Pastor’s Blog

The Veil Menders
By Greg Durel

The Lord Jesus said many profound and significant things. The most significant might well be His cry from the cross—found in John 19:30, “It is finished.” What was finished, you ask? Why, the redemption of the world. The sin debt of the world was placed on the Lamb of God and taken away as far as the East is from the West. Sin never again to be charged against man. Thus man, now being reconciled to the Father by the cross of Christ has no sin debt to pay for. That is why salvation is FREE! One simply must appropriate it by faith in the One that paid their debt for them. When Paul was asked, “What must I do to be saved?” he could only reply, “believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved.” (Acts 16:30,31)

The BONA FIDES is found in Matthew 27:51: “And behold,
the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom;
and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent.” Notice that the Veil in
the temple was torn in two from top to bottom. Understanding the
purpose of the Veil helps to clearly see the tremendous significance of
this supernatural event. The Veil was used to separate man and his sin
from the presence of God. Because of his sin, man could only approach
the presence of God through the priesthood. History tells us that this
Veil was special. It was not just a curtain. It was made four inches
thick of a continuous weave. No seams. It was 60 cubits in height. Before it was placed in the temple, two teams of oxen were attached to each side to see if they could tear it. If it held, it was suitable for use in the temple. Remember that the Veil is what shielded the Holy of Holies from view and kept sinful man from dying in the presence of a righteous God. Once a year the High Priest was the only one allowed entering beyond the Veil to sprinkle the blood on the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant, for the sins of the nation of Israel. Before he would enter he had to offer a sacrifice for his personal sins. It was so important that he had made an offering for his sin, for, if he entered with a sin not sacrificed for, he would drop dead. You can almost feel his palms sweating. Because of this, bells were attached to the hem of his garment and a rope was tied around his ankle. Once in the Holy of Holies, if the bells were not heard, the rope would be used to drag out his dead body. No one else dared enter.

So what can we learn from the torn Veil?

  1. Only God could have torn it from top to bottom.
  2. God no longer dwells in a tabernacle made with hands (Heb. 9:11).
  3. Everyone may now enter into the presence of the Lord (Heb. 4:16; Rom. 5:1,2).
  4. Sin is no longer a barrier between man and God (2 Cor. 5:19).
  5. There is no need for sacrifices for sins (Heb. 10:18).
  6. There is no need for a sacrificing priesthood (Heb. 7:11-28).

THE VEIL MENDERS had to move rapidly. You can see their dilemma. The religious establishment would be out of business if the Veil were not mended. So the Veil was replaced and the priests were back in business. The Veil Mender society is very busy today in the Roman Catholic Church. Catholicism teaches that:

  1. The Veil was not torn. (This is taught by practice.)
  2. The sin debt was NOT paid for. (Everyone must expiate his or her sins in purgatory.)
  3. Jesus does dwell in tabernacles made by men. (The Tabernacle on every altar.)
  4. There must still be priests to offer sacrifices for sins (Sacrament of the Mass).
  5. The priest is the path of approach to receive Christ (Sacrament of Holy Orders).
  6. Priests are needed for the forgiveness of sins (Sacrament of Confession).

By Vatican theology, Jesus should have cried, “It has only just begun!” instead of “It is finished! To miss the significance of the torn Veil and the words “it is finished,” is to never understand the Grace of God. It is to continue to “try and be saved.” It is to place faith and hope in your own “efforts” and maybe you will be saved. This is not why the Lord Jesus came and died for you. 1 John 2:2 says it all, “And He [Jesus] is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” The verb “is” is a present tense verb showing continuous action. In other words, Jesus is and is and is and is… the propitiation. Propitiation means satisfaction for. So Jesus continually is the satisfaction for our sins and remember, not for only believers, but for the WHOLE world.

Veil Menders are a devious bunch that needs to be exposed. We need to reject their teaching and pray that they may see the Gospel for what it truly is: a GIFT. For, as Paul told Titus, it is not by works of righteousness that we have done, but according to His mercy He saved [past tense] us.

Aren’t you glad?

The Primacy of Peter
By Greg Durel

It is stated, by some,
the Apostle Peter had primacy over the other apostles. He is sometimes
referred to as the “Prince” of the apostles. All of this, of course,
has no basis whatsoever in Scripture and, as a matter of fact, is
contradicted in at least three places in the New Testament. Let us look
at some New Testament facts:

1. Peter’s name appears 153 times in the New Testament.

Paul’s name appears 153 times in the New Testament as well. If Peter
had primacy, if he was the “Chief Apostle” certainly his name would
appear more than the Apostle Paul’s. Does not the President of the
United States’ name appear more often than the Vice President’s name in
the media, or anywhere else for that matter? When we leave the
historical narrative of the Gospels, the transitional narrative of the
Book of Acts, and journey into the Epistles, which is the practical
application of the truths found in the Gospels, we should note even
more facts.

