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.

You've not heard of the concept of "perfect contrition"?

Perfect contrition requires supernatural faith, since perfect contrition requires a perfect love for God. Someone who does not know the truth about God can hardly have a supernatural faith concerning Him, or a perfect love of Him.

Man is justified by faith (Hebrews 11.6). The Council of Trent very plainly states:

Of this Justification the causes are these: ... the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified (Session 6, Chapter VII)

Protestants and pagans do not have supernatural faith. The former have personal opinions about God formed by their own feelings and desires regarding who He should be. This is easily seen in the latent Nestorianism held by many Protestants. Pagans worship idols, forces of nature, great men of history, and demons. One cannot be further from God than being involved in the depravity of paganism.

And if a Protestant were baptized (not always a valid assumption), and were to come to some form of supernatural faith, meaning they accepted the truths of the Catholic religion as proposed by the Church because God has revealed them, they would no longer be a Protestent, but rather some sort of Catholic schismatic, like the Anglo-Catholics and Papalist Lutherans.

Back to perfect contrition though. The Council of Trent states:

The Synod teaches moreover, that, although it sometimes happen that this contrition is perfect through charity, and reconciles man with God before this sacrament be actually received, the said reconciliation, nevertheless, is not to be ascribed to that contrition, independently of the desire of the sacrament which is included therein. (Session 14, Chapter IV)

Also:

Canon 29. If anyone says that he who has fallen after baptism is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and Catholic Church - instructed by Christ and His Apostles - has hitherto professed, observed, and taught; let him be anathema.

Needing a desire for the Sacrament of Penance is rather difficult when you don't hold the Catholic faith, no? Or maybe you wish to reinterpret these teachings for us too in some manner that likewise empties them of their straightforward meaning.

Iscool: Of course, you are ignoring the fact that the Church, broadly considered, is what Catholics call the Mystical Body of Christ of which you, as a Christian, are part. Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salus is the doctrine of which you write. It got Leonard Feeney, SJ, in a LOT of trouble with Richard Cardinal Cushing and the Vatican in the 1950s when he advocated that it meant only baptized and practicing Catholics could be members of the Church for the purposes of salvation. IIRC, extra ecclesia, nulla salus is biblical but did not mean what Feeney (who later repented) and you seem to imagine. Dismas, the Good Thief, crucified with my Savior and yours, was promised by the Savior that he would be in paradise with Him on the original Good Friday, no muss, no fuss, no baptism of the ordinary sort. We Catholics would say that he underwent the baptism of desire but you might well disagree. I have enough on my hands speaking as a Catholic without trying to speak for other Christians as to their respective faiths.

I really do not care what Catholics look like in the eyes of those who do not share the fullness of our Faith. The only audience I seek to satisfy is the triune God.

This discussion arises because I chose to answer a respectful question of a reformed Christian as to the Catholic view of the matter. I have no reason to believe that he was inviting a bar brawl over the respective theologies. I have no special competence at Cathlic theology just mpre than a half century of experience.

I have no desire to preach at you nor to be preached at by you. I am a Catholic. I have always been a Catholic and I hope to die a Catholic. Your desires may differ from my own. That is your business. My Catholicism is my business and I don't HAVE to do anything such as you state. Nor do I have to spend endless time in theologocal haggling contests on a POLITICAL website and I won't.

Now, I am going to return to my original conversation with CharlesWayneCT and will not trouble myself further with iscool chewing his old slipper.

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.

Someone who is justified does possess salvation right now in the sense that if they were to die, they would merit eternal life. Again Trent:

we must believe that nothing further is wanting to the justified, to prevent their being accounted to have, by those very works which have been done in God, fully satisfied the divine law according to the state of this life, and to have truly merited eternal life, to be obtained also in its (due) time, if so be, however, that they depart in grace (Session 6, Chapter XIV)

The contrary position was condemned by Trent.

Perhaps you could explain yourself a little bit better than this sort of cryptic reference.

Address this: It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church.

I'll address this soley with a view to Protestants as members of communities without priests and thus without the sacramental system beyond Baptism and Marriage. I qualify this because what needs to be said concerning the Eastern Orthodox is completely different. Through the Sacrament of Baptism, Protestants can obtain to true justification if they meet the normal conditions of receiving it efficaciously. Thus little children baptised by Protestants who die in their youth are certainly saved, and owe their salvation to liturgical actions in the Protestant communities. Additionally, for adults, the graces imparted in Baptism, along with the inspiration imparted by the Holy Spirit through the reading of the Holy Bible can lead them to the truth of unity in the Catholic faith if they are open to the grace of God.

