Does the Catholic Church teach from the Bible?

Originally posted by WhoKnows100

Without the Church, what IS the Bible? Who says what books go in the Bible? Who says how to understand said books? Mere men? On whose authority? Protestants claim inspiration by the Holy Ghost and have split like cells into 40k+ "denominations". The Catholic Church remains One. Same doctrine being taught for 2k years. Hmm..

If you could understand why God "confused" the language at Babel and scattered the people, then apply that same lesson that He provides for us in the gospels. The "confusion" of languages at Pentecost was the same thing done by God to take down Babel. The destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD was the same thing as destroying the "tower", Jesus judged it and destroyed the temple which had become too powerful with Rome. Jesus said that the sheep would be scattered. He came down to Earth, just as God descended to see Babel, and passed judgement in both places.
He scattered the sheep and "confused" the language when He destroyed the latest incarnation of Babel - Jerusalem. So knowing that, He didn't scatter the sheep and confuse the language to have them regroup into a physical monstrosity of a church! He scattered the sheep and confused the language so that His children would go out into the world! This is why we see epistles mentioning "from your brother in Rome or Babylon" (my paraphrasing). The Apostles knew that they had been scattered to preach the whole gospel. They were to be His body out in the world.

But what did the RCC do? It formed a behemoth organisation in direct opposition to God's commands to spread out and multiply. It grew into another powerful Babel claiming itself as Christ on Earth, killing true Saints in this Earth that wouldn't bow to it instead of the True God.

Jesus said that the shepherd would be struck and the sheep scattered. Christians are not to form a Babel, because Babel is made from bricks not stones. The last version of Babel is nearly here, with Godless men forming their One World Order and it's "one language" of a united religion and culture. The fact that the RCC is front and centre courting Muslims and other religions should clearly point out the nature of the RCC and it's role in the last Babel.

He will teach you the Truth if you are interested.

There was no confusion of languages at Pentecost; men heard each other in their own tongue: reverse Babel. What on earth are YOU babbling about?

If Man A was a native speaker of Greek, and he was conversing with Man B who was a native speaker of Aramaic, Man A heard Greek even though Man B was speaking Aramaic, and man B heard Aramaic even though Man A was speaking Greek, etc.

[1] And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place: [2] And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. [3] And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them: [4] And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak. [5] Now there were dwelling at Jerusalem, Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven.

[6] And when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, and were confounded in mind, because that every man heard them speak in his own tongue. [7] And they were all amazed, and wondered, saying: Behold, are not all these, that speak, Galileans? [8] And how have we heard, every man our own tongue wherein we were born? [9] Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judea, and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, [10] Phrygia, and Pamphylia, Egypt, and the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome,

[11] Jews also, and proselytes, Cretes, and Arabians: we have heard them speak in our own tongues the wonderful works of God. [12] And they were all astonished, and wondered, saying one to another: What meaneth this?

Acts of the Apostles 2:1-12

In lots of ways I see your point of view and I respect your opinions but I don't believe that any group of people have the right of excuse in pointing out other groups mistakes. The Roman Catholic Church should (in my opinion) be responsible and be penalized for their own conduct and the same applies to other organizations.

Because of the Church's views on abortion, gay marriage, and the like, the liberal media has aggressively pursued this story and publicized it to the nth degree. The Church is under attack. My point is that you don't see the same kind of attacks in any other religious denomination nor even secular organization, even though the percentages are the same or even worse than the Church for this kind of abuse.

Again, the Church has made radical changes for the positive regarding these matters. Most of these accusations are from 30-40 years ago. Priests today are under much different scrutiny and screening than they were in decades past. Impulse training, background checks, and the like are the norm now.

Most of these priests are good, holy men, and only a tiny percentage are of this criminal class. The media would have you believe otherwise.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

In lots of ways I see your point of view and I respect your opinions but I don't believe that any group of people have the right of excuse in pointing out other groups mistakes. The Roman Catholic Church should (in my opinion) be responsible and be penalized for their own conduct and the same applies to other organizations.

Because of the Church's views on abortion, gay marriage, and the like, the liberal media has aggressively pursued this story and publicized it to the nth degree. The Church is under attack. My point is that you don't see the same kind of attacks in any other religious denomination nor even secular organization, even though the percentages are the same or even worse than the Church for this kind of abuse.

Again, the Church has made radical changes for the positive regarding these matters. Most of these accusations are from 30-40 years ago. Priests today are under much different scrutiny and screening than they were in decades past. Impulse training, background checks, and the like are the norm now.

