Obvious Errors of Catholicism

(To read this in a PDF format click here.)

According to the most recent Vatican estimates I have seen (the year 2023), there are 1.4 billion Catholics in the world today. The Pew Research group says around 20% of people living in the United States are Catholic. Roman Catholicism is much like Judaism was in Old Testament times. It is a religion where you may have converts (called proselytes in Judaism),  but the vast majority are what they are by birth, raised that way by their parents from birth. They are Catholic before they have any idea of what that means, Catholic by infant baptism.

Such was true under Judaism as well; you were a Jew whether you knew it or not, based on birth. Boys were circumcised at the age of eight days old, initiating them into the religion. I have often thought Roman Catholicism has more in common with Judaism than Christianity—the way you enter into it (generally by birthright), all the rites and rituals, all the new rules and regulations (rules instituted by the Pharisees under Judaism in the Old Testament, under the Popes, councils, etc. in Roman Catholicism), and the great emphasis on tradition in both religions.

Nothing evokes people's emotions like religion. Question a person's religion and their hackles rise instantly. They are ready to fight, to go at it. The Bible teaches that it is good to be zealous in a good thing always (Gal. 4:18), but when one is zealous in error, it results in evil. Paul, before he became an apostle, said he was zealous of the traditions of the fathers more so than many of his contemporaries (Gal. 1:14). That led him to imprison and persecute Christians (Gal. 1:13). Some were put to death.  He said when that happened, he gave his vote against them (Acts 26:10). The Catholics have a history of doing the same, of persecution, even to putting people to death.

This historical record should teach us that we ought not to act emotionally but consider rationally the propositions we are confronted with to differentiate truth from error. Put in the simplest terms, think before you decide or act, for once a person's acts become history, that is where they stay. One can be forgiven, but the historical record will remain and cannot be changed.

In this article, I want to give some obvious reasons why no one should be a Roman Catholic, and if you are one, why you ought to come out of that religion. I might add this listing is, as they say, only the tip of the iceberg. One could write for days on end on this general topic.

(1) Roman Catholicism has been a religion of violence, torture, terror, and murder; thus, it cannot be the religion of Christ and the New Testament. This is a strong statement, but the historical record backs it up. I ask no one to take my word for it. Read, read, and read some more, not what I write but what the historians have written.

I suppose a good place to start would be "Foxe's Book of Martyrs". Many criticize "Foxe's Book of Martyrs" as biased, but none I have run across claim it is entirely inaccurate. The book covers more than just Catholic persecution of those of other faiths, but it does cover that extensively. One can read there, or elsewhere, about the Inquisition. Read about the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 1572. "Pope Gregory XIII celebrated the massacre — he had a medal struck and commissioned Giorgio Vasari to paint frescoes commemorating it in the Vatican" (sourced from Claude, the A.I.). Read about the burnings at the stake. Read about the Crusades.

I ask where in the New Testament does Jesus teach "kill the heretics," but Rome did that time and time again. It became mad with power and arrogance. That was not Christianity. It was Roman Catholicism. This history alone should keep one out of Catholicism.

(2) Another obvious error of Catholicism is that of transubstantiation, the word meaning a change of substance. In what Catholics call the Mass, most Protestants call the communion, or the Lord's Supper, Catholics claim the bread turns into the literal body of Christ and the fruit of the vine into the literal blood of Christ. If it does, why do we see no flesh as we observe the bread or blood as we observe the fruit of the vine? The answer is simple enough to the rational mind not blinded by emotionalism. You can't see what is not there.

When Jesus instituted the Lord's Supper in Matthew 26, he said of the bread, "Take, eat; this is My body." (verse 26) He said of the cup (verse 27, speaking of the contents), "This is my blood" (verse 28). Did he mean it literally? As he made those statements, he was sitting before the twelve in his fleshly body, the body their eyes were observing. When he spoke of the cup being his blood, was not his literal blood flowing within the arteries and veins of his body at that very moment? Were the twelve supposed to take him literally and believe they were eating and partaking of his literal flesh and blood while their eyes were observing him in his physical body?

