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

 

Roman Catholicism does err 

It is not enough for the Roman Catholic Church to claim to be correct or right.  You can be right without being infallible.  No it has to claim to be infallible and incapable of error under certain circumstances.  That is definitely pure arrogance and a sign of lack of confidence in the strength of its teaching.  So it has to use magic and prestige and create an aura of supernatural mystery around its power to teach in order to impress its doctrine on the world.

REASON AND INFALLIBILITY
 
The Church of Rome claims to be infallible. This doctrine is the Achilles’ heel of Catholicism. Pulverise it and the whole unbiblical system crashes down except the Bible. Prove one infallible doctrine to be wrong and you prove that the Church is not infallible. All the doctrines of Rome that are shown false in this book are held by that Church to be infallible for she used her infallibility to teach and sanction them.

The Church has used its infallibility mostly with ecumenical councils.  The thought is that whatever the bishops decide is infallible and irrevocable for God makes sure the council will have the right views if it wants to.  For such a core doctrine it is surprising that the early councils of the Church, the most important ones of all, had the Eastern Church make the decisions which the Western Church merely accepted.  The latter did not seem to care much what they decided and played a very minor part.  History then marks out the Eastern Church to be considered as the true Church.  Its head functioned more as pope at the time than the bishop of Rome did.
 
Rome teaches that all that God has revealed is in the Bible and in tradition. Both are the word of God.

Rome maintains that reason shows that an infallible teaching Church is necessary for much of scripture and tradition is unclear and needs this Church to clarify it. But if they do that does not mean that she is infallible. A devious answer is that if an infallible interpreter were required then Rome was it for it is the only claimant in the early days of the Church. But there were scores of sects that made similar claims and there is no evidence from the first or second centuries that the Church of Rome could not err.
 
St Irenaeus said that the Church of Rome was to be listened to because of its learning and apostolic origin which has nothing to do with it being infallible. He wanted the heretics to listen to that Church and would have told them it was infallible if he had heard of that idea. Some very mystical Christians followed the interpretations of their leaders who they viewed as prophets because they found some of the scriptures to be too vague. Also God might have made them vague for some purpose intending to send a prophet centuries later to do the interpreting.
 
When the Church becomes the only authorised interpreter of the Bible and makes infallible decisions on how to interpret then the Church becomes the real authority and the Bible has none. Since the Church says infallibility does not work unless she does her homework carefully so that it can guide her to the right conclusion it follows that the reasons for her interpretation must be infallible as well. It is plain to be seen that if the Church can get the right and most probable conclusion from studying the matter there is no need for infallibility at all. People will good brains would be able to see what the logical answer is. Infallibility is just a trick for forcing people to let the Church tell them what is what. It is certainly one of the most outlandish claims made by the Church and it’s disarming too which is why it looks saner than it is. This infallibility is not a great thing and is a failure for it cannot sanction the authority it pretends to sanction when there is no agreement among theologians as to what dogmas are infallible (page 27, Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine).

Christ denied the need for anybody to infallibly interpret his teaching: Jesus said, "I praise thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and prudent, and didst reveal them to little ones." (Matthew 11:25).

The Catholic Church argues that since it is the true religion Christ would not let it err in thinking it is infallible when it is not for then it would cease to be the true Church. So it is thought that if the Church of Rome is the Church of Christ then it is infallible for it says so. If the Church can know by some grace that it is right when it says that God has revealed a dogma and therefore the dogma is true then what is to stop anybody from thinking they have got the gift of infallibility and forming a new sect? The Church forbidding people to do that shows that it is not Catholic for Catholic means the Church cannot unjustly exclude anybody. This is disturbing sectarianism.

The Church can be fallible if millions of Catholics can make piles of errors in religion and remain Catholics. They cannot but then it is possible for the true church to exist and not be infallible in its official doctrine. The Catholic Church even claims that those Christians who are very far from her are true Catholics and just don’t know it!

Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Part 1, reminds us that the Church has two kinds of teaching, ordinary and solemn. Ordinary has not been infallibly defined but solemn has but ordinary is more important than solemn in the sense that it comprises the general and constant and unchanging teaching of the Church (page 177-178). Ordinary teaching is considered infallible without a formal definition if it is the constant teaching of the Church.

Theologians disagree a lot about what teachings are really inerrant doctrines. What use is infallibility when nobody can be sure when it was used? When such uncertainty is permitted by God to exist he would just let a group of bishops or a pope pretend to use the charism of infallibility in order to deceive the Church. The Church also is unable to work out when the bishops speaking as one without an ecumenical council are infallible (page 17, Infallibility in the Church). If they had any infallibility at all they would not be so confused.

