Mainpage

Jesus and catholics

 
 

Grab to eternal life!

Jesus is the way,
 the truth, and the life

Chapter 3 -
Papacy and priesthood

 

 

 

A part of the special heritage of the Roman Catholic Church is the papacy and priesthood that gained an important role in this church. The Pope has even been called the substitute of Christ on the Earth, which proves his great status among Catholics. It is thought that the papacy began in the first century after Peter’s death, and that since then there has been an unbroken chain of popes until today.

   But what should we think of the pope and his position in the Catholic Church, in general? Does the Bible teach anything about this? Can it be justified by text found in the Bible? We will look at this issue and also the priesthood in the Catholic Church in the light of the following issues:

 

1. Did Peter enjoy a special status among the other disciples?

2. Beginning and passing on of papacy

3. Was Peter Christ’s a substitute?

4. Did Peter and Paul establish the Church of Rome?

5. The celibacy of priests

 

1. Did Peter ENJOY a special status among the other disciples? As regards the foundation of papacy, the Roman Catholic Church has historically taught that Peter's special status among other disciples was the beginning of the papacy. Peter, as leader of the early church, was its "first Pope," and Jesus founded His church on Peter. The Roman Catholic Catechism (Finnish Roman Catholic Catechism, 1953) includes lessons about this subject:

 

Who did Christ set as the highest head of the church?

Christ set Peter as the highest head of the church. (p. 42)

 

Is Christ himself not the head of the church?

Christ is and continues to be the invisible head of the church, Peter was his visible substitute. (p. 43)

 

Who is the visible head of the church after the death of Holy Peter?

The visible head of the church is the Holy Father, the Pope, because he is Peter's real successor on the bishopric of Rome. (p. 44)

 

But is this lesson correct? When we examine the lesson in the light of Biblical reference, no support is found for Peter's having a higher place among disciples:

  

Is Peter the foundation of the Church, and is he the only one holding the keys to the kingdom of Heaven? Peter has been thus called the originator of the papacy, and it has been taught that Jesus himself appointed Peter to this position, that the church is built on him, and that Peter received the keys to the kingdom of Heaven with the power to bind and release. The following verses in the Gospel of Matthew refer to this:

 

 - (Matt 16:16,18,19) And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

18 And I say also to you, That you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19 And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

However, regarding the above interpretation that the church is built on the foundation of Peter, we should consider the fact that in the words of Jesus above, the Greek word "petros" (Peter) means the same as ”a small stone” or ”a block.” The word ‘rock’ in Greek is ‘petra’. Jesus never said that He would build His church on the foundation of “a little stone,” on the foundation of a man, which would have been too weak a foundation. He said that He would build the church on ”this rock,” -- Jesus Himself is this rock (e.g., 1 Cor 3:11: For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.). Another indication of this reference’s meaning is found in the admission that Peter uttered concerning Him. This verse, as the similar verse John 1:42, might be translated from its original text as:

 

 - (Matt 16:16,18) And Simon Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.

18 And I say also to you, That you are a stone (Petros), and on this rock (Petra) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

 

- (John 1:42) And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, You are Simon the son of Jona: you shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone (Petros).

 

Regarding who is holding the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, it is pretty hard to restrict ownership to one person, as the Roman Catholic Church teaches. It is wrong to say that only Peter is qualified. The Bible clearly indicates that the other Apostles also received keys to the kingdom. They did not receive those keys because they were special in some way, but simply because they preached the Gospel of the kingdom and led people to salvation. They opened the "door to Heaven" with their preaching. Likewise, the power to bind or release was given to each disciple:

 

 - (Matt 10:7,8) And as you go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand.

8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely you have received, freely give.

 

- (Luke 9:1,2) Then he called his twelve disciples together, and gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

2 And he sent them to preach the kingdom of God, and to heal the sick.

 

- (Matt 18:18) Truly I say to you, Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

 

No mentions. If Peter possessed a special position or authority over the other disciples, it surely would have been mentioned in the Bible. However, nothing indicating this can be found in the Bible. We see only that Peter was one disciple among others. He practiced his leadership together with the other Apostles, but not above them; he did not have any leading position among them. So he did not have the position of Pope, and the whole concept of papacy is not found in the Bible.

