Why I Left the Catholic Church

by David Weaks

Twenty-One Years a Catholic

I grew up a member of the Roman Catholic Church. Most of my mother's side of the family had been Catholic for generations. However, in February of 1985, I found I was no longer content to be part of the Catholic Church just because it was good enough for my grandfather and his grandfather before him. I finally began asking nagging questions about Catholicism that I had buried for years.

As a young man, “church” was something I could endure for an hour or so each week (and for an extra hour on Christmas Eve!). However, there was clearly no real devotion to service on the part of my peers or me. Like most Catholics I knew, I was content to “coast” through the various acts required to be a good Catholic.

I could have happily, if emptily, spent my life as a member of a religion that allowed me to indulge my worldly desires through the week, and absolve them on Sunday with a few lit candles, bead counting, and confession to a priest. Catholicism is not hard. Truly, the phrase “pray and pay” applies to Roman Catholicism.

I left Roman Catholicism because the Bible forced me to examine the many questions I had long ignored. I entered college in the fall of 1983 and soon found myself visiting various denominational churches. I was a musician, and my trumpet-playing skills were in high demand for Christmas-oriented performances in various churches. It was at these services of the Baptist, Methodist, and First Christian Churches that I was first exposed to the Bible. Obviously, the sermons were filled with errors, but it was the first time this young Catholic boy was exposed to preaching that remotely appealed to the Bible.

About this time, I met my future wife, Perri Josserand. I had asked her on a date, after building up sufficient courage to ask her, but Perri said, “No.” However, she quickly offered an alternative. She invited me to attend worship services with her next Sunday. I was intrigued, and I will be forever grateful for her “deal.”

The first Sunday I visited with the Mound and Starr Church of Christ in Nacogdoches, Texas, I heard preaching that would anger me and challenge me, but which would ultimately save my soul.

Nagging Doubts Resurface!

When I was thirteen years old, I heard a classmate at school say that Catholics do not believe the Bible. I did not know much at the time, but I knew that a deacon always read from a huge Bible from a lectern during every mass. In fact, during the processional at the beginning of every mass, the Bible was carried in at the head of the procession of priests, altar boys, and deacons.

Not only that, but most Catholic families I knew owned an oversized “Catholic Edition” of the Bible, which was displayed prominently in the living room. I cannot remember ever reading one of these “furniture” Bibles, but we Catholics did have them!

I dismissed my classmate’s rantings as pure ignorance. Not only do Catholics believe in the Bible, but we also use really big ones at that! Only much later would I realize that our dispute was purely semantic. In sum, he was righter than I was.

My momentary Catholic zeal would be destroyed very soon after this dust-up. One Wednesday night I was chosen by my C.C.D (catechism) class teacher to go with her to the supply room to get the catechism books for my class for the semester. When we entered the room, I saw a stack of Bibles on a table by the wall. I asked my teacher, “Why don't we ever study the Bible?” Her answer was curt and matter-of-fact: Our class was too young to understand the Bible. Only the adult classes used the Bible under the strict direction of the parish priest.

Something about her answer did not sit right with me. Part of me was content with the knowledge that I just wasn't sharp enough yet to grasp the Bible. However, part of my mind could not forget that many of my thirteen-year-old friends spoke often about the Bible, and they seemed to know what they were talking about. This nagging doubt prompted me to make several private attempts to read and understand the Bible. Sadly, with no encouragement at home or C.C.D, I never read farther than the “begats” of the Genealogy of Christ (Matthew 1:1-17).

The attitude in Catholicism that the average man cannot understand the Bible without the guidance of the clergy is absolutely pervasive, but also patently false. The New Testament openly commands men to understand it. Paul said: “Therefore, do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Ephesians 5:17).

Nowadays, I see this as a fundamental and fair question, but as a young man, it was little more than a nagging itch deep in my brain that I mostly chose to ignore. Why would God order men to understand an incomprehensible thing? Paul even said that by reading his words men could understand: “...how that by revelation He made known to me the mystery (as I wrote before in a few words, by which, when you read, you may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) ...” (Ephesians 3:3-4).

