Search the Community

Hello Everyone, I just wanted some of your opinions and insights in regards to going to worship on Sundays. I have some friends who refuse to come to church now because they say that the Jesuits and the RCC "made it official that everyone has to worship on SUNdays" and they believe that it was because it is to worship their "Sun god." In my opinion, I just find it very legalistic. I also believe that I don't think God really cares as long as you reserve and give Him one day out of the week to worship Him and make it your Sabbath. Also, I believe that the devil is using this as a way to isolate them from fellowship with other believers. What do you all think? Thanks!

ERROR OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION (1215 AD). Definition: The whole substance of the bread and wine is converted into the actual and real entire body and blood of Christ. Answer: Radbertus first invented this doctrine in the 9th century. Catholics support this by a literal view of Matthew 26:26-29. "Take eat; this is my body. For this is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Consider these reasons why the bread and wine were symbols of Christ’s body and blood, to be partaken in for remembrance purposes only, and that there was no material conversion of the bread to the body, nor of the wine to the blood of Christ. 1. Jesus, after saying "this is my blood" in Matthew 26:28 also said "I will not drink henceforth of this FRUIT OF THIS VINE" in Matthew 26:29, showing that the grapejuice was STILL WINE and had not been changed to blood. 2. Jesus often referred to Himself in symbols. So why see Him as literal in a symbolic context? John 10:7 "I am the door." Did Jesus mean he was literally wooden? No. John 14:6 "I am the way." Did Jesus mean he was literally a road? No. John 15:5 "I am the vine." Did Jesus mean he was literally a tree? No. John 8:12 "I am the light." Did Jesus mean he was literally a torch or a sun? No. John 6:48 "I am the bread of life." Did Jesus mean he was literally a loaf of dough? No. John 6:63 states clearly that Jesus was speaking spiritually, not literally: "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life." Luke 22:19 states clearly that the Lord's supper is for remembrance purposes: "This do in remembrance of me." This is a metaphor, where one thing is said to be another thing because of it’s similarity. A metaphor is a figurative use of terms without indicating their figurative nature, for example, “he shall eat his words”. 3. The bread and wine did not become Christ's body and blood because: a) Christ was still present with them. Christ would have had 2 bodies, one which died on the cross and one which did not. b) To drink blood was forbidden in Acts 15:20,29 "We write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from BLOOD." In Deuteronomy 12:16 "Only ye shall not eat the blood." 4. The tense of the Greek verbs "EAT" in John 6:50,51,52,53,54,56,57,58 is in the AORIST tense showing a ONCE-FOR-ALL, point action, that is NOT CONTINUAL. The Biblical Lord's supper is to be a repeated event, and therefore has no saving merit. Roman Catholics are commanded to believe in transubstantiation because it was stated at the Council of Trent (11 October 1551) that this doctrine was essential for salvation. They pronounced curses on anyone who would deny it. Paul the Apostle, in contrast, pronounced a double curse on anyone who preached a gospel different from the all sufficiency of Christ's death, burial and resurrection to save us from our sins. Galatians 1:6-9 puts a double curse on this "other gospel" of transubstantiation for salvation. 5. Before Christ ascended to heaven, He promised to come to us during the Church Age, NOT in the sacrifice of the MASS, but by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-18 as Comforter): "He shall give you another Comforter ... even the Spirit of truth ... I will not leave you comfortless: I WILL COME TO YOU.” Note: Christ will return to earth a second time visibly in glory. This is what is meant by 1 Corinthians 11:26 "For as oftenas ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's death TILL HE COME." Note: This means that Christ does not come literally and visibly as the wafer in the mass, but to the air as in 1 Thessalonians 4:16,17. 6. At the Council of Constance in 1415 it was agreed to withold the cup from the congregation lest the wine be spilt. However this contradicts 1 Corinthians 11:25-29 where ALL Corinthian believers drank of the wine: "Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup unworthily." v.27. Drinking the cup is mentioned six times in five verses. Transubstantiation is not a mystery, but an absurdity; not a difficulty but a contradiction. Question: How then do we eat his flesh and drink his blood? Answer: Through the WORD OF GOD. John 6:63 "The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life." John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh." John 5:24 "He that heareth my Word and believeth on him that sent me, has everlasting life." The scribes who knew Jeremiah 31:31-34, "I will put my law in their inward parts", and Jeremiah 15:16, "Thy words were found and I DID EAT THEM; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart", understood the idea of receiving God's Word into one’s inner being. Peter got the message, while others planned to desert Jesus: "Thou hast the WORDS of eternal life." John 6:68. "Being born again ... by the WORD of God." 1 Peter 1:23-25. Peter knew that Jesus was speaking about the WORD of God, and not about literal flesh and blood. Question: If this doctrine of transubstantiation only arose in the 9th century, and if it is so necessary to Roman Catholic salvation, what happened to those who lived before the 9th century not believing this doctrine? Did they all go to hell? Question: What about the thief on the cross who repented and never took the wafer? Did he go to hell? No! Jesus said he went to paradise.