Most of these priests are good, holy men, and only a tiny percentage are of this criminal class. The media would have you believe otherwise.

Correct.

This article-- which cites information freely available on non-Catholic websites -- confirms what you've said:

About 4 percent of U.S. priests ministering from 1950 to 2002 were accused of sex abuse with a minor, according to the first comprehensive national study of the issue.

The study said that 4,392 clergymen—almost all priests—were accused of abusing 10,667 people, with 75 percent of the incidents taking place between 1960 and 1984.

Source: www.americancatholic.org...
Another (this entire article makes for interesting reading... in the vein of ATS: denying the placebo of ignorance):

In the recent Boston scandal, only four of the more than eighty priests labeled by the media as "pedophiles" are actually guilty of molesting young children.

Source: catholiceducation.org...

It may claim to but it doesnt, short post as just passing through.

1. in scripture God says no man goes to him except through his son Jesus, that is the only way to salvation/forgivness- yet a priest states he can absolve you of your sins by saying x hail marys and our fathers? direct contradiction to scripture.

2. the answer Catholicism uses to defend point 1 is that they are annointed as gods representatives on earth. They are the Vicar of the son of God or VICARIVS FILII DEI which is printed on the papal triple crown, and using the latin numeric system, the latin title amounts to six hundred and sixty six- the number of the beast.

3. Having now accused the Catholic church of being the anti christ, lets look at the meaning of the word "Anti christ" it doesnt mean anti=against, it means in place of, therefore the vicar is acting in place of christ, thats why he believes he can absolve your sins.

for some of the many refernce points to support this see the following
www.aloha.net...

id also advise those with an open mind to watch Roman Empire rules which has been uploaded to youtube in 2 parts
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

thats my 2 penneth, feel free to read and watch the links then flame or discuss

ps i am not an active follower of any denomination but i like to keep an open mind on all aspects of life and enjoy learning

in scripture God says no man goes to him except through his son Jesus, that is the only way to salvation/forgivness- yet a priest states he can absolve you of your sins by saying x hail marys and our fathers? direct contradiction to scripture.

No, Christ gave his disciples the authority to cast out the demonic. Priests, as direct successors to the Apostles and Christ Himself, have been granted the same authority - to cast out the demonic. This is what is happening within the confessional - the casting out of demonic influences and sin by the priest.

Mary, after all, was the Mother of Christ Himself. The "Hail Mary" prayers of the Rosary which you criticize is taken directly from the New Testament when the Archangel Gabriel appeared to Mary.

the answer Catholicism uses to defend point 1 is that they are annointed as gods representatives on earth. They are the Vicar of the son of God or VICARIVS FILII DEI which is printed on the papal triple crown, and using the latin numeric system, the latin title amounts to six hundred and sixty six- the number of the beast.

Doubtful on the 666 charge. Christ appointed Peter as the Rock of His Church, to guide the flock of believers when Christ later ascended to Heaven. The Popes are all in direct succession to Peter, and hence, Christ. All this is very much biblical. Christ appointed Peter as his successor, and directed the disciples to preach the Good News to the entire world.

ps i am not an active follower of any denomination but i like to keep an open mind on all aspects of life and enjoy learning

No, an open mind would involve quoting from a reputable theological source with serious academic credentials, not the ramblings of an anti-Catholic bigot who happened to post on the Internet to sway the gullible and naive.

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

in scripture God says no man goes to him except through his son Jesus, that is the only way to salvation/forgivness- yet a priest states he can absolve you of your sins by saying x hail marys and our fathers? direct contradiction to scripture.

No, Christ gave his disciples the authority to cast out the demonic. Priests, as direct successors to the Apostles and Christ Himself, have been granted the same authority - to cast out the demonic. This is what is happening within the confessional - the casting out of demonic influences and sin by the priest.

driving out demons and possessions is one thing, absolving sin is another and no man has gods authority to do that- absolving sin and driving out demons are 2 separate things. confessionals are no about drining out demons at all- have you ever seen a person freed from a possession? then youll know that doesnt go on in a confessional booth.

Mary, after all, was the Mother of Christ Himself. The "Hail Mary" prayers of the Rosary which you criticize is taken directly from the New Testament when the Archangel Gabriel appeared to Mary.

Mary was not the mother of christ, she was the vessel used to deliver an imaculate conception, stating hail mary is raising her to an idolatry level and the 10 commandments preach to not bear witness to false gods or craven idols.

the answer Catholicism uses to defend point 1 is that they are annointed as gods representatives on earth. They are the Vicar of the son of God or VICARIVS FILII DEI which is printed on the papal triple crown, and using the latin numeric system, the latin title amounts to six hundred and sixty six- the number of the beast.

