The explanation of Catholic Beliefs

[Baptist4life]

quantumfaith,
Apparently I misunderstood your posts. I apologize.

 

[12strings]

You pegged me 12. I would say I have no earthly idea how many practicing catholics have a saving relationship with God. And I have no mathematical algorithm which would serve to predict such. I do however, in most instances, accept the word and testimony of someone that shares with me that they have such a relationship to God.

I would generally agree, but if the person were a Roman catholic, and they shared with me that they are sure they are going to go to heaven because they believe in Jesus, and go to mass, and confession, and were baptized, and have not committed any mortal sins...I would have serious doubts about their salvation...AND I would have no reason to think they were telling me something that is at odds with what their church taught them...(as opposed to a Baptist telling me that they thought their Baptism saved them...there are surely baptists who believe that, but it is not what most Baptist churches teach).

 

[quantumfaith]

quantumfaith,
Apparently I misunderstood your posts. I apologize.

I do appreciate your sentiment, but there is no need to apologize.

Blessings to YOU

 

[Baptist4life]

Blessings to YOU

......and to you, thank you!

 

[MB]

Are Catholics Christians.

The Catholic Church believes they are saved in this manner and there is no Salvation apart from the church.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_cs...m/p123a9p3.htm


"Outside the Church there is no salvation"

846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means 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: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. 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.336

This being true about Catholics, I would like to know how it is anyone can believe they are saved in this manner.
MB

 

[preachinjesus]

We should all appreciate Quantum & PreachinJesus in their attempts to make sure we ACCURATELY represent those with whom we disagree.

This is what I'm attempting. Accuracy only emboldens our case. Wild, baseless accusations only discredit us.

I do believe PreachinJesus is dangerously understating the problems with Catholic Doctrine as it relates to salvation, especially in a comment like the following:

Granted, I don't know what this is based on; but it seems you would say the stated doctrine of a church does not matter...that it does not AFFECT the beliefs and/or faith of its members.

I stand by the ratio. Particularly if we consider that between AD 500 and 1500 (these are round numbers) there were no other churches which existed in the west which carried the Gospel to people. I know you're not saying this, but others have, but are we really ready to just say that all these people were condemned to Hell because they faithfully confessed Christ (part of confirmation) and participated in the functions of their local parish? I can't say that. Even now, I've met and known plenty of faithful Catholics who can and have distinguished their faith apart from the mindless dogmatism of others.

Really my point is ad hoc and certainly disputable. I'm not going to stand by it do or die. I think it is worth stating though because I do believe that many people in our Baptist and evangelical churches do live theologically myopic lives. If we were to question their faith and why they are "saved" they would produce a rambling series of answers that are cloaked in cliche and dubious theologically. That's okay. Grace is bigger than my ability to articulate theological answers.

It seems to me (a non-expert) that OFFICIAL CATHOLIC DOCTRINE very much adds salvific requirements to faith in Christ. In a good solid Baptist or Presbyterian, or non-denominational church, if you investigated their beliefs on issues such as Baptism, the Lord's supper, attending church services, avoiding serious sins...you would likely find statements that such things FLOW OUT OF SALVATION and faith in Christ...they are not the MEANS OF SALVATION. I have not found such statements in Catholic Teachings, or in the understanding of it by the masses of catholic followers that I have witnessed, even those "devout" catholics approach the mass in something of a mystical way, such that getting that wine & bread somehow magically sustains them for the week.

It is interesting that you have added Presbyterian to this list and also that you've excluded Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, Anglican, etc etc etc.

Presbyterians believe in both infant baptism (a doctrine I strongly spurn) and believe that baptism carries a degree of salvific efficacy. So do the others I just mentioned. Now, Catholics believe that infant baptism (which, btw, the development of their doctrine is a fascinating read) is there to secure the child in the grace of the Church until their confirmation communion once they reach an age of appropriate ability to think and discourse. (My friends called it CCD, I don't know what its called now) Then the child communicant receives their first communion, a big day, and is sealed in the Church so long as they receive the continuing sacraments. Presbyterians, as I understand it, don't accept the 7 sacraments but do hold to both transubstantiation, or con-, and do believe baptism has sacramental efficacy.