Many catholics are arrogant enough to say that THEY "gave" us the Bible. The catholic organisation mearly defined what IT would use as the Bible, NOT what the Bible was. Long before the council of hippo "gave us the bible", Origen, born A.D. 185 and died A.D. 254, named ALL the books of the Bible in his writings and Eusebius, 270 A.D., lists ALL of the books of the NT. The Old Testament books were gathered into one volume and were translated from Hebrew into Greek long before Christ came to earth. It cannot be proven that the Catholic Church is solely responsible for the gathering and selection of the New Testament books. In fact, it can be shown that the New Testament books were gathered into one volume and were in circulation long before the Catholic Church claims to have taken its action in 390 at the council of Hippo. God did not give councils the authority to select His sacred books, nor does He expect men to receive His sacred books only because of councils or on the basis of councils. It takes no vote or sanction of a council to make the books of the Bible authoritative. Men were able to rightly discern which books were inspired before the existence of ecclesiastical councils and men can do so today. A council of men in 390 with no divine authority whatever, supposedly took upon itself the right to state which books were inspired, and Catholics argue, "We can accept the Bible only on the authority of the Catholic Church." Can we follow such reasoning?

A study of the New Testament reveals that ALL Christians are priests. Peter said,"Be you yourselves as living stones, built thereon into a spiritual house,a holy priesthood, to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ." (1 Pet. 2:5).Thus,all Christians are of that holy priesthood and can offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.There is not a man or group of men on earth who can offer unto God spiritual sacrifices for others. ALL Christians have the right to go to God through Jesus Christ, our High priest (Heb. 4:14-16). There is no priesthood on earth that has the right to forbid each Christian to go directly to God through Christ, or to assume the authority to administer graces and obtain mercy for others. A Roman Catholic priest is one who acts in the place of Christ, supposedly making unbelievers into Christians by "baptising" them. He converts the bread into Christ's flesh in the mass, and he forgives sins in the confessional. In the Bible, all ministers are called elders, bishops or pastors, all referring to the one office, but there is no office of "priest". Christ is our Great High Priest, the only mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), so there is no need for other priests to mediate for us. Peter never called himself a priest, but did call himself a "fellow elder". 1 Peter 5:1. In Acts, there is no reference anywhere to a sacrificing priesthood. In Revelation 1:6 ("hath made us kings and priests unto God"), and in 1 Peter 2:5,9 ("ye are a holy priesthood", "ye are a royal priesthood"), all believers are priests and have direct access to God through Christ. We don't offer an atoning sacrifice because only Christ did this on the cross. The only sacrifices we offer to God are prayers (Ephesians 6:18), praise and money (Hebrews 13:15,16), and ourselves in service to God (Romans 12:1). This Biblical truth of the priesthood of all believers was rediscovered in the Protestant Reformation of the 1500's. A pastor's real job is to preach the gospel, teach the Word of God and pray, not to hear confession, or change bread to flesh etc. Peter in 1 Peter 5 when he instructed fellow preachers, made no mention of any Roman Catholic priest’s practices of today.

