Roman Catholic...Christian or Cult?

[Walter]

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.

 

[Walter]

Walter, I know you were not replying to me, but I appreciate what you have written. In your search, did you ever consider the Eastern Orthodox Church?

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.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

The American Dream: Thank you for your gracious apology and we can definitely start over. Before we begin discussing 'No salvation outside the Church', I would like to share some of my testimony with you. I was brought up in a Baptist family, came to Christ (repented of my sins and trusted Christ as my Savior and Lord) at the age of eleven and was taught that if something is Catholic it has to be wrong.

Liturgy is definitely part of Catholic worship and so it was to be rejected as ritualistic and repetitive praying. As an evangelical I thought the symbolism and ritual of Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheran or any high church as devoid of meaning, empty, rote, and mindless. Of course there have been cases or even tendencies at times for people to lose track of the meanings of their religious practices, and to do them without thinking about why they do them– but Baptists do this too– sometimes even with their prayers, devotions, church-going, etc. To say that all symbolic ritual in the Catholic church is rote and thoughtless ritualism is as uncharitable as someone saying that evangelicalism is legalistic unthoughtful literalism which practices bibliolatry with no concern for making a concrete difference in this world. But I digress!

I began a bible study in my church of the book of Hebrews and I saw just how important liturgy was for the covenant and that became increasingly evident to me as I studied the book of Hebrews. Also I found that overwhelming historical evidence exists proving it was important to the Early Church. I came to believe that liturgy represents the way God fathered his covenant people and He renewed that on a regular basis. It became evident to me as to what the relationship of the Old Testament was to the New and how the New Testament Church became a fulfillment and not an abandonment of the Old. These ideas were confirmed by the writings of the Early Church Fathers. Reading the ECF's, I began to believe that the Catholic Church might most accurately reflect the intentions of the Early Church Fathers and found other evangelicals seeking a church whose roots run deeper than the Reformation. However, I had always believed that people only leave the Catholic Church for 'True Christianity' and not the other way around. But, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life’s 2007 Religious Landscape Survey, roughly 8 percent of Catholics were raised in other churches as evangelicals. This compares with 9 percent of evangelical Christians who were raised Catholic. Not much difference.

As I continued to study I became aware that the one only place where Jesus used the word 'covenant' was when He instituted 'The Lord's Supper'. Yet, we only observed communion four times a year.
I began to study the Gospel of John and became aware that the Gospel was chock full of sacramental imagery. I was raised to believe that liturgy and sacraments were to be rejected and certainly not to be studied. These things I was programed not to be open to. But going through Hebrews I noticed the writer made me see that liturgy and sacraments were an essential part of God's family life. Then in John six, I came to realize that Jesus could not have been talking metaphorically when He taught us to eat His flesh and drink His blood. The Jews in His audience would not have been outraged and scandalized by a mere symbol. Besides, if the Jews had merely misunderstood Jesus to be speaking literally and He meant His words to be taken figuratively, why would he not simply clarify them? But He never did! Nor did any other Christian for over a thousand years!

All this and the fact that my Aunt, a Baptist missionary, had announced to her family that she was becoming a Catholic and this started me looking deeper into a Church I had long considered heretical and even the Great Whore of Babylon (I had read David Hunt's book). Then I began to read some of the writings of the recent popes. Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have been highly regarded in the evangelical community. Their writings are very focused on the person of Jesus Christ and very attentive to scripture. That was certainly important to us evangelicals.

Of course there were the questions about supposed 'Mary worship' (Catholics place Mary and the saints above Christ and Catholics bow to idols, don't they?) and I was taught in my Baptist church that Catholics believe Purgatory is place where people are given a 'Second Chance' at salvation. Of course, I knew that was un-biblical. And wasn't Catholicism a 'works-rigteousness' based religion? The list went on and on so I began to read and see for myself what the Catholics had to say to my objections to their 'un-biblical' doctrines. My first book was 'Born Fundamentalist, Born-Again Catholic' by David Currie. This answered most of the nagging questions I had had as to whether or not the Catholic Church was biblical or not. I then read 'Crossing The Tiber: Evangelicals Discover The Ancient Faith' by Steve Ray, a former Baptist. Then came books by other evangelical converts such as Scott Hahn and books by Karl Keating.

There are many other reasons why I and other former evangelicals convert to Catholicism. One reason is: Certainty
To have certainty and knowledge of truth leads many evangelicals to look elsewhere beyond all the doctrinal differences and “choose-your-own-church syndrome” within evangelical churches. I had the desire for certain knowledge, this is something I could not find within evangelical churches. If I were to ask ten evangelicals what their churches teach about marriage and divorce, how many different answers might I get?

Another reason for conversion is that I wanted to be connected to the ENTIRE history of the Christian Church and not just from the Reformation forward. I do not buy into Baptist successionism as their is a lack of historical evidence for it. Baptists trying to connect themselves to various groups that split from Catholicism prior to the Reformation falls short. Their beliefs and practices were closer to Catholicism than present day Baptists. The Waldenses are an example.

Also, I have issue with the "interpretive diversity” that occurs in evangelicalism, I prefer to accept the authority of the Catholic Church instead of trying to sort through the numerous interpretations of evangelical pastors and theologians. The authority that is found in the Catholic Church’s Magisterium has been consistant for two thousand years. The non-ending threads on the BB pitting Christian against Christian over doctrine many times resulting in either board members directly or indirectly questioning each others salvation and the myriad of denominations created because of such squabbling is evidence enough of the dangers of 'interpretive diversity' or 'individual interpretation' of scripture.

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.

 

[Walter]

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

 

[The American Dream]

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.

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?

 

[Rebel]

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.

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.

 

[Rebel]

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.

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?

 

[Bro. James]

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

 

[Rebel]

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.

 

[Bro. James]

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

 

[The American Dream]

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

 

[Bro. James]

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

 

[The American Dream]

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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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

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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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

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

Thanks

 

[The American Dream]

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.

 

[Rippon]

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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

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.

 

[Walter]

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?

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.

 

[The American Dream]

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