Overview

I have family and friends of the Roman Catholic faith. Because of that, I wanted to address the stance I’ve taken on this website, since it conflicts with that world view. I wanted to research this topic sincerely and present my findings respectfully. If I was wrong, then I wanted to get to the bottom of it. If my family and friends are on the wrong track or at risk of not-being saved, I feel duty-bound to at least present that evidence.

I merely want to follow the Truth, wherever it leads me.

If you just want the bottom line, see the summary at the bottom. The rest of this page though will cover the research I did and the conclusions that I drew. This is a pretty deep topic, but in the end, I think there is a very compelling case to be made against the teachings of the Catholic church. Allow me to make my case, below.

What are the differences?

As I often mention, many issues start with the Bible translation. I am not a Biblical scholar, pastor, etc. –  but using open source references, encyclopedia’s, and as many official or scholarly sources as I could find, I started to research this topic.
I first looked at what the differences are between Catholicism and Christianity. Here’s a quick look at just some of the more differing views, as I’ve come to understand them:

Issue	Christian	Catholic
Bible Canon	66 Books	73 Books
Source of Doctrine	Sola Scriptura – the Bible alone is the sole, divinely-inspired Word of God. That is: the Hebrew Bible, the Gospels, plus uncontested books.	66 Books of the Bible Deuterocanon (aka apocrypha) Papal declarations Tradition Catholic leadership interpretation
Salvation	Through Christ alone	Through Christ, plus works (penance, sacraments, and being good)
Once saved/Always saved	Yes (mostly)	No, constant works are required since we constantly sin
Church built on	The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus	Peter
Access to Christ	Whosever believes in Christ	Believing Catholics
Authority	All people have authority via the Bible, directly. Each person has a personal relationship with God	The one true church, the Catholic church. Only priests can translate the Word. Denial of the Pope shows a despise of God. The Pope (via bloodline lineage from Peter) is Jesus’ representative on Earth, and speaks for all Christians.
Baptism	Outward expression of being saved. Typically done after a person is born again, anew (1 Corinthians 5:17)	At birth, baptism washed Original Sin. This allows them some of God’s grace, which is used for Good Works, which favors more grace – hopefully leading to enough good works to get to Heaven.
Sins	All sins are “sin”. The wages for sin is death. Belief in Jesus alone, covers your sins – else you are judged on your own works. Every human except Jesus, falls short.	Venial sins – small scale Mortal sins – major Potentially redeemable via good works, penance, sacraments, purgatory, etc. Priests have the power to forgive sins.
The role of Mary	Was an instrument of God, but should not be worshipped.	Mary is a Catholic saint, and is the spiritual mother of all men. She can be admired, like other Catholic saints and is the primary intermediary between God and humans.

How did these get so far apart? Why is there such disagreement? Well – let’s move backwards in time and end up, where I think the whole schism started.
Here’s a picture as I’ve come to see it – of how the Catholic approach went into a different direction, and how that fits into the Protestant Reformation:

The question is though: was that change in direction divinely inspired because the early church was wrong, and if the Catholic Pope’s are aligned with Christ, that means that they have a right to “correct” the path of Christianity? Or, was the protestant movement in the Reformation correct to go back to the basics?
Objectively, I think that is basically the summary. In early 300 A.D., the first Bibles had additional writings – it comes down to whether those should’ve been considered divinely-inspired or not. If they are, then the Catholic approach is correct. If not, then the Catholic viewpoint now goes directly against a lot of Biblical teachings, because they don’t have the authority to change anything about the Bible.
With that in mind, below is what I researched and found on this topic. Let’s see if there is enough of a case to be made, one way or the other.

The Protestant Reformation (circa 1517 A.D.)

