But as a church on the whole does the CC have a Christian gospel ?
Are you serious? You have been here all this time, and you still ask this?
Are they evangelical in doctrine?
This question is a bit more difficult, because responding to it depends upon how one defines the term “evangelical”.
I know of a few good brothers who would say not.
Can you clarify why not? Do they not recognize that we believe we are saved by grace, ,through faith, and not of works, lest any man should boast? Have they never read the JDDJ?
Most here have been quite charitable in their comments and I struggle in being so yet not wanting to offend nor to give any catholic false hope.
Is it false hope to tell a Catholic that they are not really Christian, since they don’t believe whatever theological distinctives Lutherans have adopted that the CC has not received from the Apostles?
Code:
It is your second comment that might help me and others. It is indeed the flip side of the argument. If the CC and it's members wants evangelical Protestants to truly and deep down consider them as Christian then can The CC and it's members truly and deep down consider Protestants as Catholic and equally so ?
No. We are not at liberty, as Luther was, to depart from the once for all sacred deposit of faith we have received from the Aposltes. We cannot add to it, or subtract from it, as occurred during the Reformation. Neither can we embrace a “different gospel” as we would find our selves accursed.
Do we each have the full gospel of Jesus Christ, enough to truly make us new creatures in and following Christ?
These are not the same thing, from a Catholic perpective, since we do not separate out justification from sanctification. A person is made new in baptism, but Jesus was very specific in how He wanted us to follow him, and there have been sigificant departures from His teaching over the year. This is why the term “imperfectly joined”.
Is there such a thing as a “separated” brethren on the flip side ? Can you be separated from Christ and still be “Christian”?
You ask a just question. I think of most non-Catholics standing in the tradition of Apollos, fervent about what they know, but only having received part of the revelation of God in Christ. Or perhaps those Jews who had only received the baptism of John but were still trying to live according to his teachings.
Code:
We certainly would not say Catholics were "separated" by not being a baptist or Lutheran or Presbyterian etc.. Some might say they were separated if they were not evangelical, having a personal relationship with Christ, being born again.
There are Catholics that do not seem to have a personal relationship with Christ. Nowadays they are being called “sacramentalized but not evangelized”. It is an outcome of poor catechesis both at home and at the parish. These are the ones most likely to wander away.
They would then say there is no such thing as being a separated Christian. You either are or not by personal experience and by your church’s doctrine…just some thoughts
Yes, there is significant Catholicity in this statement. Jesus does not justify us so that we can go back to living like we did before. Yet many people have unwittingly embraced ideas and doctrines that the Apsotles would consider heretical, or significantly separating one from the faith.
Just a note on the terminology, for Catholics, the term “personal relationship” is a modern innovation that is not found anywhere in the Tradition of the Church or the Scripture, which is why Catholics don’t use it, or conceptualize Christianity that way. That being said, a person cannot be a disciple, either, without a close personal relationship with the Master.