Catholicism – Plot Holes in the “Original” Church

I’d like to kick things off by sharing a vocabulary word with you: ecumenical. To give you a straight, dictionary definition instead of my own approximation of the meaning, ecumenical is defined as:

“Of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches, or, promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation.”

If that leaves things a little fuzzy for you (as that’s not a lot to go on), let me give you a more practical breakdown. The Catholic church, the Orthodox churches, and the Protestant church (and its many denominations) all have things they disagree on – some of them may be minor takes on operational or functional elements, and some of them are very, very large, to the point where we all accuse one another of heresy. On the other hand, we all have things we agree on. We don’t share a relationship with one another like we do with Mormons or Jehovah’s Witnesses, where we say “God,” and they say “God,” we say “Jesus,” and they say “Jesus,” but even though we’re using the same words, even though they’ll tell us we’re talking about the same thing, we’re actually not. When a practicing Catholic talks about God they’re talking about the same God we serve, when they say that Jesus was crucified, laid in a tomb, and rose again on the third day, they mean the exact same thing we do when we say that. It would be easy to strongly emphasize an ecumenical relationship with one another, to only focus and only talk about the parts we agree on, and that would certainly have its practicality. The world is not a friend to the followers of Jesus, and so why wouldn’t we set aside differences and join arm in arm with our fellow Christians? Well, the primary reason is that it’s hard to tell if Catholics actually are our fellow Christians. I can’t and won’t go so far as to say that all Catholics aren’t Christians – again to address the copycats, this isn’t like a practicing Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness where I can definitively say that they do not have salvation in Christ. But the thing that makes this rocky, the reason I can’t say with confidence that a practicing Catholic is a new creation in Christ is because, while the ecumenical bubble is nice and warm, it’s fairly small, and there are some dark and serious blasphemies that lurk outside of it. The protestants didn’t split from this church because we disagreed about what to serve at the church bake sale, or what color the sanctuary carpet should be – we have some very real fundamental differences in core doctrine. We’ll dive into some of them and look at why it makes it difficult if not impossible to walk arm and arm together, but before we go into individual points we can establish two broad issues: the canon and tradition. In regard to the cannon, I mean the books that make up the Bible that is used in the Catholic church. The Bible that the Protestant church uses, regardless of translation, consists of 66 books – 39 in the Old Testament, and 27 in the New. The Catholic Bible is made up of 73 books, with essentially the same New Testament that we have (there are some seemingly small translation differences in their commonly used NABRE), and 46 books in their version of the Old Testament, which includes the books of Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch, as well as additional passages to the books of Esther and Daniel. This obviously begs the question, which one is correct? After all, either the Protestant Bible is missing sections of inspired text, and since Scripture is self-affirming and consistently validates its own message, this would mean that we’re hypocritically calling in incomplete work the complete Word of God – or, on the other side of the spectrum – the Catholic Bible takes the complete Word of God and tacks additional, uninspired works onto it. Regardless, we can’t both be right, so why do we believe what we believe? We’ll direct our focus entirely to the Old Testament, since that’s where the differences lie. You have to consider that before the Old Testament was our book, it was the Jew’s book. Ultimately if you follow the guiding path of the Old Testament it doesn’t remain in Judaism but progresses into Christianity – becoming a Christian is arguably one of if not the most Jewish thing you can do. So, my initial question is, historically, what did Jews before and during the time of Jesus hold as their canon? This may surprise you, but there’s actually a divided opinion around this, given that it happened some 2,000 years ago (depending on who you ask), and for better or worse, there is a very real bias in determining a cut off date. It also seems that the closing of the canon was not something that happened all at once. For example, you have the Torah, also referred to as the Pentateuch, or the Books of Moses, which are Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy, and these make up the first section of the Jewish Old Testament. This would have been closed, permitting no additional writings, well before the later sections containing histories or prophecies were considered closed. The general consensus seems to indicate that the Old Testament was counted as complete sometime between 200 BC and 100 AD, though there are sources that suggest a later closure. Personally, it seems that Scripture weighs in on this, despite there being no verse that says, “and on this day, of this month, of this year, the canon of the Old Testament was closed.” Between the writing of the book of Malachi, which is the last of the Old Testament, and the beginning of John the Baptist’s ministry, heralding the coming Christ, there were 400 years. 400 years of silence, 400 years where no prophecies were given from the Lord and no Scripture was written. It was during these 400 years that the Maccabean revolt took place, the events of which are chronicled in 1 and 2 Maccabees, and yet these books weren’t and are not to this day considered part of the Jewish canon. If there was a 400 year gap, and the last thing we read is Malachi 4:5–6,

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and awesome day of the LORD comes. And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and strike the land with a decree of utter destruction.”

