When I started out as an apologist, I had minimal interest in Catholicism. You would find a scant amount of articles addressing it, certainly compared to my articles addressing atheism, and even the articles I did write about Catholicism were written, in large part, to show atheists the distinction. Why? Because a large number of atheistic arguments against Christianity only work (or not, in many cases) against Catholicism.
It was not until 2018, when I wrote a brief overview of why Catholicism is false, that my focus began to shift. Initially, even this article had the main intention of distinguishing between Catholicism and Christianity for sake of atheists. It was intended to be a stand-alone post, and I had no desire to take the discussion further. However, it was picked up on by a Catholic group, who quickly swarmed the post. For days, I was answering the same few Catholic objections to the post. With that, I began to address Catholicism more directly.
In this article, I want to return to my roots, so to speak. Rather than addressing Catholics, I again want to turn back to atheists and show that attacking Catholicism, even with the few good arguments they use, does not make a dent in the Christian faith. If Rome were to fall today, atheists would find God's Church dancing in her ashes tomorrow.
In order to do this, I will first explain what Christianity is. I will then demonstrate why Catholicism is logically distinct from it. Along the way, I will disarm potential counter-arguments atheists have given, or that I foresee they may give, to both points.
Christianity: A fixed reality
Before we ask what Christianity is, we must first establish that it is anything at all. The main reason Christians count Catholicism as a separate religion, yet atheists seek to merge the two as one faith (conveniently allowing them to dismiss all by dismissing one) is because we have fundamentally different axioms. Christians, of course, believe Christianity is true, and so to deviate from it to a significant degree is to cease to be Christian. Atheists, by contrast, believe Christianity in all its various forms is made up. Indeed, they often compare the Bible to Harry Potter.
Without giving any credibility to this ridiculous comparison, let's temporarily roll with it. The existence of Harry Potter books do not prove the existence of the wizarding world. However, they do standardise various things within Harry Potter canon. A YouTube channel I'm subscribed to, SuperCarlinBrothers, discusses Harry Potter on their channel a lot. They compete in quizzes, write "what if" fanfiction, and even invent/discuss fan theories.
Fan theories, of course, are non-canonical ideas about established fandoms. They are possibilities which are not stated in books, or depicted in movies, but are nevertheless speculated on by fans. The aforementioned SuperCarlinBrothers theorised that Dumbledore may have had his own horcrux. To non-fans of Harry Potter, this probably sounds like gibberish, but the specifics of the theory don't matter. What matters is, J.K. Rowling, the author of Harry Potter, actually personally responded, saying "The idea that anybody believes this is strangely upsetting to me."
The result of this is that J.K. Rowling's official version of "Harry Potter" actually differs from that of SuperCarlinBrothers' fanfiction version. Now, here's the thing: Though it made them sad to be so called out by the author, SuperCarlinBrothers care enough about her opinion that they ended up rejecting their own theory, simply because even though it is all fiction, the author's authority matters more than fanfiction. What's more is that, more often than not, it's easy to tell the difference. The more you read the books, or watch the movies, or engage with Pottermore, the more you are able to tell the difference between actual canon and fanfiction.
Of course, as a Christian, I believe the Bible is true. However, an atheist is going to reject this idea. What I intended with the above analogy is that even if you believe the Bible is made up, it is still so central to the Christian faith that deviating from it automatically distinguishes a religion from Christianity.
The Bible, which is actually a collection of works written by God's messengers, is the source and definition of Christian doctrine. Before the Catholic Church existed, the Bible was considered by Christians to be "...given by inspiration of God...", and "...profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Because of this, Christians have always relied very heavily on the Bible. Jerome, for example, once said "...that which hath not authority from scripture, we may as easily despise as approve." (1). Augustine, similarly, declared "...among the things that are plainly laid down in Scripture are to be found all matters that concern faith and the manner of life." (2). Leaving no room for ambiguity, Irenaeus declared "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." (3).
