Are Catholics saved or even christians?

[Thinkingstuff]

For the record, I have posted several statements that have gone unrefuted by any Roman Catholic or otherwise. I will assume that it is because no Roman Catholic on this discussion board is able to.

what questions specifically. I'm not catholic but I can answer what I know and If I don't know I'll call up my Dad and see what he says. He's Catholic BTW.

 

[lori4dogs]

I love this argument:

Interviewer asks Catholic #1: Do you deny the sufficiency of Christ's atonement, and believe in salvation by works?
Catholic 1 says: No, I believe in the sufficiency of Christ's atonement, and believe in salvation by faith.

Interviewer asks Catholic #2: Do you deny the sufficiency of Christ's atonement, and believe in salvation by works?
Catholic 2 says: No, I believe in the sufficiency of Christ's atonement, and believe in salvation by faith.

Interviewer asks Catholic #3: Do you deny the sufficiency of Christ's atonement, and believe in salvation by works?
Catholic 3 says: No, I believe in the sufficiency of Christ's atonement, and believe in salvation by faith.

Interviewer asks Catholic #4: Do you deny the sufficiency of Christ's atonement, and believe in salvation by works?
Catholic 4 says: No, I believe in the sufficiency of Christ's atonement, and believe in salvation by faith.

So the interviewer says, "See? They're all being dishonest about what they really believe."

Reformed Baptist: Actually, I think this answers you 'sufficiently'.

 

[annsni]

But they do. Every time, they receive communion, they're affirming Catholic doctrine.

Not so - not if they don't believe as the Catholic church does that communion is the actual body and blood of Christ but partake as a representation instead.

So then, they're staying in a false religion they don't even believe in? Isn't that a little hypocritical?

They're staying in a religion where they don't fully believe every single teaching (which is common in many churches) but are comfortable with the rest of it. Does every single person believe exactly as you do in your church on every teaching possible? I doubt it.

I'm sorry, but I don't see very much difference between believing in a different Jesus and believing in a different Gospel.

Who said they believe in a different Gospel? Some do, some don't.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

Who said they believe in a different Gospel? Some do, some don't.

The Catholic church teaches a false gospel. Those who affirm Catholic teaching affirm this false gospel.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

For the record, I have posted several statements that have gone unrefuted by any Roman Catholic or otherwise. I will assume that it is because no Roman Catholic on this discussion board is able to.

I just find it funny that when you make a statement about what Catholicism teaches, they call you a liar and then, if you cite Catholic sources to show what Catholicism teaches, they call it "anti-Catholic propaganda".

Honestly, I've never heard Catholics refer to the CCC as "anti-Catholic propaganda" before.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

This is what I said:

t is absolutely correct to say that Christ accomplished all of our salvation for us on the cross. But that does not settle the question of how this redemption is applied to us. Matt brought that up. Scripture reveals that it is applied to us over the course of time through, among other things, the process of sanctification through which the Christian is made holy. Sanctification involves suffering (Rom. 5:3–5), and purgatory is the final stage of sanctification that some of us need to undergo before we enter heaven. Purgatory is the final phase of Christ’s applying to us the purifying redemption that He accomplished for us by his death on the cross.

Actually, you said much, much more than that.

 

[Johnv]

I just find it funny that when you make a statement about what Catholicism teaches, they call you a liar and then, if you cite Catholic sources to show what Catholicism teaches, they call it "anti-Catholic propaganda".

What's even funnier is when a Catholic makes a statement about what they believe, you call them a liar and then, if they cite Catholic sources to support what they believe, you call them ignorant.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

He hasn't agreed with you.

Well, he said he agreed with me, so I guess that's between you and him. So glad for him that he's got you to tell him what he "really meant".

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Well, he said he agreed with me, so I guess that's between you and him. So glad for him that he's got you to tell him what he "really meant".

He can answer for himself. I'm just reading the post. He may have agreed with an aspect but not the whole. As far as history I think I pointed it out quite clearly and accurately.

 

[FriendofSpurgeon]

Not so - not if they don't believe as the Catholic church does that communion is the actual body and blood of Christ but partake as a representation instead.





They're staying in a religion where they don't fully believe every single teaching (which is common in many churches) but are comfortable with the rest of it. Does every single person believe exactly as you do in your church on every teaching possible? I doubt it.





