WHY I AM NOT A CATHOLIC PART 3 of 3 PROBLEMATIC CLAIMS MADE BY THE ROMAN CHURCH TABLE OF CONTENTS D. SALVATION REQUIRES       BOTH THE POPE AND CHRIST  E. PURGATORY AND INDULGENCES F. CALL NO MAN FATHER G. DISAGREEMENT AMONG THE EQUALS H. DID THE CATHOLICS REALLY      GIVE US THE BIBLE I. THEN WHY DID THEY HIDE IT J. ANNULMENT vs. DIVORCE K. THE CRUSADES L. THE COLLECTION M. TRANSUBSTANTIATION N. THE PRIESTHOOD O. PRAYER P. CALVARY The Church of the Roman Empire In Part 1 we showed how Constantine held the title of Pontifex Maximus (Highest Priest or Supreme Pontiff) while overseeing all religions in the empire. He gradually brought in some Christian values and in 313 he made Christianity one of the official religions of the Roman Empire. In 380 Emperor Theodosius I made Christianity the single official state religion and everyone in the empire became members. With the sudden influx of pagans, doctrines and creeds were tilted away from the pure religion of Christ and suddenly the Roman church was born. Therefore, pagans who knew nothing about Christ moments before were suddenly, by decree, members and leaders of this new Roman church. Patterned after the Roman government and usurping Christian history as their own, this impostor church, without knowledge of Christian values of love, forgiveness and respect, became the public embodiment of the Christian church. While Constantine may have wanted to do the right thing he was never properly baptized. Never having received the gift of the Holy Spirit he was no more a Christian than his pagan father and those before him. While he had no interest in theological matters he, as head of this new church, assumed the responsibility to arbitrate church disputes. It is no surprise that Christian leadership left a lot to be desired. Meanwhile repentance and forgiveness were preached in secret by legitimate Christians. But the rest of the world, not knowing any better, considered the Roman church “the” Christian church. In Part 2 we learned why Peter was not the first pope and how the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) misinterpreted “bind/loose.” They do not have the authority to change apostolic teachings as they would have us believe. However, recently they have changed their focus, from bind/loose, “we are allowed to make changes” to “Jesus told us” to make changes. We mention this because as a youngster I was taught the RCC had the authority to maintain or change (bind/loose) as they wanted to. Today however, they claim that Jesus gave instructions to Peter to change specific doctrines. Peter then passed them on down so, when the time is appropriate, each “Tradition” can be announced to the public. In addition, they accept the writings of “Church fathers” who had a clear view of the emphasis of the early church. Church fathers such as, Clement of Rome (d. A.D. 97), Ignatius (d. 110), Polycarp (d. 155), Justin Martyr (the [Catholic] Church’s first major lay apologist; d. 165), Irenaeus (d. 202), Cyprian (d. 258), Athanasius (d. 373), Basil (d. 379), Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 386), Ambrose (d. 397), John Chrysostom (d. 407), Jerome (d. 420), Augustine (d. 430), Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444) had a special insight as to the intent of the apostles and what they taught. We need to point out that, while highly skilled, these men were not inspired by the Holy Ghost and their opinions are not “Holy Scripture.” We also learned of “Tradition,” how leaders have developed misleading doctrines and claim they received them from Jesus who passed them to Peter who passed them down to a time when they were to be released to the public. A convoluted process that fraudulently explains the introduction of new canon that serves the purpose of the Roman church. To avoid error we prefer to stand with and rely on Holy Scripture rather than the writings of uninspired men. We remember the Man of God (Part 1; 1 Kings 13) and how his demise was the result of listening to someone claiming he had new instructions from God. Here in Part 3 we present several doctrines that have ostensibly been handed down to be announced at the “appropriate” times. We have noticed the RCC announces a project first, and then tries to find Scripture to prove its authenticity. Sometimes this is difficult, very difficult. We will examine this in detail shortly. Some cases are directly contradicted by Scripture. Others don’t seem logical or reasonable. However, the Catholic Church has to justify, usually after the fact, variances from the Word of God. To confuse the issue, they claim the revised information was passed down directly from Jesus Christ, so that anyone who complains is complaining about Jesus himself. This eliminates a lot of complaints. Arguing with the Catholic Church is like duelling with the Devil. They act smarter, more experienced and devious, using illogical reasoning that dumbfounds. Falsely teaching that the kingdom of Christ was built on Peter, they have convinced millions to join their version of Christianity. And the operative word is, “convinced.” This huge worldwide church has taught her 1.2 billion members that everything they say is true. Members are absolutely convinced that this is the One True Church and their new “Traditions,” as convoluted as they are, are from the mouth of our Lord, Jesus Christ. Catholic teaching claims this “Holy Mother Church” has authority derived from the apostle Peter and speaks for Jesus Christ. This article offers information that refutes those claims. It would be our hope that the pope and his College of Cardinals would read this and realize their error.  D. SALVATION REQUIRES  BOTH THE POPE AND CHRIST  Catholic Church Places Itself Above All Others On 18 November 1302, Pope Boniface VIII issued the Papal bull Unam sanctam which is a rather extreme statement on Papal spiritual supremacy. The original document is lost but a version of the text can be found in the registers of Boniface VIII in the Vatican Archives. The bull ends: Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. However, Acts 4:10-12 contradicts this- “Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.” [Emphasis added] It could not be more clear – there is no one on earth who can offer salvation. No one named on earth (under heaven) to whom we can seek salvation. It could not be more clear – Salvation is not available through any man!   That would certainly include any pope! EVERYONE HAS BEEN REDEEMED An interesting statement by Pope Francis I has muddied the waters. During the week of May 20, 2013 he said, “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! 'Father, the atheists?' Even the atheists.” http://www.npr.org/blogs/parallels/2013/05/29/187009384/Pope-Francis-Even-Atheists-Can-Be-Redeemed?ft=1&f=1004  We are concerned. The teachings of Jesus Christ tell us some will be saved and some discarded, like the wheat from the chaff. But here the spiritual leader of over a billion people tells everyone, even the atheists, they will be redeemed (To deliver from sin and its penalties.). We agree anyone can be redeemed if he repents and has his sins washed away. But no one is redeemed without first obeying the gospel call. Jesus Christ expects people to follow him, to become Christian and to do things good people do (loose, allow) and to avoid evil things (bind, forbid). Action is required. Those who overcome the human proclivity for sin will be rewarded. Those who take no action to be redeemed will spend eternity with all the others who are outside the Kingdom of Heaven and without the fellowship of our loving Father. After the pope made his statement a Vatican spokesman quickly intervened. Father Thomas Rosica said "people who know the Catholic Church cannot be saved if they refuse to enter or remain in her." So they are back where they started – if you have heard of the Catholic Church and refuse her teaching you cannot be saved. Isaiah 42:8 I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Contradicting Scripture, the Catholic magisterium teaches that the pope speaks for God and we should listen to him. Meanwhile, they pray in front of statues of Mary, St. Christopher or any of the other “saints” of the Catholic Church. They have the pope as an intercessor, and they have the saints as “friends” who also pass on their prayers. Unfortunately, praying in this way nullifies the fact that Jesus is the only mediator we need or have. By introducing additional “intercessors,” they have diluted our reliance on Jesus - something only the Adversary would be pleased with. There are other conflicts with Scripture. Conflict 1: Salvation is in the Roman Church Only Rome taught that all who did not acknowledge the pope as God’s representative on earth and the Roman Catholic Church as the only true church were damned. Salvation was confined within the teachings of the Roman Church. Every member who disagreed was in line for a heresy trial and perhaps excommunication. Excommunication, to a member, meant the loss of one’s soul. Few were willing to take the chance of speaking against the Church and enduring a burning fiery hell for eternity just to make a point. The Bible tells us salvation is available nowhere else but through Jesus Christ. But this church misreads Scripture, then claims it correctly interprets it because they “gave us the Bible.” Thus they can conceal any misunderstanding and usurp authority they have no right to possess. Conflict 2: Salvation by Works. By the 14th century, Augustinian theology was lost or badly neglected. Rome had accepted almost in totality the freewill teaching of Pelagius (5th century) that it had formerly repudiated. Salvation was not caused by God’s grace through a voluntary new birth, but by assent to Roman Catholic dogma and practice. Faith was not trusting in Christ for salvation, but submission to the pope. Salvation was not by grace through faith in Christ alone, but by faith in the church and good works prescribed by the church. This is the absolute reverse of Scripture. Christ did not say, “The pope and I are the way, the truth and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by us.” He did say, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. John 14:6 I think it is clear – Scripture tells us one thing and the Roman church tells us something else. The Bottom Line On This Issue All of this is completely contrary to the examples of the apostles as they wrote about the New Testament Church. Salvation does not require obedience to the pope, but obedience to the gospel of Jesus Christ. We can see how the intent of the Roman Catholic Church was to influence the masses into following the pope rather than Christ. Who would want such a thing? Who would want souls to separate themselves from Christ and accept a strange new doctrine? Who would want people to believe this new gospel?  