HOME  Why its a mistake to give the Catholic Church support via membership or donations

 

CATHOLICISMíS ARTIFICIAL UNITY

A Church is a unity. There is visible unity and there is invisible or spiritual unity. Visible unity is unity that we see Ė like in a football team - and the other is unity of intent that cannot be seen. For an example of the latter, a Catholic who believes in Protestantism would really be a Protestant though there is no visible unity with it. You can have invisible unity without visible unity but you cannot have visible unity without invisible unity. A football team that has lots of disagreements under the surface is only a fake unity. So, you can have a visible and invisible Church. The Church dishonestly uses the texts in the New Testament that command the Church to be one people and one family ignoring the fact that unity does not necessarily consist in visible unity though it ought to (page 28, Roman Catholic Claims). The Church being human could not stay one even if all were of one faith for factions would still oppose one another.
 
The question
 
The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the only visible organisation and unity established by God. The question we want to answer is, ďIs the visible unity claimed for the Roman Catholic Church real unity?Ē When a religion claims to be the true religion it claims to be in visible unity, to be one religion. The true Church has to be one for it is several Churches if it is not. The Roman Catholic Church declares that she is one in faith and in government. And she perceives this as evidence that she is the one true Church as if other religions couldnít mention their unity as evidence.
 
What makes a Church a Church?
 
Catholicism informs us that it could still be the true Church if it was totally marinating in immorality so it is what it teaches that determines whether or not it is this Church. Moreover, it is the one true Church even if all the members hate each other and are not at one so it is agreement in matters of belief that makes the true Church one.  
 
Is It True that there was Only One True Church at the Start?

One of the biggest lies the Catholic priest is likely to tell you is that there was one true Church at the start and any other Church broke away from it.

There is evidence that the apostles of Jesus founded a Jewish Church and that it was Paul, a charlatan who claimed to be an apostle like them, who founded what is now Christianity. Paul had no evidence at all that he was really an apostle. That is why the Jewish Christians who survived for a few centuries dismissed Paul as a falsifier of the teachings of Jesus, who dropped the Jewish Law from his brand of religion, and was an opportunist seeking power and influence from Rome through his being a Roman citizen. This is documented in several sources, for example, The Clementine Recognitions and the Arabic Jewish Christian work found by Shlomo Pines in Syria dating from the 500's AD (page 181, The Mythmaker, Paul and the Invention of Christianity, Hyam Maccoby, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London, 1986). Catholicism is influenced by Paul and recognises him as an apostle so it is apostate Christianity - its not the real thing. Paul stated that nobody could obey the Law so they needed his message of forgiveness from God to be saved and be right with God. But this contradicts Deuteronomy 30:11 where the scripture says the Law can be kept. Paul was not a true apostle. His whole system was based on contradicting the Law and the scriptures while pretending not to.
 
The Jewish religion was the true religion and then Jesus came to be its latest prophet and update it and it rejected him. Thus the followers of Jesus became the new true religion. The New Testament is full of venom against the Jews and there is no justification for that. Thus the early Church clearly was apostate. There is no problem with them leaving Judaism to do what they thought was right. But when they had to resort to hatred and misrepresentation clearly they were not leaving because the Jews broke with them by refusing the updates but they were leaving just to make a hateful division. Because of that the early Church cannot be considered to have been the true Church. It was schismatic - it was not a group that was in the right that was pushed out.
 
The Gospel of Matthew is pure Jewish Christianity and urges obedience to the Jewish Law that Paul falsely claimed was only temporary. It opposes the Jews (Matthew 21:33-43) because it teaches what it would understand as true Judaism.
 
There is no evidence that St Paul got full acceptance from the apostles in Jerusalem and even the New Testament says there was disagreement. So there is no evidence that they were one Church. Paul spoke of schisms in Corinth. The faction that said it was for Kephas could have been the true Church for all we know. At the time of St Justin Martyr about 160 AD, the Church was divided between those who held that if a Christian kept the Law of Moses he was damned and if he didnít he was fine (page 23, The Early Church).
 
Origen about 250 AD wrote that the Jewish Christians comprised about 150,000 members and was seemingly referring to new converts only (page 37, Jesus Hypotheses). The Jewish Christians were the religion the apostles founded. They claimed to have been established by the apostles with the help of Jesus' family who like Jesus were all Jews. Roman Catholicism is not the true Church because it is not Jewish Christianity.

