’ when speaking from the ‘Seat’ of supreme apostolic authority.

The term ‘ex cathedra,’ translating to ‘from the Chair,’ signifies the Pope’s authority to make definitive statements on doctrinal issues. When the Pope speaks ‘ex cathedra,’ it is understood within the Catholic tradition that he communicates with the divine guidance, echoing the will of God and thus declaring absolute truths.

Simply put, Catholics believe that the Pope is in direct communication with God. Or in other words, any time the Pope speaks ‘ex-cathedra,’ he is basically saying, “This is the word of God, and therefore it is the absolute truth.”

The idea that a mere man could have such authority to claim to be the head of the church is absurd. Attributing such infallibility to a human figure blurs the lines between human authority and divine will. The root of this issue lies in the misinterpreting or overextending the scope of human authority within the Church.

Furthermore, it is arrogant for any man to claim that he has the authority that only God has. This type of prideful arrogance leads him (the Pope) to believe he can interpret Scripture however he wants which can often lead to interpretations that reflect individual perspectives rather than a collective, ecclesiastical understanding.

Additionally the absolute sense of authority can result in extreme pride that may overshadow the humility and servitude exemplified by Christ.

More importantly, the claim that the Pope is a substitute to Christ is an attack on the sufficiency of the sacred scriptures and an abandonment of the message that Christ alone is the way of salvation.

Contradictory messages of the Pope

Apart from the fact that no human being on earth is by definition ‘infallible’, the “supposed” substitute of Christ (the Popes) has made numerous contradictory statements throughout History.

Here are a few examples;

On the topic of Salvation only through the Catholic Church.

Pope Eugene IV, made stringent declaration about the necessity of belonging to the Catholic Church for salvation.“The Holy Roman Church firmly believes in prophecies and teaches that none of those who are not within the Catholic Church, not only pagans but Jews heretics, schematics can ever partake or be partakers of eternal life. Unless at the end of their lives, they enter the Catholic Church.”

But the latest edition of the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church says this in paragraph 841 regarding the Church’s relation with the muslims – “The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

As we can see here the statements made by both these Popes are in clear contradiction of one another. How did things evolve over time? Why did God suddenly change his mind? Also, why would God approve of Pope John Paul II’s belief that Christians and Muslims share a ‘common’ spiritual bond and even kiss the Quran?

Some may argue that mistakes could happen, but errors in fundamental beliefs should never be considered lightly.

On ‘Joan of Ark’.

Pope Euguene the 4th had declared Joan of Ark to be a witch, but later Pope Benedict XV declared her a saint.

On Pope Formoses

In the ninth century, during the Cadaver Synod, Pope Steven the VI brought out a former Pope Formoses on trial (after he died) by having his corpse dug up from the grave and placing it on the throne. When the Pope found him guilty of heresy, he had his bright robes ripped from his rotting flesh, his fingers hacked off, and his body dragged through the streets and dumped into the Tiber river. Pope Steven VI, driven by political and ecclesiastical motives, found Formosus guilty of perjury and violating church canons.

What would motivate one Pope to do this to another Pope’s body? However, things only get worse from here. The second successor of Pope Steven, Pop Theodore II, nullified the Cadaver Synod’s decrees, reversing the decision and reinstating Formoses’ back in Saint Peter’s Basilica with full honors. However, the controversy didn’t end there. Subsequently, Pope, Sergius III, reaffirmed the conviction of Formosus and states that Pope Steven was right in his judgement.

Here we have multiple Popes acting in contradiction to each other over a single decision. Why was there so much confusion?Doesn’t the pope hear directly from God?

Next we will look at some of the statements the Popes have made concerning the distribution of scripture.

Controversial statements about the distribution of the Bible.

In 1800-1823, Pope Pius VII denounced the Bible Society and expressed shock at the circulation of the Scriptures. Why would any prominent minister of Christ be shocked by the circulation of the Bible? The reason is that Rome has always attempted to keep the Bible from men.
Furthermore, Pius VII said, “It is evidence from experience, that the Holy Scriptures, when circulated in the vulgar tongue, have, through the temerity of men, produced more harm than benefit.” Now, why would anyone claim that the scriptures would cause more harm than good? Particularly if you are the Head of the Church, which is supposed to be ruled by the Bible.
Pope Leo XII called the Protestant Bible the “Gospel of the Devil” in an encyclical letter of 1824. Can it really be that bad? In fact, all 66 books of the “Protestant Bible” are also included in the Catholic Bible.
Pope Gregory XVI (1831-1846) condemned the publication, distribution, reading, and possession of Holy Scriptures in common languages. Does owning a bible really violate the Christian faith to the point that a rally was necessary to prevent the spread of the Bible?
Pope Leo XII, condemned the Bible Societies and admitted that the distribution of Scripture has “long been condemned by the holy chair.” Again it is certainly strange that the highest authority of the Church condemns the distribution of the Bible.

As Christians, we believe that the great commission is to spread the gospel to the lost, so these statements about the spread of the Bible are contradictory.

The Roman Catholic Church has tried to limit the spread of bibles, but God’s word cannot be stopped and is still today the most widely distributed book.

Is the Pope a successor from Peter?

Matthew 16:18 (NKJV)
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

According to the Catholic Church, Jesus made Peter the first Pope when He gave him the ‘keys’ to the Church and condemns those who oppose their view.