And the next thing we get is John the Baptist, who Jesus testifies to as “coming in the spirit of Elijah,” it seems fairly obvious that the Old Testament canon was closed during this time period, and the books that the Jews of Jesus’ time had as their Scripture are what we may legitimately hold as the completed Word of God prior to the New Testament. What’s interesting is that the Catholics seem to admit that their additional books are literally secondary, because the official name of Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach, and Baruch collectively (along with the additions to Esther and Daniel) is the “Deuterocanon.” It literally means “second standard/ list.” And for the Protestants, it’s not that we reject these works as meaningless or necessarily heretical. They in and of themselves are historical works and they have their value – the heresy comes in calling things the inspired Word of God that simply aren’t. We call them uninspired partly because of what the Jewish tradition shows – Christianity grew forth from Judaism, it makes sense that we would operate off of the Scripture that they were given – but they’re also considered uninspired because of what some of them teach (a verse in 2 Maccabees essentially the entire foundation for the Catholic practice of praying for the forgiveness of those who have already died, which fed into the practice of indulgences at certain points in the church’s history, which are full subjects on their own). So, if we have a justifiable reason for not counting these books and their teachings as part of the canon of Scripture, why does the Catholic church count their Deuterocanon as being the inspired Word of God? This actually brings us to the second cardinal difference I want to address – tradition. It’s not that tradition doesn’t matter to the Protestant church – people get this wrong all the time, and it has caused the Protestant denominations to suffer. The mega pseudo-churches that peddle feel good messages, and basically treat the Bible like a self-help book are, if not directly caused by, at the very least contributed to by an outright rejection of tradition. To continue to do something simply because that’s the way you’ve always done it is foolish – that may apply to the Catholics delivering their mass in Latin, or it could be some Protestants insisting that the King James Version is the only legitimate, inspired translation of the Bible. Tradition for tradition’s sake is stupid – but so is throwing out tradition just because it’s old. Rather, what’s rational is to ask where your tradition comes from, why are you doing what you’re doing? Protestants don’t outright reject tradition, but we don’t place an extraordinary emphasis on it either. There’s nothing significant that we do, be it baptism, communion, baby dedications, weddings, funerals, corporate worship – none of these things are done because they’re traditions, even though they hold elements of tradition within the church. We do them because they’re genuine acts of worship, because God has commanded that we do these things, and out of love and reverence we obey. The tradition of it isn’t absent, but it’s entirely secondary, it’s a footnote – by no means is it our guiding principle in anything. And that may be the simplest way to define it for the Protestants – tradition describes, it doesn’t inform. We do things, and they may be called traditions, but there is nothing that we do in the name of tradition. Now, to avoid strawmanning the Catholic argument, they would not say that their traditions are done purely for the sake of tradition either, and for some of them that may even be the truth. But the simple matter is that for the Catholic, tradition governs every aspect of their worship, because it governs every aspect of their teaching – which is what circles us back to the canon of Scripture. For the Protestant, Scripture is the highest authority. If the Southern Baptist Convention (of which my church is a part), comes out tomorrow and says that they’re making an amendment to their statement of faith and their guiding doctrine, and that “gay marriage” will now be permissible and recognized by the convention, I have every God-given right, all the weight of Biblical authority to denounce that decision. They hold no corporate power that I, as an individual cannot call out blasphemous or Biblically unsound actions if they were to deviate from what the Word commands. If they present a reading of Scripture that supports a heretical teaching, I don’t have to bow before their collective might, I can read what the Bible says, and through prayerful consideration and the Light of the Holy Spirit, be delivered into the Truth of the Word. Now, while the many members of the Catholic church would likely push against a sudden mass approval of “same sex marriage,” if the church announces its formal acceptance, then it’s considered Biblical doctrine, the conversation is essentially over, and you’re the heretic if you disagree. It is the institution of the Catholic church, and specifically the Pope (who we’ll talk about later), who determines how Scripture is interpreted. To be as clear as I possibly can – this is not me saying that I determine what Scripture says. This is another protestant misconception, and it is what has led to a variety of different denominations, and a whole host of heretical, pseudo-Christian religions. Jesus says to the disciples in John 16:12–15,

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”

Paul writes in 2 Timothy 3:16–17,

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.”

And the writer of Hebrews tells us in Hebrews 4:12–13,

“For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.”

I am not the arbiter of what the Bible says, God is the one and only Author of His Word, it is His Spirit that brings understanding, and that gives continued life to the text. Now, let’s address the obvious problem here – what if I lie? What if I claim divine, spiritual revelation to the text and say that it means something contrary to what we know as traditional, standard teaching? This is where we have to not throw the baby out with the bath water and understand the honest, practical necessity of structure, tradition and scholarly consensus. The Bible is a spiritual text, but it’s not just a spiritual text – the Truth isn’t just communicated through and validated by a series of warm fuzzies. It’s a historical document, it’s deeply psychological, poetic, and symbolic, while maintaining its literal Truth. As an example of what it looks like to ignore all this, I once saw a video of a pastor claiming that he could use his King James Bible to correct the original Greek writings… I would have more sympathy for him if he hadn’t been peddling falsehoods to a congregation, drinking in and encouraging “amens” from all around. We can understand Scripture when we read it in context, and it helps tremendously when we can understand details of the time, place, and culture in which it was written. You can’t read it through the lens you want it to fit, you can’t cherry-pick verses, or twist a message to suit your own ends. The Bible isn’t about you, though it’s certainly for you, that you might understand your profound need for a savior, know redemption, and glorify God. Imagine if I opened my Bible to the Sermon on the Mount and read Matthew 5:43,

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’”

And then I just stopped. Awesome – I’m going to take care of the people I like, I’m going to hate everyone that I don’t, and I’ve got the greenlight because the Bible said I could. But that’s not what the Bible says, and it would be a disgusting falsehood to claim so, because what Jesus says in Matthew 5:43–45 is,

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven….”

