Aaron, explain yourself please sir with scripture, as I have done, out of respect for all on this site.

Sacraments are outward signs of inward grace, instituted by Christ for our sanctification” (taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia). The Roman Catholic Church teaches that while God gives grace to man without outward symbols (sacraments), He has also chosen to give grace to man through visible symbols. Because God has done this, man is foolish to not make use of this God-provided means of gaining sanctification.

In order to qualify as a sacrament, the Roman Catholic Church states that it must meet the following three criteria: a) the external, that is, a sensibly perceptible sign of sanctifying grace, b) the conferring of sanctifying grace, c) the institution by God or, more accurately, by the God-Man Jesus Christ. Thus, sacraments are not merely a symbol, but are believed to actually confer sanctifying grace upon the recipient. The Roman Catholic Church believes that all of their seven sacraments were instituted by Christ Himself. There are seven Roman Catholic Sacraments, and they are as follows:

1) Baptism, which the Roman Catholic Church teaches removes original sin while infusing the act with sanctifying grace.
2) Penance, in which one confesses his/her sins to a priest.
3) The Eucharist, considered the reception and consumption of the actual body and blood of Christ.
4) Confirmation, a formal acceptance into the church along with special anointing of the Holy Spirit.
5) Anointing of the sick, performed by a priest using oil. The priest anoints the sick person´s forehead and hands with oil. This is associated not only with bodily healing but with forgiveness of sins. When performed on a dying person, it is called Extreme Unction (or last rites or final anointing).
6) Holy Orders, the process by which men are ordained to clergy.
7) Matrimony, which provides special grace to a couple.

The following are verses commonly cited to support the Roman Catholic belief concerning the sacraments: “Therefore I remind you to stir up the gift of God which is in you through the laying on of my hands" (2 Timothy 1:6). "Jesus answered, ‘Most assuredly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God’" (John 3:5). "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy He saved us, through the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5). "That He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word" (Ephesians 5:26). "If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained" (John 20:23). "And the prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise him up. And if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven" (James 5:15). "Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit" (Acts 8:17). "Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For My flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed" (John 6:54-55).

It might seem by looking at these verses by themselves that, indeed, certain external actions do convey some benefit (such as eternal life, the forgiveness of sins, the presence or power of the Holy Spirit, etc.). However, when taken in the context of Scripture as a whole, there is no foundation for the belief that God ever intended these passages to be taken as support for rituals as a means of conveying grace. In other words, the whole idea of "sacraments" that convey saving grace upon people is unbiblical.

Two of the main sacraments specifically are said by the Roman Catholic Church to be necessary in order to gain eternal life: baptism and communion. Because of the Roman Catholic Church belief that baptism is required for salvation, Catholics maintain that it is important to baptize infants. But nowhere in Scripture can you find even a single example or command to do so. Some Roman Catholics use Acts 16:33 as a possible example, because it states that the Philippian jailor "and his family" were baptized. But, taking this verse in context, we note two things:

(1) When the jailor asked Paul what he must do to be saved, Paul did NOT say, "Believe on Jesus and be baptized and take communion." Rather, Paul said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household" (v. 31). Thus, we see that it is faith that is the ingredient necessary for salvation. It was understood that one who believed would be baptized, but baptism was not necessary for salvation. If it were, Paul would have given it more weight in his missionary journeys (1 Corinthians 1:14-18).

(2) We see that the "family" could not have included infants or toddlers, as it states in verse 34 that the jailor had "believed in God with all his household." Infants and toddlers cannot exercise faith in God in such a fashion.

Again and again throughout Scripture, faith, not faith PLUS baptism, is seen as the means through which one receives salvation (John 1:12; 3:14-16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 3:19-26; 4; 10:9-13; etc.).

Turning to communion, the Roman Catholic Church makes it clear that they take John 6:54 literally when Jesus says, "Unless you eat of the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you." The problem is that their belief that Jesus is speaking literally here is not in keeping with the context of the passage in which Jesus repeatedly states the importance of faith in Him and His coming atoning death for their sins (see John 6:29,35,40,47 and consider the whole message of the gospel of John, as stated in John 20:31).