“If anyone says that he, the blessed apostle Peter, was not constituted by Christ our Lord prince of all the apostles and visible head of the church militant, or that he (Peter) directly and immediately received from our Lord Jesus Christ the primacy of honor only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction, let him be anathema.”
(Vatican Council 1823 from The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by Ludwig Ott, Page 279)

The Roman Church’s claims that Peter was the first Pope, however, can be disproved by just a little historical study and a proper understanding of the verse’s context.

Peter’s name in Greek is Petros, which means “a piece of rock.” The word translated as “rock” is petra, which means “a rock.”

A verse earlier, Peter affirmed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God (v. 16), who is the rock on which the Church is built (1 Cor. 3:11).

So Peter, by his faith and confession of Jesus as the savior and son of God, became a piece of the rock.

In the same way, every believer becomes a piece of the rock in the sense that they become part of the foundation on which the Church is built, which is Jesus Christ Himself (Eph. 2:20-22).

What is the relevance of the “keys” to the kingdom? Simply put, it is the gospel. Peter opened heaven by preaching the gospel first to the Jews (Acts 2:14) and then to the Gentiles (Acts 15:7,14). A person’s sin can only be loosed and his/her salvation obtained through faith in the gospel. As believers, we all possess the same “keys”, the good news of Jesus Christ that can open heaven’s gates for the unredeemed.

Additionally, the Roman Catholic claim of Peter as the Pope is historically inaccurate. There is no evidence that Peter was the first pope of the Roman Church. As a matter of fact, no definitive evidence exists that he was ever in Rome, nor that he ever pastored a church in the city.

It can also be seen from Paul’s letter (Romans 16) to the christian churches in Rome in A.D. 56, which contained no reference to Peter or the Church Peter pastored. Despite greeting many people in Rome, how does he somehow overlook Peter?

Moreover, when Paul was imprisoned in Rome (A.D. 60 to 62), he wrote four letters to those who had come to visit him. Even in these letters, he doesn’t mention Peter. If Peter were in Rome, why wouldn’t he visit Paul? And why would Paul exclude mentioning him in the letters?

The answer is because Peter was not in Rome; in fact, he was never called to minister to Gentiles (Galatians 2:7-8); he was called to minister to Jews.

In Romans 15:20, Paul says, “I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ already was named.” If Peter had planted a church in Rome, Paul’s statement would be false. Why would Paul even attempt to establish a church there if Peter was already a bishop of Rome?

Another interesting point is the role of the “head of the Jerusalem Church.” If Peter was truly the first Pope and the supreme leader of the Church, why wasn’t he appointed as the head of the Jerusalem Church—the very first Christian community? Instead, this position was given to James, the brother of Jesus (Acts 15:13; Galatians 2:9). If Peter was not even considered the leader of the Jerusalem Church, how could he have been the leader of the entire Christian Church? This contradiction casts serious doubt on the Roman Catholic claim that Peter was given unique authority over all the apostles and the early church.

From what we can see, history and scripture do not prove Peter was the first Pope as Roman Catholics claim. .

Now, we don’t want to undermine Peter as well. According to New Testament scriptures, Peter was an important Apostle and leader who took on the role of spokesperson for the disciples. However, he wasn’t someone we would call “Holy Father” (like popes today) since scriptures describe Him as weak, sinful, cowardly and unfaithful.

Like all of us, he struggled and made mistakes. But what is noteworthy is that when he confessed and believed in Christ, he was entrusted to be a workman for God’s kingdom.

The Roman Church attempts to trace the lineage of papal successors back to Peter. However, the concept of the papacy as it is understood today did not fully develop until several centuries later, with the papacy’s role and authority becoming more formally established around the time of Pope Gregory I in the late 6th century.

In addition, even the Roman Church’s claim of a divine succession of Popes is not entirely correct (the idea that God has always had his representative in the Church). There were actually periods of time when there was no Pope in Rome at all: 304 to 308, 638 to 640, 1085 and 1086, 1241 to 1243, 1269 to 1271, 1292 to 1294, 1314 to 1316, 1415 to 1417.

People can often get bogged down in need of a successor or a leader to rule and tell them what to do. However, we don’t need to look too far for Peter’s true successors. As a matter of fact, true successors are those who have built their faith upon the same Christ that Peter believed, who teach the same doctrine, and demonstrate the same lifestyle he did.

Was Peter an infallible Pope?

Roman Catholics believe the popes are infallible, meaning they are exempt from committing errors. Given that the Roman Catholics regard Peter was the first pope, questions arise as to whether he embodied this infallibility.

In the Epistle to the Galatians Paul recounts an incident where he openly rebuked Peter.

Galatians 2:11-13 (NKJV)
Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I (Paul) withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed (for being hypocritical); for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.

Two important facts can be derived from the verses above.

(1). Peter’s actions, which led to Paul’s rebuke, were rooted in fear of criticism and manifested in behavior that contradicted the inclusive message of the Gospel. By withdrawing from the Gentile believers, Peter implied that Jewish customs were still necessary for full acceptance into Christianity, thereby undermining the Gospel’s message of salvation by grace through faith alone, without the need for adherence to the Jewish Law (Galatians 2:16; 3:28). This incident illustrates Peter’s susceptibility to error and his moral fallibility, challenging the notion of his infallibility.

(2). Paul’s willingness to confront Peter indicates an understanding of equality and accountability among the Apostles. If Peter held an infallible papal office, Paul’s confrontation would undermine the established hierarchical structure and the very concept of infallibility.

Peter in the Bible is a figure of great significance and spiritual authority, yet one who is also relatable in his humanity and fallibility.

