Can Roman Catholics and Protestants Walk Together?

[Solo]

Can Catholics and Protestants Walk Together?
A Former Catholic says NO!

Issue Date: September/October 1995


By Rick Jones

The headline on the front cover of the July, 1995 Charisma magazine read, "Catholics and Protestants, Can We Walk Together?"

Several articles inside suggest that, yes, we can. But the Bible reveals many reasons why true Christians have never, and will never, be able to walk together with Roman Catholics.

A primary reason is the Roman Catholic doctrine which declares all non-Catholics to be hell-bound sinners. No, you will never hear these words from the Catholic Public Relations people. On the contrary, they will quickly deny it, labeling the accuser as a divisive troublemaker. However, the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official source of Roman Catholic doctrine, proclaims:

• 
  
  "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained." Pg. 215, #816 (emphasis added)

Could the Catholic position be any plainer? The fact that many Catholics aren't aware of this doctrine changes nothing. I remember a recent phone conversation with a rather knowledgeable Catholic lady. When I mentioned this Catholic doctrine, she screeched: "The Catholic church doesn't believe that anymore!" But they do. The most current Catechism reassures us that:

• 
  
  "…all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: …Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." Pg. 224, #846 (emphasis added)

This is not a new Catholic doctrine. Previous catechisms have taught the same. Here is a quote from the 1949 Baltimore Catechism:

• 
  
  Question: "Are all obliged to belong to the Catholic Church in order to be saved?" Answer: "All are obliged to belong to the Catholic Church to be saved." (New Baltimore Catechism, No. 3, Pg. 93, #166)

Rest assured, the Catholic church does NOT want you reading quotes like these. The last document they want you investigating is the official source of Catholic doctrine, the Catechism.

They would rather have you learn Catholic doctrine from their professionally trained representatives who are appearing on Christian TV and Christian radio. They hope your opinions about Catholicism will be derived from propaganda pieces like the one in the July, 1995 Charisma magazine.

Salvation through the Catholic church is but one of a host of doctrines that will forever divide true Protestants from Roman Catholics. Other Protestants may disagree, but I could never walk together with a church that publicly acknowledges me as a brother in Christ, but whose official doctrine condemns me as a lost sinner.

I could not walk together with a church that contends that faith in a church is necessary for salvation when the Bible declares that salvation is a free gift of God through Jesus Christ alone. (See Romans 6:23, Acts 4:12.)

I could never walk together with a church that would ask me to deny the words of Jesus Christ in John 6:47: "He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."

Can Protestants walk together with Roman Catholics? Only if the Protestants are willing to forsake the cardinal doctrines of their faith and deny the Holy Scriptures.


Posted with written permission from Rick Jones.

Remember brothers and sisters in Christ Jesus, satan is the father of all lies, and any lies that are contained within the dogma of a religious institution as Roman Catholicism and its representatives are not from God Almighty. Flee the institution of the Roman Catholic church and turn towards God Almighty through Jesus Christ so that you do not partake of the plagues that will be poured out on the RCC in the last times.

 

[mondar]

Good article solo,
Interestingly enough I was reading the blog of James White before reading your post. There are some interesting parallels. White's blog can be found at http://aomin.org/ .

In his latest blog entry, White mentions Armstrong's hypocritical use of the term "anti-Catholic." Catholics like to look all ecumenical and call protestants "separated brethren" but then turn around and anathematize protestant theology. White says of Armstrong,

due to a modern reading of Roman doctrine so as to allow for "separated brethren" to be called "Christians" while still anathematizing their theology,

At least the popes latest decrees were consistent. The pope clearly was suggesting that the oriental Churches (eastern orthodox-greek orthodox) are the separated brethren. The people of the reformation are not Churches and thus in Romes dogma protestants are going to hell.

Of course this does not bother me at all. I dont see the harm in Romes rantings. If they bring back crusades, or the inquisition, that would be another matter. Rome has never renounced crusade or inquisition as a method of control, but she does not have the political muscle to make an inquisition happen right now, so it is a mute point. All Rome can do is rant about the people of the reformation not being a Church.

Of course, to be fair, it should be pointed out that many people like me believe justification by faith alone is the gospel. The concept of forensic justification (that justification is a decree of the divine judge in which the sinner is acquited) is the gospel. Not only does official Rome declare me anathema, but I think the anathema of Galatians 1:9 applies to Rome and its "other gospel."