If you're "excused from culpability of sin," by definition, in justice, you are excused from the punishment of that sin. If hell is the punishment for the sins of schism and heresy, and you're excused from that punishment as a result of invincible ignorance, then you go to heaven.

Let me know when you find this mythical Protestant whose only mortal sin is his sin in ignorance of not being a Catholic!

Those who are outside the Cahtolic Church out of ignorance are not condemned on account of this, but are condemned because of their other crimes. The Roman Catechism states:

Among these figures the ark of Noah holds a conspicuous place. It was built by the command of God, in order that there might be no doubt that it was a symbol of the Church, which God has so constituted that all who enter therein through Baptism, may be safe from danger of eternal death, while such as are outside of the Church, like those who were not in the ark, are overwhelmed by their own crimes.

Why on earth do you suppose he discusses invincible ignorance in that context anyway?

Because he is addressing those who to salve their consciences regarding their lack of evangelizing fervor and "are wont to ask very often what will be the lot and condition of those who have not submitted in any way to the Catholic faith, and, by bringing forward most vain reasons, they make a response favorable to their false opinion." (Bl. Pope Pius IX, Allocution Singulari Quadem, 9 December 1854).

The Pope was discussing their propositions concerning the lot of those living apart from Catholic unity, and granting that it is correct that the ignorant will not be condemned for not being Catholic if they are ignorant of that necessity, and that furthermore those persons who are "zealously keeping the natural law and its precepts engraved in the hearts of all by God, and being ready to obey God, live an honest and upright life, can, by the operating power of divine light and grace, attain eternal life" (Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, 10 August 10 1863).

Left unstated by him is your assumption that you put into his teaching that they obtain eternal life by remaining mired in ignorance. This is why you complain that "You're ellipsizing exactly the part of the citation that supports my case."

No, what I am doing is trying to get you to look beyond your beloved ellipse and read the entire document in context. Bl. Pope Pius IX very clearly teaches how people such as these are to obtain salvation in this same document.

... those who are not joined with us in the same bonds of faith and love ... [the sons of the Catholic Church] should always be zealous to seek them out and aid them ... and they should especially endeavor to snatch them from the darkness of error in which they unhappily lie, and lead them back to Catholic truth and to the most loving Mother the Church, who never ceases to stretch out her maternal hands lovingly to them, and to call them back to her bosom so that, established and firm in faith, hope, and charity, and "being fruitful in every good work" (Collosians 1:10), they may attain eternal salvation. (Encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore, 10 August 1863)

Di you read that carefully? The way these righteous but ignorant souls can "attain eternal salvation" is to "lead them back to Catholic truth" and "call them back to [Holy Mother Church's] bosom."

As I said, this is the same thing said by Lumen Gentium and the Catechism.

Hence to procure the glory of God and the salvation of all these, the Church, mindful of the Lord's command, "preach the Gospel to every creature" (Mark 16.16) takes zealous care to foster the missions. (Lumen Gentium 16)
Indeed, God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4); that is, God wills the salvation of everyone through the knowledge of the truth. Salvation is found in the truth. Those who obey the prompting of the Spirit of truth are already on the way of salvation. But the Church, to whom this truth has been entrusted, must go out to meet their desire, so as to bring them the truth. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 851)

Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (a classic pre-Vatican II compendium of dogmatic theology), page 312, on the necessity of the church for salvation

Dr. Ott (or perhaps his rather poor translators) says what he does by way of distinguishing members of the Church in act vs. members of the Church in desire. Lost in your reading of this is that the Church, following the teaching of Pius XII in Mystici Corporis, consists of those who are baptized and profess the true faith. In the case of someone who has received baptism of desire, they would also be united to the Church in desire, but not in formal act. This union is brought about by the profession of the one true faith and the desire for the sacrament.

Protestants are, in general, formally baptized but do not hold the true faith. A person who is not one in the faith can hardly be united to the Church. And its certainly pointless to get into discussions of implict membership in the Church among those who were incorporated into the Church by the Sacrament of Baptism. No, the situation of the Protestant, for the most part, is determined by their faith, which, for the most part, and as they are only to happy to point out, is most definitely not the Catholic faith.

