IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH’S UNITY BETTER THAN THAT OF OTHER CHURCHES?

When Catholics debate issues about Bible teaching with Protestants, they will often say, “That’s just your opinion, and just your interpretation of the passage.  You Protestants can’t really know what the Bible says in many cases, since there are so many differences and divisions when interpreting Scripture within Protestantism.  You guys can’t agree on anything!” 

The Catholic Church claims that they are the one true church, specifically, “the one Church of Christ” which is “one, holy, catholic and apostolic” (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church, Lumen Gentium, paragraph 8).

But when Protestants point out the fact that there are many arguments within Catholicism (sometimes even about doctrine), Catholics will backtrack and are forced to admit it, but they’ll say that the Catholic Church is truly unified because it can “officially” settle disputes within its ranks.  They have the pope to do that, and he can do it “infallibly”!

But if that’s true, why do Catholics still have so many arguments with each other?  That fact is undeniable.  In just one recent example, there was an issue about Pope Francis complaining about a prominent Catholic television network (EWTN) that was attacking and insulting him. 

See these links for details:

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2021/09/21/pope-francis-says-attacks-and-insults-against-him-are-work-of-the-devil/

https://www.americamagazine.org/faith/2021/09/21/pope-francis-ewtn-critics-241472

https://www.ncronline.org/news/vatican/pope-francis-issues-thinly-veiled-criticism-ewtn-comments-gender-ideology

In these articles, the pope claims that he doesn’t mind so much EWTN’s criticism of him – what he claims to be against is this Catholic network attacking the Church.  However, it seems that the problems EWTN has with the Catholic Church revolve largely around what the pope, himself, is allowing in the Church!  After all, as the sole “human head” and “Vicar” of the Church, isn’t he the one ultimately responsible for the things going on within the Church?  And isn’t he the one who is supposed to discipline leaders, clarify misunderstandings and establish Catholic teaching?  If Pope Francis is the answer to the problem of disagreements in the Church, then why is there still such major division in Catholic circles today?

It is true that EWTN has had some strong things to say, especially about the liberal-leaning Church leaders, and the way the church is being run.  Some critics are claiming that the pope said that EWTN was a “work of the devil.”

Catholic writer and apologist Dave Armstrong (as well as other pope supporters) claims that Pope Francis did not say EWTN was a “work of the devil,” but that criticizing the Church is.  Maybe the pope meant that, or maybe he didn’t, but isn’t that pretty much the same thing?  If EWTN is attacking the Catholic Church, wouldn’t that also reflect on the pope who runs it?

Furthermore, in his article, Armstrong also names several prominent Catholic people/teachers/publishers with whom he disagrees.  You can find Armstrong’s article here:

https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2021/09/pope-francis-did-not-say-ewtn-work-of-the-devil.html

So we can see that this “unique” harmony and unity that the Catholic Church claims to enjoy simply does not exist. 

It’s deceptive to claim a “final human authority” who can settle all disputes, when this pope, himself, is chiefly responsible for causing so many of the divisions within his own Church, including contradicting traditional Catholic beliefs that were deeply held for centuries.

Look, divisions are inevitable (1 Corinthians 11:18-19), especially when such large groups are involved.  We Protestants are not complaining about the Catholic Church because it has divisions; every church has them.  We are simply protesting the hypocrisy and pretension involved on the part of Catholic accusations of Protestant divisions, as though Catholics don’t have them.

This whole issue of divisions is simply a distraction used by Catholics to deny the doctrine of “Sola Scriptura” (the Bible alone).  This just means that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith for the Christian church today.  The idea is not complicated.

Protestants assert that the principles of Scripture are clear enough to settle arguments within the body if simple interpretation principles and common sense are used.  See these links:

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2013/07/quick-notes-on-sola-scriptura-part-6.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/02/there-aremany-important-choices-that-we.html

https://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/dialogue-on-bible-interpretation.html

Yes, we must strive for unity in the church (John 17:20-21) – but God wants us to have unity in the TRUTH (John 17:17), not just an external, cosmetic type of unity where everyone says the exact same prayer at the same time and everyone uses the same gestures.

