No, it is not true. Protestants have as their sole rule of faith the written Word of God, which we find in Sacred Scripture. The Catholic Church has as its sole rule of faith, the entire Word of God, as it is found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. All of the Word of God was at one time passed on orally…Sacred Tradition. Eventually, some of Sacred Tradition was written down…this became Sacred Scripture, which is written tradition. However, Scripture itself tells us that not all of the things that Jesus said and did were written down. And listen to what Paul says about “tradition”:  
 
2 Thes 2:15, “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” Traditions! Traditions taught by word of mouth, in other words, oral tradition, and traditions taught by letter. Traditions which they are being told to “stand firm and hold to”. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  
 
1 Cor 11:2, “I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you.” The Corinthians are being commended by Paul because they maintain the traditions that he passed on to them. Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.  
 
2 Tim 2:2: “and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” What we have here in 2 Timothy is an instance, in Scripture, of Paul commanding the passing on of oral tradition.  
 
1 Thes 2:13, “And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the Word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the Word of God, which is at work in you believers.” So, they received as the Word of God that which they heard, not simply that which they read in Scripture.  
 
In other words, the Bible clearly supports the Catholic Church’s teaching that the Word of God is contained in both Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition.

Well, the quick answer is because that’s the way God wants us to do it. In James 5:16, God, through Sacred Scripture, commands us to “confess our sins to one another.” Notice, Scripture does not say confess your sins straight to God and only to God…it says confess your sins to one another. In Matthew, chapter 9, verse 6, Jesus tells us that He was given authority on earth to forgive sins. And then Scripture proceeds to tell us, in verse 8, that this authority was given to “men”…plural. In John 20, verses 21-23, what is the 1st thing Jesus says to the gathered disciples on the night of His resurrection? “Jesus said to them, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.'” How did the Father send Jesus? Well, we just saw in Matthew 9 that the Father sent Jesus with the authority on earth to forgive sins. Now, Jesus sends out His disciples as the Father has sent Him…so, what authority must Jesus be sending His disciples out with? The authority on earth to forgive sins. And, just in case they didn’t get it, verses 22-23 say this, “And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.'” Why would Jesus give the Apostles the power to forgive or to retain sins if He wasn’t expecting folks to confess their sins to them? And how could they forgive or retain sins if no one was confessing their sins to them?  
 
The Bible tells us to confess our sins to one another. It also tells us that God gave men the authority on Earth to forgive sins. Jesus sends out His disciples with the authority on earth to forgive sins. When Catholics confess our sins to a priest, we are simply following the plan laid down by Jesus Christ. He forgives sins through the priest…it is God’s power, but He exercises that power through the ministry of the priest.

All of us have heard stories about policemen, doctors, teachers, counselors and priests that have betrayed a sacred trust. These individuals represent vocations we look to for guidance, hope and help. We want to be able to trust them. But when one of these people violates our trust, it seems much worse and even harder to comprehend than when other people in society fail. Nonetheless, it doesn’t mean that we should abandon all respect for law enforcement, health care, education or the Church because people who work in those professions and vocations fail to live as Christ calls them to live. After all, the vast majority of people in those vocations serve in a heroic and exemplary manner. In Matthew 13:24-30, Jesus Christ described His Church, the Kingdom of Heaven, as being a “field of wheat and weeds,” showing that there would be good and bad, saints and sinners and everyone in between in the Church until the day when He returned to judge the nations. This means that, sadly, there will be members of His Church — including priests and bishops — who have committed sins that have hurt others. In Pope John Paul II’s apostolic letter entitled Tertio Millenio Adviente (Toward the Third Millenium), he affirmed that “…the Church should become more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children, recalling all those times in history when they departed from the spirit of Christ and his Gospel and, instead of offering to the world the witness of a life inspired by the values of faith, indulged in ways of thinking and acting which were truly forms of counter-witness and scandal.” He went on to say that “Before God and man she always acknowledges as her own her sinful sons and daughters. As Lumen Gentium affirms: ‘The Church, embracing sinners to her bosom, is at the same time holy…’” The Church herself is indeed holy, but she is made up of sinful members. All situations of scandal, however, do not negate or disprove the truth that Christ transmitted to the world through His Apostles (Mark 16:15). As Christ promised, in spite of the weakness and sinfulness — and sometimes the scandal — caused by priests and other Catholics, “the gates of hell will not prevail against” the Church.

