Where is Catholicism in the Bible?


#1

I don’t see it anywhere. And if it’s not in the bible, its false doctrine. In the Bible, there is no mention of Pope, Bishop, or Mass, or most of things that Catholics talk about. Who was greater? Jesus or Peter. Who’s greater Jesus or the Pope? Who’s greater Jesus or Mary? Even Paul said for people to stop following Peter, Paul, or John, but to follow Jesus. Jesus didn’t say anything about Peter being the foundation of the Catholic Church, but the rock of God’s Church. I challenge Catholics to think about why they believe what they believe and try to back it up with the King James Version of the Bible. Everything else is just false doctrine or heresy.


#2

Hi Allan, welcome to catholic.com, and thanks for your question.

I’d suggest you might like to have a bit of a browse around the forums and read some of the other threads while you’re waiting for replies - you’ll find a lot of answers to your questions in other threads.

One thing I’d say is this: that if you are really honest in your questioning, and if you listen to what people in here say, and then go away and do some **hard work **in following things up - reading and researching - you’ll find that God will lead you to the truth about the Catholic Church: that it is the church which Christ himself founded.

That’s my challenge to you: be honest. Listen, read, study, pray. If you’re not prepared to do that you’ll find that you, and we, will be wasting our breath!

Peace be with you.


#3

The word Trinity is not in the Bible. Do you believe in the Trinity?


#4

Hi Allan. Welcome to the Forums.

Try the search feature here at Catholic Answers on the home page. Links to all kinds of helpful information.

You’re welcome.:thumbsup:


#5

Thanks for stopping by Allan. Hope you stay awhile. :thumbsup:

Could you clear up something for me?

Can you show me where in the bible that it says that if something isn’t in the bible it is a false doctrine.

Thanks, have a good one.

John


#6

How about playing Rock and Roll type music played in some Protestant Churches? Is that in the Bible?

How about alter calls? Where is that in the Bible?


#7

In nomine Iesu pax vobiscum,

I guess you believe the Doctrine of the Trinity is ‘false doctrine’ also since we can’t find ‘Trinity’ anywhere…

With regard to the word bishop…

This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. - 1 Timothy 3:1 KJV

What else does Scripture say to these ‘bishops’?

These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee. - Titus 2:15 KJV

With regard to the word Pope is derived from the latin word papa or the Greek papas which means ‘father’. St. Paul wrote to Titus as a ‘spiritual’ father refering to him as his ‘spiritual’ son…

To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour. - Titus 1:4 KJV

A ‘spiritual’ father of a ‘spiritual’ son. The Pope is the ‘spiritual’ papa of the catholic Church (i.e. universal Body of Christ).

With regard to St. Paul’s comments of fatherhood and followering the Apostles?

For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me. - 1 Corinthians 4:15-16 KJV

Pax Vobiscum


#8

On this forum, you will need to prove that claim rather than assuming it.

In the Bible, there is no mention of Pope,

You are probably familiar with some of the Catholic arguments claiming the contrary–their interpretation of Matt. 16 (“On this rock I will build my Church”), for instance. You can dispute those arguments, but you can’t simply assume without argument that the papacy isn’t in the Bible.

Bishop,

Bishops are mentioned in the Bible: Philippians 1:1, 1 Tim. 3:1-2. This is simply careless of you, since you use the KJV (other Protestant translations translate the word differently, but the KJV says “bishop”).

or Mass,

As with papacy, the fact that the word isn’t there doesn’t mean that the thing isn’t there (Trinity isn’t mentioned by name either!). In the case of the Mass (unlike the Papacy), it’s undeniable that the thing (also called the Eucharist or Lord’s Supper or Holy Communion) is there–1 Cor. 11 being the fullest description. I’m sure you know this, but you are treating “Mass” as if it were something essentially different from the Lord’s Supper, which it isn’t. Of course we can argue about whether all the beliefs and practices Catholics associate with the Mass are correct. But the essential rite itself is clearly in the New Testament and I hope your church practices it as well.

Who was greater? Jesus or Peter. Who’s greater Jesus or the Pope? Who’s greater Jesus or Mary?

You will not find any disagreement on these points.