On the other hand, we confess "One faith, one Lord, one Baptism" in "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church." Just as there is not one faith in two Holy Churches, so there is not two faiths in one Holy Church.

If a man is a Protestant, he by definition does not hold the Catholic faith. And if he does not hold the Catholic faith, he is not in the Church in any way.

Again, how can it be made any clearer?

Maybe by not using phrasology that excludes those attached to the Church by desire in such a way as to make the dogma mean its exact opposite. If a person is a member of the Church by desire, then they are not outside the Catholic Church.

The question to you then, is how do you make Protestants members of the Catholic Church when we do not share the same faith?

In the early centuries of the Catholic Church there arose a great controversy over the question: Is Mary merely the mother of the human nature of Jesus or is she, as His mother, also Mother of God? When this question was decided in favor of Mother of God, it is true (in a sense) that this was a change in the body of dogma but by addition and not by substitution. Previous to the defining of the dogma, one might, as a Catholic, believe she was Mother of God (as very many did) or not. After the dogma was defined, it was to be believed. More properly, this is the development of doctrine rather than change.

St. Thomas Aquinas held the opinion that a male unborn child became a living human being earlier than a female unborn child. Today, the Church's doctrine is that human life begins for both sexes at the moment of conception. If St. Thomas Aquinas were able to visit Pope Benedict XVI today and be informed thus authoritatively that human life (for either sex) begins at conception, he would likely slap his forehead and say: "Why didn't I realize that???"

One who would reject new definitive teaching would NOT be better tied to what had gone before because Jesus Christ Himself gave to Peter, the first pope, the keys of His Kingdom, and with the power to bind and loose.

Way back in 55 AD (or so) St. Paul brought to St. Peter (first pope) the question of whether one must be a Jew to be a Christian (requiring men who converted to be circumcised as adults) or not. Peter had personally been of the opinion that one must be a Jew but he allowed himself to be persuaded by Paul's arguments and (at what we now call the Council of Jerusalem) ruled that gentiles could become Catholic without circumcision or preliminary entry into Judaism. In their day and in Jerusalem, this was a more earth-shaking decision than we likely imagine today. Nonetheless, Peter can hardly be said to have invalidated the path back to Christ and Pentecost by his good faith exercise of the power of the keys. Before his decision, either position was acceptable. After his decision, his decision was to be believed and accepted.

Interestingly, the infallibility of the pope when speaking ex cathedra (from the throne) on matters of faith and morals was defined by the First Vatican Council during the reign of Pope Pius IX. It is an extraordinary power associated with the keys. It has been exercised only three times since it was defined. Pope Pius IX exercised it twice in the 1850s: Declaring the Immaculate Conception (long held by substantial numbers of Catholics over many centuries) and declaring the similar infallibility of doctrinal councils (but only when acting in concert with the pope and all invoking that infallibility specifically). To date, no council has invoked infallibility or acquired papal approval for same. The other exercise of infallibility was by Pope Pius XII in 1954 in which he declared that Mary was assumed body and soul into heaven at the end of her stay on earth. This was another belief long held by Catholics over many centuries.

In a circumstance such as you describe, the 2nd Church which rejects the newly defined dogma of the Immaculate Conception in the 1850s is not at all clearly the original Church (ignoring altogether the requirement of any Catholic at any stage giving due deference to papal authority which requirement is breached by refusing obedience to papal authority). The Church before the definition allowed the faithful to believe or disbelieve in the Immaculate Conception. The 1st Church headed up by the pope defines the dogma and expects that Catholics will honor the decision of the pope on the matter, thereby upsetting some who refuse to believe. If they clam to be Catholic, they cannot reject the papal authority conferred by Christ. Those who reject it and form the 2nd Church are thus transgressing against far more than the newly defined dogma. They are rejecting papal authority itself.

It is late. I must retire for the evening. Please consider what I have posted so far, respond and I shall do likewise. I am going to try to keep this conversation between thee and me because of my desire not to posture as having a Catholic expertise that I lack and my desire to cooperate in the public square with my fellow Freepers of whatever religious persuasion or none at all. I confess that I used to be one of the worst offenders in wars of the reformation and counterreformation around here and I am trying to do better.

Your popes have on countless occasions claimed that there is no salvation outside the Catholic church...