St. Paul notes that “…The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord” (Corinthians 7:32). The practice of celibacy allows for a priest to give his full attention to the work of building the Kingdom of God. St. Paul indicates numerous times that virginity is to be considered a “higher call.” Priests thus respond to that call, so they may number themselves among those who are set apart for this specific ministry. Furthermore, remaining celibate allows the priest to more perfectly live out the virtue of chastity, modeled in its entirety by Christ Himself. The Church does not force anyone not to marry. Those who decide to remain celibate in their vocation do so voluntarily. Priests are among those who have freely chosen to take this vow of celibacy for the sake of their earthly ministry and vocation. It makes sense that the Church—considered the Bride of Christ—is served by virgin priests, who fully devote themselves to Christ’s Bride. Priestly celibacy should be looked at as a beautiful offering to Christ, a wonderful testimony of a priest’s devotion to our Lord and to the Church.

Matthew 23:9 says, “And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in Heaven.” Notice, however, that this makes no distinction between spiritual fathers, which is what our priests are to us, and biological fathers. In other words, if you interpret this passage to say, absolutely, that no man is to be called father, you cannot distinguish between calling a priest “father” and calling the man who is married to your mother “father.” But, is that actually what this passage is saying? Or is Jesus warning us against trying to usurp the fatherhood of God? The latter intention, in many ways, is what the Pharisees and Scribes were doing. They wanted all attention focused on them…they were leaving God, the Father, out of the equation, which is why Jesus goes on to call them hypocrites, liars, and whitewashed tombs. 
 
If you interpret this passage from Matthew 23 as an absolute ban against calling anyone your spiritual father, then there are some problems for you in the rest of Scripture. For example, Jesus, in the story of Lazarus and the rich man in Luke 16, has the rich man referring to Abraham as “father” several times. Paul, in Romans chapter 4, refers to Abraham as the “father” of the uncircumcised, the Gentiles. That’s referring to spiritual fatherhood, not biological fatherhood. 
 
In Acts 7:1-2, the first Christian martyr, Stephen, referred to the Jewish authorities and elders who were about to stone him as brothers and “fathers,” as does Paul in Acts, chapter 22. This is referring to spiritual fatherhood. So, if you interpret Matthew 23 as saying we cannot call anyone our spiritual father, then you would have to argue that Jesus, Paul, Stephen, and the Holy Spirit must have all gotten it wrong. 
 
It is okay to call priests “father,” just as it was okay for Jesus and Paul to call Abraham “father” and for Stephen and Paul to call the Jewish elders “father.” As long as we remember that our true Father is God the Father and that all aspects of fatherhood, biological and spiritual, are derived from Him, and as long as we do not allow anyone else to usurp that role in any way, shape, or form, as the Pharisees and Scribes were prone to do.

Church teaching on the ordination of only men to the priesthood finds its origins in the teaching and practices established by Christ. While He was on earth, Jesus chose men to be His apostles and He passed on authority to these men to carry out His work of preaching the good news (Luke 9:1-2) and forgiving sins (John 20:23). 
 
The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains, “The Church recognizes herself to be bound by this choice made by the Lord himself. For this reason, the ordination of women is not possible” (CCC 1577). Furthermore, the Catechism informs us that “No one has a right to receive the sacrament of Holy Orders. Indeed no one claims this office for himself; he is called to it by God” (CCC 1578). 
 
Jesus came to us on earth in the form of a man. It makes sense, then, that He chose His successors—his “representatives” on earth—to be men. 
 
Finally, though we cannot always know exactly why Christ made some of the choices He made, we do know that He did not view women as inferior to men. Christ simply made clear that this particular vocation—the priesthood—would be reserved for men. In obedience to the will of God, the Catholic Church has and will continue to follow this practice of ordaining only men to the priesthood.

Mark 6:3 says, “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary and brother of James and Joses, and Judas and Simon, and are not His sisters here with us?” We need to realize a few things here about these “brothers and sisters.” First, there was no word for cousin, or for nephew or niece, or for aunt or uncle in ancient Hebrew or Aramaic – the words that the Jews used in all those instances were “brother” or “sister.” An example of this can be seen in Gen 14:14, where Lot, who was Abraham’s nephew, is called his brother. Another point to consider: If Jesus had had any brothers, if Mary had had any other sons, it’s hard to believe that the last thing Jesus did on earth was to grievously offend his surviving brothers? What is meant by that is in John 19:26-27, right before Jesus dies, it says that Jesus entrusted the care of His mother to the beloved disciple, John. If Mary had had any other sons, it would have been a bit of a slap in the face to them that the Apostle John was entrusted with the care of their mother. Also, we see from Matthew 27:55-56 that the James and Joses mentioned in Mark 6 as the “brothers” of Jesus are actually the sons of another Mary. And, one other passage to consider is Acts 1:14-15: “[The Apostles] with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus and with His brothers…the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty.” A company of 120 persons composed of the Apostles, Mary, the women, and the “brothers” of Jesus. There were 11 Apostles at the time. Jesus’ mother makes 12. The women were probably the same three women mentioned in Matthew 27, but let’s say it was maybe a dozen or two, just for argument’s sake. So that puts us up to 30 or 40 or so. So that leaves the number of Jesus’ brothers at about 80 or 90! It is hard to argue that Mary had 80 or 90 children. 
 
