Featured Roman Catholic...Christian or Cult?

The American Dream: I want to answer a question you previously asked but I had neglected to answer. The Catholic Church recognizes the baptisms of Baptist and other Protestant churches if those baptisms are done as prescribed by scripture: ‘In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit’. Unitarians, Jesus Name, United Pentecostal, etc which deny the Trinity would not be valid baptisms. Therefore, being I was baptized as scripture prescribes, I did not need to be re-baptized.
Now, to your question regarding ‘No Salvation Outside The Church’. Many people (including myself for a long time) misunderstand the meaning of this teaching. There have been certain radical traditionalists, like Fr. Leonard Fenney, going to the extreme, claim that unless one is a full-fledged, baptized member of the Catholic Church, one will be damned. I visited the cemetery where Fr. Feeney is buried at the Benedictine Center in Three Rivers, Massachusetts, and right on his grave-stone is written the words ‘extra ecclesiam nulla salus’, (outside the Church, no salvation). You might be interested to know that Fr. Feeney and his followers were ex-communicated for teaching that anyone other than a Catholic has no chance of salvation. The Church that declares the normative necessity of being Catholic also declares the possibility of salvation for you who are not Catholics. However, for those who knowingly and deliberately (that is, not out of innocent ignorance, in other words, you know the truth and reject the truth anyway) commit the sins of heresy (rejecting divinely revealed doctrine) or schism (separating from the Catholic Church and/or joining a schismatic church), no salvation would be possible until they repented and returned to live in Catholic unity. Now, scriptural basis for this teaching? We see this in Jesus’ teaching: "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters" Mt 12:30. Also: "if he a sinning brother refuses to listen even to the Church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector" Mt 18:1. Paul warned similarly: "As for a man who is factious, after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned" Titus 3:10-11.
It became important to me to find evidence of this understanding in the Early Church. Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of the apostle John, wrote: "Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism [i.e., is a schismatic], he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine (i.e., is a heretic), he has no part in the passion (of Christ). Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons" Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3–4:1 A.D. 110.

 

In all honesty, I would have taken a lot closer look at Orthodoxy if there were local parishes that might have made it possible to attend the liturgy. I also would have looked closer at a local parish affiliated with The Communion of Evangelical Episcopal Churches if there had been one available. Papal authority and infallibility was a roadblock for me for some time.

 

Thanks for posting this. I wrestled with some of these same issues starting about 12 years ago or so, when I started questioning my long held baptist beliefs. I read a few of the same books you mentioned (Crossing the Tiber, and Rome Sweet Home) but I spent more time seriously exploring Eastern Orthodoxy and almost converted. I ended up landing in a traditional Continuing Anglican church about 8-9 years ago, and have been Anglican ever since.

 

Your welcome. Since my entry into the Catholic Church, the Episcopal diocese in which I live left The Episcopal Church and is now part of the Anglican Church of North America. Of course The Episcopal Church has sued them for the property and TEC may prevail (although TEC recently lost the properties belonging to the Diocese of South Carolina), but I believe the members of these churches would rather worship in a cornfield than to remain part of TEC. I have great respect for the Continuing Anglican Churches and consider you kissin' cousins. I would have taken a much closer look at them had they existed here when I was exploring the catholic faith. It has been interesting to watch their parishes growing while the few churches in the area that remained in TEC continue to dwindle and will probably close and sell their properties anyway. What is interesting is that TEC will sell of their closing churches to ANYONE including Muslims but never to a Continuing Anglican Church. They are pretty bitter.
http://www.virtueonline.org/binghamton-ny-episcopal-diocese-sells-historic-church-muslims

 

As a former Baptist, you know that we do not hold that every Catholic is lost. In fact, we acknowledge that our rolls are full of lost people. One can see that by the total membership vs the Sunday morning attendance. So as I understand your post, you are saying that if one leaves the Catholic Church and enters a church that it considers apostate, then there is no salvation. For a Baptist, those groups include the SDA, any charismatic denomination, CoC, LDS, JWs, and the like. As of late, the PCUSA and other specific branches of mainline Protestant denominations are apostate due to sanctioning same sex marriage. So a question back to you, how does that list line up with the RCC?

 

Thank you for your answer.

Papal authority and infallibility always was a roadblock for me when I was searching, and it always would be. Also, my view of sacraments is definitely not compatible with the RC view.

