How should Catholics view other Christian Traditions

[Heart_Foam]

False.

The attempt to use Msgr Fenton’s comments in 1958 to refute the teaching of the Popes is typical of those who don’t know what they’re talking about.

Well, that’s a bit uncharitable. Humour me, the Church you believe Jesus founded on Peter in Matt 16:18 - do you not consider that to be Christ’s Church? Answer that question. Yes or no.

 

[Abu]

Heart Foam,

1. Do you accept the biblical record of Christ instituting His Church and giving His teaching and binding authority to St Peter?

All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve].

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

1. Do you assent to Christ’s teaching ““if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17)?

 

[Heart_Foam]

Heart Foam,

1. Do you accept the biblical record of Christ instituting His Church and giving His teaching and binding authority to St Peter?

All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve].

Sole authority:
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

1. Do you assent to Christ’s teaching ““if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17)?

If you won’t answer me, then I won’t answer you.

The question is whether the Church Christ founded and which is entirely constituted of true believers is a visible, earthly organization or not. Everything in that post suggests that you believe, in accordance with Catholic teaching, that the true Church is the visible Catholic church. But this position is contradicted by what you, and Spina1953, and Della, and every other Catholic says when it comes to the fact that not only “separated brethren” can be saved, but that not even everyone within the Catholic church will be saved. It’s clear that when pushed your doctrine cannot be consistent. The definitions of the visible Catholic church and the Church of Christ are not an exact equivalency as I tried to point out to steve b. The true Church is ultimately defined on Protestant lines: as a spiritual body of all true believers independent of the visible church.

 

[PRmerger]

If you won’t answer me, then I won’t answer you.

First, Stephen, you’ll need to answer the dozens of questions that have been posed to you in other threads in which you have left.

Your posting style is not conducive to dialogue. You pose a question and then, when others post questions to you, you leave.

So it’s curious that you seem to be reserving for yourself here what you deny to others.

 

[spina1953]

Because of Baptisn one becomes a Christain. One of the things I hear is that all needs to do is take Jesus as their personal saviour and salvaton is gurranteed. While Jesus promised salvation to all not all will be saved. This is due to the fact that there are those who do not follow Christ’s teaching and perfer to go their own way. The promise of salvation is not a guarrantee, as Jesus did say that salvation is guarranteed. Not everyone who says Lord, Lord will enter heaven, and those we think went to heaven because we think they were good might not have entered heaven and those we think might not beause we think they are bad have entered heaven are in heaven. Only God decides who gets into heaven and who does not. One is not saved till one enters heaven as while we are still on this earth we are prone to sin and must struggle due to our fallen human nature. A promise is not a guarrantee, only a promise that it can. God I believe will choose whom He wills to enter heaven.

 

[Brendan_64]

I am a reverting Catholic – I began my journey Home about 2 months ago coming from Evangelical Protestantism – and I am having trouble knowing how to view Christian Traditions that are non-Catholic.

View them as your brothers and sisters in Christ. View them as part of the wider Church. The fullness of Truth lies within the Catholic Church, but as we move outside of this there is still truth, particularly within other Christian denominations.

They are most likely good decent Christians, and salvation is not denied to them because they are not part of the visible Catholic Church (anyone who maintains that salvation is denied to them ought to read their Catechism, particularly one that contains extracts from Vatican II documents).

 

[spina1953]

View them as your brothers and sisters in Christ. View them as part of the wider Church. The fullness of Truth lies within the Catholic Church, but as we move outside of this there is still truth, particularly within other Christian denominations.

They are most likely good decent Christians, and salvation is not denied to them because they are not part of the visible Catholic Church (anyone who maintains that salvation is denied to them ought to read their Catechism, particularly one that contains extracts from Vatican II documents).

I agree! good post!

 

[Abu]

Heart Foam #43
The true Church is ultimately defined on Protestant lines: as a spiritual body of all true believers independent of the visible church.

Such a selfist presumption underscores all the other presumptions called Protestantism.

The error lies in not assenting to the obvious fact that Christ established His Church with St Peter as his Supreme Vicar with His Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, seven sacraments, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and His Magisterium, all missing, or lacking in some way without Her, the fact obscured by the presumptive errors.

Thus, from the first, the faithful “remained faithful to the teaching of the Apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread, and to the prayers.” (Acts 2:42). So, as Jesus commanded, His Church has the Eucharist (Holy Mass), His seven sacraments, the primacy and infallibility of the pope, Her Tradition and Her Sacred Scriptures.

Christ has redeemed mankind. For salvation, it is possible only through Christ’s Church which is His sole means of salvation.

The truth through Christ’s Magisterium is stark: “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it." [Vatican II, in the *Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #14].