It is worth noting that these three men are considered "Church Fathers". Church "Fathers" is a major misnomer; they are not the Fathers of the Church. Nevertheless, Catholics rely very heavily on the Church "Fathers", and these three in particular are "saints". In fact, when it's convenient for them, Catholics use the Church "Fathers" as substitutes for Scripture. When Scripture says one thing, but the Catholic Church says another, Catholics search for a Church "Father" (or more) who agrees with them. In other words, even Catholics must admit that these men are authoritative in the Christian faith. So, if they relied so heavily on the Bible, Catholics have to do the same.
What this ultimately means is that the Bible is the place to go in order to define Christianity. Whether you're a Christian, who believes it is the infallible word of God, a Catholic, who believes it is "...to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence" as "Sacred Tradition" (4), or an atheist who believes it's made up, but at least has to concede to the authority of the founders, you must accept that either Christianity is a fixed religion, defined by the Bible, or we're just wasting our breath talking about it, since every Tom, Dick, and Harry can simply make up their own ridiculous fan fiction, and that immediately becomes valid just by virtue of its own existence.
The Bible's alleged ambiguity
In a vain attempt to rescue Catholicism (and indeed, any heretical belief), Catholics and atheists love to claim that the Bible is too ambiguous to be interpreted. The trouble is, the reason they give for this is that multiple interpretations do exist. Catholicism, of course, is one of them, as is "my version" of "Protestantism". At this point, any Catholic reading should take note: You have common ground with the atheists here. Many Catholics argue that there are too many "Protestant" denominations for "Protestantism" to be true, whereas an atheist would simply count Catholicism equally with everyone else, and use that to say Christianity as a whole cannot be true.
But as this article intends to show, at least in part, Catholicism is not a legitimate denomination of Christianity precisely because the Bible is not so ambiguous as to be able to support it. I like to say "Protestants" disagree on Scripture for the same reason Catholics disagree with Scripture. It's the lens we use to interpret it that makes the difference.
I already alluded to this lens in the above section. Quoting Dei Verbum, I showed that Catholics are required to believe "...both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence." (Emphasis added). But as Jesus said, “No one can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will be loyal to the one and despise the other...." (Matthew 6:24). Therefore, when Scripture and "Sacred Tradition" conflict, as they very often do, Catholics are faced with the difficult decision of asking which authority they bow to. If they trust the Bible, tradition must be wrong. If they trust tradition, the Bible must be wrong.
I recently had an interesting experience exemplifying this perfectly. I was joking around with my Catholic friend. I asked how she is, and she said "I'm good", to which I jokingly replied "no one is good but God". Those familiar with the Bible will know that this is the gist of verses like Matthew 19:7, which is a part of one of three accounts where Jesus interacts with a rich man inquiring about how to go to Heaven (the other two being in Mark 10 and Luke 18).
Now, at the time, my guard was completely down. I joke with my Christian friends all the time, and while I don't count Catholicism as a Christian religion, I believe, as you will find in the Bible Brain statement of faith, that there are true Christians in every denomination (more on that shortly). Thus, I count my Catholic friends as Christian by default. I had no serious intent with my response. I didn't want to offend her, start a debate, or even address her theology. Yet, while my guard was down, hers immediately went straight up. "Wrong ;.;", she said. Why? Well, immediately, she went into a rant about how Mary was sinless.
Catholic tradition genuinely teaches this, along with a number of other horrifyingly idolatrous teachings about Mary. Thus, this one joke, directly quoting Scripture, caused an instant conflict between her religion and my own, and she knew it, so much so that while I didn't even mean it as an argument against her tradition, she knew it was.
Now, I'll discuss Mary and Catholicism a little more later on, but this does demonstrate the point I'm trying to make. Contrary to the claims of ambiguity, the Bible is so clearly not Catholic that even Catholics recognise it as such. It isn't a matter of the Bible being ambiguous, but of it being interpreted in unjustifiable ways.