Catholic scholar Raymond E Brown in Chapter 7 of his book, Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine, traced at least six different communities with different beliefs in the early Church. The early Church, if it was one Church at all, was just an umbrella. It was not a real Church but a federation of different and contradictory and sometimes sectarian Churches just like the Anglican Communion today.

Anyway the early Church being one is not important. What is important is did it preserve Christís teaching intact? The Church has to err to some extent.

How unity can be broken

The unity of the Church, she says, can be broken by wilfully contradicting her required teaching or by simply considering oneself to be oneís own Church by breaking away from her.

 
A real Church cannot extend membership to doubters
 
Everybody, according to Catholicism, has their doubts. But doubting your religion puts you out of it. To doubt one doctrine is to doubt the rest for all doctrines come from the same source. For example, if the source is the Bible then to question one biblical doctrine is to hold that none of the others can be trusted. This is all true and any religions that dispute it are lying for it is undeniable. The Catholic Church is not a church for its members are not in unity of faith and each one is her or his own Church. Secret doubters are taken for true members so how could the Church be united?

No unity in religion that admits heretics
 
Many religions regard at least some known heretics as true members. The Catholic Church is no exception. It accepts Protestants who are sincere as united with the Church. It calls them the separated brethren. A person who disagrees on an essential matter with their religion cannot be a true member of it no matter what it says. When it is belief that makes a Church a Church you cannot belong to your Church anymore once you question or disbelieve anything it says for then you automatically question anything else it says. The religion that regards you as being in communion with it is not a unity for it has fake union with heretics. If the Catholic Church sincerely accepts heretics as true members it ceases to be the true Church for it stops being a Church. If it insincerely accepts them it is not in true unity with them but it loses its unity for another reason. The Church cannot be one if it practices mortal sin. More of this later.
 
When the Church sticks the Catholic badge on people and is oblivious of their heretical sympathies and considers them to be true brethren it is impossible for her to be really one Church.
 
What about inadvertent heretics?

Nearly all Catholics believe things they donít know are heretical. This is undeniable. If you claimed to be a believer and had no doubts but did not know all Catholic doctrine you could not really believe. You are only guessing that it is plausible. You cannot really be a member of a Church you donít believe in. There is no Church.

Suppose a faction separated from the Catholic Church over something minor compared to the other Catholic doctrines, namely that the pope should be obeyed to the letter even in non-infallible teaching. They would be claiming to be the true Catholic Church. Any Roman Catholic who did not know he was supposed to believe that the pope was to be obeyed all the time and who did not know of this Church could hardly be said to be in communion with the pope for it is the other Church he would incline towards.
 
Canít belong to a religion you are ignorant of
 
You canít be a Catholic if you know little about Catholic teaching. You cannot sincerely or properly want to belong to a religion then because it has the truth for you donít know. Wanting to belong to the Church for another reason is just wanting to please yourself, not to be a Catholic. The Catholic Church recognises people in this situation as true Catholics so it has no right to be called a Church.
 
Desire not enough for membership
 
If you canít believe your Catholic Church and want to believe or be Catholic does that mean you are a Catholic? But you should be wanting to find the truth and believe it. You should not be wanting to believe in Catholicism just because it is Catholicism. Wanting to be a Catholic canít make you a Catholic for it is sinful and if God is truth then to be anti-truth is to be anti-God. If wanting to be a Catholic were enough to make you a Catholic then what are you if you want to be a Mormon as well? If belief determines membership then that means the desire for truth is the basic drive behind it and a part of it therefore without it there is no true faith.

When I expressed my unbelief to my spiritual father as a seminarian he asked me if I wanted to be a Catholic. I lied, replying in the affirmative and then he informed me that this meant I was a Catholic. This is a common response to such an answer but it is a trick. How can you want to be a Catholic when you donít even think that the cult is true? You only imagine you want things you donít understand. It is like people saying they want the right religion and somebody telling them this makes them Muslims for Islam is the true religion. You canít want to be so you are not.

That stops any Catholic from teaching that since the Catholic Church feels it wants to be one that it is one.
  