Even Paul said for people to stop following Peter, Paul, or John,

He didn’t mention John. This doesn’t affect your point, except that for someone who appeals to the Bible you are strangely careless in your use of it. More to the point, Paul also rebuked people who use the name of “Christ” as a slogan for their faction (people today who claim to be “just Christians”?). Paul was condemning division within the Church, and this is actually one of the strongest arguments for Catholicism. It’s the main reason I can’t get away from Catholicism entirely, no matter how many issues I may have with it. The Bible clearly tells us that we should be one Body, and Catholicism appears to have the only coherent account of how that is possible on earth.

I challenge Catholics to think about why they believe what they believe and try to back it up with the King James Version of the Bible.

Why should Catholics use the KJV? Where was truth found before 1611? What about people who speak other languages? (I do know a number of possible answers to these questions, but I don’t know which ones you embrace.) Why the KJV?

And I repeat my earlier question–if the KJV is your authority, how can you possibly claim that bishops are not Scriptural?

Edwin


#9

I challenge Catholics to think about why they believe what they believe and try to back it up with the King James Version of the Bible.

King James Version of the Bible is written in 1611. In fact the version of your KJV Bible is probably different from the original.

If you want to go early Bible version, there is the Douay Rheims Bible (Catholic Bible written in 1609), then there is the Latin Vulgate, Latin Translation of the Bible, which both books were translated from.

If you want Scripture View by a Catholic prospective go to

scripturecatholic.com

It has Biblical reference supporting Catholic dogmas and doctrines.


#10

The ANGLICANS (aka Church of England) came up with the KJV.
The ANGLICANS have a “MASS”.
The ANGLICANS have bishops…King James appointed them.
The KJV authors have admitted to at least 200 errors in the NT alone in the first edition which they later corrected. To say nothing of the errors they failed to catch for 200 more years.
The original KJV had the deuterocanonical books in it! Same as the Catholics. Were they right or wrong? heretics or not?

Sheesh!


#11

I am fairly familiar with Sacred Scripture and don’t recall seeing Lutheranism, Calvinism, Presbyterianism, Mormonism, or Methodism mentioned in the Bible. Can OP help?


#12

Allan1972, follow the disciples on the Road to Emmaus. What do you see?

You see Jesus discussing the Old Testament prophecies and how they all related to Him. Catholics, in the Mass, read from the Old Testament, the New Testament Epistles, the Psalms, and the Gospels. Then during the Homily the priests discusses how they all lead us to Christ. What did the Apostles say about this? "Were not our hearts burning (within us) while he spoke to us on the way and opened the scriptures to us?" We call this the Liturgy of the Word.

Back at Emmaus, while He was with them at table, He took bread, said the blessing, broke it, and gave it to them. What did this do to the Apostles? With that their eyes were opened and they recognized him, but he vanished from their sight. We Catholics call this the Liturgy of the Eucharist.

Today, the Liturgy of the Word and the Liturgy of the Eucharist combine to give us the Mass. **And you claim that the Mass is not in the Bible??? **Look at Revelation. Almost the entire book of Revelation pertains to the Catholic Mass.

Allan, if you want to study the Catholic Church and draw your opinions about it, why don’t you come to Catholics to learn. I don’t go to Math class to learn about English - do you?


#13

You won’t find the word Catholic, or Pope, or Bishop or Mass, in the Bible.
Neither will you find the word Protestant, or Lutheran, or Adventist, or Amish.
Neither will you find the phrase “Scripture alone”, or “Faith alone”, nor “Once saved, always saved”.
Although you will find the word “Baptism” you will not find the phrase “Baptism by immersion”.

You will, however find the passage in which Christ said to Simon, “You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church”. The word “Pope” came later, and is merely a name we give to the office Peter occupied.
You will find a passage in which Christ told the Apostles, “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them: whose sins you retain, they are retained.” “Bishop” is merely the modern word we apply to the successors of the Apostles.
Likewise “Mass” is a modern word for what we do in obedience to Christ’s command, “Do this in remembrance of Me”.

"Who’s greater, Jesus or Mary?"
Jesus is greater.
Jesus is God.
Mary is merely a woman who was given the very great privilege of cooperating with the plan of salvation.
We honor the Virgin Mary.
We worship God alone.
Why do we honor Mary? Well, because the Bible tells us we should.
Luke 1, verse 48 “Behold all generations shall call me blessed”.

