Catholic Dogmas Are Entirely Unbiblical

DOCTRINAL ERRORS CREPT into, multiplied, and piled up inside the Roman Catholic Church because her teachers, instead of abandoning them, thought they could rectify them by inventing similarly erroneous teachings. They formulated unscriptural dogmas to rationalize their doctrinal blunders in the past resulting in more false teachings.

One of the Catholic Church’s earliest unscriptural doctrines which gave birth to other false beliefs is the Christ-is-true-man-and-true-God doctrine, defined as an article of faith at the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325:

“Thus, for example, it was not until 325 A.D., at the Council of Nicaea, that the Church defined for us that it was an article of faith that Jesus is truly God.” (Discourses On The Apostles’ Creed, p. 206)

From this teaching stem other Council-manufactured dogmas, such as those on Mary and the Trinity.

Examples are the Marian dogmas of “Perpetual Virginity,” “Divine Motherhood,” “Immaculate Conception,” and “Assumption.” Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Pope John Paul II’s chief watchdog of Catholic orthodoxy, in an interview with author Vittorio Messori, was quick to admit that these dogmas were proclaimed to “protect” the Catholic faith in Christ’s alleged dual nature. Said he:

“It is, moreover in direct service to faith in Christ – not, therefore, primarily out of devotion to the Mother – that the Church has proclaimed her Marian dogmas: first that of her perpetual virginity and divine motherhood and then, after a long period of maturation and reflection, those of her Immaculate Conception and bodily Assumption into heavenly glory. These dogmas protect the original faith in Christ as true God and true man: two natures in a single Person.” (The Ratzinger Report, pp. 106-107)

What is perceived in these Marian dogmas as a “direct service to Christ” is in reality a direct disservice – an affront – to both Christ and Mary, for such dogmas are entirely unbiblical as they were merely invented and proclaimed by Catholic bishops and popes in A.D. 451, A.D. 431, A.D. 1854 and A.D. 1950, respectively. (cf. New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XIV, p. 695; Roman Catholicism, pp. 7-9)

Coming on the heels of a wrong doctrine of her own making is the Catholic Church’s formulation of another one – in fact, her principal one: the Trinity.

Purportedly a mystery no one understands, the Trinitarian doctrine – the formulation of which took the Catholic Church about three centuries to complete (cf. Systematic Theology, pp. 82-83; Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 53) – is said to have originated from the “necessity” Catholics faced “to distinguish Jesus from God… while maintaining the belief that both are God.” The International Dictionary of the Christian Church attests thus:

“Historically, Trinitarian doctrine originated in the necessity Christians faced to distinguish Jesus from God, yet to identify Him with God..

“Through the Incarnation the first Christians learned to distinguish the Father and the Son while maintaining the faith that both are God…

“Thus the doctrine of the Trinity is derived from the truth of the Incarnation and is to be tested by it.” (p. 986)

Had these “first Christians” (Catholics, actually) only learned to distinguish right from wrong, biblical from unbiblical, they would not have maintained that both the Father and the Son are God, but that only the Father is God, for that is what the Bible teaches:

“Jesus spoke this words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: ‘Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You,

“And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent’.” (Jn. 17:1,3, New King James Version)

“Yet for us there is only one God, the Father, of whom are all thing, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.” (I Cor. 8:6, Ibid.).

The Trinitarian doctrine really originated not “in the necessity Christians faced to distinguish Jesus from God,” for the true Christians already had distinguished well Jesus from God (cf. I Tim. 2:5; Acts 2:22-24), but in the apostasy into which they fell, as had been forewarned by Christ and the Apostles (cf. Mt. 24:24-26; II Cor. 11:3-4).

An offshoot of the dogma on “divine motherhood” is the Catholic Church’s invention of yet another mind-boggling teaching about Mary.