   The only thing that made Peter different from the other disciples was that he was by nature more impulsive and talkative than the others. He also made mistakes: he denied his Lord, for example. How does this go with the doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope, which was declared in 1870? Peter was not infallible: Jesus, and later Paul, reprimanded Peter’s improper behaviour. Jesus reprimanded him right after he spoke about the keys to the kingdom of Heaven:

 

 - (Matt 16:21-23) From that time forth began Jesus to show to his disciples, how that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from you, Lord: this shall not be to you.

23 But he turned, and said to Peter, Get you behind me, Satan: you are an offense to me: for you mind not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

 

 - (Gal 2:11-14) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision.

13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; so that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.

14 But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, If you, being a Jew, live after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compel you the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?

 

Opinion of outsiders. The way outsiders reacted towards the church in the first century proves that Peter did not have a special status among Apostles. Chapter 24 of the book of Acts shows that outsiders did not regard Peter as the most significant person in the church; rather, it was the Apostle Paul who was commonly regarded the ringleader of the Nazarene sect. What makes the following statement important is that it was delivered in Israel, the same place of Peter’s influence:

 

- (Acts 24:4,5) Notwithstanding, that I be not further tedious to you, I pray you that you would hear us of your clemency a few words.

5 For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes:

 

Jacob and John. Peter’s having a special position above the others’ is not supported in Paul’s letter to the Galatians, either. Paul indicates in this letter that in addition to Peter, James and John were also commonly regarded as leading figures in the early church. It is significant that of these three, James is mentioned first. This shows that Peter was only one Apostle among others:

 

- (Gal 2:9) And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go to the heathen, and they to the circumcision.

 

The only right church?

 

As regards Peter and his presumed papal successors, there is one characteristic attributed to them: infallibility, especially in matters of faith, morality and doctrine. This declaration of the infallibility of the Pope was delivered in 1870 by Pope Pius IX.

   A similar attitude of "infallibility" has been attached to the Roman Catholic church itself, as being the only “right” church, and in the calling of "lost brothers" to return to it. The following widely-distributed declaration was made in the autumn in 2000:

 

The Vatican:

Catholic Church Is the Only Right Church

 

Vatican declared on Tuesday that it is in a supreme position over all other Christian churches. The Vatican rejected the idea according to which all churches are equal. It is feared that this declaration of the Vatican will upset the cooperation endeavors of the Christian churches.

   In the opinion of the Vatican, the Catholic Church is the only real church of Christ. Other Christian denominations, such as the Protestants, are not real churches from Vatican's point of view.

   The Vatican's view was made known in a document called “Dominus Jesus”, which was signed by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, the leader of the successor institution of the Inquisition. Pope John II was said to have accepted this document.

   According to the document, those who have been baptized somewhere else than in the Catholic Church are "somehow connected to the church, but in an imperfect way".

   "There is only one church of Christ, the Catholic Church, which is led by the successor of Peter and the bishops together with him," the declaration states.

  The Anglican Church of England immediately rejected the declaration of the Vatican on Tuesday. Archbishop George Carey of the Anglican Church said that this declaration of the Vatican does not do justice to the ecumenical work, which has continued for over 30 years, and which aims to integrate those gaps that have been born over the centuries between the Protestants and the Catholics. (Newspaper Etelä-Suomen Sanomat, 6 September 2000)

 

The fact that some church is regarded as the only true church is actually a form of heresy. Salvation is by no means connected to any church, but it is available in the person of Jesus Christ, which we should understand. Therefore, the criminal on the cross, for example, was not saved and did not go to paradise because of a church or by joining a church: he was saved by turning to Jesus. The Roman Catholic Church was not even known at the time; it did not yet exist.