This is a painfully simple example, but it doesn’t require the high theology of the Catholic church to comprehend what Scripture is teaching, nor does the Word of God require the validation of this institution. Jesus teaches later in the Sermon on the Mount (full and in context), in Matthew 7:7–11,

“Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened. Or which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!”

Not “ask your priest,” not “gain understanding from your bishop,” but rather we’re told to ask of our Father – we are told to seek the face of God – our understanding comes from Him. Now, again, to keep from overcorrecting – there is a clear Biblical precedent for Church leadership, there is a call for shepherds and teachers to watch over and guide the people of God, which we see in passages like Titus 1:5–9 where Paul gives Titus the qualification for elders in the church,

“This is why I left you in Crete, so that you might put what remained into order, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you—if anyone is above reproach, the husband of one wife, and his children are believers and not open to the charge of debauchery or insubordination. For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach. He must not be arrogant or quick-tempered or a drunkard or violent or greedy for gain, but hospitable, a lover of good, self-controlled, upright, holy, and disciplined. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”

1 Timothy 3:1–7 where Paul communicates similar criteria for those he calls “overseers,”

“The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive, for if someone does not know how to manage his own household, how will he care for God’s church? He must not be a recent convert, or he may become puffed up with conceit and fall into the condemnation of the devil. Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil.”

And in 1 Peter 5:1–5, where Peter writes to his fellow church leaders,

“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory. Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for ‘God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.’”

Church leadership is a good, Biblically mandated thing – the problem is when tradition and church authority are handed the same weight as what the Bible says, and even allowed to sway the way in which the Word is understood. The Catholic ultimately says that the church determines what the Bible says, while the Protestant ultimately says that the Bible determines what the Bible says. Now, spiritually, the two should mean the same thing – the Church that is the Bride of Christ, and the Bible that is the living, breathing Word of God are entirely of one accord. But the institution of the Catholic church and the eternal, spotless, Bride are not the same thing. Which, by the way, quick tangent here, is such an unfortunate marketing strategy, because “catholic” literally means “universal,” so when they’re called “the Catholic church” their name is literally “the universal church,” despite the fact that they don’t in any way represent all of Christendom. But this order, this hierarchy of Catholicism, the church and interwoven with it, its tradition is what forms the foundation for everything – what counts as Scripture, how to interpret what Scripture says, and then into every governance concerning worship. It’s not that there aren’t practicing Catholics who love Jesus or desire to honor God, but there is a flawed framework anchored around their doctrine that causes everything built up from it to adopt a warped perspective – and this is rooted in the power that tradition and the institution of the church hold, reflected most obviously in the makeup of the canon and the interpretation of the Word that follows. As we move into a deeper look at the pitfalls of Catholic theology we’ll see how many of their core doctrines not only lack Biblical support, but are outright contradicted by it. In addressing the issues of the structure and hierarchy of the Catholic church it seems that there’s no better place to start than their figurehead: the Pope.

1. The Papacy and the Priesthood

The Pope, also known as, “Bishop of Rome,” “Vicar of Jesus Christ,” “Successor of the Prince of the Apostles,” “Holy Father,” and several other titles, that probably mean a little less if you’re not familiar with the terminology. Even some of these may not make much sense, but if you’ve spent any time in the church there are probably a couple of buzzwords here that give you pause. Jesus states in Matthew 23:8–12,

“But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. The greatest among you shall be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.”

For context, Matthew 23 shows Jesus giving brutal criticism of the religious rulers of the day, who lorded their positions and titles over others. Now, let’s look at this with some nuance – I’ve had many teachers throughout my life, some in school and some out, but they were never simply known as “teacher,” that was their role, not so much their title. I could say the same for “instructors,” and concerning the matter of “father,” we all have an earthly one, whether we know him or not, though I don’t know many people who call their dad “father.” Not to play with the semantics of it, this seems to be another matter of role, not title. Jesus acknowledges that people have earthly parents in a passage we’ve already read, Matthew 7:11,

“If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!”

So it seems to be a mistake to think of addressing your parents based on the name of their roles in your life, and while this looks more specifically at your dad, if “mom” is the center of your world, that’s a problem too. Remember Jesus’ words in Luke 14:26,

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.”

Jesus isn’t telling us to love our enemies and hate our families, it’s a guiding principle toward what Paul wrote in Philippians 1:21,

“For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.”

