DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAVE THE FOUR MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH? (Part 4)

This is the fourth and final article in this series dealing with the question above.  Once more, the Catholic Church believes that the four marks, or characteristics, of the true church that Jesus Christ established are that it is 1) One, 2) Holy, 3) Catholic, and 4) Apostolic.  And the Catholic Church is (supposedly) the only one that enjoys the fullness of these attributes.

This month, we are addressing the claim that the Catholic Church is “apostolic.”  So, what do they mean when they say they are “apostolic”?  According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia:

 “Apostolicity is the mark by which the church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles.  It is of great importance because it is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ, it is most easily examined, and it virtually contains the other three marks, namely, Unity, Sanctity, and Catholicity.”

  

Now, being apostolic essentially means that one is teaching what the apostles taught.  But where did the apostles teach such Catholic concepts as:

• the (ministerial) Priesthood for the New Testament Church

• the Papacy

• the Immaculate Conception of Mary

• Mary’s assumption into Heaven

•  the infallibility of the Church

• private confession to a priest

• indulgences

• the Treasury of Merit… etc., etc.? 

The only sure source of apostolic teaching is the New Testament, and NONE of these Catholic teachings can be found there.  You can’t say you are apostolic if your doctrine or dogma does not line up with the teachings of the apostles in Scripture.

Some Catholics will say that these may not be clearly taught in the Bible, but that they are implied, and they will appeal to some sort of “development of doctrine.”  But there is a difference between our understanding of a particular doctrine developing over time (which is ok), versus one’s perverting of biblical teaching, or outright fabrication of doctrine (which is what the teachings above are).  The Catholic Church claims to have apostolic teaching, but they don’t.

Another reason that Catholics claim to be apostolic is because of their version of “Apostolic Succession.”  This teaching tells us that the Catholic Church has a “lawful” and “uninterrupted” line of successors (popes), going all the way back to the Apostle Peter.  But the fact is, their line of successors is neither lawful nor uninterrupted. 

First, it is not uninterrupted because this “apostolic line” contains holes.  According to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia, there are several gaps in the list of dates.  See here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm

In this list, you can see that there is no pope at all during the years 259, 305, 306, 307, 639, 1242, 1269, 1270, 1293, 1315, and 1416.  This is hardly an “uninterrupted chain of successors.”  To be sure, if Protestants were the ones misrepresenting the numbers like this, Catholics would be quick to point out that this claim is nonsense.

Second, the Catholic version of apostolic succession has not always been lawful, either, because of the methods by which some of the popes obtained their office (e.g., by force / killing, by sexual favors, or by buying and selling the office).  See this link:

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

So, to trust in the Catholic Church’s concept of apostolic succession will not lead to the truth.  True apostolic succession is simply believing what the apostles taught in Scripture and teaching those things to others.

It is a fact that a direct, physical line of ancestors was important in identifying the true Jewish Messiah.  But such a lineage is not needed for the New Testament church (Matthew 3:7-9), nor can one be found in the New Testament.  A traceable, physical connection is totally unnecessary and irrelevant when it comes to identifying the true church or true believers.

It is the teachings that count.  To be apostolic is to be faithful with the teachings of the apostles.  Having a physical line of successors does not guarantee faithful transmission of proper doctrine.  No doubt there were some people who were directly taught by apostles (or even Jesus, Himself) who fell away from the faith.  But the simple fact that even an apostle (Judas) could abandon the faith demonstrates that someone at any point in this line could have abandoned the faith and believed in false doctrine / heresy, thus destroying the Catholic view of apostolic succession.

Also note that at least one “legitimate” pope, has been officially condemned (with anathema) as a heretic by an ecumenical council.  See here:

http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/pope.html

One has to ask, how valid is an “apostolic line” that contains heretics?  If someone is a heretic, then BY DEFINITION, he is not believing apostolic doctrine.  And if he is not believing apostolic doctrine, then he can’t be called apostolic.  Such an “apostolic” succession without proper doctrine is meaningless.

Furthermore, the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) admits:

“But it must be frankly admitted that bias or deficiencies in the sources make it impossible to determine in certain cases whether the claimants were popes or antipopes.” (Volume I, page 632)  

My friends, the Catholic version of apostolic succession is simply wishful thinking.

CONCLUSION

If the Catholic Church can’t demonstrate that their teachings are those of the apostles, and if they can’t demonstrate their connection to the apostles by their own concept of apostolic succession, then why should anyone believe them?  And how many other Catholic teachings should be called into question if such a foundational teaching as this is on such shaky ground?  We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again… extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and Catholics have none of that here.

In spite of their boasting, the Catholic Church cannot claim the fullness of “the four marks of the true church.”   The truth is, they cannot claim the four marks at all in the way that they do.  In fact, they cannot claim even one of them.  No, the one true church does not exist in the form of the Catholic Church because, as we have shown in this series, it is neither “one,” “holy,” “catholic,” nor “apostolic.”

We heartily appeal to Catholics everywhere to take note of these empty Catholic claims and break free of that deceptive system.  We urge you to embrace the true gospel of peace, where one is saved simply by faith in the Person and work of Jesus Christ and not by the Catholic Church’s religion of works.  True Christianity is about having a relationship with the Savior, not by following the formulas (or the false teachings) of “Mother Church.”