3. Peter’s name appears only seven times in the Epistles.

Paul’s name appears thirty times in the Epistles, more than four times
to one over Peter’s. One would think, when looking for the practical
application of the Christian life, that the “Chief Apostle” would be
the one to turn to, but the reality is that we must look to Paul over
Peter more than four to one for that application.

5. Anyone who
reads the New Testament would have to agree that we live under grace
and not under the law. When we look to the writings of the Apostle
Peter, I and II Peter, we find that Peter mentions the word grace a
total of ten times with no true definitive explanation of grace at all.
When we turn to the writing of the Apostle Paul we find the word grace
mentioned ninety times or nine to one over that of Peter, and in Paul’s
writings, grace is defined and redefined so that even a child could
understand it.

6. Many who promote the “primacy” of Peter also
state that the New Testament does not claim inspiration for itself, but
in the writing of Peter himself. In II Peter 3:15, 16, Peter admits
that the Lord gave revelation to Paul that He did not give to Peter. He
admits further in those passages that Paul’s writings are inspired and
furthermore he very plainly admits that they, in fact, are Scripture.
If we accept the divine origin of the Bible, we must recognize that the
writings of Paul and of Peter are both inspired and they are Holy
Scripture. Upon further reading of the New Testament, we find that
Peter wrote 4,041 inspired words. We also find that Paul wrote 43,402
words of Scripture or more than ten to one. “The Primacy” of whom?

7. The book of Acts records the history of the infant church. After
Acts 12:18, Peter appears in 15 chapters of the book.

In Galatians 2:11-16, we find Paul had to face down the “Prince” of
the apostles because he was teaching heresy. It was Paul who corrects
Peter’s theology on the vital doctrine of grace. Further, in Galatians
2:6-8 we see the Scriptures very clearly states that “God accepts no
man’s person,” that is, no one has primacy. Furthermore, the Bible
states that as the Gospel of the circumcised, the Jews, was given unto
Peter, equally the Gospel of the uncircumcised, the Gentiles, was
committed to Paul. Who do you suppose had the biggest constituency? In
verse 8 it is stated clearly and without doubt that Paul and Peter were
equal and there was certainly no primacy of anyone acknowledged. But
that isn’t all.

9. At the first “Church Council” in
Jerusalem, Acts 15, we find the apostles present at this meeting. Peter
is there, and James is there, etc. We find Peter standing to speak and
clearly stating in verse 10 and 11 that the O1d Testament as well as
the New Testament believers are saved apart from works despite the
teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. We find Barnabas speaking, Paul
speaking, but the important and significant facts that should be noted
here are that the apostle James presided over the council and not
Peter, and it is clear in verse 19 that James, NOT Peter renders the
decision at this council.

10. In Paul’s Epistle to the church in
Rome, he made it clear that he would not even think of coming to Rome
if another apostle had been there, yet alone the chief apostle (Romans
15:20). When he sends his greetings to the believers there, he mentions
27 people but never mentions Peter. Peter was not mentioned because he
was not nor had he ever been there. Peter states in his Epistle that he
was in Babylon and not in Rome. Which was only natural because he was
the apostle to the Jews and not the Gentiles.

11. Furthermore,
in Acts 8, it became necessary to send apostles to Samaria to confirm
and establish the Gospel. We find in verse 14 that Peter was sent and
not the person sending. The “Vicar” of Christ is not sent by the
bishops, but he sends them.

12. For some, only “the words of
Christ in red” are authoritative. For that mindset we turn to the
Gospel of Luke 22:24. There we find “a strife” amongst the apostles
concerning who should have primacy. In verse 25, Christ clearly
indicates that the false dichotomy of clergy and laity is a practice of
pagans. In verse 26 and 27 Christ states that in Christianity God is no
respecter of persons and true humility of service is the path to true

Now, if that were not enough, for the most
logical, open-minded individual, let us put an end to the nonsense of
the “primacy” of Peter and the most foolish notion that Peter was the
first pope and “Vicar” of Christ. Let us call to the witness stand the
noble apostle Peter himself, and from his own mouth and his own
testimony, let us see clearly that he is not the pope, and that he is
not the “Vicar of Christ,” and that he is not “the Chief Apostle,” and
that he has no “Primacy” whatever.

13. In 1 Peter 5:1 the
apostle, writing in 63 A.D., thirty years after the ascension of the
Savior, said, “The elders which are among you I exhort, I WHO AM A
FELLOW ELDER, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ and also a
partaker of the glory that shall be revealed.” Now Peter has had
thirty years to contemplate Christ’s remarks in Matthew 16. He walked
with Christ personally for three years and, three decades later has
absolutely no understanding that he is a pope, a primate, a chief or
anything except an elder in the church. The Word of God says, “let God
be true and every man found to be a liar.” Can we not once and for all
let God be true and let every man who promotes the primacy of Peter and
the very nature of the papacy itself be found to be a liar?

