Officating a funeral

Actually, that isn't true. Catholics believe that they are saved by works.

Baptism, confession, membership in the church, last rites, etc, are all seen as salvific.

And then, there's the issue of expiating one's sins in Purgatory.

Funny, the family my mother married into was VERY Catholic and I became Catholic for a few years and even went to Catholic schools and CCD classes. We did have that problem.

What's more, the Catholics I talk to have this problem and the Catholics people I talk with have witnessed to have this problem.

 

Funny my family is catholic and they don't have this problem. Let me give you a for instance.

In scriptural studies The first discussion they have is " which 'tense' are you applying to this passage?" They mean understanding it under these different senses:
Literal, Spiritual, Allegorical, Moral, and anagogical. If you try to imply something that hasn't been consistantly taught in the latter 4 senses then you might have problems but that doesn't mean the literal sense isn't taken. What I found they have a problem with is the "underlying spiritual views" that are contrasted against a moral stand point. Thus you can't read into scripture its ok for an abortion. Or that Homosexuality is ok. Catholics are supposed to view scripture on equal authority with their tradition.

 

One can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
I put answers right in front of your nose, and the only rebuttal is "pontificating." You don't accept the truth. You don't want to hear the truth. You reject the truth concerning the RCC. You always have. Even concerning the above statement the RCC believes in a works based salvation as those on this board have been telling you. Are you inferring that each and every one of us who are ex-Catholics are all liars, do not know the truth, or were not well-taught in the Catholic churches we attended. We all know the stock answers that Catholics give us, so don't insult our intelligence. The Catholics don't separate sanctification from works. Works is a part of their salvation. Without works, according to the RCC, their is no salvation. Salvation is not by grace through faith alone. They preach a false gospel and thus through that gospel cannot be saved.

 

First that isn't entirely true. You have to understand their lingo. Getting to heaven is by grace through faith

or spelled out

Salvation to a catholic is more than just getting to heaven but is inclusive of being redeemed from a life of sin so that they view sanctification as an important part but its still Grace by God alone which saves. They do not believe works get them into heaven

I think between our faiths there is a lot of definition problems. However, once you get pass that you see things are often different than you initially think.

 

My response about you pontificating is because that is what you are doing. Making some statement that sounds lofty but says nothing. I can quote scripture all day long and if it doesn't apply what's the point?

I'm saying that either you did not understand your faith or it was given to you wrong. Since, I've been on this site and things you've said weren't jiving with what my father said (who is Catholic) and what I remember growing up under him. I've set out to study the catholic faith and most of what I've heard Catholics who aren't Catachized properly and what is said here is mostly nonsense. I've read through a lot of material since. I've read encylicals, I've read the Catachism through, I've read the ECF (primarily before however) as it conserns Catholics here. I've come to the conclusion that even many clergy get it wrong. I've spoken with Canon laywers about certain topics and developed a resource and friendship with a Monk who is a teacher at a Catholic Seminary. I run some of the things said here against them and they answer contrarily to you and others I've heard. Now there are issues I have but they aren't what you are saying. And the more I've studied the more I am certain there are saved Catholics. The more I study as well the more firmly I believe the church has evolved over time. But the truths in the scripture remain the same. I believe the Catholic, Orthodox, Copts, Syriacs, Assyrians, are all churches that developed with in their culture just as I believe baptist churches are developed in our culture. Most misunderstandings I think are cultural in nature. Which is why definition I find is often what is misleading.

 

I do.

Actually, they do. In fact, not only do they believe it, but the Council of Trent declared that anybody who doesn't believe it to be anathema.

I see. So then, you think that the Protestant Reformation happened because those silly old Reformers just didn't understand "Catholic lingo"?

 

No. I think there were abuses by the Catholic Church leaders during the reformation however I think some reformers went overboard and I think some catholic clergy went over board. Before all was said and done they were killing each other. And trent clarified that faith without works is dead. In other words if your not doing what is right by faith then its likely you don't have faith. They wanted to get away from the position that all you had to do was believe something and then could just sin all you want. In the end I think the reformation worked in that it pointed out the abuses in the Catholic Church and the Church reformed itself which can be seen in Trent and Both Vatican Councils.

 

I don't mean to say that the catholic church is without error. But we have the same roots and, undoubtedly, there are many catholics who come to saving faith in Christ. Disagreeing with theology is fine. Do that as much as you wish, but we cannot deny our commonalities.