You do know the New Testament given by the Holy Spirit of God forbids any and all Christians from eating blood. "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality; if you keep yourselves from these, you will do well." (Acts 15:28-29, see also Acts 15:20 and Acts 21:25) In the Old Testament, God said this about eating blood, "I will set My face against that person who eats blood, and will cut him off from among his people." (Lev. 17:10 NKJV) "No one among you shall eat blood." (Lev. 17:12 NKJV)

Jesus often used figurative or symbolic language. He referred to himself as a door (John 10:9), and we see clearly that he is, but we know that language is not literal, and it does not refer to the physical or material. He said he was the vine (John 15:1), and again, we see he is, but not a literal botanical vine. The same can be said when he referred to himself as the bread of life, etc.

The Catholics go so far with their doctrine of transubstantiation that they worship the wafer, once consecrated, as God, and yes, I know what their response would be to my charge. I reject their response. The wafer is no more Jesus after the consecration than it was before. They worship the wafer despite any disclaimer on their part.

The Lord's supper was to be a memorial of the Lord's death, "in remembrance of Me," as the scriptures state it (1 Cor. 11:24-25 NKJV). With the Catholics, it is not a remembrance but rather another sacrifice. They say it is a non-bloody sacrifice, but the Bible teaches that "without shedding of blood there is no remission." (Heb 9:22 NKJV) A non-bloody sacrifice avails nothing. Besides, Christ's sacrifice was a once-for-all-time event sufficient to cover all past sins and all future sins of those who are of the faith. He "does not need daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins, and then for the people's, for this He did once for all when He offered up Himself." (Heb. 7:27 NKJV, see also Heb. 9:12, 28, and Heb. 10:10)

I must move on, for I am drifting into the errors of the Mass when I only want to deal with the obvious error of transubstantiation. One could write a massive volume on the errors of Catholicism, but that is not my purpose here.

(3) The final obvious error of Catholicism that I am going to deal with is that of the Papacy. No one reads of a Pope in the Bible, and everyone knows that. It was and is a Catholic invention.

The claim is that Peter was the first Pope, and that is based on Peter's confession that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God, in Matt. 16:16 and Jesus' response to it saying, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church." (Matt. 16:17-18 NKJV) They say the church was built on Peter, Peter being the rock Jesus was referring to. Peter was thus to be the head of the church on earth after Jesus' ascension.

But the Bible says, "For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:11 NKJV) No physical building can be built without a foundation to build upon. No institution can be built unless it has a purpose, a function to fulfill, its foundation, its mission. Paul says, as quoted in this Corinthian passage, that Jesus is that foundation.

"For who is God, except the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God?" (Psalms 18:31 NKJV) Jesus is specifically referred to as a "rock" in 1 Cor. 10:4, where Paul, talking about Israel coming out of Egyptian bondage, says, "all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ." (NKJV) Jesus is the rock the church was built upon. The church was not built upon Peter but rather upon the truth he confessed about Jesus, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." (Matt. 16:16 NKJV) Jesus was "The stone which the builders rejected" that "has become the chief cornerstone." (1 Peter 2:7 NKJV)

Isaiah prophesied this hundreds of years earlier. He said, "Therefore thus says the Lord God: 'Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation.' " (Isa. 28:16 NKJV) When Peter in Acts 3 healed the lame man and he and John were thereafter brought before the Sanhedrin he answered them saying, "By the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.' " (Acts 4:10-11 NKJV)

Perhaps the clearest passage, although those listed are perfectly clear, is found in Ephesians 2:20. It is a reference to the household of God, which is the church, and says, "Having been built on the foundation of the apostles, and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone." (NKJV) The church was no more built upon Peter individually than it was any of the other apostles individually, and all of them were first built upon Jesus.

The only primacy Peter had was that of being privileged to preach the first gospel sermon on the Day of Pentecost to the Jews and later to the Gentiles (to Cornelius and his household). He used the keys to the kingdom (the gospel preached) to open the door of salvation to both. But those same keys were given to all the apostles. The Great Commission was not given to Peter exclusively.