Signs of a Cult
By Greg Durel

There are about seven
principle signs that identify a cult. Now when one hears the word
“cult,” the first connotation is that of some strange obscure religious
group. But for our discussion the word cult is simply a word that
describes organized heresy. In other words, any religious group that
systematically teaches false doctrine. Knowing some of these signs is
key to preventing people from following these cults.

The sign we
will focus on here is the teaching of exclusivity. Cults will declare
that they are the only way to heaven. Apart from them there is no
salvation. They alone are the repositories of truth and all must join
them to be saved. Here one might say, “yea, like the Jehovah’s
Witnesses or the Mormons.” But to infer, let alone say, that
Catholicism is in this class, is to be condemned as a hate monger or
Catholic basher.

To demonstrate that Roman Catholicism bears the
mark of a cult is quite easy indeed. If we were left to our opinions
and personal interpretations, it might be difficult, but Rome has
supplied a mass (no pun intended) of evidence to use. For example:


WITHOUT HER PALE SHALL NEVER BE SAVED.” Pope Gregory the Great (Now how
is that for ecumenism!)

SAVED.” Thomas Aquinas.


5) “IT

Now we
have just cited six infallible sources of the Catholic Church to prove
without reservations that they believe that they are the only way to
heaven. Understand that they are saying that only Roman Catholics have
a chance at going to heaven. This is classic cult mentality. The
organization becomes the focus and the savior. Allow us to clearly
illustrate this fact. In a recent debate with a Jesuit theologian, we
were able to ask a very simple yet extremely important question. The
question was “what do we have to do to go to heaven?” The answer that
followed was very revealing. It clearly proved that Roman Catholicism
teaches that every Baptist is going to hell, in addition to every
Presbyterian, Methodist, etc. The Jesuit theologian said to go to
heaven we must “do” several things.

Firstly, believe the
entire Bible. (Sounds like a fundamentalist.) Secondly, we must be
baptized in water. Thirdly, we must keep the commandments. Fourthly, we
must eat His flesh and drink His blood literally (in the sacrament of
the mass). He mentioned a couple of others, but these four should

The Scripture clearly reveals to one and all that
salvation comes from believing in the Lord Jesus Christ alone. (Cf.
Acts 16:30-31; Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5) The entire book of Galatians was
written to demonstrate the futility of believing that the Law justifies
or saves anyone. But the “eating” and “drinking” the literal flesh and
blood of the Lord Jesus Christ says it all. For according to Roman
Catholic theology, this can only be done after a “priest”—and and only
a priest—says the words of consecration over the bread and wine. Hence,
no Catholic Church, no priest. No priest, no Mass or
transubstantiation. No transubstantiation, no eating His flesh or
drinking His blood. No eating and drinking of Jesus literally, NO

We commend to your reading Hebrews 7, 8, 9 and 10.
The mysticism is clearly not biblical and certainly not necessary for
anyone to be saved. Their insistence on such heresies places them at
the top of the list of religious cults. That statement may seem a bit
harsh, but it is nonetheless true. Catholicism does not differ from any
of the cults where our first sign is concerned. A closer look at the
other signs of a cult further confirm the fact that Catholicism, while
large in number, humanitarian in practice, is still unbiblical and
perhaps the mother of all “Christian” cults.

Hail Mary?
By Greg Durel

The prayer life of the Roman
Catholic is quite different from the Bible believing Christian. The
predominant prayer in the life of almost any Catholic is the “Hail
Mary.” It goes like this: “HAIL MARY FULL OF GRACE, THE LORD IS WITH
THE HOUR OF OUR DEATH. AMEN.” The statements made in this prayer are
quite significant. Allow us to look at them one at a time and compare
them with the word of God to see if there is a basis for such a prayer
at all.

1) Hail Mary—The
word “hail” brings with it today the
connotation of royalty, nobility and power. It is a greeting given to
someone of great power, influence and preeminence. We know very well
that is the position that Roman Catholicism places on Mary. For
example: the principle form for most Catholics is the “rosary.”
 The rosary is a system of beads where a prayer is said for
bead. The beads are a way to count the prayers and to know where and
when to say a particular prayer. In this “rosary,” ten prayers are said
to Mary for every one that is said to God the Father. In other words
Mary is preeminent ten to one over God! Mary is referred to as the
“mother of the church,” “the second Eve,” “the queen of heaven.” The
queen of the universe,” “co-redemptrix,” “co-mediator,” and if that
were not enough, the head of the Roman Catholic Church has dedicated
the world on at least two occasions, not to the savior Jesus Christ,
but to Mary. When he was shot in an assassination attempt, he thanked
and credited Mary with saving him! Attributing praise and worship to
humans that have no basis to receive such is not uncommon in forms of
religious and political paganism, e.g., “Hail Caesar” or “Hail Hitler.”

