• Pastor Gabriel L. Cochran

Catholic Traditions Examined

The word “tradition” (or a form of it) occurs 13 times in 13 verses in the King James Bible. To anyone who pays attention to the Divine placement of chapter and verse markings in the scriptures, and to the themes that are undeniably associated with certain numbers in the Bible (see Gen. 13:13 for the first appearance of the word “sinners”; or Rev. 13:13 for a reference to the antichrist; or John 13:13, which has 13 words, with 39 letters—3 times 13 if you don’t count the italics—and is a reference to Judas Iscariot, who has 13 letters in his name; etc., etc.), this fact in and of itself should “raise some caution flags” concerning “tradition.” In fact, of the thirteen appearances of the word, eleven are completely NEGATIVE, one is neutral, and only ONE is positive (II Thess. 3:6).

The Lord Jesus Christ had some interesting things to say to the religious leaders of His day who professed to follow the Bible, wore long robes (Luke 20:46), and “compassed sea and land to make one proselyte” (Matt. 23). He told them, “Full well ye REJECT the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition” (Mark 7:9). He went on to say that these religious leaders were “Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition” (Mark 7:13). These men did not follow Jesus Christ nor hear His words, earning His rebuke: “He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God” (John 8:47). Unhesitating, straightforward condemnation, pronounced on those who placed their traditions ahead of the word and words of God.

Those who DID hear His words and receive them were known as His disciples. A disciple is someone who disciplines themselves to follow the teachings—the words and example—of another. “The disciples were called Christians” (Acts 11:26), because they followed Jesus Christ and His words. The “traditionalists” who rejected His words on the other hand were called “SERPENTS” and a “GENERATION OF VIPERS” (Matt. 23:33).

So, when we find a certain organization that calls itself “the church,” which professes to be “Christian,” with a membership of over a billion people that call themselves “Christians,” but that bases 90% or more of its beliefs and doctrine on “tradition” and not on the words of God in the Bible, we feel we have reasonable suspicion to investigate further before we judge that “church” or its beliefs to be, in fact, “Christian.”

We are talking, of course, about the Roman Catholic Church.

The Roman Catholic Church claims “apostolic succession” back to Simon Peter (whom they dub the first “pope”—a word not found in the Bible) and the early Christians in the Book of Acts, regardless of the fact that no one in the New Testament ever believed or practiced anything a devout Roman Catholic believes or practices. The word “catholic” appears in no version of any Bible ever written, in any language, including the official Roman Catholic versions (the Jesuit Rheims, the American Bible, the Jerusalem Bible, the RSV, the NRSV, and etc.). Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 110) is thought to have been the first to use the word “catholic” in an epistle which bears his name, however it is universally acknowledged by honest historians that ALL of the Epistles of Ignatius are forgeries, not from A.D. 110, but from A.D. 250-500—more than 150 years after the close of the New Testament, at the earliest (Ruckman, Peter S., The History of the New Testament Church, Vol. I, pg. 52).

As it turns out, the Roman Church in its modern form does not appear in history until the Roman Emperor Constantine and the council of Nicaea in A.D. 325. After Constantine saw a UFO and heard a voice say, “In this sign, conquer,” he “converted” the Roman Empire to “Christianity” without personally trusting Christ or even getting “sprinkled” (the Roman Catholic form of baptism which is found nowhere in the Bible) until he lay on his deathbed. At Constantine’s behest, the Roman Emperor became the pope; the Senate became the College of Cardinals; the Imperial Governor became the Archbishop; the Provincial Governor became the “Metropolitan” or Bishop; the Civitas became the priests; and underneath them all, on the bottom of the pile, HUMANITY (ibid., pg. 49).

The Roman Catholic Church, then, is nothing more than the old, pagan Roman Empire with pseudo-Christian terms applied to her; which means, incidentally, that we CAN trace the “succession” of the Roman Catholic Church back to the early part of the New Testament—we find her crucifying Jesus Christ, persecuting the church, killing James, imprisoning Simon Peter (fine way to treat your first “pope”), and jailing the Apostle Paul before cutting off his head. (By the way, Paul was extradited to Rome on a ship from Alexandria, Egypt; an interesting thing to note in light of the fact that modern Christianity is now headed back to Rome by way of Alexandria. She’s headed there for execution.)

Now, with this context in mind, we here take up a brief examination of some of the Roman Catholic Church’s major traditions. The claim is that these traditions represent an “evolution” of Biblical revelation as “the church” progressed and grew from her infantile, first century, New Testament Christianity into the mature, “one, holy, apostolic, infallible, teaching church” she is today. However the question that should come to the reader upon the close of this article is, “How do these things represent a growth in the understanding of the scriptures, when they are DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to the scriptures?” If we take Rome’s word for it, we are to believe Jesus Christ established a church, gave it instructions, and then proceeded to reveal, through the following centuries, how those instructions were actually the opposite of what He ultimately intended. You’ll forgive us if we have a little trouble with that logic.

