This article is part of a series: Top 6 Misquoted Bible Verses. Click here to visit the introduction article.
In spite of claiming to be the one true Church of Christ, the Catholic Church doesn't have a huge amount of respect for His word. That's not to say it doesn't claim to respect it. Officially, the Bible is considered the word of God in the Catholic Church. As we find stated in the Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, "...both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence". Given how highly Catholicism reveres, and even depends on tradition, that should be high praise for the Bible. In practice, however, it is clear that Catholicism's treatment of Scripture closely mirrors that of the Pharisees in Jesus' day. "...How well you have set aside the commandment of God in order to uphold your tradition!" (Mark 7:9).
Because Catholicism claims to believe the Bible, even claiming to have produced it themselves, there is a lot of pressure on Catholics to conform with it. This, however, would result in the immediate downfall of Catholicism. Therefore, rather than conform to the Scriptures, Catholic leaders and apologists do their best to conform the Scriptures to their Church. In this article, I will present my top 6 examples. Unless otherwise cited, all Scriptures in this article will be cited from the New American Bible (Revised Edition), hereafter referred to as the NABRE.
Matthew 16:18
Although this article is not intended to be written in any particular order, I think it is best to start with Matthew 16:18. The official Catholic misinterpretation of this verse also happens to be foundational to their Church. It is the favorite proof text for the Papacy, and has been officially so since First Vatican Council made the interpretation an official dogma in 1870. There, they made this "infallible" statement:
"At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter, in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her Minister.
If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same, directly and immediately, received from the same, Our Lord Jesus Christ, a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema."
The entire credibility of the Catholic Church, therefore, rests on this single verse. If the Catholic interpretation of this verse is wrong, they not only lose the justification they have for their Pope being the head of the Church, but we also demonstrate that a supposedly infallible dogma of their Church is not infallible after all, giving us justification to doubt the rest.
There are several angles we can approach this issue from. To begin with, although it is highly fallacious, Catholics frequently appeal to the so-called Church "Fathers". In fact, it is an official Catholic narrative that they have the "unanimous consent of the Fathers". However, when we read the so-called "Fathers" in any depth, we see that they were rarely unanimous, and often very much opposed to modern Catholicism.
Interestingly, in the 1600s, a Roman Catholic historian by the name of Jean de Launoy earned himself a spot on the Index of Forbidden Books. In one particular study, Launoy, a Gallican, studied the Church "Fathers", and found that their interpretations of Matthew 16:18 did not, in fact, always, nor unanimously, affirm the primacy of Peter.
One particularly noteworthy example is Augustine of Hippo, who is considered to be a "doctor of the Church". That is, his writings are considered to be timeless, and have a degree of authority. In spite of this, Augustine himself did not consider his works "timeless", even writing an entire book entitled "The Retractions". In this document of humility, Augustine reflects on his past works, retracting many views he taught in his past, and replacing them with his current beliefs. This should not surprise anyone; a man is a man is a man. Therefore, Augustine was fallible, and as his works lacked divine inspiration, they were no more infallible than a modern pastor's. In The Retractions, we read "In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable".
We see, then, that as early as 427 A.D., a so-called "doctor of the faith" not only rejected the modern Catholic interpretation, preferring a more "Protestant" explanation of Matthew 16:18, but he did not even consider his two interpretations to be absolute. "Let the reader decide", he says, whether "on Peter as on a rock the Church was built", or "that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed", is more probable.
Of course, even if Peter was the rock, this would not mean Peter is the Pope. This is why the concept of a Papacy is not actually seen in the earliest days of the Church, and, as I've just shown, is not even present in Augustine, who previously believed, and preached, that Peter was, in fact, the rock.
But as I said, it is purely fallacious to appeal to the Church "Fathers". In fact, just as the generations living before the so-called "Fathers" were born were quite complete in the faith delivered once for all to the saints (Jude 1:3), so also can every Christian in the world today live without lack, without knowing a single word any Church "Father" ever wrote. This is because the Lord left us with Scriptures, which, according to Paul, "...is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Thus, as I always like to say to Catholics, why go to the early Christian sources when you can go to the first Christian source?
