Dissecting Catholic Doctrine: Trust God or Trust the Church

This is part three in a series of entries. This entry will cover whether to place our faith and trust in God or in the church. This analysis is based in part on the free publication entitled Pillar of Fire Pillar of Truth: The Catholic Church and God’s Plan for You.

One of the biggest issues is where we are persuaded to invest our faith, and why.  The troubling basis of authoritative Catholic Orthodoxy, as conveyed in the aforementioned Catholic Answers publication, is the subtle yet persistent insistence of placing our faith not in God, not in the Bible, not in Jesus, not in the work of the Holy Spirit, but first and foremost in a human institution of fellow sinners, projecting a spiritual supremacy even the Pharisees would be jealous of.  How can equality through unrighteousness logically co-exist with authoritative exclusivity? Is the goal to find God and follow Jesus…or justify Catholicism by any means necessary? Is the church attempting to elevate God and promote spiritual truth…or elevate itself by concocting its own doctrine?

Catholic authority seemingly contends that “trust” in the Bible as the Word of God is misplaced.  Of course, if you trust the Bible then the Catholic church is not in control of the narrative and can’t string you along as effectively.  The trust I personally place in the Bible is based not exclusively on what the church teaches, but rather the historical, scientific, practical, prophetic, and spiritual relevance with an internal continuity unrivaled by any other historical, authoritative document.  If the church, made of imperfect corruptible sinners, contradicts internally and externally reinforced doctrine from the Bible, where do I apply my allegiance?  Do I trust God or trust the church?

If I believe in God, and I believe that the Bible is God’s Word as the Catholic church supposedly supports, then what sense would it make to not only dispute plainly communicated contents, but also contradict those teachings with institutionally implemented deviations often established hundreds of years following recorded Biblical writings, defying the beliefs and practices of earlier Christians while wrongly claiming flawless continuity?

The Catholic narrative addresses this idea of Biblical trust, internally characterized as “the Bible alone”, in a self-indulgent and subjectively interpreted format.  I have personally never used the phrase “Bible alone” or witnessed comparable utterance from another Biblical Christian, instead exclusively exposed to the concept through Catholic apologetics.  “Biblical” Christians (and what would be the primary basis of our faith if we weren’t) do put incredible emphasis on Biblical truth and Biblical teaching. 

I will speak for myself when I say that my faith in the Bible, as the unequivocal word of God without contradiction or inconsistency, is justified by results and personal evidence both ordinary and extraordinary, physical and spiritual, withstanding the constant scrutiny of a critical thinker who seeks truth like an impartial jury rather than the prosecution or defense.  Which makes for an odd experience defending a spiritual practice against a human institution which claims that putting faith in a spiritual book is not a spiritual practice.

“Today there are tens of thousands of competing denominations, each insisting its interpretation of the Bible is the correct one.  The divisions have caused untold confusion among millions of sincere but misled Christians…The holy spirit cannot be the author of confusion.  God cannot lead people to contradictory beliefs, because his truth is one” (page 11).

It is argued that since people can’t agree with one interpretation of Biblical doctrine (which objectively includes the Catholic church although they appear inexplicably exempt), and since God doesn’t author confusion (an idea we get from the Bible), that believing in the Bible is an incomplete practice.  What is being inadvertently implied is that the presence of human confusion inexplicably proves the subject that confusion is based on is the source of confusion. 

How can the Bible be the source of confusion under any circumstance if it is authored by God and God doesn’t author confusion? These concepts can’t logically co-exist.  The afore-referenced Catholic document mentions that people disagree, but it doesn’t address WHY they might disagree, drawing a truly bizarre and indefensible conclusion teetering dangerously on the edge of irrational fantasy and delusion. In reality, the Bible, which specifically identifies unsound doctrine, under the theoretical framework that the Bible is the Word of God, is not responsible for the interpretation or application of unsound doctrine; we are. If we are the source of unsound doctrine. then answer whether or not we trust God or trust the church should be effortless.

