Please help refute this....Sola scripture vs Roman Catholicism

[rinnie]

Rinnie,
I hope highrigger1 absorbed some truth before he bit the dust. Lifting up prayers for him.

Peace and blessings,
Anna

Yes Anna that is the greatest thing we can do for him. We can never quit loving our brothers and sisters no matter what faith they are, and never quit praying for them.

An old episode on EWTN with Mother Angelica talked about this same thing today. Did you know that when we pray for others, especially others that hurt us, or disagree with us, or hate us, that this is how we begin to become Holy. Pretty neat huh!

 

[Luvtosew]

Well he was certaintly a very nice and polite person, and just looking for truth. I’m sorry but I did feel he did get some not so nice replies, and since he was new here I do wish he could of hung out longer .He seemed so nice .Yes I watched Mother Angelica today, she is a hoot, in a good way.

 

[Gregorian_Apolo]

Here click on these links they will help.

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/WhoreOfBabyl.html

catholicapologetics.info/apologetics/protestantism/rock.htm

 

[stewstew03]

Well he was certaintly a very nice and polite person, and just looking for truth. I’m sorry but I did feel he did get some not so nice replies, and since he was new here I do wish he could of hung out longer .He seemed so nice .Yes I watched Mother Angelica today, she is a hoot, in a good way.

Actually, it’s pretty clear that he had already found truth - he certainly wasn’t looking for truth on CAF - more likely, he was making an attempt to “educate” us ignorant Catholics.

 

[Luvtosew]

Actually, it’s pretty clear that he had already found truth - he certainly wasn’t looking for truth on CAF - more likely, he was making an attempt to “educate” us ignorant Catholics.

Oh I see.

 

[stewstew03]

Oh I see.

BUT, don’t misunderstand me - I actually appreciated the dialogue, brief though it was…

 

[Patavium]

Actually, it’s pretty clear that he had already found truth - he certainly wasn’t looking for truth on CAF - more likely, he was making an attempt to “educate” us ignorant Catholics.

I think our friend hillrigger1 was simply confused. He was watching at his arguments fall to pieces while he accepted our arguments, and thus it was difficult for him to reconcile. If you read his posts towards the end the inconsistencies just continued to grow. He started living in a World where the Church is the authority on all dilemmas, the bible comes from the Church, there is apostolic succession, oral traditions is passed from generation to generation… however, the Church must answer solely to the bible, there is little to no difference in the preaching of the teachings of scripture across protestant churches, protestant pastors have a lineage traced back to the apostles themselves, and so on… Ridiculous contradictions.

God bless hillrigger1, and that he may find his way.

 

[Luvtosew]

BUT, don’t misunderstand me - I actually appreciated the dialogue, brief though it was…

Well its always good to communicate with other Christians, he was a Methodist I think, and with different views of course, but as a RC I even have different views than many here, so I’m open. I do hope he didn’t go away upset or made at RC’s, but he didn’t seem that type.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Yes Anna that is the greatest thing we can do for him. We can never quit loving our brothers and sisters no matter what faith they are, and never quit praying for them.

An old episode on EWTN with Mother Angelica talked about this same thing today. Did you know that when we pray for others, especially others that hurt us, or disagree with us, or hate us, that this is how we begin to become Holy. Pretty neat huh!

Hi rinnie,
Very nice comment.

I’ve watched Mother Angelica before; but I don’t get EWTN in my cable TV package, and I only have dial-up Internet, so I miss things.

Anna

 

[Phineas]

I am sorry to not have answered objections to my earlier posts until now, but I have been involved in other projects and have not had the time.

Sola scriptura is just a concise way of saying that that all doctrine should be compared with the inspired written word of God delivered to us by his servants the prophets and the apostles, and now compiled in what we call the Bible. The inspired word of the scriptures is to be considered the standard of all doctrine and the basis of all reforms.

God does not lie, nor does He change, ( Tit. 1:2 & Mal 3:6), and any doctrine or tradition that contradicts the scriptures is to be rejected as spurious. This does not mean that no new doctrine or tradition can ever be introduced into the church, but rather that only such doctrine and tradition that can be shown to not violate or contradict scripture but rather edify and strengthen God’s people can be acceptable.