Doubtful on the 666 charge. Christ appointed Peter as the Rock of His Church, to guide the flock of believers when Christ later ascended to Heaven. The Popes are all in direct succession to Peter, and hence, Christ. All this is very much biblical. Christ appointed Peter as his successor, and directed the disciples to preach the Good News to the entire world.

Christ also said to get behind thee satan to peter after he denied him three times- this has been argued backwards and forwards- notwithstanding this- the popes are not a direct succession to peter as they are merely persons whom choose to follow this path and enter into the faith, schooling etc.

ps i am not an active follower of any denomination but i like to keep an open mind on all aspects of life and enjoy learning

No, an open mind would involve quoting from a reputable theological source with serious academic credentials, not the ramblings of an anti-Catholic bigot who happened to post on the Internet to sway the gullible and naive.

with a lot of reference from catholic publications, and an open mind looks to all sources, not just those advocated by those who give acknowledgement and surpress the views of those that disagree with their theory. Catholocism has warped the initial concept of christianity when the emporer saw how popular these teachings were, bastardised it into hidden paganism (see the real meaning of christmas) in order to unify the people and hence control them more effectively

Originally posted by Augustine62
ALL salvation is THROUGH the Church, .

Can you cite where in the Bible it says this?

with a lot of reference from catholic publications, and an open mind looks to all sources, not just those advocated by those who give acknowledgement and surpress the views of those that disagree with their theory.

Not all sources are equal. In other words, you prefer - based on your anti-Catholic ideology - to cite writings that espouse your belief system. Let's call a spade a spade.

If you were truly objective, you would quote a well-known academic or theologian on these matters. Instead, you quote from anti-Catholic bigots.

Catholocism has warped the initial concept of christianity when the emporer saw how popular these teachings were, bastardised it into hidden paganism (see the real meaning of christmas) in order to unify the people and hence control them more effectively

More bigotry. You neglect to mention the hundreds of thousands of charitable priests, monks, and nuns that have cared for the poor, needy, homeless, and hungry in the Third World throughout the centuries. Good men and women who have devoted their entire lives for the benefit of the less fortunate. Not to mention the Church's contributions in the areas of theology, the arts, music, academia, and more.

No, to an anti-Catholic bigot, such as yourself, the Church is all about negative imagery.

Who do you think runs our soup kitchens in our inner cities? Many are run by Catholic orders of nuns and priests.

The Church is not the hierarchy - The Church is the people. The average Joe. The ordinary working class family. The meek and humble priests, nuns, and monks that devote their lives selflessly to prayer and serving others. That's the Church. Not some artificial member of the hierarchy that is envisioned in your anti-Catholic, bigoted imagination.

Raised RCath by Dominicans, I hardly ever saw a bible much less taught from one.

Originally posted by Augustine62
ALL salvation is THROUGH the Church, .

Can you cite where in the Bible it says this?

Salvation comes from Christ. The Head of the Roman Catholic Church is Christ Himself. Christ appointed Peter as His successor on Earth -- Peter was the "Rock" on which He would build His Church.

Christ directed His disciples to share the Good News with the rest of the non-Jewish world. All other Christian denominations are offshoots of the original Church - The Holy Roman Catholic Church, founded by Christ, Himself.

Originally posted by jammybunn
Catholocism has warped the initial concept of christianity when the emporer saw how popular these teachings were, bastardised it into hidden paganism (see the real meaning of christmas) in order to unify the people and hence control them more effectively

Which emperor are you referring to?

It would be interesting to see what the Church was like before this emperor and what it was like after this emperor. From what you are claiming, the difference must be pretty dramatic.

Eric

Salvation comes from Christ. The Head of the Roman Catholic Church is Christ Himself. Christ appointed Peter as His successor on Earth -- Peter was the "Rock" on which He would build His Church.

reply to post by CookieMonster09


I'm a bit confused by your claims. I assume that you are a Gentile and a Roman Catholic by faith. Don't misunderstand me, I am not critical of ether one. What bothers me is that this Jewish fisherman was not a Gentile but was a Jew. He probably (we do not know) spoke Aramaic or Greek or perhaps both but it is almost without contest that he did not not speak Latin. Although Latin was the Roman language for most all of their legal procedures it was not the language of general populace. The most used language was Greek in the Roman provinces and Rome itself.