Paul the apostle seems not to have had the concerns about the common man's intelligence that the Catholic hierarchy has. In Romans 10:17 Paul openly said that “…faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.”

Timothy was advised to study thoroughly to demonstrate his understanding, accurately interpreting the information (II Timothy 2:15). Clearly, Timothy was not a seminary-trained priest!

The Hebrew writer (presumably Paul) chastened the Hebrews because sufficient time had passed for them not only to understand the gospel but also to grasp it well enough to teach it to others (Hebrews 5:12-6:1).

In addition to Paul's clear endorsement of private study and understanding, Jesus issued the command for His apostles to make disciples of every nation, teaching them to observe all things He had commanded (Matthew 28:19). Jesus taught that His word is understandable to the common man, and that is good enough for me.

The Problem of Evil Babies (Or Babies Born with the Stain of Adam’s Sin)

Few Catholic dogmas made much of an impression on me when I was a boy. Once in a while, something would seem far-fetched and prompt me to ask a nun or C.C.D. teacher what it was all about. One of these was the doctrine of “original sin.” Somehow, it never made any sense that newborn babies are born guilty of the sin of someone who lived at the beginning of time.

Eventually, I finally asked a nun about the whole thing (nuns commonly taught our C.C.D., or indoctrination classes), and I was given a fairly “pat” but unsatisfying Catholic answer. Her answer did not enlighten me about the teachings of the Bible on the matter, but she assured me that the tradition of the Catholic Church was unimpeachable on this matter. Of course, I knew nothing to the contrary, so I promptly buried my concerns.

For the sake of clarity, let me define the difference (in Catholic terms) between a “dogma” and a “doctrine.” A doctrine is a generally defined and widely taught belief in Catholicism. Doctrines are held to be true, but not necessarily absolute. They are the points of Catholic faith, but a dogma is a more rigid and narrowly defined doctrine that is absolute and unchanging in its nature. It is an official and formal pronouncement from the pope, which means it is a matter of faith.

Consider a dogma a subset of Catholic doctrines. Here is a description in a Catholic publication called “The Catholic Answer.”

“In general, doctrine is all Church teaching in matters of faith and morals. Dogma is more narrowly defined as that part of doctrine which has been divinely revealed and which the Church has formally defined and declared to be believed as revealed” [The Catholic Answer; Jim Blackburn].

Here is another quote from a second Catholic source:

“Dogma is a type of doctrine; a subset if you will. The Greek word “dogma” means “opinion” which doesn’t make much sense provided what dogma is in the Church. Dogmas are the most authoritative teachings in the Church and are based on divine revelation. In other words, dogma comes from the teachings of Jesus Christ, revealed through two sources of revelation: sacred Scripture or Tradition (Tradition is handed on by the apostles).” [Notre Dame Parish and Schools, Laura Gillette, May 22].

These and other concerns lay dormant in me until my twentieth year. One Sunday, while attending the services of the Mound and Starr church of Christ with Perri, I heard a sermon which included the following text from Ezekiel: “The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous shall be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon himself” (Ezekiel 18:20).

In the sermon on the doctrines of Calvinism, it was demonstrated that John Calvin advocated the concept of Total Hereditary Depravity. I knew nothing of John Calvin, but I was familiar with the Catholic version of his doctrine, which is original sin.

However, in all my years of Catholic training, I had never heard Ezekiel 18:20. No deacon ever read it, and certainly no priest ever based his “homily” (think very short, sermonette) on it. My question about the guilt of babies at birth was suddenly thrust front and center in my mind. Now, I needed to find an answer. I had a sinking feeling that the text from Ezekiel only touched the hem of the garment.