In 1517 in Germany, Martin Luther, a professor of theology published “Ninety-five Theses” – a public rebuke of the alleged abuses of the Catholic Church of “indulgences”. “Indulgences” are a way to reduce the amount of punishment one has to undergo for sins by repeating a prayer, visiting a particular place, or by specific good works.
That kicked off a whole movement of people who wanted to get back to the simple roots of Christianity. Catholicism had become quite rigid and complex by that point with a significant amount of doctrine.
As noted above, Catholicism had become a complex tapestry of Biblical canon, Papal decrees, a pantheon of saints, traditions, etc. This opposing viewpoint wanted to get back to just the original teachings of Jesus.
Part of this reformation was addressing this whole issue of the “extra books” in the Bible, which are the direct reason why the Catholics have a very different world view. That’s a significant point because those books were either divinely-inspired and the Catholics are right; or they are not divinely-inspired, which would mean the Catholic worldview has gone astray. We’ll get back to those contested books in a minute.
In the end, the reformation was about getting back to the basics, without all of the man-made doctrine, and to remove the so-called apocryphal books. The intent was to have the so-called “Old Testament” be based on the Hebrew Bible – and NOT the Septuagint. Let’s dig into the details of this.

Why are there missing/extra books in the Bible?

This is a particularly fascinating rabbit hole, in my opinion. I found this great diagram that shows some of what I’ll discuss. But key to this particular topic is the differences starting from the Septuagint on the left, and comparing that to a modern, non-Catholic Bible on the right – why are these different?

Source: https://menorah-bible.jimdofree.com/english/structure-of-the-bible/correct-book-order/
First, an overview. In Jesus’ day, most people couldn’t read or write. Christian beliefs were primarily shared verbally and told by people who lived through it. But by 70 A.D. (for reference, Jesus died in 33 A.D.), several people started saying “hey, we should really write this stuff down”. Those writings were initially known as the “Gospels” (aka “the good news”) of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those were available and distributed pretty widely – which is part of the reason Christianity is so verifiable, even from secular, historical sources today.
In those days, the four Gospels were solid – being written letter-for-letter and multiple copies existed. The Hebrew Bible was solid, since it was strictly maintained by Rabbi’s who copied it letter-for-letter.

Vocabulary

Here’s a quick run-down of the not-so-common words, or just to standardize on our word-use, in this document:

• Apocrypha – the contested books of the Bible canon, as viewed by non-Catholics. Apocrypha means: of questionable origin.
• Canon – an official list of writings to be included in the Bible (according to a specific sect of believers)
• Deuterocanon – the contested books of the Bible canon, as viewed by Catholics. Deuterocanon means 2nd canon.
• Gospels – translated “The Good News”, this is the 4 main gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John – which is the story of Jesus told from different viewpoints.
• Hebrew People – the ancestors of the Jews. After circa 500 B.C. these believers became known as the Jewish people.
• Hebrew Language – the language of the Hebrew People until around 200 to 400 A.D., when Greek was the primary international language of the region, and Old Aramaic was used in the region during Jesus’ time.
• Hebrew Bible – the Tanakh, written in Hebrew. It contains 3 main sections: Torah, Prophets, and Writings.
• Jewish – the people of Israel. An ethnoreligious group and nation of Israel. The descendants of the Hebrew People.
• Pentateuch – Penta meaning 5, this is the 5 books of the Torah.
• Scribes – in those days, most people couldn’t read nor write. A scribe could read and write, so they were hired to do specific read/writing tasks.
• Septuagint – the specific translation of the Torah (plus other writings) from Hebrew to Greek (circa 300 B.C.) by scribes in Alexandria, Egypt.
• Tanakh – the whole Hebrew Bible. The name is derived from the three divisions: Torah (instruction, the Law), Nevi’im (prophets), and Ketuvim (writings)
• Torah – the first 5 books of the Tanakh. This is the Instruction, or Law teachings. Also called the Pentateuch. Torah can also informally mean the entire Hebrew Bible (the Tanakh)

History

Below are several key aspects to the history of the Bible.

The Hebrew Scriptures / Tanakh

The Tanakh, or Hebrew Scriptures were widely used at that time, with multiple copies. Those were solid reference books that were unchanged – and are still unchanged, to this day.

The Septuagint

Around 300 B.C., some Alexandrian scribes (Egypt) translated the Tanakh into Greek. This is known as the Septuagint.
A point of contention here is that the Septuagint isn’t just the Hebrew Bible – it has extra material! Those that believe this event was divinely inspired call these extra books the Deuterocanon (2nd canon), and those that don’t believe it is divine, call it the Apocrypha (writings of questionable authority).
The key point here is that the Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Tanakh, but it included books in addition to the original Hebrew Bible.
This whole contention about extra books started from this very specific period of time. Let’s take a look at what happened.

