I'm Grateful the Pope Considers Me Lost by Motte Brown on 07/20/2007 at 5:03 PM

That's the perspective Dr. Albert Mohler gives in his blog about documents released last month by the Vatican proclaiming that the Catholic church is the only true church. Dr. Mohler said that rather than being offended, evangelicals should be grateful for the Pope's clarifying statements because it "brings attention to the crucial issues of ecclesiology."

He writes,

Evangelicals should appreciate the candor reflected in this document. There is no effort here to confuse the issues. To the contrary, the document is an obvious attempt to set the record straight. The Roman Catholic Church does not deny that Christ is working redemptively through Protestant and evangelical churches, but it does deny that these churches which deny the authority of the papacy are true churches in the most important sense. The true church, in other words, is that church identified through the recognition of the papacy. Those churches that deny or fail to recognize the papacy are "ecclesial Communities," not churches "in the proper sense."

Dr. Mohler is also appreciative because he believes that this document reflects Pope Benedict's sincere concern for the souls of evangelicals.

I truly believe that Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are concerned for our evangelical souls and our evangelical congregations. Pope Benedict is not playing a game. He is not asserting a claim to primacy on the playground. He, along with the Magisterium of his church, believes that Protestant churches are gravely defective and that our souls are in danger. His sacramental theology plays a large role in this concern, for he believes and teaches that a church without submission to the papacy has no guaranteed efficacy for its sacraments.

He continues that if the Pope is right, our souls are in danger. But, Dr. Mohler says, the Pope is not right. And consequently, evangelicals should be as equally concerned for the souls of Catholics.

The Roman Catholic Church believes we are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy. Evangelicals should be concerned that Catholics are in spiritual danger for their submission to these very claims. We both understand what is at stake.

Dr. Mohler writes that in our world of ecumenical confusion, the Roman Catholic Church's candor on this issue is a welcome change. After all, the stakes couldn't be higher.

I'm Grateful the Pope Considers Me Lost by Motte Brown on 07/20/2007 at 5:03 PM

That's the perspective Dr. Albert Mohler gives in his blog about documents released last month by the Vatican proclaiming that the Catholic church is the only true church. Dr. Mohler said that rather than being offended, evangelicals should be grateful for the Pope's clarifying statements because it "brings attention to the crucial issues of ecclesiology."

He writes,

Evangelicals should appreciate the candor reflected in this document. There is no effort here to confuse the issues. To the contrary, the document is an obvious attempt to set the record straight. The Roman Catholic Church does not deny that Christ is working redemptively through Protestant and evangelical churches, but it does deny that these churches which deny the authority of the papacy are true churches in the most important sense. The true church, in other words, is that church identified through the recognition of the papacy. Those churches that deny or fail to recognize the papacy are "ecclesial Communities," not churches "in the proper sense."

Dr. Mohler is also appreciative because he believes that this document reflects Pope Benedict's sincere concern for the souls of evangelicals.

I truly believe that Pope Benedict and the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith are concerned for our evangelical souls and our evangelical congregations. Pope Benedict is not playing a game. He is not asserting a claim to primacy on the playground. He, along with the Magisterium of his church, believes that Protestant churches are gravely defective and that our souls are in danger. His sacramental theology plays a large role in this concern, for he believes and teaches that a church without submission to the papacy has no guaranteed efficacy for its sacraments.

He continues that if the Pope is right, our souls are in danger. But, Dr. Mohler says, the Pope is not right. And consequently, evangelicals should be as equally concerned for the souls of Catholics.

The Roman Catholic Church believes we are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy. Evangelicals should be concerned that Catholics are in spiritual danger for their submission to these very claims. We both understand what is at stake.

Dr. Mohler writes that in our world of ecumenical confusion, the Roman Catholic Church's candor on this issue is a welcome change. After all, the stakes couldn't be higher.

Comments

[1. Scott said the following at 5:12 PM on Jul 20:]

1

I agree with Mohler. It's about time the stakes be clarified.

[2. DannieA said the following at 5:25 PM on Jul 20:]

2

The denomination I belong to and the University of a different denomination and the grandparents of one of my friends who comes from another denomination (all protestant) have people that believe that THEIR denomination is the TRUE church....so what's new with that theory....we're (protestants) guilty of that too.

Plus I like Pope John Paul II way better than this current one.

He truly did care for the Catholic Church and was a good Pope for them and cared deeply about people in general.

[3. Kate said the following at 5:26 PM on Jul 20:]

3

Wow, what a mature perspective from Dr. Mohler, especially in today's world where everyone takes offence at everything! His position does spark some thought though.

Since everyone can't be right, then either the Protestants or the Catholics are. As a Catholic, I believe the Catholics are, yet I have good Protestant friends who are equally sure of themselves. Shouldn't we, as fellow Christians, work a little harder sometimes to see the perspective of our family in Christ who believes differently? I think if we could do this, and keep our minds open (but not fall for every little thing; this is faith, not teenage fashion!) we might find some interesting things. I know I have learned lots from speaking with my Protestant friends about what they believe, and while I do not agree with all of it, it is good to learn because it re-affirms me in my faith and helps me to understand what and why I believe the way I do.

Anyhow, just some thoughts that came to mind while sitting here :) God Bless y'all!

[4. Rachel Gray said the following at 6:44 PM on Jul 20:]

4

I could not agree more with Dr. Mohler that these matters are important and it's great the Pope addressed them head on. I don't think he represents the Catholic position quite rightly when he says, "The Roman Catholic Church believes we are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy." In fact the Catholic Catechism states, "one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities [i.e. Protestant denominations] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers."

So someone who was raised Protestant isn't considered "obstinate and disobedient" by Rome. But if the Protestant came to know and understand what the Catholic Church teaches, and deliberately rejected it, *then* the Church might fear he was in spiritual danger.

[5. HMWelch said the following at 7:01 PM on Jul 20:]

5

Hear, hear - I couldn't agree more. And even though I do not agree with the teachings of the RCC, I am impressed with their stance on many issues (abortion in particular) and am indeed grateful for the "pope's clarifying statements."

[6. John said the following at 7:52 PM on Jul 20:]

6

Not everyone can be right, but some choose to align their doctrine with the Scriptures, while others don't (or at least not to the same extent).

Be a Berean (Acts 17:11). Read the Word of God and evaluate each church's dogma accordingly.

[7. BDB said the following at 10:11 PM on Jul 20:]

7

Hmmm...maybe I'm not smart enough to understand this. But the section below appears to be a grudging admission by the Vatican that God, indeed, is working through Protestant communities of faith, and that people are in fact getting saved as protestants:

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

[8. Melody said the following at 2:34 AM on Jul 21:]

8

What does the bible say? The church of Christ is the people. There are now walls and denomination barriers that confine the church. Following Christ is not contingent on your denomination. Being a Christ follower does not depend on the succession of your pastors or priests.
Paul was not taught by Peter (the first 'Pope') he even evangelised and set up 'churches' before he was given the all good by Peter.
I think it's sad that the Catholic church holds to this "protestant churches are flawed" doctrine even though it's not Biblically sound. (It's too silly for me to be offended by really)

Any denomination that claims to be the only true church is ridiculous.

And yes- I appreciate the Pope's clarity on the issue. Now maybe more people will start thinking about this doctrine and,I hope, question it.

[9. Rachel M. said the following at 8:17 AM on Jul 21:]

9

The Catholic Church has, from the very advent of Protestantism, recognized as valid those baptisms performed by Protestants. Nothing "grudging" about it.

[10. Shazia said the following at 8:51 AM on Jul 21:]

10

Melody wrote: "Any denomination that claims to be the only true church is ridiculous."

I agree! Doesn't 1 Corinthians 1:10 indicate that denominations are unbiblical in the first place? That's why I get so frustrated with all these denominations vying for the "right" one. Why does the Christian church have to have so many schisms? Once again, it seems unbiblical to me...

[11. Ted Slater said the following at 9:06 AM on Jul 21:]

11

Shazia -- yes, division is sad, a sad necessity in a world where some churches slide into heresy. When the Roman Catholic Church, for example, began including certain heresies, and it became clear that it couldn't be changed internally to better reflect Scripture, it became necessary to re-establish congregations of Christians rooted in sound doctrine. And that is a sad reflection on sinful humanity.

This word "denomination" has me puzzled. Isn't "the church in Corinth" denominating/differentiating it from "the church in Ephesus"? I don't see anything necessarily wrong with such denominating.

I generally don't place a lot of emphasis on "denomination," but I do dislike people touting their own "denomination" as though other churches/denominations aren't "true churches." If its doctrine is biblical, then denominating it from a different church is ultimately not significant. "Baptist church" vs. "Evangelical Free church" in the end isn't much different from "the church that meets in Joe's house" and "the church that meets in John's house." Sure, there are different forms of "government" (some of which I prefer over others), and different doctrines and worship styles are emphasizedin each, but if they're Christian, there's no ultimately meaningful difference between them.

[12. Stephen said the following at 9:18 AM on Jul 21:]

12

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the title of this post yet: "I'm Grateful the Pope Considers Me Lost." The Pope didn't say that he considers everyone outside the Roman Catholic Church to be lost. In fact, as others have pointed out, the Vatican noted that "It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation." In other words, the Catholic Church does not deny that Protestants can be saved. All the Pope did was state the clear implications of Catholic doctrine.

[13. Shazia said the following at 11:02 AM on Jul 21:]

13

Anyway I apologize if I didn't exactly use the right word, but I guess I was just referring to the idea that when one denomination, as you said, touts the idea that they are the true church and that no others are, reminds me of attempted sectarianism, that is all.

[14. Paul said the following at 12:36 PM on Jul 21:]

14

Hm... well, as a practicing Catholic, the Pope doesn't consider non-Catholic Christians (i.e. Protestants, though I never liked that term) to be lost. The Catholic doctrine is that all believers in Christ are members of the Universal Body of Christ (i.e. the Church). Catholic doctrine states that the Catholic Faith has the fullness of truth and the best path toward salvation. However, it does not say that non-Catholic Christians are "lost" or even outside of the boundaries of Christ's one church.

(Just wanted to clarify a bit, and I think it'd be best to change the title a bit...)

[15. Ted Slater said the following at 1:49 PM on Jul 21:]

15

Paul (the commenter, not the apostle) writes, "However, it does not say that non-Catholic Christians are 'lost' or even outside of the boundaries of Christ's one church."

How does this jibe with the Church's calling non-Catholics "anathema," then? Seems that "anathema" implies being "outside of the boundaries of Christ's one church"....

[16. Jennifer said the following at 1:59 PM on Jul 21:]

16

Shazia & Ted Slater:

I think the two of you are getting at the core of this 'issue.' I have a few questions for the two of you, though, that I think might clarify this.

Shazia, you are frustrated with schisms in the church - So, do you think it is never correct to leave a church when you disagree with part of their doctrine or actions? If it is allowable to leave a church for one of those reasons, how severely must you disagree in order to be justified in leaving? If I'm trying to find a church to join in my area, what should my criteria be for choosing it? On one hand, I could have no discernment at all and simply pick the one that is geographically closest, no matter its doctrine/denomination. Or I could try to find a church that matches my views of doctrine exactly... and that would be a long search. Probably never-ending. My point is that our criteria for choosing a church should be the same as our criteria for requirements to leave a church. So, what are they, and what does The Church look like if you apply them consistently?

Ted, I have difficulty understanding what your point is. You begin by lamenting divisions in the church, and say that they are caused by 'heresy' and needing churches 'rooted in sound doctrine,' and our schisms come from our sin. But you go on to say that if a church's "doctrine is biblical, then denominating it from a different church is ultimately not significant." So my questions for you run along the same lines as the questions for Shazia: What is heresy? How can I, as a layperson, know when a teaching is heretic, or when I myself am misinterpreting the Scriptures? And when is that heresy or misinterpretation important enough for that I should leave that church, or not join it in the first place? Every church claims to be 'rooted in sound doctrine' but someone has to be wrong and someone has to be right, or maybe we're all wrong, so how do I choose? My point to you is that I have seen accusations of heresy and schism within both a church and a denomination, and the results were not pretty in either case. Both parties were convinced that they were correct on that particular point of doctrine, and the 'other side' was wrong. None of the disagreements involved doctrines essential to salvation, but everyone involved thought that there was enough of a "meaningful difference" between them to part ways. If, as you say, "there's no ultimately meaningful difference" between different denominations that are all Christian, why is it "necessary to re-establish congregations of Christians rooted in sound doctrine"?

And for both of you:
Dr. Mohler said that "The Roman Catholic Church believes we are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy. Evangelicals should be concerned that Catholics are in spiritual danger for their submission to these very claims. We both understand what is at stake." Catholics are told to pray for Protestants as "our souls are in danger," and vice versa. But the main points of doctrine that Catholics and Protestants disagree on is the Papacy and Sacraments, neither of which are essential to salvation - by admission of both Catholics and Protestants. So why are are we told to pray for our brothers whose souls are in danger? In danger of what?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, honestly, as I've been dealing with where these questions lead recently. Particularly in several relationships I'm close to - my protestant sister dating a catholic, me dating a young man of a different denomination - as well as trying to decide if I want to transfer membership to a church of a different denomination and doctrine than what I grew up with and believe in.

[17. BDB said the following at 4:25 PM on Jul 21:]

17

Rachel M. wrote:

>>The Catholic Church has, from the very advent of Protestantism, recognized as valid those baptisms performed by Protestants. Nothing "grudging" about it.<<

Interesting that you should bring up baptism. I didn't mention it. It's my understanding that all baptisms are recognized because baptism, and John the Baptist in particular, precede Christ.

As I've been studying this issue recently, I've learned that the Baptism vows for the parents in the English Book of Prayer are identical to the Lutheran Church - and the Catholic church. And then the confirmation statements of faith are identical to baptism.

So, if the Catholic Church recognizes Lutheran baptism, why doesn't it recognize Lutheran confirmation as adequate for participating in communion (a.k.a. Eucharist)?

(I'm guessing that there's a link to somewhere on the Vatican's web site. This stuff is amazingly complicated. And I must say, it wasn't until after I completed several Biblical studies classes at a Charismatic seminary that I knew my Bible well enough to recognize just how much of the liturgical traditions really are rooted in the Bible. I think the mistake people make is relying on the liturgy and never cracking their Bible open to understand where the concepts are coming from. After a generation or so of that, a demonination will drift from scripture - but it's because they aren't staying grounded in the word. The Catholic Church creates new orders the way Protestants create new denominations - they are all founded around a set of ideas.)

[18. Mike Theemling said the following at 5:52 PM on Jul 21:]

18

Paul (commentator) said:

"The Catholic doctrine is that all believers in Christ are members of the Universal Body of Christ (i.e. the Church). Catholic doctrine states that the Catholic Faith has the fullness of truth and the best path toward salvation. However, it does not say that non-Catholic Christians are 'lost' or even outside of the boundaries of Christ's one church."