One would then consider: what truly constitutes the Catholic Church? That's a long dissertation, to tell the truth, but I think that a more constructive way to express what you posted is to suggest that a number of Bishops of Rome have insisted that salvation consists in being in communion with the Bishop of Rome. There are those (I would be one of them) who define the Catholic Church to be those dioceses headed by an apostolically and canonically consecrated Bishop in the Apostolic Succession from the Apostles. Canonically means in accord with the decisions made at ecumenical councils or enacted by the whole Church and agreed to by all the then-reigning bishops. Apostolically means consecration by the literal laying-on of hands of at least one and preferably three Apostolically and Canonically consecrated Bishops. My own Archbishop, of the Orthodox Anglican Church, is one such Bishop. According to the theology of Patriarch John Zizioulas, all such bishops are and always have been, of equal dignity and authority, as incarnating Christ in the Catholic Church of which they are the head. It can be readily seen that in this construction, Catholic adheres to the use made by the bishop who coined it, Ignatius of Antioch, which meant that body of belief and action most closely in accord with the Truth that defines the status. It would also be in accord with the word from which our word 'catholic' derives (kath olou: the whole or the fullness). Using it to mean 'universal' is a later coining, by St. Augustine. One suggests it may well be useful to consider the term in both senses when employing it, so as to increase charity and expand the visible unity of the One Holy and Apostolic Church.

The biggest problem in the Catholic Church right now, if understood as I just defined the term, is multiple apostolic and canonical bishops in the same territory. That indicates schism, which is traumatic but not the same thing as heresy. The question really comes down to: are the doctrinal differences between co-resident bishops so grave as to actually constitute heresy (i.e., lacking access to the fullnes of Jesus Christ) or are they subsidiary theologically, such that a core of Catholic truth could be accessed that suffices for salvation and thus that communion among the dioceses could be restored? A very tough question, that.

your popes

Just a niggle: "Pope" is, to me, a cradle Roman Catholic now professing Orthodox Anglicanism, an honorary term for the Roman Pontiff, who is, I always understood, officially the Bishop of Rome. He has other titles, relating to his Metropolitan status for the West, but I suspect the real objection here is to any kind of super-episcopal status. One notes that the Roman See (every bishop has a See) was consulted from post-Apostolic times about controversies. Originally the response was consultative, such as Clement's letter to the Corinthians reprimanding them for deposing presbyters despite their faithful and orthodox service and to replace them with men seeking power rather than service. That status enlarged over time, becoming effective a ruling relationship in the fourth century and varying only in effectiveness since then, but not in status. One notes that there has been, since at least Nicaea, official status for an office of Metropolitan, though it was never granted higher ecclesiastical (not to say ecclesiological) status than that of any other bishop. In any college, there must needs be a president and I suspect the Metropolitans were originally seen as such, to the extent that anyone saw anything in such a collegial way at the time.

The East was, in the main, overrun in the course of time and now only the Metropolitan of Constantinople remains (though Russia also claims a third Rome status), and the Bishop of Rome did stand athwart the barbarian hordes in the days when there was no other effective authority to speak for classical Catholic truth. So, the office gained even more status in fact than Metropolitan, which now attaches to the title 'Pope'. The effect is make all other bishops in communion with him subsidiary bishops in fact. This is not absolute, of course, but given the presecriptions in Lumen Gentium, no one can even convene a Council of Bishops without the Bishop of Rome's express approval. The only mediating factor is that each successor is democratically elected by the College of Cardinals, so if the mind of the Church in communion with Rome moves, then the College may well express that movenment in their subsequent votes. The individual then assumes plenary power while in office. He may refer to the bishops as his Venerable Brothers, but if he makes a proclamation, they are bound to obey it. That makes him their intercessor with Christ. I cannot speak for the Orthodox, but I think that, again citing Zizioulas, the fact of any one bishop having plenary authority over other bishops is equivalent to suggesting that there are bishops who are not fully bishop which destroys the catholicity of the diocese that bishop rules. For those I have studied, the nature of catholicity is not universality of command by any one human, but the fullness of Jesus Christ as possessed by being apostolically and canonically consecrated a bishop, in whom is vested the fullness of charism necessary to rule any one Catholic Church.

Clearly, confusion in terms and to some extent, temptation to power, have affected understandings over the years, which now are expressed in highly contentious arguments and accusations. What we really need is to each and all bow our heads before our Lord and Savior and ask Him to grant us the grace to cultivate charity and humility among ourselves. That would include not dragging in past offenses by any group in the controversies but seeking to come in brotherly love and affection one to another, that we all may be one in Him, that He may dwell in us.

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.