Can Catholics Be Christians?

The Orthodox Presbyterian Church ^

[Gamecock]

I just came from a funeral service for an aunt of mine who was a staunch Catholic. I came out of that religion about 25 years ago after reading for myself what the Bible had to say. My question surrounds the actuality of salvation for all the millions who still practice Mary worship and so forth. Knowing that one cannot serve two masters, I wonder at how it is possible that the aforementioned can really experience Christ in a saving way, while they continue to believe that the church of Rome is solely responsible for their eternal welfare.

Answer:

Greetings in Christ Jesus our Lord and only Savior. Thank you for your question.

Unless a person is clearly outside the pale of the Christian faith, I do not believe that you can judge the "actuality" or "reality" of someone's salvation. You may judge the "credibility" of their faith; or you may question the "probability" of someone's salvation. You may also ask, as you have done, "how it is possible that the aforementioned can really experience Christ in a saving way."

None of us, however, can truly say that we are perfect in knowledge or practice. We are always growing both in wisdom and in the grace of God. Is it possible for someone who prays to Mary to be a true Christian? In other words, can someone who is truly saved be in error on such an issue?

Conscious compromise of God's truth can be serious and deadly, but we also see from Scripture that in his mercy God may (and does) choose to accept less than perfect understanding and obedience, even of his own people. (Indeed, isn't the salvation and the perseverance of the saints dependent upon that fact?) There will be growth in understanding and holiness, but perfection must await our going to be with Jesus or His return to take us unto himself (see 1 John 3:2).

In the Old Testament, consider Asa in 1 Kings 15. He removed the idols from the land, but he allowed the high places to remain. The high places were clearly unacceptable. But the text states that Asa was loyal to the Lord his entire life. How could this be? Had he not seriously compromised?

What about the New Testament? Consider the Corinthians. Was the church at Corinth an exemplary church? Did they not have many doctrinal problems, e.g., concerning the Lord's Supper and the doctrine of the resurrection? (See 1 Cor. 11 and 1 Cor. 15.) Did even the apostles fully understand? Even though what they wrote was protected from error, did they not grow and mature in their own understanding and obedience? Wasn't it necessary at one point, for instance, for Paul to rebuke Peter for his inconsistency? (See Gal. 2.)

My point is not to defend the doctrinal aberrations of Rome. I do not believe such is possible. I think, however, that people generally follow their leaders. They learn from them; they consider their arguments rational and coherent.

For example, consider devotion to Mary. I read Jarislov Pellikan's Mary Through the Centuries and I cannot get past page 10 before I am wondering why the author is so blind to the fallacies of his arguments. However, if I were not being so critical and I were already predisposed to the position, then his arguments would perhaps seem irrefutable. So then, we should boldly, patiently, and compassionately discuss these matters with our loved ones, praying that the Holy Spirit will grant them more understanding.

Whatever we may judge in terms of the "actuality" or "probability" or "possibility" of a person's salvation at the end of life is, in the end, academic, for God is the one who can look at the heart and only he can truly judge. (He is the One, in fact, who has chosen his elect.) "It is appointed to man once to die, and after that comes judgment" (Heb. 9:27), but "Today is the day of salvation" (Heb. 3:13). We should work, therefore, the works of him who sent us while it is light and point our neighbors and loved ones to Christ.

For myself, I too was a Roman Catholic. In the past six months, I have attended the funeral of two uncles and one aunt whom I loved very much. I had opportunity at each funeral to speak a word of testimony regarding the Savior. I stood in the pulpit of the church in which I had served mass as a young boy and in my eulogies spoke of my faith in Christ.

Was it as detailed as I wish it could have been? No, but I am thankful for the opportunity God gave. Do I believe that my family members went to heaven? For one I have hope; for the others, I have little hope. Upon what is my hope based? It is always and only grounded in Christ and the Gospel.

We may define Christianity broadly by including as Christians all who confess the Apostles' Creed. We may define Christianity narrowly by including as Christians only those who confess our particular denominational creed. We need to exercise care, because, if we are too narrow, we may find ourselves excluding someone like Augustine. On the other hand, if we are too broad, we may find ourselves including many who should be excluded.

Personally, therefore, I do not judge. I have either greater or lesser hope. For example, I have greater hope for my Roman Catholic family members who ignorantly follow their leaders without thinking. Many times I find these to be at least open to discussion regarding the Gospel. However, I have lesser hope for people who are self-consciously Roman Catholic; that is, they understand the issues yet continue in the way of the Papacy.