No unity for nobody knows who is expelled
 
The Catholic Church likes to teach that Jesus gave her the power to admit members and to excommunicate, put people out of the Church, in Matthew 18:18. Her excommunications prove that she is a false religion or religions to be more exact.

Rome excommunicates individuals and groups. There is excommunication which is pronounced by the bishop in a decree and then there is automatic excommunication which happens even if nobody but the excommunicated person knows about it. It is just committing a sin so bad, like heresy or sacrilege or blasphemy, that it puts you out of the Church.

The Catholic never knows when whoever claims to be a Catholic is really a Catholic. They might be hiding some heresy or not want to be part of the Church.  This proves that Catholic unity is superficial.
 
Unjust excommunications destroy visible unity
 
If an excommunication is unjust then the expulsion from Church membership is null and void and in the eyes of the Lord the victims are still members of the true Church. The Church is still visibly torn apart and no longer a Church - and it is those who have taken out their bell, book and candle who have divided themselves from them - so it is nonsense to say that she is one.

Rome has acted as if her excommunicating is valid even when she was wrong to have decreed it. The pope excommunicated the Eastern Church over a misunderstanding in 1054. That was the end of the Catholic Church and the beginning of the Catholic Churches. The decree wasnít abolished until the sixties by Paul VI which solves nothing.

All excommunications are unjust when the excommunicated think they are right.

If anybody knowingly or unknowingly excommunicates unjustly then he is a schismatic. He is breaking away from a member of the Church so he is breaking away from the Church himself for you canít divorce yourself from a part of the Church without breaking from all of it. He is excommunicating himself. He is leaving the true Church and making his victim become a false one.

The Churchís excommunication laws prove that she is no unity whether visible or invisible. The Church says that God founded one infallible Church, a Church that cannot err in matters of faith and morals.  God gave infallibility to keep the Church one and in the truth. The Church cannot ever pretend that she is infallible when she excommunicates though it is the only way she can put a veneer of credibility over her claim to be the one true Church. It is odd that Jesus gave the Church infallibility to guide its doctrine and not to keep its unity which is just as important if not a more important issue. What use is true doctrine if the Church is broken up? What use is infallibility?
 
The New Testament rejects the doctrine of supercessionism. Supercessionism means that the Jewish religion has been replaced by a new one, Christianity. Romans 9 to 11 explain that the Church is grafted on to Israel and is not replacing it. The Roman Church instead of seeing the Jews as another part of the same Church has regarded them as accursed heretics and boasted that it is the replacement. This error proves it is not the true Church at all.
 
Romans 11:25 speaks of the blindness of Israel as lasting until the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. Israel is not blind. So the spiritual fullness of the Gentiles has not happened. The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the fullness of the Christian faith and indeed the only true faith. But Israel's blindness, according to the Bible, proves that it is not. 
 
A sinful Church cannot be one
 
Another reason that Catholic unity is nothing more than nominal is that if mortal sin exists then the Church is disunited for she regards mortal sinners as still being Catholics. Mortal sin is the complete turning of oneís back on God and by implication, oneís neighbour, for love of God and love of neighbour are mutually dependent (teaching of the First Epistle of John in the Bible). In particular, mortal rejects proper intimate and spiritual unity with the Church. How could a mortal sinner possibly be a Catholic or in union with the Church in any proper way? The sinner might call himself a Catholic and go to Mass but his unity with the Church is purely outward.
 
God is infinitely perfect and so he hates sin infinitely meaning it is intending to offer infinite disrespect to God. If sin exists all sin is mortal which means there are no Catholics. The mortal sinner turns away from truth for God is truth therefore his faith has been renounced and replaced by artificial faith.

The Catholic Church has often produced a very dangerous morality. The doctrines of St Alphonsus Liguouri were luridly evil though the Church of his day had no problem with him spreading it.
 
The Church agrees with Kantís malevolent and pharisaic Categorical Imperative that you should not do anything that you would not will the whole world to do like lying for example but adds the reason the rule is valid is because to break it is a sin in the sight of God (page 116, Moral Philosophy).
 