Idol Worship

Why not rome

Idol Worship

The Ten Commandments, as presented in Exodus chapter 20, are foundational to Judeo-Christian ethics. However, the representation and teaching of these commandments, particularly the second one concerning idolatry, has been a subject of debate and scrutiny, especially in the context of Catholic education. Catholic-led schools often neglect to teach or show the second commandment of Exodus chapter 20 when teaching the ten commandments.

Exodus 20:4-6 (NKJV)
“You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

Within some Catholic educational settings, there is a tendency to underemphasize or reinterpret this commandment. Many students are told that because they are young, they cannot decipher the scriptures, and therefore cannot fully understand the commandment which specifically forbids idol worship. As a result, many follower’s of the Catholic faith simply ignore the second commandment.

It is also possible that some Roman Catholics will never come across the verse on idolatry in all their churchgoing.

This is attributed, in part, to the structuring of the TenCommandments, where the prohibition against idolatry (the second commandment) is sometimes combined with the first commandment, and the tenth commandment is divided in two to maintain or complete the count of ten.

This is in direct contradiction to the Lord’s command in Deuteronomy 4:2, which states:

Deuteronomy 4:2 (NKJV)
You shall not add to the word which I command you, nor take from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

However, the question remains?

Why is the second commandment ignored? Why is the commandment against idol worship removed from the ten commandments in Roman Catholic teachings?

The answer is simple, they are deliberate doctrinal adjustments to authenticate their traditions. But this is simply not within our authority to remove a command from the Bible. Idolatry is strictly forbidden by the sacred scriptures.

Here are a few scriptures from the Old and New Testament where idolatry is forbidden;

Who are the Roman Catholic Saints?

Why not rome

Who are the Roman Catholic Saints?

The Roman Catholic Church venerates saints, viewing them as holy individuals who lived exemplary lives of faith and are now in heaven with God. Over the years, the Church has canonized numerous saints, recognizing them for their virtues and often attributing specific patronages based on their life, work, or the miracles associated with them. The saints are also regarded as protectors or intercessors in specific areas of life, ranging from health concerns to professional domains.

One of the most notable practices involving saints in the Catholic tradition is the offering of prayers to them. Catholics believe that saints, being in close communion with God, can intercede on behalf of individuals here on earth. This intercessory role is seen as a form of spiritual support, where saints present the prayers of the faithful to God.

In the Bible, this practice is called ‘necromancy,’ a ritual that seeks to communicate with the dead and is strictly forbidden (Deuteronomy 18:10-12).

The scriptures also emphasize the belief in the sole mediatorship of Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 2:5). The intercessory role attributed to saints is therefore seen as an infringement upon the unique mediatory role of Christ.

Over the years the Roman Catholic Church has canonized many saints, each claiming special protective powers, such as:

St.Christopher – Saint for protection
St Francis of Assisi – Saint of animals
St.Elmo – Saint of pelvic and abdominal pain
Saint Drogo: patron saint of Unattractive People
Saint Genesius of Rome: patron Saint of Comedians
Saint Fiacre: patron Saint of People with STDs
Saint Isidore of Seville: patron Saint of the Internet
Saint Barbara: patron Saint of Fireworks
St. Bibiana (St. Viviana) – Patron saint of hangovers.
St. Columbanus – Patron saint of motorcyclists.
St. Expeditus – Patron saint of procrastinators and urgent causes.
St. Gertrude of Nivelles – Patron saint of cats and those who suffer from fear of mice.
St. Rita of Cascia – Patron saint of impossible causes and difficult marriages.

While it must be acknowledged that many saints have led lives of remarkable faith and virtue. The supposed supernatural phenomena or miracles performed by said saints should be scrutinized as they appear to contradict with the teachings of the Scripture. Thereby, there is a strong cases that such phenomenon are better typically attributed to deceptive forces rather than divine intervention.

The veneration of saints and the practice of seeking their intercession hold significant places in Roman Catholic devotion, these practices.

However, the practice is outside the scope of biblical teachings. The Scriptures advocate for direct prayer to God through Jesus Christ, the sufficiency of Christ’s mediation and the ultimate authority of the Scriptures in guiding one’s faith and practice.

Who is Mary to the Roman Catholic Church?

Why not rome

Who is Mary to the Roman Catholic Church?

Worship of Mary

Was mary a perpetual virgin?

Mary' apparitions

What about Mary as Co-Redeemer?

Concluding Remarks on Mary

Immaculate Conception of Mary

Should we pray to Mary?

Mary plays a unique role in biblical history. She was a chosen vessel to conceive Jesus the Messiah through the power of the Holy Spirit, and the Bible even classifies her as “blessed among women” (Luke 1:42).

While Protestants generally acknowledge Mary’s significance and honor her unique role, they often disagree with Catholics who elevate her to godlike status through their Traditions.

Historically the official worship of Mary was established in the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D., and prayers to Mary were introduced around 600 A.D.

In other words, the idea that Mary had greater influence in heaven than what was depicted in the scriptures took a few hundred years to develop.

But the idea of a goddess or female deistic figure isn’t confined to the Catholic faith. Pagans have been creating goddesses as early as the Old Testament days.

But why Mary when we already have Jesus?

The whole motive and need for Mary developed because Catholics believe Jesus is angry and vengeful towards us (since we crucified Him on a cross). Therefore, they say Mary, in her compassion and maternal role, can communicate with Jesus on our behalf.