In fact, I'll do so far as to say Baptists and their Anabaptist type, free church brethren are the only ones which distinguish the sacraments as being a non-blblical doctrine, preferring ordinances which are not efficacious.

-Can a practicing Catholic be a true Christian who is simply mistaken on some issues? YES
-Can a practicing Baptist be unsaved, though he professes some true beliefs? YES.

We agree here.

BUT...It would seem to me that the closer one moves toward embracing the entire teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on Salvation, the LESS likely one is to be relying on Christ alone for salvation...
Whereas in a "Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Christus" church...the closer one gets to embracing the official teaching of the church, the closer one is to relying totally on Christ.

I don't disagree here.

Listen folks, I'm not waving a banner for the RCC. They've got HUGE theological issues. I do not accept their doctrinal positions on most things once we get outside of the fundamentals of the faith. However, I do see them as partners in the work of the Church and proclamation of the Gospel insofar as they are a legitimate arm of God's work in the world. We cannot overlook 1500 years of ministry because we misunderstand their dogma and theology.

My work in my PhD was such that I engaged with historical theology which took me to a specific time period where the RCC was becoming, and was, the dominant form of Christianity for a significant amount of time. I worked in the development of a specific doctrine and found it to be a fascinating time for me personally, theologically, and ministerially. I currently am engaged in several interfaith dialogues where my Christian peer is a faithful Roman Catholic priest who I have gotten to know and love like a true brother in Christ. He admits that it isn't always the case that a priest in the RCC is a faithful believer, but he admits he worries about us Baptists too. That's where I'm coming from. I hope this continues to facilitate conversation.

 

[DHK]

DHK, thanks for the reply. In my response I will only speak to several areas where I believe additional clarification is needed and points we need to discuss. In order to confine our discussion appropriately, so we don't get into a huge cut-and-paste war, I'll attempt to limit my responses.

Well this, for starters, is simply overblown. You cannot call transubstantiation heresy.

Transubstantiation is of the utmost heresy. Christ was once offered for sins; not many times over. The elements (wine and bread) do not change to the actual body and blood of Jesus, which they do believe. We believe they are symbolic; they do not. It is called "the sacrifice of the mass," for good reason.

Since the earliest days of Christianity transubstantiation was an aspect of some doctrines. I don't agree with it, I don't even agree with consubstantiation. But I cannot call either a "heresy" much less a "blasphemous heresy."

And why wouldn't you? Just because it was an early heresy, doesn't mean it isn't a heresy. There were heresies that both Paul and John corrected in the NT. Paul told the Ephesian elders in Acts 20 that after he would leave many false teachers would come in. Every author of the NT warns about false teachers and false prophets.
Christ shed his blood only once, not many times over.

One time I was talking with a good friend who is a Catholic priest and we began discussing this issue. He made an interesting point that has stuck with me, he basically said that Catholics were more literalists than Baptists. He then pointed to Matthew 26, John 6 and 1 Corinthians 11. Now I gave him serious pushback, but I did have to credit him at making a good point.

Taking Scripture and dismantling it is not making a good point.
Ask yourself these questions:
"I am the door." Does Christ look like a door?
"I am the manna that came down from heaven." Really? Did Christ look like coriander seed?
"I am the bread of life." Does Christ look like bread?
"I am that living water." I hope it is not from the Dead Sea. Which water does he look like?

Christ is using metaphors, and he was using a metaphor in Mat.26 and in John 6. To eat his flesh and drink his blood, was to have eternal life. It was to trust him. If one expounds the entire passage of Scripture they can come to no other conclusion then the meaning of trusting Christ.

John 8:12 Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
--Almost all of his metaphors were about believing on him and obtaining eternal life, as the one above indicates.

Given that most all major theologians between the first century to the sixteenth century believed, or at least promoted, transubstantiation, you cannot call it a "blasphemous heresy."

Who is going to stop me?
I call it what it is.

I disagree with the practice and participate in The Lord's Supper which celebrates Real Presence.

Good. And transubstantiation is a blasphemous heresy, no matter what others say.

I don't disagree with these points. The overemphasis on Mary is a problem theologically for Catholics. I have stated as such in my posts. However, she is not the central focus of their dogma or liturgical practice.