Why would God build the church on any man? Paul said, "Let no one boast in men." (1 Cor. 3:21 NKJV) The idea of a papacy goes against everything taught in the New Testament about the relationship of brethren to one another. "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you." (Matt. 20:25-26 NKJV) "For who makes you differ from another?" (1 Cor. 4:7 NKJV) Christ is the head of the church both in heaven and on earth. (Eph. 1:22-23, Col. 1:18) Make no mistake about it, the office of the Pope, of an earthly fleshly superior after Christ, is an invention of men and is not of God.

Paul never deferred to Peter. In fact, he rebuked him in the book of Galatians, chapter two, for refusing to eat with the Gentiles. Paul said of himself, "I am not a bit behind the most eminent apostles." (2 Cor. 11:5 NKJV) That would certainly include Peter, the one the Catholics claim was the Pope. If he were the Pope, Paul did not seem to know it. And certainly, Paul did not address Peter as "the Holy Father," which is the way Catholics address the Pope. Jesus said we are to address no man as father (in a spiritual sense). He said, "Do not call anyone on earth your father, for One is your Father, He who is in heaven." (Matt. 23:9 NKJV) Catholics do it anyway.

The office of the Pope seems to be a desire to be exalted, to be seen like one of the original twelve, to speak unknown truths to the world through the Holy Spirit, and to rule. The trouble with that is multifaceted, but I will mention just one thing. The Bible says the faith was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 3). If I could be saved in the first century by what was taught, believed, and practiced back then, what need do I have today of anything additional that a Pope could give me? Think long about that. Why is he needed? I hope it is not to keep heresy in check, for we have seen the torture and death that brought historically.

The only rule of the church the Bible gives us for today is that of elders in each local congregation of brethren who are to oversee the work God has given the church. You will find the qualifications for them in the books of 1 Timothy and Titus, and that was not a one-man rule. There were to be plural elders in each congregation, and they were to rule only over that single congregation of which they were members. Those who seek to exalt themselves to something higher than that sin.

But let's take this one step further. Suppose, just for the sake of argument, that Peter was given an office unique to him. What would that prove about any succession? The answer—not a single thing. The Bible nowhere speaks about a succession to any of the apostles. Apostolic authority in the first-century church required miraculous spiritual gifts. Certainly, we would expect that of a man who claims to be "the Holy Father" on earth and accepts the praise, adoration, and, one could even say, the worship of the crowds. Paul, as an apostle, said, "In nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles, though I am nothing. Truly the signs of an apostle were accomplished among you with all perseverance, in signs and wonders and mighty deeds" (2 Cor. 12:11-12 NKJV), but the Popes show none of these signs.

Peter had these signs. He even raised the dead (Tabitha or Dorcas) in Acts 9:36-40. So, where are these signs among Peter's so-called successors? Those who are supposed to be even more exalted than ordinary apostles, in that they are the head of the church on earth, Christ's representative in that office, so it is said, and yet are powerless, unlike Peter or Paul or any of the other apostles.

Christ did not give any to be Pope in his church. "And He Himself gave some to be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, and some pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the saints for the work of ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ, till we all come to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, to a perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ." (Eph. 4:11-13 NKJV) Strange Paul, writing by the Holy Spirit, fails to mention the most eminent position of all in bringing God's people to the unity of the faith, the knowledge of Jesus, to the stature of the fullness of Christ - the Pope - if such an office existed. Paul never mentions a Pope in his writings, yet the Catholics tell us there was a Pope even while Paul lived; it was, they say, Peter.

I could write much more, but this will suffice for now. These errors are so obvious that one wonders why people do not see them, but history has taught us that people can easily be led astray and blinded to what is obvious to others. They get so caught up in false religions that it generally takes a total disaster to befall them before they are freed from them. The Japanese would never have rid themselves of Emperor worship had it not been for their near-total destruction during World War II. No one expects Islam to end before the second coming of Christ. No one expects the majority of Catholics to escape Catholicism, as obvious as its errors are. It is easy to be blinded, or so it seems, but much of that blindness is simply because we want it that way. We want to believe what we want to believe. We want it to be true. Often, we will have it no other way.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]