INDULGENCES. Definition: A person after confessing his sins to a priest, in order to be free from the punishment still due for his sins, requires the church to pray for his rehabilitation. The person must do penance works such as fasting, making pilgrimages, giving money, making prayers or inflicting pain on oneself, as a penalty for sins committed. Historically, people found it easier to pay money to the Roman Catholic church than to pray for long hours. The Roman Catholic church preferred money because the Pope ran out of cash in building St Peter’s Basilica in Rome. So the Roman Catholic church issued the person with an official statement that he had received release from the penalties through the payment of money. This document was called an indulgence. They could be bought for friends and relatives who had died and passed into purgatory, thus shortening the time that they would have to spend there. Martin Luther objected to Tetzel, a Catholic indulgence seller, who publicly announced to people that if they put a coin in a box, a dead relative's soul would immediately pop out of purgatory. His advertising slogan was: "As the coin in you pop, a soul from purgatory doth hop." Answer: Obviously, this teaching cannot be found in the Bible. After Word War II, the Archbishop of Winnipeg asked mothers who had sons killed in the war, to pay $40 to have masses said on behalf of their sons to guarantee their salvation and entrance to heaven. This practice continues in many parts of the world, and accounts for the great wealth of the Catholic church as seen in the big cathedrals it builds. Which Bible verses forbid indulgence selling? 1. Jesus warns against this practice in Matthew 23:14, a verse that Catholics have cut out of modern Bible versions. "Woe unto you, Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For ye devour widows houses, and for a pretense make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation." The Pharisees of Jesus' day, as well as Catholic priests of today, tell widows that their dead husband has gone to purgatory. They ask her if she wants him to go to heaven. If yes, she will have to pay the priest to say a mass to pray for his soul to leave purgatory. Widows don't usually have much money, so he tells her to sell her house to pay for it. This is how widows houses are devoured by priests who for a pretense make long prayers. 2. The Israelites were forbidden to give money for the dead. "None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him." Psalms 49:7. No gift of money can save another person. Only the blood of Christ can. 3. Peter says: "Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold ... but with the precious blood of Christ." 1 Peter 1:18,19. Nobody is redeemed with indulgence money. 4. Simon the sorcerer offered the apostles money so that anyone that he laid hands on would receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. Peter rebuked him strongly in Acts 8:20-23 saying: "Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the GIFT OF GOD may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness." Salvation is the gift of God that each of us must claim freely for ourselves when we call on Christ to be our Saviour. No baptism, eucharist, confessional to a priest, penance, extreme unction, or paying money can save us, only faith in Christ's precious saving blood to pay for our sins.

EXTREME UNCTION. This sacrament states that "At the end of life, sin can be totally undone and man is prepared for immediate entrance into everlasting glory." This idea is found NOWHERE in the Bible. This will not get a dying person into heaven. His only hope is to receive Jesus Christ as his own Saviour, trusting Christ's blood sacrifice on the cross as the full payment for all his sin. Mark 6:13 is the Catholic defense for this error, yet this verse says nothing about dying people, but only about demonised and sick people being healed. When Pope Pius XII died in 1958, his personal physician was dismissed for telling of his frightful and terrifying fear of death and hell. Question: Since the Pope isn’t sure of heaven, how can he help Catholics get to heaven? Answer: Keeping the sacraments is a net that traps Catholics into believing that they will get to heaven by good works. The sacrament system enslaves a person's mind to the Roman Catholic church from the cradle to the grave. Nobody was ever saved in the Bible by keeping the sacraments. Catholic children are trapped into the sacrament system around age seven or eight years old, when they have neither the knowledge of the Bible nor the maturity to test it with the Word of God. Question: How can Catholics escape the trap of the sacraments? Answer: By calling on Jesus Christ to be their only Savior; by basing their life on the Word of God.

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY (declared in 1870 AD). Definition: When a pope is speaking in his official position on any issue of faith or morals, he is speaking infallibly, meaning without error. Answer: The apostles never regarded any man to be infallible. Only the Word of God is regarded as without error. If Peter was pope, which the Bible says he was not, then he made mistakes as in Galatians 2:11-14 when he was deceived by Judaizers. "But when Peter came to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed." The following events from history show the error of papal infallibility. 1. Pope John XII, in the "Liber Pontificalis," the Catholic publication discussing the lives of the popes, states that "He spent his entire life in adultery." 2. Popes Innocent III, Gregory XI, Clement IV, Hadrian VI, and Paul IV all disagreed with papal infallibility. 3. Pope Stephen VI (896) had the dead pope Formosus (891-6) tried, questioned, fingers hacked off, dragged through Rome and thrown into the Tiber river. 4. Pope Hadrian II (867) declared civil marriage to be valid, but Pope Pius VII (1800-23) declared it to be invalid. 5. Pope Eugene IV (1431) had Joan of Arc burned alive as a witch, but later Pope Benedict IV in 1919 declared her to be a saint. 6. Pope Pius XI in 1929 endorsed Fascism and called Mussolini "a man sent by God." However, before World War II, he warned people against Mussolini. 7. The Vatican advised the German Catholic Party to vote for Nazi candidates. In 1933, the Vatican and Hitler signed a concordat, where the Catholic church swore allegiance to the Nazi government. Later on Pope Pius XI condemned Hitler. How can a supposedly infallible man make so many errors of judgment, and even contradict other so-called infallible popes? Surely this disproves papal infallibility to any honest, open minded person.