If you are considering Catholicism, consider this first.

“If anyone comes and tells me they’re the church and I know that they’re not teaching the same thing as the church of 2000 years ago then I know it’s false.” (Dr. Sungenis)

The above quote is the philosophy of Catholic apologist Dr. Robert Sungenis who made this comment during a debate with Evangelical apologist, Matt Slick this past July.

Apparently Dr. Sungenis never applied his philosophy to his own beliefs, because if he did he would find his own church to be false. This is because none of the “oral [T]raditions” of the Catholic Church that Catholics are required to believe were known in the ancient church nearly 2000 years ago. And what are Catholics required to believe? Dr. Sungenis answers that for us:

“Any oral teaching inspired by the Holy Spirit to the apostles is our Oral Tradition that we must be obedient to.” (ibid)

So for anyone that might be considering joining the Catholic faith, here is a non-comprehensive list of doctrines Catholics are required to believe that did not exist in the apostolic and Ante-Nicene church; doctrines that according to Dr. Sungenis, were received by the apostles from the Holy Spirit and passed down to the church by oral tradition.

  1. The Immaculate Conception
  2. The assumption of Mary
  3. Transubstantiation
  4. Confessing sins to priests
  5. Holy days of obligation
  6. And the requirement to believe that the Roman bishop is infallible in regards to his proclamations concerning faith and morals.

I would love to hear from Catholics on this, especially apologists. Is Dr. Sungenis wrong, or is the Catholic Church teaching false doctrine?


250 Responses to If you are considering Catholicism, consider this first.

  1. Etekia M Bouatoa says:

    Hi Brian

    Thanks for seeing what I mean. Now I want also to post this one which is concern to Robert Sungenis, an Apologist you mentioned in your article above.

    Dr Robert Sungenis, based on Irenaeus’ writings, says that “…Irenaeus also believes in the perpetuation of that tradition through the unbroken succession of presbyters (bishops and priests) in the Churches. (Not by Scripture alone, pp. 296–297)

    My question then is what tradition Irenaeus believes being perpetuated through the unbroken succession of presbyters? Is the assumption of Mary one of that tradition Irenaeus believed being perpetuated to the unbroken succession of presbyters from the Apostles? I don’t think so. To me the existence of the Marian doctrines is a proof of the broken apostolic tradition and of those in the church who would go astray from the truth of the Gospel as Paul the Apostle says so.

    I kind to agree with the unbroken succession of presbyters in their person just like in England regarding the unbroken line of Kings or Queens, succession in the line of Presidents of the United States and etc, but for that Apostolic tradition (Teaching) which is the rule of faith according to Irenaeus, no way to be unbroken in the Roman Catholic Church. One good example, as I mentioned already, is the Assumption of Mary. If the teachings of the Apostles truly perpetuated through the unbroken succession of presbyters from the Apostles then I would agree that such a doctrine and other developmental Marian doctrines, if were truly the teaching (tradition) of the Apostles, would have to be taught in scripture by the early church in the Act of the Apostles and known by the first early fathers of the church, but that didn’t happen. What really happened is the condemnation of that doctrine by two Popes, Gelasius and Hormisdas in the line of succession, and that shows it was something problematic, for why not accepting it if it is one of a tradition being perpetuated through the unbroken succession of presbyters? So to me it is an astray from the Gospel which is the teaching of the Apostles.

    To my understanding, the problem with Robert Sungenis is that, first, he does not know that the tradition Irenaeus was referring to is the rule of faith that of course derives from the scripture. Secondly, he also have no idea that Irenaeus was speaking of the church in his time (more orthodoxy), not knowing what would happen within churches in centuries to come.

    Therefore, all Catholics should understand that the line of succession was unbroken, if that really true, but the faith hold by each leaders in the line of succession has been truly broken and how do I know that? Search the scripture and compare with the history of the Roman Catholic Church’s doctrines and teachings. And in so doing you will come to the truth nothing but the truth, and will deeply understand what I mean.

    God bless all


  2. Etekia M Bouatoa says:

    Hi Brian and Mike

    I just come across one article by Steve Ray which to me personally is full of deception and hypocrisy. I read the article so many times (one in the pdf form) and it’s really funny. And one funniest thing is his own assertion to his own question and I quote:

    If one of the two groups of Jews could possibly be tagged as believers in solaScriptura, who would it be, the Thessalonians or the Bereans? The Thessalonians, ofcourse. They also, like the Bereans, examined the Scriptures with Paul in the synagogue,yet they rejected his teaching.