I assume (by the scriptures) that Peter obeyed all of the Jewish law and was not a Gentile . I do not refute his being given the revelation of Christ the Anointed One and the foundation of faith on which Christ would build His church but there it ends. After Jesus was put to death, the first group of Christ followers were centered in Jerusalem which existed for about forty years. This group of Jews were that foundation that Christ spoke about. The Gentiles had nothing to do with this organization called church. In fact it was known as the Jerusalem church and the Roman Empire had absolutely nothing to do with this foundation.

Well after Jerusalem was sacked in AD-70 we find the Jewish Church in disarray. Primarily because of the very massacre that took place by Rome. We then find an altogether different organization emerging in the early 1st and 2nd centuries. Not Jewish by any means but primarily Gentiles have taken the seat of control.

Tell me. How did the Gentiles gain control of this organization that a Jew built? Peter lived about 67 or 68 years and died before Jerusalem was sacked. Am I expected to believe that Peter went to Rome, while the Jerusalem church was still in existence, and started the church of Christ in the Roman Province itself? I find that very difficult to believe. Wouldn't that be counter productive for God to have a Jerusalem church of Christ Jesus, which is entirely Jewish, and then give the church of Christ to a degenerate Roman Empire who will murder and destroy the Jerusalem church? Would Christ Jesus do this to His own Church? I do not believe this for a moment.

Peter was the rock that Christ built His church upon, but it was Jewish from the front door to the back door. It was in existence till the Roman Gentiles murdered Jews by the score and burned the city to the ground. The Roman Gentiles then took the concept of Christ and claimed it as all victors claim their bounty. By history I see nothing more than usurping the seat of Christ by murder and theft.
Can you enlighten me on my misunderstanding of Catholicism ?

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

All other Christian denominations are offshoots of the original Church - The Holy Roman Catholic Church, founded by Christ, Himself.

wrong actually, the church of Rome is a offshoot of the Greek Orthodox....

Tell me. How did the Gentiles gain control of this organization that a Jew built?

Christ Himself directed his disciples to preach to the Gentiles the Good News. This directive, again, is biblical. Christ is and was for ALL people, not just our Jewish brethren. Whether one is pagan, Hindu, Buddhist, or any other religion, Christ's message is for all people, regardless of one's ethnicity, cultural background, etc.

In fact, the very word, "Catholic", means universal, reflecting that Christ's message is universal for all people, not just our Jewish brethren.

Centuries later, the Church has spread the Gospel of Christ throughout the world to faraway lands, just as Christ had wanted and directed. Today, we have Christ's Church in practically every country spreading the Good News of Christ, with billions of adherents.

Christianity was such a powerful religion that it even conquered and replaced Roman paganism. Romans that used to have temples to Jupiter and the like were now converted to Christianity. Under Constantine, Catholicism became the state religion - Before then, Christians were persecuted.

Yes, the original disciples were Jewish, and Christ was Jewish. However, we see in the New Testament the conversion of the Gentiles to Christianity, and debates among Peter and Paul about what aspects of Jewish Law the Gentiles would be required to follow (such as eating kosher, etc.). It was determined that the Gentiles would have to follow some, but not all of the Jewish Law. You can read the details in the New Testament for further explanation.

Rabbi Jacob Emden talked about how the real goal of Christ was to convert the Gentiles to the Noahide Laws - the 7 laws that non-Jews should follow. In this respect, Christ was very, very successful. Catholics, even today, follow these laws, but not the entirety of the Jewish Mosaic law.

Interestingly enough, if you carefully study the Latin Tridentine Mass - the old Latin rite that was practiced for roughly 1500 years prior to Vatican II, and compare its prayers to the modern Jewish Siddur (prayer book), you will find that nearly all of the prayers in the Latin Mass are very, very Jewish in origin and theology. There is tremendous commonality between the Catholic and Jewish prayers in terms of content and structure.

So, here you now have Gentiles saying Jewish prayers at Mass every Sunday even in our modern day!

You have to remember that Paul, one of the leaders of the early Church who was instrumental in converting the Gentiles, was himself a Jewish Pharisee. He was very much learned in Jewish law. He actively preached to the Gentiles as well.

wrong actually, the church of Rome is a offshoot of the Greek Orthodox....

The origin of the Church is from Christ.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

All other Christian denominations are offshoots of the original Church - The Holy Roman Catholic Church, founded by Christ, Himself.

wrong actually, the church of Rome is a offshoot of the Greek Orthodox....

The Orthodox do not have a successor of St. Peter, but rather, Apostolic succession from the other Apostles which is the only thing giving them valid Sacraments. St. Peter is the head of the Church and his successor denotes the True Church: the Roman Catholic Church. All branches/rites in unity with the Roman Catholic Church are valid, i.e. Eastern Catholics, etc.