The following is a statement from Saint Alphonsus Liguori, a Catholic bishop and theologian, from his work The Glories of Mary:

“If my Redeemer rejects me on account of my sins, and drives me from His sacred feet, I will cast myself at those of His beloved Mother Mary, and there I will remain prostrate until she has obtained my forgiveness; for this Mother of mercy knows not, and has never known, how to do otherwise than compassionate the miserable, and comply with the desires of the most destitute who fly to her for succor; and therefore, he says, “if not by duty, at least by compassion, she will engage her Son to pardon me.

There is no mention of such a thing in the scriptures. Instead, it commands us to make our requests known to Christ alone.

1 John 5:14 (NKJV)
Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.

According to the verse above and contrary to the quote from Pope Liguori, God is not vengeful towards believers; instead, His love and sacrifice for us should bring us closer to Him.

Worship of Mary

By simply looking at some of the false claims the Catholic Church makes, it is evident that the Roman Catholic Church has a very high view of Mary (almost to a divine status).

Catholics believe that Mary was sinless, mirroring the sinlessness of Jesus. They also teach the doctrine of the Assumption, which holds that Mary was taken bodily into heaven. Additionally, various titles are ascribed to Mary within Catholicism, including ‘Mother of God’, ‘Mother of the Church’, and ‘Co-Redemptrix’.

By any honest definition, the Catholic Church’s devotion to Mary can only be considered idolatry. They kiss images and statues made of her, and even kneel before them in reverence. There is even a prayer routine dedicated to her called the Rosary. If these don’t qualify as worship, what is it?

It is also common for Catholics to respond to said arguments concerning ‘Mary worship’ by asserting that they only ‘venerate’ Mary.

But what is the difference between worship and veneration? According to the Roman Catholic Church, the supreme or highest form of worship is reserved for God alone (‘latria’), while Mary is venerated in the lesser sense (‘hyperdulia’) as she is claimed to be the holiest of creatures.

While they have formally made this internal distinction, what they do in practice is very similar to worship.

It is common for them to openly pray to Mary and even have separate services dedicated to praying to her to intercede on their behalf with God.

While Protestants still honour Mary because of her faithful obedience and her role as the blessed mother of our Lord (Luke 1:43) there are a few reasons why elevating her to a deistic figure/status is heretical and idolatrous.

Mary was a human being, not God, so to worship her is to break the command in scripture that states, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only you shall serve” (Matt. 4:10).
Even Mary confessed that she was a sinner who needed a Savior, just like anyone else. She said, “My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.” (Luke 1:46).
The angel from God did not affirm that Mary was to be blessed ‘over’ all women but simply ‘among’ all women (Luke 1:28). In practice, many Roman Catholics exalt Mary above all women, virtually to the place of God.
The titles added to Mary like “Co-Redemtrix,” and “the Queen of Heaven” did not originate from the Bible but rather they originated from a pagan influence on Christianity that is patterned after the old Babylonian goddess who was called “the queen of heaven” (Jer. 7:18; 44:17–19, 25).

Furthermore, if Mary is truly to be worshipped, wouldn’t Jesus have established such a teaching?

Jesus could have easily established the worship of His mother in Luke chapter 11.

Luke 11:27 (NKJV)
And it happened, as He spoke these things, that a certain woman from the crowd raised her voice and said to Him, “Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts which nursed You!”

Jesus had a clear opportunity here to elevate Mary’s standing in the church and to attribute to her the right to be worshipped.

The only thing Jesus had to say in response was to acknowledge the comment. But instead, He responded by saying, “Blessed are those who hear the Word of God and observe it.” (Luke 11:28)

Christ’s response makes it clear that Mary was an ordinary human being and that she had no special claim to Him or access to Him that no other person possessed.

Moreover, He rejected any notion that she had more authority, power, knowledge, or blessing than anyone else.

His response, “Blessed are those who hear the Word of God and observe it,” clearly indicates that all who practice Christ’s commands are indeed as ‘blessed’ as Mary, as she obeyed the will of God.

Mary’ apparitions

Throughout history, numerous claims of Mary appearing in places such as Mexico, France, and Belgium have captivated those faithful to her. These events, known as Marian apparitions, are revered by many but also raise critical questions in theological discourse.

The reported sightings of the Virgin Mary, have occurred in various cultural and historical contexts, with some of the most notable being Our Lady of Guadalupe, Our Lady of Lourdes, and Our Lady of Fatima. These events often involve messages or visions attributed to Mary and have led to significant devotion and pilgrimage sites.

Can any of this be true? Lets examine this by asking some pertinent questions about this:

Why would God allow these apparitions? If Mary appears to people, prompting gatherings and devotion, one might wonder why Jesus Himself does not appear in a similar manner.
Observers often note that Mary is depicted as sorrowful or crying in these apparitions. What is the significance of this portrayal?
If Mary possesses significant power or authority, as some apparitions suggest, why is this not more explicitly documented in the Bible?
If these apparitions are meant to convey divine messages, why do they often focus on Mary instead of reinforcing the central message of the Gospel—salvation through Jesus Christ alone?
Why do these appearances occur mostly within specific cultural or religious contexts? If they were truly divine, wouldn’t they be more universal, transcending cultural and denominational boundaries?

In biblical terms, these apparitions cannot be from God for two reasons;

(1) God forbids talking to the dead in any form (Deuteronomy 18:11 / Leviticus 19:31 / Leviticus 20:27).Therefore, it is odd that God would allow Mary to do something that He has prohibited.

(2) Theologians also argue that certain messages delivered during these apparitions contradict fundamental biblical teachings.

The question is, if such supernatural events aren’t God’s doing, then who is? It is easy to deduce that these events are concocted by Satan to deceive the masses.

