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.

The word “schism” is any division; it isn’t a Catholic-only term.

Well, let's check on that:

Schism:

A willful separation from the unity of the Christian Church. Although St. Paul used the term to condemn the factions at Corinth, these were not properly schismatical, but petty cliques that favored one or another Apostle. A generation later Clement I reprobated the first authentic schism of which there is record. Paul's exhortation to the Corinthians also gives an accurate description of the concept. "Why do we wrench and tear apart the members of Christ," he asks, "and revolt against our own bodyk and reach such folly as to forget that we are members of one another?" While the early Church was often plagued with heresy and schism, the exact relation between the two divisive elements was not clarified until later in the patristic age. "By false doctrines concerning God," declared St. Augustine, "heretics wound the faith; by sinful dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe." Heresy, therefore, by its nature refers to the mind and is opposed to religious belief, whereas schism is fundamentally volitional and offends against the union of Christian charity. (Etym. Latin schisma; from Greek skhisma, a split, division, from skhizein, to tear, rend.)

From the Modern Catholic Dictionary

Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act. In this etymological and full meaning the term occurs in the books of the New Testament. By this name St. Paul characterizes and condemns the parties formed in the community of Corinth (1 Corinthians 1:12): "I beseech you, brethren", he writes, ". . . that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment" (ibid., i, 10). The union of the faithful, he says elsewhere, should manifest itself in mutual understanding and convergent action similar to the harmonious co-operation of our members which God hath tempered "that there might be no schism in the body" (1 Corinthians 12:25). Thus understood, schism is a genus which embraces two distinct species: heretical or mixed schism and schism pure and simple. The first has its source in heresy or joined with it, the second, which most theologians designate absolutely as schism, is the rupture of the bond of subordination without an accompanying persistent error, directly opposed to a definite dogma. This distinction was drawn by St. Jerome and St. Augustine. "Between heresy and schism", explains St. Jerome, "there is this difference, that heresy perverts dogma, while schism, by rebellion against the bishop, separates from the Church. Nevertheless there is no schism which does not trump up a heresy to justify its departure from the Church (In Ep. ad Tit., iii, 10). And St. Augustine: "By false doctrines concerning God heretics wound faith, by iniquitous dissensions schismatics deviate from fraternal charity, although they believe what we believe" (On Faith and the Creed 9). But as St. Jerome remarks, practically and historically, heresy and schism nearly always go hand in hand; schism leads almost invariably to denial of the papal primacy.

Schism, therefore, is usually mixed, in which case, considered from a moral standpoint, its perversity is chiefly due to the heresy which forms part of it. In its other aspect and as being purely schism it is contrary to charity and obedience; to the former, because it severs the ties of fraternal charity, to the latter, because the schismatic rebels against the Divinely constituted hierarchy. However, not every disobedience is a schism; in order to possess this character it must include besides the transgression of the commands of superiors, denial of their Divine right to command. On the other hand, schism does not necessarily imply adhesion, either public or private, to a dissenting group or a distinct sect, much less the creation of such a group. Anyone becomes a schismatic who, though desiring to remain a Christian, rebels against legitimate authority, without going as far as the rejection of Christianity as a whole, which constitutes the crime of apostasy.

Formerly a man was rightly considered a schismatic when he disregarded the authority of his own bishop; hence the words of St. Jerome quoted above. Before him St. Cyprian had said: "It must be understood that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop and he is not in the Church who is not with the bishop" (Epist., lxvi, 8). Long before, St. Ignatius of Antioch laid down this principle: "Where the bishop is there is the community, even as where Christ is there is the Catholic Church" (Smyrnæans 8.2). Now through the centralizing evolution which emphasizes the preponderant rôle of the sovereign pontiff in the constitution of ecclesiastical unity, the mere fact of rebelling against the bishop of the diocese is often a step toward schism; it is not a schism in him who remains, or claims to remain, subject to the Holy See. In the material sense of the word there is schism, that is rupture of the social body, if there exist two or more claimants of the papacy, each of whom has on his side certain appearances of right and consequently more or less numerous partisans. But under these circumstances good faith may, at least for a time, prevent a formal schism; this begins when the legitimacy of one of the pontiffs becomes so evident as to render adhesion to a rival inexcusable. Schism is regarded by the Church as a most serious fault, and is punished with the penalties inflicted on heresy, because heresy usually accompanies it. These are: excommunication incurred ipso facto and reserved to the sovereign pontiff (cf. "Apostolicæ Sedis", I, 3); this is followed by the loss of all ordinary jurisdiction and incapacity to receive any ecclesiastical benefices or dignities whatsoever. To communicate in sacris with schismatics, e.g., to receive the sacraments at the hands of their ministers, to assist at Divine Offices in their temples, is strictly forbidden to the faithful.