In her bid to galvanize her “Theotokos” (“Mother of God”) doctrine, which she admits is nowhere to be found in Scripture (cf. Fundamentals of Mariology, p. 37), the Catholic Church teaches that Mary has entered into a “special relationship with the Trinity,” making the already mysterious doctrine of the Trinity all the more mysterious. She avers that Mary is “daughter of God the Father, Mother of God the Son and spouse of God the Holy Spirit” (Compendio Historico dela Religion, p. 501) – clarifying not if this teaching has turned God the Father into “God the Son’s” grandfather, considering that Mary,”God the Son’s” mother, is God the Father’s daughter, or that “God the Holy Spirit” is now God the Father’s son-in-law since “God the Holy Spirit” is Mary’s husband. This must be mystery at its most intricate, most perplexing and most unfathomable level. Remember: the true mystery of God is knowable:

“And He said to them, ‘To you it has been given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God; but to those who are outside, all things come in parables, so that ‘Seeing they may see and not perceive, and hearing they may hear and not understand; Lest they should turn, And their sins be forgiven them’.” (Mk. 4:11-12, NKJV)

Ludicrous though the reason behind the creation of this brain-wracking Mary-Trinity mystery may be, the creation itself nevertheless came as no surprise, considering who its creator is. For who else could create such mystery but the Mother of all Mysteries – Babylon Mystery Church (cf. Rev. 17:5) otherwise known as the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church.

Well aware of the fact that the true Christians Church bases all her doctrines on the Bible, it behooves us to ask: Why does the Catholic Church, which persistently claims to be the true church adhere to unscriptural doctrines, and even want to protect them with equally unbiblical ones? What makes her prefer to right her biblically unrightable wrongs with the inventions and fabrications of every kind rather than abandon them?

Obviously the reason is her fearlessness in doing violence to scriptural injunctions against adding to the word of God:

“Whatever I command you, be careful to observe it; you shall not add to it nor take away from it.” (Deut. 12:32, Ibid.)

“For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.

“Whoever therefore breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does not teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.” (Mt. 5:18-19, Ibid.)

“Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other.” (I Cor. 4:6, Ibid.)

“For I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophesy of this book: If anyone adds to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this book;

“And if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.” (Rev. 22:18-19, Ibid.).

A statement from Ratzinger on the doctrine of purgatory graphically manifests this:

“…’Purgatory did not exist, we should have to invent it’.” (The Ratzinger Report, p. 146)

Now, why isn’t the Catholic Church afraid to add to the Bible as evidence by her inventions? Because she maintains that the Bible is not the only rule of faith. She argues that aside from what are written in the Bible, there are other “revealed truths” allegedly taught by Christ and the Apostles which were passed down by word of mouth. These truths, she says, constitute what is know as Tradition (cf. My Catholic Faith, p. 120).

According to M. Catherine Frederick, the Catholic Church “does not teach that the Bible is the only rule of faith… Many of her doctrines are based on…Tradition.” (cf. The Handbook of Catholic Practices, p. 112)

But the argument on Tradition allegedly having equal authority with the Bible is diametrically opposed to the apostolic admonition that Christians should not go beyond what is written (cf. I Cor. 4:6). Christ’s pronouncement that what are written were written “that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name” (cf. Jn. 20:30-31). Truth is, this Tradition thing was itself invented only by the Council of Trent in 1545 (cf.Roman Catholicism, pp. 7-9).

Furthermore, one realizes after close scrutiny that the Catholic argument on Tradition is really pure trickery. For what the Catholic Church calls Tradition is actually the collection name Tradition (or ascribe them to it), and now argues that the Bible is not the only repository of divine truths but Tradition also. Very much like when she invented the doctrine of Christ’s deity I A.D. 325. After having invented it, she now argues that the Father is not the only true God but Christ also. In other words, the Catholic Church invents something to add to another thing, and then says that the latter is not the only real thing.