The way this will work is, we’ll give the Catholic tradition, and then we’ll print what the Bible has to say about that tradition to judge whether the two are in agreement. After all, the Book says to “Prove all things; hold fast to that which is good” and “he that is spiritual judgeth all things.” So take some pleasure in the fact that you are about to engage in a spiritual activity for the next few paragraphs.

CATHOLIC TRADITION: Calling priests “father” — for example, “Father Sullivan.”

This is a formality with which all are familiar, catholic or not. The idea is, the priest is in the place of God the Father, so all God’s children (that’ll be Roman Catholic Church members) are his children as well. You’re to call this perpetual bachelor, who never had any wife or children (that you know of…), dressed in grandma’s moo moo, “father.” Of course, this is only how we see things and it’s possible we’re being too harsh and critical.

What matters is what the Bible has to say, and upon reading It, we find the Lord Jesus Christ Himself directly commenting on the practice: (Matthew 23:9) “And call NO MAN your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.”

Jesus Christ gives this commandment in the context of dealing with long-robed priests (don’t take my word it—read Matthew 23!).

Christ’s statement here leaves no room for misunderstanding or alternate interpretations, and therefore you find no Christian in the New Testament directly addressing any man as “father.” (One can, however, find the instructive account of an image-worshipping, rogue “priest” that was called “father” back in Judges 18:19, which see.)

As an aside, in the culture of the southern United States, where the Bible is preached and churches are found on every corner, you’ll find their language and terminology has been affected. Southerners don’t generally use the word “father,” but rather, “Dad,” or “Daddy.” Most of them don’t even know why, but it’s because of the Bible’s influence on their language and culture, and the lack of Roman Catholic influence, which influence is felt to a much greater degree up North.

CATHOLIC TRADITION: All priests are to remain celibate, and unmarried.

According to catholic catechism, any catholic minister who has “received the sacrament of Holy Orders can no longer marry.” That’ll be certain deacons, all priests, all bishops, all archbishops, all cardinals, and the pope. [Catechism Of The Catholic Church, 1994, United States Catholic Conference, Inc.—Libreria Editrice Vaticana, pg. 393-395].

The scriptures cited to back up this prohibition on marriage are Matthew 19:12 and I Cor. 7:32, which have absolutely nothing to do with disallowing ANYONE from marrying anybody, let alone Christian ministers. Matthew 19:12 is addressed to “men” (vs. 11), not pastors, bishops, or deacons in the New Testament church; and the men described are “eunuchs” (unable to have physical relations) either from birth defects, injury, or VOLUNTARY ABSTINENCE. Jesus Christ prohibits no one from being married in this discussion, but simply describes the physical condition in which some men find themselves.

I Corinthians 7 presents a similar context, dealing with men and women in general (not pastors or bishops in a local church) who are either married or unmarried; and the only person told to “seek not a wife” is a man who has been “loosed from a wife” already (vs. 27); but who, if he chooses to marry again anyway, has not sinned (vs. 28). Verse 32 simply states that if a man CHOOSES to remain unmarried, he’ll have more time to devote to the Lord because he won’t be bothered with remodeling the bathroom or hanging curtains for his wife. There is no command against marriage given in the entire chapter of I Corinthians 7 to anyone who has never been married.

Astonishingly, upon reading the passages given as proof-texts for priestly celibacy, we find they have nothing to do with the subject at all. But more astonishing than this is the fact that, in discussing the qualifications of those ordained to the ministry, the Roman Catholic Church has carefully avoided the scriptures that discuss the qualifications of those ordained to the ministry! Let us not be so negligent.

Upon examining I Timothy 3:1-13 (a direct, specific discussion on the qualifications of a bishop, pastor, or deacon), we find that rather than being prohibited from marriage, the bishop is to be “the husband of one wife” (vs. 2), who has children and rules his household well (vs. 4).

The Catholic Church avoids these scriptures in I Timothy 3 because they’re on the heels of I Timothy 4, where we discover that celibacy is not an “Holy Order” at all, but is literally a “doctrine of devils”:

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and DOCTRINES OF DEVILS; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; FORBIDDING TO MARRY, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.” (vs. 1-3)

Simon Peter (the first “pope”) was married (Matt. 8:14; Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38), and so were many of the other apostles (I Cor. 9:5); and although the apostle Paul (the greatest Christian who ever lived) chose not to marry (I Cor. 7:25), he made it clear that he COULD HAVE gotten married if he had so desired (I Cor. 9:5).

Celibacy is an unscriptural, unnatural, pagan tradition, designed to make you think the priest is a “holy” man that’s a cut above you in his spirituality. Nowhere in the Bible is it implied that celibacy makes anyone more “spiritual” than anybody else. That goes for priests, nuns, monks, and all the rest of the crew. For an “in-depth” (to use the news media cliche) look at the diabolical effects and fruit of this unnatural obligation placed on the priesthood, the reader should obtain the book by Chiniquy entitled The Woman, The Priest, And The Confessional (Chick Publications).

