Roman Catholic Questions

[RamistThomist]

It seems like, regarding the Sola Scriptura question, the best we can argue is “well, they have the same issue!”

That's true for any infallible authority claim. Press them on it. For too long Rome and EO have gotten away with "Protestant = every man a pope and 600,000 denominations."

They want to provide a level of certainty they can't deliver. Pope francis has actually helped us in this regard.

 

[Deleted member 7239]

I will allow the more educated men to speak here, but as a former Roman Catholic myself I am curious if the OP is a former Roman Catholic or what experience he has with that church.

 

[JOS3]

I will allow the more educated men to speak here, but as a former Roman Catholic myself I am curious if the OP is a former Roman Catholic or what experience he has with that church.

I am not a former Roman Catholic and have very little actual experience. Largely because of that, I am just now beginning to explore Roman belief.

 

[Edward]

and 600,000 denominations

The proper reply to which is "And 24 Catholic denominations".

 

[DTK]

It seems like, regarding the Sola Scriptura question, the best we can argue is “well, they have the same issue!”

Only a few comments in response to your original post and already you're prepared to make such a statement? Both scripture and church history cry out against the grandiose claims of Romanism. It's not simply that Romanists have the same problem; it's that all the dogmas peculiar to Rome cannot be substantiated either by Holy Scripture or church history. What makes Romanism attractive to folk is the guise of perfectionism under which it masquerades. But when the dogmas peculiar to that system are examined against the scrutiny of Scripture, history, and even tradition, it all collapses under the weight of its own claims.

Just in case I am misunderstood, I use the terms "Romanism" and "Romanists" not to be perjorative, but to isolate precisely both the system and its adherents for the sake of identification (after all, I don't mind being called a "Calvinist"). There is nothing "catholic" about the dogmas peculiar to Rome. Take for instance papal primacy, papal infallibility, purgatory, the Marian dogmas, indulgences, ecclesial infallibility - none of these dogmas can stand before the scrutiny of Scripture, history, or the tradition of the church.

Bear in mind that Rome requires all its dogmas to be matters of "de fide," i.e. necessary to believe for one to be saved. To become a member of the Roman communion, you must accept what Rome defines to be necessary to be a member of that communion. That is why the system is not "catholic"; in reality it is sola Roma, the gospel according to Rome.

If you wish, take one dogma peculiar to Rome at a time, and I and others will be happy to address each one at a time.

 

[DTK]

They want to provide a level of certainty they can't deliver.

Apart from all that is θεόπνευστος, never was a truer word spoken!

 

[Tom Hart]

"Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience. May God help me. Amen."

(Brecht, Martin. Martin Luther. tr. James L. Schaaf, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985–93, 1:460.)

It seems like, regarding the Sola Scriptura question, the best we can argue is “well, they have the same issue!”

It is not the same issue. Scripture and church history testify against the papist's claim of infallibility. One need only look as far as Vatican II to see how fundamentally changed are the doctrines of the Roman religion since the time of Trent. Compare Trent's anathemas of all protestantism with Vatican II's universalism. According to one document I'm a heretic, and according to another I'm a "lost brother" and even a pagan can make it to heaven so long as he is honest. A papist will say that "doctrine does not change, it only develops." But he cannot face serious scrutiny of that claim.

For another example, remember that Luther was excommunicated as a heretic, but today's pope honoured him on the anniversary of the Reformation. It's not merely inconsistent, but absurd, and even more so when the papists attempt to dance around the obvious discrepancies.

This should make anyone immediately reject the magisterium's supposed authority.

On the authority of Scripture, see the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 1. (Section V is below.) Holy Scripture does not suffer from the same weaknesses as the Roman tradition.

V. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the Church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture. And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it does abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.

https://reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/index.html?body=/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_I.html

 

[Florida Reforming]

Rome does claim Scripture as an authority but ONLY has currently defined by the Vatican magisterium; this completely negates Scripture as authority. Their so-called authoritative tradition/magisterium changes over the years so that post-Vatican II Romanism is diametrically opposed to some of the teachings before the council. The relatively few traditional Catholics are well aware of this and disagree among themselves as how to handle it.

