In this blog, I will demonstrate how the Roman Catholic Church has knowingly broken each of the Ten Commandments and even gone so far as to alter the commandments themselves. Through historical actions and specific doctrines, the RCC has not only strayed from the commandments but has at times reshaped them to fit its own agenda and practices. By altering core teachings meant to guide believers, the Church has assumed authority over God’s law—a bold move that calls into question its claims of divine guidance and commitment to true Christian faith. Such actions stand in sharp contrast to the standards set in scripture, revealing that the RCC’s authority often contradicts the commandments it professes to uphold. Given these contradictions, it becomes clear that the RCC cannot claim to be the true authority over Christianity, as its practices diverge from the principles established in God’s word for all believers.
The First Commandment in Exodus 20:3 declares,
“Thou shalt have no other gods before me.”
This command calls for exclusive worship of Yahweh, yet historical records show that in 321 AD, Constantine declared Sunday—a day tied to Sol Invictus, the Roman sun god—as a day of rest. Constantine likely saw Sunday as a unifying choice, given its association with Sol Invictus, who was widely worshipped across the empire.
By moving Sabbath observance from Saturday to Sunday, the Christian day of rest became infused with symbolism associated with Sol Invictus (Baal). While early Christians based their Sabbath on God’s creation covenant, resting on the seventh day, Constantine’s decree subtly shifted that alignment. Instead of honoring the biblical Sabbath, Sunday observance took on the aura of a day dedicated to a pagan deity, potentially violating the First Commandment’s call to worship Yahweh alone.
The switch to Sunday as aligning with pagan tradition, this shift represents a possible breach of Deuteronomy 6:14-15, which warns against following the gods of surrounding cultures. While Sunday worship was adopted in honor of Jesus’ resurrection (an event celebrated annually, not weekly), its association with Sol Invictus symbolically places another deity in competition with Yahweh, undermining the spirit of exclusive devotion demanded by the First Commandment.
“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” — Matthew 6:24
In Exodus 20:4-5, the Second Commandment clearly states,
“Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.”
This command warns against creating and bowing to images, as it diverts worship from God to created things. Yet, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 969) names Mary a “co-mediatrix” with Christ, stating that she brings gifts of eternal salvation and is invoked as “Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix,” placing her in a secondary mediating role.
This Marian devotion includes the widespread creation and veneration of Mary’s statues in Catholic churches. Though the Church teaches that these images are not idols, the act of bowing, praying, or offering candles to them can appear to contradict the commandment’s prohibition against “graven images” or “any likeness” of things “in heaven above.” The Catechism (CCC 2132) clarifies that “the honor rendered to an image passes to its prototype,” suggesting veneration of the image honors Mary herself.
The Bible states there is “one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” 1 Timothy 2:5 suggesting that giving Mary the role of “co-mediatrix” challenges Christ’s unique mediating role. This raises questions about whether the veneration of Mary and her images conflicts with the First Commandment’s exclusive worship of God and the Second Commandment’s ban on graven images. Despite the Catechism’s distinctions between veneration and worship, Marian devotion risks shifting focus from God to a human figure, potentially infringing upon the direct, image-free relationship with God that these commandments emphasize.
The Third Commandment tells us,
“Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain” Exodus 20:7 calling for deep respect for God’s name and authority.
One notable example is papal infallibility, declared in 1870, which asserts that the Pope speaks without error on matters of faith and morals when speaking ex cathedra. By giving the Pope’s words a divine authority, this teaching can be seen as placing human statements on par with God’s truth, raising concerns about whether it risks taking God’s name in vain.
Another practice that stirs similar debate is the use of indulgences and the Treasury of Merit, through which the Pope grants grace to reduce time in purgatory, sometimes in exchange for donations. This system, especially abused in the Middle Ages, was viewed as reducing God’s mercy to something "managed" by human hands, potentially infringing on a direct, sincere relationship with God.
Titles like “Holy Father” and “Vicar of Christ” given to the Pope are also contentious, as some feel these titles come close to divine names meant solely for God, potentially taking God’s name lightly. Similarly, the title “Co-Redemptrix” for Mary, which suggests she shares in Christ’s redemptive work, is argued to diminish Christ’s unique role, placing Mary in a divine light.