The bottom line is that I do not consider the rantings of Rome to be "anti-protestant" as long as they do not attempt any inquisition. However, neither is my understanding of the gospel "anti-Catholic." The issues are eternal, but this does not mean we should not behave in correct ways toward each other.

 

[handy]

I think that Jones misrepresents the cathechism's teaching. If one starts at Jones' quote in the Catechism then reads further one will find:

817 In fact, "in this one and only Church of God from its very beginnings there arose certain rifts, which the Apostle strongly censures as damnable. But in subsequent centuries much more serious dissensions appeared and large communities became separated from full communion with the Catholic Church - for which, often enough, men of both sides were to blame."269 The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ's Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 - do not occur without human sin:

Where there are sins, there are also divisions, schisms, heresies, and disputes. Where there is virtue, however, there also are harmony and unity, from which arise the one heart and one soul of all believers.271

(I agree with everything that is said here, do you not? The Apostle Paul certainly condemned rifts within the early church and all ruptures and rifts within the body are due to sin and men of both sides are to blame.)

818 "However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers .... All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."272

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ's Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

For further clarity the Compendium of the Cathechism explains the RCC view this way:

163. How are non-Catholic Christians to be considered?

817-819
870

In the churches and ecclesial communities which are separated from full communion with the Catholic Church, many elements of sanctification and truth can be found. All of these blessings come from Christ and lead to Catholic unity. Members of these churches and communities are incorporated into Christ by Baptism and we so we recognize them as brothers.

I think the key here is to understand what the RCC means by this, also from the Compendium:

162. Where does the one Church of Christ subsist?

816
870

The one Church of Christ, as a society constituted and organized in the world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him. Only through this Church can one obtain the fullness of the means of salvation since the Lord has entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant to the apostolic college alone whose head is Peter.

This phrase, "Only through this Church can one obtain the fullness of the means of salvation" to me is the key.

Obviously, by it's own catechism and compendium, the RCC does not teach that "all non-Catholics to be hell-bound sinners." It does, however teach that the RCC alone has the 'fullness of the means of salvation". Now, I don't agree with the RCC with this, but it's a far more acceptable statement than anyone who isn't RCC is going to hell. I can agree to disagree with the 'fullness of the means of salvation" statement just as I can agree to disagree with the teaching of the Assemblies of God that tongues is the only sign of Baptism of the Holy Spirit.

I'm not going to part fellowship with a brother or sister within the Assembly of God because they cannot recognize my baptism of the Holy Spirit since I don't speak in tongues. This is in no way an important enough issue to part fellowship over. I am also not going to part fellowship with a brother or sister in the RCC because of the "fullness of the means of salvation" issue either. This isn't that important of an issue either. Most Protestant churches, whether they put it down in writing or not, have this same kind of attitude, that their church is the one with the 'fullness' of truth. I heard that all the time at the Orthodox Presbyterian Church I was member of. I believe it's divisive and unfortunate, but hardly worth breaking off fellowship over.

This isn't to say that the RCC does indeed have some doctrines that causes me to refrain from fully fellowshipping with it. The teachings regarding Mary as the "Mother of the Church" is one of them, and Purgatory is probably the biggest block I hold against the teaching of the Church. So, while I will embrace Catholic's as brothers and sisters in the Lord, I would not become a member of a Catholic church, any more than I would become a member of an AofG, as the AofG would not recognize my spiritual baptism.

But, I believe firmly that the Bible teaches that we should be unified, and that unity should be based upon what we believe regarding God and Jesus. "If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord and believe in your hearts that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." These words are words that I believe separate the sheep from the goats. Those holding to the confession that Jesus is Lord, was dead and resurrected must be viewed as brothers and sisters. To those holding this confession, we should work towards unity, especially if they work towards unity with us. Since the Catechism teaches that "All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church" I believe that I would be the one guilty of dissention if I reject them as brothers in the Lord.

 

[Solo]

Rick Jones, a former Roman Catholic Priest has made the fact clear that those who adhere to Roman Catholicism will deny the teachings of the catechism to appear ecumenical.