CATHOLIC TRADITION: The “perpetual virginity” of Mary.

The teaching of the Roman church is that, after giving birth to Jesus Christ, Mary never “knew” her husband Joseph in the carnal sense, and remained a virgin for ever (Catechism of the Catholic Church, pg. 126). A casual reading of the Gospels will reveal this to be an error, for we find written first of all in Matthew 1:24-25, “Then Joseph being raised from sleep did as the angel of the Lord had bidden him, and took unto him his wife: And knew her not TILL she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS.”

The text is clear; Joseph did not come together with Mary in consummation of their marriage until AFTER Jesus was born (“till”)…but they DID come together.

The designation “firstborn son” implies there were other sons or children to follow. As it turns out, sons AND daughters were born to Mary and Joseph after the birth of Jesus, and they are listed in Matthew 13:55, 56—“Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? And his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us?”

Notice Jesus had four half-brothers who are named, and at least two unnamed sisters, if not more. The truth is reinforced by the parallel account given in Mark 6:3, where the brothers and sisters appear again, and then once more in Galatians 1:19, when Paul relates he had a private meeting with “James the Lord’s brother.” The Catholic rebuttal to this is to say that where the word “brother” is used in the preceding verses, what the Bible really means is “cousins,” because sometimes cousins and brethren are the same “in an Old Testament expression.” This is true, but what about a New Testament “expression?” How about New Testament expressions used in the same passage as the announcement of the virgin birth? In the same passage where the angel Gabriel tells Mary she will give birth to the Son of God (Luke 2:35), he says “thy COUSIN Elisabeth, she hath also conceived a son…” (vs. 36). It appears that God knows how to use the word “cousin” when He means “cousin,” and “brother” or “sister” when He means either of those. Furthermore the words are different in Greek and in English: sungenees is the word for “cousin”; adelphos is “brother”; and adelphee is “sister.”

But the real “coup de grace” to the hoax of the perpetual virginity of Mary is found in the words of Jesus Christ Himself. One would only find this by “studying to show himself approved unto God,” and comparing scripture with scripture, BELIEVING WHAT HE READS. In John 2:17, Jesus Christ has driven the money changers out of the temple, and upon observing the scene, the disciples mark it as the fulfillment of Psalm 69:9 which says, “The zeal of thine house hath eaten me up.” This reference in John identifies Jesus Christ as the Prophetic Character speaking through the psalmist in Psalm 69; but if it’s Christ speaking in verse 9, look what He says in verse 8: “I am become a stranger unto MY BRETHREN, and an alien unto MY MOTHER’S CHILDREN.” Holy rosaries, Batman; Christ had brothers and sisters, they are pointed out as such in the New Testament, with names listed, and the Old Testament prophesied that it would be so.

This Roman Catholic tradition exalts Mary to a position the Bible does not give her at all. As a matter of fact, if Mary had indeed remained a virgin, she would have been guilty of defrauding her husband in accordance with I Cor. 7:3-5.

CATHOLIC TRADITION: Mary is given the title “Mother of God” and “Queen of Heaven.”

“Mother of God”

The Roman Catholic Church, always careful to conceal its true nature, will justify this blasphemy by stating innocently that, since Jesus is “God manifest in the flesh” and Mary is the mother of Jesus, it is proper to refer to her as God’s “mother.”

First of all, God has no mother. Did you ever stop to think what a ludicrous idea it would be for God to have a mother? If He did, she would have to be an eternal being that was around before God ever showed up, which means she would occupy a superior position to that of God. This “mother of God” business is unbiblical, blasphemous nonsense which finds its source in the pagan mother and child worship of the ancient Babylonian mystery religions. The Bible plainly states that God is from “everlasting” (Micah 5:2); and God, speaking in Isaiah 43:10, says “…before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” Mary is not the “mother of God;” she is the mother of the MAN Christ Jesus, Who possessed a human nature as well as a divine nature at the same time. True, Jesus Christ was “God manifest in the flesh,” but that statement is a reference to his DIVINE nature. The part of Jesus that was human got hungry, got thirsty, needed a place to lay his head, felt pain, and got tired. Those things never happened to “God”—they happened to the human form of the man, Christ Jesus. Mary was the mother of everything that is HUMAN about Jesus, but she had nothing to do with His supernatural side. When Gabriel told Mary she would give birth to Jesus Christ, all credit for Jesus’ holiness is attributed to God the Father, not Mary (Luke 1:35). Further, Isaiah 9:6 reveals that the Lord Jesus Christ is the “mighty God” and “the everlasting Father,” which simply means the Lord Jesus Christ existed as God—in eternity past He was “the Word” (John 1:1; I John 5:7)—before Mary was ever born.