The fourth commandment, "Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy" Exodus 20:8
The RCC broke this commandment by shifting the Sabbath to Sunday, aligning it with the worship of Sol Invictus.
The fifth commandment: "Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee” Exodus 20:12 has not be fully honoured by the RCC by straying from certain foundational teachings and traditions of early Christianity. This commandment emphasizes respect for one’s roots and ancestors, both spiritually and culturally, and is often seen as calling for faithfulness to the core teachings handed down by the “fathers” of the faith.
In adopting practices and doctrines not present in early Christianity—such as the veneration of images, indulgences, and additional sacraments—there is a departure from the simpler, more direct faith established by the early Church “fathers.” By evolving certain doctrines or integrating non-biblical practices over centuries, some see the RCC as straying from this commandment’s principle of honoring its spiritual “parents” or original teachings.
Furthermore, many believe that the RCC’s acceptance of traditions that may obscure or alter core biblical commandments might reflect a break in honoring the spiritual "parents" of the Church, namely, the prophets and apostles whose writings form the New Testament. Thus, from this perspective, the RCC’s doctrinal developments could be seen as diverging from the commandment to honor the original foundation laid by these early fathers of the faith.
The Sixth Commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” Exodus 20:13, commands a respect for life. During historical events such as the Inquisition and the Crusades, individuals were persecuted, tortured, and even killed under Church authority in the name of defending or expanding the faith. These actions, taken to enforce religious conformity, violate the commandment’s clear prohibition against taking life.
Could this be why they developed the "just war" theory—knowing they had violated the sixth commandment and thus undermined their own authority?
The Seventh Commandment, “Thou shalt not commit adultery” Exodus 20:14, calls for faithfulness within marriage and respect for the sacredness of relationships.
In the early centuries of Christianity, clergy were allowed to marry, and it wasn’t until the First Lateran Council in 1123 and the Second Lateran Council in 1139 that celibacy became mandatory for Roman Catholic priests. Before this rule was enforced, several clergy members, including popes and bishops, were known to have had extramarital relationships despite being married.
Bishop Arnold of Orléans, who served in the 12th century, was a married bishop rumored to have been involved in extramarital relationships, which was not uncommon before the strict celibacy requirement.
Historical records reveal that, despite vows of celibacy, some clergy in the Roman Catholic Church engaged in relationships outside their commitments, including affairs with women and even fathering illegitimate children. In certain periods, some clergy were known to have relationships with prostitutes, and these indiscretions became so common that they were openly acknowledged and even addressed in Church reforms.
The Church struggled with enforcing celibacy, and violations by clergy went against the purity and commitment demanded by this commandment. For many, these lapses, especially when left unaddressed, illustrate how the Church, through its clergy, failed to uphold the values of fidelity and purity, betraying the commandment’s call for commitment and integrity.
The Eighth Commandment, “Thou shalt not steal” Exodus 20:15, forbids taking what is not rightfully yours. The Roman Catholic Church has, at times, violated this commandment, especially during periods of war and conquest. During the Crusades and other Church-sanctioned military campaigns, looting was widespread, with soldiers and leaders alike seizing wealth, artifacts, and treasures from conquered territories, often in the name of religion.
These spoils of war, including priceless artifacts and wealth from other cultures, were sometimes brought back to enrich the Church or its representatives. Such actions could be seen as violating the commandment by taking possessions through force, rather than respecting rightful ownership. By allowing or even encouraging these practices, critics argue that the Church’s actions during these times conflicted with the spirit of the Eighth Commandment.
The Ninth Commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour” Exodus 20:16, prohibits lying or falsely accusing others, yet some of the Roman Catholic Church’s historical actions seem to contradict this principle. The trials of Joan of Arc and Galileo Galilei serve as prominent examples.
Joan of Arc, a devout young woman who claimed to have visions from God leading her to support France in the Hundred Years’ War, was put on trial by the Church for heresy. Despite her unwavering faith and dedication, Church officials accused her of witchcraft and heresy, and she was ultimately burned at the stake in 1431. Decades later, Joan was posthumously declared innocent and canonized as a saint, revealing the falsehood and injustice in her original trial. Her persecution was a tragic example of how the Church bore false witness for political motives, violating the commandment’s call for truth and fairness.