Here is what the Roman Catholic Church teaches about original sin:

“In the dispensation of Divine Providence, Adam was tempted. He sinned the primordial sin...This sin of Adam lost grace not only for Adam but for his descendants. All men after Adam would be born with the taint of the Original Sin, inherited guilt...” [Catholicism, edited by George Brantl; New York: George Braziller, Inc., 1962, p. 59].

Behold how many words a Catholic source can use to say nothing precisely! The book by Brantl cited no Bible verse in defense of original sin, but it poured out enough eloquently puzzling words to bury any Catholic interest in learning more.

At this point, I had gone beyond the point of silently embracing that which I could not prove. I had heard the pure gospel of Christ preached on a few Sundays since Perri invited me to services. Now, I wanted to know the truth, wherever it could be found.

I should, at this point, explain what a catechism is and what the letters “C.C.D.” stand for. A catechism is a creed in the form of questions and answers. The following is a quote from such a creed:

Q: "Into what misery have our first parents plunged the whole human race?"
A: "Sin with its evil consequences, has passed from Adam to all mankind, so that we all come into the world in sin..."
Q: "What do we call the sin in which we are all born?"
A: "We call it Original Sin; for although we have not committed it ourselves, we have inherited it from our first parents"
[A Catechism Of Catholic Doctrine, Joseph Deharbe, S.J.; New York: Kirwin and Fouss,1878].

C.C.D. is an acronym that stands for “Confraternity of Catholic Doctrine.” The Confraternity of Catholic Doctrine is an official “office” in the Vatican. It is responsible for dispensing the necessary instructions in the liturgy of the Catholic Church. So, C.C.D. classes, as we called them, were merely indoctrination classes meant to propagate the official teachings of the Church.

All methods and materials used in the classes were created and sanctioned by the Vatican and received the Imprimatur of the Holy See (the pope). You will be forgiven for thinking it is terribly ironic that the Confraternity of Catholic Doctrine did not approve the Bible as the source of all instruction in all classes for Catholics, young and old (Romans 10:17).

Only in Catholic indoctrination classes can the doctrine of original sin survive and thrive. Simple common sense demands that it be rejected, and the Bible confirms that suspicion. The doctrine falls, based upon the principle taught in Ezekiel 18:20. If indeed we are born guilty of the sin of Adam, what can this passage mean? I am no more guilty of Adam's sin than I would be guilty of my great-great-grandfather’s drunkenness, gambling, and womanizing!

Secondly, the doctrine of original sin makes no sense in light of the Lord's clear use of children as a picture of godly purity. Jesus compared those who enter the kingdom to little children: “Assuredly, I say to you, unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven. Therefore, whoever humbles himself as this little child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 18:3-4). Does it not stand to reason that if Catholics are right and infants are born guilty of Adam’s sin, then the Lord chose very poorly when He made children an object lesson of purity and innocence!

Thirdly, the Bible texts commonly referred to by Catholic creed books in defense of original sin do not teach this. For instance, Catholics quote Paul, “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned...Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those who had not sinned according to the likeness of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come” (Romans 5:12, 14). A first glance at this text seems to leave the impression that Catholics have a case, but when you actually consider what Paul is teaching, the text kills the original sin.

What does the text really say?

1. Sin entered the world or became prominent with the sin of Adam.
2. Death is the result of Adam's sin.
3. Death for sin is common to all men, because all men sin - hence spiritual death is under consideration in this text (Romans 5:12).
4. Death reigned from Adam to Moses upon men who did not sin like Adam sinned.

In carefully reviewing these verses, the doctrine of original sin is conspicuously absent. Paul does not remotely imply that children are born guilty of the sin of Adam. What then is Paul's point? He compares the effects of Adam and Christ. Sin became prominent in the world with the sin of Adam, but the solution for sin is the death of Jesus Christ on the cross (Romans 5:17). Death only spreads to men when they sin (Romans 6:23). Even though the sin they commit is not the same one as Adam, he is still the one who introduced sin to the world. Thereafter, every man sins and receives the death penalty for it.

