Are Catholics Christians?

[Javilo]

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...

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]

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...

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.