So what about Catholicism?
For some reason, I have ventured into some rabbit holes on the internet where Protestants and Catholics are debating and for some reason, it tends to get pretty ugly. I have also noticed the catholic side, seemingly punching a death blow to the protestant, claming, “Catholics are the only reason why you have a Bible”. This implies, because the Catholic Church established the canon of Scripture, we as protestants must affirm the Catholic Church in its entirety.

This has struck me as being a silly argument. Just because the Catholic Church established the canon of the Scripture, does not alone justify anyone affirming any other doctrine that the Church holds on to.
The reason why I say this, is because if you assume that the Catholic Church in its early days, when the canon was established, and the Catholic Church as it is today are the same, you just do not know the history of the councils of the Church, and the evolution that the Church went through. The truth is, the early Church and the modern Church are not the same.

The evolution of the Catholic Church.

(Feel free to skip to the next part as dates and places and councils are boring.)

In the days of Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas the Catholic Church looked very different. The Church held to doctrines such as the infallibility of Scripture, the Authority of Scripture, original sin, grace, predestination etc. Doctrines that orthodox protestants would affirm and hold onto.

In 325 AD the first council of Nicea was held. Here the Church defined the doctrine of the nature of Christ, and the Nicean creed was formulated. In 381 AD at the council of Constantinople, the creed was extended to include the holy Spirit. In 431 AD at the council of Ephesus, the nature of Christ was addressed again, and Mary was declared to be the mother of God. In 451 AD at the council of Chalcedon the hypostatic union of Christ was defined, that is, that Christ is both fully God and fully Human. In 787 at the second council of Nicea, the veneration of icons in worship was accepted, but the worship of said idols were rejected. Between 869 and 870 AD, at the fourth council of Constantinople, the authority of the pope was established over the eastern Church. In 1179AD at the third lateran council, the rules for papal elections were established. In 1215 AD at the fourth Lateran council, the doctrine of transubstantiation was established, that is, the view that the eucharist literally transforms into the literal blood and body of Christ. Mandated annual confessions were also mandated for all Christians. In 1869 – 1870 at the first Vatican council the doctrine of papal infallibility was established, that is, that the official teachings of the pope are infallible, or on par with what Scripture teaches. The doctrine of the immaculate conception was also established, that is, that Mary was without original sin, when Christ was conceived within her.

“…if you assume that the Catholic Church in its early days, when the canon was established, and the Catholic Church as it is today are the same, you just do not know the history of the councils of the Church, and the evolution that the Church went through.”

Problematic Changes That Occurred

There are some immediate problematic changes that occurred in the Catholic church.

Problematic Change #1

The first being the decree that the veneration of icons are acceptable in worship in 787 AD. This is in direct violation of the second commandment in Exodus 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below” – it goes on to say you shall not worship them also. These are two different commandments. The first being, making any icons that resemble anything in heaven. Then secondly the worship of said icon. Now, I want to make it clear: I am not saying that Catholics are worshiping these icons. I am saying that they are making these icons, for the purpose of worshiping God. That is what was discussed at that council.

Problematic Change #2

The second problematic change is in 1215 at the defining of the transubstantiation. That is the eucharist, or the sacrament of communion, physically and literally changes into the literal body and blood of Christ. The obvious problem with this is, if you are literally eating the body of Christ, and drinking the literal blood of Christ… isn’t that cannibalism? Christ said to his disciples in Mathew 26:26 – 28, “Take and eat: this is my body…” Drink from it, all of you. This is my blood of the covenant” Catholics say when Jesus said this, he literally meant it. However; The disciples ate and drank the bread and wine, before Jesus’ Crucifixion. If it was the case that it would literally turn into his blood and his body, how could it be that it would happen before the crucifixion? This points to it being symbolic of the new covenant that Jesus is about to establish.

Problematic Change #3

The last problematic change was the establishment of the papal infallibility in 1869 and 1870. This is the doctrine that whatever the Pope teaches officially, is infallible, and akin to Scripture. That is to say, if the pope teaches something officially, it has the exact same authority as Scripture. It too becomes the inspired Word of God. What is the problem with this? In December last year, the pope officially stated, as a matter of doctrine, that priests in the Church can bless same sex couples, in certain circumstances. If you are a Catholic, you cannot go against this teaching, because according to the doctrine of papal infallibility, this is canon now. The problem with this is, in all circumstances, same sex relationships of any kind is an abomination to God according to the Scriptures. Now there is a contradiction. If Both statements are from God, it means that God contradicted himself [consider listening to this episode of ours for some more thoughts on this matter]. What once was an abomination, now is acceptable to him? Does God change? According to Catholic doctrines, no God stays the same, but yet He contradicted himself on a moral matter. This is the danger of appointing authority towards anyone who isn’t God, the moral law giver.

Bonus Problematic Teaching

The other problematic teaching is the teaching of the immaculate conception. That is, that Mary was without sin at the moment of Christ’s conception. This is problematic because it just isn’t Scriptural. There is no scripture reference to show this. This is pure speculation, and it is probably ill informed speculation. Scripture teaches that all have sinned and fall short of God’s glory, except for one. Jesus of Nazareth. He was the one who knew no sin. Nothing is mentioned of Mary being without a sin nature at Christ’s conception.

Conclusion

To conclude; I do not have any ill will towards any practicing Catholic. The aim of this blogpost was to demonstrate that the early Catholic Church, and the Modern Catholic Church holds extremely different views. The early Church held to the authority of the Scriptures as the ultimate authority, while the modern Church holds the authority of the Scriptures as one of at least two ultimate authorities. I want all Catholics who desire to follow God, to look at the early Catholic Church, and the early Catholic Church Fathers, as they understood the nature of the Scriptures. I end with a quote from one of the most beloved Church Fathers, and probably one of the most famous Catholics in history, saint Augustine of Hippo:

“Let us therefore yield ourselves and bow to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, which can neither err nor deceive.”

saint Augustine of Hippo