2 Corinthians 11:14-15 (NKJV)
And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.

Scripture clearly teaches that Satan wants your mind. He will use any means necessary to scare you, or encourage / motivate you if that leads you astray. His goal is always to distract people away from the Christ of Scripture.

Therefore, Christians should be Biblically prepared and on guard by testing everything against the word of God.

1 Thessalonians 5:20-22 (NKJV)
Do not despise prophecies. Test all things; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.

Immaculate Conception of Mary

The Roman Catholic Church claims that Mary was conceived in the same way Jesus was, that is, without sin.

In 1854 Pope Pius IX issued the famous document called “bull –ineffable, ineffabilis”, where he said this:

“Mary was preserved by Immaculate Conception when conceived in her mother’s body and was miraculously free from pollution of sin inherited from Adam. She was, in soul and body, wholly sinless, stainless, undefiled, pure, innocence.”

De Liguori, in his book “The Glories of Mary,” page 297, writes:

“Even her body was preserved from corruption after death. The flesh of Mary and that of Christ are one. The glory of the son is one with that of his mother.”

Over the centuries, the Roman Catholic Church has seemingly become ever more aware that Mary, “full of grace” through God, was redeemed from the moment of her conception. That is what the dogma of the Immaculate Conception confesses, as Pope Pius IX proclaimed in 1854:

“The most Blessed Virgin Mary was the first moment of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege of Almighty God and by virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, Savior of the human race, preserved immune from all stain of original sin.”
(1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church 123 #491)

This is one of the first Catholic dogmas concerning Mary, which all Catholics must adhere to; otherwise, they are in danger of being anathematized (deemed accursed by the Church). All followers must believe that Mary was immaculately conceived without original sin.

The problem with this argument is that if we continue venerating Jesus’ parents, where do we draw the line? Should we begin venerating Mary’s parents, or even her grandparents? None of these doctrines have any basis in the Bible; they rely solely on the supposed revelations proclaimed by the Popes. Why does Scripture remain silent on such matters? And why is there no historical evidence to support these claims? Ultimately, these teachings raise more questions than they answer, urging us to return to the clear teachings of Scripture and place our faith solely in what God has revealed through His Word.

Was Mary a Perpetual Virgin?

The Roman Catholic Church venerates Mary, the mother of Jesus, not only for her role in the divine birth of Christ but also for her perpetual virginity—a belief that she remained a virgin before, during, and after Jesus’s birth.

In an attempt to justify their false beliefs, the Church even claims that Mary gave birth in a miraculous way without opening her womb or causing her body any injury.

However, the scriptures do not provide any account of this detail, so how do they know this?

First of all, we know the Roman Church must be descriptive about such details because they cannot allow for a “sinless” Mary to have any wounds or injuries. Because her perfect body would be damaged by the normal delivery through the birth canal, therefore they add that Jesus was conceived through some miraculous way.

Moreover, the Catholic doctrines state that after Jesus’ birth, she remained a virgin until her death. Here are some quotes about this;

Alan Schreck, in The Basics of the Faith, the Catholic Catechism, says: “Out of respect for the fact that God Himself had dwelt and grown in her womb, she remained a virgin all her life.”

Additionally, the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church claims;

“The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary’s real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ’s birth did not diminish his mother’s virginal integrity but sanctified it. And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as the “ever-virgin.”
(1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church 126 #499)

All these claims fail to line up with the scriptures that clearly state Jesus had other brothers and sisters.

Following are some of the verses in the Bible that show Jesus had siblings:

Matthew 12:46-47 (NKJV)
While He was still talking to the multitudes, behold, His mother and brothers stood outside, seeking to speak with Him. Then one said to Him, “Look, Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside, seeking to speak with You.”

Acts 1:14 (NKJV)
These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication,with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with His brothers.

Galatians 1:19 (NKJV)
But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother.

Matthew 1:24-25 (NKJV)
Then Joseph, being aroused from sleep, did as the angel of the Lord commanded him and took to him his wife, and did not know her till she had brought forth herfirstborn Son. And he called His name Jesus.

The Roman Catholic Church responded to these verses by claiming that the individuals mentioned here were not His brothers / sisters, but rather His cousins.

Against this doctrine the objective is sometimes raised that the Bible mentions brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Church has always understood these passages as not referring to other children of the Virgin Mary. In fact James and Joseph, “brothers of Jesus,” are the sons of another Mary, a disciple of Christ, whom St. Matthew significantly calls “the other Mary.” They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression.
(1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church Page 126 #500)

However, when we understand the original language, the Greek word used here actually means ‘brother’ and not cousins.

Furthermore, some have attempted to defend Mary’s perpetual virginity by stating that Joseph had a previous wife (from whom the brothers and sisters of Jesus were descended), but this is not supported historically or biblically.

Mary’s virginity is taught in Scripture before the birth of Jesus, but her continued virginity is not supported by the Bible.

Lastly, even if she remained a virgin and withheld her body from her legal husband, the Bible would condemn this act as a sin, as recorded in the book of Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 7:3-5 (NKJV)
Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.

What about Mary as Co-Redeemer?

The Roman Catholic Church venerates Mary, attributing to her a unique role as a Co-Redemptrix alongside Jesus Christ. This doctrine posits that Mary participated in the redemption process in a singular and profound way.

