Is Roman Catholicism the One True Church?
 
“Extra ecclesium, nulla salus” – Outside the Church, there is no salvation.
 
The Roman Catholic Church claims to be a visible Church, ie organisation, and not only that but to be the only organisation established by God. This means that every member can be an antichrist and they will still form God's organisation. The structure not the people is approved by God. This doctrine of visibility implies that as long as you have your name as a member of the Catholic Church you are supporting that Church whether you like it or not. People should have it removed if they disapprove of the Catholic faith. If they don't want to be complicit in the wrong done by the Church they have to. It is obvious that this unity is only a label and is not real unity. Roman Catholicism with all its rebels and heretics who pretend to belong to it and with its being built on the rock of fake popes is only a superficial unity. It is a label not a Church. It is a cloak not a unity.
 
The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the one true Church and that this is proven by the Church being one, holy, Catholic and apostolic. The word Catholic conveys all time, all teachings, all nations, all eternity.  It is a way of saying, "The Church has the unchangeable truth". 

Naturally then Church also claims to be infallible. To believe in the infallibility of the Church requires a stupendous amount of faith and trust. You have to trust the Church and the popes that they never compromised Church doctrine. You would have to believe that Boniface VIII did not mislead his predecessor and abuse him to become pope. Why? For if Boniface did this he was no Catholic and was excommunicated. It would mean he was never really pope. You would have to believe that Pope Urban VI was really pope though his own cardinals testified that he was not and appointed a rival pope. You would have to believe that Pope Pius IX had the right to be proclaimed infallible by himself when he proclaimed that Mary was conceived without sin years before he summoned a Church council to infallibly decide that he was infallible! You would have to believe that the Church can infallibly decide which of the arguments for Jesus’ existence are right. When the Church can infallibly proclaim that Jesus exists it can proclaim that. And many Catholics believe and the formula used for canonisation says it, that when the pope makes a saint that his decision is without error and infallible. Saints are made not just on the basis of holiness but on the basis of their orthodoxy. A holy person who say didn’t believe that contraception was always a sin wouldn’t be made a saint no matter what miracles they did or how many people he helped in life. So canonisations indirectly imply that nearly all Roman Catholic doctrines are infallible for the saints were traditional Catholics. Yet no rational person can agree that they are infallible. Thousands of similar examples and problems could be put forward. Rome requires a lot of research but demands very little then! Oh the duplicity!

IS CATHOLICISM CATHOLIC?

No if it is manmade it necessarily excludes people for being wiser than it.  Also, you cannot become Catholic on a desert island. Islam is more Catholic in the sense that you can become Muslim on your own.
 
IS CATHOLICISM HOLY?
 
One of the marks of the true Church is that it must be holy. Obviously, if God starts a Church he would want it to be righteous and honest.

Roman Catholicism tells us, “The Catholic Church is holy in doctrine and is marked by the remarkable holiness of many of her children. The miracles of God show her to be true for they wouldn’t be done for an unholy religion.”

This is no use for many religions claim to be holy and miraculous and to make people holy and to have plenty of holy people in them. Everybody has a talent for faking goodness.

The mark of holiness principally refers to the doctrine being holy, true and from God. Rome is able to say that even if the whole Church were sinful it would still be holy as it is the means of holiness and the pillar of the holy truth. She has to teach this for there are many sinners and insincere people in the Church. But her doctrine is not holy for it is wrong.

CATHOLICISM APOSTOLIC?
 
The creed Catholics say at Mass tells them that there is one apostolic Church. Jesus left his gospel and religion in the hands of the apostles meaning that if a Church claims to be the true Church then it must claim to be everything that the apostles would want it to be. It must claim to be true to the apostles’ doctrine and to have been founded upon them (Ephesians 2:20). It must be able to prove it.

But even if the Church agrees with the apostles in most things there is no evidence that she agrees with them in all so the claim to be apostolic is just a guess. Most of Rome’s dogmas cannot be traced back to the apostles. This proof is no good. Bible-only religions are a safer bet.

And there is plenty of evidence and proof that Roman Catholicism is a religion made up after the apostles. There is no proof that much of the New Testament itself is true to the apostles for they had nothing to do with writing many of the books in it. The Church would have to deny the stance of the scholars who say that most of the books were not written by who they say they were and would have to say they are all totally apostolic to have more hope of seeming to be the apostolic Church.

When some of Rome’s doctrines are provably false and hypocritical she cannot tell people to believe that “she is faithful to apostolic doctrine and that demonstrates her loyalty to the revelation of God.” If apostolic doctrine is right then she is wrong and if it is wrong she is still wrong.

Rome claims to have derived its sacramental powers from the apostles but there is no evidence for that serious claim. Sacraments aren’t mentioned in the Bible at all. It never says that certain rites have the power to give grace from God.

The Catholic Church does not take the word of the apostles that it is the true Church but the word of the bishops and priests. Therefore it is really hostile to the apostles. There is a contradiction between the Church saying it is the true Church because it was founded by and wholly devoted to Christ and it saying that it is also apostolic for the apostles were authorised to preserve the doctrine of Christ. To follow what apostles say about Jesus is not the same as following Jesus. It is following their portrayal and as for their claim that Jesus authorised them plenty of others who contradicted them have made that claim. This is why Christians in Corinth said they were for Christ and not the apostles (1 Corinthians 1:12) – Corinth had an inadequate understanding of Pauline Christianity so don’t think that they were going directly to the historical records about Jesus instead of listening to the apostles and if they had Paul would have proved that Jesus authorised the apostles to rule the Church in his stead - and were shot down by the wily St Paul who evilly knew that they had a point and still wanted to slap them down.

Jesus said, “Go therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age” (Mt 28:19, 20).  This text is the basis of the Catholic claim that the apostles had all Jesus' teaching and passed it on to the Church.
 
If proof or evidence that the apostles and Rome are of one mind in religious teaching existed it would prove that the doctrines of Rome are as hateful as theirs was. The apostles preached lies and blasphemy in the name of God. And if Rome wants to be called apostolic then she is making herself as bad as they were.

Lastly
 
As we learn from Lost Christianities by Ehrman, too many divisions and sects and opinions in a religion show it is a false religion or a religion made up by people and not revealed by God. In the early Church, Irenaeus said that the followers of the Gnostic Valentinus were just led astray by falsehood as shown by how much they disagreed with one another and how each one gets a revelation that contradicts somebody else. Tertullian wrote, “Where diversity of doctrine is found, there, then, must the corruption both of the Scriptures and the expositions thereof be regarded as existing” (Prescription 38).  What matters is not the fragile unity of any denomination but the religion has a whole.  Christianity as a whole is full of divisions and one groups core teaching is regarded as unChristian by the next one!

The Catholic Church regards its claim to be the true visible Church to be its biggest credential for it argues from this that it is the only visible Church that can trace its origin back to Christ. But this claim is bogus and making it is sufficient proof that the Church is bogus.  If Jesus is the head of the Church then he decides who really belongs to him and who comprise the Church so if the Church is not clearly defined to us it is to him.  An invisible Church on earth does not mean the Church is invisible to him.