On Roman Catholic Authority

[Ignatius]

I have a number of sincere questions about Roman Catholic authority.

Actually, The Catholic Church is a communion of 23 Sui Juris Churches. The term Roman Catholic is actually incorrect when referring to the entire Catholic Church in communion with the See of St. Peter. The term ‘Roman’ Catholic is a relatively modern term that is confined largely to the English language. In the First Vatican Council in 1870 term Roman Catholic was nowhere included in any of the Council’s official documents about the Church herself, and the term was not included. Similarly, nowhere in the Second Vatican Council will you find the term Roman Catholic. Pope Paul VI signed all the documents of the Second Vatican Council as “I, Paul. Bishop of the Catholic Church.” Simply that - Catholic Church.

There are Roman Catholics, to be sure; but Roman Catholic is not co-terminus with the Catholic Church as a whole; that would mean neglecting the Byzantine, Chaldean, Maronite or other Oriental rites which are all very much part of the Catholic Church with whom the Holy See of St. Peter is in communion.
There are a number of Churches sui iuris that, together, constitute the Catholic Church – There are Western, Eastern and Oriental Churches. The term sui iuris means, literally, “of their own law”, or self-governing. These various Churches (canon 112) are “autonomous ritual Churches”. Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops.

Here are the most frequently referenced members of The Catholic Church:

• Alexandrean
• Coptic Catholic Church
• *Ge’ez Tradition *
• Ethiopian **Catholic Church **
• Eritrean Catholic Church
• Antiochene
• Syrian Tradition
• Syro-Malabarese Catholic Churc
• Syriac Catholic Church
• Syro-Malankarese Catholic Church
• Armenian Catholic Church
  (Continued)

 

[rciadan]

Thanks for your response. So what the RC church is saying is that justification by “faith” is not simply putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Saviour and God. It is also putting your faith and trust in:

1. The RC church’s interpretation of Scripture
2. The RC’s additions to Scripture, which are not contained in Scripture, which is believes have come through tradition
3. The RC church’s view on morality, including such issues as birth control.

Have I got this right? I don’t want to misrepresent the Roman position.

Assuming this is right, it would then follow that liberal Catholic theologians such as Hans Küng, are not justified (or “saved” in Evangelical terminology) in spite of having been baptised, and thus are rejecting eternal life.

Regarding #3, it would also follow that the more than 80% of RCs in the US that use birth control, or the similarly high number of baptised RCs here in Spain, that use birth control, are not justified (or “saved”) and are also rejecting eternal life.

I think I am now even more confused (or surprised) than before, but I thank you for graciously bearing with me.

First of all, we are putting our “trust” in the complete deposit of faith, which has been carefully guarded by the Catholic Church since the Upper Room We are careful to make sure that we understand Scripture correctly and that we have a teacher who is teaching us correctly, not just according to his own understanding and whim.

Second:The Catholic Church never “added” anything to the Scriptures. It is those who oppose her who have removed books and passages and who refuse to ackowledge the Sacred tradition which has always existed since Christ founded the Church in the Upper Room.

Third: It is the “The Churches” view. It is God’s Commandments, correctly taught through the Church.

Fourth: Yes, theologians such as Hans Kung and others, and some Bishops and Priests as well, and even as much as 80% of the laity may be putting their souls in grave danger of the fires of hell if they “refuse to hear even the Church”, for they will “be to thee as the heathen and the publican.”!

Fifth: In order to understand Catholic thought on these matters you really must become familiar with the Catholic theology of salvation. We as Catholic are not “saved” but rather are “working out our salvation with feat anf trembling” and know better than to presume we have already achieved salvation.

 

[Ignatius]

(continued)

