NO CATHOLIC SACRAMENTS IN BIBLE

Orthodox Christians claim that Jesus told his Church to baptise in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and to say over bread and wine, “This is my body. This is my blood.” The Salvation Army and the Quakers do not practice these rites of water baptism and the Eucharist. They do not believe in these sacraments.

Catholics have seven sacraments altogether including those.

Who is right?

The sacrament of baptism is the most important to Catholics in the sense that you can’t get communion or the power to celebrate mass unless you are baptised. Incredibly the Church teaches that God gives you a healthy helping of the graces pertaining to baptism but you don’t get the full potential until confirmation. That is the same as God giving you 75% goodness at baptism and the other 25% isn’t given until confirmation. It is pure evil. It is impossible to imagine a Jesus who was so hostile to religious authority creating such controlling sacraments.

The New Testament speaks of two kinds of baptism. Water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit, baptised with him long before Christian baptism was thought of (Luke 1:41). Jesus did practice water baptism according to John but that does not mean he wanted his Church to do the same. While the New Testament commands baptism it does not command water baptism. It is unlikely that it means water baptism for it is simpler to assume that it means Baptism in the Holy Spirit.
 
The New Testament says that Christians practiced water baptism but it does not say that all are to do the same. It may have been something non-essential like the anointing of heads with ashes in Catholic Churches on Ash Wednesday, the first day of Lent. It is optional. It is heresy to make it a law to receive water baptism. It is adding to what God has said.

Paul said that when you are baptised you undergo the death of Jesus when you go under the water. You undergo the resurrection of Jesus when you come out. But he did not say this was the only way to experience this. And baptism is not the death and resurrection of Jesus. He says it is. The New Testament sometimes refers to things as if they were literally what they picture. This consideration will be very important in a moment.
 
The Catholic Church imagines that the bread and wine of communion have been turned literally into the body and blood of Jesus. This is idolatry for it denies that people can have full access to God at any moment in time or wherever they are. It implies a very holy person can need Jesus' body and be deprived of it for there is no Catholic Church around while somebody who is barely a believer enjoys access. Jesus told his apostles to eat bread and drink wine in his memory. He didn’t say that they had to say that they were his body and blood like most Christians surmise. They had just to remember him when they ate or drank. We are not even told that the drink had to be wine. There is no hint in the Bible that communion is a sacrament even if the rite is to be practiced. The ceremony of the Lord’s Supper is just a human rite.

The Catholic sacraments of matrimony, ordination, extreme unction, reconciliation and confirmation, like water baptism and the Eucharist are not in the Bible.

Paul told Timothy that he got a gift from God when hands were laid on him. But Paul could have noticed a change in Timothy so the episode does not prove that grace comes by laying on of hands in ordination nor does Paul says this was an ordination. There is nothing in the Bible about ordaining Christian priests. Hebrews says that no man takes the honour of priesthood but is called to this honour by God as Aaron was. Aaron was called to it not by a feeling or a sense of calling but by God speaking to him directly through Moses. This is a New Testament letter and clearly shows there are no priests in the Christian Church except in the sense that all Christians are priests who offer sacrifices of good works to God.

Marriage is called a mystery in Ephesians and not a sacrament no matter how some Catholic translations put it. Marriage could not be a sacrament when it was started before Jesus and there is no outward symbol of the grace of marriage. The ring is only a custom that goes back to the Romans. When Jesus said that marriage was unbreakable before even the Catholic Church says it became a sacrament meaning that marriage would be hard without the grace it shows that Jesus would have seen no need to make it a sacrament when he could expect couples to stay together without a sacrament.

James says that prayer not the anointing saves the sick man so there is no sacrament of the anointing of the sick in James. It would be unprovable otherwise because it says that God forgives the sick if the sick responds with an open heart to God which could mean God forgives because of the prayer of the person anointing or because it is a sacrament. But the latter interpretation is unnecessary. The sacrament cannot work unless you are in danger of death through old age or some disorder. It is not said either that the man needs to be in danger of death. The anointing is about healing and not preparing for death. It is therefore not the sacrament of the Roman Catholic cult.

