Archive for April, 2015

Catholic Church Authority Versus Their Change On The Frequency Of The Lord’s Supper

April 24, 2015

In “The Faith of Our Fathers” Catholic Cardinal Gibbons wrote: “If only one instance could be given in which the Church ceased to teach a doctrine of faith which had been previously held, that single instance would be the death blow of her claim to infallibility” (p.74).

Here is what Acts 20:7a says about the frequency with which we should take communion: And upon the first day of the week, when the disciples came together to break bread, Paul preached unto them.”

Notice the Catholics admit they have changed on this issue: In the beginning Mass was celebrated only once a week, then three or four times, and finally, in the fifth or sixth century, every day. (Legislation on the Sacraments in the New Code of Canon Law, p.87, Ayrinhac)

Remember, according to Cardinal Gibbons, change is the “death blow … to infallibility.”

Catholic Church Authority Versus Their Change On The Elements Of The Lord’s Supper

April 17, 2015

In its beginning, the Catholic Church taught Lord’s Supper communicants should partake of the bread and fruit of the vine. This came to be called “communion under both kinds.”

That agrees with passages like I Corinthians 11:26,28 which reads “For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come. … But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.”

Notice that Catholics admit this was their original practice:

· Communion under both kinds was the prevailing usage in Apostolic Times. (Catholic Encyclopedia, IV, p.176)

· Popes Leo and Gelasius emphatically condemned persons who abstained from the chalice. (Catholic Dictionary, p.202)

But then there was an about face made at the Council of Constance, Session 14, on 6-15-1415: Condemnation of communion under both kinds … no priest, under pain of excommunication, may communicate the people under the forms of both bread and wine (

Now I’ve been told the Catholic Church has changed again, and currently allows the laity to drink the fruit of the vine.

How can the Catholic Church be a religious authority on level with Scripture, when they make changes in their teaching and practice? A changing standard is no standard at all!

Catholic Church Authority Versus Their Change On The Mode Of Baptism

April 10, 2015

Romans 6:4a reads “Therefore we are buried with him by baptism.” We all know what “buried” means, so that should tell us about how a person should be baptized – by sprinkling or immersion.

And notice the meaning of the Greek word “baptizo”:

· to immerge, submerge (Thayer)

· to immerse (Wigram-Green)

Now read how Catholics admit they changed the mode of baptism from immersion to pouring:

· Baptism used to be given by placing the person to be baptized completely in the water: it was done in this way in the Catholic Church for 1200 years. (Adult Catechism, pg.56-57)

· The church at one time practiced immersion. This was up to the thirteenth century. The Council of Ravenna, in 1311, changed the form from immersion to pouring. (Our Faith and the Facts, p.399)

· Baptism took place by immersion in ancient times. (New Interpretation of the Mass, p.120, Borgmann)

Furthermore, the Catholic Church admits about itself: … if it be not identical in belief, in government etc., with the primitive Church, then it is not the Church of Christ (Catholic Facts, p.27, Noll). So the Catholic Church admits they are not identical with the primitive church, and therefore not the church of Christ.

Conclusion: How can the Catholic Church be authoritative, if its teaching changes?

Since Women Prophesied, Does That Mean They Can Preach From The Pulpit?

April 3, 2015

Perhaps the number one argument made for “women preachers” today are the instances of women prophesying in the New Testament. We see examples of such in I Cor 11:5, Acts 2:17, and Acts 21:9, just to name a few.

But none of these verses say women prophesied or taught in the church assembly. Faithful Christians don’t oppose women teaching the gospel as long as they do it outside of the church assembly (I Cor 14:34-35), and as long as they don’t teach over a man (I Tim 2:11-12).

Regarding the women preachers issue, all Bible verses can be classified in one of three ways – either they don’t mention the church assembly, or they don’t mention a woman teaching, or they mention neither. There is no verse which mentions both, that is, a woman teaching in the church. I Cor 11:5, Acts 2:17, and Acts 21:9 all fall into the first category – they don’t mention the church assembly.

Let’s read that passage again that forbids women from teaching in the church assembly – “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church” (I Cor 14:34-35).  Could anything be stated more clearly than that?