"But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler [Jesus] in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." (Micah 5:2)

"Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:" (Php. 2:6, 7)

Mary is not the “mother of God.” She was the mother of God’s Son—the man, Christ Jesus. To give Mary the title of “mother of God” elevates her to an extreme position of exaltation the Bible NEVER gives any man or woman, and implies she occupies a position ABOVE God in the spiritual hierarchy of Heaven.

“Queen of Heaven”

Now, let’s consider a few things concerning this “Queen of Heaven” bit. If Jesus Christ is our King, how does His MOTHER become queen? Is He married to her? Immediately the connection is made once again to the mother and child worship of ancient Babylon, where the child-king (Nimrod) actually does marry his own mother (Semiramis), making her queen. This is disgusting, of course, but what more do we expect from pagan, heathen idolators.

Rome appeals to scripture again to justify its paganism, vaguely referring (without quoting the scripture) to an Old Testament instance where the mother of one of the deceased kings of Israel is referred to as “queen,” and then pretends this is the same as Mary assuming the position of queen thanks to the death of Christ (“King of the Jews”). This is typical, anti-scriptural, Roman Catholic private interpretation and deception at its finest. The Roman Catholic source I have in front of me forgets to quote us the verses on that Old Testament situation, and once we quote them here, the reader will understand why:

“And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the Lord, as did David his father. And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. And also Maachah his MOTHER, even her he REMOVED from being QUEEN, because she had made an IDOL in a grove; and Asa destroyed her idol, and burnt it by the brook Kidron.” (I Kings 15:11-13)

The Roman Catholic has rather stupidly linked his version of Mary with an illegitimate, Old Testament queen involved in idolatry and pagan worship in groves (see any shrine or statue of Mary among the flowers in any cemetery anywhere), who was destined to be removed from her throne by a King who did “right in the eyes of the Lord.” Is anyone so dull as to miss the irony in that?

The Bible refers to a “queen of heaven” in Jeremiah 7, but it’s certainly not Mary:

Jeremiah 7:17-19—"Seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto other gods, that they may provoke me to anger. Do they provoke me to anger? saith the LORD: do they not provoke themselves to the confusion of their own faces?"

According to the Bible, the “queen of heaven” is a false god, and Israel sinned and provoked the Lord’s anger when they went “a whoring” after her. Some incredible idiot from a Roman Catholic apologist site called catholic365.com noted, in an attempted defense of the title, that the “queen of heaven” to which Jeremiah 7 refers “happens to be Astarte, and not Mary.” Why thank you for that word of testimony, Knucklehead. That’s what we’ve been saying all along. No one is confusing the Mary of the Bible with a female demon (I Cor. 10:20-21) except a Biblically illiterate Roman Catholic.

CATHOLIC TRADITION: The Pope is called “Holy Father.”

The term "Holy Father" is found only one time in the Bible. When Jesus prayed before He and His disciples went to the garden of Gethsemane, He referred to God, His Father as “Holy Father.” It is the very definition of blasphemy to call a man by God's name.

“And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.” (John 17:11)

When the Beast shows up in the Great Tribulation (Rev. 13), he has the “name of blasphemy” on one of his seven heads. It’s very interesting to note that, in addition to being referred to as “Holy Father,” the pope owns a mitre (the hat a priest or king wears) with the latin VICARIVS FILII DEI (666 in Roman numerals), which means “THE SON OF GOD ON EARTH.” Blasphemy, stewed to a fine poison.

CATHOLIC TRADITION: Purgatory, nuns, popes.

None of these are mentioned in any version of the Bible at all. The words don’t appear, nor are the ideas behind them implied or even hinted at. Not one time. The Book has this to say:

“Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” (Prov. 30:6)

As we have already commented, the pope is a man who takes upon himself honor which belongs to God only. Even the very name by which he allows himself to be called (Holy Father) is highly presumptuous and blasphemous.

Christians don’t need a pope to determine what God's will is, or what God’s word says. The Bible says that God has given the Holy Ghost to each believer and that He will “guide you into all truth” (John 16:13). All a born-again believer needs is the Bible and the Holy Ghost to know the will of God. God’s set-up is local churches with local pastors to teach and preach the truth of God’s Book, so that Christians can get the help and direction they need from the word of God and the fellowship of other Bible-believing Christians. The popes have one of the most treacherous histories of any so-called religious order, ever. Pretending to be infallible, they have contradicted themselves in matters of theology on too many occasions to list, and they’ve been involved in some of the most diabolical political and moral scandals anyone has ever heard of. For example, there was the time when the cardinals were split on two candidates to elect as pope, and wound up electing two popes who reigned concurrently, with each of them anathematizing (damning to hell) the other. Another scandal ignited when it was discovered that one pope was a woman pretending to be a man (Pope “Joan”). The discovery was made when she turned up pregnant. (Now that’s embarrassing. Not only is the pope supposed to be a man, but a CELIBATE man, at that.) Don’t throw this information out as bigoted, prejudicial information that is “anti-catholic.” It’s HISTORY; and I’m giving it to you because I CARE about catholics. If you’re a catholic reading this, CHECK THIS INFORMATION OUT. Don’t do what your church says and pretend everybody who disagrees with you is a heretic worthy of death. Get some zeal for the truth, rather than stick your head in the sand and follow pagan tradition.