• Byzantine
• Byzantine-Greek Tradition
• Greek Rescension
• Albanian Catholic Church
• Greek Catholic Church
• Grieco-Arabic Rescension
• Melkite Catholic Church
• Grieco-Georgian Rescension
• Georgian Catholic Church
• Grieco-Italian Rescension
• Italo-Grieco-Albanian Catholic Church
• Italo-Albanian Catholic Church - Eparchy of Lungro degli Italo-Albanesi in Calabria
• Italo-Albanian Catholic Church - Eparchy of Piana in Sicily degli Albanisi
• Italo-Greek Catholic Church - Exarchic Abbey & Territorial Monastery of Santa Maria di Grottaferrata degli Italo-Grieco
• Byzantine-Slav Tradition
• Great Russian Rescension
• Belarusan Catholic Church
• Bulgarian Catholic Church
• Russian Catholic Church
• Russian Catholic Church - Apostolic Exarchate of Moscow of the Russians
• Old Ritualist Usage
• Russian Catholic Church - Apostolic Exarchate of Harbin of the Russians
• Romanian Rescension
• Romanian Catholic Church
• All jurisdictions except Eparchy of Maramures of the Romanians
• Ruthenian Rescension
• Croatian Catholic Church
• Includes* the Apostolic Exarchate of Serbia & Montenegro for Faithful of the Eastern Rite*
• Hungarian Catholic Church
• Romanian Catholic Church
• Eparchy of Maramures of the Romanians only
• Ruthenian Catholic Church
• Ruthenian Catholic Church - Metropolitan Archeparchy of Pittsburgh of the Ruthenians
• Ruthenian Catholic Church - Eparchy of Mukachevo of the Ruthenians
• Slovakian Catholic Church
• Includes* Apostolic Exarchate of the Czech Republic for Czech Faithful of the Eastern Rites*
• Ukrainian Catholic Church
• Chaldean Catholic Church
• Arabic Usage
• Maronite Catholic Church
• Latin (Roman)
• Roman Catholic Church (This is the “Roman” Catholic Church)
• Ambrosian Rite
• Bragan Rite
• Mozarabic Rite
• Monastic Usages*
• Anglican Use

There are literally tens of millions of these Catholics who are all in communion with the Holy See of St. Peter that are not “Roman” Catholic.* So, you see that the Catholic Church is comprised of much more than the Roman Catholics.*

May the peace of Jesus Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Church Militant:A good point, but not so. The core that divides us is actuallly the error of Sola Scriptura, which is to some extent linked, but not for this discussion.Can you provide documentation from Vatican II?

Thanks for your responses.

After reading various responses to my questions, I think there is more that divides Evangelicals and Catholics than I had assumed. I actually don’t think Sola Scriptura is the key, but continue thinking it is the authority of Rome. But they are related.

On Vatican II, no I cannot. Can you? Is this correct?

The fact is that unlike n-C denoms we do not generally attempt to make statements as to the final end of any person. “Outside of saving grace” is not something that we are in a position to discern with respect to anyone but ourselves. There is always an open course to reconcilliation.I believe in all the teachings of the Catholic Church and I am quite satisfied with the Biblical teachings that have been offered in support of them. The problem with n-C religion is that they seem unable to draw valid, logical, conclusions from the Word of God. in so doing, I have concluded that the things the Catholic Church teaches make infinitely better sese than the teachings form outsider her.

Since Evangelicals draw most of the same conclusions regarding the Word of God as does the RC church, and you say the Evangelicals are "unable to draw valid, logical conclusions from the Word of God, would this mean that where we draw the same conclusions at the RC church, the RC church is also being invalid and illogical? I think the logic follow as such. If not, your first statement is incorrect.

You conclusion is badly flawed since there has been no refutation of Catholic beliefs that will cause such doubt. (And I think I have seen almost all of them.). Basically, in spite of some 500 years of efforts, our opponents have not produced a new arguments that have merit. All have been refuted and all again, nothing is new.

Actually, there is a lot that is new.

New documents (The Didache, Epistle of Barnabas, the Dead Sea Scrolls and others), rediscoved in the last two centuries. These support many Evangelical conclusions and have led to new arguments. For example, to give you a new argument, The Didache, the first Christian document after the Bible, provides a model for Christian practice that seems rather much like a low Anglican church and not at all like a modern RC church. If the modern RC church is the same as the Early church and no dogma has changed, why doesn’t the Didache sound very Roman Catholic (i.e. no Marian devotion whatsoever, no Pope, etc.)

We have more archeological evidence also, such as models of Early Church practice and art, which has implications for baptism and images (i.e. no prayers to the dead in the early church).

If I was a non-Catholic…I think the reverse would be the case and take the hint. Are the moral failings of your own pastors and leaders evidence to indict the truths of Christianity that you believe? Why then do you use that same faulty measure to judge Catholic beliefs and leaders?

Actually, I do think that the moral failings of my pastors should be held against them, not for the truths that they share from the Bible, but sometimes for the interpretation of those truths. Since biblical exegisis requires the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, I think this is legitimate. So my question stands: doesn’t the relative holiness of the Pope and bishops affect their legitimacy in interpreting Scripture and tradition.