Similarly, the case of Galileo Galilei, the renowned scientist, highlights another instance of bearing false witness. Galileo’s observations supported the heliocentric model, which placed the sun at the center of the solar system. However, this theory conflicted with the Church’s geocentric teachings at the time. In 1633, Galileo was put on trial by the Inquisition and forced to recant his findings under threat of severe punishment. The Church labeled his scientific conclusions as heretical, bearing false witness against him by condemning truths that later proved scientifically accurate.
Both cases reflect how the Church, by condemning individuals based on false accusations or misunderstandings, broke the Ninth Commandment’s call to uphold truth. These events illustrate the danger of bearing false witness, especially when driven by power or fear of challenge, and they remain historical reminders of the commandment’s essential call to integrity and honesty.
The Tenth Commandment, “Thou shalt not covet” Exodus 20:17, warns against desiring what belongs to others, extending to property, relationships, and status. The Roman Catholic Church has violated this commandment in two significant ways: through its history of anti-Semitic actions and by placing a human figure, particularly the Pope, in a role many believe belongs solely to Christ.
Throughout history, the Church harbored attitudes and policies that often fueled resentment and discrimination against Jewish communities, sometimes coveting their wealth, status, or influence. During periods of economic or social strain, Jews were frequently accused of wrongdoing or heresy, leading to forced expulsions, confiscation of property, and restrictions on their rights. This treatment, driven in part by a desire to control resources and power, reflects a form of covetousness, as the Church often sought what Jewish communities had built for themselves.
Additionally, the position of the Pope as the “Vicar of Christ” — a title suggesting he represents Christ on earth — is seen as another example of covetousness. By elevating a human figure to such an exalted status, argues that the Church places human authority in a role meant only for Christ. This desire to embody Christ’s authority on earth, especially in claiming divine authority through doctrines like papal infallibility, can be viewed as a form of spiritual covetousness, attempting to possess the unique role of Christ as the sole mediator between God and humanity.
These practices, whether in attitudes toward others or in the desire to claim roles reserved for Christ, reflect a departure from the Tenth Commandment’s call to humility and contentment with one’s own place. For some, the Church’s actions represent a misalignment with this commandment’s call to avoid coveting what rightfully belongs to others, including Christ’s unique role.
Therefore, how could a man-made institution, one that has evidently broken all ten of the commandments, claim any power to offer salvation? The very idea contradicts the core of Christianity, which calls for unwavering adherence to God’s word, not selective obedience shaped by human agendas. The commandments were given as timeless moral laws, guiding believers toward righteousness and closer communion with God. When an institution repeatedly ignores, alters, or even reshapes these laws to suit its own aims, it raises serious questions about its authority and legitimacy in the Christian faith.
“If ye love me, keep my commandments.” — John 14:15
“He that saith, I know him, and keepeth not his commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.” — 1 John 2:4
N:B The Roman Catholic Church’s presentation of the Ten Commandments differs from the version traditionally found in the Bible.
In the Catholic Catechism’s list of commandments, the commandment against graven images is not listed as a separate command. Instead, it’s combined with the First Commandment, which focuses on worshipping only God, thus minimizing the explicit prohibition against images. This adjustment allows room for practices like the veneration of statues of saints and Mary within Catholic tradition, which some argue conflicts with the original biblical instruction.
To maintain a total of Ten Commandments, the RCC splits the Tenth Commandment from the traditional text, which reads as a single commandment: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s” Exodus 20:17 The Church divides this commandment into two parts: “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife” and “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods,” creating separate prohibitions on coveting people and possessions. This restructuring keeps the total at ten, even as the original structure and intent of the commandments appear altered.
By reordering and modifying the commandments in this way, the RCC’s version allows certain practices, like the veneration of images, while preserving the structure of Ten Commandments. Critics argue that these changes reflect a departure from the original text, allowing the Church to align the commandments with its own traditions and practices.
Comments