In liturgical practice, no.
In dogma, yes. Mariam dogma is central in their teaching. As I pointed out to you, one of their saints and leaders wrote an 800 page discourse on the defense of Mariolatry, a major dogma of the RCC. That was in the 1700's!
John Paul II reaffirmed the RCC commitment to Mary.

I have heard of him, but his views do not form nor stand as the official dogma of the Roman Catholic Church on this issue. Though he is influential, his views were filtered by existing works of Ambrose and Augustine.

Those same prayers are repeated today. Spend time listening to a Catholic TV station. (On second thought don't. It is a waste of time.)

Saying he holds a priority of the position on Mariology in the RCC is kind of like saying Bob Jones Sr's view of race is what defines the position for all Baptists.

Which would be slander, because they have changed their views. The RCC still holds Mariolatry as a major doctrine.
I listed many doctrines in which they believe that are directly contrary to the Bible. That in itself should be convincing enough. If you don't believe me, post in the Other Chris. Denom. Forum, where there are some Catholics and you will get it straight from the horses mouth.

That said, I've already stated that I disagree with the RCC about their view of Mary. But in critiquing the caricatures present on this board I have noted that most are misunderstanding the point of the RCC doctrine...which I disagree with.

I have noted some who have taken some things to an extreme; but on the other hand you have not taken their heresies seriously enough.

You're misrepresenting their position. They aren't ascribing Mary a position of divinity.

If I kneel down before you, and pray to you, then I am making you an idol. That is ascribing divinity to you. That is what is forbidden in the Ten Commandments, and that is what the RCC does with Mary.

They aren't making Mary part of the Triune Godhead. I would challenge you to present actual Catholic dogma, decretals, and declarations that show this (and not ancillary theological works.)

I never said they did. I said there was a liberal element within the ranks of the RCC that would like to do so. It probably won't happen though.

Mary does receive a higher position of veneration (a practice which I also disagree with) than other saints, but she is not consubstantial with the Triune Godhead. You're misrepresenting their position.

A god is a god is a god. If she is worshiped as a god then she is a god. That is idolatry; condemned in the Ten Commandments.

Take an example from Hinduism--the elephant god called Ganesh.
This is a popular Hindu deity that has a body of a man and the head of an elephant. He is the Lord of Beginnings and the Lord of Obstacles. If you see a Hindu praying before this "idol" do not insult him by asking him why he would pray to something made out of wood and stone, for he isn't. He is praying (the same as Catholics do), to the god that the statue represents--The god that removes obstacles, the god that originated all rituals and ceremonies. The idol is not the god. It only represents the god.

In the RCC, there are many statues. They pray before the statue of Mary. They make "the stations of the cross," and go and pray before each image, directing their prayers before that image. But, they say, they are not praying to the image, but the saint whom the image represents. That is no different than Hinduism. It is idolatry, that which God condemns.

Prayer to another is worship of another. Catholicism is polytheistic. It is the worship of many gods. What does the Lord say:

Exodus 20:2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
--He is a jealous God. He will not share his glory, his adoration, the worship that is due him and him alone with another--and that includes Mary. To worship Mary is idolatry. To pray to Mary is idolatry. This what the RCC needs to understand. We cannot go by their definitions; we must stick by what the Bible defines as idolatry.
I learned that when I came out of the RCC. The Catholic Church has different definitions for worship, adoration, veneration, etc. then the Bible does. It even has a different set of Ten Commandments, revamping the first four making them only three, in order to omit making images and bowing down to them.

 

[DHK]

Mary is an important figure in the NT and in the history of God's salvific plan, but she is not a functioning agent in according salvation to mankind. She bears no efficacy on salvation, but has only received it, then bore more children, and died and went to her eternal reward.

Try telling that to the RCC. They will oppose what you just said.

I simply disagree here. The official RCC dogma disagrees with you here. I would challenge you to produce the above listed documents to prove otherwise. Though the idea of co-redemptrix has been floated, the councils and synods have never approved such an idea. Official Catholic doctrine states that Mary herself needed salvation and was ultimately redeemed by Jesus Christ, her Son. Though she is an agent in the process she is neither the grantor of salvation nor the mediator of its efficacy. For more info on this see Ludwig Ott's Dogmatics which is available over at archive.org.

First I quoted Legouri for you. That should have been sufficient.
Look up the writings of John Paul II. You will find writings to the same effect.
Second, every Catholic must say this prayer for penance:

Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee,
Blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit, of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary mother of God,
Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, Amen.