Constantine

Around 306 A.D. Constantine the Great ruled. At first, he persecuted Christians, but through some big life events, became a zealous Christ follower himself. In 313 A.D. via the Edict of Milan, he decriminalized Christianity. Soon after in 331 A.D., he commissioned that 50 bound Bibles be created by Eusebius of Caesarea – but that was going to take some time.

Interesting Factoid: In 321 A.D. Constantine made Sunday the day of rest, merging the traditional, Jewish Saturday sabbath with the Sol Invictus (worship of the pagan sun god). That’s why Sunday is the day of rest in Christianity, versus the Saturday Sabbath.

Then, there was the Nicene Creed in 325 A.D. – a meeting to discuss how to solidify the rules and writings of Christianity. The result was basically “Christianity” as protestants observe it in present day – it was based on the Tanakh for the older testament, and the 4 Gospels as the New Testament and there were arguments about a few other books to be included. All of those extra books are now uncontested and in the common canon for both Christianity and Catholicism, so that point is moot. They acknowledged the Trinity, God as the ultimate Creator, Christ as our savior, etc.
In my opinion, up until this point of time (321 A.D.), “Christianity” was primarily based on the Tanakh, the Gospels, and several other uncontested books. Some areas did use the Septuagint though.

Constantine II

Constantine’s son ruled from 337 – 341 A.D.
In 341, he did ban pagan sacrifices. The big news though is that his younger brother Constans came of age, rose up against him, and killed him in 341 A.D.

Constans I

As mentioned, Constantine’s younger son Constans killed his older brother Constantine II and took over rule. He was known to be overtly homosexual and indulged heavily in his vices. I mention this because he does not appear to be very interested in these major religious topics like his father was in previous decades.
Remember the 50 Bibles that Constantine ordered back in 331? Well, the FedEx truck showed up and they were finally delivered under Constans I rule. Remember, Constantine (the father), and the older brother are both dead – and Constans is indulging heavily in his vices. There are two notable aspects to this:

1. It was more Alexandrian scribes (remember the Septuagint came from there?), which means they used THAT version of the
   Jewish Scriptures (which included the so-called apocryphal books) – when creating these 50 Bibles.
2. Constans I was not really into the religious stuff like his brother and father and didn’t seem to care too much, so it wasn’t really questioned from what I can gather.

So now, we have 50 written Bibles, but because the Alexandrian scribes did the work, they just included the Septuagint version of the “Old Testament” presumably because that translation was already done in 300 B.C. and presumably because they thought it was appropriate to include those extra books? We’ll get back to that in a minute.
Either way, what’s done is done at this point. The most prolific publishing of the Christian Bible now includes the apocryphal books.

The Stage is Set – the Bible is finalized

I went into that detail above because those events over those 40 years, set the stage for this entire Deuterocanon vs Apocrypha conflict. Because the official Bible of the Roman Empire now included the Septuagint vs the Tanakh for the so-called “Old Testament”, it became the canon (the official list of books for a legit Bible, according to the Roman Empire). What happened next?

• 380 A.D. Nicene Christianity – becomes official religion of the Roman Empire
• 381 A.D. First Council of Constantinople – they made significant changes to the Bible canon and doctrine of that time, including things like one baptism, and the “Four Marks of the Church” (e.g. one, holy, catholic, apostolic)
• 393 A.D. Council of Hippo – 6 of the books in the apocrypha approved by the Roman Catholic council, making them
  now Deuterocanon
• 397 A.D. Council of Carthage – re-affirmed the decisions from the Synod of Hippo, and formally creates a canon (list of approved books of the Bible)

At that point, it’s all over. The Roman Empire defined Christianity for a large swath of humans, and it was from this Bible canon that they operated. The Bible canon was locked-in, which controversially included the Apocryphal, now-Deuterocanon books.

What is the deal with these extra books, then?

