# Are Catholics Christians?



## Javilo

I ask if Catholics are Christians since they include works as part of
justification. So would it be proper to evangelize Catholics as one would any
unsaved person? Also, doesn't purgatory deny the sufficiency of the cross?


----------



## bradstreet

Catholics are trusting in the Roman church and their own works to save them. And while they're doing that, they're worshipping graven images and praying to Mary, the saints, and even loved ones that have died. Many have very worldly lifestyles. 'Ye shall know them by their fruit', no? I suppose some may be truly saved, but just ignorant of the true gospel? It even bothers me that people in Protestant denominations believe in free will, and believe that they choose Christ. I wonder how many so-called Christians are truly saved. I think about this alot.

As far as evangelizing Catholics, most won't even lend an ear. They are very much brainwashed and believe they are the only ones who are in the true church.


----------



## Christusregnat

Javilo said:


> I ask if Catholics are Christians since they include works as part of
> justification. So would it be proper to evangelize Catholics as one would any
> unsaved person? Also, doesn't purgatory deny the sufficiency of the cross?



Joe,

There is a broad variety of "Catholics", if by that term you mean "Roman Catholics". Some believe in what the decrees and popes have said; some believe in scripture, and some in a confused mixture of those two sources, and a blend of other philosophies.

Those who hold to damnable opinions should be evangelized for what they are: idolaters under the wrath of God. Those who do not should be educated into becoming Reformed Catholics rather than Roman.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Ivan

Not too long along I spoke with a priest about salvation (he's a pastor of a church in Milwaukee). He told me that salvation is found only in Christ and nothing else. I don't remember all of the particulars of the conversation, but he told me that there was nothing else (or no one else) necessary for salvation, only faith in Christ.

Rare bird, I suppose.


----------



## Ex Nihilo

bradstreet said:


> *As far as evangelizing Catholics, most won't even lend an ear. They are very much brainwashed and believe they are the only ones who are in the true church*.



Is this really that common? I have many Catholic friends, some of them very devout, and they have stated that they believe Protestants are also Christians.

One of my Catholic friends actually told me that Catholics believe in salvation by grace alone, and asked if Protestants didn't agree with that. I wonder if, by God's grace, there aren't a fair number of Roman Catholics who believe in the gospel despite the church's teaching.


----------



## Don Kistler

The late Dr. John Gerstner used to say that the best thing you could hope for regarding a Roman Catholic and an Arminian is that they don't understand what they say they believe. If they understand it and still believe it, they are lost.

Unfortunately, very few Protestants understand what they say they believe too.


----------



## larryjf

Those that consider themselves Catholic, and adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church are not Christian. The Catholic Church preaches and believes a different Gospel, and that is foundational.

However, some who consider themselves Catholic don't actually adhere to Catholic teaching.


----------



## Staphlobob

The Romish church is not Christian. I was trained by it and ordained in it. Purely pagan. 

As for some of them being saved, I'm not sure. I once heard someone say there are some Romish who are elect (not saved), and once their election becomes effective they then leave. I'm not sure. 

BTW, though she has a ThM and claims she's not Roman, my own wife still attends a local mass on Sundays rather than worship with us, claiming she likes the liturgy. Is she saved? I'm not sure.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## kalawine

Staphlobob said:


> The Romish church is not Christian. I was trained by it and ordained in it. Purely pagan.



I'm interested to see more responses from exCatholics. It's been my experience that there are more lifetime "Protestants" defending the Catholic cause than there are exCatholics. I've known people who actually believe that they were delivered from Babylon and false religion (out of the RCC) when they were saved. Of course regeneration is much more than changing churches. But they could no longer stay behind in Sodom.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott1

Javilo,

There are some some major doctrines Roman Catholics and Protestants hold in common such as the Doctrine of God (Trinity). 

There are also some major doctrinal differences.

Two of the most important are the authority of Scripture for Christian faith and practice (sola Scriptura) and justification by Christ's righteousness alone (sola Fide). When the Roman Church officially rejected these doctrines at the Council of Trent (1600's), we would say the Roman Church fell, officially, from the authority of Scripture and the truth of the Gospel. Scripture and the Gospel are not doctrine that can be compromised.

That is not to say ever single person who identifies themselves that way is not saved. There have been and are various reform movements within the Roman Church and there are some who, somehow, in spite of official doctrine, believe and are Christians.


----------



## BobVigneault

Are Catholics Christian?

The question has too many elements in it to form a simple answer. Other ways to ask the question will get us further in our investigations.

Can a Catholic be saved? Yes of course, and there are many on this board. I look back on my many years of RCC catechism and see the shadows and symbols of God's grace that would one day make sense to me. There was also a bunch of nonsense. 

Is the Roman Catholic Church Christian? No, it apostatized at the Council of Trent when it proclaimed that any who teach that justification is by faith alone is to be cursed.

Does the RCC proclaim THE Gospel? No, it teaches another gospel by mixing the work of Christ with the work of man.

One important thing to remember is that the RCC is not a monolith of teaching and belief. We protestants have hundreds of splinter groups, independents and denominations. The RCC has the same varieties for they are a large church that covers the world. There are communist Catholics, charismatic Catholics, orthodox, liturgical, liberal, conservative, political, apolitical Catholics. They all pledge a certain allegiance to Popes and Councils but not all pledge total allegiance. 

We tend to speak in generalizations about the RCC because we feel safer when we can categorize and file a group neatly away but there are many who are called out of the RCC and called within the RCC.


----------



## a mere housewife

Roman Catholicism in the states looks very different than it does in Mexico. One of the claims people make in defending Rome is that it is 'one' church, as opposed to the fractured assortment of Protestant denoms and churches; but I know staunch RC's in the states who not recognize, and would be utterly appalled by, the RC church we saw in Mexico. I believe some Catholics can be Christians (though of all the Catholics I have spoken to in the states, only one seemed to evidence any understanding of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone: the rest evidenced various degrees of hostility to this doctrine as not being what their church taught them); but I do not believe the church is a Christian church because they have departed from the sole standard of the Word of God, have set up Mary as an idol --an intercessor, with more mercy and power than Christ (many in the states worship her just as fervently, though not so disgustingly, as they do in Mexico), and have added to salvation until they neither go into God's kingdom themselves nor allow other people to go in. Many of our congregants in Mexico were saved out of lives of flagrant sin (because the RC church makes provision for this) or terrible, lifelong guilt (if you aren't enjoying the cheapness of your sin and expiation, you're feeling guilty for how you can never atone for it) in the RC church. If this question came up there, with people living in a largely Catholic country, who have lived in the church, you would get a much stronger reaction. Indeed if many others had seen firsthand at a funeral service how they comfortlessly recite prayers from their prayer book to 'Mary the wife of the Holy Spirit', go about under a terrible burden of having to get their loved one out of purgatory, pay money (we know of one family where the living children went shoe-less while the priests took money to say masses for the dead) to save their and other loved ones' souls, buy and sell and crawl across courtyards for and bow down and worship their idols of Mary, there would be a stronger reaction against RC in protestant circles (perhaps even in some RC circles). This is what they are wherever they can get away with it.