I agree with this position in terms of that's what the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) believes: that they have the "fullness of truth" but that does not necessarily mean being outside of it is a trip to Hell.

Even the page which Dr. Albert links did not appear to come off that way nor is the word "lost", "damned", etc. in the article.

However, Ted does though bring up a good point and is a sticking point with most non-RCC Christians: The fact that the RCC has yet to recant on any of their positions on the Council of Trent. If I'm wrong about this please let me know. It is true that they have tried to reconcile certain parts of it but still overall confirm its (the Council's) authority.

For example it may be true that the term "anathema" merely meant excommunication, but still, the fact is that they are stating that any doctrine taught which does not agree with Trent is false doctrine; and that includes Salvation through faith alone (no works or baptism required).

The reason why this causes so much friction is that it is, in many Christians' eyes, a key issue. And the problem I have personally with the RCC is that they take the position of "Well, we aren't saying outright that you [Protestants] are wrong even though our writings that we came up and agree with say that you are".

Either Salvation by faith alone is true or it isn't. If it's not true, then there needs to be some serious errata from the pulpits in America on this. However if it is true, then the RCC needs to adjust its position. The RCC is in a tighter bind of course because it rarely admits error and has much more impact.

[19. thereisonefaithonebaptism said the following at 6:29 PM on Jul 21:]

19

this is appalling.

what of church unity? are we no longer willing to speak to our fellow Christ-siblings in humility and love? are we no longer one body? is the left arm satisified as a separate unit?

[20. Ted Slater said the following at 8:14 PM on Jul 21:]

20

Jennifer, you indicate that I said, "divisions in the church ... are caused by 'heresy.'"

In some cases, that's true. In some cases, "denominations" are merely characterized by cultural preferences or minor doctrinal emphases, not outright heresies.

I think that's where the confusion is -- sometimes divisions result from heresy, sometimes from minor differences. In either case, I don't think it's ideal, but a outgrowth of our being sinful.

That said, I'm not hung up on different denominations, for the most part. They're here to stay, and most don't "fight" with each other, but have great relationships between pastors and members of different denominations.

You ask, "How can I, as a layperson, know when a teaching is heretic, or when I myself am misinterpreting the Scriptures?" The Roman Catholic response would be that only priests are qualified to interpret Scripture, and that I should defer to them.

I'm not Roman Catholic, and so I have to depend upon a combinations of my own studies of Scripture, commentaries, and direction from the Holy Spirit.

In general, I'd consider most Evangelical churches just fine, doctrine-wise. With little hesitation I could join a Baptist church, a Presbyterian church, a non-denominational church, a Black Pentecostal church, an Evangelical Free church, an Evangelical Covenant church, and so on. There are doctrinal concerns I have with the Roman Catholic church, as well as other "denominations," that would prevent me from joining one of their congregations. I'm not going to start a new denomination or split any existing churches -- that's not my role. But I am free to exercise discernment as I select a church/denomination to become part of.

You ask, "So why are are we told to pray for our brothers whose souls are in danger?" I spent about a year in Latin America -- central Mexico and Colombia. The Roman Catholicism there is much different from the Westernized RC of the States, and is more closely aligned with the RC coming out of the Vatican. I *am* concerned about those attending RC churches in Latin America, as much of it does over-emphasize the role of Mary in our salvation. Their demonization of non-Catholic churches in many cases tells me that their theology is so significantly different from Evangelical theology as to be anti-Christian (by definition). As I said, I spent a year there (oh, and earned a BA in Spanish), and by personal experience and study am very familiar with their doctrines and how they differ from Evangelical Christian doctrine.

Is your sister's boyfriend a Christian? Have you seen evidence that he's growing in Christ? If so, then great! If not, then I'd be concerned for her.

[21. Paul said the following at 10:40 PM on Jul 21:]

21

Hey Ted,
In response to your post, I'd say that the phrase "anethema" does mean outside Christ's Church. However, I am unaware of that phrase being ever levelled at non-Catholic Christians who are following Christ.

The Catechism of the Church, (which is sort of a conpendeum of the major Catholic teachings, and was actually edited and compiled by Pope John Paul II, and the the Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, has this to say about whether or not Protestant Christians are in the Church or not.)

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety orhave not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." (838)

So whether you know it or not, if you believe in Christ and are baptized, you're actually part of the one Church that Christ founded. So, all of the talk about not being a part of the Church, really doesn't apply to you and I believe it applies more to the quasi-Christian religious cults such as mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses.

I'd love to continue this conversation through some other medium if you'd like. E-mail perhaps?

[22. Joseph said the following at 12:27 AM on Jul 22:]

22

If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. 1 James 26-27

While I can see where Mr Mohler is coming from and I think I agree with him, it seems like this entire disagreement is about semantics. It sounds as though it takes more than Jesus to be a Christian in these terms, I am rather unfamiliar with Catholic doctrine. Reading over Paul's usage of church throughout his epistles it never describes to me that church is an establishment of organization but a body of believers.
"Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia." Romans 16:5

[23. Joseph said the following at 6:23 AM on Jul 22:]

23

To Jennifer:

If it is of any help the main thing I look for in a church to attend (listen to via downloads) is if they take scripture from a literal point of view. I will say with discernment so I don't need to clarify about the books of prophecy and those type. If a speaker can preach what they have to say and it is firmly grounded in scripture I think that is all that is necessary. It is up to us to think about the message and look at the scripture as well to see if we come to a different or similar conclusion. I don't need to see eye to eye with every other believer, but I do need to at least see a logical connection about what people believe.

As far as what does it take to leave a church, from the organization standpoint I would say expanding or changing beliefs from scripture. I grew up in a Presbyterian church, I still love it there, I will continue to go there when I am able to attend. However, individually I separated myself from the PCUSA (Presbyterian Church USA) for their path to make mission statements diverge from scripture. In a nut shell, I pay attention to the local leadership and ministry to find a fitting church to attend, if it is apart of a larger organization that meets similar but not exact I will agree until they or I see something important enough to separate.

[24. Shazia said the following at 9:57 AM on Jul 22:]

24

Hi Jennifer, I am not a seasoned Christian (I'm a fairly new one) so at the risk of feeling dumb (yeah this is the part where you might say, "don't worry you're not dumb"), I don't really know how to answer your questions :( As a new Christian, I have only read the 4 Gospels, Acts (both of which I've read 3 times), Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes (all 3 of which I've read twice), and Ruth. Not that I do not look at other parts of the Bible in the meantime, but I haven't read them with the same intensity yet.

My previous posts are indicative of my yet naive perspective on churches, because I have not been an actual attendant of church on a normal basis, and right now, it is difficult for me to go to church, since I am in a non-Christian home now. So the naive part of me wonders why there are so many denominations within Christianity, and whether it does or does not pose as an obstacle to unity among Christians, that is all. I AM fairly certain that many people can date outside one's denomination though. As Ted said, if its doctrine is biblical, then denominating it from a different church is ultimately not significant. I am just skeptical of the idea that every single denomination of Christianity is in conformity to the Bible but keep in mind, I am not exposed to the church environments in the manner that a lot of you have.

[25. heather said the following at 4:12 PM on Jul 22:]

25

On my flight home for summer vacation I sat next to a Catholic priest. And he tried to convert me to R Catholicism! I was quite surprised--I had thought maybe we would have enough in common. But to him, I was outside the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic church. Poor man, by the time we landed, I was actually more than ever determined to never become
a Catholic Watching his 45 minute prayer rituals, complete with icons and prayers to the Virgin Mary addressing her as savior and mediator of the universe, was quite distressing.

[26. fshivone said the following at 6:11 PM on Jul 22:]

26

I agree with Mohler. The Pope's statement was a clarification of a point of doctrine. One may agree with the doctrine or disagree but both sides need to have the courage to say what the doctrine is. Evangelicals and Catholics have much in common, this is a point of difference. We RC's have problems, we have been helped by evangelicalism's devotion to Scripture and personal piety; at the same time we can't deny what is true, fail as we may have over the years.

[27. Brad K said the following at 6:22 PM on Jul 22:]

27

Heather, sorry, but no Catholic I know of, including the Pope, refers to Mary as "savior". She isn't. I've never heard of any Catholic addressing her as "mediator of the universe," either. Her mediation is exactly like ours: it draws its power from, and proceeds through, the mediation of the One Mediator, Christ Jesus.

A general comment: I would like to join others in observing that the title of this thread is really rather unfair to the Pope's comments, which did not, in fact, call Protestants, or anyone else, "lost," or even imply it. Dr. Mohler's comment about "spiritual danger" is basically correct, but "in spiritual danger" does not automatically imply "lost".

Also, I would like to note that I have been told by more than one Evangelical Christian that I am "not a Christian" because I am a believing Catholic. To the best of my knowledge, that status, in their theological scheme of things, does indeed declare me to be "lost".

[28. Ted Slater said the following at 6:38 PM on Jul 22:]

28

Brad -- Mary is considered by the Roman Catholic Church as the "co-mediatrix with Christ" and "co-redemptrix"; they believe she is aware of millions of prayers and passes those petitions along to Jesus (since He is apparently unaware of the prayers, or needs convincing from His mother). She is referred to as the "Queen of Heaven" by Roman Catholics, and is considered to have been born without original sin (immaculate conception).

Too highly exalting Mary is but one doctrine that inhibits many from joining that particular denomination.

[29. Lucy said the following at 7:50 PM on Jul 22:]

29

Ted, what "prayer ritual" did you watch in which the priest called Mary "savior?" Mary is mentioned only 3 times in the entire Mass, which goes on about one hour.

The Catholic Church does not teach officially that Mary is the Co-Remptrix or Mediatrix of graces. There are only four Marian doctrines that all Catholics must believe.
1 The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
2 Mary is the Mother of God
3 The Immaculate Conception (which you rightly pointed out means that Mary was preserved, by the grace of God through the merits of Christ, from original sin)
4 The Assumption (which means that Mary, at the end of her earthly life, was taken up to heaven, body and soul, just as Elijah and Enoch were.)

Mary is referred to as the Queen of Heaven, because she is the Mother of the King of Heaven. Furthermore, Paul promises that all who suffer with Christ will reign with Christ. Mary's queenship does not come from her own power or her own ability, but from the Kingship of Christ. For that matter, nothing that Mary has is from herself, but everything that she has is from God.

As for the intersession of Mary, Catholics (and Protestants) believe that we must pray for one another, and that God often works through our prayers. I remember hearing a story from a Protestant of a woman during the second world war. She was simply going about her daily life, when all of a sudden, she felt the Holy Spirit tell her, "Your future husband is in danger. Pray!" She was not engaged or in a relationship in any way, but nonetheless, she prayed. She later married and discovered later that, on that day, her husband was captured in battle. An enemy soldier was bayoneting his fellow soldiers, but he spared her husband. Now, I have no way of knowing whether or not this story is true, but it illustrated a point shared by both Catholics and Protestants: that God often works through the prayers of others. After all, why did God need to inspire her to pray? Couldn't He save her husband without needing her to pray? The answer is, of course He could have saved her, but God is pleased when we pray for each other, and chose to work through her intersession.
Catholics believe that our duty to pray for each other does not stop when we die. Rather, in heaven, we pray even more urgently for our brothers and sisters still on earth. Furthermore, we also believe that the prayers of those in heaven are far more effective. Remember, James said that the prayer of the righteous man is very effective. Well, our brothers and sisters in heaven no longer sin at all, and have been glorified and brought into the presence of God. How much more effective are their prayers!
A Protestant friend of mine once commented, "What is 3,000 miles in the Body of Christ?" She was absolutely right. And furthermore, what is death in the Body of Christ, when we serve One who is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living, one who has risen from the dead, and who holds the keys to Death, Hell, and the Grave?

[30. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 8:09 PM on Jul 22:]

30

Any sort of function that the Blessed Virgin performs is on the behalf of her Son. The Blessed Virgin is not God. However, by virtue of her Immaculate Conception and unique status as the Theotokos (Mother of God) her prayers carry far more efficacy than ours; therefore, it is profitable for the faithful to pray to and venerate her.

That said, I feel it should be pointed out for the sake of discussion that there is some merit to the criticisms against an "excessive" devotion to the BVM. IMO, some private devotions and titles given to the Virgin by those in the Roman Church really do push the bill on this particular point. Be that as it may, should the mere fact that some take Marian devotions too far be a good enough reason to abandon veneration of her altogether? Of course not, and that is were the Protestants go wrong: they over-correct one problem and introduce another by way of almost total rejection of an ancient teaching.

[31. Ted Slater said the following at 8:49 PM on Jul 22:]

31

Jeffrey and Lucy -- thank you for clarifying the Roman Catholic doctrines about Mary, the blessed woman who gave birth to our Savior and to His brothers and sisters, who was in need of a Savior because of her sin, whose death was mourned by her loved ones, and who is so enraptured by the Savior's love that she is unaware of all the "prayers" sent her way.

Lucy -- you asked, "Ted, what 'prayer ritual' did you watch in which the priest called Mary 'savior?'" You must have me confused with someone else. I pointed out that Mary is called the "co-mediatrix with Christ" and "co-redemptrix" by the Roman Catholic church.

I'm confident that as people consider Scripture vs. some of these Roman Catholic doctrines, they'll be able to make wise decisions about which denomination to align themselves with.

[32. Paul said the following at 9:37 PM on Jul 22:]

32

Ted, Mary is not officially called co-redemtrix and co-mediatrix... that's still under debate, and I really wish you wouldn't keep posting hearsay as "fact." And I really wish that you'd lose your condescending tone and attitude. I've had plenty of conversations with my Protestant friends (my best friend is a Protestant.) without either of us insulting the other's beliefs. There's no reason for you to be proudly parading your "truths" about Catholicism, when quite frankly you've been dead wrong about 90% of the time... (don't take this the wrong way, but I needed to get that off my chest.)

Now, if Mary is considered co-redemtrix and co-mediatrix, it's only, as you stated, because of her role in accepting the will of God that she would carry her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And although the Church does teach that she was conceived without original sin, it never states that she is without need of a savior just as we all are...

And the Catholic Church does not say that only Priests can interpret scripture. The Magisterium of the Church (the Pope in union with the Bishops) interpreted scripture and stated a unified doctrine. However, there is still leeway for each individual to interpret scripture personally as long as they remain within the boundaries of the doctrine.

Where are you getting your information about the Catholic Church? Because for the most part, it's dead wrong.

[33. Ted Slater said the following at 11:16 PM on Jul 22:]

33

Paul (the commenter, not the apostles) wrote: "Ted, Mary is not officially called co-redemtrix and co-mediatrix... that's still under debate, and I really wish you wouldn't keep posting hearsay as 'fact.'"

Paul, the Roman Catholic Catechism calls Mary a "mediatrix" (see #197). The Second Vatican Council (as well as Pope John Paull II in 1985) called her the same. Pope Leo XIII called her Mediatrix, but also co-Redemptress.