In fact, using tradition as a lens by which to interpret Scripture is so unbelievably unjustifiable that the aforementioned Irenaeus explicitly calls this mindset heretical! He writes "When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce:" (5). (vivâ voce meaning "by word of mouth").
The authority of the Apostles
Now, if Catholicism is so heretical that its attitude is anathematised by its own saints, it's already off to a bad start. But ultimately, the so-called Church "Fathers" have no authority. But it's interesting to note that, at least when it came to defining Christianity, neither did the messengers of God. Throughout Scripture, prophets and Apostles were mere mouthpieces; they could say what God said, and nothing else. Deviation from His word was a sin so grievous, it actually kept Moses, of all people, out of the Holy Land (Numbers 20:7-12). Similarly, when Nathan presumptuously told David to build a temple for God, because "God is with you", God showed up and told him the opposite (1 Chronicles 17:1-15).
And that's just the Old Testament. In the New Testament, the Apostles were quite passionate about the limits on their own authority. They did, of course, have authority, but wielded it sparingly, leading by example rather than power. But more emphasised than the power they did have is the power they didn't. In their eyes, all things, including themselves, should be tested, and when the Jews in Berea did just that, they were called "fair minded" (Acts 17:10-12). Furthermore, the Apostles called themselves "stewards of the mysteries of God", specifying that it is important for stewards to be found faithful (1 Corinthians 4:1-2).
To the Apostles, the message they carried held so much more authority than they did. Paul is particularly vocal about this, and ironically in ways that stand in stark contrast to the Papacy. Paul preached that while he was "nothing", he was in no way inferior to the most eminent Apostles (2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11). This, ironically, would mean that if Peter was a Pope, so was Paul. In other words, Catholics picked the wrong Apostle to pin the papacy on.
But regardless of where you stand on the unbiblical concept of the Papacy, the fact is this same Paul essentially threatens himself, and all of his fellow Apostles, and even angels from Heaven, if they dare preach any other gospel than the one already preached to the faithful (Galatians 1:8).
Permissible deviations?
This is where things actually get quite complicated, ironically because the Gospel itself is incredibly simple. It is for this reason that as a ministry, Bible Brain takes great care to distinguish between people and the religion they hold. As found in our about section, "The official Bible Brain position on denominations is that there are true Christians in every denomination, but there are no Christian denominations." This is because human beings are flawed. Even the Apostles made mistakes, as seen shortly after Paul delivers his anathema upon anyone who preaches a different gospel:
"Now when Peter had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter before them all, “If you, being a Jew, live in the manner of Gentiles and not as the Jews, why do you compel Gentiles to live as Jews?" (Galatians 2:11-14).
Here we have two very strong believers, and indeed fully authoritative Apostles, disputing over the Gospel. It's worth pointing out, again, that this is very strange if you believe in a Papacy based on Peter. What right would Paul, this former blasphemer and persecutor of the Church, have to speak against the Pontifex Maximus on a matter of faith? But I digress. It cannot be disputed that both men are faithful, and yet one of them rebukes the other.
What we see here is that some deviation, even to the point of sin, is possible. Nevertheless, it is the Gospel that takes precedence, and any deviation from it is worthy of public rebuke at best, and positively damming at worst. Thus, while it is possible to deviate to some small degree and remain Christian, the Gospel is just too vital to permit such deviations.
Furthermore, Peter's deviation was not in word, but in deed. He did not run around preaching "you must be circumcised to be saved", but he did show preferential treatment to those who did. He was a hypocrite in need of correction, as Catholics, if indeed they are truly Christians, are living in hypocrisy, and need loving correction, however firm that may need to be.
So what is Christianity?
In the above paragraphs, we have firmly established the Bible as the "ground and pillar" of our faith. Ironically, based on a misuse of 1 Timothy 3:15, Catholics argue that their Church is actually the ground and pillar of truth, but we won't get into that here. I have sufficiently shown that Scripture alone holds the right to define the Christian faith for us.