The opinions of pastors or priests, the writings or statements of highly educated men, pronouncements from the scientific community, edicts from councils, or the practices and traditions of the majority are not be regarded as evidence for or against religious doctrine. Before accepting any new doctrine we are to act like the noble Bereans (Acts 17:11) and search the scriptures to see “if these things were so”.

Now if the inspired word of God makes a point of praising the inhabitants of Berea for using sola scriptura before accepting any new doctrine, than why in the world would any Christian ridicule such a noble practice?

As to the question of what scriptures the Bereans used to check Paul’s Doctrine, it would seem obvious that they used either the Septuagint (Greek translation of Hebrew OT or the Masoretic Text (MT is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible.), or both.

It is stated that Jesus quoted from 24 different Old Testament books. The New Testament as a whole quotes from 34 of the Old Testament Books.

The Septuagint includes the Apocryphal books:
Book of Tobias
Book of Judith
Book of Wisdom
Ecclesiasticus
Prophecy of Baruch
First Book of Machabees
Second Book of Machabees

The Hebrew Masoretic OT does not contain the Apocryphal books and no New Testament writer ever referenced or quoted from an Apocryphal book.

 

[Hamlet123]

God does not lie, nor does He change, ( Tit. 1:2 & Mal 3:6), and any doctrine or tradition that contradicts the scriptures is to be rejected as spurious. This does not mean that no new doctrine or tradition can ever be introduced into the church, but rather that only such doctrine and tradition that can be shown to not violate or contradict scripture but rather edify and strengthen God’s people can be acceptable.

Catholic teaching instructs us that there is not and will be no new revelation after the death of the last apostle; except, personal revelation.

 

[Phineas]

i want to make a correction to my last post.

i stated that the Bereans’ used either the Septuagint (Greek translation of Hebrew OT or the Masoretic Text (MT is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible.). I should have said the Jewish canon rather than the masoretic text.

As for the Catholic church not recognizing any new doctrine after the apostolic age:

What about;
Doctrinal Changes

1. Virgin birth of Mary, her sinless life, her assumption and now a co-redeemer or at least an advocate to be prayed to
   2 Removal of the 2nd commandment
   3, Changing the Sabbath from the 7th day to the first day
2. Splitting the tenth commandment into two separate commandments
   **
   Traditional changes**
   Addressing priests as father
   Praying to Biblical personages who are deceased

 

[kwortham]

The inspired word of the scriptures is to be considered the standard of all doctrine and the basis of all reforms.

If so, then there would be a verse to back this claim up. Tell us the verse that says that scripture is the pillar and ground of truth. To the contrary, even scripture bows down to the authority of the Church.

15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Where does scripture give itself this title??? Do not go trying to stick the words “only” and “sufficient” into the verse of 2 Timothy 3:16. The words “only” and “sufficient” are not found in that verse. Go ahead and give the verse where the Bible claims to be the only authority in all things christian. You cannot do it, because it doesn’t exist.

God does not lie, nor does He change, ( Tit. 1:2 & Mal 3:6), and any doctrine or tradition that contradicts the scriptures is to be rejected as spurious.

Provide a scriptural quote for this assertion. Since the Catholic Church gave the world the Bible, then any thing that contradicts the Bible would contradict the Catholic Church, the real pillar and ground of truth.

The opinions of pastors or priests, the writings or statements of highly educated men, pronouncements from the scientific community, edicts from councils, or the practices and traditions of the majority are not be regarded as evidence for or against religious doctrine.

You have a hard time following sola scriptura, for example, where it says that The Church is the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. If the Catholic Church defines a doctrine and says that one must believe it, then we must believe it. Of course, in cases such of this, scripture has never contradicted the supreme authority of the Church.

The Hebrew Masoretic OT does not contain the Apocryphal books and no New Testament writer ever referenced or quoted from an Apocryphal book.

You were saying about the deuterocanonical books?

Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias; that he may turn the hearts of the fathers unto the children, and the incredulous to the wisdom of the just, to prepare unto the Lord a perfect people.

Sirach 48:10 Who art registered in the judgments of times to appease the wrath of the Lord, to reconcile the heart of the father to the son, and to restore the tribes of Jacob.

So you are saying that the Hebrew canon from the people that rejected Christ and created this canon many years after His death should trump the Church, the pillar and ground of truth? Why stop with Judaism? Why not let the Islamists, Hindus, and Buddhists whittle down your protestant bible some more?

Finally, show us one historical canon listing of the books as they stand in the protestant bible today before the 16th century. You cannot do it, because the abridged protestant bible has no basis in history. There is no listing from 1600 years of history that matches your canon.

 

[Gara3987]

Hello there, I am new to these forums but I am struggling between my faith and that of scripture alone. I keep going back and forth, it’s torturous! Anyways I came upon this, so could you refute it, please? It talks about how the church wasn’t built on Peter also he has other thread talking of how Catholics were pagans turned Christians and that’s where we get most of the rituals.

prorege-forum.com/forum_entry.php?id=11558

First off, the problem with Sola Scriptura, they would be completely bound to the Old Testament. For example 2Timothy 3:16-17

[16] All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, [17] That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

There was no New Testament, thus Paul is referring to the OT. Also, make note that nowhere does it say Scripture Alone.

In the Greek, we would read it as, Thou art Petros (meaning a stone) and upon this Petra (meaning a massive rock, referring to Peter’s confession of Christ being the Son of the Living God) I will build my church, meaning not on a stone but upon a massive rock; and Scripture tells us that Christ was a Rock.

Here is this person’s flaw. The Bible use Koine Greek. In Koine Greek Petros was never used as it was not a word. Petra was the only word, but it is a feminine word so they changed the suffix of Petra and made it masculine by using “os” (ος) instead of “a” (α). Kind of like Latin, all words that end in “a” or “æ” are feminine with the exception of Profession. While “r” & “us” are usually Masculine, and “um” is neuter.

Though even with that knowledge, Christ used the Aramaic-Syriac word cephah (ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ), as the Greek transliteration of this word (Κηφᾶς) is used in John i. 42. This information alone would render the whole debate redundant, though there are still those who still try to prove that these words have different meanings.

                           However the real and perfect translation of “Keefo” (ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ) is Stone. The exact translation of Rock is “Shuho” (ܫܽܘܥܳܐ). At the same time, if you search in the Aramaic for the deeper meaning of “Shuho” it gives you again the word “Keefo.” There is no real difference between them. In the old Aramaic version of the gospel readings you see that the word Keefo is used with the meaning of Shuho. (Cƒ. Antiochian Syriac Liturgy)

So in Joan i. 42 “And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter” Christ here literally changed Simon’s name to Rock (Peter). What is most fascinating, Jesus, our Lord and our God, is the Rock (cf. II Reg. xxii. 2-3)…that is why His changing Simon’s name to “Rock” is so significant.

Christ, being the Architect, established His Church, choosing Peter as the foundation stone. The Apostles were told to propagate the Church Christ had established, and of course according to the constitution given it by Himself. Wherever Peter went he remained Head of that Church, and as he went to Rome and died there whilst still exercising his office, that office is necessarily attached to the See of Rome. This was not by mere accident! We have to admit the guidance of the Holy Ghost in the choice made by St Peter in a matter of such moment to the Church. He [Peter] is both “a” and “the” foundation of the Church, for he is one of the foundations, and the chief of them, upon which Christ built His Church.

When looking at Ephesians ii. 19-20 The verses are:
“Now then you are not strangers and foreigners: but you are citizens of the saints, and the domesticals of God, built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, JESUS Christ himself being the highest corner stone.” “Corner stone” is, of course, a different metaphor from “foundation stone.” Christ is at once the Architect i.e., the Builder., of the Church and the “corner stone” holding it together. But He built it upon the Apostles and Prophets as foundation stones, Peter being the “foundation rock” upon which Christ based the whole of His building. That is the sense of the words, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.” And such is the only interpretation sound scholarship will permit.