Romanism has consistently denied the gospel from its inception to the present. The papacy fulfills to a T the prophecies of the Antichrist as nearly all Christians of the last 1500 years have acknowledged and as is taught clearly in Reformed theology and creeds.

 

[Tom Hart]

However much the Romanists say that both Scripture and tradition are authority, in practice they elevate the latter in their interpretation of the former. Where Scripture opposes their fancies, they necessarily resort to the mutilation of it.

 

[bookslover]

And now, the floodgates have opened once again regarding the rampant homosexuality in the Roman Catholic Church, with the grand jury's report running about 1500 pages, I hear - and covering just three dioceses in Pennsylvania, not even the whole state.

I understand that Roman Catholic seminaries have been hotbeds of homosexuality since the 1960s.

As an ex-Roman Catholic (left around 1970), I'm glad I got out and found the truth.

 

[ZackF]

I am not a former Roman Catholic and have very little actual experience. Largely because of that, I am just now beginning to explore Roman belief.

The best way to put it is Roman 'beliefs.' This death penalty change is a change and a big one. JPII's scruple on the DP was its prudence in the modern world. SJW Francis, says it is a categorical evil. Not even the most painstakingly hairsplitting Thomists can reconcile the two positions let alone the historical position held by pre-VII popes.

edit: terrible typos

 

[DTK]

However much the Romanists say that both Scripture and tradition are authority, in practice they elevate the latter in their interpretation of the former.

It is altogether true that they only pay "lip service" to Holy Scripture, but "tradition" for them is what they invent it to be when it comes to the dogmas peculiar to Rome. Thus I contend that their real rule of faith is neither Scripture nor tradition for the dogmas peculiar to Rome, but the living voice of their magisterium at the present, or in short sola Roma.

I think that the following observations of Lane are "spot on."

Anthony N. S. Lane: A dogma like that of the Assumption [of Mary] condemns both Scripture and early tradition to material insufficiency in practice. The unfolding view [i.e. of development] is not a return from the supplementary [Trent] to the coincidence view [i.e. Scripture and tradition bear the same content] but rather an advance beyond the supplementary view in that tradition has now been found wanting. It represents not a renewed confidence in Scripture but a loss of confidence in tradition. See A. N .S. Lane’s “Scripture, Tradition and Church” in Vox Evangelica, Vol. 16, 1975, p. 48.

Anthony N. S. Lane: The normative status of ecclesiastical dogmas and decisions is still a point of dispute between Catholics and Protestants. Again, Catholic thought may be moving away from the model of development, but a doctrine like the Assumption still condemns Catholic theology to the de facto material insufficiency of both Scripture and tradition. See A. N .S. Lane’s “Scripture, Tradition and Church” in Vox Evangelica, Vol. 16, 1975, p. 50.

 

[Tom Hart]

It is altogether true that they only pay "lip service" to Holy Scripture, but "tradition" for them is what they invent it to be when it comes to the dogmas peculiar to Rome. Thus I contend that their real rule of faith is neither Scripture nor tradition for the dogmas peculiar to Rome, but the living voice of their magisterium at the present, or in short sola Roma.

I think that the following observations of Lane are "spot on."

Anthony N. S. Lane: A dogma like that of the Assumption [of Mary] condemns both Scripture and early tradition to material insufficiency in practice. The unfolding view [i.e. of development] is not a return from the supplementary [Trent] to the coincidence view [i.e. Scripture and tradition bear the same content] but rather an advance beyond the supplementary view in that tradition has now been found wanting. It represents not a renewed confidence in Scripture but a loss of confidence in tradition. See A. N .S. Lane’s “Scripture, Tradition and Church” in Vox Evangelica, Vol. 16, 1975, p. 48.