Who said they believe in a different Gospel? Some do, some don't.

Thanks Ann. Another bit of common sense on this topic. I have Christian friends who have stayed in their local Catholic church for a variety of reasons, though they no longer agree with certain dogma. Also, as I stated before, not all Catholic churches are the same not all Presbyterian, Baptist, Methiodist, fill in the blank churches are the same either.

In the same way, we have some in our church who don't necessariy agree on a reformed view of salvation or our eschatological views. Some may be even dispensational (perish the thought!). That's OK. And while some may ask, then why do they come to a reformed church, we simply say that they are welcome.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

What's even funnier is when a Catholic makes a statement about what they believe, I falsely accuse you of calling them a liar and then, if they cite Catholic sources to support what they believe, I falsely accuse you of calling them ignorant.

Yes, you do.

The problem, John, is that the ultimate authority on what Catholicism teaches is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That is essentially all of the teachings and doctrines of Catholicism codified in one statement.

So if they say that Catholicism teaches something that contradicts the Catechism, then they're wrong. It doesn't matter how long they've been a Catholic or how sincere they are in their Catholicism. The Catholic Church has put down in writing what it teaches.

It's a bit like the post where Lori stated that Catholics do not resacrifice Christ at every mass, and then, to prove that Catholics don't resacrifice Christ at every mass, quote the CCC stating that Christ is resacrificed at every mass.

What makes Lori a greater authority on Catholic teaching than the Catholic church?

What's more, when someone states that they believe something and then does something that demonstrates that they do not believe it, what are we to go by? Their words? Or their actions?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

He can answer for himself.

And yet, here you are to tell us that he didn't really mean what he said.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And yet, here you are to tell us that he didn't really mean what he said.

This is what he said

So yes, I agree that the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today took shape and took on its own identity shortly after the split in 1054.

He niether denied that there was a Catholic Church prior to 1054. Nor did he deny that distinctiveness that the Catholic Church had prior to 1054 is still with in the Roman Catholic Church today. That is not to say there weren't some changes. However, You took this one sentence and applied it to your whole point which was not true and I was pointing it out.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Yes, you do.

The problem, John, is that the ultimate authority on what Catholicism teaches is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That is essentially all of the teachings and doctrines of Catholicism codified in one statement.

So if they say that Catholicism teaches something that contradicts the Catechism, then they're wrong. It doesn't matter how long they've been a Catholic or how sincere they are in their Catholicism. The Catholic Church has put down in writing what it teaches.

It's a bit like the post where Lori stated that Catholics do not resacrifice Christ at every mass, and then, to prove that Catholics don't resacrifice Christ at every mass, quote the CCC stating that Christ is resacrificed at every mass.

What makes Lori a greater authority on Catholic teaching than the Catholic church?

What's more, when someone states that they believe something and then does something that demonstrates that they do not believe it, what are we to go by? Their words? Or their actions?

What do they teach that contradicts the catachism?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

This is what he said He niether denied that there was a Catholic Church prior to 1054. Nor did he deny that distinctiveness that the Catholic Church had prior to 1054 is still with in the Roman Catholic Church today. That is not to say there weren't some changes. However, You took this one sentence and applied it to your whole point which was not true and I was pointing it out.

He said that he agrees with me and essentially goes on to repeat what I had just said.

 

[JohnDeereFan]

What do they teach that contradicts the catachism?

Lori states they don't resacrifice Christ at the Mass and yet she, herself, quoted the CCC stating that Christ is resacrificed at the mass.

They say that Purgatory is not for the expiation of sins and yet, DHK, Reformed Baptist, and I have all quoted directly from the CCC where we're told that Purgatory is for the expiation of sins.

Likewise, they say that they believe in salvation by grace alone and yet, we've quoted the Council of Trent stating that anyone who believes in the doctrine of grace alone is to be considered anathema.

So we have three conclusions:

1. The Catholics are lying.
2. The Catholics are ignorant about what their religion teaches.
3. The CCC and the Council of Trent proclamations are wrong.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

He said that he agrees with me and essentially goes on to repeat what I had just said.

This is what you said

Actually, it isn't history at all. It's a Catholic lie.

There was one church, neither Catholic nor Protestant, nor Orthodox. Just one church.

It was this church that held those councils, not the Catholic church. The Catholic church as we know it didn't really take shape until several hundred years later.