So Scripture does not contradict the teaching of the Catholic Church about the “brothers” of Jesus, when Scripture is properly interpreted in context.

In Jeremiah 7:18, God is indeed upset with the Israelites for worshipping a false goddess called the “queen of heaven”. However, just because God rebuked them for worshipping the false queen of heaven, doesn’t mean that we cannot pay honor to the true Queen of Heaven…the Blessed Mother. That type of thinking would lead you to believe that just because people worship a false god that they call “god,” we, therefore, should not call the true God, by that same name…God…because that’s the same title the idolaters use for their god. That is faulty logic. In the same way, the fact that there is a false “queen of heaven,” does not lead to the conclusion that we worship a false goddess when we call Mary the “Queen of Heaven.” Just as the fact that there is a false “god,” does not lead to the conclusion that we worship a false god when we call our Father in Heaven God. 
 
And there is a true Queen of Heaven, which we see quite clearly in Revelation 12:1: “And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars…” So in this passage, we read that there is a woman…she’s in Heaven…and she has a crown on her head. It is the true Queen of Heaven, Mary, the mother of the male child who is to rule the nations. 
 
As Catholics, we do not worship Mary; we honor her, just as Jesus honors her. So there is absolutely nothing wrong, from a scriptural point of view, in calling Mary the Queen of Heaven, and in honoring her just as Jesus honors her.

Romans 3, verse 10 says, “…as it is written: ‘None is righteous, no, not one.’” Yet, James 5:16 says that the prayer of a righteous man availeth much. If absolutely no one is righteous, then who is James talking about? Luke 1 says that Elizabeth and Zechariah were righteous before God. If absolutely no one is righteous, then how can that be? Is Scripture contradicting itself? No. Rather, we have to make sure to interpret Romans correctly, and that means realizing that the key to understanding Romans 3:10 is the phrase, “it is written.” Here in Romans, Paul is quoting from the Old Testament, Psalm 14 to be exact. In Psalm 14 it says, “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God. They are corrupt…there is none that does good.’” But then that same psalm goes on to talk about the “righteous.” Well, if none has done good, who are these righteous the psalm is talking about? Obviously, when the psalmist says that none has done good, he is talking about the fools who say there is no God. He is not talking about absolutely everyone. The same goes for St. Paul when he quotes from this psalm. Paul is not saying absolutely no one is righteous; if he was, then we would have a hard time explaining all the Old and New Testament passages that refer to the righteous. In Romans 3:11 it says that no one seeks for God. Does that mean that absolutely no one is seeking God? No, to interpret it that way would be strange. 
 
This also is true for verse 23, which says that “all have sinned.” Babies haven’t sinned. This is not an absolute. There are exceptions. It’s something to think about. So, it is perfectly legitimate to say that these passages from Romans, when interpreted in context, in no way conflict with the Church’s teaching on Mary being without sin.

1 Tim 2:5 reads as follows: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus…” Many think that the practice of praying to the saints goes against the Bible, claiming that Catholics are making them mediators between God and man and thus diminishing Jesus‘ role as the sole mediator. But this is not an appropriate interpretation of the passage. Let‘s see why not…In the Old Testament we see that Moses, Abraham, and Job interceded on behalf of others… that’s mediating between God and man. We know that it is okay to ask others here on earth to pray and intercede for us…. that’s mediating between God and man. So we have a situation here where a passage of the Bible is being misinterpreted and misunderstood. 
 
There is only one mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, but as members of the Body of Christ, He allows us to share in His mediation. 
 
Also, Scripture tells us that we have only one foundation, Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:11); but, Scripture tells us that there is more than one foundation (Eph 2:19-20). Scripture tells us that we have only Lord, Jesus Christ (Eph 4:4-5); but, Scripture tells us there is more than one lord (Rev 19:16). Scripture tells us that we have only one Judge, Jesus Christ (James 4:12); but, Scripture tells us there is more than one judge (1 Cor 6:2). 
 
These are not contradictions in Scripture, not when these passages are all properly understood in context. Jesus is the only foundation; Jesus is the only Lord; and Jesus is the only Judge. But, we are members of Jesus‘ Body. Therefore, we are able, according to the graces given by Christ, to share in Jesus‘ role as foundation, as lord, and as judge, and in other aspects of Christ, as well. Another example, a father shares in God‘s role as Father, by His grace. And, so also, we, and the saints in Heaven, and the angels in Heaven, can share in Christ‘s role as Mediator.