A small church that is unified in biblical truth is vastly superior to a billion-member church that is unified in error.  If we really want unbelievers to be drawn by our unity (John 17:22-23), then this unity must be based on scriptural truth.  A “unity” based on error is worse than irrelevant.  True unity may not come easy, but it is better to be honestly divided, than to have an artificial unity.

So, to answer the question first posed in the title of this article, no, Catholicism’s unity is not any better than anyone else’s.

 

DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAVE THE FOUR MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH? (Part 1)

There are many important choices that we must make in life.  For example, we need to make decisions on which career to follow or which college to attend.  Where should I live?  Whom should I marry?  How many children should we have?  Etc., etc.  But more important than all of these decisions are the ones that directly affect your eternal destination.  According to the Bible, all human beings (whether they believe it or not) have an eternal soul that will exist forever, and at the end of this life it will go to one of two places – to a place of eternal punishment, or to one of eternal life (Matthew 25:46).  And one of the things that can significantly affect your eternal destiny is the church you attend.

There are many churches out there, and someone may well ask, “But which one is the right one, i.e., which one is teaching the truth?”  Seems like a logical question.  After all, nobody wants to end up being wrong on eternal matters, do they?  Yet, many people (including some Protestants, some Catholics, and some otherwise) don’t really care about those things right now.  They’re only living for today, but they feel that they are safe as long as they go to church somewhere.  But this is a false security.  Jesus said, “You must be born again…” (John 3:3), i.e., you must allow God to change your heart and your life, and trust in the fact that Jesus paid the penalty for your sins on the cross.  Going to church is important, but trusting in church attendance (or any other good works) will not save you.   

But where can we locate the true church, the one teaching the whole truth?  Of course many of us know that the Catholic Church claims to be that “one true church” possessing “all the fullness of truth.”  And maybe some other groups will claim something similar, but our focus here will be on the Catholic Church’s claims of identifying itself as the one true church.

According to the Catholic Church, there are four “marks” of the true church, i.e., the true church must be “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic” (Lumen Gentium, Paragraphs 8 and 26).  And supposedly, not only is the Catholic Church the only one that has a valid claim on all four of these features, it is the only one that reflects the fullness of these four marks.  

In light of that claim, this article will be the first of four on these identifying marks, but today we will focus only on the first mark – the Catholic Church’s claim of being “one” in unity.  They tell us that the Catholic Church is an “undivided church” (Lumen Gentium, Paragraph 23) with an “undivided episcopate,” or leadership, (Paragraph 18), and that it possesses an “undivided charity” (Paragraph 32).  So, the Catholic Church thinks very highly of itself and its unity.

Is church unity important?  Yes, Jesus wants His church to have unity (John chapter 17), but He wants UNITY IN THE TRUTH.  What is the truth?  He lets us know in this same chapter when He tells the Father, “Thy Word is truth…” (Verse 17).  He wants our beliefs, our actions, and our unity to first of all line up with His Word (the Scriptures).  But this, by itself, disqualifies the Catholic Church from being the one true church, since they have many teachings that either contradict the Bible, or are absent from it, as this blog has demonstrated over and over.  Therefore, any unity they may have is pretty much irrelevant at this point.  Having all the unity in the world is not going to help if your doctrine is not based on Scripture.  So what if they have common participation in certain ceremonies, or have the same basic sermon on the same day of the week in every country, or they are reciting the same mechanical prayers?  Having such a unity proves nothing if you’re neck-deep in error.