Some theologians distinguish "active" from "passive" schism. By the former they understand detaching oneself deliberately from the body of the Church, freely renouncing the right to form a part of it. They call passive schism the condition of those whom the Church herself rejects from her bosom by excommunication, inasmuch as they undergo this separation whether they will or no, having deserved it. Hence, this article will deal directly only with active schism, which is schism properly so-called. It is nevertheless clear that so-called passive schism not only does not exclude the other, but often supposes it in fact and theory. From this point of view it is impossible to understand the attitude of Protestants who claim to hold the Church they abandoned responsible for their separation. It is proved by all the historical monuments and especially by the writings of Luther and Calvin that, prior to the anathema pronounced against them at the Council of Trent, the leaders of the Reformation had proclaimed and repeated that the Roman Church was "the Babylon of the Apocalypse, the synagogue of Satan, the society of Antichrist"; that they must therefore depart from it and that they did so in order to re-enter the way of salvation. And in this they suited the action to the word. Thus the schism was well consummated by them before it was solemnly established by the authority which they rejected and transformed by that authority into a just penal sanction.

From the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia

SCHISM: A term generally applied to the division that, either wholly or partly, suspends the outward unity of the Church; also, in Roman Catholic canon law, the offense of producing or attempting to produce such a division, and further, the deliberate withdrawal from the bond of the Church by a refusal of obedience to its authorities Nature on the ground that their powers are and not legitimate. But mere insubordinaClassifica- tion to particular rulings or commands tion. of the authorities and simple resistance do not constitute schism. Where secession ensues from denying individual confessional doctrines of the Church, that is, where the offense of schism is concurrent with heresy, it is termed "heretical schism." On the other hand, in the case of separation, when, for instance, the papacy is acknowledged per se but the actual pope is declared not legally elected, the schism is named "pure schism." A further distinction is drawn between "particular" and "universal" schism, according as unity with the whole Church is ruptured directly, as by secession from the pope; or only indirectly, by separation from another ecclesiastical superior, particularly from the bishop. According to Roman Catholic canon law, schism constitutes an ecclesiastical offense chargeable before the spiritual tribunal, and is threatened with summary excommunication, forfeiture of office, suspension from holy orders, disqualification for church positions, infamy, and confiscation of property.

From the New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (a thoroughly Protestant source)

So, in other words, if a particular congregation decided to have a friendly division into multiple parts (say because it was getting too big), that would not be considered (in a theological sense) a schism. Likewise, if a particular Church was granted autocephality, that would not be considered a schism (at least in a theological sense). A schism, while it might be polite, involves a break in communion, whatever the scope.

In passing, it was two ecumenical councils, Ephesus and Chalcedon, both in the 5th century that, as a matter of Christology, said that it was appropriate to call Mary "theotokos." The debate was about the incarnation. The conclusion was that Jesus was true God and true Man. Yes, Marian things follow from that, but the question was and is "what is the Christ?" Similarly The Annunciation is not a Marian feast but a Dominical (of the Lord) feast of the incarnation.

This actually has moral consequences: if the child in Mary's womb is not fully what He was at His birth, then a fetus might not be fully what it is at birth. And so we find ourselves right next door to a pro-abortion position.

Also, she is supposed to be able to hear millions of prayers simultaneously and discern which are worthy of special attention. That to me is unremarkable.

And the interesting aspect, to me, of the disagreement over that ability is its reflection of a difference over what God is and what Heaven is like, specifically as regards time.

And that turns out to be about the role and nature of reason and especially the degree to which reason is corrupted by the Fall.

If reason is utterly unreliable, then we are in a position similar to that held by "orthodox" Muslims with respect both to God and to the Koran.

(This is not a disparaging comment, but a taxonomic one. If I am wrong in my attempt to characterize your view, puhLEEZE don't hesitate to tell me. I spend a lot of time being wrong -- ask my wife.)

That is, we cannot hope to have even the least understanding of God's will and it's goodness, so that (a)He could command us to hate him, and (b) if He did, it would be right to do so.

