Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


Roman Catholicism does err 

It is not enough for the Roman Catholic Church to claim to be correct or right.  You can be right without being infallible.  No it has to claim to be infallible and incapable of error under certain circumstances.  That is definitely pure arrogance and a sign of lack of confidence in the strength of its teaching.  So it has to use magic and prestige and create an aura of supernatural mystery around its power to teach in order to impress its doctrine on the world.

REASON AND INFALLIBILITY
 
The Church of Rome claims to be infallible. This doctrine is the Achillesí heel of Catholicism. Pulverise it and the whole unbiblical system crashes down except the Bible. Prove one infallible doctrine to be wrong and you prove that the Church is not infallible. All the doctrines of Rome that are shown false in this book are held by that Church to be infallible for she used her infallibility to teach and sanction them.

The Church has used its infallibility mostly with ecumenical councils.  The thought is that whatever the bishops decide is infallible and irrevocable for God makes sure the council will have the right views if it wants to.  For such a core doctrine it is surprising that the early councils of the Church, the most important ones of all, had the Eastern Church make the decisions which the Western Church merely accepted.  The latter did not seem to care much what they decided and played a very minor part.  History then marks out the Eastern Church to be considered as the true Church.  Its head functioned more as pope at the time than the bishop of Rome did.
 
Rome teaches that all that God has revealed is in the Bible and in tradition. Both are the word of God.

Rome maintains that reason shows that an infallible teaching Church is necessary for much of scripture and tradition is unclear and needs this Church to clarify it. But if they do that does not mean that she is infallible. A devious answer is that if an infallible interpreter were required then Rome was it for it is the only claimant in the early days of the Church. But there were scores of sects that made similar claims and there is no evidence from the first or second centuries that the Church of Rome could not err.
 
St Irenaeus said that the Church of Rome was to be listened to because of its learning and apostolic origin which has nothing to do with it being infallible. He wanted the heretics to listen to that Church and would have told them it was infallible if he had heard of that idea. Some very mystical Christians followed the interpretations of their leaders who they viewed as prophets because they found some of the scriptures to be too vague. Also God might have made them vague for some purpose intending to send a prophet centuries later to do the interpreting.
 
When the Church becomes the only authorised interpreter of the Bible and makes infallible decisions on how to interpret then the Church becomes the real authority and the Bible has none. Since the Church says infallibility does not work unless she does her homework carefully so that it can guide her to the right conclusion it follows that the reasons for her interpretation must be infallible as well. It is plain to be seen that if the Church can get the right and most probable conclusion from studying the matter there is no need for infallibility at all. People will good brains would be able to see what the logical answer is. Infallibility is just a trick for forcing people to let the Church tell them what is what. It is certainly one of the most outlandish claims made by the Church and itís disarming too which is why it looks saner than it is. This infallibility is not a great thing and is a failure for it cannot sanction the authority it pretends to sanction when there is no agreement among theologians as to what dogmas are infallible (page 27, Biblical Exegesis and Church Doctrine).

Christ denied the need for anybody to infallibly interpret his teaching: Jesus said, "I praise thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou didst hide these things from the wise and prudent, and didst reveal them to little ones." (Matthew 11:25).

The Catholic Church argues that since it is the true religion Christ would not let it err in thinking it is infallible when it is not for then it would cease to be the true Church. So it is thought that if the Church of Rome is the Church of Christ then it is infallible for it says so. If the Church can know by some grace that it is right when it says that God has revealed a dogma and therefore the dogma is true then what is to stop anybody from thinking they have got the gift of infallibility and forming a new sect? The Church forbidding people to do that shows that it is not Catholic for Catholic means the Church cannot unjustly exclude anybody. This is disturbing sectarianism.

The Church can be fallible if millions of Catholics can make piles of errors in religion and remain Catholics. They cannot but then it is possible for the true church to exist and not be infallible in its official doctrine. The Catholic Church even claims that those Christians who are very far from her are true Catholics and just donít know it!

Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, Part 1, reminds us that the Church has two kinds of teaching, ordinary and solemn. Ordinary has not been infallibly defined but solemn has but ordinary is more important than solemn in the sense that it comprises the general and constant and unchanging teaching of the Church (page 177-178). Ordinary teaching is considered infallible without a formal definition if it is the constant teaching of the Church.

Theologians disagree a lot about what teachings are really inerrant doctrines. What use is infallibility when nobody can be sure when it was used? When such uncertainty is permitted by God to exist he would just let a group of bishops or a pope pretend to use the charism of infallibility in order to deceive the Church. The Church also is unable to work out when the bishops speaking as one without an ecumenical council are infallible (page 17, Infallibility in the Church). If they had any infallibility at all they would not be so confused.

Rome does not know everything and when Jesus let this happen it shows that he does not need an infallible Church.

Rome says miracles like Lourdes prove she is infallible for they show that God approves of the Catholic Church. But the Church teaches false doctrines such as that you can do good works while having unrepented sin though you are telling God, ďI do this good with the sinĒ, which makes an insult of it. It is like offering a nice dinner to somebody with a dead mouse on it.

There is no evidence that Catholicism is protected against making theological mistakes therefore it is evil to assert that she is for that is saying that you should submit to her even though it is all guesswork. That is irrational and bigoted and unnecessary.

To believe in the gospel because the Church says it is true is to believe in the Church and not in God even if it is the gospel of God for we donít know that when we depend on the Church. We must believe in God and what he has said instead. It is idolatry not to. We see that Roman Catholicism does not do this and believes in the Church instead of God.

If the Church of Rome and the pope really believed in infallibility the Church would be a democracy for then the Church would still be incapable of error. They would give the people the chance to run the Church under certain good restrictions when the people want it so much. They could delegate infallibility to the ordinary people of the Church so that what most genuine Catholics think can be taken as what God teaches. Vatican I, the 1869-1870 Ecumenical Council, was questioned by some theologians because it got its decrees past by manipulating the proceedings so that a simple majority to vote doctrines into irrevocable dogma was achieved (page 55, HANS KUNG, HIS WORK AND HIS WAY). Never did the Church get together to infallibly proclaim that this is the list of infallible councils and the list is infallibly correct. What it could do is infallibly declare that the decrees of these councils were infallible and that way there could be no doubt.
 
The Church holds that ecumenical councils are infallible. There is no list of such councils that is binding on a Catholic (page 55, HANS KUNG, HIS WORK AND HIS WAY). The accepted numbering of the councils and the accepted list is questioned by some Catholic theologians. What good is infallibility then if the Catholic can reject some councils as defective or infallible?
 
Even conservative Catholic theologians hold that the Church being kept by God in enough truth to save souls is more important than holding that the statements given by ecumenical councils or the Church using its infallibility are infallible (page 97, HANS KUNG, HIS WORK AND HIS WAY). The radical Catholic theologian, Hans Kung wrote that when he tried to get the Church through its theologians to prove to him that it is possible for the Holy Spirit simply to protect some essential statements from error it never responded (page 97, HANS KUNG, HIS WORK AND HIS WAY). His conclusion was that no theologian was able to do it or could do it.