PS. We obviously come down on the 'they should be evangelized' side.


----------



## Pilgrim

a mere housewife said:


> Roman Catholicism in the states looks very different than it does in Mexico. One of the claims people make in defending Rome is that it is 'one' church, as opposed to the fractured assortment of Protestant denoms and churches; but I know staunch RC's in the states who not recognize, and would be utterly appalled by, the RC church we saw in Mexico. I believe some Catholics can be Christians (though of all the Catholics I have spoken to in the states, only one seemed to evidence any understanding of salvation by faith alone in Christ alone: the rest evidenced various degrees of hostility to this doctrine); but I do not believe the church is a Christian church because they have departed from the sole standard of the Word of God, have set up Mary as an idol --an intercessor, with more mercy and power than Christ (many in the states worship her just as fervently, though not so disgustingly, as they do in Mexico), and have added to salvation until they neither go into God's kingdom themselves nor allow other people to go in. Many of our congregants in Mexico were saved out of lives of flagrant sin (because the RC church makes provision for this) or terrible, lifelong guilt (if you aren't enjoying the cheapness of your sin and expiation, you're feeling guilty for how you can never atone for it) in the RC church. If this question came up there, with people living in a largely Catholic country, who have lived in the church, you would get a much stronger reaction. Indeed if many others had seen firsthand at a funeral service how they comfortlessly recite prayers from their prayer book to 'Mary the wife of the Holy Spirit', go about under a terrible burden of having to get their loved one out of purgatory, pay money (we know of one family where the living children went shoe-less while the priests took money to say masses for the dead) to save their and other loved ones' souls, buy and sell and crawl across courtyards for and bow down and worship their idols of Mary, there would be a stronger reaction against RC in protestant circles (perhaps even in some RC circles). This is what they really are wherever they can get away with it.



I used to debate an aggressive Romanist who would try to have it both ways, as you describe. He would emphasize the supposed "one church" universality of the RCC but when pressed on issues like communion in both kinds and similar issues to what you detail he would basically disavow his co-religionists in other parts of the world and say he is defending American Romanists.


----------



## wturri78

I work at a Roman Catholic university (where I also went to school for six years) so I've been exposed to many, many kinds of Catholics from around the country and some from around the world. Most of the studets I knew were no more Catholic than going to an occasional mass, and they knew _nothing_ about their own religion. One claimed that Purgatory was a doctrine from the middle ages that the church had dropped centuries ago! But that's perhaps not a fair comparison. Among people I work with, I interact with nominal Catholics, charismatic Catholics, extremely liberal Catholics, and pretty hard-core conservative Catholics. What's funny is that those who know theology often sound almost Reformed when asked to explain faith and works, the role of grace, etc. Several are quick to quote "faith without works is dead" and then state that they're saved by faith, and faith shows itself in works...as opposed to the "Protestant" teaching that you can be saved by saying you believe and then going about your worldy life as always. It's refreshing to hear that...they evidently haven't read their own catechism! 

Catholic belief and practice are so wide that two people can claim the same church and be worlds apart in how they understand and live their faith. Many know ever saint and every feast day but couldn't tell you the first point of doctrine (their training probably stopped at age 12 after their confirmation). So I would have to say that those in the RCC who are Christian may very well be so in spite of the Church. But is the RCC itself a Christian church? I'm not sure I can say that--besides having anathematized Biblical faith at Trent, the much deeper issue for me lies in the post-Vatican-II teachings of near universalist ecumenism. I find their teachings to contradict the very nature of God himself:

"The Church’s relationship with Muslims. The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, *in the first place among whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham*, and together with us *they adore the one, merciful God*, mankind's judge on the last day (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 841, quoting Lumen Gentium 16, November 21, 1964)." -- emphasis mine

Muslims worship a god who is not trinitarian, who had no son, and who did not raise a messiah from the dead. This deity cannot be the same God worshiped by Christians. The "us" refers to the RCC, and this implicitly admits that the RCC worships and adores a merciful god who may or may not be Trinitarian and may or may not have had a Son...apparently it's negotiable? Or maybe God just changed his mind in the 1960s...

I cannot see how a body that teaches salvation outside of Christ can be called Christian. 

(As an aside, the "Old Rite" type Catholics who reject Vatican II also see the universalist statements as denials of the nature of God).


----------



## bradstreet

larryjf said:


> Those that consider themselves Catholic, and adhere to the teachings of the Catholic Church are not Christian. The Catholic Church preaches and believes a different Gospel, and that is foundational.
> 
> However, some who consider themselves Catholic don't actually adhere to Catholic teaching.



I agree with Larry and I'm happy to see that many of you understand just how pagan Romanism is. However, there are those within that 'cult' (as I have come to call it) who truly have the Lord in their heart and do not adhere to its ritualistic dogma. I have family members in it, unfortunately, who I consider lost, just seeing how they live, speak and think. That's why I made my original statement. It's heartbreaking.


----------



## DMcFadden

kalawine said:


> It's been my experience that there are more lifetime "Protestants" defending the Catholic cause than there are exCatholics. I've known people who actually believe that they were delivered from Babylon and false religion (out of the RCC) when they were saved.



Kevin, fascinating observation! Yes! Most of the people who go squishy on Catholicism are lifelong Protestants. In my circles, the most unyieldingly vigorous opponents of the Roman church are those who see themselves as "delivered from Babylon," angry at being "dupped" for so many years, and those who knew it up close. It is easy for some of us to be "broad minded" when we only "know" it from afar.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

Ivan said:


> Not too long along I spoke with a priest about salvation (he's a pastor of a church in Milwaukee). He told me that salvation is found only in Christ and nothing else. I don't remember all of the particulars of the conversation, but he told me that there was nothing else (or no one else) necessary for salvation, only faith in Christ.
> 
> Rare bird, I suppose.




Such a priest is not truly espousing truly Roman Catholic doctrine. His confession would be denied by the Papacy and has been historically declared anathema by the Canons and Decrees of Trent, Sixth Session: Canons On Justification. 



