Catholic Delusions

Vatican Square, May 2004

Unity Publishing, a pro-Vatican publisher, sent a link to the following yesterday:

The Catholic Church is the only church that can claim God for its founder (Jesus is both God and man) and, therefore, it has a fullness of revelation in Jesus as no other, for He comes directly from the Father and speaks and does only what the Father wills. Jesus also gives His Church the protection of His own Holy Spirit to unfold the mystery of God’s Revelation and to protect it from error. No other church has a divine founder and protector, for no other can trace itself back to the apostles and Jesus, Who founded this Church on the rock, Peter, our first Pope. There were no divisions in the Christian Church the first 1,000 years, none until Martin Luther, who correctly opposed some errors that had come into the Church but sadly broke the unity of the Church by starting his own church.

The above is, to a great degree, perpetuating several delusional myths.

First of all, the Living Church of God and many other churches claim that God (via Jesus Christ) as their founder. The Catholic Church is not the only church to make that claim. However, because of doctrinal consistency, Living Church of God has best historical claim to the original church.

Secondly, if the Holy Spirit was given to the Catholic Church to “to unfold the mystery of God’s Revelation and to protect it from error” why then has it CHANGED so many doctrines that those early ones it calls saints held? Those who have any doubts about this really need to study the article Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Living Church of God? as it clearly documents that the Church of Rome changed in areas where the Church of God never did.

Thirdly, the statement “No other church has a divine founder and protector, for no other can trace itself back to the apostles and Jesus” is not true as we in the Living Church of God can do that, but the Church of Rome cannot. Rome simply does not have proof of apostle to bishop to bishop transfer as there simply is no real evidence that Rome even had a bishop (other than perhaps the Apostle Paul) prior to sometime in the middle of the second century. Respected Catholic scholars understand that I am correct on this. For proof, please read What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History?, Location of the Early Church: Another Look at Ephesus, Smyrna, and Rome, The Churches of Revelation 2 & 3, and Apostolic Succession.

Fourthly, while we in the Living Church of God do accept that Peter had a certain primacy, the Bible shows that Jesus was the rock (for details, please see Was Peter the Rock Who Alone Received the Keys of the Kingdom?). Furthermore, we the Living Church of God do have the same original practices that the Apostles Peter, Paul, and John and their true successors had, and we do trace ourselves through the leadership of Peter. Rome, however, changed many doctrines and practices from those that Peter and others had (for details, please see Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Living Church of God?).

Fifthly, the statement “There were no divisions in the Christian Church the first 1,000 years” is perhaps one of the biggest delusions. The reality is that the there were divisions in Jerusalem in the second century, and the Church of Rome did not have unity with the areas of Antioch and Asia Minor until sometime in the third century. This is documented by respected Catholic and other scholars, and a summary of this is at The History of Early Christianity page.

Sixthly, the 1000 year division that was mentioned was between the Orthodox and the Church of Rome. The Orthodox call it “the great schism. Essentially the Orthodox claimed then, and now, that they never were in subjection to the Church of Rome, only that Rome deserved a special honor. They also essentially teach that if Rome would quit insisting on supremacy that the schism can likely be resolved. And while that is what the Orthodox hope for, the reality there is that biblical and Catholic prophecies suggest that Rome will ultimately win out there. But the Orthodox should individually resist what is going to happen (please see Orthodox Must Reject Unity with the Roman Catholics).

Seventhly, most Catholics do not realize that the first two times that Greek term for “catholic church” was used in the ancient literature (roughly 110 and 156 A.D.) it was referring to the Church of God in Smyrna–those in Smyrna were NOT a church under the domination of Rome. Asia Minor (including Smyrna) remained distant from the Romans and Alexandrians. Once persecution rendered the faithful of less numeric consequence in the third century, others in Asia Minor became numerically superior and joined with Rome and Alexandria. This is essentially taught by Catholic scholars. Hence, in a very literal sense the original “catholic church” was the Church of God in Smyrna–which was composed of those who taught many things later condemned by the Church of Rome. Sadly, the Roman Catholic Church does not have many of the doctrines or practices that those it calls saints had in the second/early third century Church of God in Smyrna had. But we in Living Church of God still do.

If you are somehow affiliated with the Church of Rome AND you believe that you should be affiliated with the original Church that Christ founded through His apostles, then I urge you to seriously study the articles cited today.

If you will study them in their entirety, check out the references to prove that what I am saying is so, and will not simply dismiss them as many of the positions will be quite different than what you are used to hearing, then you will find that the church that truly is the most faithful from the time of Jesus to present is the Church of God, now best represented by the Living Church of God. Protestants, who generally trace their history via Martin Luther, who came from the Church of Rome, would be wise to do the same thing.

If you are not sure which articles to start with, then perhaps the following three articles may be a good place (Protestants may prefer to start with the third one):

What Do Roman Catholic Scholars Actually Teach About Early Church History? Although most believe that the Roman Catholic Church history teaches an unbroken line of succession of bishops beginning with Peter, with stories about most of them, Roman Catholic scholars know the truth of this matter. This eye-opening article is a must-read for any who really wants to know what Roman Catholic history actually admits about the early church.
Which Is Faithful: The Roman Catholic Church or the Living Church of God? Do you know that both groups shared a lot of the earliest teachings? Do you know which church changed? Do you know which group is most faithful to the teachings of the apostolic church? Which group best represents true Christianity? This documented article answers those questions. Português: Qual é fiel: A igreja católica romana ou a igreja viva do deus? Tambien Español: Cuál es fiel: ¿La iglesia católica romana o La Iglesia del Dios Viviente? Auch: Deutsch: Welches zuverlässig ist: Die Römisch-katholische Kirche oder die lebende Kirche von Gott?
The History of Early Christianity Are you aware that what most people believe is not what truly happened to the true Christian church? Do you know where the early church was based? Do you know what were the doctrines of the early church? Is your faith really based upon the truth or compromise?