Full of Grace—Wow!
What a statement. The teaching is clear. Mary was
not ordinary, but was in fact “full” of grace. She must have been
special to be “full of grace,” right? What does God’s word have to say
on the matter? John chapter 1 is like a giant spotlight on this
subject. It clearly tells us that Jesus Christ is the one that is full
of grace. Mary is never said to be full of grace in the scripture. John
goes on to tell us in verse 16 that we are all full of His grace and
truth, because all believers have Jesus dwelling within them. Only in
this sense could Mary have been full of grace. The grace would have
been the savior she carried in her womb and after Pentecost, the spirit
of Christ that lives in every believer.

3) The Lord is with thee—The
Lord is with every believer or they are
not in fact a believer (Rom. 8:9).

Blessed art thou
among women
—While this statement is certainly
biblical, it must be understood in the light of biblical truth and not
as a result of subjective interpretation. The New Testament was written
in “koine” Greek as opposed to classical. There are several words in
the Greek language for blessed. Just like there are several words for
“love.”  Each having a different meaning or carrying with it
particular connotation. A failure to examine the underlying text is a
gross mistake on the part of the student of God’s word. The word
translated “blessed” when speaking of Mary is not the same word used
when referring to our Lord. The word used for Mary means to pronounce
fortunate and indeed she was. On the other hand the word used for
blessed when referring to our Lord means to be adored. Quite a
difference wouldn’t you say? You may even wish to check your
concordance to see if there is a woman whom the Bible says is blessed
“above” women.

5) Blessed is the fruit
of thy womb,
—Without a doubt this is the truth that should be the
focus: the
Lord Jesus, the Messiah and savior of the world. This should be the
emphasis and not Mary. Many, though, know not what they worship.

Holy Mary, Mother
of God
—What a statement! Is it true? Not by any
stretch of the imagination. The Bible clearly teaches that the only
HOLY one is God. Mary in what is known as her Magnificat, rejoices in
God HER SAVIOR (Lk.1: 47). Holiness does not need saving. Mary, after
the birth of Jesus, offers a sacrifice for HER SINS. Holiness need not
offer a sacrifice for sins. Mary, as any believer received her
righteousness as a gift from the Father. There was nothing inherently
holy about Mary. Even Thomas Aquinas denies the “immaculate conception”
of Mary. Regarding the “Mother of God” statement much not need be said.
God was not born nor was He created. Mary gave birth to the “humanity”
of Jesus. Jesus was God, because He is God! The statement “Mother of
God” developed out of a reaction to the denial of the Deity of Jesus by
some. That overreaction has resulted in the tail wagging the dog so to
speak. Mary was the vessel by which the incarnation took place but she
was not the supplier of Divine chromosomes.

7) Pray for us
—Mary does not pray for you or me. She does not
even know that
we exist. If she could know millions and millions of people then she
would be a God! While I can pray for you if you were to ask me to, I am
alive here on earth. If I would know that you were asking me to pray
for you from a thousand miles away, then I would be like God. Do you
get the picture? Mary has been clearly given the attributes of God. The
adjective “sinners” is used because all good Catholics are still
trying to pay for their sin debt. Failing to realize that when Christ
said, “it is finished,” He meant it. When God the Father declared it
through Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:17-20 He certainly was not kidding.

Now and at the hour
of our death
—Now,” she could not even if she
wanted to. “At the hour of our death,” why? Please tell me what would
be the purpose of such a prayer (if one could be made) at the hour of
our death? Further, she again would have to be a “GOD” to know where
and when we were going to die.

9) Amen—A
permanent amen should
been given to prayers to anyone other than God. The Father is to be the
recipient of all prayer.

In summary, allow me to say that Mary was a wonderful vessel that the
Father used. Mary was chosen for these reasons:

  1. She was a fine, virtuous, faithful to the law Jewish
  2. She was of the “seed” of King David.
  3. She was a virgin.

qualifications were the Biblical reasons to choose her. Not having just
one of these prerequisites would have caused God’s prophecies to fail.
Did Mary play an important role in the Bible? Yes, but so did Noah and
Joseph, etc. Remember, Jesus never called Mary Mother. Not even once!
No Apostle ever asks her opinion on anything. No one in the Bible ever
asks Mary to pray for them. After the first chapter of the fifth book
of the New Testament she is never mentioned again and then only in a
list of other believers.

Please allow the Scripture to bring you to a true understanding of Mary
the Mother of Jesus.

Catholicism And Lordship Salvation
By Greg Durel

topic of Lordship salvation is a source for long theological
discussions in biblical circles. It is a topic that one would not
expect to find within a religious institution that teaches salvation by
works and sacraments, etc.  But Romanism does teach Lordship
salvation. The Lordship of the Roman pontiff! In other words, the
Church of Rome teaches that one must be subject to the Pope and
recognize him as Lord to be saved.