   Putting some church denomination in the place of Jesus Christ actually displaces Jesus. This does not apply only to the Roman Catholic Church, but also to other institutions. Jehovah's Witnesses think along the same lines, for example. If we place some church denomination, or a person (Mary, for example) to be our mediator, then we are no longer Christians but pagans. People are pagans because they deny Christ in practice though their words may respect him. Such people have no "Father" even though they may claim they have one in Jesus. (How does this suit the so-called building of Christian contact that is sometimes practiced between the churches and referred to in the newspaper article above? Would it not be better if God first gets to save these people, so they are not pagans trying to build Christian fellowship without Christ?)

 

 - (1 John 2:23) Whoever denies the Son, the same has not the Father: he that acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

 

2. THE beginning AND PASSING ON of papacy. As for the beginning of the papacy, many devoted Roman Catholics believe that it began in the first century with the Apostle Peter. They believe that from then until now, the papal chain has been unbroken.  

   But as we noted above, there is no reason to believe that Peter was the first Pope. We find no clear evidence concerning this matter; papacy is not even mentioned in the New Testament. Peter was only one of several Apostles, and he did not have a special status over the others.

   Most historians disagree about the date of the beginning of the papacy. It is known that no Pope or Roman Bishop in the Synod of Nicea (325 A.D.) demanded to be the first above others. Most church historians credit Leo the Great as being the first Pope. His reign was around 440 - 461 A.D. He had to be satisfied while ruling the Synod of Calcedon (451) that the bishop of Constantinople held the same position as himself. Nobody was yet the leader, because leadership was just being formed – it was formed, more or less, at the same time as the state church.

   We find no references in the Holy Bible to the passing on of papal authority. The Bible does not teach us about Peter’s papacy, and neither does it instruct us about his successors. We can understand that there simply could not have been a continuous chain of successors during the first few centuries because the pope’s authority did not rise until some centuries later.   

 

 3. Was Peter Christ's SUBSTITUTE? An issue also raised regarding Peter and his alleged successors -- popes -- is their being the substitutes of Christ on the Earth. This doctrine was expressed by the Synod of Florence in the 1400s. It was described as follows: 

 

"The Pope of Rome is the real substitute of Christ, the head of the whole church and father and teacher of all Christians, and our Lord Jesus Christ has given to him in blessed Peter complete power to shepherd, rule and lead the whole church." (Florence synod, 6^th session [1439] [DS 1307])

 

However, we can find no references in the Bible to Peter or some of his alleged successors being Christ's only substitutes on the Earth. Neither can we find anything about Christ being "put out of office" and Peter or someone else stepping in to act in His place. Or maybe we can find it in the way that also the devil was guilty of exalting himself to be equal with God [Isa 14:12-14]. So when many Popes have exalted themselves to be equal with God, they have followed in the devil’s footsteps. In fact, they are from their "father the devil," as Jesus said to the religious people of His time, John 8:44.

   Instead, the Bible does say that Christ is still the head of the church and that all power rests with Him, as the following verses indicate. So how does the doctrine of the Pope as Christ's substitute fit in anywhere?

 

 - (Eph 1:22) And has put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,

 

 - (Matt 28:18) And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.

 

On the other hand, if the Pope really was the substitute of Christ, his life should also be similar to that of Christ. Peter certainly was such a follower of Christ, but is it not a fact that many Popes have totally given up Christ, although they may pose as His representatives and substitutes? At least from the history of the church, we can see that countless Popes have acted immorally and even killed millions of people. Maybe this prediction of Paul, where he speaks of savage wolves, suits these popes better:

 

- (Acts 20:29-32) For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.

30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

31 Therefore watch, and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one night and day with tears.

32 And now, brothers, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.

 

The following account of a former Roman Catholic priest (Emmett McLough, Crime and Immorality in the Catholic Church) describes how many Popes and their successors actually completely gave up Christ, even though they appeared as His representatives or as His substitutes. We can see that these kinds of persons do not have anything to do with Christ and God, even though they claimed otherwise (or as Paul said in Titus 1:16, They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and to every good work reprobate.):

 

Thirteen years ago, when I had intensely studied the history of the Roman Catholic Church for twenty-one years and after I had been one of its "learned" priests for fifteen years, I began to see some of its history little by little. I gathered thousands of dollars worth of history books, many of which had not been printed for years. I scavenged through the country's libraries for rare texts that had been saved from the censorship of Rome.