Rick Jones wrote:

"A primary reason is the Roman Catholic doctrine which declares all non-Catholics to be hell-bound sinners. No, you will never hear these words from the Catholic Public Relations people. On the contrary, they will quickly deny it, labeling the accuser as a divisive troublemaker. However, the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church, the official source of Roman Catholic doctrine, proclaims":

• 
  
  "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained." Pg. 215, #816 (emphasis added)

I myself have posted Roman Catholic references to the ungodly claims of Roman Catholicism in this forum with the "loving RCc representatives" lying about the facts of the referenced documentation. Remember that satan is the father of ALL lies!

Why would the devil do that?!!!

 

[mondar]

The popes latest pronouncements make it clear that many Catholics, the pope included, do not view protestants as part of the salvation provided. On the other hand, I recognize many American Eccumentical Catholics do not think that way. For the Eccumentical Catholics, they must reconcile not merely with the statements of the Vatican and Curia, but also with the council of Trent. I know I have said this before, but it seem to need repeating.


http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well [Page 48] doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

The eccumentical Catholics have an issue. What do they do with the Council of Trent? Now I know the Roman Church recently retracted its anathema and excommunication of Luther. That is great and fine, but they need to retract the Council of Trent which pronounces anathema upon Luthers concept of justification by faith alone. Of course they cannot do this and retrain their theology that the councils were infallible. Way too much of the Roman system of dogma would crumble for those of Rome to honestly and truly agree that protestants are saved. While many Roman Catholics valiantly attempt to resurrect the concept of protestant salvation, it is a lost cause. To you eccumentical Catholics, what will you do with the council of Trent?

 

[handy]

The problem is Michael, that we humans are so prone to mix up our own prejudices with truths, that the resulting hodge-podge is almost impossible to sort out. When we allow our prejudices to be directed towards others in the Body of Christ, instead of upon issues which can and should be discussed with an aim towards resolution, we build up a 'us against them' attitude. I believe that this 'us against them' attitude is downright sin when we are speaking within the Body and is clearly from Satan in order to divide the church. As you stated above "Why would the Devil do that?"

Now, this 'us against them' attitude towards the RCC is very prevelent here at this forum and in the Protestant churches in general. Frankly, I've never heard ANY of my RCC friends state that Protestants going to hell. However, I've heard time and time again Protestants dogmatically stating that the RCC is the great Apostaty, the Pope is the Anti-Christ and that Catholics are going to hell. Basically, in my experience, Jones' charge against the RCC is more aptly laid at the feet of many Protestants. Talk about the 'specks' and 'boards'.

Let me put some things down that I think we can all agree upon.

Who is the Body of Christ?
Those who believe in God the Father; Jesus Christ His Son, born of the virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucifed dead and buried, was resurrected and will be the judge of all mankind; and God the Holy Spirit: those who are partakers in the Communion set for by Christ, are Baptized and have a life in Christ that is evident by the fruit of the Spirit.

Agree?

Now, looking at the catechism of the RCC, it's clear that they hold to these basic truths.

Therefore, by what right do we state that they are not of the Body of Christ?

Now I understand that the basic premise of this thread being isn't that we are denying the RCC are the Body of Christ, (although this thought is very prevelent within Protestant circles) but rather that those terrible RCC's claim that we aren't of the Body. (Us against Them)

Only I have already posted from the very next portion of the catechism that Jones' failed to address, the fact that the RCC does no such thing but recognizes anyone who is baptized into the faith as a brother.

Yes, Jones referred to a portion of the RCC catechism that states "For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained." emphasis mine

However, he didn't refer to the next paragraphs in the catechism which clarifies that "All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church."

Jones (nor anyone else) cannot have it both ways. He cannot quote the catechism to further his claim that the RCC teaches that all non-Catholics are hell-bound, but ignore everything that the catechism states that opposes his point. This is like the atheists who quote portions of scripture to show how rotten God is, but ignores the vast majority of scriptures that show how wonderful and good He is.

So, I now consider the source this article you posted: Rick Jones. He either a: doesn't fully understand that the catechism teaches that ALL who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ, have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord.

or b: He is willfully misrepresenting the RCC's catechism on this subject.

Since he is a former priest, I find it hard to believe that he doesn't understand the catechism.

Michael you said, "I myself have posted Roman Catholic references to the ungodly claims of Roman Catholicism in this forum with the "loving RCc representatives" lying about the facts of the referenced documentation."