Now at this point some may be
screaming, “That is absurd. The Catholic Church teaches no such thing.”
But the reality is that they do in fact teach that the Lordship of the
Roman Catholic pope is necessary for salvation. Those who reject this
Catholic dogma cannot be saved. Let us prove this teaching from
official Catholic sources:

1. “No man outside the Roman
Catholic Church and outside obedience to the Pope of Rome can
ultimately be saved…all who have raised themselves against the faith
of the Roman Church and have died in final impenitence have been damned
and have gone down into eternal punishments of hell.” Pope Clement VI

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary
for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman
Pontiff.” Pope Boniface VIII

3. “Where the necessity of
salvation is conceded, all the faithful of Christ must be subject to
the Roman Pontiff.” V Lateran Council

4. “It is an absolute
necessity to submit to the Head and Supreme Pastor… to whom it is
absolutely necessary for salvation to remain subject.” Pope Leo XIII

Popes and an ecumenical council. All of which are said to be infallible
since they are teaching in matters of faith and morals. Some will deny
this truth because these quotes are bigoted and certainly unbiblical.
But nevertheless they clearly prove our point. Many more quotes from
official Roman Catholic sources could be given but these four should
suffice the person who is intellectually honest.

It should be of
no surprise to anyone who understands Romanism how these statements
could be made. Remember this is the “church” that refers to the Pope
as the Holy Father,” the “Vicar of Christ” and when he speaks
“ex-cathedra” it is as if God the Holy Spirit was teaching. Imagine
that Romanism has given to its visible human head the titles and
attributes of every member of the trinity! A religious institution that
teaches that a mere man is the Holy Father, when the Bible clearly
teaches that only the Father in heaven is Holy. A religious
Institution that teaches that a mere man is the Vicar of Christ, when
the Bible clearly teaches that it is God the Holy Spirit who is the
Vicar of Christ. A religious institution that teaches that a mere man
is infallible, when the Bible clearly proclaims that only God is
infallible. Imagine a religious institution that has proclaimed that
the Lord Jesus Christ, the Apostle Paul and the Apostle John are
anathema. (Cf. Luke 26:44: 1 Cor. 1:17; I John 5:13). According to
Jesuit Priest Mitch Pacwa, Phd., to be declared anathema is to be
forbidden the sacraments. And to be forbidden the sacraments is to be
denied what is necessary for attaining Heaven. When one considers the
gravity of these statements it is not hard to see how the Roman Pope
could be declared necessary for salvation. I challenge you to examine
your faith in light of God’s word as well as the statements that have
been made in this article. Reject feelings, opinions, traditions, etc.
and let God’s word stand firm.

There is only one Lord and His
name is Jesus the Christ. He requires only faith in Him for your
salvation. Anything that adds or detracts from that truth is another
Gospel. The Apostle Paul instructs us in Galatians 1:8 what our
response to Romanism should be. Will we have the courage to believe the
Scripture and reject the religious nonsense of Popery or will we remain
chained to a religious system for fear of peer pressure or concern for
friends and love ones and their feelings? In Matthew chapter 10 the
Lord tells us that faith in Him will divide families. Will you choose
Him? He loves you and gave His life for you so that you could have
eternal life. What will your response be? When one reads the Word of
God and sees the startling contrasts between it and the Roman Catholic
Religion the choice is not a difficult one at all.

“Bless me, Father…”? Part 1
by Greg Durel

As a Roman Catholic
for over a quarter of a century, I said those words often. For the
unleaded, they are said at the beginning of every trip to the
confessional where a Catholic goes to seek absolution for their sins.
For the unlearned again, Roman Catholicism teaches that a Catholic
priest has the power to forgive sins. For those that doubted this, Pope
John Paul II reaffirmed this teaching in the first years of his papacy.
 Hence the petition “bless me, Father.”

Catholic is seeking favor from the priest himself. Now the Bible
prohibits the addressing of any person as “Father” in the spiritual
sense. Yes, you may address your biological father as such but NOT
someone in a religious context. For the Lord Jesus is very clear on the
subject: “And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your
Father, which is in heaven” (Matt 23:9 (KJV). In the context of the
chapter He is clearly referring to men assuming the role that
God the Father has a right to.

So the very thought of a person
being addressed as your spiritual “father” is unbiblical to
the least Referring to a person as THE HOLY FATHER
is blasphemous
at best. It does not take a rocket scientist to see the path that Rome
puts its sheep on. From the get-go they are taught that the priest is
something special, holier than thou and certainly closer to God than a
mere lay person. The Baltimore catechism teaches that when a priest
puts on his vestments he becomes an “alter christus,” i.e., another
Christ. When you see the priest you are seeing Jesus Christ as well. In
the minds of many Roman Catholics the parish priest is sacrosanct and
above reproach. Remember that it is a priest and only a priest that can
change the bread and wine of the Lord’s table into the literal body,
blood, soul and divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ.

