Is the Catholic Church a separate religion or a division of Christianity?

The Roman Catholic church and the Greek church are large bodies of persons professing Christianity, associated under these designations. So of Presbyterians, and Covenanters, Lutherans, etc. If you press the matter, the church is the teaching, the authoritative part of it. This is so even among Protestants. The thirty-nine Articles of England tell us the church can decree rites and ceremonies, and has authority in matters of faith. So that we have to know what a person means by "the church" before we can reply to a question as to it.

What then is the “one body”? (Eph. 4:4.) The Church of Rome is not even the catholic church; much less can she be the “one body.” Catholic means universal, so that the millions of the Greek and Anglican and other churches are so many millions of living witnesses against the catholicity of the Romish church. It cannot be either the one church, or the one body, being but a division — and the same remarks apply to every other division.

To compare specific or particular differences between the Catholic Church and the many Protestant churches that came out of the Reformation would be a hopeless task.' For our purposes, we will compare the plumb line of biblical Christianity to the Roman Catholic Church regarding authority (Rome's claim to be the only "true church," with the exclusive right and ability to interpret the Word of God for believers) and salvation (how a person finds justification from his sins).

I have already tried to point out that every one of these names seems to be significant. Thyatira is perhaps the most difficult of all to define. Scholars tell us that it comes from two words, one meaning a sacrifice, or an incense-offering; the other, that which goes on continually. A suggested interpretation, therefore, is "continual sacrifice." And this is very significant, because Thyatira undoubtedly sets forth the period which was the result of the union of church and State, already noticed. It was in the 7th century that the Bishop of Rome was first regularly recognized as Christ's vicegerent, and visible head of the church. This was, properly speaking, the beginning of the papacy. There was no Roman Catholic church, in the full sense, until the Pope was the acknowledged head of Christendom. It is important for Protestants to keep this in mind. You will often hear papists say, "You know the first church was the Roman Catholic church, and all the different branches of the Protestant church have simply broken off from Rome. There was no Protestant church until the days of Luther." That is an absolute sophistry. There was no such thing as the papacy until the 7th century of the Christian era. For six centuries before that, the church was becoming more and more corrupt -- had been drifting further away from the Word of God until, in the 7th century men professing themselves to be servants of God were ready to acknowledge the Pope as head of all Christendom. A Roman Catholic once asked a bright Protestant school-girl, "Where was your church before the days of Henry VIII?" "Why, sir, where yours never was, in the Bible," was her sensible and correct reply. It is a far cry from the simplicity of early Christians, when in the 7th century they were ready to own the pretensions of the bishop of Rome.

In spite of this history of development in doctrine and practice over a period of centuries, the Church of Rome claims to be the first Church and that which Christ established on earth with Peter as the first pope. As Romanism has greatly revived and presses its claims with great activity in our present day, many are becoming ensnared and led astray by its subtle propaganda. Therefore it is necessary that we speak out clearly and faithfully in warning souls as to this false and evil system of Jezebel teaching which the Lord condemned in Thyatira. The true Church, founded by Christ on Himself as the Rock foundation (Matt.16:16-18; 1 Cor.3:11), is found in the book of Acts and in the Epistles of the New Testament. It is "the church, which is His body" and the glorified Christ is its only head. It is the "church of the firstborn," those born again and baptized by the Spirit of God into this divine body, and whose names are written in heaven (Eph.1:21,22; 1 Cor.12:13; Heb.12:23). In the Epistle to the Romans, written by the apostle Paul around 60 AD, we can see what characterized the first Church there and note how vastly different are the doctrines and practices of the Papal system at Rome today. The Church of Rome developed out of the evils which came into the professing Church in the Pergamos period. It is the first corrupt and idolatrous Church, where the elements of Judaism and heathenism were combined into a fixed, systematized teaching under the garb or cloak of Christianity.