    To me a more sound response to his question is the Berean Jews of course to possibly be tagged as believers in sola scriptura, because they knew their scripture very well, and because of that they agreed with the oral teaching of Paul which he did proclaim at that time orally to the Thessalonica, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith, as Irenaeus says (but Ray don’t really understand what sola scriptura is), that what is been foretold by the prophets in their scripture (Old testament) has been fulfilled by Jesus Christ, and that is the message Paul preached to them. That is the truth. They just not open minded to accept what Paul teach but they look into the scripture to find whether Paul was consistent with their scripture alone or not. That is truly sola scriptura. If they did not search the scripture then it is not sola scriptura. It is not sola scriptura if they just open minded only to accept Paul’s message without searching a scripture. What Ray think if they open minded to Paul’s message but found that it is not consistent with the teaching of their scripture alone, are they going to accept? I don’t think so.

    On the other hand, the Thessalonian Jews were not, because they did not know their scripture very well. If they did they would understand what their scripture actually said that the Messiah being foretold in their scripture must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; …. Anyway, John the Apostle knew that there are Jews knew not their scripture very well when he said:

    For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. (John 20:9)

    They knew only, in their dream, that their Messiah would come in earthly reign. So is that sola scriptura? No, it is human tradition.

    So what your opinion my friends on this? The article can be found in this site:


    But one that I read is in a PDF form that I believe it has been deleted after revision has been made.

    God bless all


  3. Etekia. M. Bouatoa says:

    I was really surprised that my account in the Catholic answers was locked for this reason: Agenda of public contempt for the Catholic faith. So it seems that we Protestant are not allowed to raise “Agenda of public contempt for the Catholic faith” while those who believe in their teachings can raise agenda of public contempt for Protestant faith, that is really amazing!

    Anyway I don’t see any reason for public contempt for the Catholic faith in my questions, and because I see no reason for that so I came to believe others who often told me that that Forum is a place for misleading people. They cannot deal with my questions that I gave and more sadly they cannot provide oral teachings which I asked that Paul mentioned in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

    Finally, they said that I have been very badly misinformed.

    God bless


  4. Mike says:

    Don’t be surprised Etekia. Catholic Answers is famous for only giving answers to those in their faith who already believe. It’s more of a propaganda site than an actual apologetic resource. It’s not concerned about those of us who would really like genuine, ground answers to our questions. Think of how far Paul or Peter would have gotten if they banished out of their midst anyone who didn’t agree with them and challenged their faith? It’s a good indicator that Roman Catholics, even their most prominent apologists, can’t stand the heat of Scripture!


  5. Mike says:

    Good thoughts Etekia. I think the best example of someone in early history who was Sola Scriptura is Jesus Himself. I know of not one example He gave where he pointed to the church, tradition, or oral teaching either looking backward or forward where we are to ground our faith, or anywhere He indicated the Scriptures were not enough. In fact, there are many Scriptures where Jesus warns of just the opposite in tradition, teachings of men, and other sources. Most Roman Catholics are blind to this.


  6. Etekia. M. Bouatoa says:

    Hi Mike

    I agreed with you that the best example of someone in early history who was Sola Scriptura is Jesus Himself, because he said and I quote:

    And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world. He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak. (John 12:47-49)

    Now regarding my issue with Catholic Answers Forum you are right but it is unfair, because our differences cannot be understood by those who already trap in their deception. It is so sad too to the fact that those who listen would have some kind of thought that I cannot deal with their comments because I never replied to which in truth I was locked. Anyway, God knows everything.

    God helps us to understand His word, so good luck all and God bless.


  7. Etekia. M. Bouatoa says:

    I like to share something with you guys of Michael Lopez saying in his written debate with David Riggs, if this relevant to this post, but if not I am happy if Brian delete it. I have no problem, because I too believe that I was posting many things here. Michael said:

    “Faith comes by hearing, not reading the word of God (Rom. 10:17).”