As previously mentioned, the Gospel is a rather vital element of the Christian faith. To preach "another gospel", Paul says, is to be accursed. The Apostles, and even angels from Heaven, had no authority to preach another gospel. There is one Gospel (and it's worth noting that even with our many pitiful disputes, which primarily come from a similar tradition-based method of interpretation, "Protestants" generally agree on what that Gospel is), and any other gospel is, therefore, not a gospel at all. But Paul tells us more elsewhere.
In 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, we read "But I fear, lest somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve by his craftiness, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he who comes preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or if you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted—you may well put up with it!"
Here, Paul gives us three vital elements of Christianity: The Jesus, whom the Apostles preached, the spirit, which the Church has received, and the Gospel, which the Church accepted. It is beyond dispute that the Catholic Church lacks at least two of these vital elements, and could be argued that it also lacks the third. The Catholic gospel is a works-based perversion, even going so far as to require figures other than Christ; Mary and the Church, as mediators between man and God. The spirit of the Catholic Church, as a result, only mimics a love for God, where in reality, it produces a love for idols, as well as a degree of pride and false zeal. When it comes to Christ Himself, the Catholic Church is fairly spot on, but in denying the extent of His sacrifice, it diminishes Him, and in many ways even carves up His attributes, dividing them between Him and other figures. Finally, a central Catholic doctrine, Transubstantiation, merges Christ's human and divine nature in unbiblical ways, which were actually declared heretical at the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.), creating a fundamental difference between the Jesus of the Bible, and the Jesus worshiped by the Catholic Church. With at least two essential elements of Christianity missing, the Catholic Church is a few dimensions short of the cube.
Another Jesus
In these discussions, I often like to point out that many people even today claim to be Jesus, and do gain multiple followers. Or sometimes, the person themselves doesn't claim to be Jesus, but a splinter group from their cult says he is. It is obviously illogical to call their followers Christians, simply because they have an obviously false Jesus with no connection to the real, historical Jesus. Even claiming to be the historical Jesus doesn't work. If I claim to be Julius Caesar, that doesn't give me any legitimate connection to a long dead Roman. In the same way, claiming to be Jesus grants no legitimate connection to the historical Jesus. Why, then, should followers of an imaginary version of Jesus have any more claim to the Christian faith?
The obvious answer, especially given that the term "Christian" is literally based on Jesus' title as "Christ", is that they don't. And so the question becomes whether Catholics have the Christian Jesus? For the most part, the answer is arguably yes. They have a lot of His fundamental attributes correct. His divinity, His humanity, His death and resurrection, these are all things the Catholic Church has right. There are, however, a few fundamental differences.
The first is actually a fundamental part of their religion that wasn't always a fundamental part of their religion. In 1215 A.D., Transubstantiation became an official Catholic dogma. Transubstantiation is a perversion of the Lord's Supper, also known as the Eucharist. In the Bible, the Lord's Supper is a ritual of remembrance (Luke 22:19; 1 Corinthians 11:24-25) and proclamation of the Lord's death until He comes (1 Corinthians 11:26). Furthermore, the sacrifice Christ made, as represented by this ritual, was done "once for all", (Hebrews 7:27), and so now, Christ sits at the right hand of the Father until it's time to make His enemies His footstool (Hebrews 10:12-13).
In Catholicism, however, it is quite different. Most bizarrely, the Catholic Church teaches "At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood." (Catechism of the Catholic Church 1333). Furthermore, "The Eucharist is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit: (...) The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner." (CCC 1366-67).
You see, then, the major differences between the Biblical view of the Eucharist and the Catholic view. In the Biblical view, the host is the very food and drink it was when it was purchased, and it is merely consumed in remembrance; the sacrifice itself is final, and need not be presented again. We could go on for hours about the differences between the Biblical and Catholic Eucharist, but for now, let us focus on the simple fact that Transubstantiation is a heresy called Monophysitism.