I agree, however, that truth itself doesn’t depend on the messenger or on the palatibility of the message.

The authority of the Pope and magisterium is Biblical and secured by the very promise of Christ Himself that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church and there is absolutely no evidence that the incidents that you have cited have in any way affected the dogmatic truths of the Catholic faith. (Matthew 16:18)This is easy.

This is not so easy for me to accept. However, I am beginning to see that the whole issue of authority, at least for many RCs, depends particularly on their interpretation of these verses. Is that correct?

Why should I believe that these verses support the notion of a pope and the primacy of Rome when:

1. The other apostles didn’t view Peter as the pope, and Paul even reproaches him in Galatians 2. Paul says Peter’s job was as an apostle to the Jews but Paul as an apostle to the gentiles. Which, historically, was more important?
2. The Christian writers of the 1st century did not interprete these verses as the modern RC church does?

Thus, is there not a huge tautology in RC thinking regarding authority: Matt 16:18 says that the RC has authority, according to the RC church? I should trust their interpretation of these verses because they have the authority to interprete them, which is given in these verses?

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Your trinitarian baptism is the link that allows Catholics to accept you as fellow believers, albiet, seperated by your clinging to the errors of post reformation theology. (Before you ask, you cannot share communion with us because you reject the Real Presence of Our Lord in the Eucharist and that creates a very imperfect union with the church. If any of you do believe in the Eucharistic Real Presence, then you should examine the other things that you have been taught and consider whether you should remain outside the Catholic Church.)

This thread has really raised some key questions for me regarding if we can really be considered “fellow believers” or “separated bretheren”, as Vatican II declares. Let me explain.

I. I understand from another poster that to be justified, a RC must accept the entire RC Magisterium in all matter in its interpretation of Scripture and tradition and in its guidance on morality.

1. I do not accept the authority of the RC Magisterium in all matters.
2. Therefore, I am not justified. So, I might be a “believer”, but then so was Satan. And “separated bretheren” cannot really mean much if this is all it means.

This is really confusing from an Evangelical point of view, since we believe that one is a Christian if one has received justification. He does this if he confesses his sins and puts his faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Typically, we would add that this implies accepting the Bible as God’s inspired word and submitting our lives to Him. (I am trying to be brief here).

Yet, if R Catholics say I am not justified, from an Evangelical perspective, you are saying I am not a Christian. So “brother” seems strange to describe our relationship.

By contrast, you say we are somehow connected by baptism. If being a Christian is simply being baptised, than 90% of Spain is already Christian. Yet many of these do not believe. When you say “believer”, are you saying just “baptised”? Because in my experience in my country is that most “baptised” are not “believers”, sadly.

This discussion has actually depressed me rather profoundly concerning the potential for co-operation between Evangelicals and Catholics because:

1. We view authority completely differently
2. We define the basis for justification completely differently
3. We even define “Christian” completely differently.

Am I wrong here? I am beginning to doubt if such ecumenical documents as “Evangelicals and Catholic Together: The Gift of Salvation” or the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” by Lutherans and Roman Catholics, both of which I viewed previously very positively, have any meaning whatsoever. It seems we have completely different definitions.

Anyway, peace to you and thanks for your responses. I shall now go off and be depressed.

 

[scylla]

Since Evangelicals draw most of the same conclusions regarding the Word of God as does the RC church, and you say the Evangelicals are "unable to draw valid, logical conclusions from the Word of God, would this mean that where we draw the same conclusions at the RC church, the RC church is also being invalid and illogical? I think the logic follow as such. If not, your first statement is incorrect.

Don’t despair, we need to continue talking…

We are here for you.

There is a logical problem with this statement, if you misrepresent the posters statement “unable to draw valid, logical conclusions from the Word of God”, to mean those in accord with Catholicism. If any of those statements are in accord with Catholicism then there would be no logical problems, the problems are when you enter into the new beliefs, such as Sola Scriptura, individual Authority, and unity of believers.

By the way, have you read that book I linked to? If you have, do you see any logical problems in it?

In Christ
Scylla

 

[JesusforMadrid]

By the way, have you read that book I linked to? If you have, do you see any logical problems in it?

In Christ
Scylla

I´ll check it out when I can. Get your wife to convince my wife of the importance of on-line discussions!