    Is that true? I don’t think so. To me, it is funny, because it looks like Michael does not understand that the word “hear”, to my own limited and poor understanding of English linguistic, can be acquired in two ways; by listening and reading. Even though reading and listening are two different things, the result of each is the same. When the Apostles preached God’s word orally those who listen hear God’s word. On the other hand, in the case of their letter, one who read, for instance Paul’s letter to the Church, people who listen were in the same sense of hearing the word of God from that letter. So there is no difference. When you read scripture you hear God’s speaking to you. When you hear someone reading the scripture you also hear God’s speak. Thus hearing can happened when either you read or listen. We today preach orally the word of God, but in reality it is not a pure oral words independent from scripture. We preached what we read from the scripture i.e. the word of God, to the people.

    The problem with Michael’s interpretation on Romans 10:17 was obvious in the Roman Catholic Church circle. Catholics are not allowed to read the scripture for themselves, and the reason is because they are not eligible to understand and to interpret for themselves, but only their priests who are the Apostles of today. So they must listen to what those new Apostles had to say to them.

    What really funny is the saying of one Apologist I too get from that same debate that seem to me to be the reason why Catholics laymen were not allowed to read scripture. That saying implies the notion that their people should not read scripture. Here is the saying, goes if I took it into their own context. Catholics should not read scripture because it “…will do him no good if he lacks a diet sufficiently nutritious to let his brain function properly and his mind work clearly…” This is truly nonsense. So who is one that don’t lack such diets, their Pope, Cardinals and Apologists?I don’t think so.

    The truth is Christ died not for some people but for all. So everyone does not lack what I prefer to call it the “grace”. One who receive that grace through faith alone in Christ Jesus alone does not “…lack a diet sufficiently nutritious to let his brain function properly and his mind work clearly…”

    So the foregoing citation brings me sadness to my heart when seeing my brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic Church being deceived with that in a way they are being called by James Akin in his saying Michael cited it in the debate. To me no one “…lacks a diet sufficiently nutritious to let his brain function properly and his mind work clearly…”when reading scripture. The cause of that deficiency in man is the heart, if one lacks the heart for his or her love or relationship with Christ Jesus, then that will do no good even when reading scripture. So Catholics don’t “…lacks a diet sufficiently nutritious to let his brain function properly and his mind work clearly…” because the vail has been torn from top to bottom (Matthew 27:51). We are no longer required an earthly priest to offer a sacrifice for us, because the one who torn the vail was now become our only High Priest who has open the way for us to directly communicate to God through Him.

    The only problem we have is lacking the heart to search the truth. Catholics did not lack the heart to me, but they were been deceived and were threaten with hell as a result of their disobedience not to the word of God, but to theirs which they claim it is from God even if it contradicts what we have in a written word of God. And that is the point Michael was trying to convey from his misinterpretation on Romans 10:17.

    So my brothers and sisters, if you read scripture wholeheartedly you will find the truth and that will set you free from any deception and hypocrisy, and you will find as well that what they claim for you, as lacking “…a diet sufficiently nutritious to let your brain function properly and your mind work clearly” was indeed applies to them and not you.

    This is another point I believe you have to consider before becoming a slave to the Pope and not Christ.

    God bless


  8. […] If you are considering Catholicism, consider this first. […]


  9. Etekia says:

    Hi everyone

    I’ve been listening to a debate between Tim Staples and Mike Gendron online and one thing that really interesting me is Tim’s reply to a question about the second commandment. In his reply he said that the Catholic Church did not remove the second commandment but she saw the need to separate the 10th commandment into two which says:

    You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is your neighbor’. (Exodus 20:17)

    The reason, as he stated, was because the wife was not the property, but a human being who has the dignity like the husband. Therefore 10th commandment should be divided into two: one concerned properties of any kind and the other of a woman alone. In that case, the 9th commandment should state: you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, and the 10th; You shall not covet your neighbor’s house, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is your neighbor’.

    Can anyone explain to me what is the wife in the Jew’s context? What law should apply to the wife, in the Jews context, if she had an affair with another man? Is there a punishment for such a woman and what kind of punishment if there is? To me, if it is death by stoning then Tim Staples was wrong because in that case the woman in the Jews cultural context was the property of a man or husband, and so was the reason a wife was counted amongst the “properties” of a husband or neighbors in that one commandment.

    Therefore, I still believe that the Roman Catholic Church did removed the second commandment to protect her lies. Any opinions to correct my understanding?


  10. Etekia says:

    Happy new year everyone


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: