Is Roman Catholicism the One True Church?
“Extra ecclesium, nulla salus” – Outside the Church, there is no salvation.
The Roman Catholic Church claims to be a visible Church, ie organisation, and
not only that but to be the only organisation established by God. This means
that every member can be an antichrist and they will still form God's
organisation. The structure not the people is approved by God. This doctrine of
visibility implies that as long as you have your name as a member of the
Catholic Church you are supporting that Church whether you like it or not.
People should have it removed if they disapprove of the Catholic faith. If they
don't want to be complicit in the wrong done by the Church they have to. It is
obvious that this unity is only a label and is not real unity. Roman Catholicism
with all its rebels and heretics who pretend to belong to it and with its being
built on the rock of fake popes is only a superficial unity. It is a label not a
Church. It is a cloak not a unity.
The Church says it is meant to be God's united and holy community
even if this, hypothetically, is not the case. Jesus said that
it is by the great love among believers that you know they are his.
Examples of such love are rare. It can be argued that
something that violates core human rights which we will give
examples of in a moment is not a community or a Church. Core
needs are body autonomy, good scriptures instead of violent ones
like the Bible, gender equality, religious freedom as in the right
not to be religious and to have a carefully informed choice if you
are going to be and so on.
The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the one true Church and that this is
proven by the Church being one, holy, Catholic and apostolic. The word Catholic
conveys all time, all teachings, all nations, all eternity. It is a way of
saying, "The Church has the unchangeable truth".
Naturally then Church also claims to be infallible. To believe in the
infallibility of the Church requires a stupendous amount of faith and trust. You
have to trust the Church and the popes that they never compromised Church
doctrine. You would have to believe that Boniface VIII did not mislead his
predecessor and abuse him to become pope. Why? For if Boniface did this he was
no Catholic and was excommunicated. It would mean he was never really pope. You
would have to believe that Pope Urban VI was really pope though his own
cardinals testified that he was not and appointed a rival pope. You would have
to believe that Pope Pius IX had the right to be proclaimed infallible by
himself when he proclaimed that Mary was conceived without sin years before he
summoned a Church council to infallibly decide that he was infallible! You would
have to believe that the Church can infallibly decide which of the arguments for
Jesus’ existence are right. When the Church can infallibly proclaim that Jesus
exists it can proclaim that. And many Catholics believe and the formula used for
canonisation says it, that when the pope makes a saint that his decision is
without error and infallible. Saints are made not just on the basis of holiness
but on the basis of their orthodoxy. A holy person who say didn’t believe that
contraception was always a sin wouldn’t be made a saint no matter what miracles
they did or how many people he helped in life. So canonisations indirectly imply
that nearly all Roman Catholic doctrines are infallible for the saints were
traditional Catholics. Yet no rational person can agree that they are
infallible. Thousands of similar examples and problems could be put forward.
Rome requires a lot of research but demands very little then! Oh the duplicity!
IS CATHOLICISM CATHOLIC?
No if it is manmade it necessarily excludes people for being wiser than it.
Also, you cannot become Catholic on a desert island. Islam is more Catholic in
the sense that you can become Muslim on your own.
IS CATHOLICISM HOLY?
One of the marks of the true Church is that it must be holy. Obviously, if God
starts a Church he would want it to be righteous and honest.
Roman Catholicism tells us, “The Catholic Church is holy in doctrine and is
marked by the remarkable holiness of many of her children. The miracles of God
show her to be true for they wouldn’t be done for an unholy religion.”
This is no use for many religions claim to be holy and miraculous and to make
people holy and to have plenty of holy people in them. Everybody has a talent
for faking goodness.
The mark of holiness principally refers to the doctrine being holy, true and
from God. Rome is able to say that even if the whole Church were sinful it would
still be holy as it is the means of holiness and the pillar of the holy truth.
She has to teach this for there are many sinners and insincere people in the
Church. But her doctrine is not holy for it is wrong.