So the actual translation of Matth. xvi. 18:

ܐܳܦ݂ ܐܶܢܳܐ ܐܳܡܰܪ ܐ݈ܢܳܐ ܠܳܟ݂ ܕ݁ܰܐܢ݈ܬ݁ ܗ݈ܽܘ ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܘܥܰܠ ܗܳܕ݂ܶܐ ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ ܐܶܒ݂ܢܶܝܗ ܠܥܺܕ݈݁ܬ݁ܝ ܘܬ݂ܰܪܥܶܐ ܕ݁ܰܫܝܽܘܠ ܠܳܐ ܢܶܚܣܢܽܘܢܳܗ܂

“And I say to thee: That thou art a rock; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of sheol shall not prevail against it.”

(I did a great deal of research on this one!)

I hope this helps.

Oremus pro Invicem

 

[kwortham]

i want to make a correction to my last post.

i stated that the Bereans’ used either the Septuagint (Greek translation of Hebrew OT or the Masoretic Text (MT is the authoritative Hebrew text of the Jewish Bible.). I should have said the Jewish canon rather than the masoretic text.

As for the Catholic church not recognizing any new doctrine after the apostolic age:

What about;
Doctrinal Changes

1. Virgin birth of Mary, her sinless life, her assumption and now a co-redeemer or at least an advocate to be prayed to
   2 Removal of the 2nd commandment
   3, Changing the Sabbath from the 7th day to the first day
2. Splitting the tenth commandment into two separate commandments
   **
   Traditional changes**
   Addressing priests as father
   Praying to Biblical personages who are deceased

Perhaps you should open up threads on these in individual topics. For example, you could ask about members of the pillar and ground of truth asking saints to pray for us to God.

Rev 5:8 And when he had opened the book, the four living creatures, and the four and twenty ancients fell down before the Lamb, having every one of them harps, and golden vials full of odours, which are the prayers of saints:

 

[packermann]

What about;
Doctrinal Changes

1. Virgin birth of Mary,

The Catholic Church never taught the virgin birth of Mary. I think you have it confused with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But this shows how people criticize the Church without even understanding it.

her sinless life,

In Luke, Gabriel referred to Mary as “full of grace”. It depends on your definition of grace. Protestants define it as underserved favor. Catholic defines grace as the power of God infused into our hearts. Taking the Catholic definition of grace, Gabriel is say that May is FULL of the power God. If she is full of the power of God, then she has complete victory over sin.

her assumption

Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; nor wilt then give thy holy one to see corruptionPsalm 15:10

Since Mary was sinless (see above), it would be the case that God would not allow her body to suffer corruption. Mary was not the only created human being assumed into heaven. The same thing happened to Enoch and Elijah. If God assumed Enoch and Elijah into heaven, why not Mary?

Granted, this verse does not explicitly teach this. But the Catholic Church never said it had to be explicitly taught. The New Testament itself would take an implicit teaching in the OT and make a doctrine of it.

and now a co-redeemer

In Luke 1:37, Gabriel says to Mary “Nothing is impossible with God”. This is a very bad translation. He is a literal translation with the Greek:

OTI {FOR} OUK{NOT} ADUNATESTHEI {SHALL BE IMPOSSIBLE} PARA TOI {WITH} THEO {GOD} PAN ANY (EVERY)} REMA {WORD}

The problem is the last word (REMA). It means word. It is not the word LOGOS, which is what is used for God’s Word (see John 1:1). Rather, this term is more personal. Tim Staples would translate it “Nothing is impossible with God as long as you give the word”. Gabriel came to not just announce to Mary that she would become the mother of Christ, but to ask her permission. God is a true gentleman. He honors our free will. And He honors Mary’s free will as well as well.

If Mary said “No”, just as Eve had said “No” to God, that would have the last straw, I believe. That would have left us to be forever condemned. But instead, Mary said “be it done to me according to thy word.” Then the angel departed. He received her response. The incarnation started at that time, when Mary gave her “yes” to God.