I recommend that you read the book Come out from among Them by John Calvin. I found it very helpful and it addresses somewhat the question that you have raised.

I hope that my answer helps. You are free to write for clarification. May our Lord bless you.

[Quix]

Scripture teaches that each person is to examine their own heart.

Holy Spirit is happy to assist.

[Campion]

I'm not surprised to observe on occasion that some RC's behave as though they are "prissier than thou"

Which ones. Name names. Stop being vague. Stop hiding behind pronouns and say what you mean.

"Let your 'yes' be 'yes,' and your 'no' be 'no'." It's in my Bible, is it in yours?

[Campion]

Scripture teaches that each person is to examine their own heart.

Does Scripture teach that it's okay to say uncharitable and even outright false things about people, as long as don't specify exactly whom you are talking about?

[Ransomed]

“Nevertheless, IN-GROUP social and psychological pressures are a sufficient explanation.”

What social and psychological pressures? The fact that you get kicked out if you worship Mary? Why would you let that stop you if you worshipped Mary?

Freegards

[Scythian]

I was once a Catholic, been the true Gospel of Grace not of Works was revealed to me. Now I am simply and greatfully a Christian.

[MWS]

Several things.

First, the fact that he refers to Catholics as Roman Catholics does not mean that he was not Catholic in the first place. What it means is that, due to his current beliefs, he runs in circles within which the Catholic Church is known as the Roman Catholic Church. It is common among many Protestants, even former Catholics. Catholics don't realize that Protestants recite the Nicene Creed and acknowledge, "One holy catholic and apostolic Church," just like Catholics do. Obviously a Protestant is not going to believe that your Catholic Church represents the catholic Church in which they believe, so they are going to distinguish between the two. As I stated in another post, rather than taking offense Catholics ought to see it as an opportunity to intimately link "Catholicity" with being in communion with Rome if that is what you believe. But don't assume that someone who converts from your Church would never use the term "Roman Catholic" to distinguish between their current beliefs and the beliefs they left. The Protestant faith is not defined by Catholic paradigms.

Second, as I pointed out in post 225, there are very real reasons why someone with a Protestant outlook might refer to the Catholic veneration of Mary as being "Mary worship." In outlooks that are based in Calvinist theology, hyperdulia DOES infringe into the area of worship defined as belonging to God alone. From a Catholic point of view there is a distinction between latria, hyperdulia, and dulia but Calvinism sees such distinctions as being false. When people convert from Catholicism to a Calvinist theology (or visa-versa) there is necessarily a paradigm shift. Your arguments as to why this individual could not have possibly have been a Catholic ignores this essential fact - a person who has shifted from one worldview to a different worldview simply is not going to look at his old worldview in the same way that he did when he was in it. Any Catholic convert from Protestantism will tell you that his views of Protestantism are not the same as they were when he was a Protestant. It works the other way around too.

As for respecting religious beliefs, I very much agree. As a Protestant, however, I find it saddening when Catholics who are rightly indignant when they perceive their beliefs to be attacked turn around and begin to lash out against beliefs I hold near and dear to my heart just because they want to get back at a handful of individuals they believe are slighting them. That's not a discussion or debate - it's mean-spirited and childish.

[Iscool]

BK: Pope Pius IX infallibly defined the dogma

There's your problem right there...We have the written words of God but yet your religion follows a man (group of men) who claim they and they alone have an inside track to the truth and revelation from God...

And this immaculate conception idea doesn't even come from the early tradition of your religion...It's a later invention...

You are following men in a man made religion and claim it's from God...It's the church Jesus founded...

Your religion defies scripture...

1Co 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
1Co 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

1Co 3:22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;
1Co 3:23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

The followers of the supposed sucsessors of Peter are nothing... We, who are in Christ are Christ's...

[Campion]

You were a Christian who believed in a Gospel of Grace before.

At least, you professed to be.

[Religion Moderator]

In order for something to be "making it personal" under the Religion Forum guidelines, it must be addressed to another Freeper, personally.

For example, a Freeper might say "Scientologists are nuts" and that is not making it personal. But if he said, "you are nuts" that is making it personal.

The reasoning behind this is that as one religion spawns from another, each condemns the other in the harshest terms it can muster, e.g. anathema, apostate, cult, heretic, Satanic.

