Are Catholics really Christians?

I have always loved the Robber on the Cross hanging beside Jesus. Despite the hideous Passion of our crucified Lord when Jesus was so debased in His humanity, despite the other criminal abusing Jesus, the robber made a beautiful act of faith, aknowledging Jesus as Lord and begging to be remembered by Him.

 

Ok here we go. New day new year.

It is a given that most people on this board can find some error in the doctrines of the RCC. Most do not agree with "all" the teachings of the Catholic church. And some may not believe that Catholic faith is actually Christian. (To be honest. It is not unnusual to go to a Catholic message board and see Catholic themselves contrast "Catholic vs Christian" claiming that the Christians are an offshoot)

And while "Almost ALL" might agree with the pure Bible-based doctrines handed to Israel - before the Cross - yet almost all would see them (meaning Jews) "needing" to go further and accept Jesus as THE Messiah.

(And while I am at it most on this board do not agree with my beliefs in all points and as Ray has pointed out there is at least some division here as to whether Adventists are Christians)

This is just being honest and objective it is not a matter of "hey you hurt my feelings if you believe that".

My question is - how much error causes someone to be lost. Were the saints among the Jews saved right up until Christ died - and then they all became lost again until they accepted Him as Messiah?

How much "salvation-by-right-story" do you have and how "perfectly" must that "right-story" match "your story" to be valid?

In the case of the RCC "they teach" that because non-RC's don't have enough of the "right story" they can not be saved by the Bible New Covenant. (We don't enter into the RC Mass and in fact are denied entry unless we agree to more of their story). They say we must be saved by some "other" way not specified in scripture.

So that is Christians regarding Jews and Catholics regarding Christians - what about other groups?

In Christ,

Bob

 

Brother Bob,

It all boils down to the fact that salvation remains in the hands of God, and as scripture states over and over again, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you will be saved......" A very huge period. All the rest is fanciful and may be true doctrine, but not essential to salvation.

The same is true of the Jews of old, they were brought to truth by faith and it is by faith, through the grace of God, they were redeemed.

I can disagree strongly with a friend, but they ought to remain my friend, and nothing should change that.

Cheers, and by the way, Happy New Year, my friend,

Jim

 

For the sake of arguement, sure.

My point...er...the point of purgatory is, however, the losing of that sin-nature. The Catholics merely name this process. That, theologically speaking, is all Purgatory is. Nothing more, nothing less. And regardless of where the robber goes, he loses that sin nature, being washed in the blood of christ.

Paul speaks of it when he says that on "that Day" we will be tested as through fire and what is lacking in our foundation will burn up and some will be "saved as through fire". There is no salvation in hell, and no loss in heaven - therefore he is speaking of this matter of purgatory without using a name coined later.

I believe being "asleep in christ" is a colloquialsim. Hebrew's 1 shows us that they are a great cloud of witnesses. Revelation 5 has the elders in heaven presenting our prayers on earth as incense to god. They are aware of us and not merely "asleep".

You still think that purgatory is a place. Theologically speaking it is not a place per se. It is only that state of loosing of one's "sin nature" as discussed above.

Now that process could be painful - but before the resurrection we won't have bodies so it won't be physically painful.

It may have other aspects but the RCC hasn't defined them. Certain of their saints have had "visions" but those are PRIVATE revlations, intended mostly for them and with imagry that would evoke the meaning for THEM that Heaven found necessary.

There is no set time in purgatory. It is outside of time. A day and a 1000 years would be indistinguishable.

While I have a few issues with the "sleeping in paradise" bit as I think you misunderstand a colloquialism used by a people known for hyperbolic idioms, but other than that no, I have no problem with what you've said right there. It doesn't not mesh with what I've been saying (pardon the double negative).

Moreover, do we have a way to know who is misinterpreting the bible? Do we have a way to know that all 27 books of the New Testament belong there and are not spurious? Do we even have a way of knowing who is in error about anything? Is doubt to be cast upon the entire gospel? How do I know I'm interpreting it right? I feel right? Were we given no means of knowing non-subjectively? For if we were not, the Christianity is a relativistic religion and I don't think any of us are ready to admit to that.