> If anyone says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, meaning that nothing else is required to cooperate in order to obtain the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the action of his own will, *let him be anathema*.



And lest any think, "Well that's Trent! Vatican II changed all that!" -- No where in Vatican II is Trent ever annulled. In Roman Catholic mythology, the decree of a church council is irrevocable. "Semper Idem" (always the same), and since Trent pronounced Anathema upon any who would ever say "anything contrary to our holy Catholic faith", then--if the claim that Vatican II changed the theology of the Council of Trent is true--the Council of Trent condemend Vatican II before it ever took place. And that condemnation is irrevocable.

But, such is not the case. There is harmony between Trent, and both Vatican Councils' documents.

So, the short answer is: *No. Roman Catholics are NOT Christians*. They hold to another gospel. And *YES, they need to be evangelized as every other sinner who has fallen short of the Glory of God.*


----------



## davidsuggs

Are catholics Christians? Yes, there are some catholic Christians, though it is contrary to the official standing of the church. Is the catholic "church" Christian? No, not by the doctrines they proclaim. Sorry for the edit. I did not give it much thought earlier


----------



## Herald

> As far as evangelizing Catholics, most won't even lend an ear.



I'm bothered by this statement. There are quite a few ex-RC's on this board. I'm one of them. If you had said, "most unbelievers won't even lend an ear" I would agree with you. Wide is the way that leads to destruction. Don't get down on RC's. They are just as likely to come to faith as a Mormon or Buddhist.


----------



## bradstreet

North Jersey Baptist said:


> As far as evangelizing Catholics, most won't even lend an ear.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm bothered by this statement. There are quite a few ex-RC's on this board. I'm one of them. If you had said, "most unbelievers won't even lend an ear" I would agree with you. Wide is the way that leads to destruction. Don't get down on RC's. They are just as likely to come to faith as a Mormon or Buddhist.
Click to expand...


Did not mean to offend here. I did say 'most'. I have a Catholic friend who will not discuss any faith issues. I also have family members who are deluded by Romanism. Surely there are elect among them who have not seen the light yet. I did not deny that, I only brought up how resistant they are to _truth_, as we have come to know it.

I rejoice that you are an exRC. Praise the Lord!


----------



## Davidius

bradstreet said:


> Catholics are trusting in the Roman church and their own works to save them.



Is this some kind of unconscious thing for them, i.e. something which is simply a logical consequence of premises they hold, rather than a positive affirmation? I ask because I have Catholic friends and they all say that it is Christ who saves them. When asked directly by me, they deny that they can earn their salvation. 



> And while they're doing that, they're worshipping graven images and praying to Mary, the saints, and even loved ones that have died. Many have very worldly lifestyles.



This isn't entirely accurate. Roman Catholics officially pray "to" Mary and the saints, but it is in order to ask said folk to intercede for them (e.g. "Saint so and so, pray for us"). They do not - or, according to their official teaching, should not - treat these as the bestowers of God's blessings, thereby putting them in the place of God. Perhaps some are confused and do that, but according to my friends on campus who are more well-studied, thoughtful Catholics, those who do so are in error. As far as worldly lifestyles go, there are also many professing Protestants who have them. 




> As far as evangelizing Catholics, most won't even lend an ear. They are very much brainwashed and believe they are the only ones who are in the true church.



It is true that, according to official Roman dogma, they are the true Church, but this doesn't mean they believe that professing Christians from other churches can't be saved. They believe that those who have trinitarian baptism and are faithful will be saved, even though they do not have "full sacramental union" with the "true Church."

I hope no one misunderstands my motives here. I just wanted to point out that it does us no good to espouse straw men.


----------



## cornopean

Here is Hodge.


----------



## TimV

Exactly David. For a RC to call Mary a co-redeemer, when the RCs explain it it's no different than when an Arminian talks about someone bringing someone else to Christ. 

It's the old story about a bad organisation and those in it. After WW2 the SS was labelled (properly) as a "criminal organisation" but since it would be immoral and impractical to put 900,000 men in jail, there were a couple extra paragraphs attached to the verdict explaining that the condemnation didn't apply to every single person in the organisation.

Once you leave the Ecumenical Councils for definitions of heresey, it never really stops, and eventually you paint yourself into a corner with just a couple other people whom you believe to be saved, and eventually you're not really sure about them.


----------



## Galatians220

As an ex-Catholic and alumna of two (yeah, two - ) Catholic universities, I would hope that no one here would stop trying to evangelize Catholics. To my sorrow, but in the Lord's will, I haven't yet been able to "reach" my Catholic family and friends. But my memory is not so short that I can't remember when I was a Catholic myself - although I was never a happy one; I never believed in papal infallibity, or Mary, or the "Real Presence," etc. - and rejected the efforts of Protestants to evangelize me. When a Baptist would tell me, "You're not even a Christian!" I would be in high dudgeon: of course I was a Christian! I believed that Jesus was God. _Uh, no:_ I had head knowledge then, and I relied upon things like Mass attendance and Easter duty and the "sacrament of penance" and other malarkey for my expectation that I would be saved.

I reiterate what I said on another thread: you can't evangelize a happy Catholic. You can witness to them, but the Holy Spirit must be working on them, or they'll never leave the RCC. I have spent hours upon hours over the last 10 years trying to evangelize an old friend, a former high school classmate of mine. She'll admit there's no such thing as the "Real Presence;" she'll state unwaveringly that praying to dead Mary is futile. She's attended services at almost every Reformed Protestant church I've ever been involved with. Where is she now? A couple of months ago, she decided to back away from me and has gotten heavily involved in the catechism program at an RCC church near her home. I cry - but the Lord has done this and so I must be fine with it.

We just need to continue in prayer for these people...

Margaret


----------



## Zenas

I think they should be approached on a case by case basis. Some seem to exhibit true fruit. Others are as dead as can be. 

The same can be seen in Protestant denominations.


----------



## JM

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yx6tlL5ThcE]YouTube - The true gospel of Jesus Christ Evangelicals vs Catholics[/ame]


----------



## bradstreet

Thanks, JM.


----------



## bradstreet

Interestingly enough, I just stumbled upon this:



> Members in the past have been banned only after sufficient warning and repeated violations of Board Rules, behavior unbecoming a Christian and/or espousing heresy (such as the Federal Vision, Roman Catholicism or Modalism).