Similarly, we can never hope to understand the Bible. Our role is to say, "Yessir!" without comprehension.

We think that just as sexual intercourse can be sanctified in a Christian Marriage but can be fertile even if illicit, so reason can HELP us to the truth when it is informed by grace, and even not so informed can lead us to SOME partial (even dangerously partial) truth when it is used in the arguments of the unregenerate.

ANYWAY, Whitehead to the contrary notwithstanding, we find that God, when contemplated by reason alone, is found to be outside of time or timeless, while comprehending time.

Therefore, to be glib, Mary (and all the blessed) have "all the time in the world" to hear, sort, and process petitions. I'm pinging Beleg Strongbow because he is NOT in communion with the Holy See (I think) but still is aware of the scholastic way of thinking. Beleg: this ain't a fight, it's a conversation, a "frank exchange of views," and for that reason quite enjoyable and useful

I do appreciate your comments, they are well-written and informative as to your beliefs.

I wasn’t really trying to get into a discussion of whether this particular declaration was a “game-changer” in terms of the church, but it was still interesting to read your historical persepective.

It seems at a shallow glance that the bloodline can be asserted because the decisions are made by the head of the church. The head of the church is always presumed to have the keys, and therefore what he binds or looses defines the church’s position, and if it WAS a change from previous practice or dogma (not saying it ever was, just a hypothetical), since the power is granted to him to do so, the “true church” is the one that follows the changes as specified by the leader, not those who disagree with the leader and break off.

And so long as there is a belief that the leader of the church is devinely chosen, and therefore not subject to question as to the possession of the keys, you cannot have a true “schism” where two people claim leadership and each form their own church declaring themselves the rightful heirs to the bloodline.

From outside looking in, without that belief in the inerrancy of leadership choice, one can imagine a leader who would stray from God’s path, and imagine adherants to the faith who see the true way rebelling against the leadership, and thus establishing the “true church” again outside that leadership, maybe with the hopes of one day reconciling and bringing the apostate church under the “chosen” leadership back to the fold.

It is jarring to a non-Catholic to see early believers labelled “Catholic”. I suppose this is essential if claims to the bloodline are to be asserted, but the denotion of membership prior to the establishment of the entity seems self-serving. On the other hand, from within the Church, the claim I presume is that the Church as not established when the name was first claimed, but by God himself, with the “originating” councils merely confirming and codifying an existance that was already in practice.

Again, looking from the outside, such a claim seems self-serving, but I’m not up for a discussion of whether the claim is defensible or not — I imagine there are such discussions of course, it’s just something that would require far more work on my part than I feel would be worthwhile relative to the level of concern on my part for a definitive answer.

Again, thank you for your posts.

In passing, it was two ecumenical councils, Ephesus and Chalcedon, both in the 5th century that, as a matter of Christology, said that it was appropriate to call Mary "theotokos."

I am aware of this, whether It was a group of theologians paid to meet by the emperor, or a group of theologians meeting in a church really doesn't matter. The point being when doctrine "develops" over time it changes and is influenced by the political and social pressures of the day. Mary is only one example within your church. In the Anglican church it is homosexual bishops and same sex marriage. In both cases it is outside Scripture. Why would yours be correct and not theirs?

As to the term Theotokos vs Christokos the latter is probably more apt, but Nestorius had alienated so many the former was adopted. The term Theotokos is less appropriate because it implies that Mary was the Mother of the preincarnate God. She wasn't. The preincarnate God was begotten from the Father and preexisted creation. IOW, the Son of God preexisted Mary not vice versa.

If reason is utterly unreliable, then we are in a position similar to that held by "orthodox" Muslims with respect both to God and to the Koran.

This would be projection. Christians that hold to Scripture as the rule of faith are not supposed to check their brains at the door. What we do though is look at any doctrine through the lens of Scripture. If you can't find it, as is the case with the majority of your church's Marian beliefs, we ignore it.

I would submit to you that your church's Marian doctrines/dogmas have caused your church to miss some fundamental truths. For example, Jesus was born in a stable and laid down in a manger. Because of "developing" doctrine the RCC says Mary was born without sin. The reasoning is along the lines that God can't come into the world through a sin filled vessel. However, you don't see where He was born. A stable is filthy. It's where animals go to the bathroom, it smells and all kinds of vermin live there. A stable is not all that different then our hearts that God indwells when we become Christians. Your "developing" doctrine loses sight of this simple truth in it's attempt to counter greco-roman paganism.

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.