That prayer is repeated over and over again--53 times every time one prays through the rosary. Why would one need to pray to Mary, especially at the hour of their death, if they had any assurance of salvation. The reason--Mary helps one into heaven.

The Catholic Catechism

2677 Holy Mary, Mother of God: With Elizabeth we marvel, "And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?"36 Because she gives us Jesus, her son, Mary is Mother of God and our mother; we can entrust all our cares and petitions to her: she prays for us as she prayed for herself: "Let it be to me according to your word."37 By entrusting ourselves to her prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of God together with her: "Thy will be done."
Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death: By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the "Mother of Mercy," the All-Holy One. We give ourselves over to her now, in the Today of our lives. And our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender "the hour of our death" wholly to her care. May she be there as she was at her son's death on the cross. May she welcome us as our mother at the hour of our passing38 to lead us to her son, Jesus, in paradise.

http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p4s1c2a2.htm#2679
--I trust that should be clear enough and authoritative enough.

Again, I don't accept the doctrine of Apostolic Succession for a host of reasons. I don't accept their doctrine of the priesthood because we no longer need a mediator between us and God. However, the Pope's "infallibility" (which I disagree with too) is only extended to those rare times when he speaks ex cathedra. The Pope doesn't speak this way often. To my knowledge any Pope has only spoken this way seven times in 1500 years of Church history. The last one being in 1950.

So they don't use it often and it is seriously questioned by many Catholics...including my good friend who is a priest.

You must believe what their official dogma teaches, not what one is comfortable with. Again, the Catechism:

889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."417
890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. The exercise of this charism takes several forms:
891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council.418 When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed,"419 and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith."420 This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.421
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

This is a red herring, I have stated around here often that I am exclusivist in my soteriology. One can only be saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

It is not a red herring. What you need to realize is this. Like Hinduism, The RCC is not, never was, and never will be a "Christian religion." It is pagan. Simply because it has some Christian elements to it does not make it Christian. The Hindus hang a picture of Christ in their homes and make him one of their gods. That doesn't make them any more Christian then the RCC.

My point is that though we can disagree with our brothers and sisters in the Roman Catholic Church we can also recognize that they can accept the Gospel and be saved.

There is no gospel in the RCC. I've been there; done that.

The points you are listing above are serious doctrinal matters and are among the reasons why I could never be a Roman Catholic. They are in a mightily different place than I am as it relates to theology. However, I must also note that the core of their dogma is often very much the same foundational beliefs that I hold. We both believe Jesus is the means and grantor of salvation.

No they don't.
They believe that salvation comes through the RCC itself.
Salvation is through works.
Salvation is through baptism.
The Catechism says that the meaning of the new birth means baptism.
Baptismal regeneration is another heresy which they believe. The Bible calls it a "damnable heresy."

That is a pretty big starting point imho. Ultimately, I hope to only foster understanding and conversation. The RCC has done a terrible job of defining itself and explaining itself over the centuries. As I've discovered the more marginal a Roman Catholic is the more they cling to ancillary doctrines like Mariology and such to help define their marginal faith. Yet when I've encountered grounded and active Catholics, I've also seen that these have a strong faith that seeks after appropriate doctrines and standards.

Plainly put their doctrines send people to hell and are opposed to the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[Baptist4life]

Nah! They don't worship Mary!

 

[Thomas Helwys]

As I posted before, I have MANY,MANY catholic relatives, including an aunt who's a nun, and an uncle who's a priest, who are wonderful, sweet, kind people. I KNOW what they believe. It's NOT the Gospel, and it's sending people to hell! They ARE NOT brothers and sisters in Christ. Yes, that sickens me. You "love" them, accept them, don't hurt their feelings, all you want. Love them straight to an eternity in hell.

And you want to talk about sickening.

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Here's a hypothetical situation that should clarify what is happening, at least limited to what Quantum faith originally posted about mary:

Let's say you have a catholic Neighbor, and one of your baptist friends comes to your house, and says to you, "Did you know that Catholics, like your neighbor here, worship donkeys, and sacrifice their children to them?" Hopefully you would DEFEND your neighbor's beliefs and practices by explaining that while he does have many false beliefs...worshiping donkeys and sacrificing his children to donkeys is not one of them. Hopefully you would not find such a DEFENSE "sickening." Attempting to accurately explain catholic belief is a worthy goal...even if it means pointing out a few places where they have it right...such as the diet of Christ, not killing babies...etc.