This comes from this very site, which apparently considers RC heresy.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Iconoclast

Many Roman Catholics do not really know or understand what the RCC actually teaches. Some are saved despite the church, as the Spirit works through The bible in those that read it.
Anyone trying to evangelize a RC will be further ahead to discuss the Person and work of Jesus,His perfection and His priestly work.
Without a firm grasp on the book of Hebrews, Galatians, and Romans, your discussion will deteriate into a philisophical debate on historical details that yield little fruit.
If you have not be raised in that church you will have a hard time understanding the hold it has on so many.
If you were raised in it,and saved out of it, it takes some time and several stages of growth in grace to recover from it.
You go from being-shocked at what you were taught- to mad or bitter about it- to confrontational about it/ reading Loraine Boettner- then getting back to a scriptural base.
Sometimes you are left feeling sad about family or friends that seem to draw back from truth that you place in front of them. We must learn to be patient , yet persistent with our witness living a holy life as well as showing a sincere concern for their souls.
If your hear is stirred up I believe the Spirit will use this alongside of a solid presentation of the perfect priestly work of our Lord to plant gospel seed.
We should leave our family or friends without excuse, and by the grace of God with a living hope.


----------



## Bondman

My grandmother is RC and she will say very protestant sorts of things. One minute, she will sound like a protestant. However, if you let her continue to talk, she will reveal that she does not understand the gospel of grace at all. Furthermore, if you explain it to her she will reject it. 

I'm not so sure anymore that these sorts of Catholics are such rare birds. Rome is trying to make itself acceptable to Protestants through a sort of deceitful ecumenicalism. There is a great book chronicling this called "The Problem of Catholicism" by Vittorio Subilia. 

Do not be fooled by papists that sound protestant. Dig a little deeper. Otherwise you risk contributing to a false sense of security on their part when they may very well by trusting in works.

Rome's gospel is another gospel and so not a gospel at all - Galatians 1


----------



## Bondman

wturri78 said:


> Catholic belief and practice are so wide that two people can claim the same church and be worlds apart in how they understand and live their faith. Many know ever saint and every feast day but couldn't tell you the first point of doctrine (their training probably stopped at age 12 after their confirmation).



So we must ask what is it that they all have in common? 

There is indeed a great divergence of belief in RC, but as long as you bow the knee to the Pope in Rome, he will let you believe just about whatever you want. You can practice voodoo (yes, in Haiti) or celebrate pagan holy days (all over the world since the beginning of the spread of Rome's dominance) or whatever. Just join yourself to that man that has raised himself above everything that is called God.


----------



## Iconoclast

bradstreet said:


> Interestingly enough, I just stumbled upon this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Members in the past have been banned only after sufficient warning and repeated violations of Board Rules, behavior unbecoming a Christian and/or espousing heresy (such as the Federal Vision, Roman Catholicism or Modalism).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This comes from this very site, which apparently considers RC heresy.
Click to expand...


We must be careful to seperate the heretical Roman teachings,from the actual people in the churches,most of whom do not even know the issues at hand. The church teaching is a wicked mix of truth and error which if ingested is spiritually deadly.
Some RC's are actually surprised to find out what the official teaching of the church is. Most do not believe or adhere to the actual teaching of the church, but consider the teaching optional.


----------



## Javilo

So many helpful posts. Thanks.
Would it be safe to say that Catholicism isn't a cult 
since they are trinitarian but they are a false church
because they don't beliieve in justification by faith alone.
I know a catholic apologist who says that he can't find
justification by faith alone before the reformation-16 century.
I researched and couldn't find much.
Maybe he is correct but doesn't going to church history
denying sola scriptura?


----------



## BobVigneault

I wouldn't call the RCC a cult. I would contend that there are cults within the Roman Church. Those that venerate and worship Mary and especially those who consider her a co-redemptrix make up a cult within the church.


----------



## Davidius

Bondman said:


> wturri78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Catholic belief and practice are so wide that two people can claim the same church and be worlds apart in how they understand and live their faith. Many know ever saint and every feast day but couldn't tell you the first point of doctrine (their training probably stopped at age 12 after their confirmation).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we must ask what is it that they all have in common?
> 
> There is indeed a great divergence of belief in RC, but as long as you bow the knee to the Pope in Rome, he will let you believe just about whatever you want. You can practice voodoo (yes, in Haiti) or celebrate pagan holy days (all over the world since the beginning of the spread of Rome's dominance) or whatever. Just join yourself to that man that has raised himself above everything that is called God.
Click to expand...


That's interesting. Could you post me a quote from a source of Roman teaching that says that one can believe whatever he wants as long as he "bows the knee to the Pope"? I spoke with a woman just yesterday who is leaving the Roman Catholic Church for the Episcopalian Church because she is unscripturally divorced and Roman priests won't allow her to commune.


----------



## kalawine

bradstreet said:


> Interestingly enough, I just stumbled upon this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Members in the past have been banned only after sufficient warning and repeated violations of Board Rules, behavior unbecoming a Christian and/or espousing heresy (such as the Federal Vision, Roman Catholicism or Modalism).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This comes from this very site, which apparently considers RC heresy.
Click to expand...



Good point!


----------



## kalawine

DMcFadden said:


> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been my experience that there are more lifetime "Protestants" defending the Catholic cause than there are exCatholics. I've known people who actually believe that they were delivered from Babylon and false religion (out of the RCC) when they were saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin, fascinating observation! Yes! Most of the people who go squishy on Catholicism are lifelong Protestants. In my circles, the most unyieldingly vigorous opponents of the Roman church are those who see themselves as "delivered from Babylon," angry at being "dupped" for so many years, and those who knew it up close. It is easy for some of us to be "broad minded" when we only "know" it from afar.
Click to expand...


Yes, and I believe that the ex RC'rs know how the "church" actually kept them in darkness for years. As Reformed believers we know that only regeneration by the Spirit's power can cause a blind man to see (RC or not). But Satan has his devices and I believe that the RCC is one of them.


----------



## yeutter

*cult or apostate*



BobVigneault said:


> I wouldn't call the RCC a cult. I would contend that there are cults within the Roman Church. Those that venerate and worship Mary and especially those who consider her a co-redemptrix make up a cult within the church.


I would agree. The Roman Church still teaches the full divinity and humanity of our Lord. She rightly teaches the Trinity. Therefore The Roman Church is technically not a cult.
The Church of Rome is an apostate Church. She became apostate at Trent, when she rejected the Biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone. She further lapsed into apostacy when she became semi pelagian in her condemnation of the Jansenists. She fell still further at Vatican I when she taught the Immaculate conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and taught Papal infallibility. She further ran headlong into aposatcy with the relativistic teachings of Vatican II.


----------



## christiana

I've known some catholics that acknowledge some sound doctrines as those we know to be the doctrines of grace. However, they continue to cling to their church as the ONLY church, submitting to the rule of the pope, worship and prayer to Mary and other idolatrous systems.