I love my family – but that love pales in comparison to the love I have for Christ. I have an earthly father, but the strength and meaning of that function pales in comparison to the function and ultimate title of my heavenly Father. Bearing this in mind, it’s problematic that all Catholic priests are referred to as “father,” but we’ll tend to them later. Because the fact that the Pope’s casual title is “Holy Father,” is even more of an issue. While “holy father,” might raise red flags more easily for a Protestant, his other titles are even more troubling. Let’s go through these one by one and determine exactly what they mean, starting with “Bishop of Rome.”  While not the word found in the ESV translation I commonly use, “bishop,” is the word used in the KJV in place of “overseer,” in the 1 Timothy passage we read before. which really gives us all the context we need for the term. A bishop is simply a church leader, but then where does Rome come into play? This is where things get strange – Rome, the Vatican, is specifically seen as the epicenter of Christianity within the Catholic church. There are other contributing factors, but a primary reason is that Rome is seen as doubly Apostolic, because both Peter and Paul had hands in establishing the church there, and both men were martyred there. Now, I’m not arguing that this grants this geographical location great significance in church history, though it seems that the hyper fixation on Rome may have been more of a cultural element than one of spiritual appointment. But concerning the Pope, he is called the bishop, the overseer of the location that is the center of the church. If we look at the Orthodox church, they have a somewhat similar structure in terms of priest, bishops, and archbishops, however there are two key differences – one is that there’s no singular figure at the top, and two is that even their archbishops who are responsible for large geographical regions have a status of being “first among equals.” In principle this means that despite the fact that these men are leaders within the church (and frankly carry authorities that I would argue aren’t Biblical, but that’s another discussion), they possess no spiritual authority beyond their fellow leaders. The Pope has no “first among equals,” because he has no equal, he is the singular leader of the entire Catholic church. And this is where these other titles, “Vicar of Jesus Christ,” and “Successor of the Prince of the Apostles,” come into play and show themselves to be exceptionally problematic. A vicar is a stand-in, someone who would act in place of the real person – to be the vicar of Christ is to claim to hold Jesus’ earthly authority. In some ways this is blasphemous because the authority of Christ is the authority of God, and it is not something given to any other than Him. In other ways it’s blasphemous because the Catholic church places a singular authority on the Pope that has been given to all believers. When the Holy Spirit visibly descends like tongues of fire on the day of Pentecost, it doesn’t enter into one person, but into every believer present. After Paul addresses the matter of spiritual gifts with the Corinthians he goes on to say in 1 Corinthians 12:12–13,

“For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.”

We are all blessed through the same Spirit to different gifts and purposes, all of which come back to the grand purpose of glorifying God. To place one man at the head of all believers, an earthly stand-in for the authority of Jesus is just wrong. The fact that the Pope is also titled as “Successor of the Prince of the Apostles” further underpins the blasphemy of his assumed authority. If the Apostles had a prince, it was Christ, the Prince of Peace. But when the Pope is referred to this way they’re not talking about Jesus, they mean Peter. And this is what circles us back around to the problem of tradition, because the Catholic teaching is that the institution of the Papacy began with the Apostle Peter as the first Pope. You may be wondering what this tradition is based on, which is a really good question to ask. It all goes back to an incredibly well known passage, Matthew 16:13–20, which says,

“Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’ And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered him, “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 tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.”

This is a beautiful section of Scripture, and it’s deeply unfortunate that it has been so radically twisted to support an institution that is simply not Biblical. The first point of contention comes from Jesus’ statement in verse 18, “And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The Protestant reads this and says that the “rock” that Jesus speaks of is Peter’s confession – the fact that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God is the foundation of the gospel, Jesus is the Cornerstone of the Church. This confession, this declaration cuts through the noise and speculation of the world, right to the heart of the Truth, and it is the confession of everyone who follows Christ. The Catholics on the other hand say that the “rock” upon which Jesus will build His church is Peter himself. Part of the reason is that “Petros,” which is Peter in Greek, is also a word for rock or stone, and sounds very similar to “petras,” which is the word that Jesus actually uses for rock in this passage. Supporting this they will point to John 21:15–17,

“When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’ He said to him a second time, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ‘Tend my sheep.’ He said to him the third time, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, ‘Do you love me?’ and he said to him, ‘Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my sheep.’”

They see this as Jesus essentially passing His flock off to Peter and commissioning him as the head of the church. They will also point to events like Acts 2 where Peter preaches at Pentecost and three thousand people receive salvation in Christ, and Acts 10 where Peter is sent by God to the Centurion Cornelius and his family where he shares the gospel with them and witnesses them receive the Holy Spirit. The catch is, there is a problem with literally all of these examples, and it is the Catholic reading of them through the lens of their traditions that causes their misinterpretation and use to prop up church authority. In regard to the rock passage from Matthew 16, consider what Paul writes in Ephesians 2:18–21,

“For through him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father. So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure, being joined together, grows into a holy temple in the Lord.”

Christ is the cornerstone, and we are built upon a foundation of… Not Peter – not any one apostle or prophet, but all those messengers who God has worked in and through, centered upon Jesus. Concerning John 21 and the idea that Jesus is making Peter the head of the church here – Peter received a commission years before this, when Jesus called him and his brother Andrew, saying in Matthew 4:19,

“… Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.”

Peter was given his calling – and Peter failed. Despite his confidence, despite his certainty that he would not waver under pressure, when Jesus was arrested and taken to be crucified Peter famously denied his Lord and Master, not once, not twice, but three times. What we read in John 21 is not Peter being set as the head of the church, but rather his formal reinstitution among those who would become the Apostles – he is a leader alongside other leaders. His own words attest to this in a passage we read from earlier, saying in 1 Peter 5:1

“So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed…”

Peter was extremely blessed, he was a pivotal figure in the early church, he was a great Apostle of Christ – which we get to see in events like Pentecost or his sharing of the gospel with Cornelius and his family – but he was not a singular figurehead of the church. There were many who shared the gospel, many who were used by God to turn hearts and minds toward Him, there were many who preached among the gentiles – perhaps most famously, Paul. And speaking of Paul, his interaction with Peter, recorded in Galatians 2:11–14, again reflects that Peter was one of, but not chief among the Apostles,

“But when Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?’”