Not sure why you'd be hesitant to acknowledge an established Roman Catholic position on Mary. Do you say that Mary is not the "co-mediatrix" or "co-redemptrix" with Christ?

Again, the Roman Catholic understanding of Mary, the blessed mother of our Savior Jesus, inhibits many from embracing that particular denomination of Christianity.

[34. Theo K said the following at 2:38 AM on Jul 23:]

34

“1 The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
2 Mary is the Mother of God
3 The Immaculate Conception (which you rightly pointed out means that Mary was preserved, by the grace of God through the merits of Christ, from original sin)
4 The Assumption (which means that Mary, at the end of her earthly life, was taken up to heaven, body and soul, just as Elijah and Enoch were.)”

Only the second point is biblical. Everything else is an addition to scripture, and, in my point of view, it doesn’t make sense to hold on to something that simply isn’t there.

The main problem with RC doctrine is that they just can’t escape the council of Trent. And this council clearly declared that “anyone who says that justification is by faith alone let him anathema”. It couldn’t be clearer than that. And I agree with Luther who said that upon this specific doctrine the church stands or falls.

See for example the following link:
Are We Justified By Faith Alone? - What Still Divides Us: A Protestant & Roman Catholic Debate
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=406

Read what the council of Trent did. Read those horrific ‘canons’. I wholeheartedly agree with the author when he says:
“It was, therefore, not the evangelicals who were condemned in 1564, but the evangel itself. The 'good news,' which alone is 'the power of God unto salvation' was judged by Rome to be so erroneous that anyone who embraced it was to be regarded as condemned.”

Take another example, the idea of ‘purgatory’. It is so blindly obvious that this is unbiblical, but still people choose to give their allegiance to a religious institution and not to the Word of God. But the one thing leads to another. When someone does not accept that justification is by faith alone (and this denial really is equivalent to the belief that the work of Christ isn’t sufficient) then anti-Christian ideas like ‘purgatory’ start making sense. Christ paid for our sins so that we won’t have to. The RC church belittles the perfect work of Christ on the cross by insisting on such absurd doctrines like the purgatory.

In a few words, the RC church teaches *another gospel* (since it does not affirm that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to scripture alone, for the glory of God alone) and thus the stern warning of Ap. Paul in Galatians 1:6-10 is applicable against the official teaching of the RC institution.

Therefore, this isn’t some insignificant difference that we can choose to ignore.
HOWEVER, please note that the above is not an attack against believers found within the RC church. It is a justified criticism against the false gospel the RC institution proclaims, in the light of scripture. Thankfully, God is so merciful that one does not need to believe in justification by faith alone in order to be justified by faith alone. What I am saying is that there are true believers in every ‘denomination’. In the case of the RC church, there exist genuine Christians despite the fact that they belong to the RC church.

What our brothers and sisters that are found within the RC church need to understand is that if they had perfectly affirmed with their hearts and minds *all* of the official teachings of Rome (the canons of the council of Trent included) then they wouldn’t have been saved in the first place.

[35. Patricia said the following at 5:20 AM on Jul 23:]

35

Ted,
There is also a subtle but very important difference between matrix and co-matrix. Co implies equality, matrix only implies that she participated but not necessarily on an equal level. I am not Catholic. However, I think a lot of people are simply misinformed on points of Catholic doctrine. When I went to Mass, I was taken by the centrality of scripture and the Gospel in the service. Scripture is read from three times and people stand for the Gosepl as a sign of respect. While the Catholic Church's position on Mary may seem controversial, the Bible does say that generations shall call her blessed. Denying her unique role in salvation as the Mother of God for the sake of unity is not biblical or glorifying to God.

[36. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 7:06 AM on Jul 23:]

36

Ted, I fail to see what your hangup with the term "mediatrix" is. Anyone who petitions on the behalf of another could be called a "mediatrix". You become a "mediatrix" when you pray for someone else. The title "mediatrix of all graces" connotes the Blessed Virgin's role in revealing the Savior - the source of Salvation - and she becomes in a unique way a special petitioner on our behalf due to this role.

I will agree with you that "co-redemptrix" is a little bit questionable, and the very use of the word "redemptor" in reference to Mary could be understood in a problematic way (perhaps this is your objection to the title "mediatrix" as well?). I gather that it could possibly mean that Mary's participation in the life of Christ bestows this role upon her by sharing in His sufferings (as Simeon said, "that your heart too a sword shall pierce) so that her own life could in a unique way mirror Christ's. It CAN NOT be understood as saying Mary effects Redemption in any way similar to Christ's death and Resurrection.

Again, like I said, I think there is an unfortunate habit to stress Marian devotion in the Roman Church (FYI: I am Roman) at the expense of a singular recognition of Christ, so these articulations can be entirely orthodox just as much as they can be "excessive". Remember, the Pope is not infallible when he is not defining doctrine, and his private theological opinions can be open to criticism.

[37. Jared said the following at 7:16 AM on Jul 23:]

37

I almost became a Catholic once, and there's still a lot of things I like about the Catholic church because of that experience -- however, this experience also taught me that there were certain dogmas of the Catholic church: the perpetual virginity and sinlessness of Mary, and the Supremacy and infallibility of the Pope, which I could not in good conscience accept, since they were not verifiable by scripture in my opinion. I think it's very dumb for Protestants to take a bigoted stand toward the Catholic church. Several things, like community and formal accountability for sins, this church does exceedingly well. If we choose to correct Catholics on the points that their doctrine is failing, and praise them where they excel, then we are performing the proper role of brothers and sisters in Christ.
I for one rather like Benedict's candid stance on many issues of Catholic and Christian doctrine. Reading any one of his addresses confirms in my mind that he was the best choice for the pope the Catholics could have made. He is an intelligent and straight-talking man who will do much to permit candid discussion of Church divisions rather than making wishy-washy and soft statements of mutual understanding and so forth. Better that than suffer the fate of the United Church in Canada, which steadfastly refuses to take a risky, orthodox stand on anything.

[38. Robert J Espe said the following at 7:24 AM on Jul 23:]

38

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/anathemas.htm

That link outlines the anathema issue. In short, it only ever applied to catholics who were converting, it was still just ex-communication, and the whole issue was set aside in 1983.

Ted, usually you are more fair than this. To base your assumptions about RCC on what you experienced in Latin America is as unfair as basing assumptions about evangelicalism on money-grabbing tv preachers. The Vatican knows they have problems in Latin/South America, but it takes time to work stuff like that out without breaking your church. We could learn a lesson from their patience.

As I posted several times last week, the line between Christian and heretic is defined in the ecumenical creeds (apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian). Any point of doctrine not in those creeds (like Mary, or the Pope, or auto graphical in-errancy) is a minor point, and we should be able to live in love and unity. We should still discuss doctrine to try to discern the truth, but this painting of Catholics with a black brush is exactly what everyone here says they hate when Catholics try to evangelize them.

Read Mere Christianity again. Lewis was Anglican. He believed everything Catholics do about Mary (so did Luther and Calvin) and also believed in purgatory and Papal infallibility. He also believed it didn't matter to that "Mere" Christianity that we all claim to love so much. So chill out, and spend some time praying with your Catholic/Protestant brothers as well as for them (and remember that the Orthodox think we all missed the boat ;-)

PS. Not all evangelicals are hunky-dory. The one thing that unites Calvinist and Armenian Baptists is their agreement that the Charismatic movement should be opposed at all costs. But, I've got some great baptist friends, again, its not in the creed.

[39. Rachel M. said the following at 7:25 AM on Jul 23:]

39

Who says that those in heaven are so enraptured in the love of Christ that they can't hear us? Are they not aware of each other either? Or themselves? Does the "Body of Christ" cease to be united after death, or are the members simply unaware of each other? If my mother died, for example, will she not care about me anymore because she's too busy being in a trance of "love"? Sounds more like a Hindu doctrine than a Christian one. Yes, all are transfixed on Christ, but His eyes are also transfixed on the earth and those still present there. If His desire is to help and save those on earth, are those who are gazing at Him not united to Him enough to be looking also at the earth, with Him and through Him? Our capacity for love expands in heaven, and what greater gift could our Savior give to us than to be united with Him in His work of saving souls, just as a child's joy comes from "working" with his father in his workshop? Just a thought.

[40. Ted Slater said the following at 7:42 AM on Jul 23:]

40

Robert, you wrote, "To base your assumptions about RCC on what you experienced in Latin America...."

I'm not basing my understanding of the RCC on my experience in Latin America. I'm basing it on my research, which I witnessed played out in Latin America.

[41. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 8:09 AM on Jul 23:]

41

I notice a trend in this discussion on the part of several Catholics to subtlety dismiss the teaching of the Catholic Church that Protestants must convert to Catholicism under pain of mortal sin with dodges like: simply not "possessing the fullness of Truth", or "the anathemas no longer apply", or other such slight of hand.

Brothers and sisters, lets be straight on this matter: the Catholic Church continues to teach that Protestants have seriously damaged their connection to the body of Christ by their non-adherence to dogmatic teachings of the Apostolic Church such as the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the efficacy of auricular confession to the ordained priesthood, baptismal regeneration, and so on.

I truly think this is a bit dishonest. The Catholic Church still requires Protestants to convert if they wish to be saved - a teaching reinforced by Vatican II (that Council everyone says "changed things"): "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (LG 14)

Guys, no one is done any favors by balking to admit this difficult truth. Not us, not the Protestants, and certainly not Christ.

[42. KMac said the following at 8:35 AM on Jul 23:]

42

This post is distressing to me. I feel like while trying to not upset or offend others, we are compromising the truth.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

The Catholic religion teaches a works-based salvation along with many other doctrines that are in direct contradiction to God's Word (some of which have been mentioned in this post).

Please, while protecting one another's feelings seems kind, let us in love, tell the truth and stop trying to reconcile two stances that are in so many ways in direct opposition to each other. While Jesus always spoke in love, He wasn't afraid to speak the truth, even when it offended others.

Praise the Lord for the salvation I have by faith through His grace alone. How blessed we are that He has paid the price and doesn't require my doing good to gain His favor.

Romans 5:1-2
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

[43. Kevin said the following at 9:54 AM on Jul 23:]

43

Just a quick question regarding people in heaven watching and praying for us. I have read some of the bible, but not all of it. Where does it say that (if we are saved) we go to heaven when we die? I don't remember reading that. I remember reading things that said the saved would be raised up on the last day, and things of that nature. But I don't remember ever reading that the saved go to heaven when they die. The impression I got was that the elect don't get to dwell with God in his kingdom until he builds it here on earth after the events in Revelation. Could someone clarify this for me? Thank you much.

[44. Christine said the following at 10:22 AM on Jul 23:]

44

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that, “The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 319). My question to our Catholic friends is, how does this fit with the model of salvation found in Scripture? Please don't misunderstand me - I am not saying that these ordinances are not important or that no one in the Roman Catholic church is saved - I'm just curious as to how this can be biblically supported.

I recently wrote a research paper on salvation in Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions and I never was able to find a Scriptural justification for this assertion in the Roman Catholic Catechism.

Also, I wonder why we would need to ask Mary to pray for us. Is there Scriptural support for this also? It seems to me that, since we know that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us, we have no need for Mary to do so as well.

[45. Christine said the following at 10:25 AM on Jul 23:]

45

Jeffery Whiting - I appreciate your candor. However, I think that we are looking at connection to Christ in completely different terms.

My connection to Christ is based upon His justification for my sin by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), not by the list that you mentioned - "their non-adherence to dogmatic teachings of the Apostolic Church such as the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the efficacy of auricular confession to the ordained priesthood, baptismal regeneration."

If you have the time, I would really appreciate any Scriptural support that you can give on the subject of salvation in the Roman Catholic view.

[46. JMarie said the following at 10:37 AM on Jul 23:]

46

I seem to remember reading in a Boundless article some time ago (years, perhaps) that Boundless didn't take positions on Catholic vs. Protestant issues. Perhaps that was under a previous editor. I'm all for people knowing what and why they believe, and that includes understanding differences in doctrines. However, I don't think this post inspires people to know their doctrines so much as it serves to further divide Catholics and Protestants on The Line. It was bad enough reading anti-Catholic stuff from the poster John, but I'm really disappointed that the Boundless staff has taken up such a position.

On a previous thread, Robert J. Espe posted a link for catholicbridge.com. It's a page by a lay-Catholic, not the Pope, but I think it's educational and presented in the right spirit. I may not agree with everything, but having a better idea of where Catholics are coming from does much to dispel misunderstandings.

Mike Theemling had it right in his post: "this is appalling."

[47. Shazia said the following at 10:43 AM on Jul 23:]

47

There's one thing though that I don't understand. Yes, I believe in salvation by faith, but I don't understand one thing: if that is only the case, how come Jesus says in the Gospels how if we do not do certain things, we won't get into the kingdom of heaven? Even though salvation is by faith, Jesus does make it look as if, if you do not do certain things, you are not fit for the kingdom of heaven. (For example, passages like Matthew 25:31-46)...I asked someone this, and their response was that Jesus was saying these things to people who were not Christians at the time, but I would like a little help here...

Is Jesus in any way implying that good works are important to get into the kingdom of heaven? Because I have seen in the Bible that salvation is by faith alone but I don't understand this other stuff too well yet.

[48. Jane said the following at 10:52 AM on Jul 23:]

48

"As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."

-catholic.com

[49. xeres said the following at 10:59 AM on Jul 23:]

49

Jmarie,

It's thereisonefaithonebaptism, not Mike Theemling, who said,

"this is appalling.

what of church unity? are we no longer willing to speak to our fellow Christ-siblings in humility and love? are we no longer one body? is the left arm satisified as a separate unit? "

[50. luthien said the following at 11:08 AM on Jul 23:]

50

"Any denomination that claims to be the only true church is ridiculous."
Uh, no, actually, it's quite the opposite of ridiculous. The Eastern Orthodox take on the subject (I'm EO)is that there is only one Truth, and as all denominations differ from each other, only one can have the fullness and perfection of that Truth. Which is not to say that every other denomination isn't a church, we do believe that they are churches and all other Christians are our brethren in Christ, but deficient to a greater or lesser degree.

[51. BDB said the following at 11:59 AM on Jul 23:]

51

Shazia wrote:

>>(For example, passages like Matthew 25:31-46)...<<

You are correct, that is one of the biblical passages that lends itself to the importance of "works." See also James 2:14-26. But if you look at 1 Corinthians 3:1-17, especially vs. 15, where the Apostle Paul suggested that someone without much in the way of works would still be saved - barely.

Robert J. Espe wrote:

>>The one thing that unites Calvinist and Armenian Baptists is their agreement that the Charismatic movement should be opposed at all costs.<<

How interesting. So when such a church wants to pray for someone who's sick...what happens? Is it easier to adjust doctrine to allow the Holy Spirit to work for healing, or is it better to just send them to a Charismatic church and keep the doctrine pure?