The Bishop of Rome, St. Peter's final position before being martyred, is the successor. Pope Benedict XVI is the current Bishop of Rome and by default the Vicar of Christ.

Originally posted by Augustine62

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by CookieMonster09

All other Christian denominations are offshoots of the original Church - The Holy Roman Catholic Church, founded by Christ, Himself.

wrong actually, the church of Rome is a offshoot of the Greek Orthodox....

The Orthodox do not have a successor of St. Peter, but rather, Apostolic succession from the other Apostles which is the only thing giving them valid Sacraments. St. Peter is the *head of the Church and his successor denotes the True Church: the Roman Catholic Church. All branches/rites in unity with the Roman Catholic Church are valid, i.e. Eastern Catholics, etc.

The Bishop of Rome, St. Peter's final position before being martyred, is the successor. Pope Benedict XVI is the current Bishop of Rome and by default the Vicar of Christ.

This should have read "head of the Church on earth", as in, the Vicar of Christ... Christ is the head of the Church. My bad.

Originally posted by Augustine62
St. Peter is the head of the Church and his successor denotes the True Church: the Roman Catholic Church.

Wrong the church of Rome is NOT the 'true church"

Pope Benedict XVI is the current Bishop of Rome and by default the Vicar of Christ.

Only too those that worship him.

Wrong the church of Rome is NOT the 'true church"

It most certainly is. With billions of adherents, and the Church in practically every country on the planet, it is truly the Catholic ("Universal") Church that Christ envisioned.

Christ's directive to his disciples was to spread the Good News to the ends of the earth, and the Church has fulfilled that very directive. In terms of succession, the Pope is in a direct line of succession to St. Peter, the "Rock" on whom Christ would build His Church.

Today, and throughout the centuries, we have missionaries, monks, nuns, and priests scattered all over the world taking care of the poor, the needy, the homeless. No other branch of Christianity has fulfilled Christ's mission in such a direct way. We have Catholic monasteries on practically every continent, filled with monks that pray the Divine Office daily (the "work" of the monks every day is to pray the Book of Psalms). We have hundreds and thousands of Catholic schools and universities, that teach our young people the message of Christ from a very early age. We have thousands upon thousands of churches in practically every town and province throughout the world.

For all its criticism in the media, and among the secular public, the Church today remains a truly "universal Church" --- a holy and spiritual congregation of the faithful, loyal to Christ and His Good News.

Only too those that worship him.

The Pope is never worshiped in Roman Catholicism. Worship is directed towards G-d alone.

Originally posted by spoor

Originally posted by Augustine62
St. Peter is the head of the Church and his successor denotes the True Church: the Roman Catholic Church.

Wrong the church of Rome is NOT the 'true church"

Pope Benedict XVI is the current Bishop of Rome and by default the Vicar of Christ.

Only too those that worship him.

edit on 9-9-2012 by spoor because: (no reason given)

Since this topic is whether The Catholic Church teaches from the Bible...

Just a sampling on St. Peter:

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).
Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles. Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail. Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ. Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father. Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head. Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

And here's some Patristic writings:

"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him." Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out." Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190) [interesting note: St. Mark's Gospel, being the testimony of St. Peter, shows Peter's humility in including the denial of Christ. I think it's safe to say that many would have left that bit out.

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

All quotes sourced from the website in my sig under the sub-page Primacy of Peter

Neither St. Peter nor his successors have ever been worshiped by Catholics. In fact, one of the Pope's titles is "Servant of the servants of God". Servants are not worshiped. Only God. This title is pulled from Matthew 20:27: "27. And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant."

A Roman Catholic Priest is a direct successor of the Apostles? Am I correct in that understanding?
If a priest commits sodomy can he forgive himself? Or can another priest forgive him for sodomy? If priests can forgive the general populace of Catholics then surely they must have the authority to forgive each other. Am I right on this or am I over reaching? If they can forgive each other then they have a circle of being secure. Is this why, when exposed, they are simply shuffled around so to speak?

One other question which I have is this. If Judas Iscariot was an Apostle among eleven other Apostles then why wasn't Judas forgiven for his betrayal to Christ? Even committing suicide, could he not have been forgiven? Or was he forgiven? If I am not a Catholic and I sin, am I then not forgiven for that sin? To enjoy heaven must I join the Catholic Church?

The reason I ask all of these questions is that when I read the bible I understand that all of these Apostles were Jews in the Jerusalem church. When did they join the Roman gentile church? I understand the claim about Peter and all that but what about the other eleven? Did each one of the other eleven have their own bunch of successors like Peter did?