That source is, of course, the Bible, which, as we established earlier, is seen in both Christianity and Catholicism to be the inspired word of the Living God. That makes it infallible, and it carries as much authority as if God Himself sat down and wrote it with a quill plucked from His own wing. Furthermore, it is the very source in which we find Matthew 16:18, and so to deny its authority immediately denies the authority of the very foundation upon which Catholicism builds its claims.
It turns out, however, the Bible is no more friendly to the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 than Augustine was. Without trying to dedicate this entire article to a refutation of Catholicism's misinterpretation of Matthew 16:18, suffice to say that at no point in Scripture is Peter given any special treatment. Paul is his equal (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11), the other Apostles bickered over who is greater (Luke 22:24), and although Peter initially took up all ministry, he and Paul later came to an agreement that he would go to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles (Acts 9:15; Romans 11:13; Galatians 2:7). Above all things, Christ Himself, in the same book, condemns the practice of calling anyone on Earth your father, for God is your Father (Matthew 23:9). How, then, can we justify calling Peter's supposed successor "Holy Father"?
When we study Scripture, we find no evidence what so ever that Christ intended for Peter to have primacy over any of his fellow Apostles, nor that Peter could even have a successor. Instead, we see plenty of evidence against a Papacy. Therefore, even if we take a narrow view and say that Peter is absolutely the rock being referred to in Matthew 16:18, it is, by no means, a valid proof text for the Papacy.
2 Peter 1:20
It's no secret that the Catholic Church is extremely unBiblical, but it has an inbuilt defence mechanism against Biblical attack. In what can only be described as history's most effective gaslighting strategy, the Roman Catholic Church claims that they, and they alone, have the authority to interpret the Scriptures. Nowhere is this seen more clearly than in Session 4 of the Council of Trent, which says "...no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine,--wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold,"
In order to defend this anti-intellectual atrocity, many Catholics privately interpret 2 Peter 1:20 to be some kind of condemnation of private interpretations. But even reading verses 19-21 reveal the true meaning: "Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God."
At this point, only those who have been heavily conditioned by Catholic theology will maintain that this proves one needs to check their brains in at the door when it comes to Bible study. Evidently, Peter is not referring to how Scripture is to be read, but how Scripture came to be written. This is born out even more when we begin at verse 16, where Peter explains "We did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we had been eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when that unique declaration came to him from the majestic glory, “This is my Son, my beloved, with whom I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice come from heaven while we were with him on the holy mountain."
When we put all of this together, we see that the whole passage is a defence of the reliability of Scripture and the Gospel message. Rather than saying "don't study Scripture without me", he is actually saying "look, I'm about to die (v13-14), but when I'm gone, remember, I'm not dying for a lie I made up, I'm dying for something far more reliable than even myself". 2 Peter 1:20, therefore, is not a valid proof text for Catholic authority.
1 Timothy 3:15
In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul tells Timothy that the Church of the Living God is "...the pillar and foundation of truth." Catholics love this verse, as when read in a certain way, it seems to support their position that the Church, not the Bible, is the final authority in the Christian faith.
Of course, problem number 1 with this interpretation is that in order to sustain this interpretation, we must first establish that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church of the Living God. As a Christian, I believe myself to be a member of the Church of the Living God. Therefore, when I approach this verse, I see it as a charge to me and my fellow Christians, regardless of our denominational affiliations. Furthermore, although there are Christians within the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church had yet to come into existence when Paul wrote this epistle to Timothy. This much is shown by the Bible as a whole.
Because of this, it is wholly unrealistic, and frankly, circular reasoning, to use this as a proof text for Catholicism because it assumes a demonstrably incorrect interpretation of exactly which Church is the pillar and ground of truth.
What's more interesting, and confusing for Catholics, is that Irenaeus, an early Christian (2nd century), and canonised saint in Catholicism, took a wildly different view of the authority of Scripture. To begin with, he believed heretics allege that truth cannot be extracted from Scripture by those who are ignorant of tradition, and so already he understood Scripture quite differently to the modern Catholic Church. But even before he delivered such a scathing rebuke of eisegesis via tradition, he said the following:
"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, 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."
Of course, Catholics are quite free to simply say Irenaeus is wrong here. In so doing, they would actually do what Christians want them to: Admit that Scripture (like 1 Timothy) is more authoritative than the Church "Fathers", even the early ones. They could also say that Irenaeus means "ground and pillar" in a different sense than Paul does. And I would agree!