Getting back to the story, why did those scribes not just translate the well-know books of the Tanakh whilst creating the Septuagint? I mean, that is what they were attempting to do. Many in Jesus’ era and before couldn’t read or speak Hebrew, but they knew Greek. So, the point of this translation was to help those that couldn’t read or speak Hebrew.
As I understand it, the Catholic viewpoint is that those were divinely-inspired, and confirmed as divinely-inspired since the Apostles for sure referenced some of those books. Perhaps Jesus did too (I have not confirmed that for myself). But even if all of those people did, that may not be the whole story.
The opposing viewpoint is that many people in that time referenced those extra books. However, they were not considered divine writings by anyone of the time. It’s like in present day if someone is talking to you about a Bible verse, and then mentions something from a C.S. Lewis book. C.S. Lewis is widely respected as an amazing, inciteful writer, but no one claims it is divinely-inspired, nor that it should be part of the Bible. So, this opposing viewpoint is saying that those Alexandrian scribes who created the Septuagint included the extra books because they were popular, companion reading material for the actual, divinely-inspired books.
Which is correct? People have not been able to come to an agreement on this for 2,000 years. So, you have to use your own discernment.
But amazingly, whatever side you come down on – drastically affects your world view. On the one side, the Roman Catholic church is rightfully the one true church and the Pope (a descendent of St. Peter) is Christ-like and our intercessor. On the other side, we are saved by grace alone, through Christ alone. Meaning, the result of your decision has huge implications to your world view.

Building the Church upon Peter

In the Catholic world view, the Pope has so much authority because he comes from the lineage of St. Peter. And, in this world view, Jesus told Peter that He was going to build His church upon Peter (meaning, his lineage). If that’s the case, then Catholicism is the One True Religion and the Pope is a living saint.
Let’s take a closer look.
When Jesus met Peter (Simon son of John, at the time) Jesus said “You shall be called Cephas” (John 1:42). Cephas is the anglicized form of Kepha, in Aramaic, which translates to “stone”.
This starts getting controversial when you read in Matthew 16:13. In short, Jesus asked His disciples “But who do you say that I am?” – Simon Peter, specifically, answers “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”. “Christ” meaning messiah, or savior.
Now, most importantly, Jesus repeats his name and says that He will build His church on “this rock”.

“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.” –Matthew 16:18 (NKJV)

What is “this rock”? Is “this rock” the response that Simon Peter just gave? Or is “this rock”, Simon Peter himself?
In the New King James translation, it reads to my eyes like (I’m paraphrasing in my own words) “I’m telling you Peter, on what you just said, is on what I’m going to build my church”.
In the Catholic perspective, “this rock” means Peter – remember Jesus’ name for him, means stone, or rock? That single word “this” has enormous implications that have rippled through Christianity since the beginning! My discernment has a real problem with this because if Jesus truly meant to say that, He would’ve said “…you are Peter, and on you I will build My church…”. If this was the meaning, Jesus would’ve confirmed it a second time and/or would’ve been saying it the whole time – that’s how He got points across. But this is one sentence, that is vague and arguable. Jesus was always talking about building His church on Himself, and the works that He did.

“For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” –1 Corinthians 3:11 (NKJV)
“having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone,” –Ephesians 2:20 (NKJV)

In other words, for something so huge and with such enormous implications, I would want much clearer wording. The obvious, intuitive meaning of “this rock”, in that context, seems like Jesus is talking about the answer to the question He just asked. But more, that makes sense because that would reinforce what He’s always saying about building the church on Himself (cited, above).
Another point here is that Peter never referred to himself in high regard. He calls himself a fellow elder (1 Peter 5:1) and a bond servant of Christ (2 Peter 1:1). None of the other Apostles referenced Peter as a Pope or saint, etc..

If Jesus was going to make this major announcement, He did not do it clearly, and it was also never mentioned again.

Why did Jesus make a point to rename Simon to Peter -> Petros -> Cephas -> Kephas -> “stone”? We don’t know for sure, but Jesus renamed several people. One perspective is that Jesus already knew the heart of Peter. Peter was the informal “leader” of the Apostles, and in that way was a stable ally of Christs’ work being done at that time.
Which is right? I don’t know that it can be answered for sure – it’s up to you to use your discernment to decide.