CATHOLICISM APOSTOLIC?
The creed Catholics say at Mass tells them that there is one apostolic Church.
Jesus left his gospel and religion in the hands of the apostles meaning that if
a Church claims to be the true Church then it must claim to be everything that
the apostles would want it to be. It must claim to be true to the apostles’
doctrine and to have been founded upon them (Ephesians 2:20). It must be able to
prove it.
But even if the Church agrees with the apostles in most things there is no
evidence that she agrees with them in all so the claim to be apostolic is just a
guess. Most of Rome’s dogmas cannot be traced back to the apostles. This proof
is no good. Bible-only religions are a safer bet.
And there is plenty of evidence and proof that Roman Catholicism is a religion
made up after the apostles. There is no proof that much of the New Testament
itself is true to the apostles for they had nothing to do with writing many of
the books in it. The Church would have to deny the stance of the scholars who
say that most of the books were not written by who they say they were and would
have to say they are all totally apostolic to have more hope of seeming to be
the apostolic Church.
When some of Rome’s doctrines are provably false and hypocritical she cannot
tell people to believe that “she is faithful to apostolic doctrine and that
demonstrates her loyalty to the revelation of God.” If apostolic doctrine is
right then she is wrong and if it is wrong she is still wrong.
Rome claims to have derived its sacramental powers from the apostles but there
is no evidence for that serious claim. Sacraments aren’t mentioned in the Bible
at all. It never says that certain rites have the power to give grace from God.
The Catholic Church does not take the word of the apostles that it is the true
Church but the word of the bishops and priests. Therefore it is really hostile
to the apostles. There is a contradiction between the Church saying it is the
true Church because it was founded by and wholly devoted to Christ and it saying
that it is also apostolic for the apostles were authorised to preserve the
doctrine of Christ. To follow what apostles say about Jesus is not the same as
following Jesus. It is following their portrayal and as for their claim that
Jesus authorised them plenty of others who contradicted them have made that
claim. This is why Christians in Corinth said they were for Christ and not the
apostles (1 Corinthians 1:12) – Corinth had an inadequate understanding of
Pauline Christianity so don’t think that they were going directly to the
historical records about Jesus instead of listening to the apostles and if they
had Paul would have proved that Jesus authorised the apostles to rule the Church
in his stead - and were shot down by the wily St Paul who evilly knew that they
had a point and still wanted to slap them down.
Jesus said, “Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to
observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until
the end of the age” (Mt 28:19, 20). This text is the basis of the Catholic
claim that the apostles had all Jesus' teaching and passed it on to the Church.
If proof or evidence that the apostles and Rome are of one mind in religious
teaching existed it would prove that the doctrines of Rome are as hateful as
theirs was. The apostles preached lies and blasphemy in the name of God. And if
Rome wants to be called apostolic then she is making herself as bad as they
were.
Lastly
As we learn from Lost Christianities by Ehrman, too many divisions and sects and
opinions in a religion show it is a false religion or a religion made up by
people and not revealed by God. In the early Church, Irenaeus said that the
followers of the Gnostic Valentinus were just led astray by falsehood as shown
by how much they disagreed with one another and how each one gets a revelation
that contradicts somebody else. Tertullian wrote, “Where diversity of doctrine
is found, there, then, must the corruption both of the Scriptures and the
expositions thereof be regarded as existing” (Prescription 38). What
matters is not the fragile unity of any denomination but the religion has a
whole. Christianity as a whole is full of divisions and one groups core
teaching is regarded as unChristian by the next one!
The Catholic Church regards its claim to be the true visible Church to be its biggest credential for it argues from this that it is the only visible Church that can trace its origin back to Christ. But this claim is bogus and making it is sufficient proof that the Church is bogus. If Jesus is the head of the Church then he decides who really belongs to him and who comprise the Church so if the Church is not clearly defined to us it is to him. An invisible Church on earth does not mean the Church is invisible to him.