And those sentiments and terms often are part of the official documents of the religion. And so it is not unusual for a Freeper to have embraced those sentiments and wish to express and/or discuss them on an "open" RF thread.

So if a Freeper says that "Protestants are heretics" that is not making it personal. But if he says "you are a heretic" that is making it personal.

[Campion]

We have the written words of God

How do you know that's what they are? Who told you?

Open them up. You see that they say that the church is founded upon the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20), and is the pillar and ground of the truth (1 Tm 3:15).

How can this be? Aren't the apostles and prophets mere men?

Our religion follows a man, all right. "The man Christ Jesus".

[Ransomed]

“Supposedly, we have the strange case of alleged adherents of an alleged “goddess” denying that she is, in fact, a “goddess” at all.”

Not to mention the fact that the alleged goddess worshipping cult actually KICKS PEOPLE OUT FOR worshipping goddesses!! Which seem an odd thing to do if goddess worship is to be promoted. We can’t even get that right I suppose.

Freegards

[BenKenobi]

Uh, -30 degrees, CELSIUS.

“Up here” should be a clue. I’m a Canadian. We don’t have the feast of the immaculate conception as a ‘holy day of obligation’. Just Christmas and the first of the year.

Weather conditions being what they are in the winter here, it can be difficult to get folks out on Sundays, let alone additional days.

[Iscool]

It's not the case that, for anyone on earth, their "salvation is something they actually possess right now", so your objection is a red herring. The contrary position was condemned by Trent.

Trent's position is condemned by God...So who ya gonna believe, man? or God???

Joh 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Oh yeah, we have eternal life, right now...The fellows at Trent tell you otherwise...They want you to think that 'they' have some sort of controlling authority over your eternal salvation...God says 'no they don't'...

[Mad Dawg]

I would say you are correct (IMHO) that the effort precedes a grace. It does not precede ALL the grace in the particular, what, transaction. Where does the effort come from? God always makes the first move, not only in the whole exchange but in each step.

I think we know this. Once we realize what sinners we are and then we catch some good deed happening in our vicinity, we eagerly say "I'm sure not responsible for that!"

[BenKenobi]

“It presumes a knowledge of the difference between right and wrong and a rejection of right. The Church does not presume to know what is in the hearts and heads of any individual. It even holds that those who have never heard the Word of God or never known of Jesus Christ (i.e.; pagan babies) are not denied the Kingdom of Heaven if they have not rejected what is Good.”

Exactly! And this includes Protestants as well. The Church is very clear on this point.

[Quix]

Thanks.

I’ll likely begin to wean myself off this tweaky thread.

Just seemed like good recreation at the time.

Lots of RELIGIONISTS of all stripes take ourselves and our prissy sensibilities far too seriously . . . particularly for this season.

Sorry for the bother.

[wmfights]

The concept and development of individual liberty was a whole lot more complex than "Catholics nay, Protestants yea".

Never said it wasn't. The point that doesn't get made enough is there was a basis for fearing the RC's and the RCC. If RC posters want to start with the "everybody is picking on me" nonsense then we should look at why there was a fear.

[Iscool]

We see that happening in the Episcopalian church — which ones have claim to the origins, the one with the name but who accept gay priests, or the ones who are splitting off to remain true to the previous doctrine?

Apparently the one who gets to keep the building and the shingle out front...

[Campion]

With all due respect, though, we ought to pay prior attention to God's guidelines. (I'm sure you agree.)

But my point is not about someone quoting some church's anathemas (or any other document). My point is about someone making reference to the beliefs of "them" -- specifically describing them in terms of psychological disease -- without specifying who "they" are.

"Protestants are heretics" is a technical statement of a proposition-of-fact. (It's a false proposition-of-fact from the Catholic POV, but that's neither here nor there.)

"They are crazy, and have psychological issues related to their infantile attachment to their mothers."

Whom did I just insult, or attempt to psychoanalyze or "mind-read"? FReepers? Two FReepers? All Presbyterians? All Taoists? FR Moderators?

Something is just as "personal" and just as inappropriate if it's intended to unjustly denounce or denigrate two people instead of one. In fact, it's worse. Mind-reading two FReepers, or three, or ten, but wiggling out of responsibility by refusing to specify their names is not behavior that should be rewarded.

JMHO.

[the_conscience]

Is there a matrices of graces in Romanist doctrine?