Answering 83 Claims from Got Questions : Catholic Bible and Origin of Catholic Church

For each claim, there will be a link to an answer, when I provide one. I will not link directly to earlier answers from here, but from each answer, when appropriate, link to an earlier one. On 4.II.2019 I am 16:58 local time posting this without any links, without any answers, except such as are implied from my formulation of their claims.

I do of course intend to fill in every claim with a link, not necessarily each with a separate one.

"The additional books in the Catholic Bible are known as the deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha. They are Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and Baruch."

• I It is claimed each of them is an additional book. Not like "additional parts" of some other book.
• II It is left to imagine they are all the "additional OT material".

"The Catholic Bible also includes additions to the books of Esther and Daniel."

• III It is claimed they are additions, rather than Protestant OT having subtractions.

"Should the Apocrypha be included in the Bible? There was significant debate in the early Christian church, with a majority of the early church fathers rejecting the idea that the Apocrypha belonged in the Bible."

• IV It is claimed there was a significant debate, not just an exchange between St Jerome and St Augustine.
• V It is claimed that early Church Fathers, more specifically a majority of them, these being Apostolic, Ante-Nicene and (immediately?) post-Nicene fathers, taking sides in this debate, concluded actively for excluding the books in question.

"However, under tremendous pressure from Rome, Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate, included the Apocrypha, despite Jerome’s insistence that the Apocrypha did not belong in the Bible."

• VI It is claimed St Jerome caved in to pressure from Rome and that it was tremendous.
• VII It is claimed he insisted, not just suggested, they did not belong in the Bible.

"The Apocrypha was not formally/officially made a part of the Catholic Bible, though, until the Council of Trent, in response to the Protestant Reformation."

• VIII It is left to imagine that Catholicism had an earlier equally official list without the books.
• IX It is claimed there was was no kind of official status for the books before Trent.

"The early Protestant Reformers, in agreement with Judaism, determined that the Apocrypha did not belong in the Bible, and therefore removed the Apocrypha from Protestant Bibles."

• X It is claimed or admitted that Protestant Reformers were agreeing with Judaism.

Above claims are extracted from
https://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Bible.html

On interpretation of the term "early Church Fathers" I consulted
https://www.gotquestions.org/early-church-fathers.html

"Even a cursory reading of the New Testament will reveal that the Catholic Church does not have its origin in the teachings of Jesus or His apostles."

• XI It is claimed that the cursory reading of the New Testament of a Protestant with his biasses will represent what any cursory reading of it will not just suggest but even prove.

"In the New Testament, there is no mention of the papacy, worship/adoration of Mary (or the immaculate conception of Mary, the perpetual virginity of Mary, the assumption of Mary, or Mary as co-redemptrix and mediatrix), petitioning saints in heaven for their prayers, apostolic succession, the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments, infant baptism, confession of sin to a priest, purgatory, indulgences, or the equal authority of church tradition and Scripture."

• XII It is suggested the non-mention (a quality with false alerts due to changes in terminology) in the Bible equals a Biblical condemnation.
• XIII It is suggested that the matters depend only on reading the New Testament, not anything in the Old.
• XIV It is claimed that papacy is thus un-Biblical.
• XV It is suggested that Catholic veneration of Mary is a divine worship and claimed that this is thus un-Biblical.
• XVI It is claimed that Immaculate Conception (i e sinlessness from the first moment of Her conception) is thus un-Biblical.
• XVII It is claimed that the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin is un-Biblical.
• XVIII It is claimed that the Assumption is un-Biblical.
• XIX It is claimed that Coredemptrix is un-Biblical.
• XX It is claimed that Mediatrix omnium gratiarum is un-Biblical.
• XXI It is claimed that petitioning saints in heaven for prayers is un-Biblical.
• XXII It is claimed that Apostolic Succession is un-Biblical.
• XXIII It is claimed that the seven sacraments are ordinances of the Church, not certain whether this means ordained later by the Church or whether it means biblical ordinances of it, and perhaps also that even biblical ordinances functioning as sacraments is un-Biblical.
• XXIV It is claimed that infant baptism is un-Biblical.
• XXV It is claimed that confessing sins to a priest is un-Biblical.
• XXVI It is claimed that purgatory is un-Biblical.
• XXVII It is claimed that indulgences are un-Biblical.
• XXVIII It is claimed that equal authority of Tradition and Bible is un-Biblical.

"For the first 280 years of Christian history, Christianity was banned by the Roman Empire, and Christians were terribly persecuted. This changed after the “conversion” of the Roman Emperor Constantine. Constantine provided religious toleration with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, effectively lifting the ban on Christianity."