What if there were
no priests or priesthood?

put the answer very simply, there would be no Roman Catholic Church. If
the Bible were ever to become authoritative In the Catholic Church,
there would certainly be no priests. An example of the complete
disregard for the sacred Scripture held by the Roman Catholic Church is
seen in the mandatory requisite of celibacy for every priest. One
simply must read Paul’s epistle to Timothy, where God gives the
requirements for a Pastor: “A bishop, then must be blameless, the
husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behavior, given to
hospitality, apt to teach” (1 Tim. 3:2).

Now the phrase “must
be” is very interesting. Maybe you have seen it before in
the Bible. Perhaps in the third chapter of the Gospel of John?
you remember what Jesus said to Nicodemus? He said, “you must be born
again.” Now I am sure that no respectable Roman Catholic theologian
would deny the fact that this command is obligatory. The new birth is
NOT optional! The language in 1 Timothy 3:2 is the same as in John 3.
Therefore the pastor must be a MARRIED MAN. How clear is that? There is
nothing like the word of God to clear up a religious education. Do you
realize the impact of this truth? There is only one “church” where
NONE of its pastors are married. Not only are they not married, but
also the Roman Catholic Church forbids them being married. Now the
Bible has something to say about anyone that would forbid a pastor from
being married: “Now the Spirit speakers expressly, that in the latter
times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing
spirits. and doctrines of devils
; speaking lies in
hypocrisy; having
their conscience seared with a hot iron; forbidding to marry, and
commanding to abstain from meats
, which God hath created
to be received
with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth (1 Tim.

If you believe the Word of God you must then reject the
Roman Catholic Church. For their Doctrines are of devils and completely
contrary to the Bible. At best you must reject this absurd notion of a
celibate priesthood, which in turn makes the teaching magisterium of
the church no longer infallible, but in fact heretical and
therefore should be rejected.

The Bible and a
Sacrificing, Mediating Priesthood

Council of Trent declared, “If anyone saith that there is not in the
New Testament a visible and external priesthood; or, that
there is
not any power of consecrating and offering the true body and
of the Lord, and forgiving and retaining sins, but only an office and
bare ministry of preaching THE GOSPEL; OR, THAT THOSE WHO DO NOT PREACH
ARE NOT priests at all: let him be anathema.” It seems clear
Rome knows that if she has no priesthood that she must close up shop.

Let us prove that there is no sacrificing priesthood in the New
Testament from their scholars.

Catholic Encyclopedia says: “THE DIVINE INSTITUTION OF

What an admission! The
Roman Catholic Priesthood was made up hundreds of years after Jesus
Christ! It is nowhere to be found in the Word of God. The only
priesthood found in the New Testament that applies to Christians is the
Royal Priesthood of ALL BELIEVERS. No more offering a sacrifice for
sins because the Lord Jesus offered a perfect sacrifice once for all
and said it was finished. Nothing for you and yours to do except what
the apostle Paul said in Acts 16:31: “believe on the Lord Jesus
Christ, and you will be saved.”

me, Father…”? Part 2

by Greg Durel

Recently, I
wrote a paper entitled “Bless me Father…”? It seems to
have caused quite a stir. As usual the opposition never deals with the
text at hand, but rather tries to circumvent the issue by using
secondary sources and opinions of men. This in itself is further proof
that Roman Catholic apologists are simply “ANTI-BIBLE”. The Word of
God is not their final authority and certainly not their only
authority. Their authority lies in the traditions of men. Check and see
if an issue is ever answered with just the Word of God being the final
word. You will never see that in this life.

. “Call no man your Father” is very clear in
23:9 to the intellectually honest person. It certainly is not referring
to your BIOLOGICAL father. We are to give to no man the office of
spiritual father. We have ONE Spiritual Father who is in heaven.
Protestants are just as wrong when they use the term “Doctor” when
referring to someone in a spiritual role. Does anyone ever refer to
anyone in the New Testament as father

“? The New Testament does
not teach the false dichotomy of “laity” and “clergy.” That is a
man-made invention. Further, to deny that Catholicism teaches the
primacy of their priesthood is an insult to anyone that has been
through a basic catechism for children. But let us not be the final
word on that, but allow us to quote official Roman Catholic sources.