Reminds me of that joke where the guy is clinging to a slender tree over a cliff and yells, 'Isnt there a God to save me?' He hears a voice saying, 'turn loose of the tree and trust in Me'. Then he responds, 'isnt there anyone else out there?' They can acknowledge all the doctrine they choose but yet they still wont turn loose of their supposed 'real' church and trust only the very real Jesus Christ as their Savior. They want to have it both ways!


----------



## wturri78

Bondman said:


> wturri78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Catholic belief and practice are so wide that two people can claim the same church and be worlds apart in how they understand and live their faith. Many know ever saint and every feast day but couldn't tell you the first point of doctrine (their training probably stopped at age 12 after their confirmation).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we must ask what is it that they all have in common?
> 
> There is indeed a great divergence of belief in RC, but as long as you bow the knee to the Pope in Rome, he will let you believe just about whatever you want. You can practice voodoo (yes, in Haiti) or celebrate pagan holy days (all over the world since the beginning of the spread of Rome's dominance) or whatever. Just join yourself to that man that has raised himself above everything that is called God.
Click to expand...


Again there is a wide separation between the doctrines espoused in the official creeds and documents, and that believed by people in the pews. I think it's accurate to say that a bare minimum is to believe in the authority of the church (and especially of the pope) and in their doctrine of the Eucharist. However, I've talked to a fair number of "cradle Catholics" who can't really recall what Transubstantiation means, and don't think the church really _really_ means it's literal flesh and blood. Many do take the "buffet" approach and seem to think they have the leeway to pick and choose which teachings they personally want to hold. It seems the definition of "infallible" doctrine can be extremely narrow when necessary, but otherwise so vague that someone can say "well, that point was never _infallibly_ declared..."


----------



## cih1355

If a Roman Catholic is someone who believes what the Roman Catholic church teaches, then Roman Catholics are not saved. They are not Christians. The Roman Catholic church teaches that our obedience to God is what increases or preserves our justification. 

If someone in the Roman Catholic church believes that we are justified by faith alone and that our obedience to God does not contribute to our justification, then he is not really a Roman Catholic.


----------



## pilgrim3970

Javilo said:


> I ask if Catholics are Christians since they include works as part of
> justification. So would it be proper to evangelize Catholics as one would any
> unsaved person? Also, doesn't purgatory deny the sufficiency of the cross?



I dunno, are Arminian, Dispensational, Baptists? 

After all, I believe the aforementioned group is in error regarding the doctrine of Salvation, in their handling of Scripture (is not belief in a rebuilt temple and reinstitution of the temple sacrifices common? Does this not deny the sufficiency of the cross?), and in their view of the Sacraments.

Not defending the errors of Rome, but I think that insofar as they accept and teach the tenets of the faith expressed in the ecumenical creeds - yes, they are Christians. Insofar as they accept doctrines such as purgatory, transubstantiation, innvocation of the saints, and misuse the idea of tradition by exalting it over the authority of Scripture, they are dangerously in error and should be, whenever the opportunity arises, taught a better way.


----------



## pilgrim3970

DMcFadden said:


> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's been my experience that there are more lifetime "Protestants" defending the Catholic cause than there are exCatholics. I've known people who actually believe that they were delivered from Babylon and false religion (out of the RCC) when they were saved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kevin, fascinating observation! Yes! Most of the people who go squishy on Catholicism are lifelong Protestants. In my circles, the most unyieldingly vigorous opponents of the Roman church are those who see themselves as "delivered from Babylon," angry at being "dupped" for so many years, and those who knew it up close. It is easy for some of us to be "broad minded" when we only "know" it from afar.
Click to expand...


I think that goes both ways though because I know quite a few protestants who have swam the Tiber and are equally critical of Protestantism as Roman Catholics.


----------



## jogri17

I hold to the Sproul/Mohler posistion. For many centuries the Catholic Church was a true Church but during the medevil years it evolved to a point where it could no longer be considered one. But the Catholic Church now may have some genuine all be it nominal christians who are ignorant but have true saving faith in Christ. Because it is by Faith alone that we are justified not a mental conaissance of it. There are many protestants who believe we can loose our salvation but as wrong as they are, I do believe many are Christians.


----------



## Galatians220

Very basic: anyone who can sit in attendance through a Catholic mass without getting sick or at least a little squeamish may still have in his/her future a full apprehension of the real Gospel.

This was/is one of the innumerable indications that the Lord graciously gave me that I had been born again, "made new," "taken from darkness into light:" that I could no longer do something I'd done 1-3 times a week for decades, _i.e.,_ watch that "bloodless re-sacrifice" of the Son of God without feeling the palpable presence of evil.

Just my ' worth.

Margaret


----------



## Stomata leontôn

A side note.

I find it interesting that the Reformers used the word "catholic church" for the reformed church. They considered the Church of Rome not catholic at all, but a sect.


----------



## yeutter

*Christians despite her teaching*



jogri17 said:


> I hold to the Sproul/Mohler posistion. For many centuries the Catholic Church was a true Church but during the medevil years it evolved to a point where it could no longer be considered one. But the Catholic Church now may have some genuine all be it nominal christians who are ignorant but have true saving faith in Christ. Because it is by Faith alone that we are justified not a mental conaissance of it. There are many protestants who believe we can loose our salvation but as wrong as they are, I do believe many are Christians.


If I understand you correctly you are saying the regenerate elect could be in the Church of Rome not because she preaches the Gospel, but despite the fact she does not teach the Gospel.


----------



## beej6

As one raised Catholic, with 95%+ of his family still Catholic, my simple answer to the OP is "Catholics may be Christians, despite the church they belong to." The key word is "despite." Dr. Kistler makes an excellent point - some may not really understand or agree with "official" Catholic doctrine. I also believe that leaders of any church - including Rome - will be held to a higher standard on the day of judgment, making it entirely possible that there may be a great number of Catholic saints from the pews yet precious few saints among the bishops, cardinals, and popes.


----------



## pilgrim3970

beej6 said:


> I also believe that leaders of any church - including Rome - will be held to a higher standard on the day of judgment, making it entirely possible that there may be a great number of Catholic saints from the pews yet precious few saints among the bishops, cardinals, and popes.



Unfortunately, that is the case with a lot of churches - the Anglican church is a prime example. For the most part, her apostasy is due to her leaders rather than the people in the pews. It was the leaders who did not teach sound doctrine, began ordaining women, gicen the stamp of approval to homosexual practices, and have finally proclaimed that Christ isn't necessarily the only way to the Father.