So why do people disagree with various “interpretations” of doctrine?  Do some disagree based on pride and sin nature?  Do some disagree based on asserted scientific incompatibilities?  Do some disagree based on political associations?  Do some disagree based on ethnic, geographic, or familial culture and upbringing?  Do some disagree based on personal perception, preference, and general bias?  Do some disagree based on blind faith in historical institutions?  Atheists or Agnostics would in turn use the same presence of incoherent contradiction between religious factions as an inherent flaw of any theistic assertion, subsequently indicating subjective belief over evidential truth.  Why do these disagreements exclusively qualify as “confusion”, and why does this somehow compromise the independent integrity of Biblical scripture? 

Does this mean that Catholics believe that Jesus wasn’t really God incarnate since God doesn’t author confusion, while religious leaders of the time and even his own disciples were dumbfounded by radical teachings of unprecedented doctrine?  Is it not more logical to assert that the carnality of human nature distorts and inhibits authentic spiritual understanding?  Is it not more logical to assert that we lack the full and complete understanding of an all-knowing God and what he “authors” despite him not authoring confusion, given that we are not only limited in understanding by nature but often reject spiritual instruction resulting from sin nature, pride, bias, confusion, and political affiliations.  If I say that Catholicism is confusing, does that not disprove the doctrine thereof by their own standard since God doesn’t author confusion, lol?  What are the standards and how are they fairly and evenly applied? So do we trust God or trust the church? I hope that’s becoming clear.

It also seems unfair and disingenuous to generically reference “thousands” of competing Christian sects in a very superficial manner, focusing exclusively on their differences.  Does this claim essentially amount to an observational assumption, and if the answer is no, then where is this information originating from?  If analyzing incompatible variations between Christians, are we also considering what they agree on?   Would it change your perception of this claim to know 90% of those sects agreed 70% of the time, or even if 50% agreed 99.9% of the time?  And how are we qualifying the identification of a “Christian” or “Christian” institution?

So what is Catholicism’s answer to so-called Biblical confusion?  The Catholic hierarchy has levied a self-appointed authority referred to as the “Magisterium” to manipulate Biblical scripture and spiritual truths beyond reasonable interpretation or recognition, with internally manufactured doctrine referred to as the “catechism”.  This means that God, who is not the author of confusion, made the Bible so confusing that it requires a panel of spiritually superior officials to interpret it for you, adding otherwise unsupportable claims and concepts established hundreds of years following Biblical inception.  God via the Holy Spirit authored Biblical doctrine, and God doesn’t author confusion, but we would confuse Biblical doctrine without the Catholic Magisterium?  That doesn’t make sense together. It should hopefully be clear whether we place our faith and trust in God or in the church.

Alternatively, how does the Bible address this dynamic?  Biblical scripture draws an incredibly clear line between sound doctrine and everything else.  Can doctrine be “sound” despite an un-ending list of competing beliefs?  Does scripture identify the source of confusion? What would be the purpose of pointing out deviations from sound doctrine if the deviations prove an inability to differentiate the two?  That would be …confusing…right?

Titus 1:9-  “Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.”

2 Timothy 4:3- “For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;”

The problem is, the Catholic institution cannot use its own doctrine to prove it is sound, relying instead on projecting spiritual authority, futile argumentation, and applying inexplicable criticism to other Christians through uneven standards.  Here are just a few examples of extremely confusing and unfounded dogmatic assertions found in the Catholic Answers publication:

-Eternal life is promised to us as a free gift of God, but requires we engage in acts of love to be rewarded with something He gave us freely. (derived from pages 21-22)

-Salvation both is and isn’t the result of works. (page 22)

-We cannot “earn” our salvation through works, but we can lose it through works. ( pages 21-23)

-We have the assurance of Eternal salvation, but not the assurance of Heaven. (page 24)