E. PURGATORY AND INDULGENCES  One “Tradition” they claim was “overlooked” by Scripture is the concept of purgatory. It was announced via the Decree of Union drawn up by the Council of Florence in AD 1031. As with all such latter-day pronouncements, they are careful to explain that, even though a thousand years had expired, the concept had always been “handed down.” Under Catholic teaching, every sin must be purified either here on earth or after death in a state called purgatory. This is required even though the sinner had confessed and received absolution while alive. We are told a person is in Purgatory because there are residuals from his sin that have to be purged by fire. One cannot pray to be released from the fiery furnace because you have further payment to make for “forgiven sin.” The penitent, after receiving sacramental absolution from the guilt of sin, must still pay a temporal penalty for the residuals. (Emphasis added) We offer: 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If “all unrighteousness” doesn’t mean “completely,” “entirely,” “wholly,” and/or “totally” we don’t understand the Word of God. Evidently neither does the Catholic magisterium who want us to believe as they do. As further justification for purification, some Catholics offer: Purgatory makes sense because there is a requirement that a soul not just be declared clean, but actually be clean, before a man may enter into eternal life. After all, if a guilty soul is merely "covered," if its sinful state still exists but is officially ignored, then it is still a guilty soul. It is still unclean. Catholic theology takes seriously the notion that "nothing unclean shall enter heaven." From this it is inferred that a less than cleansed soul, even if "covered," remains a dirty soul and isn’t fit for heaven. It needs to be cleansed or "purged" of its remaining imperfections. The cleansing occurs in purgatory. Source: http://www.catholic.com/tracts/purgatory  Purgatory makes sense? Another example of stating an opinion as fact. It doesn’t make sense, not at all. INDULGENCES Under Catholic teaching we learned that every sin must be purified either here on earth or after death in a state called purgatory. This is required even though the sinner had confessed and received absolution while alive. However this cleansing can be shortened with an indulgence. “In the Sacrament of Baptism not only is the guilt of sin remitted, but also all the penalties attached to sin. In the Sacrament of Penance the guilt of sin is removed, and with it the eternal punishment due to mortal sin; but there still remains the temporal punishment required by Divine justice, and this requirement must be fulfilled either in the present life or in the world to come, i.e., in Purgatory. An indulgence offers the penitent sinner the means of discharging this debt during his life on earth.” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm  One cannot pray for his own cleansing but if you donate something to the church you will be totally clean? I hope my Catholic friends understand how that may sound suspicious. “Give me money so you won’t be tortured!” In any case, they falsely claim the process requires a sinner to satisfy the penalty by fire to avoid being lost eternally. We are incredulous to see this supposedly Christian organization teaching that forgiveness of sin is only partial and additional penance of excruciating pain is required. Only the father of lies would infer God doesn’t tell the whole truth when He tells us He will, “cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”. A complete and official explanation of the various indulgences, who can grant them, and what is necessary to receive an indulgence can be found at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07783a.htm  We also encourage you to read more details on indulgences and a description of the start of the Reformation in the 1500s: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/luther/lutherindulgences.html Or, if the sinner has already passed away and is in the flames of purgatory, he can be freed from the temporal penalty by an indulgence, which could be made when a living relative kisses a cross in their name. At that point the person is immediately released. The RCC fails to notice a large hole in “Jesus’ ” plan. They say one cannot pray to be released from the fiery furnace because you have further payment to make for “forgiven sin.” However, one can be released from the furnace when someone else prays an indulgence. Being immediately released, this “less than cleansed soul” remains dirty and isn’t fit for heaven, but goes directly to heaven anyway. Apparently the residuals do not need to be purged by fire after all. If every sin must be purified but the indulgence detours past the purification process, what then is the purpose of purgatory? This contradictory process cannot be from God as He doesn’t get confused. We can only conclude it is contrived by men, men who wish to provide cash for their church treasury. That is greed which leads to fraud. What kind of church leadership would commit fraud on its membership? Certainly not a Christian one. Let’s see if we understand this. One cannot pray for your own release from purgatory because residual sins need to be purged by fire before you are clean enough to enter heaven. However, if you make a monetary donation to the Roman church you will skip purgatory and go directly to heaven. God Almighty does not have the power to forgive and remove residual sins but the pope will if you make a donation. Is it any wonder this was the central cause for the Reformation and break from the Catholic Church? Failure to completely forgive sin is outside Scripture. As we read in 1 John 1:9, “he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” God cleanses us totally and without further “fire.” Thus there is no need for a “purgation” later. One is added to the kingdom of God when he turns from sin and becomes a Christian, with his sins washed away in baptism. With his robes washed by the blood of Christ, he is fit to enter heaven! A person does not need some other bizarre penalty or intercession. To teach more than the blood of Christ is needed, is a Devil’s lie! Catholics Justify Purgatory by Scripture “That temporal punishment is due to sin, even after the sin itself has been pardoned by God, is clearly the teaching of Scripture.” Actually, it’s not that clear. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “The Lord took away the sin of David, but the life of the child was forfeited because David had made God's enemies blaspheme His Holy Name (2 Samuel 12:13-14).” (The secondary punishment was the death of the child.) http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm When we read 2 Samuel, we notice that because he had used the sword of the enemy to kill Uriah the Hittite, David had sinned. But the Lord forgave him. However, because the enemies had blasphemed the Lord as a result of David’s sin, the son of David’s illicit union had to die. Catholics read this as one sin with two punishments and it may well be. Here is an event in Jewish history that is bent to suggest an afterlife of pain and suffering to cleanse a soul of “residuals.” In all honesty, we cannot see justification for purgatory in this example. Further, Catholic justification for Purgatory can be found in Numbers 20:12. We invite you to read it and find out for yourself how they twist Scripture to suit their purposes. This is a perfect example of how the Roman Catholic Church establishes a doctrine, and then tries to justify it after the fact with Scripture. Their fabricated explanations have nothing to do with what is written. You will notice Numbers 20 says nothing about God forgiving anything. They did not believe God, so they would not see the Promised Land. That’s it! Nothing about a temporal punishment after the sin has been pardoned. In fact, no sin was pardoned. When I pointed this out to a Catholic friend he chastised me for having the audacity to challenge the Catholic Church’s version. Only they have the authority to interpret the Bible since they are the ones who edited and gave it to the world. (Not true! See below H. Did the Catholics really give us the Bible?) We are reminded of Romans 1:28 where those who had forgotten God were given over to a lawless mind, so they could continue doing those things which are not appropriate. Apparently the Catholics are so entrenched in their own version of Christianity that they are unable to recognize their error. They have, in effect, swallowed the Kool-aide! Followers of Jim Jones believed a lie, and it looks like the devout Catholics also believe one lie after another. Accepting non-Scriptural Evidence Another Catholic evidence for purgatory is found in one of the “hidden books,” 2 Maccabees. They tell us chapter 12:42-46 is clearly referring to purgatory. Let’s see … Briefly–there has been a fight and several Jews were killed. On gathering their bodies for burial the dead were found to have amulets sacred to a pagan god, Jamnia. It was clear now why they had been the only Jews to fall - it was forbidden by law for Jews to honor pagan gods. 2 Maccabees 12:42-46 42 Turning to supplication, they prayed that the sinful deed might be fully blotted out. The noble Judas exhorted the people to keep themselves free from sin, for they had seen with their own eyes what had happened because of the sin of those who had fallen. 43 He then took up a collection among all his soldiers, amounting to two thousand silver drachmas, which he sent to Jerusalem to provide for an expiatory sacrifice. In doing this he acted in a very excellent and noble way, inasmuch as he had the resurrection in mind; 44 for if he were not expecting the fallen to rise again, it would have been superfluous and foolish to pray for the dead. 45 But if he did this with a view to the splendid reward that awaits those who had gone to rest in godliness, it was a holy and pious thought. Catholics ask, “Why else would they pray for the dead if purgatory did not exist?” No, 2 Maccabees 12:42-46 is not “clearly” referring to purgatory. Just because some Jews prayed for the dead does not mean anything. This would not be the first time a group of Jews did something contrary to the will of God. That mankind is responsible for his actions this side of eternity is a basic tenet of both Old and New Testament teaching. Praying for the dead has always been outside the teachings of God. We also notice that 2 Maccabees was never a part of the Jewish Bible. While the RCC would like you to think it is part of the Old Testament and inspired writing, the Jews have never recognized it as such. We would not consider it a legitimate source for evidence of Christian doctrine either. St. Peter’s Basilica – Built on the backs of peasants St. Peter’s Basilica, meant as a monument to Christ, is instead a memorial to the decadence and corruption of the Roman church. The abuses in the selling of indulgences, including lies from priests and the papacy, and deceit by those collecting the money were the main factors that led to the Protestant Reformation. Indulgences also resulted in the creation of what is considered the most beautiful church in the world – St. Peter’s Basilica. Today