The Bible distinguishes between having the Holy Spirit in you as a presence that helps you do good and having the Holy Spirit as a presence that manifests in you being given miraculous powers. The apostles gave the Holy Spirit to Christians in Samaria through the laying on of hands. See Acts 8. This need not be the sacrament of confirmation. The text does not say this was the normal way to give the Spirit. Acts stresses that God gives the Spirit when he should and can choose different ways to do it. The result of the laying on of hands was signs and wonders. Acts then indicates that the giving of the Spirit by laying hands meant giving the Spirit as in receiving obviously supernatural gifts from God such as the power to heal or speak in tongues. Thus the apostles were not putting the Spirit into the believers as if he were not already there. Acts 8 tells the story of the former miracle doer, Simon who it says now "believed and got baptised". Simon is accused of having a superficial faith but there is no hint of that. When we are told he believed we must take the text as meaning what it says. He saw the powers gained by those who received the laying on of hands. He asked the apostles to give him this power and was going to pay for it. There is no reason to think that he wanted this power in order to make money from it. He could have just liked the feeling of being special that comes from having strange powers. He got a severe telling off and Peter told him to rot. Peter's attack focuses entirely on Simon's belief that he could buy the gift of God with money. The Catholic Church does sell the alleged gifts of God. If it is so bad to offer money for the gift of God then imagine how bad it is for the Catholic Church to put the gift up for sale!
 
 It is thought that Acts tells this story to make a distinction between the powers of magic and the powers given by the Spirit. It is certainly easy to confuse the two but are they really confused? The Church says the difference is that magic is about the magician using his powers for self-promotion or for money. But with Simon, he only mentions wanting the power. There is no hint of his love of self-promotion or of money in the text. Indeed if the Spirit really made people holy miracle workers, it would make no sense at all for Simon to want to pass on his powers if he had a bad motive. They would only lead to Simon's own defeat. Simon only wanted the supernatural powers. The story actually indicates that it is wrong to assume you can enable a person to pass on God's powers and graces. It is up to God. It refutes the Catholic notion of bishops having the power to pass on the grace of God to others like they were channels. Simon was also condemned for offering money for the gift of God. Though he meant well, he was savagely condemned. The passage then says the Catholic practice of priests getting a wage from the Church and getting paid for Masses is an abomination.
 
Paul in Acts 17:24, 25 said that God does not live in Temples made by human hands and is not served by human hands. He saw temples as blinding people to the fact that God's is accessible everywhere and his presence in one place is no more sacred than his presence in another. God being served by human hands implies that he needs men to dispense his graces. In fact, human input is unnecessary though God can work through it. This implies that all men priests or not have equal powers. The notion of priests having unique powers is blasphemy and heresy. It is intended to make people attached to rites and men and temples - the Catholic Church has tabernacles or temples - instead of finding joy in God wherever they go and whatever they do.
 
The Bible says you get the Spirit when you are saved so this giving the Spirit through the laying on of hands is not literal for you have him already. It is prayer not the rite that causes grace. These people would have already had the Holy Spirit so it seems that the Holy Spirit would not give supernatural powers to anybody unless the apostles accepted him so that there would be no conflict. The Holy Spirit doing things in a person was always described as a descent of the Holy Spirit even though he was already there for he is called upon to do new things in the person’s life.

Some heretics considered the washing of feet by Jesus on the night he was betrayed to be a sacrament (John 13). The reason was that Jesus said that if he did not wash a person that person had nothing to do with him when Peter told Jesus not to wash his feet. Peter thought that Jesus was too special to be doing that for it was the job of a slave. Jesus was simply saying that it was a sin for Peter to criticise him as if he were not the Son of God who always did right. Peter had slandered Jesus. Jesus did not mean that Peter would have no grace simply because he wouldn’t have this ritual.

Jesus said that to be spiritually clean a person has no need to have the body washed for only the feet would do. He commanded the apostles to wash one another’s feet – that does not tell us that we should do the same. Jesus was certainly opposing the practice of immersing people in water or pouring water on the head in baptism. The only baptism he liked was foot washing. But it need not have been a religious rite as obligatory as Christians think baptism is. Just like he would have said, “Share your food with one another”, so he would have said, “Clean one another’s feet”. People walked a lot in those days so foot-washing was an important job.