Purgatory is supposed to be a place where a person is purified of sins—even popes supposedly go there. Purgatory shows up in the uninspired apocrypha, not the Bible. There is absolutely no purification of sins in the Bible outside of the shed blood of Jesus Christ on Calvary:

“Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; Who gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works.” (Titus 2:13, 14)

That purification is achieved by the grace of God, through faith, and not by burning in any “purgatory”:

“And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us; And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." (Acts 13:8-11)

Once that purification is complete through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross, there is no future payment for sins required in the next life. Hebrews 10:12 says Jesus Christ made the “one sacrifice for sins for ever,” which simply means there is no payment left to be made by the believer. “Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe; sin had left a crimson stain—He washed it white as snow.”

When a person dies, his eternal fate is sealed. It’s heaven or hell, with no in-between. Up or down, left or right, black or white, fat or skinny—“it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment,” not purgatory.

When it comes to finding nuns in the Bible, there are nun.

CATHOLIC TRADITION: The veneration and worship of images.

Roman Catholics from the pope down bow to statues of Mary, worship the eucharist (the wafer or host) and have statues to which people pray, and from which they seek blessing, in their homes and churches.

The Book says it’s idolatry to venerate, or worship, or “adore” (depraved sinners can always find the double-speak necessary to diminish from the severity of their sins) graven images. In fact, the command is against the MAKING of the images as well as the worship of them.

“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God…” (Exo. 20:4, 5)

This is the second of the ten commandments found in Exodus 20. Roman Catholics often learn the ten commandments, not from the Bible, but from another source like a poster or a workbook. By this Roman Catholic “traditional way of enumerating the ten commandments” the second commandment concerning images is actually REMOVED from the list. Although the command appears in Catholic Bible versions like the New American Bible, one will find that when the ten commandments are displayed by themselves via some other medium, the second commandment is obliterated, and the tenth commandment is split in two in order to preserve the numerical value of ten. The ninth and tenth commandments for a Catholic are, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife,” and “thou shalt not covet thy neighbors possessions.” These are obviously not two commandments, but one—“thou shalt not covet.” This proves a Roman Catholic will change the word of God to justify what they want to believe. The Bible is NOT the final authority of the Catholic, but rather the man-made traditions of his religion.


The mass is a mess. The word doesn’t appear in scripture; and this Roman Catholic debacle is a perversion and misappropriation of what the Bible calls the “Lord’s supper” (I Cor. 11:20), an ordinance wherein a piece of unleavened bread and some grape juice are consumed by born-again believers in a local church in order to COMMEMORATE the last supper Christ had with his disciples, and the sacrifice He made on the cross. It is to be done “in remembrance” of the Lord Jesus—no one “eats” Him. This is easily proven by the fact that Jesus Christ Himself partook of the memorial meal along with the disciples (Luke 22; I Cor. 11). What was He doing, biting off chunks of His own flesh? Nonsense. The Roman Church teaches that through transubstantiation (a million-dollar word for “magic”), the wafer/host (NOT what they ate at the Lord’s supper) and the wine (alcoholic booze—NOT what they drank at the Lord’s supper, see Matt. 26:29, Mk. 14:25, and Lk. 22:18) supposedly become the actual blood and body of Jesus Christ when the priest prays over them. He is then sacrificed over and over again on Roman Catholic altars, in direct contradiction of Hebrews 10:11-14—“And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can NEVER TAKE AWAY SINS: But this man [Jesus Christ], after he had offered ONE SACRIFICE for sins FOR EVER, sat down on the right hand of God; From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by ONE OFFERING he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.”

Jesus Christ died once for sins, and that sacrifice is never to be repeated. He sits on the right hand of God until the Rapture, and does not reappear in the mass.

“For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: NOR YET THAT HE SHOULD OFFER HIMSELF OFTEN, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: BUT NOW ONCE IN THE END OF THE WORLD HATH HE APPEARED TO PUT AWAY SIN BY THE SACRIFICE OF HIMSELF. And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: So Christ was ONCE offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.” (Heb. 9:24-28)

The Lord Jesus Christ suffered once on the cross; he is no longer suffering and he is most certainly not what Roman Catholicism calls “The Victim” that is sacrificed over and over again in the blasphemous Roman Catholic mass performed by the Roman Catholic priesthood. The apostle Paul told you the “sacrifice of the mass” is an offering made to “devils, and not to God” (I Cor. 10:20-21).