Edit: St Bernard and Contarini both point out that the word “Bishop” does appear in the New Testament, in the King James Version at that. :slight_smile:


#14

Hello Alan,
I agree with the previous post that study is much needed. I suggest that you start with a few of the fathers, such as St. Irenaeus, St. Justin martyr, St. Augustine, just to name a few. Their writings are a veritable blueprint of the Catholic faith as we have it today. Also I would suggest that you reread the Bible especially in the OT where we see the hierarchical structure of the Jews established, then in acts where we see a similar structure. Also the Bishops are mentioned in the NT which word you have in your Bible which is presbyter.

Also the Catholic Church established the canon of the Bible and not the other way around, so what we have is the Bible relying on the Church not the Church on the Bible. To quote the great St. Augustine “For my part, I should not believe the Gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.” (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus called fundamental, Ch. 5) Oh and while I’m at quoting heres one from St. Jerome, “I am told that some one has been mad enough to put deacons before presbyters, that is, bishops. For when the apostle clearly teaches that presbyters are the same as bishops.”(Letters, NO. 146 ML 22,1192 NPNF VI, 288)


#15

We certainly do in the sense that we celebrate the Eucharist (as I hope Allan’s church does as well), but when the KJV was written we would not generally have used the word Mass. We were quite “anti-Catholic” back then ourselves, you know. It was (as far as I know) the Anglo-Catholics of the 19th century who reintroduced the term into Anglican usage, and it’s still mostly limited to the Anglo-Catholic wing.

Edwin


#16

Good.
Then YOUR doctrine: "And if it’s not in the bible, it’s false doctrine"
HAS TO BE FALSE DOCTRINE itself because it’s not in the KJV or any other BIBLE.
That goes for: “Everything else is just false doctrine or heresy.” as well.
ps.
Do your women wear headcovring in worship? 1 Cor 11:5-ff
I didn’t think so.

Case closed.


#17

We generally did not at one time use the word car, but “automobile”. No difference. The Anglicans had a “MASS” from the git go no matter what they chose to call it in 1600.
Their intent of a Sacrifice was missing in short order, but nevertheless Cramner kept the parallel liturgy of the catholic mass. He did slice 'n dice it but it was there.


#18

Catholicism is the Bible. You’re looking too hard. :wink:


#19

Hello, and welcome to the Catholic Answers Forums!

The word ‘trinity’ is not mentioned in the Bible, yet Christians have always believed in the concept. I’ve never seen a sinner’s prayer in the Bible, and yet many Christians who claim to base their beliefs on the Bible alone use the recitation of a sinner’s prayer as a measure of who’s saved and who isn’t.

You’re hinting at the issue of authority. Catholics believe that the Church has been granted the authority to teach and bind doctrine on believers, and can use scripture to back it up.

Respectfully, where does it say in the Bible that everything needs to be spelled out explicitly in the Bible?

You may be surprised to find out that we agree with you. Jesus is greatest, and he alone is to be worshipped. Every Sunday at Mass we pray the Gloria, in which we say about Jesus: “You alone are the holy one, you alone are the Lord. You alone are the most high.”

Catholics do not worship Mary, the saints or the Pope. But we do believe that the office of the papacy, as well as those of priests, bishops and deacons are legitimate, and that the apostles even gave direction on how these offices were to be passed on to capable men by the laying on of hands. Let me know if you’d like scripture references, because there are plenty.

Catholics believe, and scripture teaches, that Christ gave Peter authority over the Church, including the keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16:18-19) and that he was specifically commanded to feed Christ’s sheep (John 21:15-17).

The Church that has held fast to the traditions of the apostles, whether by word of mouth or by letter (2 Thessalonians 2:15) is the Catholic Church.

Thank you for the challenge. The Church has heard everything you’ve said over the past 500 years since the Reformation, and she’s still standing. There’s nothing you can throw at us that we haven’t answered already, no surprises that will suddenly bring Christ’s Holy Bride, the Catholic Church, to its knees.

Please explain why you think the KJV is more inspired than other English translations of the Bible. Furthermore, do you use the edition that includes the deuterocanonical books, or an edition in which they were removed (which is a later revision)?

There were other English-language translations available prior to the KJV, including the Catholic Douay-Rheims. What makes the KJV more reliable than earlier English-language translations?

What is a non-English person to do if only the English-language KJV is inspired by God?

I hope you’re interested in sticking around for our answers, and I hope we can dispel a few of your misconceptions about Catholicism.

God Bless,
Dan


#20

Allan1972’s profile says he is “undecided” on his religion. Let’s hope so, and that he’s not just a touch n go troller.
He’s got 1 post & this is it, so far.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.