All the more reason to be in constant prayer for the clergy!!


----------



## Neogillist

Javilo said:


> I ask if Catholics are Christians since they include works as part of
> justification. So would it be proper to evangelize Catholics as one would any
> unsaved person? Also, doesn't purgatory deny the sufficiency of the cross?



I suppose that by "Catholics" you refer to "Roman Catholics." It would be more proper to call them "Romanists" since Catholicity refers to the universal Church. Consequently, all Christians are Catholics. Indeed, I like to call myself a "Reformed Catholic" just to show that I am in line with the historic Christian Faith and the Catholic monergists like Augustine. 

Before the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church was still a true church, however desperately corrupt it had got. It had no official doctrinal standards and many voices were accepted and tolerated. Then when the Reformers sought to bring back the church to monergism, the pope and his supporters (the papists) objected and wanted to officially adopt the Semi-Pelagianism of the Sophists along with all sorts of unscriptural practices such as the veneration of saints. Together they met and hardened themselves in their errors by adopting the doctrinal standards set forth at the Council of Trent. At that point the Roman Catholic church became a false church. Consequently, the Roman Catholic church is not a Christian church, since they reject Christ as their head and sole authority. Romanists need to be evangelized as much as Mormons and other cults, since they have little or no understanding of Christ and His Word.

As to whether Romanists can be in a "saved" state, Luther in "The Bondage of the Will" points out that although a believer may ignorantly be part of a false church for a period of time, God will providencially take him out of this false church and aquaint him with the true doctrines of the Scriptures in his life. This is why we are here on PB, not that we were all born and grew up Puritans, but that God eventually brought us into this state. As for Roman Catholics before Trent, of course many of them could have been true and genuine Christians.


----------



## jogri17

Galatians220 said:


> Very basic: anyone who can sit in attendance through a Catholic mass without getting sick or at least a little squeamish may still have in his/her future a full apprehension of the real Gospel.
> 
> This was/is one of the innumerable indications that the Lord graciously gave me that I had been born again, "made new," "taken from darkness into light:" that I could no longer do something I'd done 1-3 times a week for decades, _i.e.,_ watch that "bloodless re-sacrifice" of the Son of God without feeling the palpable presence of evil.
> 
> Just my ' worth.
> 
> Margaret



It"s easy to sit through one and be a Christian... I have my ipod and RC SProul dvds put on it in mpeg4 format.


----------



## Davidius

Neogillist said:


> As to whether Romanists can be in a "saved" state, Luther in "The Bondage of the Will" points out that although a believer may ignorantly be part of a false church for a period of time, God will providencially take him out of this false church and aquaint him with the true doctrines of the Scriptures in his life. This is why we are here on PB, not that we were all born and grew up Puritans, but that God eventually brought us into this state. As for Roman Catholics before Trent, of course many of them could have been true and genuine Christians.



Of course, we know that Luther meant by this that God would providentially take a true Christian out of a false church and acquaint him with _Lutheranism_.


----------



## jogri17

yeutter said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hold to the Sproul/Mohler posistion. For many centuries the Catholic Church was a true Church but during the medevil years it evolved to a point where it could no longer be considered one. But the Catholic Church now may have some genuine all be it nominal christians who are ignorant but have true saving faith in Christ. Because it is by Faith alone that we are justified not a mental conaissance of it. There are many protestants who believe we can loose our salvation but as wrong as they are, I do believe many are Christians.
> 
> 
> 
> If I understand you correctly you are saying the regenerate elect could be in the Church of Rome not because she preaches the Gospel, but despite the fact she does not teach the Gospel.
Click to expand...


no absolutely not. I am saying that it is possible for a rare catholic priest to preach the true Gospel and a sinner to repent and believe the Gospel in that context or for a sinner to repent and believe outside of the church but die shortly after and not have sufficient amount of time to really study the importance of justification by faith alone thus he/she spend some time as a Christian attending a Roman church. I believe Rome teaches a perveted false Gospel as a organization, but like in any organization there is a local aspect. Its like the PCUSA (sorry to my PCUSA friends) in the sense that while those at the top are wrong there may be some small churches which are good. I have meet Catholic priests who believe in sola fide and are against praying to mary. They are sent to small rual catholic parishes.


----------



## Quickened

I used to be Catholic (born and raised) for a number of years. But i never really looked into the Council of Trent that people have mentioned neither have i looked into either of the vatican councils.

Is there something that would list or highlight the errors in those documents in light of scripture? I figure with all the books and documents out there that there must be something.


----------



## Galatians220

Quickened said:


> I used to be Catholic (born and raised) for a number of years. But i never really looked into the Council of Trent that people have mentioned neither have i looked into either of the vatican councils.
> 
> Is there something that would list or highlight the errors in those documents in light of scripture? I figure with all the books and documents out there that there must be something.


 
For starters:

Anathemas

and

http://www.geocities.com/peterpaulmin/CoucilofTrent.html.

They pronounce anyone who believes Romans 1:17 to be "anathema." Cursed. They give no place to Scripture; it's not relevant.

And then there's this: Vatican: Protestants Not 'Sister Churches' - Christianity Today magazine - ChristianityTodayLibrary.com.

Vatican II only reaffirmed the Council of Trent. It made no substantive changes in it.

Mike Gendron's Proclaiming The Gospel Ministries with Evangelist Mike Gendron - Home website, while not really Reformed, has gone into great and helpful detail over the years as to the corruption inherent in the RCC. The site's archives might be of some assistance to you.

Margaret


----------



## MrMerlin777

Some are, some aren't.

(Just like Presbyterians, Continental Reformeds, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Pentecostals, etc etc....)


----------



## DMcFadden

pilgrim3970 said:


> I think that goes both ways though because I know quite a few protestants who have swam the Tiber and are equally critical of Protestantism as Roman Catholics.



Absolutely! One of the churches I served called a fellow who was a Bahnsen disciple to follow me. He stayed for seven years, stood up one Sunday and announced to his Baptist flock that he was converting to Roman Catholicism. Evidently, Scott Hahn's writings won him over. Now he travels around doing "Christian apologetics" for the Romanists.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Agustin

> I ask if Catholics are Christians since they include works as part of
> justification. So would it be proper to evangelize Catholics as one would any
> unsaved person? Also, doesn't purgatory deny the sufficiency of the cross?


+

Rome uses the same language, but means totally different things. For example Roman apologists have agreed with Protestants on things such as Sola Gratia, and Solus Christus, but in context these mean something particular, and not what the Protesatant would say. Basically its equivocal and they use this method only to equivocate and mislead people who do not know much of what Rome teaches.