Blessings to you.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

The difference between a Roman Catholic and a non-Catholic Christian is that the Roman Catholic believes that the church with HQ in Rome is the one founded by Jesus and hasn’t defected from the original vision seriously enough to be no longer meangifully Jesus’ institution. A non-Catholic either disagrees with that, or has a loyalty to a tradition that disagrees with that view.

1. I have read that at Vatican II, it was agreed that in order to be saved, one had to agree with the entire Magisterium of the Catholic faith, presumably meaning the dogmas enunciated in the Roman Catholic Catechism. Is this true? Does this mean that certain Roman Catholic theologians such as Hans Küng are in danger of not being saved because they do not embrace all of Roman C doctrine? Would a RC that practices birth control be outside of saving grace?

Kind of. The concern was that people should be allowed to use “conscience” for picking the bits of doctrine that they liked and rejecting the rest. However statements have varying degrees of authority. For instance all discussion of ordaining women as priests is banned. However it is fine to discuss priestly celibacy, but not OK for a priest to get married.
Normally people aren’t excommunicated for disagreeing, but for defying. If a Catholic acknowledges that birth control is sinful, then it is just an ordinary sin. If he disagrees with the teaching but acknowledges the right of the church to rule against it, it is similarly just an ordinary sin, but may be more serious because he is persuading himself that it doesn’t really count. However if he disagrees with the teaching and disagrees with the right of the church to make it, then he is moving outside of the church, inevitably because of the logic of what he is doing.

1. I have noticed that many RC apologists have difficulties in defending certain RC doctrines. On Catholic Answers, it seems that posters feel obliged sometimes to present even the most fatuous defenses of RC doctrine, again in my respectful opinion, on such issues as Marian devotion. Is RC doctrine such that you must accept it all or accept none of it? Is there a certain “domino theory” at work

The “domino theory” is correct. If we allow that the Church frequently makes major errors on points of doctrine, then what confidence can we have in the rest of the doctrine? That is the logic of the Reformation.
There are about 1 billion Catholics in the world. Not all of them are very clever. Some doctrines are easier to defend than others, I would agree, but the identity changes from age to age. No one would now try to deny that Africans have souls, for example, but plenty of people will deny the value of an unborn baby’s life.

1. A number of popes were considered corrupt and are even said to have died in a state of mortal sin, meaning they are destined for hell according to Roman C doctrine. Given this, how can you have faith in the authority of the Magisterium?

Yes. Let’s say Bloggs is a lawyer, and he personally believes in abortion. However he is hired by a pro-life group to overturn some pro-abortion law on legal grounds. Motivated entirely by the money, he wins the case. Blogg’s arguments against the constitutionalty of the law are not necessarily falllacious, even though he himself is an evil and mercenary man, lacking even loyalty to a wicked cause.

1. A number of councils and popes prior to Vatican II have pronounced that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Following Vatican II, Evangelicals and Othodox believers are now considered “separated bretheren”. I have heard all the explanations for this and how this does not really represent a change in doctrine. However, I remain unconvinced. Can the RC church change its doctrine so radically in this and other ways and still maintain “authority”.

This is the one case where you can say that a major doctrine was reversed. Arguably.

“Now, therefore, we declare, say, determine and pronounce that for every human creature it is necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff”
Boniface VIII.

That doesn’t leave much room for doubt. Salvation is not for non-members. However conditions have changed a lot since the Middle Ages, and now it seems embarrassing. So rahter than reverse the teaching, later Popes have tried to define it away by declaring that it is next to impossible to be outside the church.

Personally, and this is a very idiosyncratic view, I see “Extra ecclesiam nulla salus” as a teaching for the here and now, not one about the afterlife. It is possible to delude yourself that you are acting morally outside of the church, but it is not in fact possible to do so, and those who try to set themselves up as moral authorities apart from the church end up being a danger to other people. I am a Marxist. What we fondly imagine to be our moral values is, usually, simply a cloak for economic self-interest. Or class interest.

 

[scylla]

I can’t convince her that computers are interesting, I will try and maybe a miracle will get her on the forums.


Thanks and God Bless,
Scylla

 

[elvisman]

After trying to wrestle with issues on the periphery of the faith and getting unsatisfactory responses at times on questions that divide Roman Catholics with other Christians, I have come back to this: Authority. It is perhaps, I think, the core issue that divides many of us, regrettably.