If all men are automatically sinners because of Adam, then we must also presume that all men are equally and automatically righteous because of Christ's death. This makes no sense. How can one be inherently evil, depraved, and spiritually dead, but righteous at the same time? This is the foolishness of both Calvinism and Catholicism.

The Johnny Come Lately Church

I was shocked one day to learn that the dogma of Papal infallibility was not defined until 1870. What was worse was that this could not be chalked up to a protestant plot to defame the Pope. Historical records confirm this date to be accurate. I had grown up believing every pope from Peter to John Paul (more about the succession of Popes later) was infallible and historical. Nothing was ever taught in my catechism classes about the year 1870.

Did this mean that every Pope prior to 1870 was fallible, but those since have been infallible, or were all Popes infallible but the church just didn't know it until 1870? The truth is far simpler: No head of the Roman Catholic church has ever spoken an infallible word. If it were true, the Bible would teach it.

Let me explain what “infallibility of the pope” means. Most people outside of Catholicism believe that the pope is considered infallible in every word he utters. This is not true. The Catholic doctrine actually states that the pope is infallible only when exercising his role as the successor to Peter, the head of the Church, in declaring official faith and morals. If he talks about the weather, sports, or world events, he is no more infallible than any man, but when he makes pronouncements “ex Cathedra” (meaning “from the chair”), he is infallible in those pronouncements. Catholics view their pope as the head of the church on earth. He is the “vicar of Christ” (from vicarious, a stand-in). So, whenever he exercises his papal authority to declare Catholic teaching, it is in those moments when he is kept from error by the Holy Spirit.

The infallibility of the Pope is only one of many dogmas that the Catholic Church claims are apostolic. However, even their historical records show the dogmas were defined centuries after the apostolic era. Roman Catholicism maintains that it is the one true church of Christ. It traces its origins (mistakenly) to the apostle Peter, and claims (again mistakenly) that its doctrines are apostolic.

In DeHarbe's Catechism #2, this is made very clear: Q: “Why is the Roman Catholic Church Apostolic?” A: “The Roman Catholic Church is Apostolic, 1. Because her origin and her doctrine are from the Apostles; 2. Because the Pope and the Bishops are the rightful successors of the Apostles" [Page 83, #214].

Certainly, Christ built only one church (Ephesians 4:4), and the Bible teaches that the church is apostolic in nature. However, the Lord's church is not apostolic because Jesus established Peter as the first Pope (Jesus alone is the head of the church (Ephesians 1:20-21; Colossians 1:18). Instead, the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Himself as the chief cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20).

The foundation of the apostles and prophets is the gospel of Christ, which the apostles taught (Romans 1:16). While in Corinth, Paul declared the testimony of God, preaching Jesus Christ and Him crucified (I Corinthians 2:1-2). The foundation Paul laid in Corinth was not himself, nor his own ideals, but Christ (3:10-11). It was this doctrine upon which the early church thrived (Acts 2:42).

Remember, DeHarbe's Catechism claims that the Catholic Church was built upon the doctrine of the apostles. If this is true, we ought to find the doctrines of the Catholic Church in the New Testament. However, most of the peculiar doctrines and traditions that comprise Catholicism originated centuries after the time of the apostles. Among these are the doctrines of:

• Veneration of saints and images [375 A.D.]
• The Mass [394 A.D.]
• Veneration of Mary; “Mother of God” [431 A.D.]
• Extreme Unction (Last rights) [526 A.D.]
• Purgatory [593 A.D.; pronounced as a dogma in 1439 A.D.]
• Holy water [850 A.D.]
• College of Cardinals established [927 A.D.]
• Indulgences [1190 A.D.]
• Transubstantiation [1215 A.D.]
• The Bodily Assumption of Mary [1950 A.D.]
• Canonization of “saints” [995 A.D.]
• The Rosary [1090 A.D.]
• Papal Infallibility [1870]
• Worship Of Relics [786 A.D.]
• Church tradition equal to Bible authority [1545 A.D. Council of Trent]
• Prayer To Saints [1594 A.D.]
• Celibacy Of The Priesthood [Decreed by Gregory VII in 1079, and adopted at the Second Lateran Council, 1139 A.D.]
• Immaculate Conception of Mary [Defined as a doctrine of the church in the 8th century, but not defined as official dogma until December 8, 1854, by Pope Pius IX]