I would just like to throw out here that perhaps, just perhaps, the "loving RCC representatives" didn't lie about the referenced documentation, they just disagreed with your interpretation of it, much in the same way I'm disagree with Jones' interpretation of Catechism #816 . Maybe I'm wrong, and perhaps you could give me a clear-cut example of an out-and-out lie by someone, you needn't give any names. Well, maybe not, because if the person is a liar, then they are not a great representative of the Church anyway.

Listen, every organized church that holds any kind of catechism, creed or doctrines fall short of the standard of perfection provided by the Scriptures. If they didn't, we would all be in that particular church, instead of hotly disagreeing with each other on forums such as this. All that I'm trying to say is that, while it's profitable to struggle with the ISSUES that divide us, with the aim to resolution, we ought not divide with each other. From the RCC's own catechism, it's clear that the RCC does not reject anyone who is baptized into the faith as hell-bound. So, it behooves us to not divide with them as brothers, but only wrestles with the issues.

 

[Solo]

handy,
If you believe what you have written, join a Southern Baptist Church and see what the ramifications are from the Roman Catholic church and its members.

The Roman Catholic church does not teach Salvation through any other means other than being a Roman Catholic.

Ask any EX-Roman Cathoic born again Believer!!!!!!

 

[Solo]

4. The Eucharist
Moreover, the Eucharist is the central point in the congregation of the faithful (Can 528.2) and is a literal sacrifice (Can 897, 904). The faithful should venerate the eucharistic element "worshiping it with supreme adoration" (Can 898). The Eucharist may never be celebrated with other churches (Can 908). Priests must celebrate it daily (Can 276.2; 719.2).

Read the entire article at http://www.gnfc.org/ant_v1n2_canon.html

 

[handy]

Funny you should say that, because a lot of what I know regarding the RCC comes from ex-RCC, born-agains including my brother-in-law, my hubby's family, and my hubby's college buddy, who went from the RCC to, believe it or not, Southern Baptist. All have good relations with the RCC's that they still know and fellowship with, with the exception of my b-i-l, who only became anti-Catholic when he started going to the Calvary Chapel that he is now a minister in. There are plenty of RCC's in my hubby's family and several of the cousins regularly ask me to pray with them and for them about various issues. James, my hubby's college buddy, still goes to Mass whenever he visits home and has regular conversations with his old priest. But, I must say, I don't think me becomming SB would cause much waves within the RCC, as I've never been RCC and don't plan ever to become one. My interest in this thread is more in the spirit of trying for some unity within the Body, rather than an embracing of all RCC doctrines.

Mondar, you referenced the controversial statements made by the Pope regarding churches. It occurred to me that although I read a number of "liberal-media news" reports on this statement, I hadn't yet read the actual statement. I looked on the Vatican website and found this discussion regarding the RCC's position on the Church and other churches:

SECOND QUESTION

What is the meaning of the affirmation that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church?

RESPONSE

Christ “established here on earth†only one Church and instituted it as a “visible and spiritual communityâ€Â[5], that from its beginning and throughout the centuries has always existed and will always exist, and in which alone are found all the elements that Christ himself instituted.[6] “This one Church of Christ, which we confess in the Creed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic […]. This Church, constituted and organised in this world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, governed by the successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with himâ€Â.[7]

In number 8 of the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen gentium ‘subsistence’ means this perduring, historical continuity and the permanence of all the elements instituted by Christ in the Catholic Church[8], in which the Church of Christ is concretely found on this earth.

It is possible, according to Catholic doctrine, to affirm correctly that the Church of Christ is present and operative in the churches and ecclesial Communities not yet fully in communion with the Catholic Church, on account of the elements of sanctification and truth that are present in them.[9] Nevertheless, the word “subsists†can only be attributed to the Catholic Church alone precisely because it refers to the mark of unity that we profess in the symbols of the faith (I believe... in the “one†Church); and this “one†Church subsists in the Catholic Church.[10]

THIRD QUESTION

Why was the expression “subsists in†adopted instead of the simple word “is�

RESPONSE

The use of this expression, which indicates the full identity of the Church of Christ with the Catholic Church, does not change the doctrine on the Church. Rather, it comes from and brings out more clearly the fact that there are “numerous elements of sanctification and of truth†which are found outside her structure, but which “as gifts properly belonging to the Church of Christ, impel towards Catholic Unityâ€Â.[11]

“It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation. In fact the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as instruments of salvation, whose value derives from that fullness of grace and of truth which has been entrusted to the Catholic Churchâ€Â[12].