Anthony N. S. Lane: The normative status of ecclesiastical dogmas and decisions is still a point of dispute between Catholics and Protestants. Again, Catholic thought may be moving away from the model of development, but a doctrine like the Assumption still condemns Catholic theology to the de facto material insufficiency of both Scripture and tradition. See A. N .S. Lane’s “Scripture, Tradition and Church” in Vox Evangelica, Vol. 16, 1975, p. 50.

Well said.

 

[JTB.SDG]

I have been a member here for some years but have not before formed a post or posed a question in this way. In the spirit of voluntary vulnerability and honestly seeking engagement, I’m posting this one now.

For the last little while (months) I have come to the realization that many of my beliefs about the Roman Catholic Church have been unfounded and wrong. This point is not up for debate, in my mind, but simply a matter of actually engaging those Catholics rather than solely relying on the testimony of those predisposed and antagonistic towards them.

In this—we’ll say exploration—the Reformation foundations of sola fide and sola scriptura have particularly come up with more questions and concerns. These are the wrestlings I am here to seek thoughts on. How do we understand faith as divided from works, and where, prior to Luther, can we find evidence of this in the history of the Church? How do we arrive at Scripture as sole authority without circular reasoning or reliance on authority from the outside (and thus be self-defeating)?

I ask these questions (and the ones that may follow from it) in good faith and honestly seeking conversation. Some of you may rush to anathemas or to claim that I am already wading into the Tiber. I am merely posing questions that I have asked of myself and find that the answers I can come up with are wanting.

Julius,

If you're interested in a more in-depth study, get your hands on Chemnitz's volumes on An Examination of the Council of Trent. This is the classic standard for these kinds of questions.

 

[dudley]

JOS3 I am an ex Roman Catholic and left that church in 2006. For many reasons I became very disenchanted with the Roman catholic church, which under Joseph Ratzinger I thought was moving backwards to a pre Vatican II mentality. I decided to leave the RCC in January 2006 and I spent 4 years exploring all the major Protestant denominations. I also started reading about the Reformation and I read the scriptures. When I started to read about John Calvin, and John Knox and the Presbyterians and the Reformed faith I knew that I had found the pure gospel of grace and the faith the way it is according to the scriptures. I made a Public affirmation of faith in the Presbyterian church I am now a member of and I wrote this piece several years ago and I think it may answer some of the questions you addressed particularly faith alone verses the RC teaching of faith and works. Please also feel free to ask me any questions, you may e amail me at [email protected]

“I am now completely Protestant in Doctrine and Conviction”
by Dudley Davis
I just completed an intense study of the Protestant doctrine of faith alone. I am a former Roman catholic and have been a Presbyterian now for almost 8 years. I have renounced all Roman catholic teachings which contradict the scriptures. I am now convinced and believe it is by Grace alone we are saved,and that grace opens us to have faith alone in Christ alone which is the true message of the Gospel of salvation. It is Scripture alone which is our only and final authority, not the pope of Rome or any man, only Jesus Christ heads His church. I believe all praise and glory belongs to God alone and not Mary or the Roman Catholic saints. I am now completely Protestant in doctrine and conviction.

I also now believe that the way that I understand the Gospel is that we are saved by faith alone apart from any works. I think that is the way that the Gospel needs to be preached and understood. In my notes I wrote a paper last year on the subject called "The Roman Catholic view of Justification and the Protestant view is a strong dividing line between being RC and being Protestant"

I realize now as an ex Roman catholic that I was brainwashed with teachings which were not biblical and defied the true message of salvation. I found tonight the following list of verses about being saved by faith. I took note that faith and works are contrasted. In other words, we are saved by faith "not by works" and "apart from works", etc. The point is that there are only two options. We are saved by faith alone or we are not. Since we have faith and works (both conceptually and in practice), then we are either saved by faith alone or by faith and works. There is no other option.