Her “yes” to God was not easy at that time. Back then, they would stone women for adultery. Joseph may not have believed her. Her parent may have completely disowned her. It was a huge step of faith. But if she had said “no”, there would have been no Savior.

“or at least an advocate to be prayed to”

The Bible commands us to pray for each other. It never told us that he can stop praying once we die. When we “pray” to a saint, we are just asking that saint for a favor. The word in Greek meant “to ask for”. In the Middle Ages, it was very common to use it that way (I pray thee, please pass the salt). Even the Bible, we see Abraham praying to Sarah (Gen 12:13), Abraham praying to Lot (Gen 13:8), Moses praying to Jethro (Exodus 14:18), etc. Of course, in none of these case does it mean that they a treating the other as God, it merely means asking for a favor.

2 Removal of the 2nd commandment

Not really. The command is this:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exodus 20:5

This passage is not against graven images per se. It is against graven images as an object of worship. If is was against graven images, period, then God Himself would have violated this command.He commanded to build graven images of cheribum and seraphim (angels) around the ark of the covenant .

3, Changing the Sabbath from the 7th day to the first day

The last time I checked, almost all of Protestantism followed the Catholic Church on this.

1. Splitting the tenth commandment into two separate commandments

The commandments are not numbered in the original text. So any numbering scheme of the Commandments is based on some human invention.

Addressing priests as father

Paul said to his disciples that he was their father in the gospel (1 Cor 4:15)

Praying to Biblical personages who are deceased

God is not the God of the dead, but the living (Mark 12:27).

 

[Hamlet123]

The Catholic Church never taught the virgin birth of Mary. I think you have it confused with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. But this shows how people criticize the Church without even understanding it.

In Luke, Gabriel referred to Mary as “full of grace”. It depends on your definition of grace. Protestants define it as underserved favor. Catholic defines grace as the power of God infused into our hearts. Taking the Catholic definition of grace, Gabriel is say that May is FULL of the power God. If she is full of the power of God, then she has complete victory over sin.

Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell; nor wilt then give thy holy one to see corruption
Psalm 15:10
Since Mary was sinless (see above), it would be the case that God would not allow her body to suffer corruption. Mary was not the only created human being assumed into heaven. The same thing happened to Enoch and Elijah. If God assumed Enoch and Elijah into heaven, why not Mary?
Granted, this verse does not explicitly teach this. But the Catholic Church never said it had to be explicitly taught. The New Testament itself would take an implicit teaching in the OT and make a doctrine of it.

In Luke 1:37, Gabriel says to Mary “Nothing is impossible with God”. This is a very bad translation. He is a literal translation with the Greek:

OTI {FOR} OUK{NOT} ADUNATESTHEI {SHALL BE IMPOSSIBLE} PARA TOI {WITH} THEO {GOD} PAN ANY (EVERY)} REMA {WORD}

The problem is the last word (REMA). It means word. It is not the word LOGOS, which is what is used for God’s Word (see John 1:1). Rather, this term is more personal. Tim Staples would translate it “Nothing is impossible with God as long as you give the word”. Gabriel came to not just announce to Mary that she would become the mother of Christ, but to ask her permission. God is a true gentleman. He honors our free will. And He honors Mary’s free will as well as well.

If Mary said “No”, just as Eve had said “No” to God, that would have the last straw, I believe. That would have left us to be forever condemned. But instead, Mary said “be it done to me according to thy word.” Then the angel departed. He received her response. The incarnation started at that time, when Mary gave her “yes” to God.

Her “yes” to God was not easy at that time. Back then, they would stone women for adultery. Joseph may not have believed her. Her parent may have completely disowned her. It was a huge step of faith. But if she had said “no”, there would have been no Savior.

The Bible commands us to pray for each other. It never told us that he can stop praying once we die. When we “pray” to a saint, we are just asking that saint for a favor. The word in Greek meant “to ask for”. In the Middle Ages, it was very common to use it that way (I pray thee, please pass the salt). Even the Bible, we see Abraham praying to Sarah (Gen 12:13), Abraham praying to Lot (Gen 13:8), Moses praying to Jethro (Exodus 14:18), etc. Of course, in none of these case does it mean that they a treating the other as God, it merely means asking for a favor.

Not really. The command is this:

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
Exodus 20:5

This passage is not against graven images per se. It is against graven images as an object of worship. If is was against graven images, period, then God Himself would have violated this command.He commanded to build graven images of cheribum and seraphim (angels) around the ark of the covenant .

The last time I checked, almost all of Protestantism followed the Catholic Church on this.

The commandments are not numbered in the original text. So any numbering scheme of the Commandments is based on some human invention.

Paul said to his disciples that he was their father in the gospel (1 Cor 4:15)

God is not the God of the dead, but the living (Mark 12:27).

Excellent:thumbsup:

 

[JonNC]

=Phineas;9343537]
As for the Catholic church not recognizing any new doctrine after the apostolic age:

Just a couple of comments from a Lutheran perspective.

What about;
Doctrinal Changes

1. Virgin birth of Mary, her sinless life, her assumption and now a co-redeemer or at least an advocate to be prayed to

No one teaches that Mary was born of a virgin. Luther believed in her assumption, though not as an article of faith.
To my knowledge, co-reredemtrix is not a Catholic dogma.
Asking the intercesson of the Blessed Virgin is also practiced in Orthodoxy. To say this is a doctrinal change by Catholics is less than accurate.

2 Removal of the 2nd commandment
4. Splitting the tenth commandment into two separate commandments

Lutherans number the 10 Commandments in the same way. There is no specific numbering in scripture, nor is it an elimination of thr prohibition of graven images. Iconoclasm was rejected by the early Church.

**
Traditional changes**
Addressing priests as father

This does not violate scripture.

Praying to Biblical personages who are deceased

While Lutherans don’t practice intercession of the saints, we do recognize that they do, indeed, pray for the Church. And again, Orthodoxy and some Anglicans also invoke the saints in Heaven for intercession. This is not prayer in the same sense as praying to God.

3, Changing the Sabbath from the 7th day to the first day

As the early Church often met on the Lord’s day - in scripture - it is hard to say that, somehow, this is a change in Tradition.

Jon

 

[Phineas]

I never said that the Bible is the only source of truth. I said it was the basis for all truth and reform. It is the great truth detector in regard to religious doctrine .

If a doctrine or tradition contradicts the inspired word of God as found in the Bible, then it is false, bogus, untrue. We know that because the inspired word has said that God does not change, (Mal 3:6) He does not lie (Titus 1:2) His word is truth (John 17:17) All his commandments are sure and they stand fast forever (Psm 111:7-8) We also are told by Jesus that the scriptures cannot be broken (Matt 26:54,56 & John 10:35)

God has preserved his precious word in the scriptures handed down to us from our fathers and this should be of great comfort to us, for we have a standard by which we can compare and separate the false from the true. But instead of embracing this truth detector, many on this site are arguing against it,
and appear to prefer putting their faith in the hands of fallible men rather than in the plain truths of God’s word.

We must be careful that we do not repeat the errors of the Jewish nation of old who in vain worshiped God “by teaching [for] doctrines the commandments of men”. (Matt 15:9)

We have been warned that in these last days "every wind of doctrine " will be blowing and Satan will be trying to "deceive even the very elect’ of God. We have also been warned that the road to eternal life is narrow and few there are who follow it. But we know that by studying the Scriptures we can be made “wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.” (2 Tim 3:15)

When fallen men say the Sabbath is Sunday, Sunday is the Lord’s day, Mary is of a virgin birth and sinless, and that we can be blessed by praying to someone other than God the father through Jesus Christ, then we should stand tall as noble Christians and search the scriptures to see if these things are so, for
It is our duty to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God.

We live to please God and Him and His Son only do we worship, bow down to, call Father/ Lord, and obey in religious matters.

Acts 5:29 Then Peter and the [other] apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

 

[hawkeye125646]

A great and wonderful site to look at is www.scripturecatholic.com It covers EVERY question you have as to WHERE in the BIBLE does it say that? It covers a lot of questions people have, in regards to Catholic teaching! May God bless you!