Rome does not know everything and when Jesus let this happen it shows that he does not need an infallible Church.

Rome says miracles like Lourdes prove she is infallible for they show that God approves of the Catholic Church. But the Church teaches false doctrines such as that you can do good works while having unrepented sin though you are telling God, “I do this good with the sin”, which makes an insult of it. It is like offering a nice dinner to somebody with a dead mouse on it.

There is no evidence that Catholicism is protected against making theological mistakes therefore it is evil to assert that she is for that is saying that you should submit to her even though it is all guesswork. That is irrational and bigoted and unnecessary.

To believe in the gospel because the Church says it is true is to believe in the Church and not in God even if it is the gospel of God for we don’t know that when we depend on the Church. We must believe in God and what he has said instead. It is idolatry not to. We see that Roman Catholicism does not do this and believes in the Church instead of God.

If the Church of Rome and the pope really believed in infallibility the Church would be a democracy for then the Church would still be incapable of error. They would give the people the chance to run the Church under certain good restrictions when the people want it so much. They could delegate infallibility to the ordinary people of the Church so that what most genuine Catholics think can be taken as what God teaches. Vatican I, the 1869-1870 Ecumenical Council, was questioned by some theologians because it got its decrees past by manipulating the proceedings so that a simple majority to vote doctrines into irrevocable dogma was achieved (page 55, HANS KUNG, HIS WORK AND HIS WAY). Never did the Church get together to infallibly proclaim that this is the list of infallible councils and the list is infallibly correct. What it could do is infallibly declare that the decrees of these councils were infallible and that way there could be no doubt.
 
The Church holds that ecumenical councils are infallible. There is no list of such councils that is binding on a Catholic (page 55, HANS KUNG, HIS WORK AND HIS WAY). The accepted numbering of the councils and the accepted list is questioned by some Catholic theologians. What good is infallibility then if the Catholic can reject some councils as defective or infallible?
 
Even conservative Catholic theologians hold that the Church being kept by God in enough truth to save souls is more important than holding that the statements given by ecumenical councils or the Church using its infallibility are infallible (page 97, HANS KUNG, HIS WORK AND HIS WAY). The radical Catholic theologian, Hans Kung wrote that when he tried to get the Church through its theologians to prove to him that it is possible for the Holy Spirit simply to protect some essential statements from error it never responded (page 97, HANS KUNG, HIS WORK AND HIS WAY). His conclusion was that no theologian was able to do it or could do it.
 
ROME ADDS TO GOSPEL

Roman Catholicism says, “The Holy Catholic Church recognises that there has been no new divine revelation since apostolic times (Vatican 2, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation).

The Bible says the gospel as given to the apostles cannot be improved upon.  Hebrews 6:1 reads, "Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God".  The perfection is not the doctrine but following the doctrine perfectly.  The perfection is about the believer's perfection.  Jude 3 is clear that the teaching of the apostles is the faith once for all given to the Church. The Book of Revelation ends with a declaration that the word of God needs no addition or subtraction. St Augustine, a major source of infallible Catholic tradition, wrote that Jesus told the world through the prophets and the apostles all that he decided the world needed to know (Book Eleven, Chapter 3, City of God). Catholicism is against new revelations which is what she means when she says she never changes – apparitions only highlight what we are already told by the revelation that finished with the apostles. The doctrines many think are additions to the teaching of the apostles are implied by what they preached though it took time for the Church to work them out. For example, the sinless conception of Mary in her mother’s womb was contained implicitly in the revelation given by Jesus (Question 145, Radio Replies, Vol 1). Growth in understanding of a revelation is not adding to it. We recognise the traditions that give true revelation by this harmony with the Bible for there was much false tradition even in the days of the apostles.”

To explode the Roman Catholic claim that her unbiblical doctrines are not new revelations all we have to do is to show that they are not implied by the revelation of the apostles. But this implying is not of much assistance when we have so little that the apostles wrote. Forgers and disciples of the apostles wrote most of the New Testament.

The infallibly proclaimed doctrine that Mary never had original sin is not implied by revelation. The Bible didn’t mention it and tradition didn’t agree about it. There is no evidence that it was taught by the apostles. All the early Fathers took the line that Mary was conceived in original sin for she was born of sex (page 333, Vicars of Christ). And reason said the following. “The Catholic Church says that Jesus needed a sinless mother to be sinless himself. But she didn’t have a sinless mother so what did he need one for? God could have preserved him from it the way the pope said he did Mary.” If Catholics are right to say that Mary must have been sinless when she was full of grace (Luke 1:28) that does not prove that she never carried original sin. Maybe she became immaculate then. But full of grace is the same as being full of the Spirit for a good alternative to the word grace is “having God’s helpful and friendly presence”. Elizabeth, Mary’s cousin, was said to have been full of the Spirit and so was the sinful Samson. The term just means that you are taken over by grace at times of your own free will and not that you are perfect all the time.
 