The Church says that the end never justifies the means because the means are willed more strongly than the end because the means are closer to you than the end. They are more immediately willed than the end and so if you do evil that good may come your will is more strongly into the evil means than the good end. The Church pushes it as far as the idea that a lie is wrong no matter what good will result from it (page 32, Moral Philosophy). So if you lie to do some good you have to commit the lie first and therefore you are surer that the lie will happen than that the good will happen for you will commit the sin of lying and the lie is nearer to you in time. You are more sure of what is closer, you know better what will happen in ten seconds and less better what will happen in five.
 
If the Church is right then it follows that it is always wrong to care about consequences. The stress Jesus made on living for today and treating the world as something that might not be here tomorrow would support this attitude for why do harm even for a justified purpose when the purpose might never get the chance to be fulfilled? It would make the means evil.
 
Humanism believes that even if you have to hurt somebody to help them you will the end and not the means.
 
The Church teaches much hypocrisy. The Church says that anger is allowed concerning public outrages but must be avoided with private ones (page 64, Moral Philosophy). This makes no sense for the law is a mixture of private and public stuff and private evil affects the public. The Church could not possibly be moral for the pope acts like a spiritual king and claims to be the monarch of the Church (page 327, Moral Philosophy) which gives a divine sanction to the snobbery and injustice and arrogance of monarchy. Jesus too is guilty of this crime. The Church also says that a thief has no obligation to turn himself into the police for it is their business to prove he committed the crime. Would it not be hypocrisy to report somebody to the police for harming you when you have committed crime yourself? Why should other people pay and not you? What is so special about you? Is it upholding the law to hide your crimes? No for hidden crimes that are not redressed and dealt with by the law mock the law. The law is meant to protect by bringing pain on criminals and would it be upholding the law to advise most criminals to avoid detection? That is telling them the law cannot protect society from their crime. I canít believe that a Church with doctrines like this can claim to be relevant today! The Church and Christianity in general believe that the virtuous or humble man despises an undeserved insult and still takes it as his due (page 101, Moral Philosophy). It has to teach all this silliness because insults would be right if they were deserved and it cannot allow the man to think he does not deserve it for all are sinners and are guilty of sin even if they are cleansed from it now. It should get rid of the problem by getting rid of free will. The doctrine of free will prevents Catholic believers from ever formulating a practical and safe code of right and wrong. The morality of the Church is incoherent delusion.
 
Unity with the Church of yesterday

It is not enough for the Church to be one with and in the membership alive now but it also has to be in communion of mind and heart with the Church that has gone before. If it creates new teaching it ceases to be the same as that same Church and unity is broken. The Catholic Church has invented new infallible teachings so it has broken with the Catholic Church of old leaving two Churches.

Some believe that when the Church of Rome added twelve new dogmas in addition to the old creeds in 1564 without the consent of a proper council and even added articles of faith to the body of the old creeds that it broke away from real Catholicism (page 7, Why I Am Not a Roman Catholic, PTS).
 
No true visible Church
 
If the Roman Catholic Church is not the true Church, and we have proved this to be so, then some say there is no true visible Church and Jesus Christ was a false prophet for his prediction that the gates of Hell would never prevail against his Church failed (Matthew 16:18). This prophecy uses the expression gates of Sheol and Sheol meant death in the Bible. The prophecy may just mean that the Church could die but death will not triumph over it for it could be raised up to life again in the resurrection of the dead. Also, Jesus could be with false Christians to guide them back to the truth or closer to it so his promise that he would abide with us forever would not be annulled by full and total apostasy. God says that the prophet who makes a mistake and gives a revelation that is not from the Lord is a fraud that should be ignored and killed (Deuteronomy 18).
 
When most Christians think the Bible says the true Church will never leave the earth, it follows that God does not approve of their faith in Jesus for they impute false revelation to him and are following what they see as a false prophet but refuse to admit it. This is true even if he is the Son of God for they donít know. We are talking subjective, not objective, here.
 
The sacraments of the Church only work if the minister intends to be a channel of grace. A priest can pour water on a baby and say the magic words that are used for the sacrament and be merely faking. If he refuses to give grace then the baby is not validly baptised. It is the same with sacraments such as ordination. The Church must have many members who only think they have been baptised be the one visible true Church. The Church must have many priests and bishops who only think they are ordained right. They have no evidence. They are really only hoping that they are baptised and ordained! What a precarious unity! This unity is so weak that it doesnít deserve to be called unity.
 