CATHOLIC TRADITION: Salvation is obtained, in part, by good works.

Acts 16:31 says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved.” It doesn’t say, “Believe, get baptized, try to live a good life, do your best, be kind to folks, go to church, confess your sins, try to make the world a better place, and maybe you MIGHT make it after you spend a little time in purgatory.” It says “BELIEVE…and THOU SHALT BE SAVED.” Salvation is in a Person—the Lord Jesus Christ. “Thou shalt call his name JESUS for HE shall save HIS people from their sins.” When you receive that Person as your substitute, who paid for your sin on the cross, you are receiving eternal life as a free gift.

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation [substitute] through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.

Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.” (Rom. 3:23-28)

“For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” (Rom. 6:23)

“And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life…” (I John 5:11-13)

There are certainly verses in the Bible that teach salvation by works (see Eze. 18 for example), but reading these verses in their context clearly reveal they are not written to people in the New Testament, where we stand today. Salvation was obtained in the Old Testament by believing what God said and keeping the Law of Moses, and good works will also play a part in the age to come (after the Rapture of the church) in the Great Tribulation, and later in the thousand-year reign of Christ (see James 2:20, Heb. 6, Rev. 14:12). But in this age, since Christ died for our sins (I Cor. 15:1-4) and offered that "one sacrifice” (see Heb. 10:11-14 above) for sins for ever, there is no longer any requirement to keep the Law for eternal salvation. Jesus Christ fulfilled the Law, and you get His righteousness imputed to you when you simply receive Him as Saviour.

“But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.” (Rom. 4:5-8)

One of the main reasons salvation is not by works in this age is that God isn’t interested in anybody BRAGGING on themselves for what they did to gain salvation. God is pleased and glorified, in that salvation is by His mercy and grace alone.

“For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” (Eph. 2:8, 9)

CATHOLIC TRADITION: The Church was founded on the Apostle Simon Peter.

Once again, when a catholic says, “the Church,” he is not referring to any church in the Bible but to the Roman Catholic religious organization (see our introductory comments). The idea that Peter was the first “pope” (neither the term nor the idea of anybody besides Jesus Christ being head over the body of Christ is found in any Bible) and Bishop of Rome, upon whom the universal church is built, comes from the Roman Catholic “wishfully thinking” his pagan religion is somehow connected with New Testament Christianity. When he can find no evidence of this, he simply produces a private interpretation of Matthew 16:18 ("And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”), and proceeds to make up history as he goes.

Matthew 16:18 is an awfully nebulous verse on which to build such a fundamental doctrine as apostolic succession and the infallibility of the Roman Catholic organization. For example, the verse doesn’t say any church would be built on Peter, but on a “rock.” Anyone who reads the Bible knows Who the Rock is (Deut. 32:4; I Cor. 10:4), and Simon Peter is no more “the Rock” than Dwayne “the Rock” Johnson. Jesus Christ was pointing at Himself when He said “this rock,” just as He was when He said “this is the bread which cometh down from heaven” (John 6:41, 50). Further, what does Jesus Christ mean when He says, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”? If He means “the gates of hell won’t prevail against the church,” how does that compute? Is the church in hell, rattling the gates and trying to get out? Or is it outside of hell, trying to get in? Isn’t that a rather stupid thought?

On the other hand, if Jesus Christ is the Rock upon which the church is built, He means the gates of hell won’t prevail against HIM—that is, His body. This is the proper interpretation, for the scripture reveals that when He died on Calvary and made the eternal payment for our sins, Jesus Christ’s soul went to hell and came out again, because it was not possible that death or hell could have dominion over Him.

“Him [Christ], being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: Therefore did my heart rejoice, and my tongue was glad; moreover also my flesh shall rest in hope: Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.” (Acts 2:23-27)

That isn’t all. In the same passage Rome claims as her proof-text for Simon Peter’s papal inauguration, we find Jesus Christ addressing Peter as Satan himself: “But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.” Fine way to address your first pick as “pope”!

There is no historical evidence (outside of biased Roman Catholic folklore) that Peter ever even VISITED Rome, much less pastored a church there. If we are to believe the catholic tale, we are forced to accept that when Paul (who DID start a church in Rome) writes to his Roman converts and addresses 27 people by name—everybody involved in the work there—but then apparently forgets to address the Pastor (supposedly Peter) whom he knew personally! Horsefeathers.

The scripture cited by catholics to “prove” Peter was in Rome is even more ironic and laughable than their above attempt at justifying Mary’s “Queenship”: “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son” (I Pet. 5:13). Astonishingly, the Roman Catholic teaches that, in the verse, Peter wrote “Babylon” when he was actually referring to Rome. The blundering, catholic blockhead once again does some of our work for us, and connects Rome with her scriptural counterpart, “Mystery Babylon the Great, the Mother of Harlots” in Revelation 17. Oops. “Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed,” and “His own iniquity shall take the wicked himself” (Prov. 5:22; 13:13). That’s what you get when you mess with the Book.