Catholic Beliefs that conflict with Biblical teachings

This is an inflammatory statement, so let me be specific with citation on where I feel there are Catholic teachings that directly conflict with Biblical teachings.
I fully realize that if the Catholic church is the one true church and if the Pope has the authority of Christ, then this heresy can be ignored. However, objectively, that also means that we’re no longer talking about Christianity – because Christianity was cemented in the 1st century and is based on Christs resurrection. Paul said:

“As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” –Galatians 1:9 (NKJV)

This is the gospel, which is not to be changed or appended to. So then, when we look at Catholic doctrine from that Biblical lens, we can see conflicts. It just comes down to whether you think the Catholic Church has Christ-like authority as the one, true church – which means these don’t matter; or not.

Calling a Priest “Father”

In Catholicism, Priests are called “Father”. The Bible says:

“Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.” –Matthew 23:9 (NKJV)

Praying repetitive words / using Rosary beads

In Catholicism, penance or indulgences can include things like “saying 3 Hail Mary’s” – which means repeating the Holy Rosary 3 full times. The Bible says:

“And when you pray, do not use vain repetitions as the heathen do. For they think that they will be heard for their many words.” –Matthew 6:7 (NKJV)

And then goes on to explain how to pray meaningfully, because God already knows your heart.

Mary as a mediator between God and men

In Catholicism, according to The Glories of Mary by St. Alphonsus Liguori, Mary is the most faithful mediatrix of salvation. She has made a ladder to paradise, the “most true” mediator between God and human beings. The Bible says:

“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, ” –1 Timothy 2:5 (NKJV)

Withholding the communion cup from every Christian

In Catholicism, only the communion bread is given to the parishioners during Holy Communion. The clergy and church elders receive the communion bread as well as the communion cup – on behalf of the parishioners. Some parishes are moving to presenting both. The Bible says all believers should drink of the cup, there isn’t a hierarchy amongst all of us sinners – we all fall short:

“Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you.” –Matthew 26:27 (NKJV)

and:

“But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” –1 Corinthians 11:28 (NKJV)

Limiting sainthood to the elite

In Catholicism, sainthood is decided by the church elders and is limited to the clergy elite, creating a hierarchy. However, the Bible calls all believers in Christ, saints:

“To the church of God which is at Corinth, to those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both theirs and ours:” –1 Corinthians 1:2 (NKJV)
“Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, To the saints who are in Ephesus, and faithful in Christ Jesus:” –Ephesians 1:1 (NKJV)
“Paul and Timothy, bondservants of Jesus Christ, To all the saints in Christ Jesus who are in Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:” –Philippians 1:1 (NKJV)
“To all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.” –Romans 1:7 (NKJV)

Limiting Priests / The Great Commission

In Catholicism, it’s said that only the Priests can understand the Word, and properly preach the Word. The Bible calls all believers to establish their ministry in the “Great Commission”:

“And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.” –Matthew 28:18 (NKJV)

and that all believers are priests:

“you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. ” –1 Peter 2:5 (NKJV)
“But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;” –1 Peter 2:9 (NKJV)
“and has made us kings and priests to His God and Father, to Him be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen.” –Revelation 1:6 (NKJV)
“And have made us kings and priests to our God; And we shall reign on the earth.” –Revelation 5:10 (NKJV)

Latin Mass is not appropriate

In Catholicism, from the Council of Trent (circa 1545) to 1969, the Latin Mass Liturgy (public worship tradition), or Roman Rite was the primary way Mass was held. In 1969, the Ordo Missae took effect (e.g. the Extraordinary Rite) which allowed for churches to also present the message in the native language of that church.
Latin was used from St. Peter’s first Mass at Rome, onward and was chosen as a common, universal, and international language. For a Latin Mass, Missals (prayer books) were available in your native tongue. This is arguably a difficult way to get the Word, and we know God wants us to understand the Word. For example, the Bible says:

“yet in the church I would rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may teach others also, than ten thousand words in a tongue.” –1 Corinthians 14:19 (NKJV)
“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.” –1 Timothy 2:3-4 (NKJV)

This is not insignificant. If we are all tasked with the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18), it would seem that we should do everything we can to help make God’s Word clear, and not create communication barriers.