He's saying that you haven't distinguished between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. Reading early writings the one church which you mention above was called the Catholic church. Agnus Dei differentiantes between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church so as far as that goes he agrees with you if you make that distinction. however, reading that post you haven't. you called it a Catholic lie which would include Modern Roman Catholics and Orthodox for both came out of that Catholic Tradition. And it was this Catholic Church that held the councils. Yet that Church is different than the Roman Catholic church in the Sense that it has since split into east and west distinctive churches. Yet both East and West have closer ties to it than the modern protestant movement. Understand?

 

[JohnDeereFan]

This is what you said
He's saying that you haven't distinguished between the Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

First of all, didn't you say about three posts ago that he can speak for himself?

Second, I said something and he responded to me and said "I AGREE" and then repeated essentially the same thing I just stated.

He's not a moron and you're being dishonest.

Understand?

Yes, I understand. You see no other alternative but to lie about me and put words in his mouth.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Lori states they don't resacrifice Christ at the Mass and yet she, herself, quoted the CCC stating that Christ is resacrificed at the mass.

They say that Purgatory is not for the expiation of sins and yet, DHK, Reformed Baptist, and I have all quoted directly from the CCC where we're told that Purgatory is for the expiation of sins.

Likewise, they say that they believe in salvation by grace alone and yet, we've quoted the Council of Trent stating that anyone who believes in the doctrine of grace alone is to be considered anathema.

So we have three conclusions:

1. The Catholics are lying.
2. The Catholics are ignorant about what their religion teaches.
3. The CCC and the Council of Trent proclamations are wrong.

Well this is what the CCC says about Purgatory

1030 All who die in God's grace and friendship, but still imperfectly purified, are indeed assured of their eternal salvation; but after death they undergo purification, so as to achieve the holiness necessary to enter the joy of heaven.

1031 The Church gives the name Purgatory to this final purification of the elect, which is entirely different from the punishment of the damned.606 The Church formulated her doctrine of faith on Purgatory especially at the Councils of Florence and Trent. The tradition of the Church, by reference to certain texts of Scripture, speaks of a cleansing fire:607


As for certain lesser faults, we must believe that, before the Final Judgment, there is a purifying fire. He who is truth says that whoever utters blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will be pardoned neither in this age nor in the age to come. From this sentence we understand that certain offenses can be forgiven in this age, but certain others in the age to come.608
To understand this doctrine and practice of the Church, it is necessary to understand that sin has a double consequence. Grave sin deprives us of communion with God and therefore makes us incapable of eternal life, the privation of which is called the "eternal punishment" of sin. On the other hand every sin, even venial, entails an unhealthy attachment to creatures, which must be purified either here on earth, or after death in the state called Purgatory. This purification frees one from what is called the "temporal punishment" of sin. These two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin. A conversion which proceeds from a fervent charity can attain the complete purification of the sinner in such a way that no punishment would remain.84

This is what is taught about the Eucharist

The Eucharist is "the source and summit of the Christian life."136 "The other sacraments, and indeed all ecclesiastical ministries and works of the apostolate, are bound up with the Eucharist and are oriented toward it. For in the blessed Eucharist is contained the whole spiritual good of the Church, namely Christ himself, our Pasch."137

1325 "The Eucharist is the efficacious sign and sublime cause of that communion in the divine life and that unity of the People of God by which the Church is kept in being. It is the culmination both of God's action sanctifying the world in Christ and of the worship men offer to Christ and through him to the Father in the Holy Spirit."138

1326 Finally, by the Eucharistic celebration we already unite ourselves with the heavenly liturgy and anticipate eternal life, when God will be all in all.139

1327 In brief, the Eucharist is the sum and summary of our faith: "Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking."140
The memorial of the Lord's Passion and Resurrection.

The Holy Sacrifice, because it makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy sacrifice are also used,150 since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of the Old Covenant.

Do you see your points mentioned in these?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

First of all, didn't you say about three posts ago that he can speak for himself?

Second, I said something and he responded to me and said "I AGREE" and then repeated essentially the same thing I just stated.

He's not a moron and you're being dishonest.



Yes, I understand. You see no other alternative but to lie about me and put words in his mouth.

I think you only want to see things your way rather than objectively. I will go no further as I have made my point about this.