Some of the Catholic Church’s dogmas, practices, terms, which she invented and now attributes to Tradition are:

Easter, by the Council of Nicea, A.D. 325 (The Story of the Church, p. 50); Christmas, by Artenon, A.D. 373 (cf. The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia, p. 47). The term Trinity, by Tertullian A.D. 220 (Systematic Theology, p. 304);

Purgatory, invented by Gregory I in A.D 593; The Rosary, by Peter the Hermit, A.D. 1090; Transubstantiation, by Pope Innocent III, A.D. 1215; The Auricular Confession of sins to a priest instead of to God, by the Lateran Council, A.D 1215; The Scapular, by Simon Stock, an English monk, A.D. 1251;

Papal Infallibility, by the Vatican Council, A.D. 1870; Immaculate Conception, by Pope Pius IX, A.D. 1854; Assumption of Mary, Pope Pius XII, A.D. 1950; Canonization of dead saints, by Pope John XV, A.D. 995; and a host of others. (cf. Roman Catholicism, pp. 8-9)

Indeed, from everyone and everywhere but the Bible did the Catholic Church derive her teachings, and so pronounced is this to her teachers that they even seem to take pride in admitting that their faith in Christ whom they recognize as God is not derived from the Bible. Karl Adam, in a book carrying the imprimatur of Patrick Cardinal Hayes, not only admits but asserts:

“…the Catholic does not derive his faith in Jesus from the Scriptures … I learn the complete Christ, not from the Bible…” (The Spirit of Catholicism, p. 50, 57)

Catholics, in truth and in fact, learned their “Christ” from extra biblical source, a book on which are written all the basic teachings of the Catholic Church: Catechism. According to the Catholic priest, Enrique Demond, the Catechism instructs things which all Catholics “ought to believe, obey, accept, and pray for.” (cf. Siya ang Inyong Pakinggan: “Ang Aral Na Katoliko,” p. 5)

It is the Catholic Catechism, not the Bible that teaches that Christ is God. Needless to say, if only Catholics learned their Christ from the Bible, they would have believed Him as man, not as God:

“But now you seek to kill Me, a Man who has told you the truth which I heard from God. Abraham did not do this.” (cf. Jn. 8:40, NKJV)

“For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus.” (I Tim. 2:5, Ibid.)

Interesting to note is a recent newspaper report that the Catholic Church’s universal catechism was undergoing revision. Reports had it that “Pope John Paul II, on Thursday (June25, 1992), approved the first major overhaul of the Roman Catholic Church’s universal catechism in more than 400 years” (cf. Daily Globe, p. 7, June 27, 1992). Another attempt at righting her wrongs?

This is certain: Whatever changes the Vatican intends to make in the Catholic Church’s catechism will bear no religious significance – unless it rids it of all her inventions and replaces them with the biblical truth.

This she will never do. Centuries of Catholic experience have proven beyond doubt that it is not in her nature to abandon her errors. She prefers to cling to them tenaciously.


Bibliography

Adam, Karl. The Spirit of Catholicism. USA: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1954.

Boettner, Loraine. Roman Catholicism. New Jersey: The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1962.

Carol, Juniper B. Fundamentals of Mariology. USA: Benziger Brothers Inc., 1956

Crock, Clement H. Discourses On The Apostle’s Creed..New York: Joseph F. Wagner, Inc., 1938.

Demond, Enrique. Siya Ang Inyong Pakinggan: “Ang Aral Na Katoliko.” Manila: Catholic Trade School, 1916.

Frederick, Catherine. The Handbook of Catholic Practices:. New York: Hawthorn Books Inc., 1964

Jackson, George, Jerome Hannan, and Sister Dominica. The Story of the Church. New York: Benziger Brothers, 1935.

Morrow, Louis L. R. My Catholic Faith. Manila: The Catholic Truth Society, 1936.

New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. XIV. Washington D.C.: The Catholic University of America, 1967.

Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma. Illinois: Tan Books Publishers, Inc., 1974.

Pinton, Josef. Compendio Historico De La Religion. Manila: University of Sto. Tomas, 1932.

Ratzinger, Joseph Cardinal. The Ratzinger Report. USA: Ignatius Press, 1985.

Strong, Augustus Hopkins. Systematic Theology. USA: The Judson Press, 1907.

The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, rev. ed. Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1974.

“Vatican Approves Changes in Cathecism.” Daily Globe. June 27, 1992.

Source:  Pasugo, Jul-Aug 1992