All Religions (From Catholicism to Buddhism) either Change the Bible or are Iliogical

First I want to make clear I am defending biblical Christianity not the Baptist denomination, Because not all Baptists stick to the Bible either. Here are the Doctrines and Practices of the Catholic Church That Are Contrary to Scripture. I know I will answer most of your questions and hopefully all of them. The Supreme Authority in the Church The New Testament Apostles established only two offices in the local churches: elders and deacons. A comparison of the relevant passages shows that the term "elder", And "overseer" all refer to the same position of leadership. The Apostles gave no instructions for the higher levels of leadership over multiple churches or over all churches in a large city or over the world. The New Testament indicates that the 1st century local churches were to be independent congregations under the Lordship of Christ and the authority of the Word of God. In contrast, As can be seen in the historical developments of the spread of Christianity in Western Europe, Some bishops began to claim authority over more than one congregation, Then over a city, And then over the worldwide church, And along the way cardinals, Archbishops, And patriarchs were added to provide leadership under the absolute monarchy of the papacy. The Catholic Church claims that the pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra; when he speaks as the supreme teacher of the church he is incapable of teaching any false doctrine. . Likewise, The bishops do not and cannot err when they teach religious and moral doctrines. This Magisterium is endowed "with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. " And, It is claimed, God has given this Magisterium the task of providing the correct interpretation of the Scriptures for the rest of the church. How does the Magisterium accomplish this task of interpreting Scripture without error? First, It includes in the Catholic version of the Scriptures the apocryphal books, Which are not accepted as the Word of God by either the Jews or Protestants. But in those books, The popes and bishops find justification for some Roman Catholic doctrines, Such as praying to the dead. Second, The Catholic Church equates unwritten "Tradition" with written Scripture. She "does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the Holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence. " This is because "Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture make up a single sacred deposit of the Word of God. " In Roman Catholic doctrine, "Tradition" is the Church's "doctrine, Life, And worship. " It is "a current of life and truth coming from God to Christ and through the apostles to the last of the faithful who repeats his creed and learns his catechism. " And "Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records, For the Church carries in her Tradition the living memorial of God's Word. " So the Catholic Church leadership relies heavily on man-made ideas and practices accumulated over the centuries as the basis for their interpretation of the Word of God. The pope also claims his authority by asserting that he inherited it from Peter who, According to official Catholic doctrine, Was the bishop of Rome and the first pope over the worldwide church. "The Roman Pontiff, By reason of his reason as Vicar of Christ, And as pastor of the entire Church has full, Supreme, And universal power over the whole Church a power which he can always exercise unhindered. " But nowhere does the New Testament make either of those papal claims (infallibility and authority), Nor does it teach the infallible authority of the bishops or describe any kind of magisterium. In fact, The Bible never says Peter was in Rome (though we know from church history that he was martyred there) which is strange if he was the head of the church in Rome. And if he was the bishop of Rome, It is equally strange that when Paul wrote his letter to the church in Rome in about A. D. 57, He greeted many believers by name (Romans 16), But does not mention Peter. How could Paul overlook greeting the bishop, Especially since his letter was giving very authoritative teaching to the Church there? Furthermore, Paul says that the Christian Church was built on the Foundation of the Apostles (plural) and prophets, With Jesus as the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:19-20). It is also significant that in Peter's two letters written to all Christians in Asia Minor he describes himself as an Apostle and bond-servant of Jesus Christ (1 Pt 1:1; 2 Pt 1:1), Not as bishop of Rome. In Peter's first letter he humbly exhorts elders of the various churches as "a fellow elder, " not as a supreme leader in authority over them and says they should not "lord over" the Christians that they shepherd in their flocks under the authority of the Chief Shepherd, Jesus Christ (1 Pt 5:1-4). In 2 Pt 3:2, He admonishes his readers to follow the commandments of Jesus and "your apostles", Not his writings as uniquely