I will say your responses, in my opinion fit better what PreachinJesus has been saying...though I eagerly await his response to my post to see if he wants to clarify anything. And, if Quantumfaith agrees wholeheartedly with preachinJesus that catholics have just as many true Christians as baptists percentage-wise, then I would disagree there as well. But simply posting a Catholic source explaining their beliefs about Mary is not the same as defending those beliefs, but rather has the goal of better understanding them.

:thumbsup:

 

[Thomas Helwys]

This is what I'm attempting. Accuracy only emboldens our case. Wild, baseless accusations only discredit us.



I stand by the ratio. Particularly if we consider that between AD 500 and 1500 (these are round numbers) there were no other churches which existed in the west which carried the Gospel to people. I know you're not saying this, but others have, but are we really ready to just say that all these people were condemned to Hell because they faithfully confessed Christ (part of confirmation) and participated in the functions of their local parish? I can't say that. Even now, I've met and known plenty of faithful Catholics who can and have distinguished their faith apart from the mindless dogmatism of others.

Really my point is ad hoc and certainly disputable. I'm not going to stand by it do or die. I think it is worth stating though because I do believe that many people in our Baptist and evangelical churches do live theologically myopic lives. If we were to question their faith and why they are "saved" they would produce a rambling series of answers that are cloaked in cliche and dubious theologically. That's okay. Grace is bigger than my ability to articulate theological answers.



It is interesting that you have added Presbyterian to this list and also that you've excluded Lutheran, Methodist, Episcopalian, Anglican, etc etc etc.

Presbyterians believe in both infant baptism (a doctrine I strongly spurn) and believe that baptism carries a degree of salvific efficacy. So do the others I just mentioned. Now, Catholics believe that infant baptism (which, btw, the development of their doctrine is a fascinating read) is there to secure the child in the grace of the Church until their confirmation communion once they reach an age of appropriate ability to think and discourse. (My friends called it CCD, I don't know what its called now) Then the child communicant receives their first communion, a big day, and is sealed in the Church so long as they receive the continuing sacraments. Presbyterians, as I understand it, don't accept the 7 sacraments but do hold to both transubstantiation, or con-, and do believe baptism has sacramental efficacy.

In fact, I'll do so far as to say Baptists and their Anabaptist type, free church brethren are the only ones which distinguish the sacraments as being a non-blblical doctrine, preferring ordinances which are not efficacious.



We agree here.



I don't disagree here.

Listen folks, I'm not waving a banner for the RCC. They've got HUGE theological issues. I do not accept their doctrinal positions on most things once we get outside of the fundamentals of the faith. However, I do see them as partners in the work of the Church and proclamation of the Gospel insofar as they are a legitimate arm of God's work in the world. We cannot overlook 1500 years of ministry because we misunderstand their dogma and theology.

My work in my PhD was such that I engaged with historical theology which took me to a specific time period where the RCC was becoming, and was, the dominant form of Christianity for a significant amount of time. I worked in the development of a specific doctrine and found it to be a fascinating time for me personally, theologically, and ministerially. I currently am engaged in several interfaith dialogues where my Christian peer is a faithful Roman Catholic priest who I have gotten to know and love like a true brother in Christ. He admits that it isn't always the case that a priest in the RCC is a faithful believer, but he admits he worries about us Baptists too. That's where I'm coming from. I hope this continues to facilitate conversation.

:thumbsup:

I could never be Roman Catholic, for some of the reasons you have stated. Also, their murderous past history bothers me, but then that is the past history of many former state church Protestants.

But I do believe that there are saved Roman Catholics. And their errors are no more objectionable than some protestant errors, in my opinion.

 

[MB]

Well like I said a while back, Calvinist are marching back in to Catholicism in droves. Those who feel Catholics are saved by Baptism in to there church actually believe they are Christians which in my opnion is just more evidence they regret leaving there Catholic Church. Calvin must be rolling over in his grave. The reformation has failed.
MB

 

[DHK]

Well like I said a while back, Calvinist are marching back in to Catholicism in droves. Those who feel Catholics are saved by Baptism in to there church actually believe they are Christians which in my opnion is just more evidence they regret leaving there Catholic Church. Calvin must be rolling over in his grave. The reformation has failed.
MB

Yes, they certainly are. This is proof enough.