   I felt a little like a member of a proud, princely, famous, and respected family, who suddenly find their actual family tree in the attic. Sitting on almost every branch there were murderers, liars, cheaters, robbers, blackmailers, bastards, white-slavers, prostitutes, and all kinds of wrongdoers.

   I felt like I had stepped into a Museum of Crime History, and I wandered from room to room, from century to century in this ecclesiastical wax museum, and everywhere I saw new varieties of crimes, vices, and moral decline, so that the pagan Rome and Greece seemed almost angelic.

   I outline this past in short just to prove that the present criminal record of the Roman Catholic Church is genuine heritage. We can find such from every century in history. (…)

 

4. Did Peter and Paul establish the church of Rome? If we continue to study Peter, who is so dear to the Roman Catholics, many people believe that he was also the leader of the Church of Rome. They think that he was a priest there for up to 20 years. In the same way, it is believed that Peter, together with Paul, were the founders of this church.

    This latter concept is brought up in, among other texts, a book by Jan Aarts, Paavi (The Pope, p. 6). In this book, Aarts describes the belief that Peter and Paul were the founders of the Church of Rome:

 

This is how he was remembered also after the time of the Apostles and this status moved on to the Church of Rome and bishopric because Peter had stayed and suffered his martyrdom there. The Church of Rome was valued greatly in the first centuries because it was established by Peter and Paul, confirmed by their teaching and sanctified by their blood.  

 

But is this true? Were Peter and Paul really the founders of the Church of Rome? It becomes difficult to prove, at least if we examine the Bible in the light of the following points:

 

The church was in Rome before Paul visited there. The belief that Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome together does not fit in with Paul’s letter to the Romans. When Paul wrote this letter in the year 57 or 58, there must have already been a church there for a long time; otherwise he would not have written in the following way, mentioning his desire to see these people:

 

 - (Rom 1:8-10) First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

9 For God is my witness, whom I serve with my spirit in the gospel of his Son, that without ceasing I make mention of you always in my prayers;

10 Making request, if by any means now at length I might have a prosperous journey by the will of God to come to you.

 

- (Rom 1:13-15) Now I would not have you ignorant, brothers, that oftentimes I purposed to come to you, (but was let till now,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles.

14 I am debtor both to the Greeks, and to the Barbarians; both to the wise, and to the unwise.

15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

 

- (Rom 15:23) But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great desire these many years to come to you

 

No regards to Peter. Another observation that can be made from Paul’s letter to the Romans is that when Paul sent his regards to the members of the Church of Rome (Romans 16:1-15), he did not say anything about Peter. Certainly, he would have sent regards to Peter as well, if he had been in Rome (it has been said that Peter was the founder of the Church of Rome and that he lived there for 20 years). So, the fact that Paul did not mention Peter in his letter is a clear indication of Peter not being in Rome at that time.

 

The letters Paul sent from Rome. After Paul went to Rome in captivity – he did not go to establish a new church – he sent three letters from Rome. It should be noted that in these letters he does not even mention Peter. Certainly he would have done this if Peter was in Rome at that time, especially if Peter and he had established the Church of Rome together. The fact that Paul does not mention him also suggests that Peter was not currently in Rome.

 

No reference in the Acts. In the Acts of the Apostles that describes activities up until the year 62 A.D. there is no mention of Peter staying in Rome – it is only mentioned that Paul lived in Rome for two years.

   This is significant because Peter was one of the central figures in the Book of Acts, and the church in Rome existed before the end of the book (i.e., the year 62 A.D.) Peter could not have founded this church. If he had briefly – or for 20 years – resided in Rome, then certainly the Bible would have mentioned it because it relates many "lesser" events concerning Peter. Why is nothing said about this? Is that not clear evidence that Peter had nothing to do with the founding of the Church of Rome?