Worshipping idols and images

In Catholicism, there are many statues and images in churches which may not be overtly worshipped, but they do exist for some reason. The Bible says:

““You shall not make for yourself a carved image—any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.” –Exodus 20:4-6 (NKJV)

It would seem the Catholic response to this is there are passages where God commissions people to create statues (e.g. Exodus 25:18) However, those are very specific statues for a very specific reason.

The Catholic Church as the one true church, infallible, only one capable of interpreting scripture

In Catholicism, it’s believed that Jesus said He would build his church upon Peter (Matthew 16:18). The Pope’s that existed in the Holy Roman Empire were descendants of Peter – carrying forth that lineage. Therefore, in this worldview, the Pope is the bloodline that leads back to this statement made in Matthew 16:18. It would also make sense that means that this church is the one true church, which if it’s divinely-guided, and is presumably infallible.
The issue I see with this is that this is counter to rest of what we know of God from the Hebrew Scriptures, and Jesus from the New Testament. In Matthew 16:18, I think it’s clear that Jesus was saying He is going to build his church on the concept of His life, death, and resurrection (as discussed above). Jesus’ goal, via the Great Commission (Matthew 28:16) was to make the Word as accessible to as many people as possible. The Bible is very clear that we humans have all, without exception, fallen short.

“even the righteousness of God, through faith in Jesus Christ, to all and on all who believe. For there is no difference; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” –Romans 3:22

Again, it seems that if the message of Jesus was that He was setting up a church to be led by a bloodline, He would’ve went into the details of that. Instead, He constantly conveys the message that we are all sinners, and the “hierarchy” is between the sinner and God, via Jesus. We are all on the same level, and there is no person or organization structure on earth that is part of that plan.

The Pope as the head of the church, also with the authority of Christ

This is along the same lines. There is no Biblical support for this concept. It seems it’s derived from the earlier claims of the church being built on Peter, which I don’t think it Biblically supported.

The Catholic Church necessary for salvation

The New Testament is consistent about the teaching that the relationship is between the believer and God, through Jesus alone. We have all fallen short – there is no Biblical support for there being any organization or bloodline being involved in our salvation.

Sacred tradition equal to scripture

This is in the same vein. There is no Biblical support for there being any organization or bloodline being involved in our salvation. There is no Biblical support for any other scripture to be treated as divine. In fact, we’re told specifically that Jesus’ message is the sole, complete message. The Bible says:

“As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.” –Galatians 1:9 (NKJV)

Works are necessary, in any way, for salvation

This concept is the one that worries me the most. In Catholicism, it’s believed that good works, penance, sacraments, etc. are required for salvation. This is worrisome because we are told that we are saved by grace, through faith in Jesus. The Bible says:

1. “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. ” –John 3:16 (NKJV)
2. “…Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved…” –Acts 16:31 (NKJV)
3. “For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” –Ephesians 2:8-9 (NKJV)
4. “Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” –John 14:6 (NKJV)

When a belief system involves doing works, it undermines the purpose of Jesus’ sacrifice. It’s a direct challenge to the purpose of Jesus’ death. If we can become right with God simply via good works, then why did Jesus die? What was the point? The Bible tells us that we have all fallen short (Romans 3:23), and this was the way to absolve the sins of everyone. It is a “gift of God, not of works” (Ephesians 2:8)
This worries me because a person who believes in their works for salvation, does not necessarily believe in Jesus for their salvation. It’s kind of one way or the other, either:

• It is impossible for us to become right with God and we require a savior. Through God’s grace, He offers one to us: Jesus.
• It is possible for us to become right with God through works, in which case a savior helps, but is not technically necessary.

If we don’t believe that we fall short and require a savior, according to many places in the Bible, we are not saved. This is the primary motivator for me, in doing this research and trying to communicate it. I worry that those in this worldview won’t be saved.

Purgatory

In Catholicism, there is a concept of purgatory, where one goes after death to purify the spirit before final judgement – to finish paying for the sins done in the flesh. This is counter to Bible teachings in a few ways.