Monophysitism is a heresy in which Christ's human nature is effectively dissolved by His divinity. The analogy used at the time was that of a drop of honey in the sea, or ink being put into water. In reality, however, Christians affirm what is known as the "hypostatic union", in which Christ possesses two natures, human and divine, simultaneously, and these do not, at any point, lose their identity.
This truth was affirmed at the Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.), which declared that Christ had two natures, "...inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather of the property of each nature being preserved...". In other words, Christ's divinity did not take on the limitations of His humanity, nor did His humanity take on the power of His divinity. It is as impossible for millions of Catholics around the world to simultaneously eat Christ as to eat you!
So already we lose the historical Christ even if you, as an atheist, reject His divinity. If you don't believe Jesus was divine, you're left with a human being whose physical body is no longer present on the Earth. Therefore, you can't believe Catholics are literally eating Jesus' body, as they claim.
But Christians don't make that same claim. In fact, another feature of the historical Jesus is that He did not claim He would return to the Earth in some invisible way. Quite the opposite, Jesus warned His disciples "“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand." (Matthew 24:23-25).
So, beforehand, the Jesus of Christianity warned that false Christs would come along, and if anyone says to you "look, here is the Christ", don't believe them. Then, along comes this Bible-burning mega-Church saying "Look (at this bread), here is the Christ", and we're expected to say "oh yeah, they're totally Christians". This is exactly the kind of thing Jesus warned us to avoid, and yet the Catholic Church has it as such a central part of their religion, Catechism of the Catholic Church calls it "the source and summit of the Christian life." (CCC 1324).
But aside from transferring the attributes of Jesus' two natures between each other, the Catholic Church also takes Christ's attributes from Christ, and to one degree or another, pass them off to human beings who have no business having them. Time would fail me to point to all examples, much less respond to Catholic rebuttals (which, of course, is not the point of an article catered to atheists), but most notably, and most relevant to the second element, is how the Catholic Church effectively turns Mary into Christ.
In some cases, this is devastatingly literal. Many Catholic idols depict Mary on the cross, such as the one in the image to the right, found in Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome. But since most Catholics flat out deny this practice, we can just assume this image is a fake, constructed by some overzealous anti-Catholic. After all, I'm not going to pretend everyone opposed to the Catholic Church is committed to accurately representing the faith they criticise.
One source that cannot be dismissed as an overzealous anti-Catholic fraud is the Catechism of the Catholic Church, promulgated by Pope John Paul II in 1992, which "...aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church's Tradition." (CCC 11). It can be assumed that such an authoritative Catholic source would give an accurate representation of any Catholic belief on which it touches. Therefore, when the Catechism speaks about Mary, that is probably what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary.
But first, what does the Bible teach about Christ? With very little being mentioned about Mary, one could be forgiven for assuming her role in the Christian faith is so minimal as to be almost irrelevant. Christ, on the other hand, is said to be the one mediator between man and God (1 Timothy 2:5-6). Why, then, does Catechism of the Catholic Church teach that Mary "...is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix."" (CCC 969)?
While I will be addressing Mary a little more in this article, I don't especially want to go into all the ways the Catholic Church effectively turns her into a goddess in this article. All I will say for now is that in many ways, the Catholic Church steals attributes possessed only by Christ and divides them between the Pope, the Church, and especially Mary. In doing so, they rob Christ of His uniqueness, and thus it could be argued, both on the grounds of denying certain fundamental attributes, and on the grounds of diminishing them, that Catholics have a completely different Jesus.
Another spirit
It should not surprise us, then, that Catholics also have a different spirit. Indeed, their communion with Mary is proof positive of this. Biblically speaking, communication with the dead is utterly forbidden. But Isaiah takes this a step further, stating "And when they say to you, “Seek those who are mediums and wizards, who whisper and mutter,” should not a people seek their God? Should they seek the dead on behalf of the living? To the law and to the testimony! If they do not speak according to this word, it is because there is no light in them." (Isaiah 8:19-20).