I must admit, my biggest non-doctrinal beef with the RCC is not so much that they view other churches as suffering from defects (for I agree with that so far as it goes) but rather that the RCC suffers from no defects (I could point out a few).

 

[handy]

4. The Eucharist
Moreover, the Eucharist is the central point in the congregation of the faithful (Can 528.2) and is a literal sacrifice (Can 897, 904). The faithful should venerate the eucharistic element "worshiping it with supreme adoration" (Can 898). The Eucharist may never be celebrated with other churches (Can 908). Priests must celebrate it daily (Can 276.2; 719.2).

Read the entire article at http://www.gnfc.org/ant_v1n2_canon.html

Michael, rather than using anti-Catholic websites such as GNFC (which seems to be based upon the premise that no salvation can be found within the RCC), it may be better to go straight to the Vatican for correct RCC doctrine.

The above statement: "The Eucharist may never be celebrated with other churches" isn't correct. The correct doctrine of the RCC regarding the giving the Eucharist to other Christians is this:
293. When is it possible to give Holy Communion to other Christians?

1398-1401

Catholic ministers may give Holy Communion licitly to members of the Oriental Churches which are not in full communion with the Catholic Church whenever they ask for it of their own will and possess the required dispositions. Catholic ministers may licitly give Holy Communion to members of other ecclesial communities only if, in grave necessity, they ask for it of their own will, possess the required dispositions, and give evidence of holding the Catholic faith regarding the sacrament.
From the Compendium

I've found these two sites very helpful in understand RCC doctrine. I just like knowing what someone actually says, rather than was someone else says he says.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/compendiu ... initiation

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

 

[Solo]

Then the Catholic Law Canon does not mean anything to you?

The Good News For Catholics website is not an anti-Roman Catholic site. It is a site to rescue Roman Catholics out of the jaws of decpetion.

Following is the statement of the History of the Good News For Catholics group:

• 
  
  In 1981, a group of Christians living in Northern California began praying for Catholics, seeking opportunities to reach out to them in the love of Christ. Several were former Catholics. All shared a burden for helping Catholics find salvation in Christ. Jim McCarthy wrote a booklet entitled Good News for Catholics and the group distributed 800 copies of the booklet at a Catholic event in San Jose, California. That distribution marked the birth of the ministry of Good News for Catholics, its first publication lending it its name. Since then GNFC has produced a number of materials to help Catholics. These have been translated into various languages and distributed in the U.S. and around the world.

I believe it to be very disturbing that one would call an organization proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost as "anti-Catholic website". It is plain that these folks are praying for Roman Catholics every day, and have spent long hours and finances in delivering the truth to those who are decieved in the RCc.

 

[Albina]

Solo,
I like your post.
I used to be roman catholic and am now a reformed Christian
I don't beleive that rc and protestants can walk together unless the protestant is compromising

rcc twist all scriptures
all they care about is money
alot of rc have mental problems because of the false teaching.
some may be offended but I am saying it because I care.

 

[mondar]

Mondar, you referenced the controversial statements made by the Pope regarding churches. It occurred to me that although I read a number of "liberal-media news" reports on this statement, I hadn't yet read the actual statement. I looked on the Vatican website and found this discussion regarding the RCC's position on the Church and other churches:

[Statements on question 2 - 3 removed for space-----It can be read above]

I must admit, my biggest non-doctrinal beef with the RCC is not so much that they view other churches as suffering from defects (for I agree with that so far as it goes) but rather that the RCC suffers from no defects (I could point out a few).

Interesting. You see the RCC as suffering defects? That raises my curiosity.

Handy, in the statement of the Curia, sections 2-3 apply to the "Oriental" churches. The curia is saying the eastern, russian, and greek orthodox churches suffer defects, but still have salvation. Those statements are in questions 2-3 where you quoted. That part does not include any statements on protestant Churches. The part directed at protestant Churches is found in question 5. It is a clear statement that protestants of the "16th century reformation" are not merely defective Churches that still have salvation, but the protestants are no Church at all, and are therefore protestants have not salvation at all. The first 4 questions have nothing to do with protestants, only the 5th does.