CULTURE DIGEST: Catholics, 4 Denominations Reach Baptism Agreement
posted on Feb 8, 2013 | by Staff
NASHVILLE (BP) – Catholics and four Protestant denominations in the Reformed tradition have publicly agreed to recognize the validity of each other’s baptisms, citing a desire for unity and to accommodate families with more than one faith tradition.
The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops signed an agreement with the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Christian Reformed Church in North America, the Reformed Church in America and the United Church of Christ Jan. 29 at the annual meeting of the ecumenical association Christian Churches Together in Austin, Texas.
To be considered valid, baptisms must be performed “with flowing water in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” according to the agreement.
“This ecumenical effort, this mutual recognition of baptism, is part of our response to Jesus’ prayer that ‘we may all be one,’“ Bishop Joe Vasquez of the Catholic Diocese of Austin told the Austin American-Statesman.
The agreement was the result of six years of study by Catholic and denominational leaders during the seventh round of the Catholic-Reformed dialogue in the United States. The first round began in 1965. Richard Mouw, president of Fuller Theological Seminary, co-chaired the latest dialogue.
Karen Georgia Thompson, the UCC’s minister for ecumenical relations, said the agreement is helpful to people from different backgrounds.
“Many families live in more than one tradition, so it’s helpful that families can be united in a common understanding of baptism,” Thompson said in a news release.http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=39679

http://www.sbcbaptistpress.org/bpnews.asp?id=39679#

 

[John of Japan]

Living in an idolatrous country, I am completely in agreement with those who are here saying that Catholics worship Mary, and are thus idolators. I have seen Buddhists and Shintoists bow down to their idols many times. I once talked to some kids after seeing them bow down to a jizo, a roadside idol of Buddha. They were praying to it, and I asked them if Buddha had ever answered them and they said no.

Catholics bow down to and pray to Mary. The Hebrew word for "worship" in the comman against idolatry in Ex. 34:14 is shachah, which means "1) to bow down 1a) (Qal) to bow down 1b) (Hiphil) to depress (figuratively) 1c) (Hithpael) 1c1) to bow down, prostrate oneself 1c1a) before superior in homage 1c1b) before God in worship 1c1c) before false gods 1c1d) before angel" (BDB lexicon).

In NT Greek the main word for worship is proskuneo, occurring 54 times. It also means to physically bow down.

This is what Roman Catholics do when they bow and pray to Mary--worship. Therefore there is no doubt that Catholics are idol worshippers. This goes way back to when the Nestorians were kicked out of the Catholic heresy in the 5th century for objecting to the heresy that Mary was the "Mother of God."

 

[12strings]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12strings
-Can a practicing Catholic be a true Christian who is simply mistaken on some issues? YES
-Can a practicing Baptist be unsaved, though he professes some true beliefs? YES.

We agree here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 12strings
BUT...It would seem to me that the closer one moves toward embracing the entire teaching of the Roman Catholic Church on Salvation, the LESS likely one is to be relying on Christ alone for salvation...
Whereas in a "Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Christus" church...the closer one gets to embracing the official teaching of the church, the closer one is to relying totally on Christ.

I don't disagree here.

Would you not have to say, then, that those Catholics who are saved are saved in spite of their church's beleifs, not because they are in lock-step with them?

 

[MB]

Would you not have to say, then, that those Catholics who are saved are saved in spite of their church's beleifs, not because they are in lock-step with them?