Peter was an admirable servant of the Lord, and I say without hesitation, a better man than me – but he wasn’t perfect, he wasn’t infallible – and to not strawman the Catholics too much, they don’t claim that he’s infallible in everything. If the Pope comes out tomorrow and says that Burger King is better than McDonalds, that doesn’t automatically become doctrine. But he is considered infallible when speaking from “the seat of Peter,” he is considered beyond reproach when it comes to interpreting matters of Scripture. He is the final say of the official stance of the Catholic church, and that is not what Peter was. That he and the words that Jesus spoke to him are used to prop up the heretical figurehead of the institution of the Catholic church is simply an insult to his memory – which is nothing in comparison to the slight it is against Christ in the misrepresentation of His Bride. And on the subject of heretical practices and teachings that compromise the Catholic church, let’s talk about the priests.

– The Priesthood

Okay, I’m going to do my very best to not strawman this, but the thing is, there are a lot of elements of the Catholic priesthood, and honestly, it gets really convoluted. The simple fact is that the entire practice is deeply, wildly heretical, and the Scriptural basis for their existence, as with the Pope, just picks the parts they want to use and ignores the rest. In Exodus 19:4–6 God commands Moses, saying,

“‘You yourselves have seen what I did to the Egyptians, and how I bore you on eagles’ wings and brought you to myself. Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine; and you shall be to me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.’ These are the words that you shall speak to the people of Israel.’”

It is later in Exodus 28-29 that we see the establishment of the Levitical priests, those who will carry out the sacrificial system on behalf of the people of Israel. The Catholic priesthood is based upon this same concept – Peter references Exodus 19, writing in 1 Peter 2:9–10,

“But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light. Once you were not a people, but now you are God’s people; once you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy.”

The Catholics say that all who have salvation in Christ are a part of this priesthood, but they, like the Levitical priests are, a separate priesthood from the main congregation. Their priesthood extends from Christ, and in an imitation of the sacrificial system, they play an active role in forgiving sins. They pull this from what Jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16:19,

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

As well as what Jesus says to the disciples in John 20:22–23,

“And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.’”

Now, I’ve already made my case around Matthew 16 and these things applying to Peter’s confession versus Peter himself, and so I believe this applies to this matter of “binding and loosing” as well. Concerning John 20, Jesus doesn’t say, “because I will make you my Apostles you can forgive, or withhold forgiveness of sin.” The prerequisite is receiving the Holy Spirit, and if that’s the case, then this applies not just to the Apostles (who the Catholic priests claim their succession through), but to all believers. But to really prove my point instead of just interpreting these two passages let’s look at one that makes my case for me. Jesus says in 18:15–20, says,

“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

The authority to forgive or condemn a brother in sister in Christ comes from Christ alone, but where His followers are joined in spiritual agreement, He has given His seal of approval. We must also contend with the things said concerning Jesus as the Great High Priest in Hebrews. Hebrews 4:14–16 says,

“Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and find grace to help in time of need.”

And Hebrews 8:1–2,

“Now the point in what we are saying is this: we have such a high priest, one who is seated at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven, a minister in the holy places, in the true tent that the Lord set up, not man.”

Understand the profound hope we have in being able to say, “We have Christ.” There is no need for a mediator between you and the One lived and died and lived again in order to reconcile you to Holy God – not only is there no need, but the mere suggestion of such a thing is an affront to the work of Christ and the boundless provision of His sacrifice. The Papacy and the priesthood both stand as twisted interpretations of Christian doctrine, blasphemous decrees that establish barriers between God and His people as opposed to offering any unity. This is a stark example of why, despite our common ground it is difficult if not impossible to have a truly ecumenical relationship – the Catholic church has compromised its function as a church, and so to extend our hand as one body of believers to another becomes impossible. I posed the question before, as to whether or not Catholics were truly Christians, and it’s hard to say for the individual in the pew, but for the leadership – for the governing structure from priest to Pope I can say with more conviction that no, they are not our brothers and (counting the nuns) sisters in Christ, because they have made themselves one with an institution that is not in agreement with the Truth of the Word of God.

2. Mary Mother of Jesus and The Saints

Through the years I’ve heard Protestants say, “Catholics worship Mary,” or “Catholics pray to the saints,” and you can get some super condescending remarks from Catholics over these things. The truth is, they’re not exactly accurate, but they’re also not as wrong as Catholics say. You won’t find any practicing Catholic worshiping Mary, or the saints, or praying to them. What you will see is them venerating these figures, and asking them to pray on their behalf. Veneration on its own is a deep, profound sense of respect, reverence and admiration for something or someone. By that standard alone, I could absolutely understand venerating someone like any of the Apostles, John the Baptist, or Mary. But that’s just the definition of what veneration means, that’s how they frame the word up. What it looks like is suspiciously similar to worship. We’ll talk about Mary a bit more in the next point, but here let’s just look at two of her titles: “Mother of God,” and “Queen of Heaven.” Now here’s the thing, Jesus is fully God and fully Man, Mary physically bore Him as a baby – she is, in that sense, literally the mother of God. The flesh and blood body of Jesus came into the world through her, I don’t think anyone’s disputing that. But a lot of that distinction isn’t given in the Catholic context, she’s just “the Mother of God,” full stop, no disclaimers. Now, the Catholic church doesn’t deny the eternality of God, His preexistence before our known reality, they don’t claim that Mary was somehow pre-preexistent and gave birth to God, they basically affirm what I said before. The problem is again, how they relay the information – it’s like having “Mother of God” in a big neon sign and then a small disclaimer written at the bottom to explain. Mary was significant, she’s worthy of adoration and respect, but there’s a spin that elevates her above where Scripture actually shows her to be. We have to remember that Scripture shows us direct quotes from Jesus concerning His mother like in Matthew 12:46–50,

“While he was still speaking to the people, behold, his mother and his brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. But he replied to the man who told him, ‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother.’”