authoritative. It is true that Peter gave the "birthday sermon" of the Church to Jews in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. But it was the Apostles who led the Church there in earlier years and there is no biblical evidence that Peter was the supreme leader of the Apostles then or any other time. Peter did lead the first Gentiles to faith in Christ in Caesarea, But when questioned about this by the Apostles a few days later in Jerusalem, Peter did not have supreme authority. When Philip led the first Samaritans to Christ, The Apostles in Jerusalem did not send Peter alone, But Peter and John together to confirm that the Samaritans were full members of the Church. When Paul and Barnabas reported to the Church in Antioch about the many Gentiles coming to Christ, A dispute arose with other Jewish Christians who contended that Gentiles needed to be circumcised. The Church then sent Paul and Barnabas to the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem to resolve the matter. Peter was there and spoke, But so did Barnabas, Paul, And James. If any one had supreme authority there it was James, For it was after he spoke that "the apostles and elders with the whole church" decided to send Paul and Barnabas back to Antioch with instructions about Gentile believers. Peter had no unique authority in this situation. Three years after Paul's conversion he went to Jerusalem and met Peter and James, The Lord's half-brother. Then after 14 more years of ministry among Gentiles, Paul went to Jerusalem again with Barnabas and Titus to explain to the Church there about their ministry among the Gentiles. Paul says that God had committed him to take the gospel to the Gentiles, Just as God had committed Peter to take the gospel to the Jews, And Paul saw his apostolic authority as equal to Peter's. Paul names James, Peter, And John (in that order, Again suggesting that James was the leader of the Church in Jerusalem) as ones who "seemed to be pillars" in the Church (Gal. 2:9). Those three together gave Paul and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, Signifying their equal authority in the churches, But with James, Peter, And John focusing on evangelism to the Jews and Paul and Barnabas going to the Gentiles. But some time later Paul found Peter at the church in Antioch and had to confront and rebuke Peter in front of the other Christians for his hypocrisy, Caving into peer pressure from Jewish Christians, And by his behavior undermining the truth of the gospel (Gal. 2:9). This is hardly consistent with the idea that Peter was the head of the whole Church. Peter obviously responded positively to this humbling rebuke, Evidenced by his affirming statement that Paul's writings were Scripture (2 Pt. 3:16). There is no basis in Scripture for the papal claims of infallibility and supreme authority over the worldwide Church. The claims come from a long series of men grabbing more and more power, Starting with Leo I in A. D. 440, And it has led to a massive amount of political, Moral, And theological corruption through the centuries. Because the Catholic Church denies the supreme authority of Scripture, Through its popes and bishops, It had been able to proclaim numerous doctrines that are contrary to Scripture. Clearly, This is a case of faith in man's word over faith in God's Word. But the Apostles made it perfectly clear in the New Testament that the primacy belongs to Jesus Christ alone and is not shared with any man. "And he is the head of the body, The church: who is the beginning, The firstborn from the dead: that in all things he might have the preeminence" (Col 1:18). The Bible is also clear that the "traditions" spoken of by the Apostles must be the same teaching in their New Testament writings, Not contradictory to it or adding to or taking away from the doctrines in those books (2 Thes. 2:15, 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2). Because of the danger of false prophets, False teachers, And false gospels (Mat. 24:4; Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Pt. 2:1-3), Scripture repeatedly proclaims its supreme authority. Believers are not to turn to the right or to the left of God's Word (Josh. 1:6-8) but walk in the ancient paths of the biblical prophets (Jer. 6:16-19; Is. 8:20). Jewish and Christian Fathers were expected to know the Scriptures and teach them to their children (Deut. 6:1-9; Eph. 6:4). Jesus taught His followers (not just church leaders) to treat the Word of God as their daily food (Mat. 4:4), And that Scripture was the means by which God would produce holy maturity in their lives ( Jn. 17:17). His followers were to reject any man-made traditions that contradicted Scripture (Mk. 7:6-13) and to test every truth claim against Scripture (Acts 17:11) because demonic spirits would seek to lead believers astray (1Jn. 4:1). Paul also warned that men would arise in the Church speaking perverse things to draw Christians away from the truth. So he urged people to follow the Word of God (Acts 20:28-32). There is more also on salvation.