What's even more interesting is that the Vatican signed off on Charismatic expressions of the Holy Spirit back in the 1970's. Ponder the idea of Nuns who pray in tongues.

See also:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P28.HTM

(You can search the Vatican web site on Charisms and find a lot of stuff. See Acts 10 for an example of how speaking in tongues affected Peter, and Acts 11 to see how it created division in the early church.)

[52. Andrienne said the following at 12:32 PM on Jul 23:]

52

Why exactly was this document put out?

I think I read somewhere that it was to clarify the RCC's beliefs about Protestantism (is that a word?) so that the relationship between the two groups would at least be honest. I've also heard that it was directed at Catholics more so than non-Catholics so that they would be encouraged to stay within the Catholic faith.

Whatever the reasoning, I can honestly say that I was very upset when I first read about the statement. I'm Pentecostal, but for seventeen years (yes, almost two decades) I was a Catholic school girl. I still treasure what I learned about Christianity from those institutions (religion was always my favorite subject) and I enjoyed helping out at mass (singing, reading, lighting candles, conducting lectio divina etc). My Dad had always told me that no matter what denomination you were, you were always part of the body of Christ, and so I always worked toward and valued ecumenism.

However, I won't lie, I think the reason so many people on this blog are upset with the RCC is because of a feeling of rejection. I first felt it in primary school when my best friends were encouraged to go up for communion during mass, but I was told to stay put. I also felt it later in college, as I held the bread plate for the priest at mass and then shook my head to say no when he tried to offer me some (he didn't realize I wasn't Catholic), while, ironically, the cantors sang "One Bread, One Body, One Lord of All".

And now this. I understand that the Catholic Church must be honest about their teachings, but I don't think this does anything to promote a sense of oneness between Catholics and Protestants. Just look at all the posts on this blog! Talk about a can of worms. It seems like bringing up this issue has only divided us more and it grieves me (and I'm sure it grieves God too) that we're so divided.

But what can we do? One group sees it one way and the other has a different view - nobody's budging and so we've been eating at separate tables for around 400 years. The Pope does not see me as being in a "real church" because my Pastor was not officially involved in the apostolic succession. I think I am in a real church since we are a group of people who follow Christ, the Bible, and the Spirit of God lives within us. Protestant and Catholic definitions of "Church" apparently differ, as they have since...well, I guess, the Reformation.

So again, what's to be done?

"And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes."
2 Corinthians 2: 10 - 11
(Paul, the apostle, not the commentator)

I'm not saying that Satan used the Pope to promote discord in the Body of Christ. However, I cannot let this event trigger evil within my heart by resenting the Catholic Church because of yet another disagreement in definitions. I just think it's time to let go and move on, in Jesus' name.

So, Pope B, now that you've said what you had to say, and I've said what I had to say, wanna solve world hunger together?

[53. Rachel said the following at 12:38 PM on Jul 23:]

53

I agree with JMarie. I'm a Roman Catholic. I was under the impression that all Christians were welcome to Boundless. I feel hurt and unwanted in this "Christian" community.

We could argue about our beliefs until we were blue in the face, but if a non-Christian came and read these posts, would they think, "What a loving, faith-filled community!"? ... I think not.

This should never have been posted.

[54. xeres said the following at 2:36 PM on Jul 23:]

54

Wow, some barbs here. Turn the hostility down a couple of notches. That's all I have to say because there's no point participating this volatile issue. As a Wesleyan, I'm staying out of it.

[55. Paul said the following at 3:03 PM on Jul 23:]

55

Yeah, I must admit that I'm rather disappointed in the Boundless staff for their attitudes. I have great respect for you guys, and that's probably why I'm hurt so much by your lack of respect. Perhaps it is you who consider me lost? Because I've done nothing but give Church doctrine that we don't consider Protestants lost, and I've just tried to clarify and correct you when you've said things that are contrary to what we believe. I don't mind if you disagree with Catholicism for what it is, but I have a problem if you disagree with things you think are true about the RCC and are not.

Furthermore, I've never attacked your religion, not once. On the contrary I have a high respect for my Protestant brothers and sisters, and I see no reason for you to attack my beliefs. It's ridiculous, we're all members of Christ's Church, maybe we should start acting like it.

So, I'm sorry if I've contributed to the volatility, but I had some input and I was ticked when it was ignored and then attacked...

[56. Eliana said the following at 3:24 PM on Jul 23:]

56

Catholics do not believe that every doctrinal statement must have a corresponding Bible verse because the Church preceded the completion of the Bible. Jesus started the Church, and that was before the New Testament was written.

[57. Matt. said the following at 4:03 PM on Jul 23:]

57

I have always wanted to know about the
differences between RCC and the Protestant Church. A friend of mine
let me use his Catechism, I read the entire book. Then I went to the Bible, I read it also, then I used
the bible to confirm what was in the
Catechism. What is in the Catechism
is not confirmed by Scripture. I questioned my friend about this, he
simply says "We trust the Pope!" I
knew that I could never become a
Catholic because I question everything. I have a problem with
any religion that does not question
the doctrine of that faith.
I have recently read a book titled "Once A Catholic", by Tony
Coffey. The book was most helpful. It answered all of the questions that I had. I also encourages one to read the Bible for yourself and not to follow the words of man, if what man is saying is inconsistant with
what the Bible teaches, do not follow him, he is not leading you in truth.

In regards to what the Pope said, I'm not losing any sleep over it. What he said is not confirmed by the Word of God.

[58. San Soo said the following at 4:18 PM on Jul 23:]

58

Some of the Boundless writers are not Protestant (Roberto Rivera y Carlo, J. Budzsiziewski, I can't remember the Orthodox girl's name), yet they never slam Protestants. Oh well.

[59. friend said the following at 4:21 PM on Jul 23:]

59

Thank you Ted Slater for stating the truth. Don't be intimidated by those who want to compromise biblical doctrine for a so called peace. Let's get this clear..unless we can agree on a scriptural basis for our faith we cannot join hands in fellowship. There is definate and clear error in RCC doctrine. It is up to each individual to d=face this before an almighty and holy God and stop demanding and playing guilt trips with those who want to follow scriptural doctrines concerning the faith. I hate error and will not mollycoddle error for the sake of so called peace. True peace comes in the truth otherwise it is a false peace and will come to nothing. I detest it when people try to say RCC and protestants should all agree and smooth over differences! It's not only ERROR big time but ABSURD.

[60. Christine said the following at 5:26 PM on Jul 23:]

60

I apologize if my comments were taken as harsh, but the questions that I asked are things that I genuinely would like to know.

This is such a charged issue. I don't think that we should avoid talking about it (as some have suggested), but I do think that we need to keep it a discusson (not an argument) and that we need to remember to respect and love those on both sides.

We need to focus primarily on the importance of Scripture as our basis and judge all of our belief systems by that standard. If any church teaches anything contrary to the Word of God, then we must question that church.

[61. Jonathan said the following at 5:50 PM on Jul 23:]

61

Hmm, interesting post, in my opinion...and one that has obviously brought out some pretty strong feelings! In response to Rachel: This seemed to be a very balanced post with the author asserting that both Protestants and Catholics need to be in prayer actively for each other. After all, there are saved and unsaved people in both sects! It seems that often we hear about praying for the unchurched, but what about those whom Satan is actively attacking within the Church?

It is, however, unfortunate to see so many harsh words flying around between people on this site...why are we tearing each other down? Isn't the world trying hard enough to do that without our help?

[62. xeres said the following at 6:23 PM on Jul 23:]

62

I'm breaking my vow to stay out of it but this is urgent.

Paul,

I'm deeply sadden that you feel that way. However, as much as frustrating as it is, Ted has a more of a bias toward the reformed (?) theology and he has some trouble (rightly) with certain aspect of RCC. I don't blame him for being uneasy with some issues RCC has. I would be uneasy as well. However, he obviously doesn't consider practicing Catholic Christian wannabes at the least or heretics at the worse. If Ted is a reformed follower, I find him extremely generous and compassionate in comparison to many devout reformed followers I'm familiar with. Many of them are not all at sympathatic towards Catholics in general. It's mostly the protestants who are devoted to the Reformed theology that are hostile to Catholics.

San soo,

the name of the Orthodox girl is Jenny Schroedel

[63. EKB said the following at 7:10 PM on Jul 23:]

63

As someone who is in the process of becoming Catholic having been raised as an Evangelical Protestant, I have researched and prayed over this issue extensively. I am encouraged to see so many Catholics reading Boundless- it is a great website that all Christians can learn from. I don't think blog comments are the best place to get into drawn-out debates, so I am not going to address any particular issue such as the role of Mary, how salvation works, the sacraments, etc. If anyone wants to know what the Church actually teaches, I suggest Catholic.com. So many people have misconceptions about what the Catholic Faith really teaches. As the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen said, "There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church."

A side note: It would be awesome if Boundless provided message boards so that we could discuss this and many other issues raised on the blog and in the articles in more depth. Is there any possibility of this happening?

[64. BDB said the following at 7:23 PM on Jul 23:]

64

Eliana wrote:

>>Catholics do not believe that every doctrinal statement must have a corresponding Bible verse because the Church preceded the completion of the Bible.<<

Oooh...that's a pretty good answer, particularly when combined with the emphasis on the "creeds," and how most of the contentious stuff is outside those creeds.

But it would seem like some of them could also find ground in the Old Testament. For example, right at the moment I'm trying to figure out how Mary could have an immaculate conception and Jesus still be in the line and lineage of David. It would seem like to be an effective sacrifice, Jesus needed the physical part to include Adam's original sin so that his divine part could conquer it. There's probably a dozen books on the subject that I've never heard of.

[65. Paul said the following at 7:55 PM on Jul 23:]

65

Hm. Well I must say that my comments were a bit harsh. This is just such an emotionally charged issue for me, and for everyone, and I really feel like this isn't the best arena for such discussion.

It's too difficult to truly get into some of the meat and potatoes differences between our respective faiths. True, these differences are substantial, but we should be able to look past them, and realize that we worship the same God and should be building each other up rather than bringing us down. So I'm sorry for contributing to that latter aspect.

Just wanted to reply to Matt and friend's posts. Actually Matt, every Catholic doctrine is supported by Scripture. However, the key difference is that we also use Sacred Tradition, handed down from the apostles and early church fathers. (Read the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, or St. Augustine). However, nothing in Tradition is not at least supported in the Bible if not explicitly stated. The Bible never states that it is the only source of Faith. And if it were, Doctrines such as the concept of the Trinity wouldn't be around.

[66. San Soo said the following at 7:56 PM on Jul 23:]

66

friend,

You believe peace comes from Truth...so do I: Jesus. There are many different Christians from many churches. I do not claim that all believe the same things. I simply claim that one can be a good Christian while being Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. I have met amazing Christians in all three. Like the Trinity, somehow the three are one.

[67. Paul said the following at 8:24 PM on Jul 23:]

67

Just to clarify, I meant that an online blog isn't the best arena for me at least to get into the "meat and potatoes" of our respective faiths.
:)

perhaps a messageboard would do better? (hint, hint...)

[68. Ted Slater said the following at 8:37 PM on Jul 23:]

68

Some of the Roman Catholics here take offense at some of the comments, including mine. I'm frankly not sure why, since (at least in my case) I've merely illuminated particular Roman Catholic doctrines that Protestants have problems with. I've tried to keep it at the level of a discussion of doctrine, not stooping to the level of personal attacks.

I've never said Roman Catholics can't be "saved." Not sure where that idea came from. Of course, if you place your trust in Jesus, and have repented of your sin, then He's happy to save you, regardless of your "denomination." And regardless of a doctrine or two that you've got "off" a bit.

Rachel wrote, "I was under the impression that all Christians were welcome to Boundless. I feel hurt and unwanted in this 'Christian' community." Of course you're welcome, Rachel. I understand you to be a Christian who's part of a Roman Catholic church. And that's fine. You're welcome here. Even those who have no faith are welcome here. Big Tent Boundless.

I'm not sure I understand your next paragraph. Of course, it's extremely important to discuss doctrine, what we believe about Jesus and salvation and such. Even if it is unsettling to some.

Paul wrote that the Boundless staff have "attitudes," that we have a "lack of respect." Hm. I don't see that. I see myself bringing to light some Roman Catholic doctrines that Protestants/Evangelicals find troubling. That's not disrespectful. That's simply identifying troublesome doctrines and presenting them for discussion. If you've sensed any disrespect from me, please do point it out so that I might evaluate how I'm communicating my thoughts. Seriously.

You've written that we've "said things that are contrary to what we believe." Not sure what that might be. Again, please identify where we've repeated fallacies about RC doctrine.

San Soo -- it's true that Roberto Rivera y Carlo and J. Budzsiziewski are Roman Catholic, and that Jenny Schroedel is Eastern Orthodox. I concur that they've never (to my knowledged) "slammed" Protestants. To my knowledge, nobody here has "slammed" Roman Catholics; they've merely identified troublesome doctrines. Have you felt "slammed" by anything in particular?

Xeres -- you're exactly right. I'd consider my theology to be "Reformed," and I also consider "sound doctrine" not a necessary part of salvation. Only simple repentance and faith in Jesus are necessary for salvation (and even those are a gift from our Savior).

Here's a secret: My doctrine is imperfect. And yet the Lord has saved me. Those whose doctrine is different from mine may very well be saved from the consequences of their sin, if they've surrendered their lives to the Author and Perfector of our faith, Jesus. Correct doctrine doesn't save us; Jesus saves us.

One of my favorite professors in undergrad was Roman Catholic. One of my best friends in undergrad was Roman Catholic. One of my favorite singers is Roman Catholic. One of my favorite authors is Roman Catholic. Two of our authors at Boundless are Roman Catholic. I have no problem with "Roman Catholics," though I do have problems with some of their doctrines. But that doesn't prohibit me from fellowship with them! :-)

[69. Ted Slater said the following at 8:54 PM on Jul 23:]

69

Some of you may not have read Al Mohler's blog post (referenced in the Original Post). Near the end he writes:

"I actually appreciate the Pope's concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Of course, I am convinced that he is not right -- not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right on the church."

This is the position of many Protestants. And yet most of us have no issues enjoying fellowship with our Christian brothers and sisters in the Roman church.

We have doctrinal differences. This is absolutely true. But as fellow believers in Christ, with concerns about marriage and the life of the preborn and so on, it's important that we retain our comradery. Or is is camaraderie?

[70. Melody said the following at 1:53 AM on Jul 24:]

70

>>>luthien :

"Any denomination that claims to be the only true church is ridiculous."
Uh, no, actually, it's quite the opposite of ridiculous. The Eastern Orthodox take on the subject (I'm EO)is that there is only one Truth, and as all denominations differ from each other, only one can have the fullness and perfection of that Truth. Which is not to say that every other denomination isn't a church, we do believe that they are churches and all other Christians are our brethren in Christ, but deficient to a greater or lesser degree.<<<

It's semantics I guess. Because "the church" is the people not the organization or even theological doctrine. It is the people who believe in salvation through Jesus Christ.
If you talk about a church in regards to doctrine, then I can see how you'd think it's not ridiculous.