Both Old and New Testaments tell us that a rejection of God inevitably leads to idolatry. To put it in layman's terms, some Christians refer to the "God shaped hole" in our hearts. When we don't love God, our hearts seek after other things for satisfaction. Even atheists do this. Whether they admit it or not, they do seek things to replace God, be it "the universe", or even their very selves. In Philippians 3:19, Paul even talks about those whose god is their belly.
With that in mind, it's interesting to note that many Catholic heresies mimic those of Israel when they fell away from God. We've already touched upon the communication with the (very much dead) saints, but even the so-called "Queen of Heaven". The Jews worshiped her, which really cheesed God off, but now, this is also a title given by the Catholic Church to Mary (CCC 966).
Believing her to be the Queen of Heaven, Catholics have few problems depicting her in their idols, and as shown in the image to the left, they will even bow to her. This is such obvious idolatry that with one exception (who, being raised by Catholics, was surprised I didn't pray to Mary), atheists typically doubt that I am accurately representing Catholic beliefs when I point this out.
This single issue is often enough to convert a Catholic to Christianity, as even the 10 commandments are selectively taught within the Catholic Church. It stops short of editing the actual Bible, but whereas Jews and Christians will usually cite the second commandment as being a condemnation of bowing to graven images, Catholics will usually cite it as not taking the Lord's name in vain, instead splitting the 10th commandment into 2.
Another gospel
The ten commandments are probably the only thing most atheists know about the Christian faith. What they rarely seem to know, however, is how they actually apply. To an atheist, the way to get into Heaven is to obey these commandments. Ironically, this would automatically discount Catholics as Christians, since a large part of their religion involves breaking the second commandment, and arguably a good portion of the first. But even this is a wrong belief about the Gospel.
The best way I can think to depict the Gospel to an atheist is to use the penitent thief. When Jesus was crucified, two other men hung on their own crosses on either side of Him. One of them, silencing his mocking friend, simply said to Jesus "Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom", to which Jesus replied "assuredly I tell you, today, you will be with me in Paradise". (Luke 23:42-43). This thief, who by his own admission deserved his punishment (v40-41) was saved by faith alone. In stark contrast to the "gospel" of the Catholic Church, the penitent thief was not baptised, did not receive the Eucharist, was not a member of the Catholic Church, did not seek Mary's intercession, wasn't confirmed, didn't do anything the Catholic Church would say is required for salvation. He only believed.
On the cross, the thief had nigh perfect theology. Not with all these fancy terms and definitions we've added over the centuries to increase our own understanding, but at its simplest. He understood that he was a sinner, deserving of condemnation, yet recognised Jesus as Lord, the Son of God, who would establish His Kingdom after hanging on that cross.
This is so contrary to the Catholic "gospel" that when they're not making up ad-hoc rationalisations, like maybe the thief received the Eucharist like when Christ was offered wine on a sponge, or maybe he was baptised before he was put on the cross, they instead point to the sovereignty of God, saying that if God wants to make exceptions to His own rules, He can.
But like a banging drum, Scripture affirms that we are saved in the exact same way as this thief. Hearken back to Paul in Galatians, when he said if anyone preaches another gospel, let him be accursed. In this same epistle, Paul scolds the Galatians for departing from the Gospel, repeatedly affirming that we are saved by faith, not by works. This theme is repeated throughout Scripture, faith, not works, faith, not works, faith, not works. And faith in who? Jesus! There is no other name by which we are saved. But everyone who believes in Him is saved.
So, when the Catholic Church comes along and says no, salvation is by faith initially, but not alone, it must be maintained by works, and of course there's no salvation outside the Church, and woe betide you if you don't go through Mary as your mediatrix, what are we to imagine Paul would say? If Paul lived today, or even if Peter could see this Church that claims his name, I have little doubt they would anathematise the Pope as aggressively as Christ cast out the con merchants from the temple.