On the authority of the Catholic Church and the Magesterium (Matt. 16:17, 18, 19):
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. **
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."**
John 16:13-15
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify me, because he will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that he will take from what is mine and declare it to you.
Matt. 18:15-18
"If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’
If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.
Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
2 Thess. 2:15
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours.
John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained."****

Only TWICE in Scripture does God breathe on or into man:
Once, when breathing life into Adam (Gen. 2:7) and here (John 20:22) when he gave his authority to the Apostles – the leaders of his Church.
In John 17:20-23, Jesus CLEARLY states that he intends for his Church to be united as ONE – not MANY – as he and the father are ONE.

 

[vern_humphrey]

1. I have read that at Vatican II, it was agreed that in order to be saved, one had to agree with the entire Magisterium of the Catholic faith, presumably meaning the dogmas enunciated in the Roman Catholic Catechism. Is this true? Does this mean that certain Roman Catholic theologians such as Hans Küng are in danger of not being saved because they do not embrace all of Roman C doctrine? Would a RC that practices birth control be outside of saving grace?

Short answer, yes.

A religion is defined by what it teaches. The dogmas of the Church are the core teachings, and to disbelieve them puts one outside the faith.

A Catholic who practices artificial birth control commits a sin. It can be forgiven. But one who persists in sin puts his or her soul in danger.

1. I have noticed that many RC apologists have difficulties in defending certain RC doctrines. For example, the otherwise well argumented Catholic Christianity, by RC apologist Peter Kreeft, is in my opinion markedly weak in defending such doctrines as the Assumption of Mary or the sinlessness of Mary. Yet, in spite of the difficulties, he makes the attempt because he is trying to explain the Catechism. On Catholic Answers, it seems that posters feel obliged sometimes to present even the most fatuous defenses of RC doctrine, again in my respectful opinion, on such issues as Marian devotion. Is RC doctrine such that you must accept it all or accept none of it? Is there a certain “domino theory” at work, that if a rather minor aspect of the modern RC faith such as, for example, purgatory, were to be put in doubt, the entire faith would come crashing down?

Not everyone who defends the faith is totally knowledgeable. Some things in the Faith are mysteries. But one who rejects what the Church teaches de fide rejects the Faith.

1. A number of popes were considered corrupt and are even said to have died in a state of mortal sin, meaning they are destined for hell according to Roman C doctrine. Given this, how can you have faith in the authority of the Magisterium? Does authority come from the perceived granting to Peter the keys to the Kingdom as Pope? Or does it come from the perceived holiness of the bishops? If the Pope and a majority of the bishops were not leading holy lives, would the Magisterium’s interpretation of scripture on issues such as the Assumption or birth control still be binding on all Roman Catholics?

No one is considered to be destied for Hell – the Church does not have the power to read a man’s mind as he lies on his deathbed. But certainly some Popes were corrupt. However, the Pope is only infallible, not impeccable.

1. A number of councils and popes prior to Vatican II have pronounced that there is no salvation outside of the Roman Catholic Church. Following Vatican II, Evangelicals and Othodox believers are now considered “separated bretheren”. I have heard all the explanations for this and how this does not really represent a change in doctrine. However, I remain unconvinced. Can the RC church change its doctrine so radically in this and other ways and still maintain “authority”.

Thanks, sorry for the prolix questions and God Bless.

“No salvation outside the Church” is a difficult doctrine. We accept that Protestants are Christians, albeit in imperfect communion with the Church. We accept that Jews who died before the time of Christ were saved – after all, Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ at the Transfiguration.

The key is, we accept that Jesus died for all. His plan of salvation is in the Church, and by virtue of the Church those who struggle toward a Christ-like life, even if invincibly ignorant of the truth, may be saved by His sacrifice.

 

[JonathanKinsman]

I´ll check it out when I can. Get your wife to convince my wife of the importance of on-line discussions!

Blessings to you.

Don’t worry about the impossible, JesusforMadrid, just try and remember to address us as Catholics. Many here follow the Latin rite of liturgy for Mass (and thus the former Protestant perjorative ‘Roman Catholic’) and many belong to other rites of the Catholic Church.

We all believe the same things but our demonstration of our beliefs through the liturgy and sacramentals are different due to cultural (and preferential choices) upbringing.

Catholic Church. Catholic Catechism. Catholic doctrine.

Even my wife, who’s Jewish, gets it correct!