The truth is the reality:
From Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (*Lumen Gentium *#16), non-Catholics may obtain salvation: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

 

[steve_b]

Nothing erroneous at all. What you said implies that there is a conceptual difference between the set of people who are in the visible Catholic church and the set of people who will be saved. There may be overlap, but they are not synonymous.

How did you understand what I said
H:

But if the 4th Lateran Council is to be taken seriously, then the Church for which Christ died is equal to the visible Church founded on Peter, based in Rome.

There’s nothing new there.

Peter’s see is Rome. Jesus own words to Peter in front of the apostles tells us who Jesus gave primacy in His Church to. And Peter’s successors are the bishop of Rome.
H:

It follows then, that all who are in this Church of Christ, the Body of Christ, are promised salvation.

providing they live their faith faithfully to the end
H:

-]One’s behaviour, or even one’s faith, then is not the criterion by which God judges you to be part of His Church,/-] -]because/-] -]simple /-]membership in the -]external society - the /-]Catholic church - and following -]the club rules /-] what the Church teaches, makes one part of Christ’s Church, a child of God, and heir to eternal life.

I needed to make a few corrections
H:

and you say that the wicked and unbelieving in the Catholic church are actually *not *going to be saved (and you do), then you have to radically alter your definition of the Church for which Christ died and to whom the promise of salvation is made.

Re: the 4 Marks of the Church, If I’m reading you correctly, I think what you are trying to reconcile in your mind, what is meant by the Church is holy, when you see unholy members in her.

The Church is

1. 
   *]One
   *]Holy. The Church is Holy because of who founded her, sustains her, and gives her all his promises. It’s not holy because of the members in her. Although she has and has had and will have many holy members
   *]Catholic
   *]Apostolic
   
   That’s the short answer. If you’re interested I can give you the long answer.
   H:
   

   In fact, you will have to define the Church as the Bible does and as Protestants do: as a spiritual body of all believers, distinct from any earthly visible organisation.

   The Catholic Church wrote the NT, for Catholics in the Catholic Church. She collected the books she deemed scripture, and canonized those works in 382 at the Council of Rome. The same exact canon that was again validated at Trent. Luther 1300+ years after the council of Rome, decided he had a problem with James, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelations, and wanted to remove those books on his own, but his fellow revolutionaries in crime convinced him to leave them alone. But he did however remove 7 OT books from the canon which reflects Protestant versions of the bible down to today.
   
   Because of Luther Protestants have bible lite.

 

[spina1953]

Such a selfist presumption underscores all the other presumptions called Protestantism.

The error lies in not assenting to the obvious fact that Christ established His Church with St Peter as his Supreme Vicar with His Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, seven sacraments, Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and His Magisterium, all missing, or lacking in some way without Her, the fact obscured by the presumptive errors.

Thus, from the first, the faithful “remained faithful to the teaching of the Apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread, and to the prayers.” (Acts 2:42). So, as Jesus commanded, His Church has the Eucharist (Holy Mass), His seven sacraments, the primacy and infallibility of the pope, Her Tradition and Her Sacred Scriptures.

Christ has redeemed mankind. For salvation, it is possible only through Christ’s Church which is His sole means of salvation.

The truth through Christ’s Magisterium is stark: “Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it." [Vatican II, in the *Dogmatic Constitution on the Church

#14].

The truth is the reality:
From Vatican II’s Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (*Lumen Gentium *#16), non-Catholics may obtain salvation: “Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or His Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do His will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.”

Good agrument to say the least!!!

 

[Abu]

Thank you for both compliments, in #40 and #50, spina1953.

 

[Cathoholic]

Heart Foam. You stated in post 43 . . . .

It’s clear that when pushed your doctrine cannot be consistent.

Come on Heart Foam. You re-define the Catholic faith and then attack the straw man. I’ve seen you do this in other posts too.

I have no problem with you having differences about the Catholic faith.
I have no problem with you having differences on the principles you think the Catholic faith is.
And nobody is trying to coerce you to be Catholic.

But it just isn’t appropriate to castigate a straw man and call it “The Catholic Faith” so I want to make sure you are informed of what you oppose.

Do you understand WHY . . .

(What do you think a believing informed Catholic Christian would say as to WHY this below is NOT a contradiction. I am not asking for what you think [that will come later] but I am asking what you think WE would say)

But this position is contradicted by what you, and Spina1953, and Della, and every other Catholic says when it comes to the fact that not only “separated brethren” can be saved, but that not even everyone within the Catholic church will be saved.

I would like two things from you since you brought them up.

1. I want you to say what you think that we as Catholics would say as to WHY “separated brethren” can possibly be saved in certain circumstances.
2. I then want you to say WHAT you think us as Catholics would teach about WHY “not even everyone within the Catholic church will be saved.”