Catholics continuously condemn Protestants for their breaking away from the “Holy Mother Church.” But if it had not been for the irregularities surrounding the nature of purgatory we all might be Catholic today. “The Pope was now granting a plenary indulgence to anyone who contributed towards the construction of Saint Peter’s Basilica. Since the indulgence was plenary, each donation guaranteed the immediate release of a soul from purgatory and its entrance into heaven. These donations would build Saint Peter’s basilica and empty purgatory.” http://www.deism.com/to-natures-god.net/page_8.htm  Construction of the current building began under Pope Julius II in 1506, Michelangelo, who served as main architect for a while, designed the dome, and Bernini designed the great St. Peter's Square. Construction was completed in 1615 under Pope Paul V. The project brought together some of the world’s greatest minds and talent, including Michelangelo, Bramante, Bernini, and Raphael. They worked in concert, along with many others, toward a common goal: creating the most spectacular and inspiring religious site of all time. Its artwork is unsurpassed, making it a pilgrimage even for non-believers. (Some information was found at: http://scholarship.rollins.edu/mls/7/ ) Today you can visit Rome and the beautiful St. Peter’s Basilica, a monument to the vulgar extortion from peasants that occurred in the middle Ages. If you can’t make it to Rome we recommend an online pilgrimage to see the beautifully ornate and intricate design, paid for with the sweat and labor of peasant farmers throughout the Roman Empire. Poor people who could ill afford to give money but felt they were saving their loved ones from the pain of purgatory. To view the world’s largest monument to greed at the expense of the poor you can view St. Peter’s Basilica at the following websites: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/07/150720-Vatican-360-Degree-Tour-Saint-Peters-Basilica/  http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Plans/Architecture.htm  http://saintpetersbasilica.org/Pics/StPeters.htm  The Bottom Line On Purgatory Dispute over the validity of purgatory has been ongoing for centuries and was one of the principal reasons for the Reformation in the 1500s! The concept of purgatory is foreign to Christianity and contradicts itself. The Scriptures they cite have nothing to do with a post-death purification process. Their efforts to prove purgatory are feeble attempts to patch together Scripture after the fact when Scripture was never considered in the first place. Thus, it renders itself null and void, not worthy of consideration by Christians. Any organization that teaches God declares you clean, but He doesn’t mean you are fully clean, is suspiciously pagan and definitely anti-Christian. This church concocted a fraudulent process that filled the coffers of the church, but offered nothing but fear and confusion for the soul. We notice that one cannot pray for your own release from purgatory because residual sins need to be purged by fire before you are clean enough to enter heaven. However, if you make a monetary donation to the Roman church you will skip purgatory and go directly to heaven. God Almighty does not have the power to forgive and remove residual sins but the pope will if you make a donation. We conclude only the Adversary of God, the Father of Lies, would appreciate a process that confuses human souls by contradicting itself, while raising money for the construction of the massive, ornate and strikingly beautiful monument to greed, St Peter’s Basilica!  F. CALL NO MAN FATHER  "Call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven" Mt. 23:9 Matthew records Christ telling the world to call no man “Father.” The Catholic Church addresses their priests, bishops and Cardinals as “Father.” They call their pope, “Holy Father.” Do they violate the admonition of Mt 23:9 or not? We need to point out that the word “Father” has two meanings: First, that of a spiritual father. There is only one, our heavenly Father. Second, the human father, a parent who teaches his children as they grow into adulthood. RCC justification for the Roman Church calling a Priest “Father” can be found at: www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father It is 4 pages long with over 2300 words dancing around Scripture to justify something after the fact. (This is a recurring problem for the Catholics: They make a statement and then are forced to find Scripture to justify it after it has been in use.) This article jumps from one point to another and is difficult to follow. Here is an example: ------------------------------------ “… a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, "But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:8–10). The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term "teacher," in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you." ------------------------------------ Notice, the explanation starts out demeaning Jesus’ words, saying he didn’t intend for his words to be understood literally. Jesus is confirming that there is but One God yet he didn’t intend for his words to be taken literally? Further, they include the previous verse, claiming it completes the “whole passage.” They quote Scripture to show the title “Father” was used throughout the New Testament and could not be what Christ meant when he said we should call no man father. Let’s examine the Scripture they cite-- 1 John 2:13-14: I write unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because ye have overcome the wicked one. I write unto you, little children, because ye have known the Father. I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. The Catholic explanation implies John is talking to spiritual fathers. Maybe some do not bother to verify this claim but we did and find John was talking to parents, young men and little children, i.e. the members of a family. John is NOT referring to the spiritual sons and spiritual children; he is recognizing family members on one hand and the heavenly Father on the other. (You can see how it is capitalized when referring to the spiritual Father and not capitalized when referring to humans. Regrettably the Roman church fails to notice this. Or if they did, they ignored it to their own detriment.) It is clear that when Jesus tells us to not call anyone “Father,” he means our Spiritual Father. He is not telling us to not call anyone “father” as that would eliminate an important person in everyone’s life. Rather Jesus is telling us to respect our Heavenly Father and to not have others assume His Title. (Considering this conflicts with “Holy Father” this is another example of why Catholics would prefer you not read the Bible.) The Hebrew writer shows the difference more clearly. Heb 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live? In trying to rationalize their misuse of “Father” the official Catholic description implies there is one word which covers both parent and spiritual leader. In doing so they have produced a very official but misleading explanation. We call their explanation “official,” because at the end of the article we find this: NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors. Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004 Talk about pretentious and self-important! The poor unwashed masses are to accept this deceptive writing because it is verified. And further, someone even more important confirms it: IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827 permission to publish this work is hereby granted. +Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004 I am sure all good Catholics accept the Bishop’s ruling without checking for themselves. Why should they? The learned Bishop knows the Bible better than they do since few Catholics (that I have met) actually study God’s Word. (I was visiting a Catholic friend and asked if he had a Bible. He said, “Yes, it’s around here somewhere.”) We carefully examined their explanation and notice it simply paints their oversight with a coat of whitewash. Further from the Official Catholic perspective: “Catholics know that as members of a parish, they have been committed to a priest’s spiritual care, thus they have great filial affection for priests and call them "father." Priests, in turn, follow the apostles’ biblical example by referring to members of their flock as "my son" or "my child" (cf. Gal. 4:19; 1 Tim. 1:18; 2 Tim. 2:1; Philem. 10; 1 Pet. 5:13; 1 John 2:1; 3 John 4). All of these passages were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and they express the infallibly recorded truth that Christ’s ministers do have a role as spiritual fathers. Jesus is not against acknowledging that. It is he who gave these men their role as spiritual fathers, and it is his Holy Spirit who recorded this role for us in the pages of Scripture. To acknowledge spiritual fatherhood is to acknowledge the truth, and no amount of anti-Catholic grumbling will change that fact.” http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father  They explain first that Jesus did not mean what he said. He then contradicted himself by forbidding the use of “teacher” only to appoint teachers later. Based on Jesus’ alleged confusion, Catholics can use “Father” to refer to priests as spiritual leaders who guides their flock. We continue our “anti-Catholic grumbling” by refuting their long and convoluted explanation with this: RAB-BI [rab-ahy] noun, plural rab•bis. A title of respect for a Jewish scholar or teacher. Any of the Jewish scholars of the 1st to 6th centuries who contributed to the writing, editing or compiling of the Talmud. While a Rabbi is a teacher he is not in the same class as teachers. To say Jesus was using the word “Rabbi” to mean “teacher” is misleading. Yes, “Rabbi” means “teacher” but it is a higher class. Much as a college professor (PhD) is more qualified than a high school teacher (BA). The Catholic position is to claim the “whole passage” consists of two verses: Mt 23:8-9. Verse 8 is explained, to not call anyone Rabbi, then points out that there are many teachers mentioned throughout the New Testament. They then refer to verse 8 and say Jesus did not intend for his words to be “understood literally.” However, the “whole passage” includes more than the two verses referenced by the Catholics. It actually includes the first 12 verses of Mt 23. We see Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees for their hypocrisy and pride. He reminds them that God alone – God the Father – is ultimately the source of all authority, even the authority these men wield within the religious community. Jesus tells his disciples that the scribes and Pharisees are pompous fools, acting as if they are sitting in for Moses. They are “Do as I say, not as I do” hypocrites! They ask the people to do things that they themselves do not do. They wear fancy robes with wide borders, love the place of honor at the head table, the best seats in the synagogue, being recognized as important out in public and