If we see that the scriptures exclude works in any form as a means of our salvation, then logically, we are saved by faith alone. I took a look at what the Bible says about faith and works. Last year we did a study of Romans in our bible class. Saved by faith alone is all throughout Romans. Roman Catholicism uses as the argument for faith and works James statement in James 2:24 I also looked again at James' statement about "faith alone" which was always used by the RCC as an argument against the Protestant doctrine of Justification by faith alone and I will state what I believe is the misinterpretation Rome gives or implies with James.
Rom. 3:28-30, "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law. 29 or is God the God of Jews only? Is He not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also, 30 since indeed God who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith is one."
Rom. 4:5, "But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is reckoned as righteousness,"
Rom. 5:1, "therefore having been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ,"
Rom. 9:30, "What shall we say then? That Gentiles, who did not pursue righteousness, attained righteousness, even the righteousness which is by faith."
Rom. 10:4, "For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes."
Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
Gal. 2:16, "nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we may be justified by faith in Christ, and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law shall no flesh be justified."
Gal. 2:21, I do not nullify the grace of God; for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.
Gal. 3:5-6, "Does He then, who provides you with the Spirit and works miracles among you, do it by the works of the Law, or by hearing with faith? 6 Even so Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness."
Gal. 3:24, "Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith."
Eph. 2:8-9, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God. 9 Not by works, lest any man should boast."
Phil. 3:9, "and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith."
Again, works/Law is contrasted with faith repeatedly and we are told that we are not justified by works in any way. Therefore, we are made right with God by faith, not by faith and our works; hence, faith alone.
James 2:24, not by faith alone.....or the misinterpretation Rome gives.
The scriptures clearly teach that we are saved (justified) by faith in Christ and what He has done on the cross. This faith alone saves us. However, we cannot stop here without addressing what James says in James 2:24, "You see that a man is justified by works, and not by faith alone."
There is no contradiction. All you need to do is look at the context. James chapter 2 has 26 verses: Verses 1-7 instruct us not to show favoritism. Verses 8-13 are comments on the Law. Verses 14-26 are about the relationship between faith and works.
James begins this section by using the example of someone who says he has faith but has no works, "What use is it, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but he has no works? Can that faith save him?" (James 2:14 ). In other words, James is addressing the issue of a dead faith, a faith that is nothing more than a verbal pronouncement, a public confession of the mind, and is not heart-felt. It is empty of life and action. He begins with the negative and demonstrates what an empty faith is (verses 15-17, words without actions). Then he shows that type of faith isn't any different from the faith of demons (verse 19). Finally, he gives examples of living faith that has words followed by actions. Works follow true faith and demonstrate that faith to our fellow man, but not to God. In brief, James is examining two kinds of faith: one that leads to godly works and one that does not. One is true, and the other is false. One is dead, the other alive; hence, "Faith without works is dead," (James 2:20). But, he is not contradicting the verses above that says salvation/justification is by faith alone.
The Roman catholic church so sadly distorts the true message of salvation. I can now say as John says: “I confess that through my faith in Jesus Christ I have full assurance of salvation” (1 John 5:11-13).

I know now “I am saved” not that I will be saved. I think I am beginning to shed some of the last false teachings of Roman Catholicism which had lead me to almost loosing faith altogether. I thank God my eyes were opened to the truth and I am now a Protestant.
Dudley A Davis Jr

 

[Semper Fidelis]

There have been some really excellent responses to the original post. I don't seek to improve upon them but to offer a couple of other things. I grew up Roman Catholic and my family is largely still trapped in its idolatry.

First, my brother has sought to interact with me on the question of Sola Scriptura and follows a typical RCC line that misses the point of ultimate authority. We know, from Divine Revelation, that Scripture has the inherent nature that it is breathed out by God (theopneustas). By default, then, we know that it has the quality of being God's own Revelation to man. The issue of authority is not whether other sources of authority exist but whether any other authority can stand on the same plane as Scripture and claim equal status with the Scripture.