 

[valient_Lucy]

1. A number of popes were considered corrupt and are even said to have died in a state of mortal sin, meaning they are destined for hell according to Roman C doctrine. Given this, how can you have faith in the authority of the Magisterium? Does authority come from the perceived granting to Peter the keys to the Kingdom as Pope? Or does it come from the perceived holiness of the bishops? If the Pope and a majority of the bishops were not leading holy lives, would the Magisterium’s interpretation of scripture on issues such as the Assumption or birth control still be binding on all Roman Catholics?

Thanks, sorry for the prolix questions and God Bless.

This question is a simple one to answer. A bishop or Pope’s authority has nothing to do with their perceived holiness. It comes from the Sacrament of Ordination, and, in the case of the Pope, from the office that he holds.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Thanks for your response. So what the RC church is saying is that justification by “faith” is not simply putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Saviour and God. It is also putting your faith and trust in:

1. The RC church’s interpretation of Scripture
2. The RC’s additions to Scripture, which are not contained in Scripture, which is believes have come through tradition
3. The RC church’s view on morality, including such issues as birth control.

Have I got this right? I don’t want to misrepresent the Roman position.

Assuming this is right, it would then follow that liberal Catholic theologians such as Hans Küng, are not justified (or “saved” in Evangelical terminology) in spite of having been baptised, and thus are rejecting eternal life.

Regarding #3, it would also follow that the more than 80% of RCs in the US that use birth control, or the similarly high number of baptised RCs here in Spain, that use birth control, are not justified (or “saved”) and are also rejecting eternal life.

I think I am now even more confused (or surprised) than before, but I thank you for graciously bearing with me.

One thing to keep in mind is Catholics don’t think of a person as being “saved” as a flash of lightening. A Catholic response ot the question, “Are you saved?” would be, “I have been saved, I am being saved, and I hope that I will continue to be saved.” Catholics beleive that God wants to make all of His followers holy. This process of perfecting us is part of salvation. So, salvation is more of a process, than an instananeous moment.
Objectively, yes, a person who rejects the teachings of the Church, or a couple that uses contraception, are committing grave sins. HOWEVER, Catholics should not attempt to judge on the eternal salvation of another individual. Such a person COULD go to Hell; it may even be probable. However, we cannot state with any certainty that someone is in Hell or will be in Hell or not, not even Judas.

 

[valient_Lucy]

This thread has really raised some key questions for me regarding if we can really be considered “fellow believers” or “separated bretheren”, as Vatican II declares. Let me explain.

I. I understand from another poster that to be justified, a RC must accept the entire RC Magisterium in all matter in its interpretation of Scripture and tradition and in its guidance on morality.

1. I do not accept the authority of the RC Magisterium in all matters.
2. Therefore, I am not justified. So, I might be a “believer”, but then so was Satan. And “separated bretheren” cannot really mean much if this is all it means.

If you truly believe that the Catholic Church is not the Church that Christ founded, then yes, you can still be saved, even though you do not accept the teachings of the Church.
IF however, you did come to believe that the Catholic Church is the Church that Christ founded, and you REFUSED to become Catholic and submit to her teachings DESPITE the fact that you believe her to be Christ’s Church, THEN you could not be saved. So from a Catholic position, you could still be saved, and provided you have been baptized, you could rightly be called a “seperated brother.”

This is really confusing from an Evangelical point of view, since we believe that one is a Christian if one has received justification. He does this if he confesses his sins and puts his faith and trust in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. Typically, we would add that this implies accepting the Bible as God’s inspired word and submitting our lives to Him. (I am trying to be brief here).

Yet, if R Catholics say I am not justified, from an Evangelical perspective, you are saying I am not a Christian. So “brother” seems strange to describe our relationship.

See above. If you truly believe that this is what Christ wants you to do to be saved, and you do that to the best of your abillity, and respond to the grace He gives you, then you COULD be saved. So, you could be considered a brother, albiet a seperated one.

By contrast, you say we are somehow connected by baptism. If being a Christian is simply being baptised, than 90% of Spain is already Christian. Yet many of these do not believe. When you say “believer”, are you saying just “baptised”? Because in my experience in my country is that most “baptised” are not “believers”, sadly.

Catholics believe that it is at baptism that are sins (including original sin) are forgiven, and that we become a part of the Body of Christ. This does not mean that we are going to heaven, or that we can never reject Christ or the Church. People do. I imagine Hell is filled with people who have been baptized. However, Baptism is a permanent mark on the soul, that can never be completly erased, no matter how badly a person sins. Even if a Catholic abandons the Church and becomes an abortion provider, he will never need to be “rebaptized” if he decides to return to the Church.