No they don't. They teach that the Catholic Church is Christ's one true church and that all who are saved are a part of it. But they acknowledge that some are not formal members out of ignorance and that God will judge those people accordingly (John 15:22).

Where do they say this? Show me on a site which isn't non-catholic.

Indeed.

 

Jim - Happy New year to you and I hope you had a very Merry Christmas.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Ga 2:4 (KJV) And that because of false brethren unawares brought in, who came in privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage:
Ga 2:5 (KJV) To whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour; that the truth of the gospel might continue with you.

bro. Dallas

 

What Zealouswest didn't answer to me is whether Robber went to Purgatory or not. Would you answer by yes, no?

 

A couple of points:-

1. Purgatory - this as I understand it is the post-mortem process by which we go from being forensically justified and declared righteous (by faith) to being actually made righteous. Now, I don't know of any Protestant or evangelical who has a problem with the concept of that process whilst we are alive - we call it sanctification - so I'm not sure why we have a problem with the idea of the process continuing, if necessary, after death; I guess it's just because, rather like the term Mother of God, it strikes us as too Catholic and we instinctively recoil from it. But, to my mind, it stands to reason that when I get called home to heaven, there is likely to still be some 'unfinished business' on the sanctification front eg: if I were to drop down dead at my keyboard after I finished typing this(!); logic suggests, therefore, the need for some kind of purgative post-mortem event/ process to finalise and make complete that sanctification.

2. 'No salvation outside of the Catholic Church' ("extra ecclesiam nulla salus"). (I have to be careful because I got myself suspended last time I tried to explain this!). First off, let's look at the source of this quote in its context. It comes from Lumen Gentium (can't do a link on this machine; just Google for it; I think it's arts 14 & 15 of LG which are pertinent). The context speaks of someone who knows that the Catholic Church is necessary for salvation and knowing this leaves. Those like me who are non-Catholic Christians do not know or even believe that the CC is "necessary for salvation", so that condemnation does not apply to us. Secondly, many Catholic commentators now interpret the word "ecclesia" to include not just the Roman Catholic Church but all Christians in whatever denomination. Viewed in the light of that interpretation, I think that most evangelicals could agree with the LG statement ie: read it as "those who are not Christians are not saved".

Oh, and Happy New Year everyone!

 

First of all Purgatory has nothing to do with the Christian concept of Sanctification. Purgatory has to do with "paying for your own sins" in the case of purgatory - venial sins.

Purgatory may be "cut short" by having a loved one convincing Christ to pay the debt for you or you could even get a dead saint to pay it for you. The process requires that you get the RCC to write out a check (indulgence) for you -- a check that is a promisary note based on the sufferings of dead saints and of Christ.

#2. "No salvation outside the church" has until Vatican II meant NO SALVATION outside the RCC! (this just isn't that hard to get). For example - this meant that Jews were not going to heaven -- NOT just ex-catholics.

Futhermore the RCC historically did NOT hesitate to persecute protestants EVEN if they had NEVER BEEN Catholic.

See the documents from the RCC on the "Extermination of heretics". They justified inquisition and torture by claiming that the the sufferings THEY were causing the poor Protestant were NOTHING compared to what they would get in eternally burning hell. And obviously that is where they were going SINCE it was believed that there is "no salvation outside the church".

In Christ,

Bob

 

I believe there are born again Catholics.

Not a great many, but its certainly possible. When an organisation proclaims a false gospel and contains as much heresy and blasphemous practices as the church of Rome does, it makes it unlikely that very many are born of the Spirit.

I believe they can be in the church of Rome for any number of reasons.

1) They can be in there because they have been born of the Spirit through the witness of actual born again people, evangelicals of some sort, and they now stay in in order to witness from within.

2) They can be in it because they have somehow stumbled upon saving faith and they just dont pay much attention to what the church teaches. They simply dont know how the Catholic Hierarchy perverts the true gospel to where it becomes a false one that will not save.

3) They can be in it simply because its what they were raised in, and they love it. They have become born again and now know the truth, and they just let all of the Mary heresy, and all of the "eating Jesus" heresy, all of the "not saved by faith alone, must have works" false gospel, and so much else that is heretical and blasphemous go in one ear and right out the other.