Some Catholics mockingly point to disunity in Protestant (and other) churches, and make great and inflated claims of their own unity, and then try to use this as proof that they are the one true church.  Please understand, there certainly are divisions in Protestantism; it is unfortunate and we’re not denying that.  But the truth is that there is much division in the Catholic Church, as well.  One need only search the internet to verify this fact.  There are popular Catholic apologists who disagree with each other on many issues, for example, the significance and effects of the Second Vatican Council, salvation outside the Catholic Church, the New Mass, evolution, contraception, and the list goes on and on.  There are disagreements on all levels.  In days past, there were even popes who anathematized (condemned) one another.  So, they are really not the “undivided church” they claim to be.  Catholics seem to claim some kind of supernatural unity, but their unity is no better than the unity found in many other groups.  

So, if having divisions disqualifies Protestants (and others) from being part of the true church, then it also disqualifies the Catholic Church from being the one true church.  You can’t use an argument that defeats your own position. 

See also here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/12/sola-scriptura-and-divisions.html

In defense of their unity, they will say, “But 1) the Catholic Church is found in every country in the world, and it is the largest Christian church on earth, 2) we have one single human leader who can settle disputes when they come up in the church, 3) we are the only church that has all the proper sacraments, 4) we have the same readings weekly in every Catholic Church in the world, and 5) we have apostolic succession!  All this is evidence that we are the one true church.” 

 

Ok, let’s break down this last paragraph: 

 

1) Just because the Catholic Church is large does not prove that it is the right church.  Being a majority does not help in spiritual / eternal matters.  Remember, Jesus said that narrow is the gate that leads to everlasting life, but wide is the gate that leads to destruction (Matthew 7:13-14).  Being in the majority doesn’t help those poor souls entering the wide gate.

2) And their having a “single human leader” (the pope) also proves nothing.  It seems that such an important characteristic of the one true church would be quite evident in the Bible, but the office of “pope” is entirely missing from the pages of the New Testament.  It might sound good, but it’s unbiblical. 

3) Concerning the “proper sacraments,” see here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2011/01/sacraments-gods-grace-for-sale.html

4) Having the same “gospel readings” in every one of its churches on the same days really proves nothing, as well, since any group could do the same thing if they really wanted to. 

 

5) And of course their claim of having a legitimate, lawful, and uninterrupted chain of popes in “Apostolic Succession” is interesting, but lacking in truth.

See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/apostolic-succession.html

Catholics will also tell us, “But those who are causing divisions in our ranks are ‘not truly Catholic,’ so these divisions don’t count.”  Well, it’s very convenient to try to exclude those who disagree with you, but if they are “not true Catholics,” then why does the Catholic Church still count their attendance and take their weekly offerings? 

 

It’s hard to claim exclusion of these from your church who still claim to be Catholic, attend Mass, give offerings to your church, and have never been excommunicated.  Maybe someone needs to tell them that they are “not really Catholic,” even though the Catholic Church still treats them as though they are.

But ANY group or church can make such claims of unity by excluding those who disagree with them!  The fact still remains… there are divisions in the Catholic Church, and they are not as “unified” as they claim they are.

And concerning the use of the term “the church,” you can’t limit the description of the church to a single denomination or organization or label – that’s not what “the church” is.  The church of Jesus Christ cannot be contained or identified in that way.  The Catholic hierarchy has an inflated view of itself and they often imply that THEY are “the Church.”  For example, they will often use the term interchangeably with their own hierarchy / leadership.  But the term is never used of “the leadership only” in Scripture.  The “church” (meaning “called out ones” in Greek) is made up of all true Christians throughout the world, not just those in a particular group or organization, and not just the leadership.  So, asking the “location” of the true church is starting out with the wrong premise.  And finding the “right” church is nothing more than finding a local church whose people truly believe, and live according to, the Scriptures.  

Conclusion

Is Catholic unity all it’s cranked up to be?  Is the Catholic Church really “one”?  There is nothing special about their kind of unity.  Only their claims are special.  Just know that there are many arguments and much confusion within its walls, in spite of its apparent unity.

Now, we don’t have a problem with the “four marks” themselves, that were mentioned above, but the Catholic Church certainly cannot claim that all four marks only apply to them.  Actually, we would say with assurance that NONE of these marks (in the manner that they claim) apply to them.  They are not “one” in the way they claim, and we will go on to demonstrate in this series that the other three marks do not apply to them in the manner they believe, either.