To remain true to Rome, one must absolutely take the interpretation the pope does. Otherwise, how could he reconcile himself with the council of Trent? Trent clearly anathematizes protestant doctrine.

One last thing, I have been taking the statements of the curia from the vatican web site. The english statements can be found at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... es_en.html

 

[handy]

Then the Catholic Law Canon does not mean anything to you?

On the contrary, the Catholic Law Canon is very instructive in what the RCC actually teaches and believes. The problem I found with the GNFC quote you provided is that it misrepresented what the church teaches. The GNFC quote listed Canon 908 as saying that the Eucharist must never be celebrated with other churches. While Canon 908 does prohibit Priests from co-celebrating the Eucharists with ministers of churches or other ecclesial communities that are not in full communion of the Church, the Canon also spells out situations in which the Eucharist can be administered to believers not in the RCC. There are of course churches, many of them Eastern that have full communion with the Roman Catholic Church even though they are not RCC.

Other churches the RCC will not commune with. But then, there are a lot of churches that would refuse to commune with other churches as well. There are Baptist churches that hold to 'closed' communion, only serving communion to those who are members of their specific denomination. There are Calvinist churches that do the same. I disagree with the concept of closed communion, but I won't deny the Christocity of the church based solely upon this unfortunate doctrine.

The Good News For Catholics website is not an anti-Roman Catholic site. It is a site to rescue Roman Catholics out of the jaws of decpetion.
...

I believe it to be very disturbing that one would call an organization proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost as "anti-Catholic website". It is plain that these folks are praying for Roman Catholics every day, and have spent long hours and finances in delivering the truth to those who are decieved in the RCc.

The 'anti-Catholic' wasn't meant to refer to the person who is Catholic, but rather to the Church itself.

This organization that proclaims the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the lost, when the 'lost' in question are Christians belonging to the Roman Catholic Church is 'anti-Catholic' because it obviously refuses to acknowledge that the RCC teaches the Gospel of Christ, that He is God, died on the cross, and rose again. I'm not questioning their love for Catholics, just the assumption on their part that a Catholic can not be saved within the RCC. I'm sure that they have reached out to many bringing a clearer and more firmly founded faith to them.

The title of this thread is whether or not Roman Catholics and Protestants can walk together. The 'answer' to this question was NO! We cannot.

So what then? Are we Protestants never to acknowledge the sincere and very real faith in Christ that our Catholic brothers and sisters have? Given the commandment of God to be unified as a Body, we need to step very carefully when denying the very salvation of those who are in the RCC. Whether or not the RCC is a good denominational church isn't the question of the thread, it's whether or not we need to break off fellowship with our RCC brothers and sisters. The thread was based upon an article by an ex-Catholic Priest, who I believe misrepresents the Church's teachings, based upon a comparison of what he said with the official doctuments of the Church.

Another illustration is this:

The Catholic church doesn't believe that anymore!" But they do. The most current Catechism reassures us that:

"…all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: …Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." Pg. 224, #846 (emphasis added)

Why that horrible RCC! No one can be saved outside the Roman Catholic Church.
Only that is not what the Catechism is saying: See that the reference is to the Church. Not the Roman Catholic Church, but the Church. So, what does the Catechism mean by "Church" in this context? Again, from the Catechism:

Who belongs to the Catholic Church?

836 "All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God. . . . And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, called by God's grace to salvation."320

837 "Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. Even though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity is not saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but 'in body' not 'in heart.'"321

838 "The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist."324 emphasis mine

So, my thing is this. The Roman Catholic Church is being accused of holding a "doctrine which declares all non-Catholics to be hell-bound sinners". But, it doesn't, it's very catechism acknowledges that they are joined in many ways with those who are "honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith".

On the other hand, we have organizations like GNFC that are dedicated to sharing a "a burden for helping Catholics find salvation in Christ" and sincere Christians who state right out for Catholics to "Flee the institution of the Roman Catholic church and turn towards God Almighty through Jesus Christ so that you do not partake of the plagues that will be poured out on the RCC in the last times".

Which sounds more like it's conforming to the Scriptural commandment of unity?