 

Peter worked among his own nation. The different tasks undertaken by Paul and Peter do not support the claim that Peter founded the Church of Rome. Paul was called to be an Apostle of the Gentiles, but Peter worked mostly among his own people. Paul wrote about their different tasks in the following way:

 

 - (Gal 2:6-9) But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatever they were, it makes no matter to me: God accepts no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me:

7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me, as the gospel of the circumcision was to Peter;

8 For he that worked effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:

9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go to the heathen, and they to the circumcision.

 

Does the Church of Rome have a special status? We brought up the idea that Peter and Paul together founded this church, and that it has been suggested that this particular church was already held in special regard at the time of the Apostles.

   However, we can say that this church did not have a special status any more than any other church. It was one church among many others, and its only claim of superiority was based on its location in one of the great cities of that time. Jan Aarts addressed this subject (Paavi, The Pope, p. 46). Aarts states that political factors began to affect church life to a great extent in the 4^rd century.

 

Rome was the capital of the empire and, therefore, its political and administrative center. It was also an international center of culture and a meeting place. These issues naturally had an impact on the significance of the Church of Rome, but nothing in the first centuries indicates that they would have given the Church of Rome a special status over other local churches. Only when Christianity became popular (in 313 A.D.) and the official religion of the state (in 380 A.D.) did political matters start to greatly affect the life of the church. However, they did not really affect the position of Rome, but the position of Constantinople, which became the new capital in the year 330.

 

5. THE Celibacy of THE priests. One peculiarity of the Roman Catholic Church is the celibacy of the Pope and priests and nuns, which was prescribed by Pope Bonifatius VII in 1079. (Perhaps this too is based on the virginity of Mary created by the church?) All of the three groups mentioned above are obliged by the Roman Catholic Church to remain celibate, and each of them must take a vow of celibacy, without which no sacraments can come into effect; if they get married, their holy tasks can not be properly completed.

   However, does the Bible teach anything about the celibacy of priests? We are going to look at this matter in the light of the following verses:

 

Avoiding the sin of fornication. If we look at the general teachings of the Bible concerning the sexuality of man and woman, it clearly indicates that men and women should have a spouse. This is not meant to be compulsory but marriage is expressly meant to avoid the sin of fornication and also to satisfy our sexual needs. Paul brings up this teaching very clearly in his letter to the Corinthians, for example:

 

- (1 Cor 7:1,2) Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.

2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

 

- (1 Cor 7:8,9) I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I.

9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

 

What is the consequence of the Catholic Church’s not obeying this above-mentioned advice of the Bible? The following quote from a newspaper article illustrates this well (Helsingin Sanomat 10 April 1995, Jyrki Palo, Seksiskandaalit koettelevat katolista kirkkoa, “Sex Scandals Testing Catholic Church”). The article shows how the celibacy of the priests has led to sexual abuse and extramarital affairs. Therefore, it has been a way to immorality and by no means to a purer life for the priests:

 

 (...) The Catholic Church requires of its priests absolute celibacy, i.e., it forbids all sexual relationships. Some married priests estimate that over half of their former colleagues actually live with a woman as if they were married.

   (...) Jeremiah Eisenbauer, a priest in the Austrian monastery of Melk, is one of those who deem celibacy inhuman. "It's high time to fight against such a system that almost unavoidably leads to (sexual) abuse,” he says in a letter to magazine Profil.

   Mr. Eisenbauer also heavily criticizes the hierarchy of central church authority "where ambitious persons can rise to leading positions to control others".

 

Doctrines of devils. In the verses above, Paul says that it is good to marry in order to avoid immoral sins, and elsewhere he says that the forbidding of marriage is one of the doctrines of devils. So compulsory celibacy is not the will of God, as the Catholic Church teaches, but it is just the opposite, i.e., something taught by demons, as Paul said in his time.

   So when the Catholic Church forbids marriage, is it not this the fulfillment of what Paul said in his time? Or has any other organization forbidden marriage of its own employees as widely as the Catholic Church? We can honestly say that these words of Paul suit this issue best:

 

 - (1 Tim 4:1-3) Now the Spirit speaks expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;

3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God has created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.