That we cannot read about any of these doctrines and dogmas in the Bible means that the doctrines are purely the invention of men. They have no place in Christian faith and service. The Bible forbids anyone from perverting the gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:6-9), and it specifically forbids adding to or taking away from God’s word (Revelation 22:18-19).

Each and every doctrine listed above, and the dates and places of origin, show that none of them came from God. Paul the apostle warned that “teaching as doctrines the commandments of men” makes worship vain (Matthew 15:7-9). No one, not an apostle from the first century, an elder in the Lord’s church, nor a pope in Rome, has the right to alter God’s word in any way.

The Pope, a Pretend Christ

Just last month (May 2025), a new pope (Leo) was elected to be the head of the Roman Catholic Church. He is not only the final authority in all matters pertaining to the Catholic Church, but also, he is free to define doctrines and dogmas which the Church is required to follow as if they were the doctrines of Christ Himself.

Who is the Pope, and when did his office come into existence? Roman Catholicism claims that the Pope is the direct successor of Peter, who was supposedly given primacy among the apostles as the first head of the Catholic Church.

The Pope is referred to as the Holy See of Rome, or the Bishop of Rome. Catholics consider him the Vicar of Christ. Vicar is similar to vicarious, which refers to a substitution, or one who serves in place of another. Hence, Catholics submit to the Pope as the substitute for Christ on earth. He is known by plenty of august titles in Catholic circles:

• Bishop of Rome: This is the fundamental title, indicating the Pope's role as the head bishop of the Roman Catholic Church.
• Vicar of Christ: This title signifies the Pope's role as Christ's representative on earth, entrusted with guiding and leading the Church.
• Successor of the Prince of the Apostles: This title refers to the Pope's position as the heir to Saint Peter, the first apostle, who is believed to have been the first Bishop of Rome.
• Supreme Pontiff: Emphasizes the Pope's role as the head of the Catholic Church and the ultimate authority in matters of faith and morals.
• Servant of the Servants of God: This title, “Servus Servorum Dei,” reflects the Pope's humble service to the Church and its members.
• Sovereign of the Vatican City State: The Pope is also the head of state of the Vatican City.
• Patriarch of the West: This title was abandoned by Pope Benedict XVI, but discussions are underway about potentially reinstating it.
• Primate of Italy
• Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province

The power of the pope among Roman Catholics is seen in the doctrine of Papal Infallibility. The First Vatican Council said in 1870:

“We teach and define that it is a divinely revealed dogma that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when acting in the office of Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians, he defines, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the universal Church,...” [Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus on the Church of Christ, n.4].

Roman Catholicism appeals to the Bible for the origin of the office of Pope, but it must twist the scriptures to find him there. One of the primary texts is Matthew 16:13-19:

“When Jesus came into the coasts of Cæsarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 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 I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

It is at this point that Catholics claim Peter was given primacy. Careful study of the Bible, however, reveals that Peter was never given any primacy over the apostles, nor was he the rock upon which Jesus would build His church.

First, Peter was given no authority not given to the other apostles. In chapter eighteen, the other apostles were given the same “binding and loosing” responsibility given to Peter (Matthew 18:18). Peter (and the other apostles) were not given divine policy-making authority. Rather, they were to preach the gospel to the world. What they bound would already have been bound in heaven. What they loosed would already have been loosed in heaven. These men spoke only as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (II Peter 1:20-21).