QUICK NOTES ON SOLA SCRIPTURA (Part 6)

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17 – NASV) 

Today, we will address another specific attack on Sola Scriptura (by Catholics and others), one that acknowledges a somewhat higher level of the sufficiency of Scripture.  It goes like this:

ARGUMENT #6 – WE BELIEVE IN THE “MATERIAL” SUFFICIENCY OF SCRIPTURE, BUT NOT ITS “FORMAL” SUFFICIENCY.  MATERIAL SUFFICIENCY MEANS THAT THE BIBLE HAS ALL THE MATERIAL IN IT TO TEACH ALL THE RIGHT DOCTRINES.  BUT FORMAL SUFFICIENCY MEANS IT WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE RIGHT FORM, THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE CLEAR ENOUGH FOR ANYONE TO UNDERSTAND IT.  BUT SINCE THERE ARE SO MANY DIVISIONS AND DISAGREEMENTS AMONG THOSE WHO PRACTICE SOLA SCRIPTURA, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WE NEED AN INFALLIBLE MAGISTERIUM TO PROPERLY INTERPRET THE BIBLE FOR US.  SO, SCRIPTURE IS ONLY “MATERIALLY SUFFICIENT” AND NOT “FORMALLY SUFFICIENT.”

For the record, not all Catholics believe in the “material sufficiency” view, but many do.  A commonly used example of material sufficiency is that the Bible can be compared to a pile of bricks to be used to build a house.  All the “parts” are there, but they are not in the right order and, by themselves, they can only lay there… they can’t put themselves in place.  A master bricklayer must put them in place to properly build the house.  In a similar manner, they say Scripture has all the “parts,” but lacks the ability to “build” its doctrine since it can’t interpret itself, so we need someone with special authority to correctly interpret the contents of Scripture.  And apparently, the “infallible” Catholic Magisterium is the only one who has this authority.  At least, that’s the argument they use.

These Catholics would tell us that Scripture is insufficient since it’s in the “wrong form” to be used by itself as a Rule of Faith, and because of that, using Scripture alone will cause confusion and division, like we see in Protestantism.  They say Scripture is not laid out in a “formalized” or “systematic” manner as you might find in a catechism, for example.  Maybe so.  But then, in what “form” should Scripture be?  How does one determine that it is in the wrong form?  God, the Father, never said this.  Jesus Christ does not say this.  No, it is man who makes this false claim.  

We believe that the reader should be very hesitant to suggest that Scripture is in any way insufficient as a rule of faith.  Especially in light of the evidence we shared in Parts 1 through 5 of this series of articles which have previously addressed several other common Catholic arguments.  And the weakness of each of these arguments has already been demonstrated.  Scripture is indeed sufficient as a Rule of Faith.

So, why do (some) Catholics believe that the Bible is only materially sufficient?  It’s because this is all about a supposed NEED for “infallible certainty.”  That’s what this argument is all about… creating the need for an “infallible” entity (the Magisterium) to provide “infallible certainty” for its members, causing an unbiblical dependence on the Magisterium.  

But this “wrong form” argument is just an insulting deception to allow other “infallible” sources to enter into the picture (for the post-apostolic church).  

We don’t need INFALLIBLE certainty when interpreting the Bible.   Infallible certainty is God’s domain, not man’s.   But God can (and does) give us sufficient certainty in Bible interpretation.

Here is an article on that topic: 

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2009/12/dialogue-on-bible-interpretation.html#comment-form

And if the presence of divisions means that one’s rule of faith is in the wrong form, couldn’t we say that the Magisterium and Tradition are also in the wrong form, since many Catholics are also confused about statements from their own Magisterium, and since there are surely divisions within the Catholic Church, as well?  If disagreements are a problem for the Protestant rule of faith, then why would they not also be a problem for the Catholic rule of faith?  

