The Catholic Church is fully Biblical

"Finally, we should worship God on any day and to fuss about a specific day we give God special honor is petty and unimportant." how is it petty and unimportant when God told us how and when to worship him? "The first time the day of worship was given to Israel (it became the Feast of Unleaven Bread). Exod..12:14 "So this day shall be to you a memorial; and you shall keep it as a feast to the LORD throughout your generations. You shall keep it as a feast by an everlasting ordinance. 15 'Seven days you shall eat unleavened bread. On the first day you shall remove leaven from your houses. For whoever eats leavened bread from the first day until the seventh day, that person shall be cut off from Israel. 16 'On the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and on the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation for you. No manner of work shall be done on them; but that which everyone must eat-- that only may be prepared by you.17 `So you shall observe the Feast of Unleavened Bread, for on this same day I will have brought your armies out of the land of Egypt. Therefore you shall observe this day throughout your generations as an everlasting ordinance." Is this still carried out today? when people eat leavened bread during this time does the church cut off those from israel? How about "Lev. 23:28-32: "And you shall do no work on that same day, for it is the Day of Atonement, to make atonement for you before the LORD your God. "For any person who is not afflicted in soul on that same day shall be cut off from his people. "And any person who does any work on that same day, that person I will destroy from among his people. "You shall do no manner of work; it shall be a statute forever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. "It shall be to you a Sabbath of solemn rest, and you shall afflict your souls; on the ninth day of the month at evening, from evening to evening, you shall celebrate your sabbath." Does the Church continue these as well? because God said these days shall last through the generations. I guess it would be a little contradicting for the church of god to not Enforce and continue days which God said in scripture shall last throughout the ages.(http://www.letusreason.org...) now although these are only two examples they already show a contradiction between the church and its scripture. Want some more contradictions or False information "The Apocrypha Point #3 " The Protestant Bible contains 66 Books (39 in the Old Testament and 27 in the New). The Bible that the Catholic Church claims to have given us contains 7 more Old Testament books than the Protestant Bible (and some additional verses in the books of Daniel and Esther). These 7 extra books Catholics call the "Deuterocanonical" books. Protestants usually refer to them as the "Apocrypha," and they do not consider them to be inspired, but Catholics do. But there are some problems with these books that we will deal with only briefly: 1) These books were not accepted by the Jews, and it was the Jews who knew the canon best because they were the ones who wrote the Old Testament. 2) Some of these books contain historical and geographical errors. Do we really want to accept the "inspiration" of a book which is not even reliable in worldly matters? 3) Some of the books teach doctrines which contradict the rest of the Scriptures. 4) There are a number of people throughout church history who denied the inspiration of the Apocrypha. One is Jerome, the very person who translated the Vulgate Bible (which the Catholic Church embraces). Catholic Cardinal Cajetan, who opposed Martin Luther and his teachings, also believed that the Apocrypha should not be used to confirm matters of faith, but only for edification. We could also mention Pope Gregory the Great, Athanasius (the bishop of Alexandria) and many others who believed that (at least some of) the Apocryphal books were not canonical. Even the online New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia says concerning the church fathers of the Middle Ages and their attitude toward the Apocrypha: "Few are found to unequivocally acknowledge their canonicity." (Under "Canon of the Old Testament")(http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com...)." More? "Point #2 - To make matters worse for Catholics, the canon given by the Councils of Hippo and Carthage does not match the canon which was given by the Council of Trent. This is because the canon of Hippo and Carthage comes from the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek " written sometime between 300 B.C. and 100 B.C.), while the Council of Trent specifically mentions using the canon of the Vulgate (Jerome"s Latin translation " written 382-405 A.D.): "But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema." (Council of Trent, Fourth Session) [Emphasis added] The problem is that both canons contain a book called 1 Esdras, but the earlier 1 Esdras is different from the one at the Council of Trent. How do we know this? According to a chart in the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the Septuagint"s 1 Esdras is equivalent to the Vulgate"s 3 Esdras. And it specifically says, "The Council of Trent definitively removed it from the canon." (New Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: McGraw Hill, 1967, Volume II, Bible, III, pp. 396-397) [Emphasis added] So, Trent declared 3 Esdras in the Vulgate [1 Esdras of the Septuagint] to be uncanonical (not belonging in the Bible), and it was therefore removed from the canon. So, if this book was "removed" from the canon by Trent, it must have been there in the first place sometime earlier. And that is because it was there from the earlier councils, i.e., Hippo, Carthage, etc. So, by the Catholic Church"s own admission, the earlier canon was different from Trent"s, because it had an extra book. So the idea that Trent accepted and simply reaffirmed the earlier councils" canon is wrong. To confirm this with another Catholic source: "Except for Jerome"s OT from the Hebrew, all other Lat renderings of the OT and NT were made from the Greek." (The New Jerome Biblical Commentary, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999, page 1100) The irony in all this is that according to the quote from Trent above, rather than affirming, this ecumenical council actually condemns with anathema the Councils of Carthage and Hippo because their canon did not match the Vulgate"s. So, what if the Catholic says, "Ok, so the Catholic church gave us the Bible (i.e., the correct canon) at Trent instead of Carthage and Hippo, so what?" But, taking 1500 years to recognize the canon is not very reassuring, especially for a Church who insists on the need for infallible certainty. It certainly seems that Catholic "Tradition" failed to protect the early canon from error in this case. There are a number of church historians / scholars and other sources who also point out this difference between the Septuagint"s canon and the canon of the Vulgate. See the details in this very informative article by William Webster: (http://www.christiantruth.com...) (http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com...)." All of these examples show not only difference in truth, but greatly contradict the bible and/or how the church uses, shows, and enforces it.