You keep saying only the roman Catholic church teaches as the bible does. Lets take a Deeper Look Shall We!
- Why does it condemn clerical dress? (Matt. 23:5-6).
Nothing in those verses condemn clerical dress. What is being condemned is self promotion. The Scriptures specifically mandate clerical dress for a priest. (Exodus 28:4) In fact, even the miter is called for! (29:6)
- Why does it teach against the adoration of Mary? (Luke 11:27-28).
Again, these verses say nothing of the sort. The woman in the crowd is pointing out that Mary is blessed among all women. This only echoes other scriptures (Luke 1:42, 48). Jesus is not disagreeing that His mother is blessed, He only disagrees with the reason. She is not blessed because she bore Him and nursed Him but because she heard the word and obeyed. In fact, the word "rather" is a word that actually means "yes, but in addition to that...."
- Why does it show that all Christians are priests? (1 Pet. 2:5,9).
Once again, those verses do not say what you imply. This letter is written to a specific group of people (Verse 1). Nevertheless, The NT is clear that all true Christians participate in a larger Priesthood but that the specific ministerial Priesthood remains. To SPECIFIC people, Christ gave the authority to bind and loose (Matt 16:18-20), forgive sins (John 20:23), speak on Christ's behalf (Luke 10:16), resolve theological disputes with binding authority, (Matthew 18:17-18), Baptism (Matthew 28:19), Consecrate Communion (Luke 22:19) and pass on the succession of the Apostles (1 Timothy 4:14)
- Why does it condemn the observance of special days? (Gal. 4:9-11).
Those verses condemn astrology. "destitute elemental powers". The Jewish religion was full of feast days. An absurd argument on your part.
A complete non sequiter.
- Why does it teach that all Christians are saints? (1 Cor. 1:2).
The verses say that the letter is "to the church of God that is in Corinth". Once again, you state a meaning to the text that just, flat out isn't there.- Why does it forbid us to address religious leaders as "father"? (Matt. 23:9).
It doesn't. You are taking the verse out of context and applying an absurdly literal interpretation to the English translation. (Luke 14:26). Sometimes you have to apply common sense to the text and ask yourself if your interpretation jibes with the rest of scripture. Yours doesn't.
The legitimate use of 'father', in addressing religious leaders appears all over the New Testament (Matthew 3:9, Mark 11:10, Luke 1:32, Luke 1:55, Luke 1:72, Luke 1:73, Luke 3:8, Luke 16:24, 27,30, John 4:12, John 8:39*, John 8:53, John 8:56**, Acts 4:25, Acts 7:32**, Acts 22:1, Romans 4:11, 12, 16, 17, 18, Romans 9:10, 1 Corinthians 4:15**, 1 Timothy 5:1, Philemon 1:10, Hebrews 8:9, James 2:21)
So, your interpretation is ludicrous....but this is what happens when you don't have an infallible, Holy Spirit guided, church to guide you and wind up blowing around in every direction the devil wants to take you.
Jesus clearly meant that no man is "father" or "teacher" (same verses) above your heavenly Father. Titles are not the point here.
- Why does it teach that Christ is the only foundation and not the apostle Peter? (1 Cor. 3:11).- Why does it teach that there is one mediator instead of many? (1 Tim. 2:5).
False. Jesus calls Peter Kephas (translated to Petros - John 1:42) and makes Peter and the apostles the foundation of His Church. (Ephesians 2:20)
Subtracting from the Scriptures is a sin. It says that there is only one mediator between GOD AND MAN. Jesus was the only qualified applicant. No catholic believes that any other man is a mediator between God and man. We only believe we are ministers according to Christ's instruction. Even Mary's title co-mediatrix does not imply that she is a mediator between God and man, only that she cooperated in bringing that mediator to us.
- Why does it teach that a bishop must be a married man? (1 Tim. 3:2, 4-5).
It doesn't. It only teaches that he cannot be a polygamist. Paul, himself, who wrote that letter, was an unmarried Bishop.
- Why is it opposed to the primacy of Peter? (Luke 22:24-27).
It certainly is not. Those verses deal with someone who is greatest in his own eyes. The Primacy of Peter is clearly visible in the book of Acts and in Matthew 16 and in the fact that his name(s) appears in the NT more than all the other disciples combined (162 times). The Primacy of Peter is a fact.
- Why does it oppose the idea of purgatory? (Luke 16:26).
Your argument is a complete non sequiter. Purgatory doesn't exist because Abraham cannot go to hell? That's like saying that small cars are fast because big cars are blue.
Purgatory is a fact. (1 Cor 3:15, 1 Peter 3:19)
- Why is it completely silent about infant baptism, instrumental music in worship, indulgences, confession to priests, the rosary, the mass, and many other things in the Catholic Church?
Infant baptism- Acts 16:33 Baptism replaces circumsion, which was performed at 8 days old.
Instrumental music- Psalm 33:2
Indulgences- Matthew 16:19. 18:18
Confession to Priests- Leviticus 5:5, John 20:23
The Rosary is a devotion. Every prayer in the Rosary is Biblical. It is wholly unnecessary that the specific devotion be mentioned in Scripture. Protestants create new devotionals all the time.
The Mass was instituted by Christ with the words "do this in memory of me" Luke 22:19. Every element of the Mass is Scriptural right down to the Candle Sticks and Incense. Want to really see the Catholic Mass come alive? Read the first 4 chapters of the Book of Revelation.
The many other things are there too.
* This is just minor list. If the rcc actually did teach the purest of Truth I would have never left. Only following Gods commands alone is pure Truth as we have been warned!
And only by being a Catholic can you do that.