Let’s see some quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church;

As St. Irenaeus says,”Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert…”The knot of Eve’s disobedience was untied by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.” Comparing her with Eve, they call Mary “the Mother of the Living” and frequently claim: “Death through Eve, life through Mary.”
(1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church Page 125 #494)

“Taken up to heaven she (Mary) did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation…”
(1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church Page 252 #969)

“She (Mary) is inseparably linked with the saving work of her Son.”
(1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church Page 303 #1172)

The Roman Catholic doctrines directly contradict the teachings of the Bible that upholds that salvation is exclusively through Jesus Christ. Here are a few verses that clearly demonstrate that salvation is only possible through the saving work of Jesus;

Acts 4:12 (NKJV)
Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

John 14:6 (NKJV)
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.

Matthew 1:21 (NKJV)
And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.”

Luke 2:11 (NKJV)
For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord.

These verses underscore the doctrine that Christ alone is the mediator between God and humanity, negating the possibility of any human, including Mary, sharing in this redemptive role. To believe that Mary has the same status as Jesus as a redeemer and savior is heretical.

Should we pray to Mary?

In the Roman Catholic Church, Mary is held in high regard and reverence, so it is not surprising that people pray to her.

Scriptures, however, show that the Gospel writers were very careful when they addressed Mary.

Mary may have confided in Luke (the writer of the third gospel) certain facts surrounding Jesus’ birth during Luke’s travels with Paul. However, is she able to submit our prayers to God? No, and here are three reasons why:

(1) Praying to Mary contravenes the example of the apostles:

There are multiple instances in the New Testament where God-inspired leaders pray together, but no prayer is directed towards Mary.

Throughout Ephesians 3:14-21, we see Paul praying for his friends at Ephesus to be strengthened through the power of the Holy Spirit so that Christ may dwell in their hearts.

It is clear from Paul’s prayer that all three Persons of the Trinity are mentioned without mentioning Mary, which is consistent with the entire New Testament.

(2) Praying to Mary contradicts the attitude of Mary herself

In Mary’s song recorded in Luke, we can see her identifying with needy humanity by her words;

Luke 1:46-47 (NKJV)
And Mary said: “My soul magnifies the Lord, And my spirit has rejoiced in God my Savior.

Mary’s humility, obedience, and sense of dependence are evident in the gospel accounts; she even called herself God’s handmaiden.

Mary’s humility, obedience, and sense of dependence are evident in the gospel accounts; she even called herself God’s “handmaiden,” a term that means a female servant or maid. By referring to herself this way in Luke 1:38, Mary acknowledges her complete submission and willingness to serve God’s purposes, demonstrating a profound humility and acceptance of God’s will for her life.

With this understanding of Mary’s character, it would be contrary to her nature to allow herself to be called extravagant titles such as ‘Mother of God’ that are directly opposed to her character as revealed in the Scriptures.

(3) Praying to Mary undermines the truth of the Incarnation

The whole point of God coming into the world and taking on human form was so that in Jesus Christ, we would have the flesh and blood mediator between God and humanity.

Through Jesus’ work alone, we have access to the throne of God.

1 Timothy 2:5 (NKJV)
For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,

It is an unfortunate that millions pray to Mary for various things. But the truth is that she has never heard any of those prayers.

Concluding Remarks on Mary

Mary’s idolatry is a deception of Satan and an attack on God. With titles like ‘Mother of God’ and ‘Queen of Heaven’, she is made a rival to the King in Heaven, who is Christ.

She is also transformed into a savior who can grant salvation through her prayers on behalf of those who call on her. Consequently, her followers are compelled to love, worship, and enthrone her.

“At the command of Mary all obey, even God.”
Quote from De Liguori in “The Glories of Mary,” page 566.

The worship of Mary and her false role in the lives of the Catholics is also blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and the role He promises to fulfill in the lives of the believers. Mary as per Roman Catholic tradition has been given roles such as comforter, sympathizer, helper, advocate and encourager. But according to the Scriptures, these are works of the Holy Spirit of God.

The elevation of Mary as a “co-redeemer” is also an attack against the second person of the Trinity. By Roman Catholic dogma, she becomes a counterfeit savior and redeemer, a provider of salvation, forgiveness and the source of all spiritual blessings.

Additionally, the Catholic Church claims she was born sinless and lived a sinless life, which is why she is called “all-holy”, a title that rightfully belongs to God alone.

More importantly, none of the claims made by the Catholic Church are supported by scripture, which is largely silent about her. There is no description of her character and physical appearance. There is no biblical example of anybody praying to her, honoring her or even ‘venerating’ her.

Despite the fact that most Roman Catholics don’t read their bibles, most will be surprised to find how little the Bible mentions Mary compared to what the Catholic system does. Where do they get all this information? The answer is simple. They are simply man-made fabrications of the mind or the work of demons.

What is the Roman Catholic Mass?

Why not rome

What is the Roman Catholic Mass?

What is the Mass?

The Catholic Mass is an hour-long service where Christ’s life on earth is reenacted right up to the point where He gave up His body and blood as a sacrifice. The Mass, therefore, is a ‘re-sacrifice’ of Christ performed repeatedly.

According to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church, the Mass is defined as follows:

The Mass is. . .the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is perpetuated
(Paragraph 1382).