----------



## wturri78

Neogillist said:


> Javilo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before the Reformation, the Roman Catholic Church was still a true church, however desperately corrupt it had got. It had no official doctrinal standards and many voices were accepted and tolerated. Then when the Reformers sought to bring back the church to monergism, the pope and his supporters (the papists) objected and wanted to officially adopt the Semi-Pelagianism of the Sophists along with all sorts of unscriptural practices such as the veneration of saints. Together they met and hardened themselves in their errors by adopting the doctrinal standards set forth at the Council of Trent. At that point the Roman Catholic church became a false church. Consequently, the Roman Catholic church is not a Christian church, since they reject Christ as their head and sole authority. Romanists need to be evangelized as much as Mormons and other cults, since they have little or no understanding of Christ and His Word.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean that a church can still be Christian while allowing heresy to be taught and believed within its ranks, so long as it doesn't officially (a) enshrine those heresies in doctrinal creeds and/or (b) condemn the Biblical gospel? For example, many Eastern churches teach a very "free will" sort of gospel and deny _sola fide_, but do not officially condemn it as a false doctrine. In fact I've read some EO writings that say the Reformed doctrine "may be" right, but it's just not that important to be so theologically precise (you know, _mystery_).
> 
> Must a church condemn the Biblical gospel to be apostate, or does teaching a false gospel count?
Click to expand...


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Direct from the Roman Catholic Catechism:



> 1129 The Church affirms that for believers the *sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation*.



This is damnable heresy. So I agree with what others have repeated on this thread: one who believes as Rome does are not Christians, though it is unfair to assume that every lay member of the RCC is unsaved...


----------



## Javilo

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Direct from the Roman Catholic Catechism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1129 The Church affirms that for believers the *sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is damnable heresy. So I agree with what others have repeated on this thread: one who believes as Rome does are not Christians, though it is unfair to assume that every lay member of the RCC is unsaved...
Click to expand...


This is true. Roman Catholicism believes in salvation by 
Faith, Works and the Sacraments. 
Also putting Mary in the place of Christ is heresy.


----------



## Davidius

ColdSilverMoon said:


> Direct from the Roman Catholic Catechism:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1129 The Church affirms that for believers the *sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is damnable heresy. So I agree with what others have repeated on this thread: one who believes as Rome does are not Christians, though it is unfair to assume that every lay member of the RCC is unsaved...
Click to expand...


Easy, man. 

The lack of desire I've seen on this thread to actually investigate our opponents' teachings to see what they really believe disturbs me. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: straw men argumentation does nothing more than make believers who eventually discover the truth feel lied to. This is not what we want. Gung-ho statements sounding bold and honorable yet based in ignorance are not impressive.

Our own Confession says that there is normally no salvation outside of the Church. We believe in _means of Grace_ that are found in the Church. Westminster calls baptism an 'effectual means of salvation." That's all that your cherry-picked catechism line says, too, if you read the rest of their teaching, even though Rome obviously has the _ex opere operato_ distinction, whereas we believe that they become effectual means differently. Regardless, we still see them as an effectual means of salvation in some sense, which one _ordinarily_ needs to be saved. If you read more of Rome's teaching, you'll see that they believe sacraments are ordinarily necessary but allow for cases when this is not possible. They may be wrong on a lot of things, but they're not simply morons who want to deceive everyone because they're conscious of being the devil's puppets. They know about the thief on the cross.

Sometimes I'm not so surprised by the Scott Hahns who get duped because they can't figure out how much of the "false teaching" they were informed of was actually just poor Protestant scholarship, and wonder why they should trust their Reformed authorities who can't get simple things like this straight. We need to have a zeal with knowledge.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon

Davidius said:


> Easy, man.
> 
> The lack of desire I've seen on this thread to actually investigate our opponents' teachings to see what they really believe disturbs me. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: straw men argumentation does nothing more than make believers who eventually discover the truth feel lied to. This is not what we want. Gung-ho statements sounding bold and honorable yet based in ignorance are not impressive.
> 
> Our own Confession says that there is normally no salvation outside of the Church. We believe in _means of Grace_ that are found in the Church. Westminster calls baptism an 'effectual means of salvation." That's all that your cherry-picked catechism line says, too, if you read the rest of their teaching, even though Rome obviously has the _ex opere operato_ distinction, whereas we believe that they become effectual means differently. Regardless, we still see them as an effectual means of salvation in some sense, which one _ordinarily_ needs to be saved. If you read more of Rome's teaching, you'll see that they believe sacraments are ordinarily necessary but allow for cases when this is not possible. They may be wrong on a lot of things, but they're not simply morons who want to deceive everyone because they're conscious of being the devil's puppets. They know about the thief on the cross.



Sorry David, but I don't understand why you have a problem with my post. The RCC officially believes in the necessity of the Church and the Sacraments for salvation. That quotation was abbreviated for brevity's sake, but that statement is repeated multiple times throughout the catechism. Here is another example:



> 1987 The grace of the Holy Spirit has the power to justify us, that is, to cleanse us from our sins and to communicate to us "the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ" and through Baptism.



That quote equates faith in Christ with baptism, which again, is damnable heresy. I have to disagree that this is a strawman argument or unfairly cherry-picking quotes from the catechism. This is what they believe as clearly stated in their defining document of belief.

In terms of the exceptions you are referring to, they are reserved for people "unable" to partake of the sacraments, in which case they say the desire for baptism is what saves:



> 1259 For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament.



Contrast that statement with the WCF:



> Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance, grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.



I agree with you that Protestant scholarship could and should be better, and there are many very good, solid RCC beliefs. But there's nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade, especially when it is based on their official statement of belief.


----------



## Davidius

Mason,

I don't see how the Roman doctrine of "baptism of desire" differs significantly from the first part of the portion of the WCF you quoted. 

I also don't see where we disagree with Rome if Rome "officially believes in the necessity of the Church and the Sacraments for salvation. "


----------



## jakomus

As a former catholic and now as a Christian now I get to see more and more the differences between the two,we know their gospel is totally different and it is sad to say it but it is a counterfit Christianity,it denies the basics of the faith;lately I have been aware of how Catholism does not honor the word of God,reduces the atoning value of the cross, still hold on to the anatemas of the council of Trent,and many other aspects, well,we need to preach the gospel to them ,too so they may be saved !