The present system of Romanism must be sought elsewhere. It is simply, as regards our present subject, the use made of general principles met with in these fathers, and forged passages added to their writings, to carry out, by political ability, a scheme which has connected the exclusive appropriation of the claims and privileges of Christianity with the most constant opposition to its truth, its spirit, and its practice; and made, what claims to be exclusively the Church of God, the seat of Satan's power. As to catholicity, it is well to remember that it is a simple fable. As, when the royalty of Israel became corrupt, the kingdom became divided; so, when the professing church became entirely corrupt, and the papal pretension became a definite matter of history, God took care that the Church ceased to be catholic, and the very term "Roman Catholic," for anyone who knows the use of words, carries falsehood on its face. The pretensions of the papacy revolted the Greek patriarch. What set up Rome destroyed catholicity. The most ancient churches and the imperial city became an antagonistic body to it. Roman pretensions, the political influence of Rome, were greater; its evil and unscriptural antagonism to, and supremacy over, civil power, which is ordained of God, marked it more distinctly as the seat and throne of wickedness; but Rome never was catholic. The act by which it was born, its dawn of supremacy, destroyed for ever catholicity. The providence of God has not allowed catholic corruption. At this moment the majority of professing Christians and most ancient churches are outside the so-called catholic (that is, universal) Church. No such thing exists as a catholic (that is, universal) Church. The claims of each portion of Christendom to be a church or assembly of God, must be tried, not by its own pretensions, but by scripture, and then they are easily disposed of, unless corruption and Christianity are identical.

And this fact is as strong against their pretence of infallibility as catholicity; for we have the church four or five hundred years after Christ, expressly decreeing that no article shall be added; and we have those who call themselves the church, fifteen or sixteen hundred years after Christ, adding twelve articles as matters of faith, and rejecting all who deny them. Was the church in the first ages, or the church of Rome at the Reformation in the right? or how can that be infallible which contradicts itself? But the true catholic church, brethren, that seed of God, which shall indeed never fail, the body of Christ, the real communion of saints, the one holy catholic and apostolic church, subsists in the company of true believers, in every age united to the great Head, Christ Jesus, by His Spirit dwelling in them, and incorporating them into His mystical body. And while the power of the Lord lasts, even to the end of the world, while the influences of the divine Spirit shew to souls His glory in hope, so long will there be a church upon earth. But to say that this is any particular communion or body of professing Christians (and that too without inquiring whether they hold the faith once delivered to the saints) is nothing else but the spirit of Antichrist.

On a rough reckoning of Christian profession, there are said to be 216 millions of Romanists; but there are 137 millions of Anglicans, Lutherans, Reformed and other Protestants, and 97 millions of Greeks, orthodox or others, with Nestorians, Copts, Abyssinians, etc. There are at least as many that bear the Christian name outside as within Romanism, though itself containing far more than any other single denomination. But unity there is none. Can any claim be weaker in presence of the facts? It is equally certain, that holy unity in the truth ought to have ever been, and that it has for ages ceased to be. The claim therefore is now demonstrably false, its absence a sure proof of ruin. Catholicity of the visible church is a self-complacent dream. And if apostolicity in the historic sense count, it is plain that Rome cannot vie with Eastern churches, which, planted by one or other apostle, were ruled by St. John, the last. Rome never had apostles save as prisoners or to die; the assembly therein was planted or ruled by none of them. As to this scripture is decisive.

Wherever external Christendom exists, the Greeks, whom you call schismatics, but who are older than you, have the same succession to boast of. They do not call you Catholic, but the Latin or Western church, and declare you have departed from the truth. It is in vain to say they hold, as against Protestants, the same truth as you do. It only strengthens my argument, that unity is gone, and consequently catholicity. And your friend, Dr. Milner, knows it well and feels it, so that, as I said, what he says is plain self-contradiction even to absurdity. He tells us the true church is Catholic or universal in three several respects — as to persons, as to places, as to times. It consists of the most numerous body of Christians, it is more or less diffused wherever Christianity prevails, and it has visibly existed ever since the time of the apostles. Now this last it partakes with a body half as large as itself, the Greek church — the more ancient of the two. This therefore gives me no help in discovering which is right. But we seek what is universal, and I am told it consists of the most numerous body of Christians. That is, it is not universal as to persons — nay, very far from it indeed. As to places, it is more or less diffused wherever Christianity prevails; that is, again, it is not universal. In fact, in many countries, it is a very small minority. But on the face of the argument it breaks down altogether. It constitutes the main stock of Christianity. But if it is only the main stock, it is not Catholic.

It is both. If you take the trouble to inquire about what they say of catholicity, the greatest number of Christians is outside of them. In their reckoning, they deny the Greek churches altogether, though these include some sixty or seventy millions.