The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross. . .and because it applies its fruit. . . the forgiveness of the sins we daily commit. The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: The victim is one and the same. In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner
(Paragraph 1366, 1367)

When the doctrine and practice of the Mass are compared against the word of God, we can find severe fallacies and errors in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Jesus instituted the Lord’s Supper as a memorial, not a sacrifice (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24).
Jesus was never a “victim”, as the Roman Church purports, but He committed Himself to the cross as a sign of humble obedience to His Father (Philippians 2:8).
When Jesus said to eat His flesh and drink His blood, His words were spiritual and not literal (John 6:63). Consuming blood was forbidden under Old Testament laws (Leviticus 17:10–14), and those who did so were cutoff. And so, Jesus would not have asked the Jews to break the law.
The alleged change of bread and wine into flesh and blood is a “hoax miracle” because there is no change in its appearance, substance, and taste. Biblical miracles were real and observable.
The Roman Church claims the Mass is a “bloodless sacrifice,” but a sacrifice without blood cannot atone for sins (Leviticus 17:11; Hebrews 9:22).

Mass is considered more important than all other sacraments by the Catholic Church. According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, there are 9 paragraphs devoted to the subject of ‘justification’ and 84 paragraphs devoted to the Mass.

Pope Benedict said, “The Mass is the sum and substance of our faith.”

John O’Brien, a Catholic priest, in his book titled “The Faith of Millions: The Credentials of the Catholic Religion”, wrote concerning the importance of the Mass to help Catholics understand its significance.

“When the priest announces the tremendous words of consecration (the sacrament of Eucharist performed during the Mass), he reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne and places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the victim for the sins of man. It is a power exercised by the priest greater than that of saints and angels, greater than that of seraphim and cherubim. Indeed, it is a power greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary. While the Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him present on our altar as the eternal victim not once but a thousand times.”

“The priest, speaks, and lo, Christ the eternal and omnipotent God bows His head in humble obedience to the priest’s command.”

As funny as this quote is, it is blasphemous to suggest that a priest has so much authority even to have Christ come down as a butler in service of our needs.

Here’s another quote from Mother Teresa, a Catholic saint.

“It is beautiful to see that humility of Christ in His permanent state of humility in the tabernacle,” where Christ has reduced Himself to such a small particle of bread that a priest can hold Christ in two fingers.”

As we can see, the Mass is a mere spectacle where Christ is the center, not because of what He ‘achieved’ for us but rather because of what He is still ‘required’ to do to finish His work.

The ritual of the Mass has no foundation in scripture, but has its roots in Paganism. It is common for pagan religions to develop some form of symbolism to create an illusion of mystery, higher power, transcendence, and magic, all of which are incorporated into the Catholic Mass.

Pastor John MacArthur, in his sermon titled “Explaining the Heresy of the Catholic Mass”, said the following concerning the deception of the Mass;

But at the very outset, the Mass is a deception because, as I said, there are no more sacrifices, there are no more altars. There is no more temple in which God dwells, no more tabernacle, and there is no more priesthood. It is therefore a false sacrifice on a false altar in a false temple by a false priest.

At heart, it is a denial of the singular sacrifice of Christ on the cross, because the Mass is an offering of Christ repeatedly by an illegitimate priesthood on an illegitimate altar for a useless and ungodly purpose.

According to J.C. Ryle, an English Anglican bishop, theologian, and author, in one of his writings, he highlighted the dire consequences of believing Christ is physically present in the Eucharist;;

“Whatever men please to think or say, the Romish doctrine of the real presence if pursued to its legitimate consequences obscures every leading doctrine of the gospel and damages and interferes with the whole system of Christ’s truth.

Grant for a moment that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice and not a Sacrament, grant that every time the words of consecration are used the natural body and blood of Christ are present on the communion table under the forms of bread and wine, grant that everyone who eats that consecrated bread and drinks that consecrated wine does really eat and drink the natural body and blood of Christ, grant for a moment these things and then see what momentous consequences result from these premises.

You spoil the blessed doctrine of Christ’s finished work when He died on the cross. A sacrifice that needs to be repeated is not a perfect or complete thing. You spoil the priestly office of Christ. If there are priests that can offer an acceptable sacrifice to God besides Him, the great High Priest is robbed of His glory. You spoil the scriptural doctrine of the Christian ministry.

You exalt sinful men into the position of mediators between God and man. You give to the sacramental elements of bread and wine an honor and veneration they were never meant to receive. You produce an idolatry to be abhorred by faithful Christians. Last but not least, you overthrow the true doctrine of Christ’s human nature.

If the body born of the Virgin Mary can be in more places than one at the same time, it is not a body like our own and Jesus was not the last Adam in the truth of our nature.”

It is obvious from the Catholic Mass that the church implies that Christ’s atonement on the cross is insufficient. In many ways, the Mass sacrifice resembles the Old Testament animal sacrifices which had to be repeated to cleanse the people from their sins.

But we need to look at the scriptures which clearly state that Christ’s salvation is secure for the believer, and His work on the cross was the ultimate sacrifice once and for all.

Hebrews 9:12 (NKJV)

Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.

Hebrew 9:28 (NKJV)

so Christ was offered once to bear the sins of many. To those who eagerly wait for Him He will appear a second time, apart from sin, for salvation.

Transubstantiation

Transubstantiation is a term used by the Catholic Church to explain how the elements of communion (bread and wine) become the actual body and blood of Christ through their transformation.

Catholic doctrine holds that the elements become Christ’s body and blood through a ‘real’ and ‘actual’ change despite the fact that they physically still appear the same. Due to this false understanding, they also believe that the elements themselves are worthy of worship.

The Mass is simply a ceremony to re-sacrifice Christ, and the entire show climaxes with the Eucharist, where His literal body and blood are served to the followers.

There is no doubt that this practice is unbiblical and does not come from a sound understanding of the Scriptures.

Biblically, communion commemorates what Jesus Christ has done for us through His atoning sacrifice, bringing us into spiritual unity with Him.