Accordingly, when Pope Pius IX infallibly declared Mary to be sinless at her conception he was guessing. He was not infallible.

The epistle to the Romans says that all have sinned without exception. Rome says that Mary was not put in for she was an obvious exception like Jesus was. In other words, the people of Rome already knew that he did not mean her. But Paul was writing to people who had a bad grasp of Christian doctrine. He had to explicate many basic teachings in his letter. All he had to do was write, “except Mary,” but he didn’t. He makes it clear in Romans 5 that Jesus was sinless so nobody should say that since he did not write, “except Jesus”, that it means Mary could have been excluded. But even without such arguments we can see that it is most likely that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception was denied by the early Church. We have no reason to believe that Paul thought Mary was an exception to the infection of original sin. Remember, always go for the simplest explanation. God could have preserved Jesus from original like he allegedly did his mother though she had a sinful ordinary mother and father so nothing in the Bible even implies that she was immaculate. The doctrine does not come from apostolic dogma but is a later invention. It is heresy for the Church has defined or irrevocably set down in stone with her infallibility that she has no authority to create new doctrines.

Some Catholics say that all does not mean literally all when Paul said all sinned for he wrote in Romans 11:26 that all Israel would be saved. That looks good when out of context but in the context Paul said that Israel would be hard of heart against Jesus until the times of the Gentiles were fulfilled meaning that all of a future generation of Israel would be saved.

The Church says that she can infallibly decree that Mary was conceived immaculate as long as there is nothing in the Bible that is inconsistent with what she wants to decree (page 104, Church and Infallibility). But this is a dangerous position. You can add on too much too easily.

Nearly all Catholicism’s unscriptural doctrines are in the same boat as the Immaculate Conception in so far as we only have the word of the Church in their support and we must make that boat sink in the interest of truth. The first statement of transubstantiation might have been made by Justin Martyr after the NT was completed. How could the doctrine possibly not be an addition when there is no hard evidence of its divine apostolic origin? The Church itself disputes the historicity of John’s gospel which allegedly teaches transubstantiation which means there is no evidence for the divine authority of this gospel apart from the Church saying it is the word of God and how would the Church know for it is not God? The early Church did not have a pope and especially an infallible one or pray to saints. Need I go on?

If the Catholic doctrines were revealed by Jesus they would be in the Bible.

If tradition is really a body of apostolic doctrine and not an addition to the faith taught by Christ through the apostles then why for most of its history has the Church used forged tradition to get money and power? Gregory VII had outright forgeries created and the editions of the early Fathers writings altered ever so subtly to back up his view that the pope was the successor of Peter, that the Church never changed doctrine and that the pope had the right to rule the world (page 83, Vicars of Christ). Many writings of the fathers have only relatively recently shown to be forgeries and just like Mormons with the Book of Mormon some are still seemingly convinced the forgeries are genuine. People will too often just convince themselves that they believe what they want. A realistic forgery could throw Roman tradition off the track forever which is enough to prove that Jesus would not have left the Church in the treacherous hands of tradition. All the Church needs to trick us with is at least two witnesses who say they saw an ancient document from the fathers and then say the document perished in a fire so all that is left is the verbal account of the tradition. Many dogmas were just put in writing by one father so the Church does not even need two. How could the pope be infallible when he has to depend on scholars who might be wrong that such and such a source of doctrine is authentic and transmitted correctly? Are the scholars infallible as well?
 
NOT ECUMENICAL SO NOT INFALLIBLE

The Catholic Faith says that ecumenical councils when invoking the power of infallibility make the right decisions because of God’s protective power.

Roman Catholicism’s ecumenical councils are not infallible though she says they are if they want to be. They are fallible they are not ecumenical.
 
Another reason is that the charism of infallibility does not belong only to the bishops but to the whole Church including Protestants who Rome says are just misled Catholics. Patrick Crowley in Infallibility in the Church says that the idea that only the bishops as a whole are infallible does not reflect early tradition which says the opposite for it holds that the whole Church is infallible and the laity have a share in it (page 3-6,14). True Catholic teaching says that a layperson or a sincere Christian heretic has as much right to vote in General Councils as bishops do. (Don’t worry by the way, the tradition is not that early but it is the oldest.) This means that few of the General Councils represented the Catholic Church and so the rest were invalid for they were only for a segment of the Church. They were invalid for nobody but bishops could become a part of them.
 