However, though foot-washing is not a sacrament, the language used when Jesus describes it gives more justification for making a sacrament of it than the texts about baptism and confirmation justify making sacraments of them.
 
Sacraments are not mentioned in the Bible. The sensible realise that if the sacraments were the main means of our salvation they would have been mentioned for the sake of those who suspected the Church of being wrong. It is a mystery how the sacraments could be thought to be so central to the Church and then be so neglected in a book that likes to give useless genealogies and repeat itself! It is hardly very Catholic or welcoming when people cannot be blamed for doubting or denying the sacraments.

Hebrews 4:16 is worthy of being quoted in full for it attacks sacramentalism head on by denying that God limits any graces to sacraments. “Let us then fearlessly and confidently and boldly draw near to the throne of grace … and find grace to help in good time for every need”. God is love and if he won’t heal the soul who requests it he is unlove – Satan. If Christ Jesus has paid for us with his precious blood God has no right to delay when we ask for spiritual favours for ourselves. Rome’s mean God has no appreciation of justice. We may not deserve his blessings but in another sense we are entitled to them for Jesus earned them for us.
 
BOOKS CONSULTED
 
A GREAT LEGACY, Rev RJ Coates, Irish Church Mission, Dublin
A PATH FROM ROME, Anthony Kenny Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1985
A ROMAN CATECHISM WITH A REPLY THERETO, John Wesley Protestant Truth Society, London
A WOMAN RIDES THE BEAST, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1994
ALL ONE BODY – WHY DON’T WE AGREE? Erwin W Lutzer, Tyndale, Illinois, 1989
AN ACCOUNT OF ARCHBISHOP JAMES USHER 1581-1656, ND Emerson MA PhD, Townsend Street, Dublin
APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, James Heron, Outlook Press, Belfast
BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND CHURCH DOCTRINE, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press, New York, 1985
BUT THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY SO, Rev Roberto Nisbet, Church Book Room Press, London 1966
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, Veritas, Dublin, 1995
CATHOLICISM AND CHRISTIANITY, Cecil John Cadoux, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1928
CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988
CHRISTIANS GUIDE TO ROMAN CATHOLICISM, Bill Jackson, Colonial Baptist Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1988
CITY OF GOD, St Augustine, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1986
DAWN OR TWILIGHT? HM Carson, IVP, Leicester, 1976
DEAR CATHOLIC FRIEND, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1989
DIFFICULTIES, Mgr Ronald Knox and Sir Arnold Lunn, Eyre & Spottiswoode, London, 1958
DOCUMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, edited by Henry Bettenson, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979
ENCHIRIDION SYMBOLORUM ET DEFINITIONUM, Heinrich Joseph Denzinger, Edited by A Schonmetzer, Barcelona, 1963
EVANGELICAL CATHOLICS A NEW PHENOMENON, Stanley Mawhinney, Christian Ministries Incorporated, Dundrum, Dublin, 1992
FUTURIST OR HISTORICIST? Basil C Mowll, Protestant Truth Society, London
HANDBOOK TO THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME, Karl Von Hase, Vols 1 and 2, The Religious Tract Society, London, 1906
HOW SURE ARE THE FOUNDATIONS? Colin Badger, Wayside Press, Canada
HOW TO CHOOSE YOUR VOCATION IN LIFE, Thomas Artz C.SS.R, Liguori Publications, Missouri, 1976
INFALLIBILITY IN THE CHURCH, Patrick Crowley, CTS, London, 1982
IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH A BIBLE CHURCH? John Hamrogue, C.SS.R, Liguori, Missouri, 1983
IS THERE SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH? Fr J Bainvel SJ, TAN, Illiniois, 1979
LETTERS TO A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST, H A Ironside, Loizeaux Brothers, New Jersey, 1982