being called “Rabbi,” a title of respect. Christ tells his disciples to not use the title, “Rabbi” because it leads to the sin of pride. Instead, remember Christ is your teacher and you are all brothers. (According to Mathew Henry’s Commentary, “It was but a little before Christ’s time, that the Jewish teachers, the masters of Israel, had assumed the title of Rabbi, Rab, or Rabban, which signifies great or much; and was construed as Doctor, or My lord.” Contrary to Catholic teaching the title “Rabbi” was not equal to that of “teacher” but of greater distinction. … Christ’s ministers must not affect the name of Rabbi or Master, by way of distinction from other people.) Next, Jesus tells them (and us) to not ascribe such titles to others; “Call no man your father because your Father is in heaven, not here on earth.” Paul calls himself a father to those he had converted in 1 Cor 4:15 but he claims no dominion over them. He uses that title to denote affection not authority as he calls them his beloved sons in 1 Cor 4:14.) Matthew 23:10-12 “Neither call each other master for one is your Master, he is Christ. But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be abased while he that is humble shall be exalted.” Matthew records Christ telling the world to not take the name of God in vain. We must not use the religious title “Father” for anyone except God Himself. And one more important point, we have only one Master and he is Jesus Christ. Our master is not the exalted Father O’Malley, Monsignor DiNardo, Justin Cardinal Rigali, Pope Gregory or the resigned Pope Benedict XVI. The Bottom Line On This Issue Christ pointed out the pride of the Pharisees and how they constantly seek status and prestige. This highlights the actions of the Cardinals and Bishops of today. They wear fancy robes with wide borders, love the place of honor at the head table, the best seats in the theatres, being recognized as important out in public and being called “Your Eminence” while holding their hand out so parishioners can kiss their ring. For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them. Acts 20:29-30 When we see the pope referred to as “Holy Father” we know the Catholic Church is speaking perverse things while ignoring the teachings of Jesus Christ.  G. DISAGREEMENT AMONG THE EQUALS  The four main cities, Alexandria, Constantinople, Athens and Rome all agreed they were on equal footing as far as authority in the church was concerned. They were in conflict over ultimate leadership of the new religion. That they did not readily accept Rome as leader tells us the issue was in doubt. If the primacy of Rome were clear-cut these other cities would never have made the claim themselves. For Rome to claim primacy simply shows their power and self-indulgence, not any interest in the truth. The two largest cities, Rome and Constantinople ultimately were left standing as the two major rival political powers, both claiming to be the only lawful successor to the Roman Empire. It was merely a matter of time before one or the other had to be destroyed. The bitter conflict between these two competitors, which ended with the fall of the Byzantine Empire in the fifteenth century, was thus the root cause of the schism between “Christian” East and “Christian” West. Remember, history is written by the victors. The Bottom Line On This Issue The disagreement over who was in charge puts doubt as to the veracity of the Catholic claim that Matthew 16 put Peter in charge. It was not so cut and dried if half the Christian population read it differently.   H. DID THE CATHOLICS REALLY GIVE US THE BIBLE?  “It was the Catholic Church and no other which selected and listed the inspired Bible or any part of it as inspired Word of God; you can do so only because the Catholic Church says it is." (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 4). It would seem unnecessary for the Catholic Church to make the boastful claim of giving the Bible to the world when it asserts the Bible is itself a revelation from God. By claiming to be the “publisher”, they weaken the authority of the Bible and supplement it with their fabricated, man-made “Traditions.” If it is true that the Bible is a result of the Catholic Church, doesn't that make the Catholic Church the author of the Bible? This is exactly what Catholic officials want you to believe; that they can interpret anything anyway they want because they are the author. Their logic is a classic example of "circular reasoning." They try to prove the Bible by the church (we can accept the Bible on the authority of the Catholic Church) and prove the church by the Bible (The Roman Catholic Church "has ever grounded her doctrines upon it"). Such circular reasoning proves nothing. Either the New Testament is the ultimate authority for all of mankind or it is not. If the New Testament is the authority for Christians, The Roman Church cannot be that authority; if ultimate Christian authority is the Roman Church, it cannot be the New Testament. A Veneer of Legitimacy The claim the Catholic Church makes, that the regional or local Catholic Synods of Hippo, 393 A.D., and Carthage, 397 A.D. and later, Carthage, 419 A.D., gave us the canon of Sacred Scripture is scurrilous and misleading. The Church of Rome used ‘official’ synods and edicts to validate their positions. This gave them a veneer of legitimacy that impressed the masses but offered nothing of value. The 27 books of the New Testament had been known as inspired long before the Catholic Synods voted them in. This is similar to the council at Nicea that formally declared the divinity of Jesus Christ. He was known as the Son of God and performed miracles long before the council at Nicea voted on his divinity. The list of books that were included in her canon was simply a list of books that were already regarded as divinely inspired (The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable; InterVarsity Press; p.27). The decision to include the 27 books in AD 419 was ex post facto, i.e., after the fact. The approved books were already accepted, were used in worship and universally known to be valid. Clement of Rome – Recognized 8 Books (AD 95) Polycarp – Recognized 15 Books (AD 108) Irenaeus – Mentions 21 Books (AD 185) Muratorian Canon – All but Hebrews, James, 3 John (AD 170) Eusebius – Lists 22 Books (AD 275) Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria was the first to list all 27 books of the New Testament in AD 367, 26 years before the Synod of Hippo . The Synod of Carthage formally confirmed these 27 books as canonical in AD 397. By AD 400 the standard of 27 New Testament books is accepted in the East and West as confirmed by: Athanasius, Jerome, Augustine and three church councils. Diocletian’s persecution of Christians from AD 303-306 included confiscating and destroying New Testament books. This persecution motivated the original church (not the Catholic Church) to sort through and settle on which books were really Scripture and worth suffering for. Perhaps the earliest Christian canon is the Bryennios List which was found by Philotheos Bryennios in the Codex Hierosolymitanus. The list is written in Koine Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew and dated to around 100 AD. The criteria called for the writings by an apostle or the student of an apostle, which, after AD 100, was no longer possible. Acts 1:21-22 specifies a replacement apostle must be one who traveled with Christ from his baptism to his resurrection. Thus, if anyone were to come along and offer a seemingly divinely authored book we can reject it because the existing Bible is complete and self-protecting. There has been no one alive since AD 100 who traveled with Christ. Subsequent books with new gospels cannot be from God. DEUTEROCANONICAL TEXTS In addition to the text accepted as Jewish canon the Council of Trent accepted seven deuterocanonical texts: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ben Sira (also called Sirach or Ecclesiasticus), Baruch (including the Letter of Jeremiah), 1 and 2 Maccabees. There was controversy as early as the fourth and fifth centuries as to the authenticity of these books. The lack of total acceptance among Christian groups may have been due to the fact they were never part of the Jewish Bible. Josephus (a prominent Jewish historian) completely rejected the deuterocanonical books. These additional texts, which came to be called "Apocrypha" (originally meaning "hidden" but became synonymous with "of questionable authenticity"), were never completely accepted as Scripture by those outside the Catholic community. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint#Disputes_over_canonicity) The final authority for the authenticity of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) has to be the Jewish rabbis. Their choice is the Jewish canon of 39 books, which excludes the "Apocrypha." Authentic Apostolic Authorship What about Paul? Since he did not travel with Christ, how can he be considered an apostle? First, he was not a replacement, he was not voted in by the others. God Himself personally selected Saul! He was legitimate because the apostle Luke approved of him, as recorded in Acts 22. He wrote of how Ananias informed them that God Himself had chosen Saul to be a witness (teacher) to all men. Knowing the Jews would be especially harsh to a former Pharisee, God sent him among the Gentiles. (Although many think he wrote the Book of Hebrews. That would make sense since he didn’t identify himself to the Jews and he had the special “insider” way of understanding their viewpoint.) The Bible Warns Us of the Catholic Church! 1 Tim 4:1-3 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats , which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. If the Roman church did give us the Bible why would they include such incriminating statements? Depart from the faith? Doctrines of Devils? Abstain from meats? We know of no other religious organization that both forbids its members (priests, nuns) from marrying and commands its members to abstain from meats. Before Vatican II, Catholics were required to abstain from meat every Friday, as a form of penance in honor of the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross on Good Friday. We wonder, if the Catholics did give us the Bible, why would they include such an incriminating statement as 1 Tim 4:1-3? Because they didn’t give us the Bible and they had no choice. The Bottom Line On This Issue In a blatant fraud the Catholic Synods used the list of accepted books, approved the list and took credit for the Bible. If the Bible is a Catholic book, why does the Bible not mention the Catholic Church? Why is there no mention of a pope, a cardinal, an archbishop, a parish priest, a nun, or a member of any other Catholic order? If the New Testament was organized by the Catholics, why is auricular confession, indulgences, prayers to the saints, adoration of Mary, veneration of relics and images, infant baptism, the rosary and many other rites and ceremonies of the Catholic Church, left out of it? (They will tell you these are “Traditions,” i.e. doctrines passed from Jesus to Peter and on down until the proper time to announce them.) The 39 books of the Hebrew Bible (Old Testament) were established by Jewish rabbis. The 27 New Testament books had been accepted, were used in worship and universally known to be valid long before any Catholic synod or conclave voted them in.   