The Apostle Paul said not to pass judgment on someone over disputable issues. It seems to me to be wholly judgmental to call ones denomination the "only true" and saying the others are deficient esp. on issues that are disputable.

You know what... Chapter 14 of Romans is a good thing to read in light of all this discussion.

Paul says that we each will believe some different things on how to live (what to eat and not to eat) but that our lives are lived for the Lord. In the end, each of us give an account to God.

I think that one denomination claiming to the one true church and calling others deficient is not only a slam on fellow Christians but ignores the message of Romans 14.
What I mean is I don't think the designation of "one true church" is necessary or helpful.

Finally, I'd like to say that I've appreciated all the comments here and the discussion between Protestant and Catholics especially Ted's.
I think open discussion is indespensible especially on issues of faith. So long as at the end of the day we agree on the core of salvation through faith in Christ, I think debate will only aid in coming to a full understanding of our faith... push us towards the "fullness of truth" maybe?

People should never shy away from debate but must always remember to do so in love.
etc.

[71. Brad K said the following at 8:19 AM on Jul 24:]

71

Ted, I'm well aware of what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary.

The arguments you raise really go against the whole practice of Christians asking for each others' prayers, and are, in fact, commonly used against prayer itself. (You've heard the objection: "If God knows what I need already, why do I need to ask him about it?")

Yet asking another Christian to pray for you is straight from the Bible. The Christians who are glorified in heaven are no less real, no less alive, and much more capable of loving us, since they are in the presence of God and perfectly united to him in the glory of heaven.

Jeffrey Whiting wrote that the Catholic Church requires Protestants to convert to be saved, and quoted LG 14: ""Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."

Jeffrey, please read that citation carefully. Its caution is restricted to those who know "that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ". IOW, if you believe that the Catholic Church is who and what she says she is, but remain outside it, you are -- according to *your own* understanding and conscience -- rejecting God's will for you and thus endangering your salvation.

[72. Robert J Espe said the following at 9:09 AM on Jul 24:]

72

Some of you may want to check out http://lcms.org

Follow the links, read the original Book of Concord, it summarizes everything Luther taught, and is still followed by the LCMS. Luther agreed with Catholics about most of the issues people here complain about, as do the Orthodox (http://oca.org, and as did the Anglicans before their church fell into heresy. About the only uniquely Roman Catholic doctrine is the authority of the Papacy. All these other denominations accept the sacraments, Mary, purgatory, faith and works cooperating, etc.

When you realize just how recently American churches came to view things the way they do, you should at least be humbled by how small we are compared to 2000 years of very smart people from all denominations. I don't have all the answers, and I continue to study, but it must be done with the attitude that you could be wrong. And that includes "show me a Bible verse" dogmatism. Better theologians than me believe that the Bible is to be held accountable to the Holy Spirit embodied in the church. They could be right. They could be wrong as well, but there is never any excuse for any Christian to call other creedal Christians anything other than brother or sister.

"In essentials unity, In non-essentials diversity, in all things, charity." ~St Augustine of Hippo

"They will know you are my disciples by your love for one another."
~Jesus of Nazareth.

[73. Ted Slater said the following at 9:13 AM on Jul 24:]

73

BradK -- can you provide any biblical support for the act of speaking with dead people, asking them to do something for you? That strikes me as a form of necromancy, something condemned in Scripture.

Yes, we're surrounded by a "great cloud of witnesses," but we're to look to Jesus, not to them for help.

Besides, why communicate with the dead when you can communicate with the living? Is the mediation of the Risen Savior insufficient? 1 Tim. 2:5 says that "there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" -- so He is indeed sufficient. Is His compassion insufficient? Is His loving interest insufficient that we need some other person to be a "co-whatever"? What kind of faith is that when Jesus is insufficient?

You wrote, "The Christians who are glorified in heaven are no less real, no less alive, and much more capable of loving us, since they are in the presence of God and perfectly united to him in the glory of heaven." That really is disturbing, BradK. Please cite specific biblical support for that contention, that we are to petition those who've died for something. Isaiah 8:19 addresses -- and condemns -- communicating with the dead. 1 Sam. 28:7 and 1 Chron. 10:13 show Saul attempting to communicate with the dead -- and being punished for having done so.

And show, biblically or otherwise, how dead people can love us more than those around us who can provide a meal, hold our hand, listen to our complaints, give us a ride, or provide us counsel. It's true that Jesus, the resurrected Savior, does love us more than anyone else, but dead people cannot love us more than living people.

Yes, the RC doctrines about an omniscient, omnipresent, co-mediatrix/co-redemptrix Mary really disturb me. Jesus, and Jesus alone, is sufficient.

[74. nikki said the following at 10:04 AM on Jul 24:]

74

I echo Ted's most recent comment about praying to dead people. Mary sinned; she is a regular person, albeit blessed, but a sinner in need of grace and saving power just like the rest of us. No where in Scripture are we told Mary has any kind of super powers of prayer or anything. We pray for others on earth, yes, because we can communicate with them. We are never told to attempt communication with dead folks; on the contrary, it appears that we are commanded not to do so. This includes the so-called "saints."

Isaiah 8:19: When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?

Deuteronomy 18:10-12: Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD...

I don't know if the people in heaven pray for us. I am pretty sure Scripture tells us they watch, or can see us. Perhaps they intercede for us; but whatever that case may be, we are never told to pray *to* them. Why would we, when we can pray to the God that created them and us??! This is totally absurd as well as unscriptural.

Since we are talking about Roman Catholicism, the same thing goes for confession to priests. I don't know enough about RC to know if every catholic practices this, but we are told to confess our sins to one another (for accountability) and to God (for forgiveness). There is no accountability in the privacy screen of a confession box, and no forgiveness except from God himself. Anyone except Christ who claims to grant forgiveness, or even awareness thereof, is a phony and should be expelled immediately. "There is no mediator between God and man except Christ", and anything diminishing Christ's power or "status" is at best ignorant, and at worse blasphemous.

Bring on the lively debate! I think this is good for us all.

[75. Heather B said the following at 10:43 AM on Jul 24:]

75

Ted, you wrote:

"Paul wrote that the Boundless staff have "attitudes," that we have a "lack of respect." Hm. I don't see that. I see myself bringing to light some Roman Catholic doctrines that Protestants/Evangelicals find troubling. That's not disrespectful. That's simply identifying troublesome doctrines and presenting them for discussion. If you've sensed any disrespect from me, please do point it out so that I might evaluate how I'm communicating my thoughts. Seriously."

First, I would like to register my disagreement with Paul's statement, in regard to your comments on this post. Reviewing all of your responses in order, I have found your tone to be basically respectful, your words carefully chosen, and your loving embrace of our Catholic brothers and sisters in fellowship sincere. Your responses have been consistantly of a higher caliber than many responses trivially dismissing doctrines with condescending adjectives such as "absurd."

However, I did want to point out a couple of sentences from your largely unobjectionable comments in the interests of living at peace with everyone.

"Brad -- Mary is considered by the Roman Catholic Church as the "co-mediatrix with Christ" and "co-redemptrix"; they believe she is aware of millions of prayers and passes those petitions along to Jesus (since He is apparently unaware of the prayers, or needs convincing from His mother)."

This quote struck me, on my first-read through, as somewhat patronizing. I do not think very many Catholics appreciated this joke. If you had wished to lighten the mood in this discussion, a joke about a less controversial topic might have been in order.

"I'm confident that as people consider Scripture vs. some of these Roman Catholic doctrines, they'll be able to make wise decisions about which denomination to align themselves with."

The juxtaposition of "Scripture vs. ...Roman Catholic doctrines," I felt, was underhandedly insulting in its insinuations. The implication would be that "these Roman Catholic doctrines" are in opposition to Scripture, not an extension. I apologize for my word choice in "extension"; I don't know the best word to use. I am not trying to offend.

"BradK -- can you provide any biblical support for the act of speaking with dead people, asking them to do something for you? That strikes me as a form of necromancy, something condemned in Scripture."

You applied the harsh label "necromancy" to, fundamentally, what? Intercession, though of a type recognized by neither of us as effective or mentioned in Scripture. I think that is a huge jump. There might have been a more respectful way to state your disagreement than however indirectly accusing someone with such pure motives of witchcraft.

I hope this is helpful. Again, I want to thank you for the consistant level of respect demonstrated in your posts. Though I am disturbed by a few comments from certain participants, I am encouraged by how largely civil this discussion has remained. I do not think there is anything wrong per se with Boundless hosting discussions on such controversial topics, but I feel strongly that fair voice must be given to all sides. As an author for Boundless, your post is interpreted as the position of Boundless, and this may have caused offense.

[76. Patricia said the following at 11:06 AM on Jul 24:]

76

I don't pray to saints or the dead. However, I think there is a difference between necromancy and the Catholic doctrine of the saints. It seems that the purpose of necromancy is to circumvent God, his power and authority by relying on other spirits. Saints only get their ability from God-and the idea is the petition them. I agree that because of Jesus's death we don't have to pray to saints. But I don't see it as the same as black magic. Also, my understanding is that people are still living after dead. So praying to the saints is not the same as praying to the dead under the Jewish law. The dead only inherited eternal life after Jesus arose-and now those who die are no longer dead. I hope that is clear.

[77. Heather B said the following at 11:45 AM on Jul 24:]

77

I agree with Patricia. Error is error, but the black and white of Truth is underlaid by shades of gray. Their efforts in praying to saints are, according to my interpretation of Scripture, misguided, but their motives are pure. Clearly they are not intending to practice necromancy.

The truth is that most of us here have put our faith in Christ, and in faith we strive to love others as we love Him. The shades of gray are that there will never be an end to doctrinal differences outside of the kingdom of God, but the ultimate condition of loving devotion to Christ, the essential doctrine of our salvation, be it by faith or by works, is met.

Also, to those (numerous) individuals who smugly trivialize arguments by dashing the label "absurd" on the points of disagreement debated here, I ask you to consider them as the product of hundreds of years of contemplation and reasoning by giants of faith and extraordinary minds. (I'm now waiting to hear Romans 3:4 and 1 Corinthians 1:25 quoted in response to the preceeding assertion; but even as I believe in sola scriptura, I'm only asking you to consider that they are not arbitrary constructs or the reckless product of naive whims, so perhaps this word could be dropped.)

[78. John said the following at 12:13 PM on Jul 24:]

78

Just a point of fact: I am not anti-Catholic. I am Christian. And as such, I am required by God to defend His word against false philosophies. The Roman Catholic religion being one of them. Some "denominations" being other examples of false philosophies and still some doctrines of some denominations being false as well.

And people please stop trying to classify everyone as "Protestant" that points out the obvious heresies of the Roman Catholic church. We're not all Luther worshipers. Again, I'm Christian. I don't know everything and I am not right about everything. I don't have perfect doctrine. But I recognize the heresy of the Roman Catholic church, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican (Catholic with divorce), etc.

If you are saved, you recognize false beliefs that go against His word. (Of course time saved and level of relationship with the Lord will determine how much you know, but a quick study can catch up fast)

To answer Kevin's questions: 2 Cor. 5:8.

We do not have brothers and sisters in the RC church, unless they are there knowing what the church teaches is false, but trying to save those being led to hell.

For if someone affirms Roman Catholicism they deny the gospel and are not saved.

And everyone needs to get off Ted's back. Focus on the Family considers Roman Catholics as "christian brothers". He's one of the few pointing out the inconsistencies even if he contradicts himself by calling them "sisters and brothers". Even when Dr. Mohler points out that the pope is wrong about the Gospel.

Just like the Wrong Chruch post, you will not find a perfect church, denomination nor parachurch organization, BUT you should be able to identify non-Christian groups, especially when they're as abvious as Roman Catholicism.

Again, check out these links:

http://www.carm.org/catholic.htm

http://christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-r005a.html

[79. xeres said the following at 12:49 PM on Jul 24:]

79

wow, John, you sounded like someone who is a Reformed folk.

[80. another Heather said the following at 12:51 PM on Jul 24:]

80

I just want to say thank you to Heather B, Patricia, and Robert J. Espe, who, while not Catholic, have been very gracious in their replies and in recognition of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is indeed a Christian Church.

I used to be, for lack of a better term, an evangelical Christian. I am now a member of the Catholic Church, and I do not see that I have left the Christian faith in any way. Rather, I understand it more fully, deeply, and completely. My love for Jesus and my trust in Him for salvation is not diminished by knowing that the saints in heaven are praying for us, see Revelation 5:7-9, or by any other concern raised by non-Catholics in this discussion.

I have stayed out of this conversation, though, because the attitudes of several of the posters. This is not the place where anyone will convinced to change their views on such significant issues. But again, I just wanted to say that I am grateful to the non-Catholics who have defended us Catholics against the accusations of necromancy, etc. I am glad to recognize you as my brothers and sisters in Christ, separated though we may be.

[81. Ted Slater said the following at 1:28 PM on Jul 24:]

81

Xeres -- you seem to have something against Reformed Theology in this thread, but over here you wrote that you "have respect for the Reformed folks."

Has something changed in the past few weeks?

[82. Michele said the following at 1:31 PM on Jul 24:]

82

It's like some kind of new physics law - the Catholic Church will release a document and over a period of time the likelihood that Protestants will take offense, argue, and pray for the souls of Catholics increase.

I'm a former Catholic. I flirted with being a Pentecostal and a Baptist before coming home to....Christian.

That document Mohler's post refers to basically came to the conclusion that - gasp - Protestants aren't Catholics. And vice versa.

It is impossible to get everyone on this page, but for me it comes down to us believing the same things and expressing/practicing them differently. We all believe in the same sequence of events, and it all comes back to the same conclusion, no matter the route.

It was offensive to me, in more than one old church of mine, that Catholics were treated as a criminal cousin in need of severe rehabilitation. It was offensive to me in the Catholic churches I knew growing up, that dating or marrying a Protestant was a offense tantamount to Pilate's handing Christ over to the mob crowd. Things are different these days, but not by much - some lifelong Southern Baptists I've encountered get rather uncomfortable when I admit to having been confirmed in the Catholic Church (and if I slip and perform the Sign of the Cross?? Wow, that clears a room!), and my family doesn't quite accept the idea that I am seriously considering marriage to a Protestant.

My point, really, is that the core mistake is judging another person's faith and making assumptions about whether they are saved just based on which church they call home. There are more obvious and much deeper signs, and I think it's far more important to concentrate on the sleeping-around Baptist and the beats-his-kids Catholic than the devout of either denomination.