DOES THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAVE THE FOUR MARKS OF THE TRUE CHURCH? (Part 3)

This is the third article in a series discussing why the “four marks” of the true church don’t apply to the Catholic Church.  According to the Catholic Church, the four marks of the true church are that it is “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.”  We are here addressing the third mark (“catholic”) and will demonstrate that the term does not relate to the Catholic Church in the sense that they believe it does.

The term “catholic” (meaning “universal”) was not originally intended to be the name of a denomination as it is today, but it was more a description of the church in terms of its doctrine, its mission, and certain ordinances, like water baptism and the Lord’s Supper.  In that sense, the early church was universal.

By the way, it is almost redundant (repetitive) to say that the church is both “one” and “universal.”  The two terms seem to overlap to some degree.  But anyway, when it comes to doctrine, the Catholic Church is not as universal in its teachings as it claims to be, since there are many internal arguments and divisions within her.    See Part 1 of this series:

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

But the Catholic Church does have a measure of “universal-ness” in some of the things they do and teach, and they do have a billion or so members.  Ok, what if it’s true that the Catholic Church is found in more places in the world than any other church?  So what?  That’s not necessarily a good thing.  We’ve already established in Part 1 of this series that belonging to the biggest church around can be spiritually dangerous!  (Matthew 7:13-14)

So, how does the Catholic Church define the term “catholic”?  According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

“The word ‘catholic’ means ‘universal,’ in the sense of ‘according to the totality’ or ‘in keeping with the whole.’ The Church is catholic in a double sense:
First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. "Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church." In her subsists the fullness of Christ's body united with its head; this implies that she receives from him "the fullness of the means of salvation" which he has willed: correct and complete confession of faith, full sacramental life, and ordained ministry in apostolic succession. The Church was, in this fundamental sense, catholic on the day of Pentecost and will always be so until the day of the Parousia.” (CCC #830) 

Once again, we can see the inflated view that the Catholic Church has of itself.  But let’s put this in simpler terms.  Supposedly, the first reason that the Catholic Church is catholic / universal is because “Christ is present in her.”  Ok, assuming this is true (and this is an assumption that we would deny), how does this make the Catholic different from any other Christian?  Isn’t Christ present in ALL Christians?  Having Him present in you doesn’t make you a special kind of Christian, nor does it make you “more universal” than other Christians.  It just makes you a Christian.  Jesus does put His same Spirit in all Christians, but this goes far beyond the borders of any label / denomination.

Also, according to the catechism, the Catholic Church has supposedly received “the fullness of the means of salvation.”  Fullness?  Does this mean that non-Catholic Christians are not as “fully saved” as Catholics?  They make it sound as though salvation is some sort of complicated process that only a certain organization can offer.  But try telling that to the repentant thief on the cross (Luke 23:39-43), or the publican in the temple (Luke 18:9-14), or the Philippian jailer (Acts 16:30-31).  They would all disagree with that idea. 

Furthermore, the whole false premise that the Catholic Church is operating under is that they are the church that Jesus established.  But, in fact, they aren’t.  This is the same circular (and faulty) reasoning that we mentioned in Part 2.  See here:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2014/03/does-catholic-church-have-four-marks-of_28.html

The Catechism continues:

“Secondly, the Church is catholic because she has been sent out by Christ on a mission to the whole of the human race:

“All men are called to belong to the new People of God. This People, therefore, while remaining one and only one, is to be spread throughout the whole world and to all ages in order that the design of God's will may be fulfilled: he made human nature one in the beginning and has decreed that all his children who were scattered should be finally gathered together as one. . . . The character of universality which adorns the People of God is a gift from the Lord himself whereby the Catholic Church ceaselessly and efficaciously seeks for the return of all humanity and all its goods, under Christ the Head in the unity of his Spirit.” (CCC #831)

The second reason the Catholic Church is supposedly universal seems to be because of the “Great Commission” (of spreading the gospel) given to all followers of Christ (Matthew 28:18-20).  But this is not at all exclusive to the Catholic Church.  So what makes them different?  How are they better or “more universal” than any other church (who, in fact, may be doing a better job of spreading the gospel than the Catholic Church does)?

It is true that there is universality in Him (Jesus), but the question is, are Catholics “in Him” to start with?  Can a church with so many false doctrines claim to be His true church?  Note that many of this church’s “universal” teachings are not traceable back to the apostles, as they would have us believe (we will speak more about this in Part 4).  But making great claims about being “universal” becomes absolutely irrelevant if you are not teaching what Jesus and the apostles taught.

CONCLUSION

The modern Catholic Church usurps the term “catholic” for itself and claims to have this “universal-ness” in its fullness.   But if a group wants to claim to be universal, they should at least be universal on THE TRUTH.  It is for this reason that the “Catholic Church” does not even live up to its own title.

But the true church of Jesus Christ (which includes all true believers around the world) is indeed universal in its mission of spreading the gospel (good news).  But the gospel of the Catholic Church is not one of good news, because it consists of a works-based salvation.  Theirs is not the gospel found in the New Testament.  It is another gospel (Galatians 1:8-9), and she is depriving her members of the grace and true freedom that are in Christ Jesus (Galatians 5:1).  

See these links for more on the role of works in the Christian’s life:

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/01/faith-alone-part-1.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/01/faith-alone-part-2.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/02/faith-alone-part-3.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2010/08/sola-fide-revisited.html

http://answeringcatholicclaims.blogspot.com/2012/09/romans-213-and-context.html

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.