Can Catholics Be Christians?

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.

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.

I don’t believe that. I simply believe that *Christ* saves us, regardless of denominational affiliation. I lift of Christ, not my church.

You bring up a good point and it's something else I've been wanting to elaborate on. It's a bit lengthy. To any Catholics reading, I want to point out that I am NOT arguing for this view here... that is not what I do. Instead, I am simply pointing out the way some of us Protestants see things.

Most Protestants recite the Nicene Creed during our worship services. Everything within that Creed is an essential part of our faith, and that includes the reference to the "One holy catholic and apostolic Church." Our interpretation just happens to be very different than that held by Catholics.

Catholics have been known to throw out the, How Old Is Your Church argument when debating with Catholics (I've seen it at least twice in this thread alone). While factually correct in its assessments regarding the ages of particular church bodies, it is a poor example of apologetics as it completely ignores the Protestant understanding of the Church to the point of being irrelevant.

Protestants don't identify "The Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ" with any particular earthly institution. We see earthly Churches as being human institutions composed of men. Many of us will grant that the institution now known as The Catholic Church was technically founded by Christ since it grew out of that original body of believers commissioned by Christ. Whereas Catholics believe that this particular institution is synonymous with the entirety of the universal Christian Church, however, Protestants distinguish between the two. We believe that Christ founded a spiritual body, not a structured institution, and that while the latter certainly characterized the former in its early years it is not necessarily an essential property.

Our view, then, is that in early Christianity the universal Christian Church was synonymous with what Catholics would call the Early Catholic Church. Defined doctrine was not monolithic within that body - Protestants would argue that beliefs which characterize our beliefs existed alongside doctrines which are more characteristic of the Catholic Church today. It is easy to forget that things were not as clearly defined back then as they are now, particularly in terms of salvation by faith and Scripture as the as the ultimate measure of Tradition. If I am not mistaken, where doctrine has not been explicitly defined in the Catholic Church there is freedom of opinion.

Unfortunately, the hardness of hearts in men led to splits in the institutional structure of the Church. From a Protestant point of view, where one Institutional Church once stood, after 1054 there were two Institutional Churches (or perhaps even more, if you include groups like the Coptics, whose schisms might have been due more to a misunderstanding than actual heresy). The universal Church itself was not split in twain according to the Protestant view, but merely the institutional administrative bodies that ministered to the members of that Church.

With the Reformation, what Protestants perceive is not the creation of a bunch of new Churches so much as a mass of organizational schisms which led to new administrative institutions based around differing points of view. Considering that we do not believe institutional unity to be a necessity, we are quite alright with this. At this point it is essential to define what Sola Scriptura really is. To the majority of Protestants, Sola Scriptura does NOT mean that all doctrine must be DERIVED directly from Scripture. That is not the classical understanding. Instead, the doctrine derives from the idea that Scripture is the inspired and infallible Word of God. Doctrine, forms of worship, the actual canon - these things all undeniably preferably proceed from Tradition going back to the time of the apostles. What Sola Scriptura teaches, however, is that Tradition must be weighed and measured according to what is taught by Scripture. Traditions which are not taught in Scripture are held not to be necessary for Christian salvation. The application of this is different depending on denomination, of course - some, like myself, see non-scriptural traditions as perhaps good yet non-binding while others believe that traditions not affirmed by Scripture are to be outright rejected. Other differences arose regarding methods of interpretation. Yes, new understandings of Christian doctrine inevitably arose and new denominations were founded around those, but these were considered much along the lines of "Development of Doctrine" within new contexts rather than sudden discoveries of "Real Christianity." Among Protestants, "Real Christianity" is pretty much the same as it is among Catholics - Faith in Christ as Lord and Savior. The differences are in forms of worship and in particular doctrines that are ultimately considered non-essential to salvation.

It is essential to understand that, within the Protestant view, the "one holy catholic and apostolic Church" is not identifiable with one institution and is intangible here upon earth. As an Anglican, I accept that my Church has no claim to representing the ENTIRE Church of Christ, which I hold to include Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, and a host of others. Outside the Church there is NO salvation, but all Christians ultimately belong to it. This is not to say that the Church is "invisible" by any stretch, however - it is very visible through the various institutional organizations that represent it! It's "unity" consists of our willingness to place aside doctrinal differences in love and charity and focus upon our similarity - our Faith in Christ.

Agree, disagree, whatever... I just wanted to share some of my views on the "Church" subject.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.