I. THEN WHY DID THEY HIDE IT?  With so many contradictions to Scripture they must have recognized the Bible as an obstacle to their control of the people. It is no wonder “His Eminence” wouldn’t want parishioners reading the Bible. Making it illegal for anyone to read or have a copy outside the hierarchy of the Roman Church seemed necessary. Anyone having a Bible would be given the death sentence. (Here it is again, the anti-Christian doctrine of killing those with whom you disagree. This from the Church that claimed to abide by the love of Jesus, to forgive their enemies and turn the other cheek. They overlooked Jesus admonition to love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.) By 600 AD the only authorized version of the Bible was the Latin Vulgate and it was restricted to the clergy of the Roman Church. As the priests were the only people who knew Latin, they had the ultimate authority to interpret its contents. Priests would claim to be able to understand the Word of God and the people had no choice but to believe what they were told by these religious “experts.”  1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written , that no one of you be puffed up for one against another. Not to think of men above that which is written. Who claims to speak for God and have the authority to change what was written? If I were Catholic I certainly wouldn’t want anyone reading that verse!! Matt 7:15-20 Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. Considering the corruption within the hierarchy of the Roman Church this is another portion of Scripture they would not want anyone to read. Rather than adhere to their own traditions it would have been better if they had followed the writings of Paul. One of the qualifications for a bishop is that he be married with a family. 1 Tim 3:1-5 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, . . . One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; We know all too well the problems caused by celibate clergy. The Bottom Line On This Issue Keeping the Word of God away from the people was the desperate act of an organization guilty of violating many of the Bible’s admonitions.  J. ANNULMENT vs. DIVORCE  Jesus restricted divorce and remarriage to one cause: adultery. Mt 19:8-9 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so. And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery. (Emphasis added) Jesus makes it clear; divorce was never part of God’s plan. Marriage was intended to be a lifetime endeavour. While things may not go happily at all times the love two people have for each other is supposed to smooth out the rough times. Honesty and compassion are part of the equation. Problems are to be worked out between two Christians. Elders could be involved if asked. But marriage was not to be taken lightly as it is of life-long duration. Unless…, if one party brings the filth of adultery (fornication within marriage is adultery) into the marriage the other is free to divorce and remarry. However this is the only situation where remarriage is permitted. Notice, divorce itself is not prohibited. But remarriage is strictly prohibited – with that one exception. The Catholics cannot openly contradict Jesus so they agree divorce/remarriage is only permitted when adultery is involved. However, they were still able to fabricate a convenient process to circumvent the will of God. Since divorce is forbidden, they invented annulment. Jesus never said anything about annulment and what the “Church sanctions on earth will be approved in heaven.” Besides, it could be a good source of income. (We are not saying these were the exact thoughts and plans of the hierarchy, but this is the result of their decisions.) Annulment circumvents the wishes of God and is available for a wide range of reasons. For the Catholic viewpoint on annulment we went to: http://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage/church-teachings/annulments/  An annulment is a declaration by a church tribunal (a Catholic church court) that a marriage thought to be valid according to church law, actually fell short of at least one of the essential elements required for a binding union. The tribunal process seeks to determine if something essential was missing at the moment of consent, that is, the time of the wedding. If so, the Catholic Church can declare that a valid marriage was never actually brought about on the wedding day. (Emphasis added) A declaration of nullity does not deny that a relationship existed. It simply states that the relationship was missing something that the Catholic Church requires for a valid marriage. Pope Francis has asked dioceses whenever possible to provide their tribunal services free of charge. Depending upon how much your diocese is able to subsidize the work of its tribunal, you may be asked to pay a nominal fee. You may also be asked to make a donation following the completion of your case. Fees are typically payable over time, and may be reduced or even waived in cases of financial difficulty. (Emphasis added) If you or your spouse were very young at the time of your Catholic marriage, you may be granted an annulment later on. Although there are marriage classes that Catholics are required to take, if you were only 18 years old when you took these classes and claim you did not understand the full commitment and responsibility of being married, the church may consider your marriage invalid if you now see irreconcilable issues. The Bottom Line On This Issue Of the many reasons for granting an annulment, “immaturity” seems to be the one most frequently used. As we asked in Part 1, since Mary was a teenager when she married Joseph was she immature too? This fabricated loophole allows the termination of marriages of almost anyone who desires a permanent separation. It’s not a divorce, it’s an annulment!   K. THE CRUSADES?  Here is an excellent dissertation on the Crusades. Ecclesiology Yuri Koszarycz The Influence of the Crusades The heroic and romantic elements in this attempt to deliver the Holy Places from the Moslems still make it difficult for the Western mind to realize the disastrous character of the movement. Yet the harm it did was so great that some of the bitterest conflicts of our time can be traced back to the mistakes of this well-intentioned but ill-advised enterprise. The chief evil of the Crusades was the belief that military aggression can serve the spread of Christianity and that the sword can sometimes be more efficient than the word in the presentation of the Gospel. They lent support, too, to the idea that the robbery, torture, or murder of someone whose religious beliefs were erroneous was not only permitted but even approved by Christian teaching. The Orthodox East, when it heard about the Crusades, felt apprehensive from the very start. The Byzantine Empire held that her army was entrusted with the sacred duty of defending her frontiers, and that Christian soldiers who laid down their lives in the battle against the infidels and barbarians had made a righteous sacrifice for a cause approved by God. However, this was very different from the idea that Christian monks and soldiers, whose homes and families were not threatened, were justified in taking up arms and killing others in far-away lands, in the name of the Christian religion and for the sake of controlling the land where the Saviour had lived and died. These doubts and forebodings developed into open hostility when Eastern Christians came under the rule of the Crusaders. War is always a brutal and destructive affair, and the Crusaders did not differ much from other soldiers. When a city was captured its population naturally suffered, and it would have been too much to expect that a careful discrimination would be made between the local Christians and Moslems. Everybody was helpless before the invaders, and one's life and property were at their mercy. Once the rule of the Crusaders was firmly established it proved of no advantage to the Eastern Christians, even when compared with their bitter experience under the Moslem yoke. In many cases it was even a change for the worse, for their former conquerors had been more tolerant than Christians of the West, and had allowed the Orthodox to continue their Church life unmolested. However, the Crusaders tried to convert the Orthodox to Latin Christianity, confiscating their church buildings, imprisoning their clergy and treating them as though they professed a wholly alien religion. For the West, the events of the Crusades began in an aura of optimism but ended with disaster and disunity for the Church. After the death of Charlemagne, the military authority of the Franks, which had supported the Papacy, began to decline. The Norman incursions into Italy posed a real threat to the Church. In 1059 the Papacy acknowledged its inability to face any threat from a Norman invasion. How then could the Church reassert its lessening authority over its feudal monarchs and show that it had the necessary strength to cope with internal dissent? At this time a request arrived from the Eastern emperor Alexius Commenius and Pope Urban II for assistance against encroachments by Moslem forces into the Holy Lands. Urban II, at this time in exile, called on the faithful to mount a crusade, appealing to the spirit of faith, to regain the Holy Lands from the sacrilegious hands of Islam while drawing attention to the political benefits of such a venture. Hollister states that "the Crusades to the Holy Lands were the most spectacular and self-conscious act of Western Christian expansionism which represented a fusion of three characteristics of medieval man: piety, pugnacity, and greed" (Hollister, 162). The Church promised instant sanctity to all participants, a promise of full pardon for one's sins, and a guarantee of eternal life. Urban and his successors, by granting indulgences, had sanctified this war as a holy war, and by 1096 the habit of "divinizing" these conflicts became so well established that the Pauline metaphor of "fighting for Christ" was well interpreted as military knight service (Heer, 127). Military sacerdotal orders supposedly were based on high ideals of charity, chivalry, and medical care for those wounded in conflict, but too often these qualities were over-ridden by grand and petty political intrigues. By the time of the Fourth Crusade, the papal powers had lost control over these monastic knights, leading to the excommunication of the Templers by Innocent III. The growing animosity between the Greeks and Crusaders flamed up into open conflict at the end of the twelfth century. In 1185, the Knights captured and sacked Salonika, the second