[83. nikki said the following at 1:57 PM on Jul 24:]

83

I'm sorry some were upset by my use of the word "absurd." Perhaps there is a better word I could have used instead. But I stand by my point that praying to anyone -- dead saints or otherwise -- instead of only to God is just plain wrong. Any word will do.

[84. Christine said the following at 2:23 PM on Jul 24:]

84

Xeres - I find it interesting that you speak of those who hold to Reformed theology in the same manner with which you criticize those who disagree with Roman Catholic theology.

I think it sounds as if the main dilemma between the posters is a question of the primacy of Scripture versus traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. I don't mean this to be disrespectful, but even if the church came first, why isn't the very Word of God to be held to a higher standard than church tradition?

[85. xeres said the following at 2:42 PM on Jul 24:]

85

Ted,

Sorry that I gave off that I'm have "issues" with the Reformed theology. It's not the theology itself so much (though I disagree some of it). It's really more of their followers nowadays and their "my theology is surpreme" attitude as demostated in comments on Tim Challies' The Appeal to Roman Catholicism.

Here's food for thought: Although I'm generally a Wesleyan, I don't necessarily agree with the Arminian view of free will. So I'm not blind

[86. Matt. said the following at 10:20 PM on Jul 24:]

86

Man Oh Man!
This topics is indeed a hot one, I'm
kinda scared to comment on it. (joking)However, I must.

Paul, it is true that the RCC upholds
and supports the use of Tradition, in
comparison, the word Trinity may not appear in scripture, but it is clearly supported by Scripture. Because it is supported by Scripture, that does not mean that
Tradition is supported or implied
by Scripture. If anything, I see the very opposite.

"This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Mark 7:6,7
The Scribes and Pharisees appeared devout in their zeal for proper observance of Tradition, but the Lord knew it was a pious deception. Their worship was vain, worthless in the sight of God. The Lord accused the Pharisees of "teaching as doctrine the precepts of men" Mark 7:7. The Scriptures said nothing about washing one's hands before eating. Nonetheless, the Pharisees enforced ceremonial washing as if God Himself had ordained it. They had elevated the teachings of men to the same level of authority as God's inspired word.

Jesus accused them of putting men's words before God's Word: "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to your own tradition of men...You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition" Mark 7:9. By their Traditions, Jesus said they were "invalidating the word of God" Mark 7:13, stamping the Scriptures null and void.
Jesus rejected the manmade authority structure of the first-century Jews. He refused to submit to Tradition.
What Jesus rejected the RCC has now restored. It has elevated Tradition to the same level of authority as God's inspired Scriptures.

[87. Erin said the following at 12:50 AM on Jul 25:]

87

Could someonje please give me a Scriptural justification for sola scriptura?

And please...not that one from Timothy that says "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

This is of course true, but it says ALL SCRIPTURE--not ONLY SCRIPTURE.

Thanks.

[88. Theo K said the following at 2:03 AM on Jul 25:]

88

"I actually appreciate the Pope's concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Of course, I am convinced that he is not right -- not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right on the church."

If that is true, it really is an issue of “Roman Catholicism” against scripture. The church’s goal should be to live always reforming to the Word of God. Not the other way around. This was the issue 500 years ago, and it still remains the same. These aren’t small differences of opinion; they cannot be ignored by calling on Romans 14 for example. These differences go down to the core of scripture, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Anyone who proclaims a false gospel is to be opposed. This is the point of the letter to Galatians.

I will not apologize for using the word ‘absurd’ when speaking about ideas such as ‘purgatory’. As I stated, the idea of the need of purgatory for born again children of God is an offence against the perfect work of Christ on the cross. And thus, this expression should be considered rather mild.

If anyone thinks that the loving thing to do is to let people believe ‘doctrines’ that are unscriptural, and even worse, offending against God, I am sorry I am not one of them.

And once again, we are commanded to judge the various teachings in the light of scripture, to ‘test the spirits’. None of the above is an attack against Christians found within RCC. In my opinion, it is a mistake to take personal offence when what you believe to be true is labelled otherwise.

Finally, we should not try to build artificial unity when such core issues as the Gospel itself are at stake. Unity is built when people affirm the fundamental truths of the Bible (the Gospel, I hope you would all agree, being one of them).

“They have healed also the hurt of my people superficially, saying, ‘Peace, peace!’ when there is no peace.” – Jeremiah 6:14

[89. Patricia said the following at 5:41 AM on Jul 25:]

89

Christine, I think the point in not that tradition is higher than scripture. They are equal. Tradition, then, cannot contradict scripture-it simply expands on themes already present. It's a symbiotic relationship in a way, they both feed off each other.

[90. Robert J Espe said the following at 7:31 AM on Jul 25:]

90

I would say that most of you should really check out catholicbridge.com and learn from a Catholic what they really believe. Most of your concerns are based on misunderstanding.

Take the saints thing. Catholics believe the difference between necromancy (like Saul calling up Samuel in the OT) and asking a Christian who has gone to heaven to pray for you is that the former was dead. In the OT, when people died, they went to sheol. When Jesus died, He descended into hell (this is why it is in the creed, it is critical that He fully died) and released from death all the Godly who had died before and He brought them to heaven. Now when Christians die, they go to heaven. We all agree on that. Catholics would say they make a short stop in purgatory first, but it doesn't really matter because the fork in the road that leads to Hell occurs before purgatory not after (all who go to purgatory do go to heaven). So, Catholics are not praying TO the saints, but they might ask one (or even their grandfather) to pray FOR them, just as I might ask my pastor to pray for me. I'm not Catholic, and don't feel any need to do this, but since we all agree that anyone in heaven is more alive than they were here on earth and the Bible says that saints pray in heaven, there is nothing sinful about the practice. Of course God doesn't need this, any more than He needs us to pray in the first place. That is simply commanded. It is also commanded that we pray for eachother. Catholics just don't believe that praying for each other goes away when we die. Personally, I think that is a good reminder that as Christians, dying isn't that big a deal.

Just to point out, you could even ask the prophet Samuel to pray for you now. One, he is no longer dead, two, necromancy would be calling up his spirit for two way communication.

And I'm really tired of this "I'm just defending the Bible against Catholic heresy" non-sense. I feel like a broken record. To be heresy, it has to violate an article of one of the 3 creeds (i.e. Jesus wasn't fully God, or fully man, or He didn't die, or the Holy Spirit isn't God, or you only have to worship Jesus), not your personal understanding of the "Gospel". Everyone thinks they are interpreting the Bible correctly. That is why we have the creeds. They broadly define the only critical issues so that we can be unified even when we disagree on non-essentials. It is what allows me be to be friends with Calvinists, what keeps Baptists from burning me at the stake for speaking in tongues, and so on and so forth. Lose the arrogance of assuming that because you have read a translation of the Bible a couple times you are automatically able to understand everything better than 2000 years worth of Christian theologians from all denominations who are wise enough to agree to disagree and then go spread the Gospel and feed the hungry.

[91. Christine said the following at 8:15 AM on Jul 25:]

91

Erin - Sola Scriptura doesn't mean that nothing besides Scripture has truth - just that everything is judged by Scripture. For Biblical justification of the primacy of Scripture, I would point to all of the times that Scripture itself claims to be the Word of God ("Thus saith the Lord," etc.).

Patricia - I think that the difference between your view and mine is that I consider tradition, but do not place it on the same level as Scripture. I believe that tradition and church leaders are subject to fallibility, but that the Word of God is not.

[92. Christine said the following at 9:27 AM on Jul 25:]

92

Robert J. Espe - Though I agree that we need to focus primarily on the gospel, I think that discussing issues of salvation are critical to that focus. There are many things that can be overlooked (such as speaking in tongues) because they do not relate to this, but other issues (such as the relationship of the sacraments to salvation) cannot be ignored.

Also, not all Christians affirm that Christ descended to hell. I've had a few seminary profs (and my current pastor) disagree with that statement. I'm not disagreeing, just saying that you can't assume that all Christians affirm that portion of the creed.

Further more, I think that it's safe to say that there have been plenty of theologians in the last 2,000 years who have been off base. Just because a theology is old doesn't make it true. We still have to be discerning and analyze everything with Scripture.

[93. Mark Willard said the following at 12:33 PM on Jul 25:]

93

Just wanted to support what Christine said about Christ descending into hell -- there's actually a lot of evidence that that line is not original to the Apostles' Creed and was in fact added later. Wayne Grudem has written about this extensively in his Systematic Theology as well as an article he wrote entitled He Did Not Descend into Hell.

[94. Paul said the following at 5:28 PM on Jul 25:]

94

Theo K. I agree with you about the crying for "Peace, Peace, when there is no peace."

I'm saddened that the Christian community as a whole cannot seem to come together as you say. You'll never convince me, and I'll never convince you. However, in the end, we're fighting together a great spiritual battle against the evil one, and we're all fighting on the side of Christ. I for one love to see Catholics and Protestants come together as a united force (such as in the Pro-Life mission and others). What amazing things we could accomplish for our country and our world if we could do this more often and more effectively.

Robert J. Espe, I believe that Christ did not "descend into hell" as stated in the Creed, but rather to the "spirits in prison" of 1 Peter 3:19, or the "Bosom of Abraham" from the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. This "state" different from Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory, I believe was where the devout Old Testament souls awaited their salvation through Christ's Passion.

Also, I wanted to state that the traditions of the Pharisees were quite different from the Tradition of the Church. Christ wanted the Pharisees to look past their futile squabbles over how long to wash your hands and the like, and lose their pride and recognize that He was the Messiah. Sacred Tradition, on the other hand, deals with Doctrines and mysteries, and despite what you say, the Trinity is never explicitly defined as we know it from the Bible. Sure it's referenced, but so are the doctrines of Purgatory or devotion to Christ through the intercession of his mother Mary. Meanwhile, things like the supremacy of Peter and the institution of the Eucharist seem to me to be quite explicitly stated in the Bible and are yet not believed. Where do you draw the line? Without the authority of the magisterium, through the power of the Holy Spirit, promised by Christ to be indwelling within the Church (Matthew 16), there will never be true harmony of doctrine, in my opinion and the opinion of the Church.

[95. Theo K said the following at 2:14 AM on Jul 26:]

95

Robert J Espe:
“Lose the arrogance of assuming that because you have read a translation of the Bible a couple times you are automatically able to understand everything better than 2000 years worth of Christian theologians from all denominations who are wise enough to agree to disagree and then go spread the Gospel and feed the hungry.”

But this is what I am saying. *Which gospel* are we going to spread? The Good News that Christ died so that God may justify the ungodly through faith alone in Christ alone? Or the RCC faith + works + sacraments “gospel”?

Start questioning the teachings of fallible men in the light of scripture. Not the other way around. For what is worth, I know ancient Greek and thus I am not dependant on any translation, although I have to say that there are many good and faithful English translations (such as the ESV, for instance). Some people think it is wise to rely on a “Magisterium” to explain to them what God wanted to communicate to us. I am so thankful that God gave His Word for all to study. And, by the way, according to the link I gave above
Are We Justified By Faith Alone? - What Still Divides Us: A Protestant & Roman Catholic Debate
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=406
even Catholic scholars agree that the bible teaches justification by faith alone. But they are tied by the mistakes of their forefathers and thus unable to overrule their erroneous understanding. So everyone has to ask himself, where do I give my allegiance to? To the erroneous teachings of an institution that is unable to correct them in light of scripture, because of the burden of its past, or to the Word of God?

Christine said:
“Robert J. Espe - Though I agree that we need to focus primarily on the gospel, I think that discussing issues of salvation are critical to that focus. There are many things that can be overlooked (such as speaking in tongues) because they do not relate to this, but other issues (such as the relationship of the sacraments to salvation) cannot be ignored. “

That is exactly it. We are not talking about some doctrine of secondary importance. The Gospel is all about salvation. So, which gospel are we to spread? Err on this and you have lost everything.

[96. Robert J Espe said the following at 10:07 AM on Jul 27:]

96

We are to preach Jesus Christ crucified and make disciples of those who listen. Details will look different. My point is that when we disagree on details we don't need to disavow someone's Christianity over them.

For example, if we worry about what details of the Gospel we preach, we not only need to look at traditional doctrines, but consider that some charismatics would say you have to speak in tongues to be saved (they are wrong in my opinion, but they are Christians none the less.) Then there is the whole Calvinist/Armenian debate. Aside from TULIP, John Calvin's teachings that we can reach moral perfection in this life is of greater concern to me than the papacy. But it is not a key issue, so I love my baptist neighbors and move on.

We agree with Catholics on all the important stuff, or we wouldn't argue this much (when was the last time you had such and impassioned debate with a Hindu or Muslim?)

Just because we disagree about what exactly baptism or communion does, what form accountability takes, and exactly how much weight to give faith/works doesn't mean that either of us aren't Christians. The effect these teachings should have on our lives are essentially the same.

We all agree we NEED to be baptized and take communion, be accountable to SOMEONE in the body of Christ, that WE can't save ourselves, and that we DO need to do good works. We also all PRAY to the same person, the only difference is who we ask to pray for us.

Teachings about Mary have no impact on our daily lives whether she remained a virgin or was bodily assumed or not. Whether or not we stop in purgatory on the way to Heaven makes no difference in the way we live now.

Just don't look for ways to divide the body of Christ. Remember that when Jesus disciples asked about people casting out demons in His name who weren't part of their following, He replies that anyone not against Him was for Him. No one says Jesus is Son of God except by the Holy Spirit. We can disagree and discuss, but do it in respect and love as to a brother who could be right. That is the whole point of Ecumenism. The parts of the body do need each other, no matter how hard the devil wants to convince us that a certain denomination might be an appendix or a toenail to be cut off.

[97. Ted Slater said the following at 10:22 AM on Jul 27:]

97

Robert, you wrote, "Aside from TULIP, John Calvin's teachings that we can reach moral perfection in this life is of greater concern to me than the papacy."

Whoa! That is *EXACTLY* opposite of what Calvin believed. Where did you get that impression? Much of Calvin's belief system was that we *CANNOT* "reach moral perfection" this side of death, and for that reason we're daily needful and grateful for God's grace.

Do a bit of research before promoting untruths about Calvin. Google is your friend.

[98. Mark Willard said the following at 11:00 AM on Jul 27:]

98

Robert,

"Aside from TULIP, John Calvin's teachings that we can reach moral perfection in this life is of greater concern to me than the papacy. But it is not a key issue, so I love my baptist neighbors and move on."

Aside from what Ted said, I just wanted to point out that:

(1) "Calvinism" is a nickname for the doctrines of grace -- Calvin didn't invent it, he merely rediscovered and repopularized it. Therefore, believing that the 5 points are true doesn't necessitate that you believe everything Calvin taught or embrace him as faultless. I'm very strongly Calvinist, but I certainly don't agree with everything Calvin wrote/preached/did. Even if he had argued for moral perfection in this life, that wouldn't really make me rethink my acceptance of the doctrines of grace.