You can start with what we really teach (a lot of it can be found here) if you want, but you must take it in its totality.

I want to make sure you can even enunciate the Catholic faith correctly that you have been trying to attack.

Why? So we can at least have an open and honest discussion.

If I went around saying, “Protestants worshiped Maple Trees” you would correctly say that’s not true.

If I persisted in my erroneous premises, I might answer: “You guys need to quit worshiping Maples trees then we can talk.”

But I would be attacking a straw man! I would be attacking a position you as a Protestant do not take. I would NOT be opposing Protestantism. And IF I were purposefully mis-stating your beliefs, I would be a liar.

I am not accusing you of mis-stating our beliefs purposefully by the way Heart Foam. But I AM saying you ARE mis-stating them.

So I want to know that you can enunciate our beliefs (so I know you even know what they are) and I will try to respond to your objections.

Is that fair enough?

 

[Michael_Francis]

Off topic posts have been deleted so that this discussion can return to the topic of How should Catholics view other Christian Traditions?

Please carry on.

 

[bmonk]

T…

If Protestants are “in” the Church, regardless of stripe, by virtue of a valid baptism, then it shouldn’t matter if a Catholic, hops around through Protestantism…right? But we know the Church condemns that idea. So In effect when we test the premise, of who is in and who is outside the Church, and we see condemnations for a Catholic going in the direction of Protestantism, then how can it be said Protestants are “in” the Church?

Also

If a Catholic marries a validly baptised Protestant in a Protestant assembly, by a Protestant pastor, did the Catholic get married inside the Church or outside the Church

outside…right?

Actually, a valid marriage involving a Catholic requires the Catholic form of marriage–vows before a Catholic minister with jurisdiction–or a dispensation from that requirement. So the marriage could be “inside the church,” if the required dispensation was gotten.

But yes, in general it would be “outside the church.”

This is because, while an individual who is validly baptized may be “inside the Church” as a member of the Body of Christ, their community/church/denomination is not considered part of the Church, the Body of Christ–they are lacking communion with the true Body of Christ.

This is also why joining another such church is wrong for a Catholic–because it means giving up membership in the fullness of the Body of Christ.

Which gives us a principle for viewing other Christian Traditions:

Yes, they are Christian, and they have Baptism–but usually not the other sacraments, except perhaps Marriage. They are individually members of the Body of Christ, but their faith and their traditions lack the fullness of the Gospel and the doctrines that can help them be assured of heaven. And so, while individually members of the Body, as churches they do not have that status.

 

[Brendan_64]

They are individually members of the Body of Christ, but their faith and their traditions lack the fullness of the Gospel and the doctrines that can help them be assured of heaven. And so, while individually members of the Body, as churches they do not have that status.

 

[fred_conty]

I am a reverting Catholic – I began my journey Home about 2 months ago coming from Evangelical Protestantism – and I am having trouble knowing how to view Christian Traditions that are non-Catholic.

In my reversion, I am coming to deep conclusions that the Roman Catholic Church truly is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church that Jesus founded on Peter. I am also beginning to have faith in this Church and accepting and seeking to understand these “hard” doctrines like Purgatory and Praying to Mary.

All the while, I am trying to understand how to view other traditions of Christianity. I currently go to Moody Bible Institute (I am not going next semester, because I am reverting to Catholicism) and I am surrounded by mostly really nice people that really love Jesus and God. I hear about amazing testimonies of God bringing people to the knowledge of His Son Jesus and of people being helped by receiving food and other necessities… all coming from an Evangelical Protestant Tradition. What does God think about all of this? Does He think, “It doesn’t matter what tradition my Children adhere to, all that matters is that they seek to worship me and love me in Spirit and in Truth”? Or does He think, “I am seeking to draw them closer to me through the Church that I have founded but they keep resisting; I recognize their good works in my Name, but I am displeased that they reject those who are my true ambassadors”?

Any help that you all could send my way would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

It is difficult to know the condition or state of our own conscience let alone someone else’s. We simply have to love them as our brothers and sisters, and refrain from judging them. By loving them we will pray for them and respond to their needs and offer any assistance to them that we can. I feel judging them is a non ending task which leads to ill will, which is not what Jesus wants.

It is like the story of Jesus when he told one of his apostles to do something and another one wanted to know why. And Jesus responded by saying that he has plans for one and different plans for another, and just left it there. And I think that is the best policy.

But as far as helping them to the church, good example and being helpful whenever we can is the way that seems to work.

My personal feeling about them is that I wish them the best and everything that Jesus wishes for them. And prayers.

Does that mean we give up apologetics? Well there is apologetics and apologetics if you get what I mean.

And I am so happy for you.
May God bless and keep you. May God’s face shine on you. May God be kind to you and give you peace.