Simon Peter was a man like any other, and a sinner like any other, who had trouble with cursing and swearing (Matt. 26:74), rebelled against the word of God (Matt. 16:22), was controlled by Satan at times (Matt. 16:23), lacked faith (Matt. 14:29-31), and had to be corrected on his doctrine by Paul (Gal. 2:11-14). Peter was married (Matt. 8:14), preached on the street (Acts 2, 3, 4), knew where he was going when he died (I Pet. 1:1-5) and told others they could know (I Pet. 1:1-5), rejected silver and gold as having any significance to anything that matters (I Pet. 1:18-19), and stated that Jesus Christ was the only “rock” on Whom anyone should believe (I Pet. 2:4-8). When Cornelius tried to bow down and worship Peter, Peter responded (as any good Christian would) “Stand up; I myself also am a man.” (Acts 10:26). Contrast that with the current “bishop of Rome” who has men, women, and children bowing to him and kissing his rings, hands, and feet. That’s Peter’s successor is it? A pot-bellied, wine-headed bachelor with half a grapefruit on the back of his head, dressed like momma, but wants to be called “Papa”; running around all over the globe and, instead of preaching the gospel (or mentioning the second coming of Christ), is heard praying for “peace on earth to men of good will”, a prayer prayed by every pope that has never been answered one, single time in 1500 years? That’s some “vicar” of Christ, brother! Better hadn’t ask him to pray for your job or your family’s welfare.

Jesus Christ is the foundation of the church, “which is his body” (Eph. 1:23), and not a Bible-rejecting political organization. “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (I Cor. 3:11) The Roman Catholic Pope does not occupy “Peter's chair.” Peter hasn’t got any chair; if he had, he’d just as soon BREAK IT OVER A POPE’S HEAD as let him sit in it. If you’re familiar with the Simon Peter of the Bible, you know that’s not a stretch (John 18:10).

CATHOLIC TRADITION: Confessing sins to a priest, and petitioning Mary and the saints.

No Christian in the New Testament ever prays to anyone or confesses sins to anyone but God. Doing otherwise constitutes idolatry—putting someone or something ahead of God. When you stop and think about it, praying to Mary or any of the saints is tantamount to conjuring up the dead. Aren’t Mary and the saints, in fact, dead? Jesus Christ is the only One Who rose from the dead—the rest of the dead are…dead! They may be dead in Christ, or dead Old Testament saints, but they’re dead. There’s a man in the Bible who, when he could not “get in touch with God” (God had forsaken him for his sins and rejection of the truth), decided to conjure up a dead saint through contact with a WITCH—a capital offense, warranting the death penalty under God’s Law (I Sam. 28:6-20; Lev. 20:27). He was rebuked for this act and judgment was pronounced upon him immediately. This is the context in which a man finds himself if he wants to contact anyone besides the Lord in prayer, whether they be dead or alive. According to the Bible, we are to confess our sins, and make our requests and supplications in prayer to God alone.

“Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known UNTO GOD. And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus.” (Php. 4:6-7)

The only intermediaries between man and God are God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (I Tim. 2:5); “Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God…What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?…Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died, yea rather, that is risen again, who is even at the right hand of God, who also maketh intercession for us” (Rom. 8:26-34). In plainer words, there is NO ONE AND NOTHING standing in the way of a man speaking directly to God, if he so chooses, and that goes for a lost man as well—“For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved” (Rom. 10:13). “If we confess our sins, he [God] is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (I John 1:9). When and if any man sins, “we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous,” not St. Mary, St. Joseph, St. Michael, Mother Teresa, Indiana Jones, Larry, Darryl, his other brother Darryl, Moe, Curly, Sonic the Hedgehog, St. Christopher, St. Francis of Assisi, Luke Skywalker, St. Nicholas, St. Thomas Aquinas, Popeye, Mickey Mouse, Great Caesar’s ghost, St. Ambrose, St. Sofia, Max Headroom, Stadler and Waldorf, and etc.

The idea behind praying to Mary and the “saints” is a traditional Catholic invention, wherein Jesus Christ and God the Father are viewed as being too angry, judgmental, unconcerned, distant, or busy to handle answering your prayers, so you’re forced to go to Christ’s mother, for example, because she’s softer-hearted and more willing to “kiss your boo-boos” and help you with your problems. If the problem is too big for her to handle, SHE will intercede to God for you. God won’t respond to the likes of you and me, so you have to manipulate Him by going through His mother. Sentimental, carnal, irreverent, pagan, anti-Biblical clap-trap, with no reference to anything in any Bible.