I do feel fairly confident that there arent many who are born again the church of Rome, and surely those who are born of the Spirit will more than likely not be in the Hierarchy at any level.

I have less concern regarding the salvation of some regular folk in the CC then with hierarchial members of the "clergy" such as popes, priests, nuns, etc.

Even people like John Paul II or Mother Teresa. I certainly hope that both of those people somehow found Jesus, but I believe its pretty unlikely.

Sadly,

Mike

 

Bob, I believe history pretty much proves that not only did Catholics persecute, but the Protestants weren’t actually little angles during these times either. The Protestants did their fair share of persecuting Catholics as well.

Being a fundy my whole life, that’s all I heard was how bad the Catholics were, until I opened a history book and discovered that I was only hearing one side of the story, which has been about the truth of all Catholic doctrines I’ve been taught.

 

Here are my thoughts on this whole Mary as “Co-Redemptrix”. First, you will agree that the cross didn’t save us, Christ did. The cross however was part of the process of redemption and this is how I can, as a Protestant, relate to Mary, not in a sense that she is equal to Christ or that there are 2 redeemers acting in unison, but you will agree that without Mary or any other woman for that matter to give birth to God’s only begotten Son, there would be no redemption as we know it.

As “eating Jesus” goes, as your regard to Mass, I would only ask one question…Who would be more likely to have understood the Apostles better? The early Church Fathers or the Reformers?

 

riverm,

I said...

And you said...

Interestingly, I was flipping through the channels tonight and came across EWTN as some program about Mary was ending and the host was singing her praises as the show was ending. As is so often the case when watching EWTN, I was stunned at what I heard.

He said something like...

"But because Mary said YES!..."

...and this was said as if God was up in heaven with his fingers crossed saying "Oh, I hope I hope I hope she says 'yes!' so that she will allow me to do this plan of mine!".

(of course, she had already been selected and told what was going to happen. Her "yes" meant nothing more than that she was a humble God fearing young girl. She was giving nobody permission to do anything)

He continued...

"...she now sits enthroned as the Queen of Heaven and grants our petitions and prayers as our intercessor and mediatrix between us and God!"

Pure unadulterated blasphemy and idolatry in full living color.

And that is not in any way some kind of "extreme" Mariolatry on disply there. That is normal run of the mill "stock" Catholic idolatry regarding Mary.

Me...

You...

And that right there that you just posted is related to another foundational error in Catholicism.

One primary poisionous error of Catholicism is that they refuse to turn to the scriptures alone as our truth source. Rather, they turn to whatever their Hierarchial theologians dream up and decide is true, and it...becomes true, because they say so! They call that the "Teaching Magesterium" and all Catholics are commanded to abide by everything the Teaching Magesterium thunders forth because they are told that God Himself protects then from ever being in error.

But another evidence of their desire to turn from the scriptures is that they place great import on what some "early church Father" said. Ignoring the fact that even as the scriptures where being written heresies and false teachings were already spreading like cancer. Because some "early church father" believed something or taught something means nothing if it contradicts the scriptures.

Thats why its so very important that we turn to the only unchanging truth standard that God has given us to test everything against...His scriptures. And we are to test all things against those scriptures...including the ideas of the early "Church Fathers".

If anything that those fathers taught contradicts the truth found in the scriptures...it is to be thrown on the dung heap with everything else that belongs there.

It is of no concern to me what the early church fathers, or the reformers, thought...if it contradicts the truth.

The truth is found in "what sayeth the Lord" in His scriptures.

And His scriptures make abundantly clear that we do not feed upon the Lord Jesus Christ by eating Him every Sunday, but rather we feed upon Him through the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

And that is through faith alone, just as our justification is through faith alone.

"As you have recieved Christ Jesus the Lord..."

By faith alone of course.

"...so walk ye in Him"

Also through faith.

God bless,

Mike

 

riverm,

Sometimes I go off on rabbit trails and all kinds of tangents in my posts. I think I did in my last post. Here is my reply more concisely...