largest city of the Byzantine Empire; they conducted themselves with such complete disregard for the sanctity of Christian Churches that horror and indignation overwhelmed the whole of the Christian East. Contemporary Greek historians describe how the drunken soldiers danced on the alters of Orthodox Churches, how the sacred vessels and reserved sacrament, together with the icons, were made the object of the most revolting abuses, and how the corpses of men, women, and children were profaned by the conquerors. The scenes of deliberate cruelty staggered the Greeks and sacrilege, for the Moslems, their inveterate enemies, had always showed a genuine respect for places of worship. Copyright ©, Yuri Koszarycz. This (Crusade) file may be copied on the condition that the entire contents, including the header and this copyright notice, remain intact. The contents of ORB are copyright © 1995-1 Laura V. Blanchard and Carolyn Schriber except as otherwise indicated herein. Further distortion of the apostle’s doctrine during the Crusades occurred when the soldiers of the ill-advised Crusades captured Muslims and forced them under water, claiming this was baptism and would save their souls. The result was a nation of people who had been so humiliated that they hated anything associated with Christianity. Even today we see repercussions resulting from these misguided and anti-Christian ventures. Apparently the Catholic crusaders had never been taught that Christianity is a religion of “volunteers,” people repentant of their sins and seeking salvation. Why is that? We suspect the hierarchy of the Catholic Church knew very little about Christianity. Consequently they were unable to teach it to others. The Bottom Line On This Issue The Crusades were a huge mistake. Sending an army to kill people who disagree with you is not the Christian way of doing things. Nor is taking people by force and conducting a sham baptism, claiming they are now Christian and you have saved their soul. Jesus Christ is looking for volunteers, people willing to set aside the ways of the “world” and follow his commandments. Evidently the people in charge of the Roman Catholic Church did not have this basic understanding of Christianity.   L. THE COLLECTION  If you have been to a Catholic Mass recently, you have been asked several times during their service for funds, for one cause, or another. But that is not the process God intended. 1 Cor 16:1-2 Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come. (Emphasis added) In 1 Cor 16:1-2 we see the early church met on Sunday and its members were to set aside funds for the support of needy congregations. Those that had more gave more; those that had less gave less (as God has prospered him). There is no more tithing, i.e., giving 10% of one’s income. Each member gives once a week as he has purposed in his heart and the elders decide how that money will be used. The Bottom Line On This Issue Tithing is no longer the way of making donations. If you make a sincere donation, with all you can afford, how can the leaders ask for more? Well, the Catholics do. They do not require tithing, but the Catholic leadership keeps strict track of who gives how much. Should you fall short they make it a point to ask you about it, to insure your soul is honest, and you are not short changing the Lord. However, this is not the Lord's way! This is just another example of the Roman Church inserting itself in between you and the Lord.   M. TRANSUBSTANTIATION  Eucharist Most Bible scholars recognize that Christ died once for our sins and is now in heaven at the right hand of God. This is based on: Romans 6:8-10 Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him: Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him. For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God. (Emphasis added) From this we see the obvious, that Jesus died once and death has no power over him. However, the Catholic Church teaches transubstantiation, i.e., the body and blood of Christ are actually present during their communion and he is crucified at each Mass, literally hundreds of times each year. From the Catholic Encyclopedia: “The Church's Magna Charta, however, are the words of Institution, "This is my body — this is my blood", whose literal meaning she has uninterruptedly adhered to from the earliest times. The Real Presence (of Christ in the Eucharist) is evinced, positively, by showing the necessity of the literal sense of these words, and negatively, by refuting the figurative interpretations.” To teach that Christ held up a piece of bread and told people it was his actual body takes a vivid imagination. It was no more his actual body than if I held up a picture and said, “This is me.” It’s not “ME,” but an allegory - a representation of me. Considering the Last Supper, we accept the obvious, and conclude Christ was saying, “This represents my body.” What does ‘Represent’ represent? The Catholic Church teaches that they have the actual body and blood of Christ and he dies again at each Mass. However, this contradicts Paul’s letter to the Romans, in which he wrote, “Christ rose from the dead and will never die again.” God, in His infinite wisdom, prepared us for such as this. We see the bread and fruit of the vine (pure grape juice) as representing Christ’s body and blood as we remember his death, burial and sacrifice on the first day of every week. We do this in remembrance of him. Keep in mind, the Catholics claim to have given us the Bible, and any interpretation is theirs because they are responsible for it. If they say when Christ was holding the bread that he was holding his body, and that this was not an allegory, that means they are the authority on the subject and no one is to question their proclamations. No one! Of course, where baptism is concerned it is okay to say sprinkling represents immersion because they interpret the meaning of Scripture. Apparently when and where “represents” is used lies in the eye of the one who thinks he gave us the Bible. The Bottom Line On This Issue We see, under Catholic teaching, they have the actual body and blood of Christ and he dies again at each Mass. They refute all figurative interpretations, except for sprinkling, which is an acceptable figurative interpretation for immersion according to the Catholic Church. Whenever there is a contradiction between man and Scripture we opt for the Word of God as delivered by the apostles, rather than any pseudo religion claiming the authority to add or take away or make changes because “God told us it was okay.” (See ‘Man of God’ in 1 Kings 13 for an example of what happens when one ignores the original Word of God and accepts an “updated” version from someone claiming to have spoken with God recently.)   N. THE PRIESTHOOD?  The Bible only lists two church offices: elder/bishop and deacon. It doesn’t mention cardinal or pope. It does mention priest… Rev 1: 5-6 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen. (Emphasis added) 1 Pet 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood , to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. (Emphasis added) 1 Pet 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: (Emphasis added) In the Old Testament God appointed the family of Levi to execute the duties of the priesthood, performing all functions of maintenance and preparation for and conducting the worship service. Anyone else, besides a Levite who performed any of these duties would be put to death (Numbers 1:48-53). In the Church of Christ deacons usually perform the preparation functions but all men are priests and can act as deacons and teachers, depending on their personal capabilities. Some are speakers, some are singers, some can lead prayers and others can mow the lawn. All Christian men are priests and do not need to rely on anyone to intervene for them. Now all Christians can go to God in prayer, through our mediator Jesus Christ (1 Tim 2:5). At Jesus’ death on the cross, the tapestry in the Temple was ripped in twain, opening access to the Holy of Holies to everyone, not just the high priests. The hard Mosaic Law interpreted by the high priest was ripped apart and replaced with a kingdom of priests who have the law written in their hearts. CELIBATE PRIESTS The pedophile crisis in the Catholic Church, both here and abroad, has again raised the issue of whether celibacy for priests is a good idea. Jesus and many of his disciples were celibate. But Peter, ostensibly the first pope, married, and the office was passed from father to son a number of times in the first thousand years of the Roman Church. The idea of a celibate priesthood was apparently first introduced at a Church Council in 304 A.D., when married priests were told not to have children, but it was not until 1139 A.D. that full celibacy became codified Church doctrine under Pope Gregory VII. The underlying idea behind celibacy was to erect a moral wall between a cloistered clergy and the world of sin outside. It was adopted in the 12th century because too many priests appeared to be booking frequent flyer miles traveling between their monastery and the world of sin. Source: www.historynewsnetwork.org The following is from the Huffington Post, 6/29/2010: This is written with a sense of sadness and some mixed feelings. While not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I have great respect for the church and its followers. The church has done and continues to do much good in the world. I've seen it among the poor, the downtrodden, and the ill all around the globe. But with a team of other investigative reporters, we uncovered some things that should be brought to light and pondered. Earlier this month, Pope Benedict XVI issued the first apology to priest abuse victims from St. Peter's Square - a gesture intended to show that church leadership is finally ready to confront this growing scandal. But in reporting a recent story, we found that behind the scenes - and in court - the church has taken a much less contrite and more confrontational position . Our investigation found that in various dioceses across the United States, church leaders were going great lengths (sic) to avoid making amends with the same victims of abuse they claimed to be trying to make peace with. (Emphasis added) Facing waves of lawsuits by now-adult victims, we found the church has reacted more like a big business than a sacred institution: Wealthy dioceses have claimed to be broke and taken the drastic act of filing for bankruptcy. Only when forced to open their ledgers in bankruptcy proceedings does it become clear that several of these dioceses were actually flush with assets - cash, real estate, parishes - that it could have made available to victims seeking restitution. Take the Diocese of San Diego: In 2007, just before several abuse cases were scheduled to begin, it filed for bankruptcy. It sought this protection despite owning hundreds of millions of dollars worth of real estate - everything from commercial buildings, to open land, to parking lots. Only after it became clear that the bankruptcy judge was ready to dismiss the diocese's bankruptcy filing did the church seek to settle with victims. At the end of the bankruptcy proceedings, the judge, a Catholic, scolded the church for being "disingenuous.” In Davenport, Iowa, diocese officials went on a spending spree just before it claimed insolvency and filed for bankruptcy in 2006 - spending that included nearly $20,000 for the very-much-alive bishop's future funeral. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-rather/spiritually-bankrupt_b_629424.html  The Catholic Church has thousands of patron saints, and one, Saint John Berchman was supposed to be the Patron of Alter / Mass servers. Apparently he was asleep at the switch when the alter boys were being molested on a regular basis. I Would Avoid the Catholic Church If I were searching for a church I would avoid any organization that forbad any or all of its members to marry. Catholic tradition has, for the last thousand years, required its nuns and priest to remain celibate. One can only speculate whether their “dirty little secret” about child abuse would be so prevalent if the good priests and nuns had been allowed to marry and live a normal life as others do. In the early church, most bishops were married. In fact, Paul wrote that one of the qualifications for a bishop was for him to be married with a family. 1 Tim 3:1-7 This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. The Bottom Line On This Issue Paul is offering the instructions he received from the Holy Spirit, that the Lord’s church is to be left in the hands of responsible people, married men, experienced in doctrines of the church who are able to pass those teachings on to others. Family values are at the heart of a congregation. Each assembly would be a good example, a “city on the hill” that would be seen by others and influence those of like mind to join this holy kingdom. Nowhere in the Bible are men required to remain celibate. It is offered as an option (Matthew 19:12; 1 Cor 7:25) for individual members but not a requirement. Men with strong family values are left in charge. Celibacy is not intended to be widespread. Requiring celibacy is just another example of the Catholic Church disregarding Scripture and doing things their own way.   O. PRAYER  1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; We pray to God but Jesus receives the prayer and, when we use his name, indicating we are one of his, he passes our prayer on to our Heavenly Father. Jesus is our mediator, the mediator for those in his church. For those not in his church … John 9:31 Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. People like to think God hears their prayers. Many things occur after prayer that seem to have occurred because of answered prayer. But that is not necessarily the case. If you pray for a promotion and get, it you can thank God. But atheists get promoted as well. So was it God or just your good work and reputation that earned you the promotion? If your child recovered from an illness was it because you prayed or because the doctor administered the right drugs? People who never prayed a day in their lives recover from illnesses. Since He only hears prayers that were passed to Him by His son Jesus Christ we want to make sure we are on Jesus’ list – the Book of Life that lists those who were saved by God after answering the gospel call. To Whom Do We Pray 1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. This verse doesn’t specify God because He is addressed in the previous verses. To claim one must confess to a member of the clergy is hypocrisy. God alone forgives sin. To claim otherwise is blasphemy; the same thing the high priests accused Christ of doing. They killed him for claiming he could forgive sins. How Do We Pray Matt 6:7 But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions , as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Again, believing they had the authority to bind or loose the Roman Church encouraged repetitive prayer with impunity. With heaven approving their decisions they could do anything they wanted. What then is the Rosary if not repetitive prayer? When a parishioner confesses sin to a Catholic Priest he/she is given penance to absolve them of that sin. It might be, “Say 10 Hail Marys.” These are well planned and organized petitions. But by repeating them over and over they become vain and repetitious. When asking for something, God would prefer a prayer in your own words. Catholic justification for repetitive prayer includes Psalm 136 which the Jews recited (including Jesus). It has 26 lines, each one ending with the refrain: “God’s love endures forever!” This and similar psalms, which were chanted responsively, are the forerunners of several popular forms of repetitive Catholic prayer. (The New Catholic Answer Bible; www.firesidecatholic.com) That the Mosaic Law, and all things Jewish have been replaced by the Christian Dispensation, seems to have been lost on the “magisterium.” The Bottom Line On This Issue We would remind the good Catholic “Fathers,” the Mosaic Law ended at the cross. We have a new and better way. When we pray from the heart we avoid vain repetitious prayers.   P. CALVARY  Certain bus tours of Jerusalem visit the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Annually tens of thousands of devout Catholics make a pilgrimage to venerate what they have been told is the actual burial tomb of Christ and the place where he died, Calvary. The history of the location is tortuous down through the centuries. History tells us how the Romans totally destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD. Having destroyed everything, the Temple and all public and private buildings the Romans fulfilled Jesus prophecy recorded in Mt. 24:2b There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down. Then, in A.D. 326 the mother of Emperor Constantine, Helena, visited the ruins of Jerusalem. According to legend she poked a stick in the ground and announced she had found the burial site of Christ. While this may seem incredibly convenient who is going to question the dear mother of the Emperor? Any proof of the tale of Constantine’s mother finding the location of Calvary by placing a stick in the ground is lost to antiquity. However, the location of Calvary and the tomb of Christ is fixed in the lore of Catholicism, and is enhanced by the fact that much of the outer wall masonry from Constantine’s construction has survived. (Some information for this was found at http://churchoftheholysepulchre.net/history-of-the-church-of-the-holy-sepulchre ) However this site was selected, its accuracy is doubtful. From the Bible we see Calvary was located outside the city. Apparently this was to protect the citizens from the stench and agony of the dying. But when one notes the location of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre we have to scratch our heads in wonder. Looking at a map of Jerusalem (or Google Earth) we see the location of the Church is now inside the city. History shows us the city walls were expanded by King Agrippa in 41-44 AD which then enclosed the site of the Holy Sepulchre so it was, as now, within the city walls. The wall around the Old City is generally square but if the location of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is correct the walls at one time must have made a right turn, then a left turn. Not a really good idea if one is building a wall to defend a city. This would place Calvary outside the walls but the wall would be downhill from any possible attackers which is poor planning indeed. Today we see the walls are all located on ground about 30 feet higher. This forces potential attackers to struggle uphill which places them at a decided disadvantage - a strategy any decent planner would use. For that reason we doubt the expansion of the wall by King Agrippa was in this area. The Damascus Gate is probably where it has always been, on the north side, closest to Damascus, and any expansion was elsewhere. If the location of Calvary and the tomb of Christ are to be where Catholics say they are the designers of the wall were not familiar with military tactics. Or, perhaps the location where millions of good Catholics go to worship is incorrect? Before we criticize this location we should be able to provide a better one. THE GARDEN TOMB In 1883 British General Charles Gordon, standing on the city wall, looked out and noticed what looked like a skull in the rock formation of a nearby abandoned quarry. He published his idea that this could possibly be the site listed in the New Testament as Golgotha (Aramaic) or Calvary (Latin) – “the place of the skull.” He noted it was outside the city, on the road leading from the Damascus Gate. The Bible records (John 19) Jesus being crucified outside the city of Jerusalem near a gate of the city along a major thoroughfare, that in the place where He was crucified there was a garden and in the garden a tomb. The tomb is described as being a tomb cut out of rock, belonging to a wealthy man by the name of Joseph of Arimathea. It had a weeping chamber, a burial chamber and it was sealed with a rolling stone. Familiar Procedure This issue has all the earmarks of most issues involving the Catholic Church. A leadership decision (Constantine’s mother poked a stick in the ground and announced she had found the burial site of Christ.) followed by twisting history (the wall) to prove their claim. Ultimately, millions of Catholic pilgrims venture to the Holy Sepulchre to worship at the exact spot where … an old woman stuck a stick in the ground. In 1982 this writer had the pleasure of visiting both sites and, unlike the Holy Sepulchre, the Garden Tomb fits in every respect to what was recorded by eye witnesses. Should you plan a trip to Jerusalem we encourage you to visit the Garden Tomb and read the information they make available. When the tomb was first examined it was found to have chisel marks indicating the hard work of men cutting out the tomb from solid rock. (This would imply a rich man’s slaves had done the work.) It was also packed full of bodies from about 2000 years ago. One of them had a small wooden board that said, “(name), buried with his Lord.” Apparently an early Christian was aware Jesus had been buried in this tomb and wanted to be buried there as well. They have emptied the tomb since then and you can see the two chambers. If this is the actual tomb of Jesus it is just as it appeared that first Easter Sunday when, “Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.” (Some information for this was found at the website for the Garden Tomb. We encourage you to view- http://www.gardentomb.com/ ) The Bottom Line On This Issue The confrontation between Catholics and Protestants continues with the burial place of Jesus. Was it where an old woman stuck a stick in the ground or was it the hand-hewn tomb in solid granite located near a skull-like appearance in a rock formation? The choice is yours.   