Secondly, it is presumed by Catholics that since Peter's name means “rock,” Jesus promised to build His church upon Peter, the rock. However, in Greek, Peter's name is petros. It refers to a detached stone - a movable rock; while the rock upon which the church would be built is petra, which refers to a mass of stone or bedrock. Obviously, the Lord would build His church on the strong bedrock foundation of truth that Jesus is the Christ, rather than on the easily movable stone of the apostle Peter.

Thirdly, Peter does not fit the mold of one who was given primacy among the apostles and men. Paul was not behind the chief apostle (II Corinthians 11:5; 12:11). Clearly, there was no seniority among the apostles if one who came later, Paul, was not behind any of them.

When the apostles disputed about rank among themselves, Peter's name was never mentioned as being the chief apostle (Mark 9:34; Luke 22:24). Surely the Lord would have used that dispute as an opportunity to elevate Peter to primacy, but He did not. Why didn’t the Lord tell his apostles, “I have made Peter your head”? That He did not, when given the perfect opportunity, speaks volumes.

Additionally, unlike the modern Pope, Peter rejected veneration and worship in the house of Cornelius (Acts 10:26). Finally, Peter, unlike the Pope, Bishops, and the priests of Roman Catholicism, was a married man (Luke 4:38; Matthew 8:14).

These and other clear facts prove that Peter was not the first Pope. The First Pope was not officially crowned until Boniface III was given the title of Universal Bishop in 606 A.D. By our calculation, that is 573 years after Pentecost and therefore 573 years too late! Roman Catholicism follows a false leader. This was reason enough for me to abandon it.

The Catholic Hierarchy Is Unscriptural

When I obeyed the gospel of Christ, the Lord added me to His church (Acts 2:47). However, before my baptism into Christ, I consciously abandoned the religion of my heritage. Among other reasons, I left the Catholic Church because of its unscriptural hierarchical structure. The Papacy is not the only unscriptural office in the Catholic Church. The hierarchy includes Bishops, Archbishops, Cardinals, Priests, and Deacons, among other things.

The New Testament provides no universal organizational structure for the Lord's church. Instead, local churches are made up of saints, with bishops and deacons (Philippians 1:1). Titus, an evangelist, was left in Crete to set in order what was lacking and to appoint elders in every city (Titus 1:5). The evangelist and apostle Paul and his travelling companions ordained elders in every church (Acts 14:23). These men shepherded only the flock that was among them (I Peter 5:2).

Elders, overseers, and bishops are all words describing aspects of the same office. In every case, churches were ruled by a plurality of bishops, never by a single all-powerful bishop.

Paul predicted that apostasy would originate with the eldership (Acts 20:29-30). Indeed, shortly after the first century, local churches began to elevate one elder above the others. The elevated one was "the Bishop," while his fellow overseers were merely elders. Soon, these head elders were meeting with the head elders of other churches to discuss mutual concerns. Following this misstep, a single Bishop was eventually appointed to rule numerous churches. Finally, men called Patriarchs ruled churches from Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch in Syria.

The Pope is the Bishop of Rome because the Bishop of Rome is considered the direct successor of the Apostle Peter. Likewise, Bishops of the Catholic Church are considered successors of the apostles [Life In Christ, Chicago, IL: ACTA Foundation, 1976, p. 106]. However, the irony is that popes have been chosen by popular vote by the “college of cardinals” for centuries.

When a pope dies, the college of cardinals assembles in Rome for the official, private gathering known as “conclave.” Voting cardinals must be under eighty years of age, and the normal number of cardinals in a conclave was set by Pope Paul VI in 1970 as 120 cardinals.
Each day, the cardinals meet privately and conduct a series of ballots until a candidate receives a two-thirds majority of the votes among the voting cardinals. Many days might pass with four ballots being taken on each day before a pope is chosen.

The results are burned after each ballot with chemicals that produce either black or white smoke. This is how the world knows the result of the voting. Black smoke signifies that no pope was elected, while white smoke indicates that a pope has been selected.