Concerning disagreements and squabbles in the church, it is interesting that when Catholics argue amongst themselves, they’ll call it “freedom to interpret.”  But when they find disagreements in Protestantism, they’ll call it “divisions.”  

For more on Sola Scriptura and divisions, see this article:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/12/sola-scriptura-and-divisions.html

Now, of course church leaders do have a role in teaching, interpreting and expounding on Scripture, but the members also have a responsibility.  They are also expected to grow into maturity.  God does not expect us to stay dependent on the leaders for everything.  We shouldn’t expect them to do all the doctrinal studying, and then spoon-feed the rest of us like babies for the rest of our lives.  If the church leaders / Magisterium are teaching their members to be dependent on THEM (the leaders), then those leaders are NOT fulfilling their biblical responsibility to equip the saints (Ephesians 4:11-15).

God expects all of us to study and learn to “rightly divide the Word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15).  Must a church member just give up and turn all responsibility over to some (supposedly) infallible leader(s) just because a certain passage is hard to understand?  No, he should continue to prayerfully study and learn. We all need help interpreting now and then, but we have no biblical reason to believe in an infallible human leader (or organization) who must interpret for us.  

Again, God expects His children to hear, read, study and understand the Scriptures.  There are many, many examples of the common people being expected to understand Jesus’ words.  Here are just a few:

• People in general (Luke 20:17)

• People in the synagogue (Luke 4:21; Acts 17:2, 11)

• The public (John 7:38)

• The multitude (Matt. 15:10; Mark 7:14, 16; John 7:42)

• The five lost brothers of the rich man (Luke 16:27-29)

• The Reader of Scripture (Matt. 24:15; John 19:24, 28, 36, 37; Revelation 1:3)

• The local Christian churches who received letters / epistles from the Apostle Paul (e.g., the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, etc.)

• “Whosoever” and “He that has ears to hear”-- used many times in the gospels and Revelation (e.g., Matthew 7:24; Luke 6:47; Mark 4:9; Luke 14:35; John 5:24; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29; 3:6, 13, 22).  When Jesus said, “Whosoever…”, He didn’t mean “only the leaders.”

Once again, all these were expected to heed the words of Scripture.  They were held accountable to know and understand Jesus’ words.  There will be no one on Judgment Day who will be able to say, “But God, there are so many disagreements out there about the Bible… it just wasn’t quite clear enough, so I trusted in the Magisterium.”  No, every single person will be accountable.  And it will be that same Word that will judge us on the last day (John 12:48).  No one can escape that accountability. 

It is foolish to compare Scripture to a lifeless, disorganized “pile of bricks.”  The author of Hebrews tells us that the Word of God is “quick [living] and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword…” (Hebrews 4:12), and the apostle Paul calls it “God-breathed,” and a source that equips one for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17).   Jesus Christ tells us:

•   “My words shall not pass away…” (Matthew 24:35)

•  “He that rejecteth Me and receiveth not My words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day. (John 12:48)

• “… he that heareth My word… hath everlasting life…” (John 5:24)

• “But if ye believe not his [Moses’] writings, how shall ye believe My words?” (John 5:47)

• “The words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.” (John 6:63)

Hardly the language of an “insufficient” rule of faith.  The essence of these words of Jesus gets clouded and choked out by the concept of “material sufficiency.”  This is ample reason to reject it.

SOLA SCRIPTURA AND DIVISIONS

Sola Scriptura (Latin for “Bible Alone”) is the teaching that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith for the church today (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Catholics reject this teaching for several reasons, but this particular article will address only one of those Catholic objections. That tired, overused, but ever-so-popular Catholic argument is this: Sola Scriptura is “unworkable” as a rule of faith because it uses “private interpretation,” and this causes divisions / arguments / disagreements in Protestantism. But is this sound reasoning? Is this a fair argument?