See, as a Christian, I believe, to quote Augustine, "among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life." Furthermore, I believe they are, as Paul says, "...inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work." Finally, I believe they are the word of Jesus, and thus whoever hears and does them will be like a wise man who builds his house upon the rock, and whoever does not will be like a foolish man who builds his house upon the sand (Matthew 7:24-27; Luke 6:47-49). Because of this, I can say they are the pillar and ground of my faith, because they keep me safe and secure from the "storm" of the devil's lies.
But in another sense, especially since these same infallible Scriptures say so, I believe the Church of the Living God is the pillar and ground of my faith. How so? Well, put it this way: I wasn't around 2,000 years ago. If the Church had not persisted, I would never have heard the Gospel. Even God Himself perfectly preserved the original manuscripts of every Scripture ever written and placed them before me, I wouldn't know what to do with them. I can't read Hebrew. I can't read Greek. I can't read Aramaic. So, how is the Church the pillar and ground of truth? Because it's us keeping the tradition growing. We learn the truth, we record the truth, we spread the truth, we translate the truth, we defend the truth against external attack. We are the pillar and ground of truth not because we somehow get to decide when God's word is and isn't believable, but because we are the vessel He has chosen to ensure it stays on this Earth.
We see, then, that the Catholic interpretation of 1 Timothy 3:15 is almost as novel as Catholicism itself. Even if we did not know this, it would still be a flawed interpretation, because it requires a demonstrably false assumption. Therefore, 1 Timothy 3:15 is an invalid proof text.
1 Corinthians 11:2
A natural problem in any discussion is that the mind's eye struggles to see every shade of grey. An extremist, facing opposition, will naturally attribute the opposition to the other extreme. This is the case with Catholicism and tradition. As previously noted, Catholicism places what it calls "Sacred Tradition" on equal terms with Scripture, at least by word. By deed, Catholicism degrades Scripture in favor of tradition, at least where those traditions contradict. For example, since the 8th century, the Roman Catholic Church has taught that Mary was a perpetual virgin, whereas since the first century, Scripture has taught that after Jesus was born, Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage (Matthew 1:25), and that this even resulted in Jesus having siblings (Psalm 69:9; Matthew 12:46; 13:55-56; Luke 8:19; Mark 3:31; Galatians 1:19; Jude 1:1). Where Scripture and tradition conflict, Catholics favor tradition.
The result of this is that Christians, who favor Scripture, often appear allergic to the very word "tradition", and in some cases, may actively recoil at the mention of the word. Thus, Catholics use 1 Corinthians 11:2 as a "silver bullet" against Sola Scriptura. "I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you."
But as was helpfully demonstrated by our friend Irenaeus, Scripture itself is actually a tradition handed down by the Apostles! See, "tradition" does not automatically mean "Catholic tradition". It's amazing how often Catholics must read the word "Catholic" into the Bible, in spite of the fact it does not mention it even once. In fact, ironically, even in the famous Nicene Creed, the word "catholic", which we read plain as day, did not refer to the denomination, but rather, simply meant "universal". Therefore, the "holy catholic church" did not mean the Roman Catholic Church, but to believers wherever they were on Earth, regardless of whether or not they even knew the Church in Rome ever became more than just one more regional gathering of their fellow believers.
Because Paul clarifies that the Corinthian church holds fast to the traditions "...just as I handed them on to you", this verse is actually the worst possible verse Catholics could ever choose to defend their position. See, the same Apostle, Paul, just happens to be the most notorious writer of the New Testament. In particular, he explains that neither he, nor his fellow Apostles, nor even an angel from Heaven, have any right to preach any other gospel than he already had (Galatians 1:8). And yet, he quite clearly, zealously, and in perfect unity with the rest of Scripture, preaches a Gospel that justifies the ungodly by grace alone, through faith alone. In fact, as I write this article, I am writing another article (which I may link here upon completion if I remember) in which I compare the Gospel in the book of Romans to the gospel in Catholic Church. When we compare the two, we find that the Roman Catholic Church absolutely does not hold to the traditional Gospel as Paul handed it to us.