• XXIX It is claimed that Constantine did not truly convert.

"Later, in AD 325, Constantine called the Council of Nicea in an attempt to unify Christianity."

• XXX It is claimed that Nicaea was Constantine's initiative and not the Church's and that Christianity had no unity prior to it.

"Constantine envisioned Christianity as a religion that could unite the Roman Empire, which at that time was beginning to fragment and divide. While this may have seemed to be a positive development for the Christian church, the results were anything but positive. Just as Constantine refused to fully embrace the Christian faith but continued many of his pagan beliefs and practices, so the Christian church that Constantine and his successors promoted progressively became a mixture of true Christianity and Roman paganism."

• XXXI It is claimed that Constantine refused full conversion and continued many of his Pagan beliefs and Practises.
• XXXII It is claimed that Constantine and his successors promited one and same Christian Church.
• XXXIII It is claimed that it - on thus being promoted, one can presume? - progressively became a mixture of true Christianity and Roman Paganism.
• XXXIV It is (from this article) left to any man's guess what happened to the true Christianity in its unmixed state.

"Most Roman Catholic beliefs and practices regarding Mary are completely absent from the Bible."

See above, XV to XXI.

"Where did those beliefs come from? The Roman Catholic view of Mary has far more in common with the Isis mother-goddess religion of Egypt than it does with anything taught in the New Testament."

• XXXV It is claimed that the view of the Blessed Virgin has much in common with the Isis worship and that this is more than it has with anything written in New Testament, while the role of Old Testament in Mariology is omitted.

"Interestingly, the first hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship."

• XXXVI It is left to imagination that the Mariology of Origen coming from Alexandria is supporting evidence for Catholic Mariology being Isis-worship.
• XXXVII It is omitted that Origen's Alexandria is where St Athanasius was defending Divinity of Christ, as also believed by Got Questions.
• XXXVIII It is omitted that Origen took his Mariology from typology of Old Testament.
• XXXIX It is omitted that Origen lived during the centuries of persecution, so, if Origen had mixed Isis-worship with Christianity, this mixture would have happened previous to promotion by Constantine and successors.
• XXXX It is thus omitted that Catholic Mariology begins in Early Church Fathers, since Origen is an ante-Nicene Father, shortly after Apostolic Fathers.

"The Lord’s Supper being a consumption of the literal body and blood of Jesus is not taught in the Bible. The idea that bread and wine are miraculously transformed into the literal body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation) is not biblical. However, several ancient pagan religions, including Mithraism, which was very popular in the Roman Empire, had some form of “theophagy” (the eating of one’s god) as a ritualistic practice."

• XXXXI It is claimed that Bible says nothing of eating and drinking Our Lord's body and blood OR that each mention thereof is clearly marked as a figure of speech OR that its being so is clearly stated or implied elsewhere.
• XXXXII It is claimed that the idea of transsubstantiation, as explaining the Real Presence, is not just not directly in the Bible, but not even indirectly through the Real Presence and is therefore so un-Biblical no support from tradition whatever can justify it, however strong.
• XXXXIII It is claimed that theophagy of some Pagan religions inspired the Real Presence, but not the Lord's Supper.
• XXXXIV It is claimed that we know Mithraism well enough to consider it as involving theophagy.
• XXXXV It is left to imagination what the other Pagan religions with this were, and as for those knowing Dionysus cult involved it, it is left to imagination this proves Real Presence un-Christian rather than Christian and in the lineage of Second Temple Judaism.
• XXXXVI It is left to imagination that a Lord's Supper without Real Presence is not a ritualistic practise.

"Roman Catholicism has “saints” one can pray to in order to gain a particular blessing. For example, Saint Gianna Beretta Molla is the patron saint of fertility. Francis of Assisi is the patron saint of animals. There are multiple patron saints of healing and comfort. Nowhere is even a hint of this taught in Scripture. Just as the Roman pantheon of gods had a god of love, a god of peace, a god of war, a god of strength, a god of wisdom, etc., so the Catholic Church has a saint who is “in charge” over each of these and many other categories. Many Roman cities had a god specific to the city, and the Catholic Church provided “patron saints” for cities as well."

• XXXXVII It is claimed that the idea of patron saints is connected to Paganism.
• XXXXVIII It is claimed that this connection proves it disconnected to Christianity in a way making it forbidden by true Christianity.