  1. “THE
  2. “INDEED,
  4. “TO

I would think
that would be sufficient proof for anyone that the priest
is “sacrosanct” to the average catholic. But if not that, how about the
title “HOLY FATHER”! No one ever seems to deal with that issue. How can
Karol W. aka JPII be the “HOLY FATHER”? Please explain that from the
Word of God.

not try and tell any Catholic in the pew that Catholic
priests can marry. Their celibacy is not optional. Thousands have left
the various orders because they wanted to marry. Of course we are aware
that a priest does not break his vow of chastity unless he marries.
Simply having sex will not break the vow according to “Catholic”
morals. Further to deny the mandate in 1 Timothy 3:2 is childish and
ANTI-BIBLE. Jesus declares in John 3 that we “must be….” Then
obviously we must be whatever comes after. Paul tells Timothy that the
pastor “must be…”! So the prerequisites of the pastor in 1 Timothy
“Must be” met! Not just one or two of them, but ALL of them. A husband
is a married man! You don’t need to be a Jesuit to figure that out.
Paul was not a pastor but an Apostle. It was his option to marry or
not. There are no qualifications for Apostles other than

  1. They
    were a
    witness of the resurrection of Christ;
  2. Chosen
    Christ Himself’;
  3. Discipled
    Jesus Christ.

Hence it was
not a problem that Peter was married, nor was it required
of him since he was not a pastor either. For a real interesting
study-why were Catholic priests forbidden to marry?

Bible clearly does not teach a sacrificing, mediating
earthly priesthood of men. It does teach of a mediating High priest who
offered one sacrifice, for all, forever and is now our sole mediator,
advocate and savior. His name is Jesus the Christ. In the first article
I quoted from The Catholic Encyclopedia to prove that the Roman
Catholic priesthood was NOT
and “cannot
be traced back to
Christ Himself by analysis of strut historical testimony
If that were
not enough, let us quote some other official Catholic sources:

  1. The
    priests, “priesthood” are never applied in the New
    Testament to the office of the Christian ministry. All Christians are
    said to be priests (Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold Pg.
  2. “The
    priesthood evolved” (Catholic Ency. Vol. XII).
  3. “Priests
    were not so called in the very earliest Christian times;
    rather they were the presbyters or elders (Mass of the Future, Ellard,
    pg. 66).
  4. “The
    Apostolic Fathers abstained from any mention of a Christian
    priesthood” “Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold pg. 693).

It should now
quite clear that there was never a Roman Catholic
priesthood established by the Lord Jesus Christ, but rather a
priesthood of believers, in which every born again person is a member.

ISSUE #4. The
argument that the word “presbyters” should be
translated “priest” because the German matches is laughable. Firstly,
the Bible, i.e., the New Testament, was written in Koine Greek not
German. Secondly, there was no “German” language at the time the New
Testament was written. Thirdly, the Greek language has its own word for
priest (Heirus) and that word is never used when referring to a New
Testament Believer. One only has to read Hebrews chapter 7 to see
clearly that the Lord did not establish such a thing as a sacrificing
priesthood. All “veil-menders” must believe that He did in order to
keep people under religious bondage and give them job security. Even
Peter twenty-five years after the cross of Christ testifies that he is
merely a co-elder and nothing more. Nowhere in the New Testament does
Peter or Paul or any Christian offer a “Mass” for the sins of the
living and the dead. Nowhere in the New Testament does Peter or Paul or
any Apostle hear someone’s confession. Nowhere in the New Testament for
that matter, does anyone even mention a “sacrament” or even have a clue
as to what one is. If you were to give them Romanism’s definition they
would surely say that you were ANTIBIBLE and that you were frustrating
the Grace of God.

In closing let
me say that a person must not let some secondary source
correct a primary source. Never let someone’s opinion be your
authority, but only allow God’s word to have the final say in the

God Bless.

Mass: Miracle or Mendacity?

By Greg Durel

The Mass is the heart and soul of Roman Catholic worship. Without the
Mass there would be no Roman Catholic Institution. The Mass is unique
to Romanism, for only they teach and believe in the Doctrine of
Transubstantiation. This doctrine teaches that when the priest and only
a priest says the words of consecration, that the bread and wine are
literally changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of the Lord
Jesus Christ. Christ is then offered again as a sacrifice for the sins
of the living and the dead. Rome teaches that it is necessary for one’s
salvation to partake of the Mass. Peter Kreest, in the book Ecumenical
Jihad, says the mass is an extension of Calvary’s cross. He states that
protestant communion is deficient.

Eat Protestant communion bread, and you have not eaten Christ. You have
no more grace than if you had only prayed or read the Bible. But eat
the Catholic Host, and you are really filled with Christ, as really as
Mary’s womb was.

As a result of this unbiblical theory, we find chapels of perpetual
adoration where a piece of bread is knelt before, prayed to and
worshipped. Kreeft gives an excellent argument from logic to reject
this false teaching, even though he uses it to try and prove the
opposite. He tells of a Muslim student that can not believe that a
Catholic really believes that a piece of bread is not bread at all but
in reality is Jesus Christ in the flesh. Remember, to deny that
doctrine is to be hell-bound according to the Council of Trent as well
as Vatican II. The Muslim says that if a person really believes that
they were in the presence of the Lord God they would never get up off
their knees, much less turn their back on Him and walk out.