We are cleansed by the blood of Jesus

“But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin.” –1 John 1:7 (NKJV)
“and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, ” — Revelation 1:5 (NKJV)

After death, the dead are unconscious until resurrected later

“For the living know that they will die; But the dead know nothing, And they have no more reward, For the memory of them is forgotten.” –Ecclesiastes 9:5 (NKJV)

The wages of sin is death

In my opinion, I think the Bible explains that the wages of sin is death, so when we die – we’ve paid the debt. Our destiny is locked-in at that point. The question then becomes if our sins were washed with the blood of Jesus. In that case, we have everlasting life.

“knowing this, that our old man was crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves of sin. For he who has died has been freed from sin.” –Romans 6:6-7 (NKJV)
“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” –Romans 6:23 (NKJV)

Indulgences

In Catholicism, there are “indulgences” or works that a believer can perform to help absolve them of sin. This includes things like penance, visiting a specific place, or doing specific good works. As discussed in a few other places, this is not Biblical. We have all fallen short, there are no works we can do to become right with God. The only way of salvation is through Jesus, alone. The Bible says:

“For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone should boast.” –Ephesians 2:8-9 (NKJV)

and:

“Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” –John 14:6 (NKJV)

Prayer to the saints

In Catholicism, there is a notion that various saints can be our intercessors, or we can pray to them work with God on our behalf. I think there are few parts to this:

God wants us to work with Him, directly (through Jesus)

“And I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, “See that you do not do that! I am your fellow servant, and of your brethren who have the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.”” -Revelation 19:10 (NKJV)
“Do not be anxious about anything, but in every situation, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God.” –Philippians 4:6

There is exactly one mediator between God and humans, it’s Jesus:

“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,” –1 Timothy 2:5 (NKJV)
“Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them.” –Hebrews 7:25

We’re forbidden from working with the spirit realm

It is interesting that the Bible acknowledges the spirit realm, but we are told that we have one pathway to it – through Jesus. As for how we are to process this spirit realm, the Bible says:

“There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or his daughter pass through the fire, or one who practices witchcraft, or a soothsayer, or one who interprets omens, or a sorcerer, or one who conjures spells, or a medium, or a spiritist, or one who calls up the dead. For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and because of these abominations the Lord your God drives them out from before you.” –Deuteronomy 18:10-12 (NKJV)

Priests and Nuns are forbidden to marry

In Catholicism, Priests and Nuns are forbidden to marry. However, the Bible consistently teaches that the family unit is the fundamental organization structure for we humans on earth. It gives us structure, wholeness, happiness, and strength. The Bible talks about the Apostles and other other teachers being married:

“A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, temperate, sober-minded, of good behavior, hospitable, able to teach;” –1 Timothy 3:2 (NKJV)
“Now when Jesus had come into Peter’s house, He saw his wife’s mother lying sick with a fever.” –Matthew 8:14 (NKJV)
“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” –Genesis 2:24 (NKJV)
“Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband.” –1 Corinthians 7:2 (NKJV)
“Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.” –1 Timothy 4:1-3 (NKJV)

I think there is a Biblical case to be made that the family unit is key to God’s plan, and there isn’t anything Biblical forbidding marriage for these church leaders. In Matthew 19:10, the disciples were asking if it’s better to not-be married. He explains how for some, they won’t marry but concludes at the end of verse 11 with “He who is able to receive it, let him receive it.”

What’s the harm? Is there harm in the Catholic worldview?

One of my primary motivations of researching a publishing something on this topic isn’t really to defend my worldview. If what we know about Christianity is true, then I sincerely question if a Catholic is actually saved.
We are consistently told by Jesus that salvation is by the grace of God, through faith alone in Jesus, and repenting from our sins. When a person adds in the concept of “works”, that takes away from what Jesus did. In fact, it invalidates it. If we can be saved by works, if we try really hard, then Jesus died for no reason at all.
I don’t mean to sound legalistic about this topic, I don’t know how God would process something like this. However, from my viewpoint, we definitely know what Jesus said about salvation. Believing and investing in works to attain salvation is directly opposed to Jesus and this gift of salvation we are offered.
I don’t know for sure, but I really worry that this works-based perspective risks the salvation of a person in the Catholic faith.