When one examines the remaining sacraments, one finds that the belief that they convey "sanctifying grace" is not in keeping with the context of the rest of the Bible. Yes, all Christians should be baptized, but baptism does not infuse us with grace. Yes, all Christians should partake of the Lord’s Supper, but doing so does not confer sanctifying grace. Yes, we should confess our sins, not to a priest, but rather to God (1 John 1:9). Having a formal training program and formal acceptance into the church is a good thing to do, but it does not convey saving grace. Being approved as a church leader is an honorable thing, but it does not result in grace. Marriage is a wonderful and blessed event in the life of a couple, but it is not the means of how God graces us. Praying for and with a person who is dying is a godly thing to do – but it does not add grace to our account.

All the grace we will ever need is received the moment we trust Jesus, by faith, as Savior (Ephesians 2:8-9). The saving grace that is granted at the moment of genuine faith is the only saving grace God’s Word calls on us to receive. This grace is received by faith, not by observing rituals. So, while the seven sacraments are “good things to do,” when they are understood in a biblical context, the concept of the seven sacraments as “conferring sanctifying grace” is completely unbiblical.

Intercession prayers are commonly seen throughout Scripture. We do it here, all the time when someone posts a prayer request.Revelations shows that the Saints are very aware of events taking place on earth and are praising and praying to God.
John chapter 6, shows us that the taking of communion( Lord’s Supper) isn’t a mere symbol. It’s a key element of a Christian life. “For my body is true food and my blood is true drink.”
There’s three popes mentioned in Scripture; Peter, Linus, and Clement . It’s easy to hung up on the title of “pope” , but exact title is “bishop”. The New Testament makes it clear that we are to have bishops and what their qualifications and roles are to be.
Mary’s title of “Queen” is correct . You’ll find that from the time of the Davidic line of kings, the king’s mother held that title, not the king’s wife. You’ll find that in Solomon. Jesus comes from the Davidic line of kings. It doesn’t matter that he inherited it through his adoptive father, in Ancient Jewish tradition there was no concept of a “step” child or parent.
Jesus commands us to confess our sins , he’s addressing his Disciples who had been ordained by Him. Hebrews tells us who is authorized to hear confessions and offer up prayers for the forgiveness of sins.
You’ll find in the New Testament of entire families being Baptized for the remission of sins and confessing their sins.
In Paul’s letters, he takes issue of an early church turning communion into a banquet . He reminds us that taking communion unworthily is to blaspheme the very body of Christ.

If you want to really want to go down a rabbit hole, pick up a copy of The Didache and The Complete Works of the Church Fathers. These points were considered dogmatic and irrefutable by the early Church. Long before we had 44,000 different denominations. All who disagree with each other.

Shoot, some theorists claim that the ark of the covenant was carrying a nuclear device. That’s why it could not be touched.
Claims that the Egyptians had knowledge of energy from aliens and that the pyramids were built to harness energy from the earth. Moses, being from Egyptian royalty,, knew how to build and use it.
And supposedly it was how the Israelites were so successful in defeating their enemies.
When Joshua took over as leader,,, he used the ark to cause the walls of Jericho to collapse…
I think it’s bunk…but some people believe it.

Sheepdog mentioned a few.

I was specifically thinking of the concept of Purgatory (not in the Bible) and praying to Mary. Yes, she was favored by God among all humans. but she WAS 100 percent human.

and Jesus' death and Resurrection eliminated the need to confess our sins to human priests.

Aaron, Peter was not and never will or has been anything related to a Pope, take the scripture that Catholic theology quotes and take it all the way back through English-to Hebrew-to Greek-to Latin.


Here is my evidence:

The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom Jesus chose to build His church (Matthew 16:18). According to Roman Catholicism, Peter had preeminent authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that, sometime after the events recorded of the book of Acts, the apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, a position accepted by the early church as the central authority. Roman Catholicism teaches that Peter’s apostolic authority was passed on to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. The teaching that all subsequent bishops of Rome, or popes, inherited Peter’s apostolic authority is referred to as “apostolic succession.”