REVIEW OF WHY I AM NOT A CATHOLIC  I am not a Catholic because the Roman Catholic Church was born amid pagan principles and matured while embracing doctrines of devils. This is a church that began when everyone (pagans, atheists and Christians) in the Roman Empire was decreed automatic membership. This is a story of power, deceit, greed, and bloodshed. It started, not with the gospel of Jesus, but by the decree of an emperor. Constantine was never baptized and had little patience with theological wrangling. Nevertheless, as Emperor of the Roman Empire he assumed the authority to arbitrate church disputes. He never had the Spirit of God and the spirit of man is insufficient to rule the kingdom of Christ. We reject the allegation that Peter was the Vicar of Christ. To say the leadership of the church would be on one man is wrong. Then to say he could hear the voice of God while ignoring the written Word of God is an abomination. Additionally, to say he had successors who also spoke with God is ludicrous. The RCC simply states Peter was the first pope as a fact and boldly goes on from there. Also, there is absolutely no evidence to support the belief that Peter’s alleged position could be passed to anyone. The foundation of the Lord’s church is the fact that Jesus is the Son of God. The keys to the church are sincere repentance, and having one’s sins washed away in baptism. Continuing, one must accept the teachings of Christ. We must become as a new person, doing away with lying, cheating, stealing, killing, etc. We cannot be concerned with minor inconveniences and we must be able to turn away from real or imagined slights. Finally, one must be faithful unto death - faithful to Christ, not to any man. Matthew 7: 15-20 tells us to beware of false prophets who come in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravening wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Good trees bring forth good fruit but corrupt trees bring forth evil fruit. You will know them by their actions. WHAT WE HAVE LEARNED When Emperor Theodosius I tried to produce a unity throughout the empire, he ordered all Roman citizens to profess the faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria. What the Emperor overlooked, as did most of the popes who followed, was the fact that Christianity is a kingdom of volunteers. Thus he circumvented the fundamental entrance process, as outlined by Peter himself (Acts 2:38). Meanwhile, with the new “Church of the Roman Empire” polluted by pagans, innocent Christians were forced to meet in secret, usually in each other’s homes. The pagan leaders used “official” synods and edicts to validate their positions, giving them a thin veneer of legitimacy. Down through history anyone who disagreed with the Roman version of Christianity was killed. From persecution of the Albigensians to Jewish pogroms to the Spanish Inquisition, the Roman Church was guilty again and again of an anti-Christian attitude and being a disgraceful example to the world! Choosing to kill your opponents instead of giving them an opportunity to come to the truth is the antithesis of a Christian attitude. Keep this in mind and compare Catholic doctrines that are foreign to Christianity. Did they kill people who disagreed with them? Did they invent doctrine for the sole purpose of raising money? Did they invent processes that lead people away from Christ and to dead saints? Early Catholic policies, such as burning people at the stake and dunking adversaries in water while claiming you are saving their souls tells us all we need to know. Death by burning is a particularly painful process yet it was the official policy of this church. If there were no other reason for denouncing the Roman Church that would be enough. They came nowhere near serving as an example of Christ’s teaching of love and respect for others. Modern Catholic policies, such as “Tradition” adding to Scripture; accepting annulment instead of divorce; and bowing before statues proves to us their failure as a Christian religion. All of this is validated by men acting as pious, gentle sheep while inwardly they are ravenous wolves destroying men’s souls. It makes us look elsewhere when seeking a church started by the Prince of Peace. The Papacy Is Pointless There is no need for a pope: we already have a leader, Jesus Christ! Peter certainly never acted like a pope, humbly pointing out that, “I myself also am a man.” (Acts 10:26) The history of the popes includes rape, homosexuality, murder, adultery, incest, drunkenness and selling religious offices. The master of the Roman world, “chosen by God,” sanctioned the destruction of non-Christian temples and sanctuaries. (Compare this with how you feel today about ISIS destroying ancient temples.); the burning of heretical writings; and the exile or execution of obstinate polytheists and all who refused to believe, or at least who pretend to believe, in this unholy “Church of the Roman Empire.” Jesus gave his apostles the “Great Commission” to teach the world what Christians were supposed to do and what not to do. They were to bind and loose doctrine as already handed down from heaven. All apostles were given the same authority to go and spread the gospel to all the world, teaching what was allowed and disallowed in the church of Jesus Christ. They were not allowed to make up rules as they went along. However, that is how Catholic teaching misconstrues, in their favor, what was written and allows them to invent canon as they see fit. The purpose of the changes the Catholics made to their teaching, was to better subject the masses into accepting the Roman church rather than Christ. Each addition was to take the uninformed and lead them away from Jesus into a morass of pagan symbols and behavior. Today this church is 1.2 billion strong and the world mistakenly considers it the leader of the Christian movement. The RCC has usurped authority over the Word of God. To justify some of their convoluted “Traditions,” they boast that they are the only legal authority to interpret it because they gave the world the Bible. Thus they can teach purgatory, for example, then offer various verses that mention sin in one form or another and tell us it confirms purgatory. In “proving” purgatory, none of the verses they cited actually has anything to do with a post-death purification process. But the good “fathers,” the cardinals and “Holy Father” convince the “faithful” congregants that what they teach is confirmed by Holy Scripture. It seems to this writer that the convoluted process is misleading. We wonder where something as complicated and anti-Christian as this could originate? Mt. 13:19 When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side. The people are taught to accept the new canon because “Jesus taught it to the ‘Holy Roman Church’ and we believe Jesus.” Who would teach such a thing? Who would create a complicated lie, convincing people they are following Jesus when in fact they are separating themselves from Christ by accepting a strange new doctrine? Who indeed! This pompous, pagan church evolved over the centuries into a giant, unyielding structure that devoured souls while proclaiming itself the earthly representative of God. They gave people false hope by telling them their sins were forgiven, which misled billions of souls. Billions who believed them, “drank the Kool-Aid” and accepted their pagan beliefs. In an effort to hide the many verses that contradicted official teaching, the public was told they would be killed if they read the Bible. We have to ask, what kind of organization would threaten to kill its members if they read the Word of God, or did not join their organization? Certainly not an organization with Christian values. In the 14th century Pope Boniface VII declared that it is necessary for every human to be subject to the Roman pope for salvation. If the Catholic Church were Christian we would agree with the pope. However, they are not. We declare it is necessary for every human to be subject to Jesus Christ for salvation. Ignoring the Prince of Peace, they marched against the Muslims six times, causing the death of millions. They forced many Muslims under water, against their will, in a humiliating and sham baptism. We take a stand We believe the Adversary, Lucifer, brought into being, guided the decisions and growth of this massive deception and is behind all the changes to Jesus’ ordinances. Only He would do such a thing! Again, if you tell a lie often enough, and bold enough, people will believe you. Especially if you add that they will suffer a burning hell for eternity if they dare question your teachings. Well, we not only question them, we reject them entirely! We trust in the traditions written by the apostles, traditions the apostles made known to the entire world; traditions we can find nowhere but in the faithful and true Word of God. The Bottom Line On This Issue It is our position that the Roman Catholic Church began when Constantine made Christianity an official religion of the empire. Later it was made the single state religion, bringing in leaders ill equipped to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ. Then, over several hundred years, the hierarchy uncovered various Christian proofs and claimed them as their own. Over the centuries their conduct was reprehensible. Finally, in the 1500s, there was a revolt and the Reformation took place with many leaving the RCC and starting their own church, generally patterned after the church they just left. We would have preferred if there had been a Restoration of the original church and not a wealth of new churches competing against each other for the souls of mankind. At least they left the Roman Catholic Church. During this three part series we tried to show why leaving, or not joining in the first place, is the proper thing to do. We showed how the ‘Church of the Roman Empire’ overwhelmed the Christian church, forcing true Christians into hiding; We disproved the Catholic claim that their authority goes back to Peter; We disproved the Catholic claim that they have the authority to make new rules that will be approved in heaven;   We disproved their claim to have given the world the Bible. They simply rubber-stamped what had already been in effect; We challenged the Catholic policy of coming up with a new doctrine, and then claiming it had been passed down via oral tradition; We proved as false many of the “Traditions” of the Roman church. We proved this massive house of evil has feet of clay, devouring souls while claiming they speak with God. Meanwhile, continuing from the first century, members of the Lord’s church, the Church of the Firstborn, the kingdom of heaven, the kingdom of Christ, the Church of God, the Church of Christ, were meeting in secret, worshiping God in the pattern recorded by the apostles. As members of the Lord’s church we offer this dissertation on Catholicism as a testament to the errors mankind has made and the truth one can find in God’s Holy Scripture. We strive for accuracy and fairness. If you have any comments or if you see a factual error, contact the author: BRAD COOK