a student from life:
Christ did command that Christians be a part of a local church fellowship (not necessarily Catholic) for the purposes of biblical edification, service, fellowship, etc., but one with local authority and biblical accountability. For example Acts 2:42 and Heb. 10:25.
Perhaps the reason Bishop Kinney did not want to reveal the full report was because it would have identified how many priests and monks have HIV or have died of AIDS.
Do some Catholics never disagree with, question, or criticize Catholic doctrines, the Vatican, or other Catholic leaders?
Major Biblical evidence that the papacy and Catholic doctrines are unbiblical and apostate:
No popes since Christ’s days are able to perform the “on call” visible miracles that similarly authenticated the Gospel message of the apostles. See Heb. 2:4; Acts 2:22,43; 2 Cor. 12:12.
Apostlic office and authority biblically resided in the fact that the apostles walked and talked with Christ Himself, and had witnessed His resurrection – popes have not literally talked or walked with Christ as they did in Scripture; therefore they are not apostles nor apostolic successors. See Acts 1:21-22.
Transubstantiation is not a visible miracle or visible representation of Christ, so transubstantiation is a false teaching by biblical standards. Again see Heb. 2:4; Acts 2:22,43: 2 Cor. 12:12.
Biblically, Christ’s body was never in multiple places at one time, contrary to what the Catholic eucharist sacrament asserts, i.e., that Christ’s body is located in many places around the world at any one time. Also Scripture states that Christ’s body was not to be broken, John 19:36 and compare Ex. 12:46, Num. 9:12; Ps 34:20.
A literal interpretation of Matt 26:26 also demands a literal interpretation of Matt. 26:29 , i.e., Jesus was literally drinking the fruit of the vine–not blood.
Jews were forbidden by the Law to drink blood. Jesus was a Jew who came to fulfill the Law (compare Acts 15:19-21 with Lev. 17:10-16) – therefore Jesus would not have drunk His own blood, nor would He have asked other Jews and disciples to do so.
In transubstantiation, Christ’s body is blasphemed when His alleged literal body and blood are turned into dung and passed out of the participant’s body (cf. Matt 7:19). Christ’s (alleged literal) body is also blasphemed when rats eat it or a Catholic church burns down.
Transubstantiation makes Christians out to be cannibals, but cannibalism has been a traditionally abhorant practice to (biblical) Christianity.
If apostolic succession were true, there would have been twelve apostles at any one time through out Catholic history, which additionally would have provided apostolic accountability, as in Galations when Paul admonished Peter (allgedly the first pope) for false doctrines.
Christ made the final sacrifice for all sin, so ritualized, formal sacrifices claiming the presence of Christ’s actual body are no longer needed. The apostle Paul taught that the eucharist ceremony was “a rememberance” or “memorial of Christ’s death and resurrection – not an (outward) sacrifice for sin or salvation, I Cor. 11:24-25. And Jesus also commanded believers to participate in this memorial ordinance – and by participating in both elements of this memorial to Christ’s, i.e., both the bread and the cup. Often times individual lay Catholics are allowed to only participate in one element; again indicating Catholic teachings are unbiblical.
The apostle Paul did not mention the papacy when he referred to the offices of the church. I Cor. 1:12-13; Eph. 4:11. Paul, not Peter, claimed authority over the Roman church, Romans 1:5-6; 16:17. Paul expressly denied that Peter was the pope; and he further maintained that whatever Peter was to the Jews, he was to the Gentiles, a claim to apostolic equality. Paul also rebuked Peter, a denial of Peter’s supremacy over Paul and other apostles, Gal. 2:7-8,11. Yet is Paul listed in the papal line? I don’t believe so.