The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and subsequent popes were and are infallible when speaking ex cathedra, that is, when making formal pronouncements from their position and authority as pope. This supposed infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter and cites this as evidence that it is the true church.

Of course, Peter’s ministry was crucial to the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning of Matthew 16:18–19). But Scripture nowhere declares that Peter exercised authority over the other apostles or over the church at large. See Acts 15:1–23; Galatians 2:1–14; and 1 Peter 5:1–5. Nor does Scripture hint at the idea that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church.

The Bible delineates two offices in the church: bishop/pastor/elder (the terms are interchangeable) and deacon (Acts 6:1–4; 1 Timothy 3:1–13). The elaborate hierarchy found in today’s Roman Catholic Church simply isn’t found in Scripture. There is no hint of a pope in the Bible. One reason that Peter was not the first pope is that there was no such thing as a pope. Men had not yet invented the papacy.

If Peter were the first pope, then he would have been installed as the bishop of Rome. In point of fact, there’s no explicit proof in Scripture that Peter was ever in Rome, much less the pastor there. Tradition says he died in Rome, and that could be true, but the Bible gives no clue about the place of his death. There is one reference to Peter’s writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13), but that is open to interpretation.

Scripture maintains complete silence on the matter of Peter being in Rome, even in passages where we would expect to find at least a mention. For example, Paul wrote his longest letter to the church of Rome. In his closing, Paul greets 28 individuals, plus various unspecified “brothers and sisters” and “the Lord’s people” (Romans 16:3–15). But Peter is never mentioned. Why would Paul include over two dozen personal greetings to friends in Rome and not greet Peter, especially if Peter was the bishop? Perhaps because Peter was not there.

Further, in Paul’s last letter, 2 Timothy, which he wrote from Rome about AD 67, he names ten people who had visited him in Rome. But he does not mention Peter. Why? Perhaps Peter did not visit Paul in Rome because Peter was nowhere near Rome (and not the pope).

If Peter were the first pope, we would expect to see evidence of his authority over the other apostles. But the Bible gives us no indication of such a thing—quite the opposite, in fact. Paul publicly opposed Peter in Antioch over Peter’s hypocrisy concerning matters of the law (Galatians 2:11–14). The confrontation shows that Paul carried just as much authority as Peter did. Peter seems to have complemented the ministry of Paul: one was sent to the Jews, and one to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:7–8). It seems that all church leaders had equal authority. Peter gave testimony at the Jerusalem Council, but James was the leader at that meeting (see Acts 15).

In writing to Corinth, Paul addresses some internecine quarreling: “One of you says, ‘I follow Paul’; another, ‘I follow Apollos’; another, ‘I follow Cephas [Peter]’” (1 Corinthians 1:12). Paul mentions three prominent preachers, and he makes the point that none of them are worthy of special honor. The Christian life is not about following Paul or Apollos—or Peter.

If Peter were the first pope, he would most likely have mentioned the fact that he was the Vicar of Christ or at least the bishop of Rome, but he never does. His self-description is simply “an apostle of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 1:1) and “a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:1).

If Peter were the first pope, he would surely have understood the difference between the priesthood and the laity. But, according to his own teaching, all believers comprise the priesthood under the New Covenant. Peter wrote to Christians that they were “like living stones . . . being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:5). A few verses later, he writes, “You are a chosen people, a royal priesthood” (1 Peter 2:9). Peter would have wholeheartedly agreed with the Protestant doctrine of the priesthood of all believers.

Was Peter the first pope? The answer is “no.” Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles, and the New Testament does not demonstrate that he held primacy. Nowhere in Peter’s writings does he claim any special role, authority, or power over the body of Christ. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter or any other apostle state that his apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the apostle Peter was often the spokesman for the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts 1—10). However, these truths in no way support the idea that Peter was the first pope, that he was a “father” to all believers, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter was not a pontiff, but he does point us to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).

You mention the Didache. It was rejected from the OT as it was written anonymously, not written by any of the apostles and conflicts with established bible teachings like baptism, fasting, and prophetic teachings.