The Church must be claiming to be the visible true Church just to attract members. Why? Because the claim doesnít make sense but people are discouraged from thinking about religion so the Church gets away with it too much. The Roman Church must in its heart agree with the Protestant concept that the true Church is invisible to us for we donít know who belongs to it even if they say they do so only God sees the true Church and knows who is a member. 

Not one in faith or government
 
The Catholic Church is not one in faith or in government. Therefore it is not a Church but a pretend Church. The proofs for this prove the same about any other group that claims to be the true Church like the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If Jesus was the Son of God he did not establish a visible true Church for he could not. It is nonsense to say that a Church that is not a Church could have the marks of universality, holiness and apostolicity. The other three marks of the true Church depend on the universality or Catholicity one. Yet the infallible Nicene Creed speaks of one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church.

Many accuse the Catholics of arrogance when they claim to constitute the true Church. They counter that Jesus said it not them and he is God so God said it. So they are telling us that they are not saying it but they are only saying that God says it. But even if Jesus said his true Church would never leave the earth there is no guarantee that the Roman Catholic Church is the same Church that he founded. A fake pope could be elected one way or another. You cannot see if the Church is run by real believers which would be necessary for preserving the authenticity of the Church for example, many men in the college of Cardinals could be fakes and not Catholics in their hearts. Therefore to believe in the Catholic Church headed by Rome is really to put faith in man not God.

The Church does not have the right government to be from God because we are supposed to believe God not man. Therefore the Church is divorced from God. Jesus never said that his apostles would remain true to the faith he taught forever. Even if Roman Catholicism is the apostolic Church it is still no guarantee of authenticity. The Church is advocating arrogance with its claim that Catholics are part of the true Church for only a handful of Catholics are able to give well-thought out reasons why the Church is true and they still manage to be wrong and flout logic. You evidently need an encyclopaedic knowledge of history, canon law, logic, ecclesiology (theology of the Church) and scripture to be able to properly defend the authenticity of the Church and nobody can have that amount of knowledge. You would need to know the minute by minute history of the popes and the Councils of the Church and their participants to be sure that there was no chance they could have ridden the Church into inauthenticity for it only takes one second for that to happen. It takes only one secret thought to destroy the work of God to make a pope lose his legitimacy and make the Church illegitimate. What claims God made are irrelevant. The Church says that God promised that the Church would never lose the faith as if that settles it! You would need to check it out first to be sure that it happened so then you could conclude that God maybe did make the promise. The claim to be the true Church is incompatible with humility. Anybody who does not claim to be in the true Church but who claims to have the only true saviour Jesus is really no better. How do they know that he is the only plausible candidate?

A unity between deceived people who have many cheating leaders is artificial because relationships need to be based on trust and honesty to be real. They are based on open-mindedness and helping each other to find their own path even if it means going out of the Church. The deceptions of the Church will lead to sectarianism and cannot lead to much else despite the work for unity. Those Catholics who say that the evidence for their religion is sufficient but not very convincing and then to claim to be the true Church must ask themselves if they possess the sin of arrogance in their hearts. The true Church then would have to be the most convincing one and pass logical tests. You need a miraculous pile of knowledge to claim to be the most convincing sect and it is vulgar to claim to be the true Church without it. 
 
A serious problem
 
It is incorrect to say it is enough for the Church to be one. You have to prove that it SHOULD be one. Unity cannot impress or be a mark of divine favour if the seeming unity is gained by compromising your conscience which must happen in the Roman Church to a huge extent. The Roman Church says that if she issues an unjust decree of excommunication the excommunication is null and void which should lead to chaos. The law of the Church then does not promote unity and if the Church were really Catholic and one God would make sure it does. The Bible itself commands that causing a schism may sometimes be necessary to preserve the true religion. The Jews had to break with the Samaritans over the latter altering doctrine. It is unfair to use the argument from oneness without first proving that there has been no departure from the deposit of revealed doctrine. The Roman Church has been altering doctrines these days which implies that it is time that the Reorganised Roman Catholic Church be set up to continue the old faith. The pope cannot preserve unity for the validity of his authority depends on his intentions and orthodoxy. A heretical pope is not a pope at all.

Finally
 
There is more to unity than just being put through certain rites of initiation and carrying a label. Catholicism's unity is artificial and superficial. The unity is largely a unity of some cultural elements not religion.