When the Roman Catholic Church wishes to justify “the confessional”—where the catholic church member goes into a closet and tells the priest all his or her sins—they have to resort to the old tried and true method of ALTERING THE TEXT OF SCRIPTURE. The King James Bible says, “Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much.” (James 5:16). This is a very simple verse on a third-grade reading level, which reminds the Christian who is guilty of some wrong-doing toward another person to admit that it’s “his fault.” During athletic competitions, at some point the words will inevitably be heard, “My bad!” meaning, “That was my fault; I’m sorry for the offense against you.” Of course, nobody playing sports talks like that, so they say “My bad!” “My mistake!” “My fault!” That’s what needs to be said if you’ve offended someone through carelessness or malice, and according to the verse, it should be said to the person affected by the offense. Also notice the context of the verse, which has to do with praying for somebody to get healed, not confessing sins to a priest in a closet to get absolution. Of course, neither the words nor the context will stop the Catholic from perverting scripture to support his religious tradition. The Catholic New American Bible reads in James 5:16, “confess your SINS to one another.” It’s one thing to admit when you’ve done someone wrong and apologize to that person; it’s “a whole other ballgame” to sit down with another person and start listing all your sins and pulling out all the skeletons in your closet. By the way, the catholic reading STILL says nothing of confessing to a priest in a broom-closet. They change the verse to better fit their desires, but must still privately interpret their own Bibles.

The Bible commands you to make things right with somebody when that somebody has been injured by your words or actions. Your sins in general, however, are a matter between you and God. David said, addressing God directly, “Against thee, thee only have I sinned and done this evil in thy sight” (Psa. 51:4). Nor should you sin against someone else by opening up the sinful recesses of your heart to them. You’ll find that NOWHERE in scripture; you will however find warnings against speaking about things “done of them in secret” (Eph. 5:12), and commands against any corrupt communication proceeding out of your mouth to anybody about anything unless it’s something that will build up the hearer and encourage them to do right (Eph. 4:29).


If this essay makes anything clear, it makes clear the reason why the Roman Catholic Church recommends its members don’t read the Bible. If you think I'm joking, just ask a priest what a good Catholic’s daily Bible reading schedule should be, and then listen as he warns you of the “danger” of reading the scriptures without his or his church’s help in explaining “what the Bible really means.” According to Rome, “what the Bible REALLY MEANS” turns out to be exactly the opposite of what It SAYS in virtually every major doctrinal teaching they propagate. And you’re to believe their doctrinal position is the result of a “growth in understanding” over the centuries as the "infallible, teaching church” led by the Spirit of God. In reality, the Roman Catholic Church represents not a growth or development of Biblical truth, but an attempted OVERTURNING of Biblical truth. That’s not an accusation; it’s a FACT proven in the preceding paragraphs.

Now, lest the reader think we’ve exaggerated the anti-Biblical nature of the Roman Catholic Church and it’s teachings, we provide the following statement on the Bible from the “horse’s mouth.” The following is a quote from a book entitled The Jesuits in History. This is from a Roman Catholic Jesuit meeting in Cheri, Italy in 1825, which reveals the true feelings of the Roman Catholic hierarchy toward the Holy Scriptures:

“Then the Bible, that serpent which with head erect and eyes flashing, threatens us with its venom while it trails along the ground, shall be changed into a rod AS SOON AS WE ARE ABLE TO SEIZE IT... for three centuries past this cruel asp has left us no repose. You well know with what folds it entwines us and with what fangs it gnaws us.” (The Jesuits in History, Hector Macpherson, Ozark Book Publishers, 1997, Appendix 1).

There it is, like a rotten egg.

Now, the media (alternative, or mainstream) is constantly calling your attention to Islam and the muslims (among other trivial distractions) and there are obvious concerns about that wicked religion and its murderous membership. But consider that whether you’re reacting FOR or AGAINST what the media is putting out on a daily basis, you’re thoughts are, ultimately, still being dictated by the media. We are Bible-believing Christians. Our thoughts are not to be dictated by the media at all, but are to be brought into captivity to the obedience of Christ (II Cor. 10:5). Whether disagreeing with their lies, or believing their lies, Christians today are THINKING and TALKING about what the media (any or all of it, conservative or liberal) is leading them to think and talk about. If a Christian would shut them off and get back in the Bible, he would discover that for every warning against Islam he might find, there are at least ten warnings against the Roman Catholic Whore (Rev. 17). That “church” is Satan’s “bride” (Rev. 17:3-5); and the ecumenical, contemporary, and charismatic movements in professing Christianity today are taking what’s left of Christianity straight to the “belly of the Beast,” for that’s where all roads lead…to Rome.

What are you doing to block their way?


Recent Posts

See All


From the Pastor: I received a visit from the St. Eustache police while at the church office today, informing me of a standing order from the city that public gatherings at places such as our church be

©Copyright 2016 by Freedom Baptist Church.

This site was designed with the
website builder. Create your website today.
Start Now