 

DT, could you say some of the reasons you went with Continuing Anglicanism rather than the EOC? Also, what made you, as you say, question your long held Baptist beliefs?

 

Henry the eighth one was the first Anglican pope. Henry snubbed Rome for not granting him a divorce decree from his latest wife. Henry became the head of the Church of England which still exists aka Anglican, also Episcopal.

The doctrines did not change much. The history of the RCC and the Anglicans is bloody with power struggles.

The Anglicans are going back to their mother--they never got far away doctrinally. We are in the midst of an ecumenical movement.

None of these groups fit the form of a New Testament Church.

Now what?

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

You need to read more about doctrine in Anglican Communion. This is the most diverse body or denominational family in the Christian world.

 

Diversity and denomination are not traits of a New Testament Church. The Faith, once for all delivered to the Saints(Jude 3) does not allow for ecumenism. See also: Jude 4, 24.

"Wherefore, come out from among them, saith The Lord; touch not the unclean thing."

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

I believe the NT church is basically the local church with correct doctrine. Have you ever seen these three models?

RCC Universal, visible
Prot Universal, invisible
Bapt Local, visible

 

Yep. Been there done that, all three. I am persuaded that the universal church has never assembled in this world. It will in the next. Universal visible church fits the Roman mold/dogma. Universal invisible is a reformed version of the Roman version. Again, the universal church, visible or invisible has never assembled.

Then there is the local, visible. Many so-called Baptists have watered this one in their ecumenical wisdom. True Baptists have always been local and visible. When the born again, baptized believers of a given assembly assemble they are quite visible. Every New Testament Assembly is a sovereign, visible assembly carrying out the Great Commission. Jesus is the Vicar. There is no earthly vicar, hierarchy, college of hirelings or any such thing.

"You can know the Truth, The Truth will make you free."

Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

Shalom.

Bro. James

 

I agree about the universal church being for the next life. On earth the work of the Lord is carried out by the local church. The universal church never held a worship service, took up an offering, went on outreach and visitation, helped the sick and poor, administered the Lords Supper or baptism, preached a sermon, sang a hymn etc.

 

Funny James, but I dont see them helping anyone but themselves.....so Im not seeing any "True" Church around here. Youse guys might want to send some of them true churches up here before the RCC takes over completely.

 

I dont understand your RCC reference....could you please explain?

Thanks

 

It was in reference to James talking about the universal church. In reference the model I listed the RCC claims to be the universal church here on earth, ie visible. The Protestant church says the universal church is invisible which means all saved across all denominations. As you know, Baptists operate on a local church basis, and see the universal church as pretty much for eternity.

 

Mike, i.e. Sat/Nep --It is against the rules here come back and falsely identify yourself as someone else. Honesty has never been one of your strengths. Please remove yourself from the BB.

 

Oh no....here we go again. Some advice to both of you----use the IGNORE FEATURE. Hopefully peace will once again prevail. Thanks.

 

I'm not sure what position the Catholic Church holds as to the CoC or SDA. I know what their position is on the Catholic Church and it isn't good! However, the Catholic Church does not view the LDS or JW's as Christian bodies. The mainline Protestant churches like UCC, Episcopal Church, American Baptist, PCUSA, ELCA, Methodist Church, etc. are losing their theological moorings quickly and may soon have little left that resembles the 'faith once delivered to the saints'.

I would like to make more of a comment about 'charismatics' as we have many of them within the Catholic Church. Having been involved in it to some extent at one time, I would say this movement has a number of major problematic areas:

- The intrinsic belief that the Church somehow "went wrong" and lost its way for, oh, about 19 centuries until they (charismatics) came along and discovered the gifts of the Holy Spirit again. Sound familiar? Should we call it the Charismatic Reformation?

- A completely improper reliance on emotions and emotionalism for guidance on the same level as or even above the rationality of reliance on the Magisterium and Church authority in general.

- Following from the above, a lot of wishy-washiness and muddying of areas that are actually completely clear, such as the status of Protestant communities in relation to the visible Church which is what we have been discussing. While most here will not agree with my position on 'visible Church', I think most understand my concern about the former.

Perhaps these problems are not completely intrinsic to the movement itself, but they are so widespread and ingrained the result is the same.

 

Does the RCC believe that supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit have ceased such as tongues, healing, prophecy, raising the dead, etc.?