As well as Luke 11:27–28 which says,

“As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, ‘Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!’ But he said, ‘Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!’”

It would be a mistake to think that Jesus didn’t love or care for His mother, we see Him ensuring that she is tended to during His crucifixion in John 19:26–27,

“When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing nearby, he said to his mother, ‘Woman, behold, your son!’ Then he said to the disciple, ‘Behold, your mother!’ And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home.”

But the Catholic practice with anything involving Mary is to elevate it well beyond the information we’re given, and they do it with this passage as well. This gets framed up as Jesus making a grand provision for His mother, or doing some extravagant act to ensure that she’s cared for – but He’s doing what’s right, what should be done. James 1:27 says,

“Religion that is pure and undefiled before God the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”

All traditions tell us that Mary was a widow, that Joseph died before the start of Jesus’ earthly ministry, which is why we don’t hear about him during that time. Jesus is taking care of His mom, in the same way that I would hope any son would want to ensure that his widowed mother was cared for if he wasn’t around to see to it himself. This is a good thing, and the fact that every breath needed to speak from the cross would have been agonizing lends a certain gravity to the interaction, but this wasn’t a grand, over the top gesture that cements Mary as the almost deified “Mother of God.” It was a beautiful and painful human moment between a mother and Son. As sticky as it can be to deal with the “Mother of God” title, the second one I mentioned, the “Queen of Heaven,” is far more problematic. This draws us closer to the heart of the issue with veneration and petitions for prayers from Mary and the saints. The idea is that Mary is Jesus’ mother, Jesus loves His mother, she holds a special place in heaven, so if you ask her to intercede on your behalf, if she will pray for you then her sway is greater than yours, her prayers essentially count for more before God. This special level of influence that Mary is imagined to have is the source of this title – she’s not just beloved, not just favored, she’s the queen, she’s in a position of authority. If you’re wracking your brain and thinking to yourself, “I feel like I have read about a ‘queen of heaven’ before, but I can’t think of where,” let me help you out. The name appears twice in the Old Testament, once in Jeremiah 7:16–18 where God says,

“As for you, do not pray for this people, or lift up a cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with me, for I will not hear you. Do you not see what they are doing in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger.”

And again in Jeremiah 44:15–19,

“Then all the men who knew that their wives had made offerings to other gods, and all the women who stood by, a great assembly, all the people who lived in Pathros in the land of Egypt, answered Jeremiah: ‘As for the word that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we will not listen to you. But we will do everything that we have vowed, make offerings to the queen of heaven and pour out drink offerings to her, as we did, both we and our fathers, our kings and our officials, in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem. For then we had plenty of food, and prospered, and saw no disaster. But since we left off making offerings to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have been consumed by the sword and by famine.’ And the women said, ‘When we made offerings to the queen of heaven and poured out drink offerings to her, was it without our husbands’ approval that we made cakes for her bearing her image and poured out drink offerings to her?’”

There is no “queen of heaven” in Scripture except for a pagan goddess, sometimes thought to be the supposed wife of Baal. An empty deity that the people of Israel purposefully forsook God for – and the Catholic church (and Orthodox too for that matter), has taken the title of this demonic figure and placed it on the mother of Jesus, and they treat it like it’s a good thing. They delight in venerating their “Queen of Heaven,” and yet the title attests to what they’ve done with the figure of Mary. The same sort of twisted treatment takes place (to a somewhat lesser degree) with the saints. They don’t pray to them, but they certainly do something that looks a lot like prayer in asking them to pray for them. Those who are considered saints are people for whom, typically because of miraculous works, or martyrdom, there is strong belief that they have gone to heaven after death (sorry, a public profession of faith and fruits of the Spirit in your life aren’t good enough for the Catholic church to be sure). As with Mary, the belief is that these saints are closer to Christ than you are, that He is more apt to listen to their prayers than yours. I remember talking to an Orthodox friend about this and he made the point, “I mean, you would ask your pastor to pray for you, wouldn’t you?” And the truth is, I would – I have for that matter. But that was never because I imagined that he had a better in with God than I do, and that my Father may ignore me, but if my pastor asked Him then my odds of approval somehow went up. I asked my pastor to pray for me because I’d received a cancer diagnosis and I was asking a lot of people to keep me in their prayers. I was asking a lot of people to pray for me because that’s what we’re supposed to do. In any and all circumstances we collectively place our faith in God, and the more people pray, the more believers invite God into the situation, the more ways He is revealed and the more ways He’s glorified. It’s never about trying to persuade acceptance out of God, but about seeing His glory magnified as much as possible. But this idea of asking those who have passed on, who have gone to sleep in the flesh and are in the spirit before God to petition on your behalf is deeply flawed, and the assigning of different attributes, different specialties to them is nothing but a flavor of pagan polytheism thrust upon a Christian framework. There is a canonized saint named St. Thérèse of Lisieux who is directly associated with roses – as in, she will often validate that she has received someone’s petition for prayer by leaving them roses, showing them roses, leaving rose petals, showing them an image of a rose, or causing them to smell roses. At absolute best this is unhealthy delusion, and at worst it’s demonic validation that’s drawing you away from Christ, because you need no intercessor but Him. 1 John 2:1–2 tells us,

“My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.”