But what's more amazing is that the Catholic Church has a concept of abrogation. Abrogation, while it is traditionally associated with Islam, is the replacement of one doctrine in favor of another. In 1983, the Catholic Church promulgated a new Code of Canon Law. In Can. 6 §1, we read "When this Code takes force, the following are abrogated: 1/ the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917".
Now, the very concept of abrogation is foreign to Christianity, which states that the faith was "...once for all handed down to the holy ones." (Jude 1:3). It should be alien to the Catholic faith as well, given how desperately it seeks to tie itself to ancient Christianity. But the Catholic Church has a long history of evolution, adapting its doctrines to the needs of its times. It's even gone from murdering "Protestants" to calling us "separated brethren".
But by abrogating the Code of Canon Law 1917, the Code of Canon Law 1983 actually went ahead and abrogated "Men are to assist at sacred functions, whether in the church or outside of it, with their heads uncovered, unless a reasonable national custom or special circumstances justify a departure from this rule. Women, however, should cover their heads and be dressed modestly, particularly when they approach the Lord's table."
Now, while Catholics cite 1 Corinthians 11:2 as "proof" of the authority of your tradition, do you want to take a guess as to what tradition Paul goes on to describe in verses 3-16? If you guessed the tradition regarding head coverings in certain contexts of worship, you're absolutely correct. To this day, the Catholic Church does not maintain any particular law with regard to head coverings. Now, I do not want to turn this article into a full discussion on the morality of head coverings in worship contexts, but suffice to say for now, if you want to prove your Church's legitimacy, it's probably best not to appeal to a tradition your own Church no longer keeps. Therefore, 1 Corinthians 11:2 is an abysmal proof text for the Catholic Church.
Luke 1:48
Although it seems somewhat insignificant, Luke 1:48 is so terrifyingly effective that it has even affected the behavior, mindset, and approach of some respectable "Protestants". "For he has looked upon his handmaid’s lowliness; behold, from now on will all ages call me blessed."
Lacking exposure to the Catholic Church, it's hard to see Mary's Magnificat as anything other than what it is: A song of joy and praise to the God who not only saves her from her sin (v47), but beyond all imagination, though she is otherwise insignificant, has chosen her to give birth to the Messiah.
But to Catholics, who have ascribed many legendary aspects to Mary over the centuries, this is not Mary rejoicing and praising God, but is, in fact, a command, fully supportive of their belief that she is the Queen of Heaven.
If Mary could see the abomination Catholics have turned her into, she would no doubt beg the Lord to strike her very name from Scripture. See, Mary was indeed blessed. Even speaking as a man, her status as the mother of the Messiah is enviable. But the Lord Himself rebuked the idea that this blessing is something beyond what we may obtain ourselves.
See, Jesus was not a good Catholic by any stretch of the imagination. Rather than encourage the veneration of Mary, He took every opportunity to distance Himself from her. For example, in Luke 11, when a young woman cried out to Jesus "Blessed is the womb that carried you and the breasts at which you nursed." (v27). Jesus replies "Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." (v28).
Now, it's not realistic for every verse addressing a topic to mention every other verse addressing a topic. Therefore, Mary certainly would not have said "from now on will all ages call me blessed. But Rather, blessed are those who hear the word of God and observe it." Nevertheless, when we hear Mary say all ages will call her blessed, we cannot divorce it from the fact that we are more blessed than her if we hear the word of God and keep it. (Of course, with the added fact that Mary, of course, also attained the latter blessing).
Now, it obviously makes no sense to cite a verse in which Mary, rejoicing over a blessing, says all generations will remember this blessing, if Jesus, hearing someone speak of that same blessing, tells us that there is a way for all people to obtain a greater blessing. There can be no doubt that Mary is, in one sense, blessed above all women. To give birth to the Messiah is enviable. Nevertheless, Luke 1:48 miserably fails as a proof text for Catholic Mariology.
John 6:60
The last verse for this article, though certainly not the last verse Catholics misuse, is John 6:60, in which those who hear Jesus' teaching following the feeding of the 5,000 announce "...This saying is hard; who can accept it?" This, Catholics argue, is strong evidence that Jesus was teaching literally when He said "Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever." (v53-58).