LION CONCISE BOOK OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT, Tony Lane, Lion, Herts, 1984
LIVING IN CHRIST, A Dreze SJ, Geoffrey Chapman, London-Melbourne 1969
LOOK! THE DOUAY BIBLE AGAINST ROME, Connellan Mission, Dublin
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Joseph Rickaby SJ, Stonyhurst Philosophy Series, Longmans, Green and Co, London, 1912
NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, The Catholic University of America and the McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
OUGHT I TO SEND MY CHILD TO A CONVENT SCHOOL? Rev Walter H Denbow, Protestant Truth Society, London, 1969
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS, Charles Gore MA, Longmans, London, 1894
ROMAN CATHOLIC OBJECTIONS ANSWERED, Rev H O Lindsay, John T Drought Ltd, Dublin
ROMAN CATHOLIC TEACHING CONTRASTED WITH BIBLE TEACHING, Bernard Burt, The Bible Student Press, Coventry
ROMAN CATHOLICISM TESTED BY THE SCRIPTURES, John A Coleman, New Litho Pty. Ltd, Victoria, 1987
ROMAN CATHOLICISM WHAT IS FINAL AUTHORITY? Harold J Berry, Back to the Bible, Nebraska, 1974
ROMAN CATHOLICISM, Lorraine Boettner, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, NJ, 1962
ROMANISM AT VARIANCE WITH THE BIBLE, Rev James Gardner, Protestant Truth Society, London, 1987
ROME HAS SPOKEN, A GUIDE TO FORGOTTEN PAPAL STATEMENTS AND HOW THEY HAVE CHANGED THROUGH THE CENTURIES, Maureen Fiedler and Linda Rabben (Editors), Crossroad Publishing, New York, 1998
ROME THE GREAT PRIVATE INTERPRETATOR, Peter S Ruckman Penascola Bible Press, Palatka, Florida, 1969
SALVATION, THE BIBLE AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM, William Webster, Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, 1990
SECRETS OF ROMANISM, Joseph Zacchello, Loizeaux Brothers, New Jersey, 1984
THE ADVANCE OF ROMANISM, S M Houghton, Cotswold Bible Witness, 1964
THE BIBLE OR THE CHURCH? Ken Camplin, Printland Publishers, India, 1996
THE BIBLE REFUTES ROMANISM Philip H Rand Protestant Truth Society, London
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER, Paul Whitcomb TAN, Illinois, 1986
THE CHURCH AND INFALLIBILITY, BC Butler, The Catholic Book Club, London, undated
THE CHURCH OF ROME AND THE WORD OF GOD, Rev Eric C Last, Protestant Truth Society, London
THE DEVELOPMENTS OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM, John A Bain MA, Oliphant Anderson & Ferrier, Edinburgh and London, undated
THE EARLY CHURCH, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987
THE GREAT MEANS OF SALVATION AND OF PERFECTION, St Alphonsus De Ligouri, Redemptorist Fathers, Brooklyn, 1988
THE MOTHER OF GOD AND OUR INTERIOR LIFE, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP, TAN, Illinois, 1993
THE PRIMITIVE FAITH AND ROMAN CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENTS, Rev John A F Gregg BD, APCK, Dublin, 1928
THE RICHES OF ROME AND THE UNSEARCHABLE RICHES OF CHRIST Robert D Browne, Protestant Truth Society, London
THE STUDENT’S CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, Rev Charles Hart BA, Burns & Oates, London, 1961
THE TRUE CHURCH AND THE FALSE, The National Union of Protestants, Suffolk
THE VATICAN PAPERS, Nino Lo Bello, New English Library, Kent, 1982
TRADITIONAL DOCTRINES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH EXAMINED, Rev CCJ Butlin, Protestant Truth Society, London
TREASURES FROM GOD’S STOREHOUSE, Dr Bill Jackson, Colonial Baptist Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1991
VICARS OF CHRIST, Peter De Rosa, Corgi Books, London, 1993
WHAT HAPPENED! Francisco Lacueva, Evangelical Protestant Society, Belfast
WHY BE A CATHOLIC? Fr David Jones OP, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1996
WHY I AM NOT A ROMAN CATHOLIC, Rev Canon McCormick DD, Protestant Truth Society, London, 1968
YOU CAN LEAD ROMAN CATHOLICS TO CHRIST, Wilson Ewin, New England Mission, Nashua 1980

BIBLE VERSION USED
The Amplified Bible
 
THE WWW

The Anti-Catholic Bible
www.catholic.com/library/The_Anti_Catholic_Bible.asp
 
Christians versus the Lies of Catholicism
www.cephasministry.com