Summary

I realize that this kind of questioning is heretical. So, if you are Catholic, I appreciate you considering this viewpoint. I’m not proposing apostacy, or that faith is wrong or bad. I’m proposing that the Enemy may have contributed in strategic, calculated ways to lead your flock in the wrong direction; A dangerous direction. Dangerous in the sense that I believe following this religion poses a risk to your salvation.
My summary, or what I believe to be true – is that Catholicism is not a true teacher for the following, specific reasons:

1. The so-called Apocrypha – the so-called Deuterocanon was added to the Biblical canon because the translators of the Septuagint added them, while translating from Hebrew to Greek. I think there is a strong case they did it because those were popular, companion materials. I couldn’t find any evidence that shows anyone considered these books to be divinely-inspired, before this. The Catholic viewpoint is that event was a divine correction. What is notable though is that the Jewish people never acknowledge those extra books as divinely-inspired, to this day, and we all agree that the Jews are God’s chosen people. These books were also added under Constans I who was not the Christ-follower that Constantine was, and did not appear to be heavily invested in making sure things were proper and right.
2. Building the church upon Peter – the concept of the Roman Catholic Church being the one, true faith, and the Pope having the authority he does, stems from this. However, it that was the message that Jesus was here to deliver – why did he mention it once, in vague, arguable language? Why did none of the other Apostles treat Peter as a saint? I just don’t think the one statement, of arguable clarity, is enough upon which to build an entire world view. If this was a core message of Jesus, it would’ve been mentioned and reinforced in many other scriptures. Every other case where Jesus is making a point, there are other ways that He said it, to corroborate it. In this case though – it’s just one sentence.
3. Beliefs that conflict with Jesus’ teachings – coupled with the issues above, there are teachings in the Catholic faith that directly conflict with the teachings of Jesus. This of course leads me to believe then that these apocryphal books were not divine-inspired because the Bible cannot contradict itself. That would mean the beliefs that stem from these writings (treated as divine guidance), are not correct.
   1. Specific conflicts: for example never referring to a spiritual mentor as “father”, the worship of Mary, being able to “buy” favor (e.g. “indulgences”), etc. – some of which are outlined, above.
   2. Salvation: as it’s repeated throughout the scriptures, salvation is based solely on the belief and faith in Jesus Christ, and repenting of your sins. In fact, there are specific passages that discuss how works will not do it since we have all fallen short. What’s the harm though, of doing works then? The harm is that the believer is no longer believing that Jesus Christ died for their sins, they believe that the Jesus part helps, but they will get it the rest of the way by penance, sacraments, and tithing. This is a direct insult to the sacrifice of Jesus. In fact, this makes Jesus’ sacrifice pointless because if works will do it – then presumably, a person could try extra hard and get to Heaven on their own. That is the opposite of what Jesus teaches – we have all fallen short. I think there is a strong Biblical case to be made that those who look to themselves and their works for salvation, are likely not saved. That, is the point of this case I’m making and why I’m challenging your beliefs.
   3. The power and structure of the entire organization: We know from the early days of Israel, God had no intention of having fallible men ruling over other men. God has always wanted the individual to come to Him and establish a personal relationship. Humans can’t go two minutes with tripping over themselves and sinning; and when power and money are involved, it’s quite literally impossible for man to end up uncorrupted. God knew this, Jesus told us, yet the hierarchy, control, power, and money of the priests, bishops, deacons, and popes creating a restrictive government is really antithetical to the rest of what we know about the God’s approach to our lives.

Again, the point of this is not to offend or anger you. I’m just a person who approached this topic with fresh eyes, and without a bias. I went where the facts and the Holy Spirit led me. To my eyes, there is a compelling case that the Catholic church is not a correct teaching and so-much-so, that it potentially puts the believers salvation in jeopardy.
Is a person who believes in works, saved? I don’t know. But I do know that Jesus said many times, many ways that we are saved solely by faith in Him, and repenting of our sins. Focus on any plan or approach other than that, is not from God.