When it comes to baptism, there is no where in the bible where it specifically mentions the baptism of babies. I know there are churches other than the Catholic church that baptizes babies. I have no problem with that as it doesn't hurt anthing, but I do have a problem with any church that claims you need to be baptized to be saved. There are passages in the bible where it says, they believed and were baptized. That's not possible with a baby. I had a friend who was a Catholic priest. I asked him if he thought a fair god would send a child who was too young to reach the age of reason to eternal damnation because that child wasn't baptized? He admitted he had a problem with that as well. Growing up as a Catholic, we were told if a baby wasn't baptized, they went to a place called Limbo, where ever that is.

There is no doubt that Mary was blessed among all women because she was chosen to be the mother of Jesus. I don't agree with the wording in the Hail Mary prayer calling her the mother of God, though. It's puzzling that she is rarely ever mentioned after the crucifixion of Jesus in the bible.

Then why did Jesus command us to , "...confess your sins to one another." ?

While purgatory isn't mentioned by name ,there's some references . Most importantly is when Jesus speaking about the sin of blasphemy , "...will not be forgiven in this or the age to come." That certainly implies something to pay attention to.
There's another parable where the master of the house is going to be gone and leaves his head servant in charge. One faithful servant continued on with his duties while the head servant is getting drunk on the master's wine and berating the others, a lesser servant who wasn't sure what to do kind of joins in , but it's kind of under duress.

When the master returns,he sees how his head servant had been behaving. He drew his sword and cast him out , the lesser servant still took a beating but he wasn't cast out, and the other was greeted , "...good and faithful servant ."

Paul has referred to it.

Again, Revelations teaches us the saints are very aware and they pray for us. So why not ask them to pray for us with a specific request ? Solomon shows the influence the Queen Mother had. The wedding at Cana shows us how much influence Mary has.

James 5:16 "The prayers of a righteous man availeth much."

And to reiterate, all of these points were indisputable for much Christianity's history. Even Luther , Calvin, and Zwengli considered veneration of Mary to be a part of the Christian faith .

As far as Peter not being mentioned in the Bible with respect to him being present in Rome, the early Christian writers disagree with you on his presence . Ignatius ( a disciple of John) wrote about it. Eusebius and Origen both write that after setting up a church in Antioch , he proceeded onto Rome. Turtullian wrote about Cephas being present in Rome. Some of these write about a Simon Magnus who was supposed to preaching and performing miracles in God's name. Particularly, Justin Martyr records this. . Instead, the Romans were treating him as a god,so, that was one the the reasons Peter went to Rome. To confront Simon Magnus

Sheepdog,
I think I'll stick with Christ alone. The RC church sure has added a lot of hoops to jump through. Much too convoluted. Jesus did not make it nearly so complicated as the Catholic church has made it.

can you point to Scripture in the Bible where it says that only Catholics can take Communion?

Aaron, the blasphemy of the holy spirit is to deny Jesus Christ, the true problem with what you are saying and believe is that the Catholic Church and Pope and everything attached to it defies all scripture in that it is a works based salvation and not a salvation based on Jesus Christ alone, through grace alone, by faith alone. Confess you sins to one another, now let me put this in context for you as what you have done is what many have done in the current times, taken a few words out of a set of scriptures to prove a point that is wholy out of context:

The concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. First, the New Testament does not teach that there are to be priests in the New Covenant. Instead, the New Testament teaches that all believers are priests. First Peter 2:5-9 describes believers as a “holy priesthood” and a “royal priesthood.” Revelation 1:6 and 5:10 both describe believers as “a kingdom of priests.” In the Old Covenant, the faithful had to approach God through the priests. The priests were mediators between the people and God. The priests offered sacrifices to God on behalf of the people. That is no longer necessary. Because of Jesus’ sacrifice, we can now approach God’s throne with boldness (Hebrews 4:16). The temple veil tearing in two at Jesus’ death was symbolic of the dividing wall between God and humanity being destroyed. We can approach God directly, ourselves, without the use of a human mediator. Why? Because Jesus Christ is our great High Priest (Hebrews 4:14-15; 10:21) and the only mediator between us and God (1 Timothy 2:5). The New Testament teaches that there are to be elders (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:6-9), deacons (1 Timothy 3:8-13), and pastors (Ephesians 4:11) – but not priests.