 

[handy]

Interesting. You see the RCC as suffering defects? That raises my curiosity.

Handy, in the statement of the Curia, sections 2-3 apply to the "Oriental" churches. The curia is saying the eastern, russian, and greek orthodox churches suffer defects, but still have salvation. Those statements are in questions 2-3 where you quoted. That part does not include any statements on protestant Churches. The part directed at protestant Churches is found in question 5. It is a clear statement that protestants of the "16th century reformation" are not merely defective Churches that still have salvation, but the protestants are no Church at all, and are therefore protestants have not salvation at all. The first 4 questions have nothing to do with protestants, only the 5th does.

To remain true to Rome, one must absolutely take the interpretation the pope does. Otherwise, how could he reconcile himself with the council of Trent? Trent clearly anathematizes protestant doctrine.

One last thing, I have been taking the statements of the curia from the vatican web site. The english statements can be found at http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congr ... es_en.html

Oh yes, I absolutely see the RCC as having defects. Far more defects than most (but not all) other churches. I've said before, and will state outright again, I would never become a member of the RCC. I will study your link, but not today. I've spent far, far too much time on this topic today and really have to get off-line and stay off-line. Perhaps tomorrow I'll have some time to search your point. One thing I will say, I like to research all things Catholic using the Vatican's own sites, it's too easy to misunderstand things otherwise.

 

[mondar]

Handy,
I want to say that I am aware that many in the RCC disagree with the statements of the pope. Diversity of opinions within the RCC is quite great. Diversity of opinions concerning what the Pope said is even quite different within the RCC. I read a statement by an American Cardinal, he complained that the Popes statement threw eccumenticalism back before 1964. In the 1980s I used to get the Catholic Biblical Quarterly (Jesuit). As I read it, I was surprised at the similarity between the Jesuits and liberal protestant theology. American Jesuit Catholic scholars seem to me to be drifting away from Rome.

Do you remember the name Hans Kung? He was an RCC German scholar that got excommunicated in Germany for heresy. He was not really that different from the American Jesuits. I dont think the Pope really has the muscle to excommunicate all American Catholics, but I think he would if he could.

The American Catholic community seems to me to be caught between the "old school" people that follow trent, and the American eccumentical scholars. You seem very typical of most American Catholics, you want to hold to the "old school" theology of the council of Trent and the 1st Vatican Council which condemns protestants to hell. Yet, you refuse to accept the implications of this theology and remain to a degree eccumentical and accepting of protestants.

Handy, you may not see the big picture in the RCC world, but people like you are sitting on a fence. I see so many Catholics doing that.

I see much more. I think there will be people isolated, and some people have natural alliances because of their similar theology. The isolated people will be the classic protestants like me. People that believe in justification by faith alone. Yet, I see great similarities between the theology of Arminians and American Catholics. It is a natural alliance. Have you ever read the joint statement on Justification by Catholics, Methodists, and Lutherans?
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_just.htm

As I read the statement, I think the Arminian/Catholic connection is obvious. I have observed the wording of certain parts of the council of Trent using terms such as "previent grace." This is the same exact term later adapted in Wesleyan Theology.

Eccumentical American Catholic scholars seem disappointed with the Popes recent announcements. Then there is the confusing group of mainstream Catholics who prefer to refuse to accept the meaning of the words of the pope. Most American Catholics (not the scholarly Catholic community) prefer to deny the meaning of the Popes words. The prefer to re-interpret the Popes words so as to soften them up and make protestants "defective Churches." If you read the document of the curia closely, the pope is saying protestants are going to hell... just the same as the anathema's of Trent.

 

[handy]

Handy,

You seem very typical of most American Catholics, you want to hold to the "old school" theology of the council of Trent and the 1st Vatican Council which condemns protestants to hell. Yet, you refuse to accept the implications of this theology and remain to a degree eccumentical and accepting of protestants.

Handy, you may not see the big picture in the RCC world, but people like you are sitting on a fence. I see so many Catholics doing that.

Again, just want to clarify yet again, that I'm not Catholic, never have been and never will be. I will look up you links for study.

 

[Vic C.]

Administrator's note: we ask that no other topics discussing RCC beliefs be started. The topic will be subject to locking or deletion and you will be pointed to one of the predefined topics, providing your subject matter matches one of the established topics... Thanks