-God offers a “moral” assurance of salvation, but not an “absolute” assurance of salvation, despite salvation existing independent of works. (page 24)

-Christians can “lose their salvation” by “throwing it away”, while Jesus promised paradise to the criminal crucified beside Him who merely professed Jesus as Lord. (page 22)

Apparently, Jesus did something for us we couldn’t do for ourselves, and the end result, based on the things we do, is almost identical compared to if Jesus never died on the cross.  If lack of righteousness has the power to “un-save” you, then how does Jesus have the power to save us in the first place if our unrighteousness is more powerful than Jesus post-salvation?  If salvation is reliant on sin committed in linear fashion, meaning sin committed after you are “saved” “un-saves” you, then how can Jesus’s sacrifice thousands of years ago pay for future sin if your future sin can “un-save” you now?  If your “evil works” can “un-save” you, then Catholic authority is teaching a works-based salvation, which is directly refuted by Biblical teaching. Why would God create a system of “salvation” so easily lost by hopelessly unrighteous people? No, that’s not confusing at all and makes perfect sense.

So, trust God or trust the church? The Catholic church in this context is mandating blind faith and unconditional trust on an institutional basis, while the word of God tells us to seek evidence of his goodness and trust in him alone rather than fallible humanity or institutional authority.

Psalm 118:8-9: 

“It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in man. It is better to trust in the Lord than to put confidence in princes.”

But I suppose this is one of countless examples of cherry picked Bible verses mere civilian Christians are too inferior to understand correctly. Seems pretty clear to me.

Conclusion

The brand of Catholic apologetics presented in Pillar of Fire Pillar of Truth succeeds in reinforcing Atheism far more effectively than reinforcing Catholic doctrine, illustrating in crystal clarity the incoherent nature of foundational beliefs anchored in human tradition, practices, motivations and understanding.  If one is paying attention, this publication does nothing to positively promote this religious institution, but rather exposes it. 

Original Catholic doctrine not only fails to effectively alleviate projected “confusion”, but also exasperates confusion of otherwise relatively clear and simple assertions. The claim of unrivaled congruency with the teachings of Jesus is not only unsubstantiated, but clearly dispelled by tenants, traditions, and sacraments of the Catholic faith either established far beyond Biblical events, or modified beyond recognition and reasonable justification, contradicting otherwise sound doctrine from Biblical scripture. The Catholic faith, as it is presented in the aforementioned publication, has a closer relationship to idolatry than spiritual enlightenment.

The institution of the Catholic Church is indeed a large scale, extraordinary example of an ordinary phenomenon: human nature.  Unwarranted religious devotion to objectively indefensible constructs is an unfortunate symptom of the human condition.  The largest issue emerges when we overzealously integrate critically compromised social constructs as un-negotiable aspects of our identity.  This is why politically speaking as a society we focus so heavily on “right-wing” and “left-wing” affiliations over good ideas versus bad ideas.  Adopting an identity reflects an internal desire of belonging.  Why is it, each one of us seems to be programed in some way to desire belonging to something larger than ourselves? 

Ever wonder why NFL fans attempt to take prideful ownership of achievements they aren’t responsible for?  I wonder how an Evolutionist would explain this consistent human need.  I know how a Christian would.  It seems so many of us don’t know what to do with these feelings, turning exclusively to empty religion, romantic relationships, prestigious employment, cultural practices, social identity movements, patriotism, or political activism.  Do you feel perfectly and completely fulfilled, or are you chasing something that feels just barely out of reach yet perpetually unattainable?  Have you ever tried sincerely and humbly asking God to show Himself?  Now look at that; I’m not asking you to trust me and I’m not asking you to blindly believe. I’m asking you to do something that seems conventionally foolish, of which I have absolutely no control over potential results.  I am asking you to seek evidence of the unseen.  Why would I do that if I have nothing to gain and there is nothing to find?

If you missed part one of Dissecting Catholic Doctrine, click here.