The Muslim’s point is well taken and correct. If this miracle has taken
place and Catholicism believes that it certainly has:
The supreme power of the priestly once is the power of consecrating.
“No act is greater,” says St. Thomas, “than the consecration of the
body of Christ” In this essential phase of the sacred ministry, the
power of the priest is not surpassed by that of the bishop, the
archbishop, the cardinal or the pope. Indeed it is equal to that of
Jesus Christ. For in this role the priest speaks with the voice and
authority of God Himself.

When the Priest pronounces the tremendous words of consecration, he
reaches up into the heavens, brings Christ down from His throne, and
places Him upon our altar to be offered up again as the Victim for the
sins of man. It is a power greater than that of monarchs and emperors:
It is greater than that of the saints and angels, greater than that of
the Seraphim and Cherubim.

Indeed it is greater even than the power of the Virgin Mary While the
Blessed Virgin was the human agency by which Christ became incarnate a
single time, the priest brings Christ down from heaven, and renders Him
present on our altar as the eternal Victim for the sins of man—not once
but a thousand times! The priest speaks and lo! Christ, the eternal and
omnipotent God, bows his head in humble obedience to the priest’s
command. (Cardinal John A. O’Brien, The Faith of Millions, Our Sunday
Visitor, Inc., (Huntington, IN 1974), pp. 255-256).

Would anyone leave the physical presence of the risen Savior? I would
think not.

The Mass and the
Bible—do they agree?

When you ask a Catholic to show you where in the Bible one can find the
Lord instituting the Mass, you will be directed to the passages dealing
with the “Last Supper.” You will be told that when Christ says the
words, “this is my body,” the bread is changed into His body and the
same miracle occurs with the wine.

A few years ago, in a dialogue with a “Eucharistic minister,” I was
told that, clearly, anyone could see that this was the institution of
the sacrament by Christ. I responded by asking him a few questions.

  1. Is
    the Mass a sacrifice for sins for the living and the dead. His
    answer, Yes!
  2. Did
    Jesus Christ celebrate the first Mass at the “Last Supper”? His
    answer, Yes!
  3. Was
    it a perfect Mass? His answer, Of course!
  4. If
    Christ offered a perfect sacrifice for the sins of the living and
    the dead at the “Last Supper,” why did He have to die on the cross? And
  5. How
    can the Mass be a re-presentation of the Cross when it preceded
    the Cross?

His answer,
silence for about two minutes, ”No you don’t understand.
What Christ did at the ‘Last Supper’ was just pointing to what He would
do on the Cross!”

I replied, “You are right and when we celebrate the Lord’s Supper today
we are pointing back to what Christ has already done on the Cross for
us. ‘For by ONE offering He hath selected FOREVER…'”

He became very quiet and replied, “I have a lot to think about.”

The intellectually honest person, when reading passages dealing with
the last Passover meal that Jesus shared with His apostles, will
quickly notice the absence of words such as sin, Sacrifice, offering,
Priest, etc. You must force your presuppositions into the text to
retrieve the Roman Catholic doctrine of the Mass and the Priesthood.

The Mass and

Whenever a person reads Catholic catechisms or theological works for
Biblical proof of the false doctrine of Transubstantiation we are
brought to John chapter six without fail.

For the sake of space, let us look strictly at the text involved.
Verses 53-56 are used to prove that you are to literally eat His flesh
and drink His blood to be saved. Leaving aside the fact that this is
unnatural and against Levitical law (cf. Lev. 17), Transubstantiation
is disproved by John chapter six.

Firstly, the verbs in this verse are NOT present tense verbs, which
they would be if we were to repetitiously partake of His flesh and
blood in the Mass. They are, In fact, aorist tense verbs which tells us
that, whatever this eating and drinking really is, it is to be done
only one time.

Secondly, verse 58 clearly tells us that this is not literal eating at
did they eat manna? Literally! Was the manna physical or spiritual?
Physical! So we are not literally eating any literal thing. We are in
fact spiritually receiving something SPIRITUAL. If you miss it in verse
58, you get it again in verse 63. Jesus says here that the words that
He is speaking are SPIRITUAL! This is why when the apostle Paul is
asked the question in Acts 16:30, ”What must I do (present
tense—literally “do and keep on doing”) to be saved?” He replies,
“Believe (aorist tense—literally “believe one time for salvation”) on
the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved…”

Nowhere in the New Testament does anyone celebrate a “Mass.” It is not
some miracle, but is in reality a falsehood, a religious ritual that
says the work of Christ on the cross was deficient and incomplete. It
should be rejected as all false doctrine should.