Well, it is no secret that there are many divisions within Protestantism. Some estimate that there are 25,000 different denominations, some 30,000, others 33,000, etc., etc. One popular Catholic apologist claims that there may even be MILLIONS of Protestant denominations. While we believe that all of these numbers are wildly exaggerated, the focus of this article will not be on how many denominations there really are, nor on who has “more unity.” The focus is on the hypocrisy of Catholics who make the claim that Sola Scriptura is false because of divisions within Protestantism, while knowing that they, too, have divisions.

The Catholic Church claims to be “one” (i.e., unified), yet there are also many divisions / arguments / disagreements within its own ranks. This fact is undeniable. A little time spent searching on the internet will demonstrate that point. And some of these disagreements are on major, essential issues… even between higher officials in the Church. Even some of the early church fathers had disagreements with each other. There have been disagreements on all levels in the Catholic Church, from amateur lay apologists, to priests, bishops, cardinals and popes. Some modern points of disagreement between Catholics include the issue of contraception, the significance and effects of Vatican II, the Society of St. Pius X (SSPX), Traditionalists, Novus Ordo (New Mass), evolution, Charismatic Catholics, and the concept of “extra ecclesiam nulla salus” (Latin for “no salvation outside the [Catholic] Church”) … to name just a few.

So, if Sola Scriptura is disqualified as a rule of faith because Protestants have divisions, then the Catholic Magisterium must also be disqualified. If “Bible Alone” is negated due to the existence of disagreements, then so is Catholic Tradition. If divisions cancel out one rule of faith, they cancel out all of them, making this Catholic argument self-refuting. This is certainly a double standard.

Just because you may not have “physical” divisions (denominations with separate names) doesn’t mean you don’t have divisions. And if Sola Scriptura is the cause of disagreements, then how is it that YOU have them, also? Apparently, the Catholic rule of faith is not as “clear” as many Catholics claim it to be.

Someone may respond that Catholic divisions simply stem from those who disagree with the Church’s clear and official teaching and are thus actually heretics, and not true Catholics; therefore they “don’t count” when comparing disagreements.

But, first of all, Protestants could use this same argument and say that Protestant divisions also occur because of disobedience to the Bible’s clear teaching, and that those who disagree with us are not true Sola Scriptura believers, either.

Secondly, if these Catholic “heretics” are never excommunicated, and they continue to attend and participate in Catholic services, give financially to the Catholic Church, partake of the sacraments, and continue to identify with the Church, then it certainly does not appear that the Church, herself, considers them “heretics,” does it?

So, the “heretic” argument doesn’t prove anything, nor does it erase the fact that Catholicism has its divisions.

Catholics may say, “But we have a leader (the pope) who can decide infallibly for us when disagreements arise.”

And how many times have popes “infallibly” decided anything? It is an extremely rare event. But this just causes more confusion, because Catholics can’t even know exactly how many times this has happened in history. There is no “official” list of infallible statements, so an appeal to this supposed infallibility does little or nothing to help this Catholic argument.

CONCLUSION

Unfortunately, disagreements in interpretation are inevitable in this life; it’s something we just have to learn to live with. Remember, there were many who saw Jesus Christ, Himself, face to face, and they still disagreed among themselves on what He taught. Does this mean that Jesus’ teachings were also “unworkable”? Of course not. The ABUSE of a sufficient rule of faith does not void that rule of faith.

Dear Catholic friends, I am not trying to justify Protestant divisions, but I’m simply challenging the idea that disagreements cause a problem for the Protestant rule of faith, but not for the Catholic rule of faith. This idea is inconsistent on the part of Catholics.

Yes, of course Jesus wants Christians to have unity in the truth (John 17:11, 21-23), and we should always strive for it, yet we ALL fall short… some of us more than others. But, please don’t pretend you have no divisions in Catholicism, or that your rule of faith is somehow exempt when you use the “disagreements nullify Sola Scriptura” argument.

Catholics lose credibility each time this argument is used. So, let’s put this faulty and deceptive argument to rest, once and for all.