Think of it this way. Suppose a wife abandons her husband and lives with another man. Neither she nor her husband file for divorce. Despite the fact that she is an adulterer, she is still married. This does not mean, either, that she can continue to commit adultery. But if she one day abandons her lover and returns to her husband, they will not need to be remarried. (Just LOTS of marriage counceling.)

This discussion has actually depressed me rather profoundly concerning the potential for co-operation between Evangelicals and Catholics because:

1. We view authority completely differently
2. We define the basis for justification completely differently
3. We even define “Christian” completely differently.

Am I wrong here? I am beginning to doubt if such ecumenical documents as “Evangelicals and Catholic Together: The Gift of Salvation” or the “Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification” by Lutherans and Roman Catholics, both of which I viewed previously very positively, have any meaning whatsoever. It seems we have completely different definitions.

Anyway, peace to you and thanks for your responses. I shall now go off and be depressed.

Try Zoloft. It’s wonderful
Some of it is different definitions, and some of it is different lingo and jargon. That’s why talking is so important, so we make sure we’re talking about the same thing.

 

[Santos]

Hey JesusforMadrid “aka” Noma

All your threads have repeated the same arguments:

Church Authority, keys to the Kingdom, popes, the Assumption of Mary, the practice of birth control, and the position of the Anglican Church being centered in early Christian practice, rather then the RC church. etc. etc. etc.

A month from now you’ll have the same arguments and you’ll continue to remain set in your views. Instead of trying to convince your wife of the importance of on-line discussions, I think it is you who needs to be convinced of the importance of time with your wife.

Time with your beloved will flourish more for you then any time you can spend on this forum. The truth hurts! Sorry…

Okay Michael Francis, you can ban me now!

 

[Mannyfit75]

Hey JesusforMadrid “aka” Noma

All your threads have repeated the same arguments:

Church Authority, keys to the Kingdom, popes, the Assumption of Mary, the practice of birth control, and the position of the Anglican Church being centered in early Christian practice, rather then the RC church. etc. etc. etc.

A month from now you’ll have the same arguments and you’ll continue to remain set in your views. Instead of trying to convince your wife of the importance of on-line discussions, I think it is you who needs to be convinced of the importance of time with your wife.

Time with your beloved will flourish more for you then any time you can spend on this forum. The truth hurts! Sorry…

Okay Michael Francis, you can ban me now!

How do you know Noma is JesusforMadrid?

 

[hoosierdaddy]

**Vern>>A religion is defined by what it teaches. The dogmas of the Church are the core teachings, and to disbelieve them puts one outside the faith.

A Catholic who practices artificial birth control commits a sin.**

So I am outside of the faith? Even though I am a Christian? I find that offensive.

As for artificial birth control being a sin, where did you come up with that? Did you draw that out of a hat? It’s not the topic of the thread but if anyone wants to start a new thread I’d be glad to hear what everyone has to say. I don’t believe it’s a sin.

 

[Santos]

I had a special interest in Noma, He’s a very smart man, taught RCIA, he’s looking into the Anglican Church, he has a personel problem with the Church’s view of birth control practices, and he completely rejects Church Authority, the popes, the Assumption of Mary… etc.

Both Noma and JesusforMadrid write exactly the same, both using identical quotes… Noma last posted Dec. 27th with an average of 9 posts per day, Jan 3rd JesusforMadrid became a member with as much fire, posting repeated arguments.

Someone like Noma would not just “stop” posting… Although Noma’s last post was Dec. 27th, His last activity was today when he viewed this thread, before logging on as JesusforMadrid and posting his reply. His wife has always thought he spent to much time on this forum.

Anyways… It’s Noma

 

[hoosierdaddy]

Vern>>“No salvation outside the Church” is a difficult doctrine. We accept that Protestants are Christians, albeit in imperfect communion with the Church. We accept that Jews who died before the time of Christ were saved – after all, Moses and Elijah appeared with Christ at the Transfiguration.

My apologies then. You don’t believe that I’m not a Christian. But I do think you are mistaken about communion with the Church. The Church belongs to Jesus Christ and I and any other Protestant are in perfect communion with Him and thus in perfect communion with His Church. I don’t have to fight to be accepted; I am accepted by Christ. God bless.