----------



## Christusregnat

Davidius said:


> Mason,
> 
> I don't see how the Roman doctrine of "baptism of desire" differs significantly from the first part of the portion of the WCF you quoted.
> 
> I also don't see where we disagree with Rome if Rome "officially believes in the necessity of the Church and the Sacraments for salvation. "



David,

The baptism of desire assumes the absolute necessity of baptism, with the exceptional case of someone who can't make it to the font before his heart stops.

The portion of the Confession that Mason quoted states that "Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance". Something being a great sin does not equate to something being absolutely necessary with a caveat for thieves on crosses. It's a great sin to neglect paying your tithe. That doesn't say the same thing as tithing being necessary for going to heaven, unless you die before you can sign your check. 

Without agreeing with everything Mason's saying, it seems unfair not to grant that these two points are different.

Also, saying that there is no ordinary possibility of salvation outside of the visible church is not that same as saying "nole sales extra ecclesiam". One is absolute, one is "as a general rule". It assumes different things about the church. The church is the place God has chosen to place His Name vs. the church as the vicar of Christ.

Cheers,


----------



## Confessor

Peter H said:


> A side note.
> 
> I find it interesting that the Reformers used the word "catholic church" for the reformed church. They considered the Church of Rome not catholic at all, but a sect.



In _The Death of Death_, Owen made the point that "universal" and "atonement" are as contrary as "Roman" and "catholic," which I laughed at, although I don't know if I should have.


----------



## Bondman

Davidius said:


> Bondman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wturri78 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Catholic belief and practice are so wide that two people can claim the same church and be worlds apart in how they understand and live their faith. Many know ever saint and every feast day but couldn't tell you the first point of doctrine (their training probably stopped at age 12 after their confirmation).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So we must ask what is it that they all have in common?
> 
> There is indeed a great divergence of belief in RC, but as long as you bow the knee to the Pope in Rome, he will let you believe just about whatever you want. You can practice voodoo (yes, in Haiti) or celebrate pagan holy days (all over the world since the beginning of the spread of Rome's dominance) or whatever. Just join yourself to that man that has raised himself above everything that is called God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's interesting. Could you post me a quote from a source of Roman teaching that says that one can believe whatever he wants as long as he "bows the knee to the Pope"? I spoke with a woman just yesterday who is leaving the Roman Catholic Church for the Episcopalian Church because she is unscripturally divorced and Roman priests won't allow her to commune.
Click to expand...


You will not be able to find that in their catechism. I did not mean that they have absolute freedom but that the history of Rome even up till now is a history of it's ability to accommodate all sorts of pagan and satanic practices of the cultures they seek to bring into their fold. It is the modus operandi of Rome if you will. 

Personally, having many RC family members, I can myself testify that rules can very easily be passed by. Priests can even lie to their church members under certain circumstances.

I would however point you to Cardinal Newman who has come up with a very convenient doctrine addressing the "evolution of dogma. This allows for a good deal of the bending of Rome's rules. It became necessary in the face of modern scholarship's uncovering her great hypocrisy and contradictions throughout the ages.


----------



## Jared

I found an interesting group of churches that is liturgical, evangelical, non-denominational and Charismatic. It's called The King's Family Of Churches.
The King’s Family of Churches

I have heard Fr. Michael Manning who is a Charismatic Catholic speak of an underground movement in the Roman Catholic church that attempts to covertly share the good news of justification by faith alone in Christ alone. I don't know how large it is, but according to Manning, there is some evangelization going on in the RCC.


----------



## wturri78

Jared104 said:


> I found an interesting group of churches that is liturgical, evangelical, non-denominational and Charismatic. It's called The King's Family Of Churches.
> The King’s Family of Churches
> 
> I have heard Fr. Michael Manning who is a Charismatic Catholic speak of an underground movement in the Roman Catholic church that attempts to covertly share the good news of justification by faith alone in Christ alone. I don't know how large it is, but according to Manning, there is some evangelization going on in the RCC.



I've heard of all sorts of "underground" movements within the RCC that have wildly different agendas, everything from advancing a _sola_ view of justification, to ordaining women priests, to lesbian nuns (not kidding!), to renouncing Vatican II and returning to the Latin mass and renouncing any inclusion of Protestants as "separated brethren." Then there are the groups that have actually splintered away from the RCC, and some have even ordained their own popes, deciding that at some point (differs depending upon the group) the church fell into apostasy and became led by an "anti-pope." How exactly is that different from the medieval schisms that resulted in two and three popes in different cities? I guess it's just that nobody really pays much attention to these guys. Naturally they can all trace their ordination directly back to the apostles--it's the _other guys_ who are lying!

I wouldn't hold out much hope for any underground movement actually bringing the RCC to accept _sola fide_, or even to un-anathematize it. It was formally and officially declared heresy by Trent, and even the make-nice-nice words of Vatican-II don't change that. 

As to the King's Family of Churches...well, it seems to be yet another church that finally brought back the _true faith_ of the apostles...but I thought that was the Church of Christ? Or was it the Disciples of Christ? Or maybe one of the countless others that's finally restored the long-lost church after 2,000 years of apostasy. I like this description from their website:

"The King’s Family of Churches can trace its origins to the Church that Jesus founded in the early first century. The Church blended together the three streams of Christianity embrace in Celtic Christianity and built on the ground of the Apostolic ministry of the historic Church. The King’s Family is Evangelical in doctrine, Anglican and Lutheran in ethos and Pentecostal in experience. Thus, we follow the same teachings; doctrines and practices established in the Church that Jesus built."

I had no idea that Jesus was an Anglican Lutheran who blended three streams of Celtic Christianity. Maybe I'd better dust off the history books again...


----------



## Jared

> "The King’s Family of Churches can trace its origins to the Church that Jesus founded in the early first century. The Church blended together the three streams of Christianity embrace in Celtic Christianity and built on the ground of the Apostolic ministry of the historic Church. The King’s Family is Evangelical in doctrine, Anglican and Lutheran in ethos and Pentecostal in experience. Thus, we follow the same teachings; doctrines and practices established in the Church that Jesus built."
> 
> I had no idea that Jesus was an Anglican Lutheran who blended three streams of Celtic Christianity. Maybe I'd better dust off the history books again...



I didn't know that either.


----------



## Spinningplates2

Brother's and Sister's what other "Church" had to be forced to stop killing the people who disagreed with it's doctrine? If the Roman church is ever allowed back in power can we be sure that they have changed?

Do not let your children ever forget that our Church was born by the bravery of men who gave their lives so that we would not have to learn Latin to read the Bible. If anyone ever needs to remember what it was like when Rome was in power should go back and read the Foxes Book of Martyrs.


----------



## Webservant

I don't think it's a stretch to say that there are Elect in the catholic church.


----------