What a radical departure the Catholic hierarchy is from the simple New Testament pattern of local autonomy. God intends for local churches to govern themselves under the oversight of local elders. There is no scriptural authority for the Pope, Bishop, Priest, or Laity system in Catholicism.

The idea of mere men voting for other mere men to occupy an office invented by mere men, but attributed to God, shows the complete arrogance and disdain that the Roman Catholic Church has for the authority of God, Jesus Christ, and the Bible!

Catholicism Rejects the Authority of God

Leaving the Roman Catholic church in pursuit of the truth was not a difficult choice. Once I finally studied the Bible for myself, it became obvious to me that a vast majority of the doctrines and practices of Catholicism conflict directly with the word of the Lord. Any teaching or religious practice that conflicts with God's word must be rejected in favor of the truth (I Thessalonians 5:21).

One doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church that most directly conflicts with the Bible pertains to the authority of Roman Catholic tradition or the authority of the Church. Roman Catholicism maintains that the authority of the Church is equal to the authority of the Bible over believers.

Hear the words of Catholicism.

Q: “By what right do you teach doctrines not found in the Bible?"
A: "Because the origin of our faith is not in the Bible alone, but the Church which gives us both the written and the unwritten word.”
[Question Box, 75; via: Catholicism Against Itself, by O.C. Lambert].

Another clear Catholic explanation:

“The Bible and sacred tradition comprise what the church understands as divine revelation. Catholics do not think that our belief can be limited to the Bible alone because early in the life of the church there was no New Testament! Further, tradition is necessary if the Church is to apply the teaching of the Bible to changing circumstances. We believe that the Church does this under the guidance of the Holy Spirit” [“We Believe...” A Survey Of The Catholic Faith; Oscar Lukfahr, C.M.].

Still one more quote:

“The other part of revelation is called 'tradition.' It is the body of truths about God handed down orally within the Church” [Life In Christ, James Killgallon, p. 114].

These are the words of Catholicism itself! Not only does the Catholic Church regard its traditions as authoritative, but Catholics also arrogantly claim their traditions to be inspired by God. Several problems exist with this absurd claim.

First, Jesus condemned human tradition as a source of authority in religion. If we can claim that the traditions of the church are inspired because the church teaches God's word, the same claim can be made on behalf of the Pharisees. Jesus said the Pharisees sat “in Moses' seat” (Matthew 23:2-3), meaning they were teachers of the Law. However, the tradition of the Pharisees was condemned by Jesus as insufficient to produce acceptable service to God (Matthew 15:7-9).

Second, the New Testament church is not inspired. Men spoke by inspiration in the New Testament; the church did not (II Peter 1:20-21; Ephesians 3:3-5; Galatians 2:11-12; I Corinthians 2:10). The only organization of the church of our Lord is a local organization with saints, bishops, and deacons (Philippians 1:1).

For there to be an “official church voice” which teaches by inspiration, there would need to be some aggregate organization on earth, with an earthly head who could declare divinely inspired oracles. However, we have already seen that the hierarchical structure of Catholicism is unbiblical.

Third, the New Testament claims to be sufficient all by itself to save a man's soul. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work” (II Timothy 3:16-17).

All things that pertain to life and godliness have been provided by His divine power (II Peter 1:3). In these verses, there is no hint that God's word needs any assistance from latter-day revelation through the church. Claims of latter-day revelation are the folly of Mormonism and Catholicism as well!

Finally, if God were still revealing His will through the church, separate and apart from the Bible, that would mean the Bible is incomplete. However, Jude speaks of the faith (the gospel) which has been once and for all time delivered to the saints (Jude 3). God made no promise of continuing revelation, so no promise exists to be fulfilled in the Catholic Church.

Conclusion:

The Roman Catholic Church is not the church of Christ. It is not inspired, and its traditions are not authoritative. As long as men continue to support the Roman Catholic Church, this ungodly, human institution will continue to make up its own rules to bind upon men under the guise of inspiration. I could no longer support the lie, so I abandoned Catholicism. I pray that all slaves of Rome will do the same!