A major distinction between Catholicism and Christianity is exactly how literal the Lord's Supper is. Is it, as Tertuullian of Carthage taught, "...the symbol of My body", established as a memorial within the Church, since "There could not have been a symbol, however, unless there was first a true body. An empty thing or phantom is incapable of a symbol"? Or, as Paschasius Radbertus taught in the 9th century, does the consecration of the host transform it into the real, historical body of the Lord?
Catholics love to argue that John 6 proves the latter view, in particular citing verse 60 as though modern "Protestants" would as swiftly leave the Lord in the wilderness. But I'm going to commit the ultimate sin here and let the aforementioned Tertullian (155-220 A.D.) explain his understanding of this:
"They thought His discourse was harsh and intolerable, supposing that He had really and literally enjoined on them to eat his flesh, He, with the view of ordering the state of salvation as a spiritual thing, set out with the principle, It is the spirit that quickens; and then added, The flesh profits nothing — meaning, of course, to the giving of life. He also goes on to explain what He would have us to understand by spirit: The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. In a like sense He had previously said: He that hears my words, and believes in Him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but shall pass from death unto life. Constituting, therefore, His word as the life-giving principle, because that word is spirit and life, He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, We ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith."
Now, if I am so opposed to rushing to the Church "Fathers", why did I not go straight to Scripture? The simple answer is because at this point, I know Rome's tricks. If I explain the context of John 6 on my own, they will remind me how insignificant I am in their eyes. Luther, they will say, was the first to interpret the Eucharist as a symbol, or perhaps Zwingli. But here we have proof that before any Reformer, and even before any man who provably held the title of "Pope", walked the Earth, the symbolic interpretation existed. See, when Catholics cite the "Fathers", they do so as if they were of authority, and thus we should believe them over Scripture. When I cite the "Fathers", I do so in an attempt to say "we both believe the "fathers" were fallible, we both believe the Bible is not, and so let us go back to Scripture."
Long before Luther, long before Zwingli, long before Calvin, or Hus, or Tyndale, long before any hint of Reformation came knocking on the doors of the Roman Catholic Church, Tertullian of Carthage gave an interpretation of John 6 that only a dyed in the wool "Protestant" could nod their heads in agreement to.
This is because when we shift our focus away from the reaction to Jesus' teaching and focus on the teaching itself, we do see that Jesus said "It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life." (John 6:63). Well what a surprise! The Lord who was notorious for speaking in figures of speech, even to His Disciples, spoke in figures of speech to His disciples!
But as we read earlier on in John 6, we see that though Jesus spoke in the most confusing metaphors, He even had the good grace to explain what He was talking about. "Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me will never hunger, and whoever believes in me will never thirst. But I told you that although you have seen [me], you do not believe. Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and I will not reject anyone who comes to me, because I came down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of the one who sent me. And this is the will of the one who sent me, that I should not lose anything of what he gave me, but that I should raise it [on] the last day. For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in him may have eternal life, and I shall raise him [on] the last day.”" (v35-40).
This interpretation fits quite nicely with the rest of Scripture. Where else in the Bible do we find anything like a requirement to eat the literal flesh and blood of Jesus? Time and time again, the message is believe, believe, believe, and so why would we expect John 6 to be an outlier? And again, whenever we find the Lord's supper in Scripture, the message is "Do this in remembrance of me." (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24) and "For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he comes." (1 Corinthians 11:26). But it is never presented as a literal statement, nor is this particular ritual cited as a requirement for salvation.
We see, then, that Tertullian's Protestant-sounding interpretation fits quite nicely with both the chapter in question, and with the context of Scripture as a whole. By contrast, the Catholic view is one of the most blatantly unBiblical abominations seen within that particular denomination. Thus, John 6:60 is a ridiculous attempt at a proof text.
Conclusion
Although this article could easily have extended beyond 6 verses, we have just seen 6 of the most commonly misquoted Bible verses by Catholics. As you can see, both official Catholic doctrine, and popular level apologetics, seriously mishandle the precious word of the Lord. More often than not, when one verse seems supportive of Catholicism, a deeper reading actually shows the exact opposite of what Catholics wish it would show. Perhaps more embarrassing than this is that while Catholics love to cite the Church "Fathers" in defence of their beliefs, we often find that not even they agreed with Catholic interpretations of the Bible. We can therefore conclude that the Catholic Church is a false denomination, and that Catholics should swiftly repent.