(2) The majority of Baptists today (I'm pretty sure) are Arminian. There are some reformed Baptists (Mohler, Piper, Dever, and Grudem come to mind) and while they might be the most vocal, they're certainly not the majority in say, the SBC for instance (regrettably, I would add with respect).

[99. Christine said the following at 11:04 AM on Jul 27:]

99

Robert J. Espe - You said, "We all agree we NEED to be baptized and take communion, be accountable to SOMEONE in the body of Christ, that WE can't save ourselves, and that we DO need to do good works. We also all PRAY to the same person, the only difference is who we ask to pray for us."

I don't disagree with a word of this. The problem that I has is that the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that, “The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 319). I do believe that the Lord's Supper and baptism are important, but I cannot affirm that they are necessary for salvation. That simply doesn't fit with Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 10:9-11, etc.

I firmly believe that there are Christians in the Roman Catholic just, just as much as I believe that there are non-Christians in every Protestant denomination. After researching views of salvation, I just can't affirm the Catechism of the Roman Catholic church.

[100. Jonathan Hasey said the following at 2:53 PM on Jul 28:]

100

Re: Mohler's article

I appreciated Mohler's article and, as a Catholic, I found it a fair response. However, I noticed a few things in his article in which he seems to misunderstand Catholic theology.

He correctly recognizes that the Vatican document "brings to attention the crucial issues of ecclesiology". The issues of Ecclesiology (the study of what the church is) are indeed crucial, because they involve these questions: What does it mean to be the Body of Christ? What does it mean to be a part of the Body of Christ, that is, a Christian?

I would break Mohler's response into two main areas: First, his comments on the significance of calling the protestant churches "not true churches" but only "ecclesial communities. Second, his comments on what Catholics believe are essential elements of the Church. I will make my response to the second area as a separate post.

1) He writes: "The true church, in other words, is that church identified through the recognition of the papacy. Those churches that deny or fail to recognize the papacy are 'ecclesial Communities,' not churches 'in the proper sense.'"

This is a surprising conclusion, because just 4 paragraphs prior, he acknowledges that the Vatican document in question recognizes the Orthodox churches as true Churches, and the Orthodox very clearly reject the papacy. I will visit this again when I examine the second aspect of his article.

Protestants in general seem upset by the fact that Rome does not consider them to be true Churches. I've observed this both in the many articles that have been written and in conversations with my own family, none of whom are Catholic. This part of Catholic theology really should not be troubling to Protestants at all. Here's why:

The Catholic Church is saying that the protestant churches are not churches, according to what the Catholic Church understands a Church to be. I would expect most Protestants to agree with this, even welcome this, since Protestants believe that the Church is *not* what the Catholic Church says it is. As Mohler says later in his article, "he [the Pope] is. . . not right on the church."

As well, it is important to note what the Catholic Church *does* call the Protestant churches: "ecclesial communities". This means that the Church considers the Protestant churches, while not "true Churches" in their own right, to be a part of the Church in some way. I can sum it up like this:

Protestant churches are effectively communities of Catholics that are not in full union with the rest of the Church, lack some of the sacraments, and hold to deficient theologies (in greater or lesser degrees depending on the group.)

I've run out of time for today, but I will try to post on the second aspect of Mohler's article soon.

In Christ's Love,
Jonathan

[1. Scott said the following at 5:12 PM on Jul 20:]

1

I agree with Mohler. It's about time the stakes be clarified.

[2. DannieA said the following at 5:25 PM on Jul 20:]

2

The denomination I belong to and the University of a different denomination and the grandparents of one of my friends who comes from another denomination (all protestant) have people that believe that THEIR denomination is the TRUE church....so what's new with that theory....we're (protestants) guilty of that too.

Plus I like Pope John Paul II way better than this current one.

He truly did care for the Catholic Church and was a good Pope for them and cared deeply about people in general.

[3. Kate said the following at 5:26 PM on Jul 20:]

3

Wow, what a mature perspective from Dr. Mohler, especially in today's world where everyone takes offence at everything! His position does spark some thought though.

Since everyone can't be right, then either the Protestants or the Catholics are. As a Catholic, I believe the Catholics are, yet I have good Protestant friends who are equally sure of themselves. Shouldn't we, as fellow Christians, work a little harder sometimes to see the perspective of our family in Christ who believes differently? I think if we could do this, and keep our minds open (but not fall for every little thing; this is faith, not teenage fashion!) we might find some interesting things. I know I have learned lots from speaking with my Protestant friends about what they believe, and while I do not agree with all of it, it is good to learn because it re-affirms me in my faith and helps me to understand what and why I believe the way I do.

Anyhow, just some thoughts that came to mind while sitting here :) God Bless y'all!

[4. Rachel Gray said the following at 6:44 PM on Jul 20:]

4

I could not agree more with Dr. Mohler that these matters are important and it's great the Pope addressed them head on. I don't think he represents the Catholic position quite rightly when he says, "The Roman Catholic Church believes we are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy." In fact the Catholic Catechism states, "one cannot charge with the sin of separation those who at present are born into these communities [i.e. Protestant denominations] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers."

So someone who was raised Protestant isn't considered "obstinate and disobedient" by Rome. But if the Protestant came to know and understand what the Catholic Church teaches, and deliberately rejected it, *then* the Church might fear he was in spiritual danger.

[5. HMWelch said the following at 7:01 PM on Jul 20:]

5

Hear, hear - I couldn't agree more. And even though I do not agree with the teachings of the RCC, I am impressed with their stance on many issues (abortion in particular) and am indeed grateful for the "pope's clarifying statements."

[6. John said the following at 7:52 PM on Jul 20:]

6

Not everyone can be right, but some choose to align their doctrine with the Scriptures, while others don't (or at least not to the same extent).

Be a Berean (Acts 17:11). Read the Word of God and evaluate each church's dogma accordingly.

[7. BDB said the following at 10:11 PM on Jul 20:]

7

Hmmm...maybe I'm not smart enough to understand this. But the section below appears to be a grudging admission by the Vatican that God, indeed, is working through Protestant communities of faith, and that people are in fact getting saved as protestants:

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

[8. Melody said the following at 2:34 AM on Jul 21:]

8

What does the bible say? The church of Christ is the people. There are now walls and denomination barriers that confine the church. Following Christ is not contingent on your denomination. Being a Christ follower does not depend on the succession of your pastors or priests.
Paul was not taught by Peter (the first 'Pope') he even evangelised and set up 'churches' before he was given the all good by Peter.
I think it's sad that the Catholic church holds to this "protestant churches are flawed" doctrine even though it's not Biblically sound. (It's too silly for me to be offended by really)

Any denomination that claims to be the only true church is ridiculous.

And yes- I appreciate the Pope's clarity on the issue. Now maybe more people will start thinking about this doctrine and,I hope, question it.

[9. Rachel M. said the following at 8:17 AM on Jul 21:]

9

The Catholic Church has, from the very advent of Protestantism, recognized as valid those baptisms performed by Protestants. Nothing "grudging" about it.

[10. Shazia said the following at 8:51 AM on Jul 21:]

10

Melody wrote: "Any denomination that claims to be the only true church is ridiculous."

I agree! Doesn't 1 Corinthians 1:10 indicate that denominations are unbiblical in the first place? That's why I get so frustrated with all these denominations vying for the "right" one. Why does the Christian church have to have so many schisms? Once again, it seems unbiblical to me...

[11. Ted Slater said the following at 9:06 AM on Jul 21:]

11

Shazia -- yes, division is sad, a sad necessity in a world where some churches slide into heresy. When the Roman Catholic Church, for example, began including certain heresies, and it became clear that it couldn't be changed internally to better reflect Scripture, it became necessary to re-establish congregations of Christians rooted in sound doctrine. And that is a sad reflection on sinful humanity.

This word "denomination" has me puzzled. Isn't "the church in Corinth" denominating/differentiating it from "the church in Ephesus"? I don't see anything necessarily wrong with such denominating.

I generally don't place a lot of emphasis on "denomination," but I do dislike people touting their own "denomination" as though other churches/denominations aren't "true churches." If its doctrine is biblical, then denominating it from a different church is ultimately not significant. "Baptist church" vs. "Evangelical Free church" in the end isn't much different from "the church that meets in Joe's house" and "the church that meets in John's house." Sure, there are different forms of "government" (some of which I prefer over others), and different doctrines and worship styles are emphasizedin each, but if they're Christian, there's no ultimately meaningful difference between them.

[12. Stephen said the following at 9:18 AM on Jul 21:]

12

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the title of this post yet: "I'm Grateful the Pope Considers Me Lost." The Pope didn't say that he considers everyone outside the Roman Catholic Church to be lost. In fact, as others have pointed out, the Vatican noted that "It follows that these separated churches and Communities, though we believe they suffer from defects, are deprived neither of significance nor importance in the mystery of salvation." In other words, the Catholic Church does not deny that Protestants can be saved. All the Pope did was state the clear implications of Catholic doctrine.

[13. Shazia said the following at 11:02 AM on Jul 21:]

13

Anyway I apologize if I didn't exactly use the right word, but I guess I was just referring to the idea that when one denomination, as you said, touts the idea that they are the true church and that no others are, reminds me of attempted sectarianism, that is all.

[14. Paul said the following at 12:36 PM on Jul 21:]

14

Hm... well, as a practicing Catholic, the Pope doesn't consider non-Catholic Christians (i.e. Protestants, though I never liked that term) to be lost. The Catholic doctrine is that all believers in Christ are members of the Universal Body of Christ (i.e. the Church). Catholic doctrine states that the Catholic Faith has the fullness of truth and the best path toward salvation. However, it does not say that non-Catholic Christians are "lost" or even outside of the boundaries of Christ's one church.

(Just wanted to clarify a bit, and I think it'd be best to change the title a bit...)

[15. Ted Slater said the following at 1:49 PM on Jul 21:]

15

Paul (the commenter, not the apostle) writes, "However, it does not say that non-Catholic Christians are 'lost' or even outside of the boundaries of Christ's one church."

How does this jibe with the Church's calling non-Catholics "anathema," then? Seems that "anathema" implies being "outside of the boundaries of Christ's one church"....

[16. Jennifer said the following at 1:59 PM on Jul 21:]

16

Shazia & Ted Slater:

I think the two of you are getting at the core of this 'issue.' I have a few questions for the two of you, though, that I think might clarify this.

Shazia, you are frustrated with schisms in the church - So, do you think it is never correct to leave a church when you disagree with part of their doctrine or actions? If it is allowable to leave a church for one of those reasons, how severely must you disagree in order to be justified in leaving? If I'm trying to find a church to join in my area, what should my criteria be for choosing it? On one hand, I could have no discernment at all and simply pick the one that is geographically closest, no matter its doctrine/denomination. Or I could try to find a church that matches my views of doctrine exactly... and that would be a long search. Probably never-ending. My point is that our criteria for choosing a church should be the same as our criteria for requirements to leave a church. So, what are they, and what does The Church look like if you apply them consistently?

Ted, I have difficulty understanding what your point is. You begin by lamenting divisions in the church, and say that they are caused by 'heresy' and needing churches 'rooted in sound doctrine,' and our schisms come from our sin. But you go on to say that if a church's "doctrine is biblical, then denominating it from a different church is ultimately not significant." So my questions for you run along the same lines as the questions for Shazia: What is heresy? How can I, as a layperson, know when a teaching is heretic, or when I myself am misinterpreting the Scriptures? And when is that heresy or misinterpretation important enough for that I should leave that church, or not join it in the first place? Every church claims to be 'rooted in sound doctrine' but someone has to be wrong and someone has to be right, or maybe we're all wrong, so how do I choose? My point to you is that I have seen accusations of heresy and schism within both a church and a denomination, and the results were not pretty in either case. Both parties were convinced that they were correct on that particular point of doctrine, and the 'other side' was wrong. None of the disagreements involved doctrines essential to salvation, but everyone involved thought that there was enough of a "meaningful difference" between them to part ways. If, as you say, "there's no ultimately meaningful difference" between different denominations that are all Christian, why is it "necessary to re-establish congregations of Christians rooted in sound doctrine"?

And for both of you:
Dr. Mohler said that "The Roman Catholic Church believes we are in spiritual danger for obstinately and disobediently excluding ourselves from submission to its universal claims and its papacy. Evangelicals should be concerned that Catholics are in spiritual danger for their submission to these very claims. We both understand what is at stake." Catholics are told to pray for Protestants as "our souls are in danger," and vice versa. But the main points of doctrine that Catholics and Protestants disagree on is the Papacy and Sacraments, neither of which are essential to salvation - by admission of both Catholics and Protestants. So why are are we told to pray for our brothers whose souls are in danger? In danger of what?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic, honestly, as I've been dealing with where these questions lead recently. Particularly in several relationships I'm close to - my protestant sister dating a catholic, me dating a young man of a different denomination - as well as trying to decide if I want to transfer membership to a church of a different denomination and doctrine than what I grew up with and believe in.

[17. BDB said the following at 4:25 PM on Jul 21:]

17

Rachel M. wrote:

>>The Catholic Church has, from the very advent of Protestantism, recognized as valid those baptisms performed by Protestants. Nothing "grudging" about it.<<

Interesting that you should bring up baptism. I didn't mention it. It's my understanding that all baptisms are recognized because baptism, and John the Baptist in particular, precede Christ.

As I've been studying this issue recently, I've learned that the Baptism vows for the parents in the English Book of Prayer are identical to the Lutheran Church - and the Catholic church. And then the confirmation statements of faith are identical to baptism.

So, if the Catholic Church recognizes Lutheran baptism, why doesn't it recognize Lutheran confirmation as adequate for participating in communion (a.k.a. Eucharist)?

(I'm guessing that there's a link to somewhere on the Vatican's web site. This stuff is amazingly complicated. And I must say, it wasn't until after I completed several Biblical studies classes at a Charismatic seminary that I knew my Bible well enough to recognize just how much of the liturgical traditions really are rooted in the Bible. I think the mistake people make is relying on the liturgy and never cracking their Bible open to understand where the concepts are coming from. After a generation or so of that, a demonination will drift from scripture - but it's because they aren't staying grounded in the word. The Catholic Church creates new orders the way Protestants create new denominations - they are all founded around a set of ideas.)

[18. Mike Theemling said the following at 5:52 PM on Jul 21:]

18

Paul (commentator) said:

"The Catholic doctrine is that all believers in Christ are members of the Universal Body of Christ (i.e. the Church). Catholic doctrine states that the Catholic Faith has the fullness of truth and the best path toward salvation. However, it does not say that non-Catholic Christians are 'lost' or even outside of the boundaries of Christ's one church."

I agree with this position in terms of that's what the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) believes: that they have the "fullness of truth" but that does not necessarily mean being outside of it is a trip to Hell.

Even the page which Dr. Albert links did not appear to come off that way nor is the word "lost", "damned", etc. in the article.