 

Peter was married. An amazing fact is that Peter, whom many Catholics regard as the rock and the first Pope of the church, was himself married. He really was married, since some Bible passages speak about his mother-in-law and elsewhere Paul says right out that Peter, i.e. Cephas, had a wife. So a good question is why do not popes, who regard themselves followers of Peter, take heed of this advice? Should they not, as Peter's followers, also have a wife?

 

- (Matt 8:14,15) And when Jesus was come into Peter’s house, he saw his wife’s mother laid, and sick of a fever.

15 And he touched her hand, and the fever left her: and she arose, and ministered to them.

 

- (Mark 1:30) But Simon’s wife’s mother lay sick of a fever, and immediately they tell him of her.

 

- (1 Cor 9:5) Have we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

 

The husband of one wife. One verse where the Bible refers to the characteristics of a shepherd of a congregation also implies that they should have a wife. Paul speaks very clearly about this in 1 Timothy, and he indicates that the shepherd of a church should usually be the husband of one wife and able to manage his household. A good question is why has this advice not been obeyed and why has marriage been forbidden even though this Bible passage, for example, proves it to be favorable in the cases of the shepherds of the church?

 

- (1 Tim 3:2-5) A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;

4 One that rules well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

5 For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?

 

Problem with the Catholic Church

 

We have discussed above the celibacy of priests, Peter as the substitute of Christ, the position of the Pope and Mary as mediators, and we noted that none of these issues are mentioned in the Bible. The Bible does not refer to these issues in any way; they are later inventions of the Catholic Church.

   This constitutes the greatest problem with the Catholic Church. When the doctrines are not supported by the Bible, it is possible for new, foreign doctrines to flow into the church. These have been coming ever more frequently and nowadays, the Church is pretty far astray. These new doctrines that have been gathered over the years have become regular "traditions", which have in fact replaced the Word of God.

   It is peculiar that the Catholic Church has officially confirmed the importance of traditions. This appears from the publications of the Catholic Church, such as the Finnish Catholic Catechism (1953) and a book describing the foundation of the Catholic faith, Katolisen uskon perusteet (Katolinen tiedotuskeskus, Helsinki, 1992). These publications give traditions a strong foothold: 

 

Is it enough that we believe what is in the Holy Bible?

No; we should also believe in tradition because tradition is an unwritten Bible. (Finnish Catechism, p. 9)

 

So what must Christians generally believe in?

 

Christians must believe everything that God has informed and what the Catholic Church urges us to believe, whether it was written in the Holy Bible or not. (Finnish Catechism, p. 10)

 

 (...) The Catholic Church emphasizes the connection between the Bible and tradition (...) (Katolisen uskon perusteet, p. 157)

 

  (...) The Catholic Church demands a right to accept some interpretation of the Bible as correct or to reject an interpretation, which distorts inherited belief. (Katolisen uskon perusteet,, p. 83)

 

The fact that the Catholic Church sets tradition alongside the Word of God, or in practice to replace it, is a great tragedy. This is tragic because these new traditions displace the position of Jesus, the Son of God, as the only Savior, as He Himself said (in, e.g., John 14:6 and John 10:9) and replace Him with things that lead men astray and into damnation. So it is actually remarkable that even though the Catholics can respect Jesus as the Son of God and the Apostles as saints, they do not respect the written word that has come through them. They replace them with their later traditions.

    The appreciation of the Catholic Church for these traditions is in fact the same as was the appreciation of the Pharisees in Jesus' time for the same thing. These people who lived at the same time as Jesus, and who actually were the greatest opponents of the Gospel and Jesus, were guilty of the fact that they set their traditions and their human ordinances in the place of the Word of God. However, Jesus reprimanded these hypocrites for their offences:

 

 - (Matt 15:1-3 6-9) Then came to Jesus scribes and Pharisees, which were of Jerusalem, saying,

2 Why do your disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.

3 But he answered and said to them, Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?

6 And honor not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have you made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition.

7 You hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

8 This people draws near to me with their mouth, and honors me with their lips; but their heart is far from me.

9 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Jari Iivanainen