And we read in Hebrews 7:23–25,

“The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.”

See and understand Mary, the blessed virgin and mother of Jesus for who Scripture actually says she is. Do likewise with our brothers and sisters who have gone to sleep before us, loving and cherishing those who will make up the eternal kingdom of heaven by our sides. But do not force upon them what is not there, do not attempt to stain their righteousness, which is only a reflection of the righteousness of God, by forcing pagan colorings upon them. Remember and abide by the words that Peter wrote in closing in 2 Peter 3:17–18,

“You therefore, beloved, knowing this beforehand, take care that you are not carried away with the error of lawless people and lose your own stability. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be the glory both now and to the day of eternity. Amen.”

3. Transubstantiation and Perpetual Virginity

Let me start by admitting, these two matters don’t have quite as much in common as the others we’ve covered. The institution of the Papacy and the role of Catholic priests have a significant amount of overlap. The “veneration” of Mary and of the saints are directly linked in tradition and practice. The matters of transubstantiation and perpetual virginity on the other hand don’t really relate to one another – except for the fact that they are both significant points of controversy, both grievously misrepresent Scripture to justify and validate themselves, and if I’m honest, both of them annoy me a lot – so let’s discuss them. You may not be familiar with either term, so we’ll take them one at a time – “transubstantiation,” is the term used for what Catholics teach takes place during the Eucharist, what Protestants call the Lord’s Supper or Communion. Now, on the Baptist side of the spectrum where I live, Communion is symbolic – that doesn’t mean it’s not a holy, serious matter that is approached with great reverence and contemplation, but the bread is representative of Christ’s body, broken for us, and the wine (or juice) is representative of His blood. The bread is bread, the juice is juice, everything is a symbol, taken in remembrance of the crucifixion and resurrection of our Lord. The Catholics (and the Orthodox, though they don’t call it transubstantiation), believe the polar opposite. When one of their priests prays over the bread and wine, through the process of transubstantiation those elements literally become the flesh and blood of Jesus. It still looks, tastes, and smells like bread and wine, but what is in the cup has miraculously become flesh and blood. According to them, we Protestants have never truly received the Eucharist, because we lack any true priesthood to offer the correct prayers. What’s interesting is that, it’s only Baptists who are fully symbolic in our interpretation, with Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Anglicans all believing in some degree of presence of Christ’s body in the sacrament. To be fair, as best I can tell, each denomination seems to be trying to tackle something very large and ensure that they’re faithfully interpreting the ordinances of Scripture, and I can have some grace for their attempts to address this with reverence… I have no such grace for the doctrine of transubstantiation. Aside from the accounts of the Last Supper (from which we all take the institution of Communion), this doctrine rests entirely on John 6:49–60, 66 – for context, this takes place after Jesus has fed the 5,000, walked on water, and now the crowds have come seeking Him. But they’re coming to Him because He just gave them food, not because of the Truth He embodies and proclaims, and so Jesus guides them to spiritual matters that are of greater importance than food, saying,

“‘Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. This is the bread that comes down from heaven, so that one may eat of it and not die. I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh.’ The Jews then disputed among themselves, saying, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him. As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so whoever feeds on me, he also will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven, not like the bread the fathers ate, and died. Whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.’ Jesus said these things in the synagogue, as he taught at Capernaum. When many of his disciples heard it, they said, ‘This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?’” … “After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him.”

Catholics point to the use of the Greek word “trōgō,” as the word used for “feed.” This word can just mean “to eat,” but can also hold more aggressive imagery, like gnawing or crunching as someone would raw vegetables or nuts. Their point is that, if Jesus didn’t mean this literally then why wouldn’t He soften the phrasing so as not to drive the people away? There are a few problems here – one is that the people didn’t have room in their hearts for the spiritual Truth that Jesus was giving them. What they needed was Him, they needed to consume everything that He was, take the body and blood of Christ as part of themselves, changed and new, rejecting their flesh and completely surrendering to Him, and they could not bear it. The issue was one of spiritual blindness, not language. But in regard to the assumption that Jesus would have softened His language if He was speaking metaphorically, let me throw a few passages at you. Jesus teaches in Matthew 5:27–30,

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.”

Matthew 16:24 says,

“Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”

And Luke 14:25–27 tells us,

“Now great crowds accompanied him, and he turned and said to them, ‘If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not bear his own cross and come after me cannot be my disciple.”