When it comes to confession of sin, believers are told in 1 John 1:9 to confess their sins to God. God is faithful and just to forgive our sins as we confess them to Him. James 5:16 speaks of confessing our trespasses “to one another,” but this is not the same as confessing sins to a priest as the Roman Catholic Church teaches. Priests / church leaders are nowhere mentioned in the context of James 5:16. Further, James 5:16 does not link forgiveness of sins with the confession of sins “to one another.”

The Roman Catholic Church bases their practice of confession to a priest primarily on Catholic tradition. Catholics do point to John 20:23, “If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” From this verse, Catholics claim that God gave the apostles the authority to forgive sins and that authority was passed on to the successors of the apostles, i.e., the bishops and priests of the Roman Catholic Church. There are several problems with this interpretation. (1) John 20:23 nowhere mentions confession of sin. (2) John 20:23 nowhere promises or even hints that apostolic authority of any kind would be passed on to the successors of the apostles. (3) The apostles never once in the New Testament acted as if they had the authority to forgive a person’s sin. Similarly, Catholics point to Matthew 16:19 and 18:18 (binding and loosing) as evidence for the Catholic Church’s authority to forgive sins. The same three above points apply equally to these Scriptures.

The ability to forgive sins is God’s and His alone (Isaiah 43:25). The better understanding of John 20:23 is that the apostles were given the responsibility of declaring with utmost certainty the terms on which God would forgive sins. As the church was being founded, the apostles declared that those who believed the gospel were forgiven (Acts 16:31) and those who did not obey the gospel faced judgment (2 Thessalonians 1:8; 1 Peter 4:17). As the apostles proclaimed salvation in Christ (Acts 10:43) and exercised church discipline (1 Corinthians 5:4–5), they were wielding the authority Christ had given them.

Again, the concept of confession of sin to a priest is nowhere taught in Scripture. We are to confess our sins to God (1 John 1:9). As New Covenant believers, we do not need mediators between us and God. We can go to God directly because of Jesus’ sacrifice for us. First Timothy 2:5 says, “For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.”

Mary took the place of Odin's wife Frigg, when Europe was forced to accept Christianity. The sign of the cross was originally the Father, Son, Mother, Daughter. The European and related Asian religions were all forms of ancestor worship. December 25th was the day associated with Odin travelling the world on his 8 legged horse Sleipnir. Children left food out for Sleipnir and were rewarded with presents on December 25th from Odin. Modern Christianity has many of the Norse traditions and holidays. Many gods and goddesses, such as Brigid, were made saints. There does not appear to be a single significant, original idea in Christianity. Many older gods died for peoples' sins, were dead for 3, or multiples of 3 days and came back to life.

Keith

Who gets the treasures we laid up in Heaven in our youth should we pass as a backslider in our latter years?

Nope as the various Orthodox Christians also believe in the true presence, as well.

not very inclusive, is it?

Historically , that's an inaccurate statement. The Church didn't add anything , the Protestant Reformation removed .

Now we have at least 44,000 ( some estimates put that number to 100,000) different denominations saying their interpretation is correct. Talk about convoluted. I can drive through Lawton, OK. and drive by a half dozen churches within a mile of each other, each one will have a different teaching.

The only thing they have in common is disdain for the Universal Church.

Why would someone want to partake if they don't believe in what's being presented ?

this is simply not true...and proven by your own statements.

Judeo-Christian doctrine proclaims there is only one True Triune God.

and THAT, was truly revolutionary!

those others? Ancestor worshippers. Multi-theists. Druids. Earth worshippers.

You said so yourself.

early Christians may have used existing pagan holidays to make the transition easier for converts, but there IS a difference in religions...and you have noted it.

I'm not Catholic and have taken Communion MANY times.

Say what? Where do I start.

There is one thing that the Roman Catholic church has in common with the Charismatics, Mormons, and some others that causes them to go off-track. That one thing in common is the belief in continuing apostolic succession and to some degree continuing revelation. That can really cloud things up.