Not as we know it. Of course, God can do as He pleases. He could save us however he wants to, but yes there had to be a woman if Christ was going to be God incarnate, the God/Man, which He was of course.

But that is no justification to lift Mary up in even the tiniest degree. She is to get no credit for our redemption...none.

Mary simply was the one whom God chose. He never asked her if she was OK with it, or waited to see if she would agree to it. The Angel told her what had happened, and what would happen to her.

He could have chosen any other girl. And Mary would agree with everything I am saying here. She was the one who referred to herself as only a humble handmaiden, and confessed that she was nothing but a sinner in need of a savior.

She has no part of being any co-redemptrix, co-mediator, co-anything...other than co-sinner along with the rest of us.

On the other hand, here are some normal Catholic prayers to Mary. These are not abnormal excessive prayers in any way. These reflect the normal Catholic position regarding the sinner Mary.

(A link to the Univ of Dayton site they came from will be at the end.)

That is nothing less than idolatry of the highest order.

Click on...Catholic Maryolatry

Very sadly,

Mike

 

I don't agree with so-called Mariolatry, but I do think those of us in the other denominations (so-called Protestant) do not show enough respect for Mary, the earthly mother of our precious Lord Jesus.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Only a few people would put up with disrespecting their mother. I wonder how Jesus feels about the way some Protestants say bad things about His mother.

Without Mary we would have not received a Savior and you know what would have happened to all of us then.

 

Some Excerpts about No Salvation outside Roman Catholic church

http://www.geocities.com/orthopapism/eens_papal.html

Council of Trent, (1563)
Pope Gregory XIII, (1572-1585)

"No one can be saved outside this true Catholic faith." (Profession of Faith, D. 1085, D. 1000

Pope Benedict XIV, (1740-1758)

"No one can be saved without the faith of the Catholic Church." (Nuper Ad Nos, D. 1473)

Pope Leo XII, (1823-1829)

Pope Leo XII (A.D. 1823 - 1829): "We profess that there is no salvation outside the Church. ...For the Church is the pillar and ground of the truth. With reference to those words Augustine says: `If any man be outside the Church he will be excluded from the number of sons, and will not have God for Father since he has not the Church for mother.'" (Encyclical, Ubi Primum)

Pope Pius VIII, (1829-1830)

"It will be especially fitting to remember this firm dogma of our religion: that outside the true Catholic faith no one can be saved." (cf. Recollections of the Last Four Popes, Cardinal Nicholas Wiseman, London: 1858)

Pope Gregory XVI, (1831-1846)

Pope Gregory XVI (A.D. 1831 - 1846): "It is not possible to worship God truly except in Her; all who are outside Her will not be saved." (Encyclical, Summo Jugiter)

Pope Pius IX (A.D. 1846 - 1878)

"It must be held by faith that outside the Apostolic Roman Church, no one can be saved; that this is the only ark of salvation; that he who shall not have entered therein will perish in the flood." (Denzinger 1847)

 

[Edited to remove question about another poster's salvation which is in violation of the BB posting rules.]
To me, I am not confident with many things,whether I can or cannot.
However, onething which I am so convinced is that I have been saved and will go to Heaven after my death any time, not because I have all the business finished so well, but because Jesus Christ has done everything for me, even dying for my sins.

[ January 03, 2006, 05:43 AM: Message edited by: Bible-boy ]

 

I dont know if these comments about "disrespecting" Mary are directed at me or not, because of my recent posts, but if they are...

I am not "disrespecting" Jesus earthly mother at all. I have referred to her as a "humble" and "God fearing" young girl.

But nothing else I said about Mary is disrespecting her at all, merely saying the truth about her.

She is not a "co-redemptrix", "co-mediatrix", or "advocate" om our behalf. She is not "enthroned" as the "Queen of the Universe".

She is not omnipresent, and so she can not hear millions of "prayers" to her from all times zones at the same time.

None of that I believe to be "disrespecting" Mary.

The "disrespect" of Mary would be the Goddess worship that the Catholic Church promotes towards her.

I believe that disturbs our Lord very very much.

Grace and peace,

Mike

 

So salvation is predicated on a human? Mary was nothing more than a tool God used...her existence by no means resulted in salvation.