What does unrighteousness have to do with righteousness? Answer Nothing. A true Christian would have to be a very poor Christian not to see the very obvious evil of the RCC. How can you honestly claim there are Christians in the Catholic Church when the Holy Spirit living inside them would not stop convicting them of it until they left. There can be no such thing as a rebellious Christian, because every Christian has given up the rebellion or they simply aren't saved. Just those who claim to be Christian while they are rebellious, live this way. Is a man a Christian who still lust after sin and lives in it continuously? No. We cannot live in sin and be saved. those who live in sin were never saved in the first place. They are imposters of Christianity.
MB

 

[12strings]

What does unrighteousness have to do with righteousness? Answer Nothing. A true Christian would have to be a very poor Christian not to see the very obvious evil of the RCC. How can you honestly claim there are Christians in the Catholic Church when the Holy Spirit living inside them would not stop convicting them of it until they left. There can be no such thing as a rebellious Christian, because every Christian has given up the rebellion or they simply aren't saved. Just those who claim to be Christian while they are rebellious, live this way. Is a man a Christian who still lust after sin and lives in it continuously? No. We cannot live in sin and be saved. those who live in sin were never saved in the first place. They are imposters of Christianity.
MB

Well It's obvious we disagree about the possiblility of so-called "carnal" Christians...but perhaps that is for another thread.

I would only say this...In the NT Letters to the churches, you have churches that:
-Put up with rank immorality
-Were full of dissensions
-Were mixing in Jewish requirements for salvation
-Had lost their love of Christ
-tolerated false teaching

And in none of these cases did Paul, or John advise the people to leave and find another church...they addressed their leaders and congregations jointly and said, "fix these problems, re-focus on Christ."

I believe that there can be people who remain deceived about some issues, such that they are very afraid of protestant and non-catholic churches, but they are relying on Christ for salvation, despite the teachings of the church they attend.

Also, I know of a Catholic priest in Rome who was awakened to the truth of the Gospel, and began teaching Salvation by grace through faith alone in his parish...untill he was kicked out by the catholic authorities...Was he wrong to remain once he saw the truth, or should he have left immediately.

 

[MB]

Well It's obvious we disagree about the possiblility of so-called "carnal" Christians...but perhaps that is for another thread.

I would only say this...In the NT Letters to the churches, you have churches that:
-Put up with rank immorality
-Were full of dissensions
-Were mixing in Jewish requirements for salvation
-Had lost their love of Christ
-tolerated false teaching

And in none of these cases did Paul, or John advise the people to leave and find another church...they addressed their leaders and congregations jointly and said, "fix these problems, re-focus on Christ."

Actually John wrote in Revelations;
Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.
You can argue this isn't about church or that this is not the tribulation. Though you cannot argue John never told people to come out of there church.

I believe that there can be people who remain deceived about some issues, such that they are very afraid of protestant and non-catholic churches, but they are relying on Christ for salvation, despite the teachings of the church they attend.

We are all carnal in the flesh. Though with out change there can be no Salvation that has taken place. We all fight the fight every day that Paul speaks of in Romans 6,7,&8

Also, I know of a Catholic priest in Rome who was awakened to the truth of the Gospel, and began teaching Salvation by grace through faith alone in his parish...untill he was kicked out by the catholic authorities...Was he wrong to remain once he saw the truth, or should he have left immediately.

If I were him I would have used the opportunity as well to get those people the truth. Although you're not suggesting that all these so called Catholic Christians are using the same opportunity to do the same. They are practicing sin living in it everytime they bow to Mary or one of there so called saints.
MB

 

[Thomas Helwys]

Living in an idolatrous country, I am completely in agreement with those who are here saying that Catholics worship Mary, and are thus idolators. I have seen Buddhists and Shintoists bow down to their idols many times. I once talked to some kids after seeing them bow down to a jizo, a roadside idol of Buddha. They were praying to it, and I asked them if Buddha had ever answered them and they said no.

Catholics bow down to and pray to Mary. The Hebrew word for "worship" in the comman against idolatry in Ex. 34:14 is shachah, which means "1) to bow down 1a) (Qal) to bow down 1b) (Hiphil) to depress (figuratively) 1c) (Hithpael) 1c1) to bow down, prostrate oneself 1c1a) before superior in homage 1c1b) before God in worship 1c1c) before false gods 1c1d) before angel" (BDB lexicon).

In NT Greek the main word for worship is proskuneo, occurring 54 times. It also means to physically bow down.

This is what Roman Catholics do when they bow and pray to Mary--worship. Therefore there is no doubt that Catholics are idol worshippers. This goes way back to when the Nestorians were kicked out of the Catholic heresy in the 5th century for objecting to the heresy that Mary was the "Mother of God."

Actually, no. The Nestorians were considered heretics because they separated the two natures of Jesus. Their objection to "Theotokos" was a by-product of this.