The Councils were invalid for the allegedly schismatic and actually schismatic Churches were barred. Since the so-called schism between east and west in the eleventh century there has been no true ecumenical council and none of the decisions given at Catholic ones should be accepted or taken seriously. The fact that the Eastern Church had an uneasy truce with the Western Church and they were never in full union proves that their exclusion from voting at ecumenical councils means the councils they were not participants of are not ecumenical and therefore not binding on the Church.
 
Catholicism is a false religion which means that it is a human institution. If tradition says the whole Church is infallible then it follows that the laity should be appointing and voting for the bishops so that the bishops represent them properly and can be their voice in an ecumenical council. Therefore any council that does not use bishops like this is not infallible. It is possible for the pope to have sufficient control over who becomes a bishop without trampling on the laity.

All rival Churches of Christ have enough in common to make decisions that are agreeable to one another.

Vatican 1 is remembered for the machinations of Pius IX who chose mostly bishops who already accepted papal infallibility to vote for papal infallibility and declare it true and infallible. Vatican 1 was not a truly ecumenical council by any standard. It was not infallible.
 
CONCLUSION

The Roman Catholic Church makes no sense when it claims to be infallible. It is actually claiming to be in the place of God by doing so!
 
A GREAT LEGACY, Rev RJ Coates, Irish Church Mission, Dublin
A PATH FROM ROME, Anthony Kenny Sidgwick & Jackson, London, 1985
A ROMAN CATECHISM WITH A REPLY THERETO, John Wesley Protestant Truth Society, London
A WOMAN RIDES THE BEAST, Dave Hunt, Harvest House, Eugene, Oregon, 1994
ALL ONE BODY – WHY DON’T WE AGREE? Erwin W Lutzer, Tyndale, Illinois, 1989
AN ACCOUNT OF ARCHBISHOP JAMES USHER 1581-1656, ND Emerson MA PhD, Townsend Street, Dublin
APOSTOLICAL SUCCESSION, James Heron, Outlook Press, Belfast
BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND CHURCH DOCTRINE, Raymond E Brown, Paulist Press, New York, 1985
BUT THE BIBLE DOES NOT SAY SO, Rev Roberto Nisbet, Church Book Room Press, London 1966
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, Veritas, Dublin, 1995
CATHOLICISM AND CHRISTIANITY, Cecil John Cadoux, George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1928
CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1988
CHRISTIANS GUIDE TO ROMAN CATHOLICISM, Bill Jackson, Colonial Baptist Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1988
CITY OF GOD, St Augustine, Penguin Books, Middlesex, 1986
DAWN OR TWILIGHT? HM Carson, IVP, Leicester, 1976
DEAR CATHOLIC FRIEND, John R Rice, Sword of the Lord, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, 1989
DIFFICULTIES, Mgr Ronald Knox and Sir Arnold Lunn, Eyre & Spottiswoode, London, 1958
DOCUMENTS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, edited by Henry Bettenson, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1979
ENCHIRIDION SYMBOLORUM ET DEFINITIONUM, Heinrich Joseph Denzinger, Edited by A Schonmetzer, Barcelona, 1963
EVANGELICAL CATHOLICS A NEW PHENOMENON, Stanley Mawhinney, Christian Ministries Incorporated, Dundrum, Dublin, 1992
FUTURIST OR HISTORICIST? Basil C Mowll, Protestant Truth Society, London
HANDBOOK TO THE CONTROVERSY WITH ROME, Karl Von Hase, Vols 1 and 2, The Religious Tract Society, London, 1906
HANS KUNG, HIS WORK AND HIS WAY, Hermann Haring and Karl-Josef Kuschel, Collins – Fount Paperbacks, Glasgow, 1979
HOW SURE ARE THE FOUNDATIONS? Colin Badger, Wayside Press, Canada
HOW TO CHOOSE YOUR VOCATION IN LIFE, Thomas Artz C.SS.R, Liguori Publications, Missouri, 1976
INFALLIBLE? Hans Kung, Collins, London, 1980
INFALLIBILITY IN THE CHURCH, Patrick Crowley, CTS, London, 1982
IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH A BIBLE CHURCH? John Hamrogue, C.SS.R, Liguori, Missouri, 1983
IS THERE SALVATION OUTSIDE THE CATHOLIC CHURCH? Fr J Bainvel SJ, TAN, Illiniois, 1979
LETTERS TO A ROMAN CATHOLIC PRIEST, H A Ironside, Loizeaux Brothers, New Jersey, 1982
LION CONCISE BOOK OF CHRISTIAN THOUGHT, Tony Lane, Lion, Herts, 1984
LIVING IN CHRIST, A Dreze SJ, Geoffrey Chapman, London-Melbourne 1969  
LOOK! THE DOUAY BIBLE AGAINST ROME, Connellan Mission, Dublin
MORAL PHILOSOPHY, Joseph Rickaby SJ, Stonyhurst Philosophy Series, Longmans, Green and Co, London, 1912
NEW CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA, The Catholic University of America and the McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc., Washington, District of Columbia, 1967
OUGHT I TO SEND MY CHILD TO A CONVENT SCHOOL? Rev Walter H Denbow, Protestant Truth Society, London, 1969
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS, Charles Gore MA, Longmans, London, 1894
ROMAN CATHOLIC OBJECTIONS ANSWERED, Rev H O Lindsay, John T Drought Ltd, Dublin
ROMAN CATHOLIC TEACHING CONTRASTED WITH BIBLE TEACHING, Bernard Burt, The Bible Student Press, Coventry
ROMAN CATHOLICISM TESTED BY THE SCRIPTURES, John A Coleman, New Litho Pty. Ltd, Victoria, 1987
ROMAN CATHOLICISM WHAT IS FINAL AUTHORITY? Harold J Berry, Back to the Bible, Nebraska, 1974
ROMAN CATHOLICISM, Lorraine Boettner, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Phillipsburg, NJ, 1962
ROMANISM AT VARIANCE WITH THE BIBLE, Rev James Gardner, Protestant Truth Society, London, 1987
ROME HAS SPOKEN, A GUIDE TO FORGOTTEN PAPAL STATEMENTS AND HOW THEY HAVE CHANGED THROUGH THE CENTURIES, Maureen Fiedler and Linda Rabben (Editors), Crossroad Publishing, New York, 1998
ROME THE GREAT PRIVATE INTERPRETATOR, Peter S Ruckman Penascola Bible Press, Palatka, Florida, 1969
SALVATION, THE BIBLE AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM, William Webster, Banner of Truth, Edinburgh, 1990
SECRETS OF ROMANISM, Joseph Zacchello, Loizeaux Brothers, New Jersey, 1984
THE ADVANCE OF ROMANISM, S M Houghton, Cotswold Bible Witness, 1964
THE BIBLE OR THE CHURCH? Ken Camplin, Printland Publishers, India, 1996
THE BIBLE REFUTES ROMANISM Philip H Rand Protestant Truth Society, London
THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS THE ANSWER, Paul Whitcomb TAN, Illinois, 1986
THE CHURCH AND INFALLIBILITY, BC Butler, The Catholic Book Club, London, undated
THE CHURCH OF ROME AND THE WORD OF GOD, Rev Eric C Last, Protestant Truth Society, London
THE DEVELOPMENTS OF ROMAN CATHOLICISM, John A Bain MA, Oliphant Anderson & Ferrier, Edinburgh and London, undated
THE EARLY CHURCH, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987
THE GREAT MEANS OF SALVATION AND OF PERFECTION, St Alphonsus De Ligouri, Redemptorist Fathers, Brooklyn, 1988
THE MOTHER OF GOD AND OUR INTERIOR LIFE, Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, OP, TAN, Illinois, 1993
THE PRIMITIVE FAITH AND ROMAN CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENTS, Rev John A F Gregg BD, APCK, Dublin, 1928
THE RICHES OF ROME AND THE UNSEARCHABLE RICHES OF CHRIST Robert D Browne, Protestant Truth Society, London
THE STUDENT’S CATHOLIC DOCTRINE, Rev Charles Hart BA, Burns & Oates, London, 1961
THE TRUE CHURCH AND THE FALSE, The National Union of Protestants, Suffolk
THE VATICAN PAPERS, Nino Lo Bello, New English Library, Kent, 1982
TRADITIONAL DOCTRINES OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH EXAMINED, Rev CCJ Butlin, Protestant Truth Society, London
TREASURES FROM GOD’S STOREHOUSE, Dr Bill Jackson, Colonial Baptist Press, Louisville, Kentucky, 1991
VICARS OF CHRIST, Peter De Rosa, Corgi Books, London, 1993
WHAT HAPPENED! Francisco Lacueva, Evangelical Protestant Society, Belfast
WHY BE A CATHOLIC? Fr David Jones OP, Catholic Truth Society, London, 1996
WHY I AM NOT A ROMAN CATHOLIC, Rev Canon McCormick DD, Protestant Truth Society, London, 1968
YOU CAN LEAD ROMAN CATHOLICS TO CHRIST, Wilson Ewin, New England Mission, Nashua 1980