None of these passages are taken entirely literally – there is a guarantee of persecution, and for Christians through the ages, a very real possibility of crucifixion, but no one literally takes up and carries a cross each day, nor do we imagine that this is what we’re being told to do. Our relationship with Christ comes before any human relationship, and there is a very real possibility of this driving wedges between us and our own families – we are not literally called to hate them, or to hate the life that God has blessed us with. But we are called to prize Christ above any and all else. I’ve never met a man who was missing an eye or hand, who had removed the offending piece of their anatomy because of sin. Rather, this is a call to, in our aim and in our action be entirely obedient to God. None of these are taken literally, and yet they all contain language on par in its severity with eating flesh and drinking blood. So, if there’s a logical path to understanding this passage without forcing a literal interpretation on it, why does the Catholic doctrine insist on transubstantiation? It goes back to tradition, to an insistence that this is how it was originally taught and has been passed down. Scripture doesn’t clearly affirm this, in fact it points to the opposite, but the church in its power, headed by the Pope who has the final, infallible say on how the Bible is understood, affirms this doctrine, and so Transubstantiation is the law. Now, there are a lot of other points we could address, and this outline could be five times the length it is now – we’re not touching on purgatory, syncretism, indulgences, infant baptism, icons, or the creeds, just to name a few things I wanted to get into, but for the sake of brevity (which went out the window a long time ago), I’ll leave those for now. I want to talk about the Catholic teaching on perpetual virginity for a couple reasons – one, it actually serves as a perfect illustration as to how the Catholic church is horribly compromised (if that point hasn’t already been made), and two, much like transubstantiation it really, really annoys me. So, here it is: according to Catholic doctrine, Mary, the mother of Jesus was a virgin – not just at the time of Jesus’ conception and birth, but perpetually throughout her life. She herself was immaculately conceived by the intervention of the Holy Spirit at the time of her parents’ union, and so she, like Christ, lived without sin. This is seen as different from Jesus in that His sinlessness was through His own divinity and will, and Mary’s sinlessness was through the grace of God… Here’s the thing, I’m just going to come out and say it, we touched on this in the second point, but Catholics basically turn Mary into a second Jesus. She is such an admirable woman, and there is so much that we can take away from her genuine devotion and obedience to the Lord, but what the Catholics ultimately do to her is make her another pagan queen of heaven, and force her image onto ground that belongs to God and God alone. Now you may be thinking, “Hey, I don’t remember the Bible saying anything about Mary being immaculately conceived, or sinless throughout her life, or a virgin in perpetuity – actually didn’t Jesus have brothers and sisters?” Why yes, dear question asker, Scripture does indeed say that Jesus had brothers and sisters, and no, not even in the extra books that the Catholic church tacked onto the canon do we read any of this information about Mary. This whole doctrine (and the reason it really is a clear example of the Catholic churches’ brokenness), comes from a false gospel, penned by Gnostic authors in the second century called the Protoevangelium, or Infancy Gospel of James. This false account covers things like Mary’s own immaculate conception, her living in the temple as a child, her helping to weave the temple veil, her marriage to the old widower Joseph, and yes, her perpetual virginity. It explains that Jesus’ brothers and sisters were actually His step siblings from Joseph’s previous marriage, and that the union between Mary and Joseph was never consummated. And here’s the thing, as a Christian, as a child of God, the heresy offends me, the fact that they take such a prolific Biblical figure and degrade her with lies angers me, but it’s this last detail, the insistence that Mary and Joseph’s marriage was never consummated that just annoys me. Because the whole purpose of this is that their goddess, their queen of heaven can’t have been defiled by lying down with a mortal man, by carrying and bearing his children in the same womb that bore Christ, she has to have remained singularly pure throughout her entire life – as though the physical union between and husband and wife was something impure, as though Mary bearing other children, the half siblings of Jesus, was somehow a stain upon her life. It degrades the fact that a husband and wife are supposed to be with one another in this way, it maligns the fact that bearing children in a marriage is a good thing. God’s command to Adam and Eve in Genesis 1:28 was,

“Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

But this couldn’t apply to Mary because her marriage to Joseph was “special.” As though every marriage, blessing that it is from God were not special. As though it was not a right and beautiful thing that this woman, chosen and miraculously blessed to carry the Son of God, would go on to have a Biblical marriage and bear children. This entire Catholic teaching is so forced and so unnecessary, and it is a hill they will passionately die on despite its complete lack of Biblical support. And this really brings us back to where we started and this idea of ecumenical relations between Protestant and Catholics – it’s not just a simple as ignoring a few thorny patches and focusing on the shared beliefs. The thorny patches are everywhere and they color how the Catholic church interprets what we hold as “shared” beliefs. Their church leaders are heretics, and because of their heretical teaching essentially all Catholic practitioners walk a path of heresy. Are Catholics Christians? I cannot speak to the heart of every individual, and I earnestly pray that the pieces of Truth that have been left intact draws the hearts of those who are truly seeking God to His Light – but this church is not the church of Christ, this worship is a twisted and broken thing, most of their practices are far more pagan than Christian, and again this is why it is essentially impossible for us to truly join together ecumenically as “brothers” and work toward a common goal. It’s not that we don’t value tradition, it’s not that we don’t love and cherish the Church – but we understand these two things through the lens of the Word of God, not the other way around. It is Christ upon which we stand, it is His Word which is our sword, and it is obedience to His Spirit and not the word or will of man that governs our understanding and our relationship with our Father in heaven.