Thus, the Protestant does not have the burden of proof to demonstrate that his authority is infallible and inerrant but any claimant to another source of authority that is equal to this authority needs to be proven. By default, the Scriptures alone have this inherent quality of inerrancy and infalliblity and "God-breathedness" and having the imprimatur of Divine authority. The Roman Catholic Church claims that its tradition has the same level of authority but it merely claims this. It cannot be demonstraed exegetically and, as DTK and others have demonstrated, their claims of authority amount to trusting what the Church states the Scriptures and tradition teach. Thus, the Roman Catholic is obliged to trust the Church of its day and cannot personally decide what the Scriptures or tradition teach but must rely upon the Magisterium of his day to tell him what that teaching is.

Next, with respect to the relationship between faith and works, this relationship is not found in a set of propositions but the relationship is found in a Person - namely the One Mediator between God and Man (the Lord Jesus Christ).

In the Fall, mankind was plunged into an estate of sin and misery. We are under the Curse of a Covenant and we are not only guilty of Adam's sin but we are corrupt in our whole nature (sinners). We are under the wrath and curse of God. We are guilty of Adam's sin and enslaved in our whole mind and being to sin's demands.

In the Gospel, Christ's death and resurrection have not only put away the guilt of our sin in Adam by His vicarious death but He broke the power of sin and death to enslave us. His atonement purchased our redemption and this includes all the evangelical graces that come from being united to Him (regeneration, faith, justification, sanctification, and glorification). By faith (purchased by Christ) we lay hold of Christ and His righteousness and are united to His death and resurrection. Christ unites us while still corrupt (sinners) but we are declared righteous in Him. He unites us as sinners but has broken the dominion of our corruption (sin) and, by His Spirit, He makes us holy and enables us to more and more put sin (corruption) to death within our members.

Thus, positionally, we are in Christ and sanctification (good works) flows from that same Person Whose Spirit conforms us more and more to His image.

Rome, in contrast, sees grace not as union with a Person (Christ) but a dispensing of a type of substance through the sacraments of the Church. In baptism they see the guilt of sin washed away and deny that we are, in any way, sinners. Grace is imparted to our natures that serve a receptacles of this grace and we must cooperate with it or we will eventually (by giving in to sin) wound or even destroy that imparted grace through the sacraments. The Roman Catholic view is that God looks at people and justifies them not on the basis of Christ's righteousness but their own righteousness. This is why if they fail to cooperate with grace and sin they can destroy the grace of baptism and be judged by God to be sinners and go to Hell. They offer penance as a "second plank" of justification for those who have made "shipwreck of their souls".

It's not that the Reformed deny the necessity of good works but we deny the Roman Catholic schema. We deny that justification is on the basis of sanctification. The basis for justification is union with Christ because He has purchased us individually. We are elected by God that Our Mediator would die for us and unite us to Him to make us holy - nobody can snatch us from His hand. Justification is based on Christ's righteousness accounted to us while sanctification is the work of Christ to renew us in our whole person.

The Roman Catholic schema sees the Church as the Incarnation of Christ in contrast to our view that the Lord Jesus Christ is that Incarnation and not the Church itself. Roman Catholics receive grace from the Church's sacraments. The Scriptures teach that grace is a function of being united to Christ and the Church declares the work of Christ in our behalf. The Roman Catholic Church sees Saints as attaining to more merit than they need to be declared righteous, in themselves, so that it can dispense grace through the Sacraments and through indulgences from its treasury of merits. The Scriptures teach that all are corrupt in their persons and could never stand before the wrath of a Holy God on the basis of their own righteousness but only because of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that we should go to Mary or the other Saints as mediators before God. The Scriptures testify that there is One Mediator between God and Man. The Roman Catholic Church teaches a monstrous doctrine that Christ's sacrifice is constantly offered for the Church on the altar and that it can only aid but never perfects those who draw near to it. The Scriptures teach that Christ died once and for all for sinners and that His One Atonement avails to all. Christ is seated as High Priest because He offered Himself once for sin and perfects all who draw near to Him in faith. The Church has no need for priests because Christ is the fulfillment of the priesthood and is the perfect Priest in as mediator.