Roman Catholics, of course, disagree and have taken a strong stance against those who disagree with their beliefs. As a result of the Council of Trent, session 13, held on October 1551, the following doctrines were formulated;

CANON I.-If any one denieth, that, in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.

CANON lI.-If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation; let him be anathema.

CANON VIII.- lf any one saith, that Christ, given in the Eucharist, is eaten spiritually only, and not also sacramentally and really; let him be anathema.

So, here’s the question for Catholics: Do you truly believe that the bread and wine are the literal body and blood of Christ, or are they simply a memorial of His sacrifice? The Bible teaches that communion is a remembrance of what Jesus has done, not a re-sacrifice of Him. Are you trusting in the ritual itself, or in the finished work of Christ on the cross? It’s a critical difference with eternal consequences.

What is the biblical stance on the re-sacrifice of Christ?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes the Catholic Church’s view of Christ’s sacrifice during the Mass;

“The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice. The victim is one and the same. The same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered Himself on the cross, only the manner of offering is different. In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered Himself once on the altar of the cross is offered in an un-bloody manner…”
(Paragraph 1367 Page 344)

The book of Hebrews outlines clearly what Jesus’ sacrifice was, and how it is the one sufficient sacrifice for cleansing our eternal sins.

Hebrews 7:26-28 (NKJV)
For such a High Priest was fitting for us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and has become higher than the heavens; who does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the people’s, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself. For the law appoints as high priests men who have weakness, but the word of the oath, which came after the law, appoints the Son who has been perfected forever.

The general theme of the above verses is around the word once, making daily sacrifices a redundant practice.

Hebrews 10:9-11 (NKJV)
then He said, “Behold, I have come to do Your will, O God.” He takes away the first that He may establish the second. By that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins.

It is clear in the above verse that the one perfect sacrifice and offering that Christ made cannot ever be repeated and that His offering alone can forgive sins for those who believe. Furthermore, it contrasts the priests’ need to make multiple sacrifices in biblical times that were not able to remove sins.

(Additional scripture references Hebrews 9:11-12 / Hebrews 9:24).

But aren’t priestly sacrifices recorded in the Old Testament scriptures?

It is true that the Old Testament records the priestly sacrifices that were continuously required to be offered. However, the whole purpose of the offerings was to develop a passionate desire / longing to see Christ’s final sacrifice come, which would ultimately wipe away the sins of the people.

The priestly sacrifices foreshadowed and anticipated the ultimate sacrifice that would come with Christ.

In 70 A.D., a significant event occurred that many theologians interpret as a divine demonstration of the finality of Christ’s sacrifice: the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem. This event marked the end of the traditional sacrificial system practiced in the Temple.

With the destruction of the Temple and its altars, as well as the disruption of the priestly genealogies, the Old Testament sacrificial system effectively ceased. This event is often viewed as a symbolic confirmation of the New Testament teachings that Christ’s sacrifice was sufficient and final.

Hebrews 10:11-12 (NKJV)
And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sins forever, sat down at the right hand of God.”

The book of Hebrews, for instance, emphasizes the completeness and finality of Christ’s sacrifice in contrast to the repeated and temporary nature of the Old Testament offerings.

Hebrews 10:14 (NKJV)
”For by one offering He has perfected forever those who are being sanctified.”

In light of these events and teachings, the focus for contemporary believers is on the singular sacrifice of Christ. This means that any attempts to replicate or continue the practice of sacrificial offerings are not only unnecessary but also unbiblical. The efficacy of Christ’s sacrifice is seen as complete and all-encompassing, rendering all other sacrifices redundant in terms of our salvation.

In conclusion, while the Old Testament sacrifices are a significant part of biblical history, they are to be understood as precursors to and fulfilled in Christ’s ultimate sacrifice.

The mass is nullified if the priests sin?

Something that is even more troublesome for the Catholic believer is that even if the priest fulfills all the requirements of the Mass, but does so with an ‘impure’ intention or a wrong attitude, the whole Mass is deemed invalid, null and void.

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that, in ministers, when they effect, and confer the sacraments, there is not required the intention at least of doing what the Church does; let him be anathema.
(Council of Trent, Session 7)

Pope Pius IV also said;

“If there is a defect in any of these, namely the due matter, the form with intention, or the sacerdotal order of the celebrant, it nullifies the sacrament.”

Cardinal Bellarmine also said;

“No one can be certain with the certainty of faith that he has received a true sacrament, since no sacrament is conformed without the intention of the ministers and no one can see the intention of another.”

Knowing another person’s intentions is extremely difficult. Since humans have limitations, we can never guarantee that the mass conducted by a priest will be acceptable.

Nevertheless, the Roman Catholic Church has found a way to gain financially despite this limitation. In what way? By making the followers pay for the Mass.

Most Mass services are dedicated to the dead by mentioning their names during the service. Families can either pay for inexpensive Masses performed by the priests or really expensive ones by a Bishop or Cardinal.

Also, there are other types of Masses that are priced differently based on the requirements of the Catholic believer. Examples include the Votive Mass (offered for routine life requirements), the Requiem Mass (for the souls of the dead), the Nuptial Mass (for a wedding), and the Super Mass (offered by a hierarchical figure).

What is troublesome is that regardless of the number of Masses a person attends, they could still leave this life not fully purified and therefore end up in purgatory, where they must wait for more Mass services to be dedicated on their behalf by their loved ones. Even then, the prayers offered on their behalf may not be effective due to the attitude and intentions of the priests. Thus, the cycle continues.

« Older Entries

Next Entries »