Different Apostles
Which brings us to our final point; let's talk about the Apostles. While they aren't one of the three elements Paul gives in 2 Corinthians 11:3-4, Scripture also, for obvious reasons, places a heavy emphasis on the importance of accepting the Apostles. In 1 John 4:6, for example, we read "We are of God. He who knows God hears us; he who is not of God does not hear us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error."
Just as they give lip service to the historical Jesus, but arguably appeal to an imaginary version of Him, Catholics certainly give lip service to the Apostles, yet we've already shown some of the many ways in which they deviate from the writings of those Apostles. Not only do they deviate by deed, but also by word. Of course, with the exception of a few radicals, no Catholic bishop is going to come out and flat out say "the Bible has no authority". But challenge a Catholic on the Scriptures and watch their response. At every level, from Cardinal to commoner, citation of the Scriptures against the Catholic Church is met with claims that only the Catholic Church has the authority to interpret the Scriptures.
This, of course, goes back to the lens thing we talked about earlier, but consider the implications of this. Allegedly, the modern leaders of the Catholic Church are the successors of the Apostles. Now, if the Pope is the successor of Peter, does it not logically follow that a letter by Peter should mean at least as much as a letter by the Pope? Yet, Catholics are only permitted by their religion to take one at face value. When Peter speaks, Catholics must interpret him through the lens of their tradition. But when the Pope speaks, especially on the rare occasions when he speaks "ex Cathedra", his words become tradition, and Catholics have no option but to believe him.
And it's not just the Pope, of course. Indeed, as mentioned, the Catholic Church places a very heavy emphasis on the so-called Church "Fathers", particularly those who studied under the Apostles. These, we are expected to take at face value, and believe because some of them knew the Apostles. But the writings of the actual Apostles? These can only be interpreted by the Catholic Church, and you're speaking out of turn if you say otherwise.
Conclusion
With a potentially different Jesus, delivered by caricatures of the Apostles, producing a different spirit, and presenting a different Gospel, it is simply impossible to classify the Catholic Church as a legitimate Christian denomination. The differences between the Catholic religion and the very much unambiguous Bible are too numerous and too fundamental for both to belong to the same faith. My simple message to Catholics is to repent, but this article, of course, has been addressed to atheists.
To those atheists, I hope I have done the topic justice, but more importantly, I hope you will be encouraged to think about your own beliefs. Proving the Catholic Church is not Christian, obviously, does nothing to prove that Christianity itself is worth listening to. However, throughout the course of this article, a number of misconceptions about Christianity should have been cleared up for you.
First, obviously, if you thought it was even remotely possible to classify Catholicism as Christianity, you had a fundamental misunderstanding somewhere in your knowledge. Wherever that is, hopefully you have now identified it. But really, the part I most want you to pay attention to is the Gospel. Everything else, while it may have been useful to lead you to the Gospel, is useless compared to it.
As explained, it could not be easier to be saved. To be saved, you actually don't need to do anything you couldn't do with your arms and legs nailed to a wooden cross. After receiving Christ, He will gradually reform your heart, and all the things necessary for your faith will be added to you. Having given no specific evidence in this article, I do not expect you to immediately do so, though if all your objections to Christianity were actually against Catholicism, it would be wise to do so. But if not, your next step should be to weigh up any evidence you know of, and seek more. In time, hopefully before your life ends, you will know and confess that Jesus is Lord.
References
1. Jerome - Commentary on Matthew, 398 A.D.
2. Augustine - On Christian Doctrine, Book 2, Chapter 9, 396/7 A.D.
3. Irenaeus - Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 1, 180 A.D.
4. Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, chapter 2, promulgated by Pope John Paul VI, 1965
5. Irenaeus - Against Heresies, book 3, chapter 2, 180 A.D.