 

And you don't think that the Reformation occurred because of serious issues with Catholic heresies?

Actually, that's not what it says. It calls us anathema because we don't believe that our works can save us.

 

Yeah, they get saved and then they leave Catholicism.

So how many heresies does Catholicism have to teach before you acknowledge that it's not Biblical?

 

Not always. Not usually.

I'm not saying that I am supportive of the majority of catholic doctrine which makes it distinctly and uniquely catholic, but I'm speaking from a historical perspective here when I say we are the same Church.

I am truly quite shocked from the venom of the anti-catholic folks here. I got that a lot growing up, but I'm surprised it comes from so many clerical mouths.

 

Why would a born again person stay in a cult? And if they are still affirming Catholic teaching, then that's a huge red flag that they're not born again.

First of all, I fixed your post for you. It's "anti-Catholicism", not anti-Catholic.

Why would you think that Christians wouldn't speak out against the heresies of Catholicism?

 

I think it had more to do with practices than heresies lets look out of Luther's 95 Theses the Catholic Church agreed with 54 points of the document and asked to retract 41. Of the 41 Statements the Catholic Church wrote a rebutal explaining their position. So it seems they were more in agreement than not. Here are some of its rebuttals

just an example. and most of it seems to be clearing up something that was wrongly believed as is now.

Anathema is anyone who holds that faith isn't reflected in their works. Thus no works no faith. Is what the council was going for.

They wanted to avoid people think that all they had to do was believe and then not act on it. Its rather clear.

 

I'm with jaigner here... I can't find where WE are to go to war with those who stand apart from our views on Scripture, especially those who, though with a different interpretation on some points, claim Christ. The simple truth is, we would not exist today without God's actions through what we now call the Roman Catholic Church.

Now, can we open the Word and do what it says (exhort, rebuke, edify, etc.)? Of course. But to openly hate a group of believers in Christ simply because they have a point or two of doctrine that differs with our own is silliness and worse... sin.

I've locked heads in debate with several Catholic persons in the past 6 months or so. They are not as far apart from the majority Baptist view as most like to think. They do tend to define a few terms differently than we do, and they have (admittedly) revised history in their favor, but their core theology in the fundamentals (that word again) is sound.

Many here on the board will argue until they are blue in the face that the sole requirement to be called Christian is a belief in the resurrected Christ. Those same people take to task Calvinists who hold to the sovereignty of God and also Catholics, who are more Arminian in doctrine than Calvinists. Something is mixed up somewhere. It is almost like they argue against themselves. C.f., James 1:8; 1:19-20

 

That isn't what it says. It says that those who believe they can be saved apart from salvific works on their own part are anathema.

Actually, it is very clear, which makes your gross misrepresentation of it all the more glaring.

 

Yeah, I hear that nonsense from Catholics all the time. Perhaps you could explain to us the Biblical justification you've found to allow heretics to come into our church are preach the false gospel of Roman Catholicism.

Yet another straw man. Nobody is talking about hating anybody.

And for the record, we're not talking about "a point or two of doctrine that differs from our own". We're talking about a whole slough of doctrines so Unbiblical as to mark them as an entirely seperate and distinct religion, no more Christian than Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.

Then you don't know the fundamentals.

Really? Who? Name one.

 

Actually, it is. They do not want to get away from the sense that James speaks of faith. I quoted the topic. Its quite clear. They don't want someone to say "Oh I believe" and thats it. Faith is expemplified in the works it produces. To not have fruit is to not have faith. Especially, this can be seen in the context of their other documents. Salvation apart from faith? No. Faith apart from the fruit of faith? no. That is exactly how they view it. Here is an example from a Catholic Author

This is the idea purpetrated by Trent.

 

Conversion doesn't mean ones theology gets fixed overnight. And many of them choose to remain in catholicism for a myriad of reasons. You and I can't be the judge.

Scary thing is, catholic teaching isn't much further from the truth than many mainlines, evangelicals, and *gasp* fundamentalists anyway.

I know what I said. And the attitude is clear in the first place. Careful not to put words in someone's mouth.

If engaged, I will discuss where I differ from catholic doctrine. I'm not about to make a fool of myself getting up and shouting that it's some kind of cult to anyone within earshot.

 

OK. The RCC proclaims the validity of paedo-baptisms. Do you differ?