"The idea that the Roman bishop is the vicar of Christ, the supreme leader of the Christian Church, is utterly foreign to the Word of God. The supremacy of the Roman bishop (the papacy) was created with the support of the Roman emperors. While most other bishops (and Christians) resisted the idea of the Roman bishop being supreme, the Roman bishop eventually rose to supremacy, again, due to the power and influence of the Roman emperors. After the western half of the Roman Empire collapsed, the popes took on the title that had previously belonged to the Roman emperors—Pontifex Maximus."

• IL It is claimed that it is foreign to the Bible with a Vicar of Christ. Including that of bishop of Rome which lays claim to it.
• L It is claimed that the supremacy was created with the support of Roman Emperors.
• LI It is claimed that this supremacy was resisted by most other bishops.
• LII It is claimed that this resistance of most other bishops was overcome by Emperors.
• LIII It is claimed that fall of Western Empire allowed Popes to "step in their shoes".
• LIV It is at least suggested that a real Christian bishop could not be called Pontifex Maximus.

"Many more examples could be given. These four should suffice in demonstrating the origin of the Catholic Church. Of course, the Roman Catholic Church denies the pagan origin of its beliefs and practices."

• LV It is claimed that the four examples of Mariology, Eucharist, Patron Saints and Papacy are well argued examples of Roman Catholic practises and beliefs being Pagan in origin on a non-adioaphoric plane.

"The Catholic Church disguises its pagan beliefs under layers of complicated theology and church tradition."

• LVI It is claimed that the Catholic theology on the points of Mariology, Eucharist, Patron Saints and Papacy is complicated.
• LVII It is claimed that the complicated theology on Mariology, Eucharist, Patron Saints and Papacy is a disguise.
• LVIII It is claimed that the Church Tradition on Mariology, Eucharist, Patron Saints and Papacy is a disguise.
• LIX It is claimed that these defenses are not of one piece for any one of Mariology, Eucharist, Patron Saints and Papacy but comes in many layers.
• LX It is by implication claimed that true Christian theology : is one layered.
• LXI It is by implication claimed that true Christian theology : is uncomplicated.
• LXII It is by implication claimed that true Christian theology : is to be directly found in the Bible.
• LXIII It is by implication claimed that true Christian theology : does not rely on Church Traditions.
• LXIX It is by implication claimed that true Christian theology : has no Pagan parallels.

"Recognizing that many of its beliefs and practices are utterly foreign to Scripture, the Catholic Church is forced to deny the authority and sufficiency of Scripture."

• LXX It is claimed that the Catholic Church recognises it does not just have practises but also beliefs that not only are not directly found in the Bible but contradict it.
• LXXI It is claimed that the Catholic Church therefore denies not just sufficiency but also authority of Scripture.

"The origin of the Catholic Church is the tragic compromise of Christianity with the pagan religions that surrounded it."

• LXXII It is claimed that Christianity made a compromise with Pagan religions.
• LXXIII It is claimed that this compromise was tragic.
• LXXIV It is claimed that the Catholic Church results from it.

"Instead of proclaiming the gospel and converting the pagans, the Catholic Church “Christianized” the pagan religions and “paganized” Christianity. By blurring the differences and erasing the distinctions, the Catholic Church made itself attractive to the idolatrous people of the Roman Empire"

• LXXV It is claimed that Catholicism sacrificed truth for popularity and that popularity with idolatry.
• LXXVI It is claimed that this - successfully? - blurred distinctions between Christianity and idolatry.

"One result was the Catholic Church becoming the supreme religion in the Roman world for centuries."

• LXXVII It is claimed that Catholic Church came to dominate the Roman world for centuries through this compromise, and not through Christ's promises to His Church.
• LXXVIII It is left to understand that it was the Roman world, nothing more, that Catholicism came to dominate.
• LXXIX It is left to understand whether or not there were other parallel Christianities that were truer, if less dominant in Rome, and if so, if they were or were not more dominant elsewhere.

"However, another result was the most dominant form of Christianity apostatizing from the true gospel of Jesus Christ and the true proclamation of God’s Word."

• LXXX It is claimed that the Catholic Church thereby became an Apostate Church.
• LXXXI It is claimed that it did not proclaim God's word, as one may imagine about an Apostate Church.
• LXXXII It is left to imagination that this is only the case with the true Christianity carefully considered, and not totally obvious as apostasy goes.

Second Timothy 4:3–4 declares, “For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.”

• LXXXIII It is left to imagination that this Biblical prophecy refers to the Cathologenesis of the Church and not of the De-catholicisation called Reformation, as well as other similar movements.

Above claims and suggestions as I quoted and analysed are from
https://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html