However, Ted does though bring up a good point and is a sticking point with most non-RCC Christians: The fact that the RCC has yet to recant on any of their positions on the Council of Trent. If I'm wrong about this please let me know. It is true that they have tried to reconcile certain parts of it but still overall confirm its (the Council's) authority.

For example it may be true that the term "anathema" merely meant excommunication, but still, the fact is that they are stating that any doctrine taught which does not agree with Trent is false doctrine; and that includes Salvation through faith alone (no works or baptism required).

The reason why this causes so much friction is that it is, in many Christians' eyes, a key issue. And the problem I have personally with the RCC is that they take the position of "Well, we aren't saying outright that you [Protestants] are wrong even though our writings that we came up and agree with say that you are".

Either Salvation by faith alone is true or it isn't. If it's not true, then there needs to be some serious errata from the pulpits in America on this. However if it is true, then the RCC needs to adjust its position. The RCC is in a tighter bind of course because it rarely admits error and has much more impact.

[19. thereisonefaithonebaptism said the following at 6:29 PM on Jul 21:]

19

this is appalling.

what of church unity? are we no longer willing to speak to our fellow Christ-siblings in humility and love? are we no longer one body? is the left arm satisified as a separate unit?

[20. Ted Slater said the following at 8:14 PM on Jul 21:]

20

Jennifer, you indicate that I said, "divisions in the church ... are caused by 'heresy.'"

In some cases, that's true. In some cases, "denominations" are merely characterized by cultural preferences or minor doctrinal emphases, not outright heresies.

I think that's where the confusion is -- sometimes divisions result from heresy, sometimes from minor differences. In either case, I don't think it's ideal, but a outgrowth of our being sinful.

That said, I'm not hung up on different denominations, for the most part. They're here to stay, and most don't "fight" with each other, but have great relationships between pastors and members of different denominations.

You ask, "How can I, as a layperson, know when a teaching is heretic, or when I myself am misinterpreting the Scriptures?" The Roman Catholic response would be that only priests are qualified to interpret Scripture, and that I should defer to them.

I'm not Roman Catholic, and so I have to depend upon a combinations of my own studies of Scripture, commentaries, and direction from the Holy Spirit.

In general, I'd consider most Evangelical churches just fine, doctrine-wise. With little hesitation I could join a Baptist church, a Presbyterian church, a non-denominational church, a Black Pentecostal church, an Evangelical Free church, an Evangelical Covenant church, and so on. There are doctrinal concerns I have with the Roman Catholic church, as well as other "denominations," that would prevent me from joining one of their congregations. I'm not going to start a new denomination or split any existing churches -- that's not my role. But I am free to exercise discernment as I select a church/denomination to become part of.

You ask, "So why are are we told to pray for our brothers whose souls are in danger?" I spent about a year in Latin America -- central Mexico and Colombia. The Roman Catholicism there is much different from the Westernized RC of the States, and is more closely aligned with the RC coming out of the Vatican. I *am* concerned about those attending RC churches in Latin America, as much of it does over-emphasize the role of Mary in our salvation. Their demonization of non-Catholic churches in many cases tells me that their theology is so significantly different from Evangelical theology as to be anti-Christian (by definition). As I said, I spent a year there (oh, and earned a BA in Spanish), and by personal experience and study am very familiar with their doctrines and how they differ from Evangelical Christian doctrine.

Is your sister's boyfriend a Christian? Have you seen evidence that he's growing in Christ? If so, then great! If not, then I'd be concerned for her.

[21. Paul said the following at 10:40 PM on Jul 21:]

21

Hey Ted,
In response to your post, I'd say that the phrase "anethema" does mean outside Christ's Church. However, I am unaware of that phrase being ever levelled at non-Catholic Christians who are following Christ.

The Catechism of the Church, (which is sort of a conpendeum of the major Catholic teachings, and was actually edited and compiled by Pope John Paul II, and the the Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict, has this to say about whether or not Protestant Christians are in the Church or not.)

"The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety orhave not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church." (838)

So whether you know it or not, if you believe in Christ and are baptized, you're actually part of the one Church that Christ founded. So, all of the talk about not being a part of the Church, really doesn't apply to you and I believe it applies more to the quasi-Christian religious cults such as mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses.

I'd love to continue this conversation through some other medium if you'd like. E-mail perhaps?

[22. Joseph said the following at 12:27 AM on Jul 22:]

22

If anyone considers himself religious and yet does not keep a tight rein on his tongue, he deceives himself and his religion is worthless. Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world. 1 James 26-27

While I can see where Mr Mohler is coming from and I think I agree with him, it seems like this entire disagreement is about semantics. It sounds as though it takes more than Jesus to be a Christian in these terms, I am rather unfamiliar with Catholic doctrine. Reading over Paul's usage of church throughout his epistles it never describes to me that church is an establishment of organization but a body of believers.
"Greet also the church that meets at their house. Greet my dear friend Epenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in the province of Asia." Romans 16:5

[23. Joseph said the following at 6:23 AM on Jul 22:]

23

To Jennifer:

If it is of any help the main thing I look for in a church to attend (listen to via downloads) is if they take scripture from a literal point of view. I will say with discernment so I don't need to clarify about the books of prophecy and those type. If a speaker can preach what they have to say and it is firmly grounded in scripture I think that is all that is necessary. It is up to us to think about the message and look at the scripture as well to see if we come to a different or similar conclusion. I don't need to see eye to eye with every other believer, but I do need to at least see a logical connection about what people believe.

As far as what does it take to leave a church, from the organization standpoint I would say expanding or changing beliefs from scripture. I grew up in a Presbyterian church, I still love it there, I will continue to go there when I am able to attend. However, individually I separated myself from the PCUSA (Presbyterian Church USA) for their path to make mission statements diverge from scripture. In a nut shell, I pay attention to the local leadership and ministry to find a fitting church to attend, if it is apart of a larger organization that meets similar but not exact I will agree until they or I see something important enough to separate.

[24. Shazia said the following at 9:57 AM on Jul 22:]

24

Hi Jennifer, I am not a seasoned Christian (I'm a fairly new one) so at the risk of feeling dumb (yeah this is the part where you might say, "don't worry you're not dumb"), I don't really know how to answer your questions :( As a new Christian, I have only read the 4 Gospels, Acts (both of which I've read 3 times), Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes (all 3 of which I've read twice), and Ruth. Not that I do not look at other parts of the Bible in the meantime, but I haven't read them with the same intensity yet.

My previous posts are indicative of my yet naive perspective on churches, because I have not been an actual attendant of church on a normal basis, and right now, it is difficult for me to go to church, since I am in a non-Christian home now. So the naive part of me wonders why there are so many denominations within Christianity, and whether it does or does not pose as an obstacle to unity among Christians, that is all. I AM fairly certain that many people can date outside one's denomination though. As Ted said, if its doctrine is biblical, then denominating it from a different church is ultimately not significant. I am just skeptical of the idea that every single denomination of Christianity is in conformity to the Bible but keep in mind, I am not exposed to the church environments in the manner that a lot of you have.

[25. heather said the following at 4:12 PM on Jul 22:]

25

On my flight home for summer vacation I sat next to a Catholic priest. And he tried to convert me to R Catholicism! I was quite surprised--I had thought maybe we would have enough in common. But to him, I was outside the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic church. Poor man, by the time we landed, I was actually more than ever determined to never become
a Catholic Watching his 45 minute prayer rituals, complete with icons and prayers to the Virgin Mary addressing her as savior and mediator of the universe, was quite distressing.

[26. fshivone said the following at 6:11 PM on Jul 22:]

26

I agree with Mohler. The Pope's statement was a clarification of a point of doctrine. One may agree with the doctrine or disagree but both sides need to have the courage to say what the doctrine is. Evangelicals and Catholics have much in common, this is a point of difference. We RC's have problems, we have been helped by evangelicalism's devotion to Scripture and personal piety; at the same time we can't deny what is true, fail as we may have over the years.

[27. Brad K said the following at 6:22 PM on Jul 22:]

27

Heather, sorry, but no Catholic I know of, including the Pope, refers to Mary as "savior". She isn't. I've never heard of any Catholic addressing her as "mediator of the universe," either. Her mediation is exactly like ours: it draws its power from, and proceeds through, the mediation of the One Mediator, Christ Jesus.

A general comment: I would like to join others in observing that the title of this thread is really rather unfair to the Pope's comments, which did not, in fact, call Protestants, or anyone else, "lost," or even imply it. Dr. Mohler's comment about "spiritual danger" is basically correct, but "in spiritual danger" does not automatically imply "lost".

Also, I would like to note that I have been told by more than one Evangelical Christian that I am "not a Christian" because I am a believing Catholic. To the best of my knowledge, that status, in their theological scheme of things, does indeed declare me to be "lost".

[28. Ted Slater said the following at 6:38 PM on Jul 22:]

28

Brad -- Mary is considered by the Roman Catholic Church as the "co-mediatrix with Christ" and "co-redemptrix"; they believe she is aware of millions of prayers and passes those petitions along to Jesus (since He is apparently unaware of the prayers, or needs convincing from His mother). She is referred to as the "Queen of Heaven" by Roman Catholics, and is considered to have been born without original sin (immaculate conception).

Too highly exalting Mary is but one doctrine that inhibits many from joining that particular denomination.

[29. Lucy said the following at 7:50 PM on Jul 22:]

29

Ted, what "prayer ritual" did you watch in which the priest called Mary "savior?" Mary is mentioned only 3 times in the entire Mass, which goes on about one hour.

The Catholic Church does not teach officially that Mary is the Co-Remptrix or Mediatrix of graces. There are only four Marian doctrines that all Catholics must believe.
1 The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
2 Mary is the Mother of God
3 The Immaculate Conception (which you rightly pointed out means that Mary was preserved, by the grace of God through the merits of Christ, from original sin)
4 The Assumption (which means that Mary, at the end of her earthly life, was taken up to heaven, body and soul, just as Elijah and Enoch were.)

Mary is referred to as the Queen of Heaven, because she is the Mother of the King of Heaven. Furthermore, Paul promises that all who suffer with Christ will reign with Christ. Mary's queenship does not come from her own power or her own ability, but from the Kingship of Christ. For that matter, nothing that Mary has is from herself, but everything that she has is from God.

As for the intersession of Mary, Catholics (and Protestants) believe that we must pray for one another, and that God often works through our prayers. I remember hearing a story from a Protestant of a woman during the second world war. She was simply going about her daily life, when all of a sudden, she felt the Holy Spirit tell her, "Your future husband is in danger. Pray!" She was not engaged or in a relationship in any way, but nonetheless, she prayed. She later married and discovered later that, on that day, her husband was captured in battle. An enemy soldier was bayoneting his fellow soldiers, but he spared her husband. Now, I have no way of knowing whether or not this story is true, but it illustrated a point shared by both Catholics and Protestants: that God often works through the prayers of others. After all, why did God need to inspire her to pray? Couldn't He save her husband without needing her to pray? The answer is, of course He could have saved her, but God is pleased when we pray for each other, and chose to work through her intersession.
Catholics believe that our duty to pray for each other does not stop when we die. Rather, in heaven, we pray even more urgently for our brothers and sisters still on earth. Furthermore, we also believe that the prayers of those in heaven are far more effective. Remember, James said that the prayer of the righteous man is very effective. Well, our brothers and sisters in heaven no longer sin at all, and have been glorified and brought into the presence of God. How much more effective are their prayers!
A Protestant friend of mine once commented, "What is 3,000 miles in the Body of Christ?" She was absolutely right. And furthermore, what is death in the Body of Christ, when we serve One who is not the God of the dead, but the God of the living, one who has risen from the dead, and who holds the keys to Death, Hell, and the Grave?

[30. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 8:09 PM on Jul 22:]

30

Any sort of function that the Blessed Virgin performs is on the behalf of her Son. The Blessed Virgin is not God. However, by virtue of her Immaculate Conception and unique status as the Theotokos (Mother of God) her prayers carry far more efficacy than ours; therefore, it is profitable for the faithful to pray to and venerate her.

That said, I feel it should be pointed out for the sake of discussion that there is some merit to the criticisms against an "excessive" devotion to the BVM. IMO, some private devotions and titles given to the Virgin by those in the Roman Church really do push the bill on this particular point. Be that as it may, should the mere fact that some take Marian devotions too far be a good enough reason to abandon veneration of her altogether? Of course not, and that is were the Protestants go wrong: they over-correct one problem and introduce another by way of almost total rejection of an ancient teaching.

[31. Ted Slater said the following at 8:49 PM on Jul 22:]

31

Jeffrey and Lucy -- thank you for clarifying the Roman Catholic doctrines about Mary, the blessed woman who gave birth to our Savior and to His brothers and sisters, who was in need of a Savior because of her sin, whose death was mourned by her loved ones, and who is so enraptured by the Savior's love that she is unaware of all the "prayers" sent her way.

Lucy -- you asked, "Ted, what 'prayer ritual' did you watch in which the priest called Mary 'savior?'" You must have me confused with someone else. I pointed out that Mary is called the "co-mediatrix with Christ" and "co-redemptrix" by the Roman Catholic church.

I'm confident that as people consider Scripture vs. some of these Roman Catholic doctrines, they'll be able to make wise decisions about which denomination to align themselves with.

[32. Paul said the following at 9:37 PM on Jul 22:]

32

Ted, Mary is not officially called co-redemtrix and co-mediatrix... that's still under debate, and I really wish you wouldn't keep posting hearsay as "fact." And I really wish that you'd lose your condescending tone and attitude. I've had plenty of conversations with my Protestant friends (my best friend is a Protestant.) without either of us insulting the other's beliefs. There's no reason for you to be proudly parading your "truths" about Catholicism, when quite frankly you've been dead wrong about 90% of the time... (don't take this the wrong way, but I needed to get that off my chest.)

Now, if Mary is considered co-redemtrix and co-mediatrix, it's only, as you stated, because of her role in accepting the will of God that she would carry her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. And although the Church does teach that she was conceived without original sin, it never states that she is without need of a savior just as we all are...

And the Catholic Church does not say that only Priests can interpret scripture. The Magisterium of the Church (the Pope in union with the Bishops) interpreted scripture and stated a unified doctrine. However, there is still leeway for each individual to interpret scripture personally as long as they remain within the boundaries of the doctrine.

Where are you getting your information about the Catholic Church? Because for the most part, it's dead wrong.

[33. Ted Slater said the following at 11:16 PM on Jul 22:]

33

Paul (the commenter, not the apostles) wrote: "Ted, Mary is not officially called co-redemtrix and co-mediatrix... that's still under debate, and I really wish you wouldn't keep posting hearsay as 'fact.'"

Paul, the Roman Catholic Catechism calls Mary a "mediatrix" (see #197). The Second Vatican Council (as well as Pope John Paull II in 1985) called her the same. Pope Leo XIII called her Mediatrix, but also co-Redemptress.

Not sure why you'd be hesitant to acknowledge an established Roman Catholic position on Mary. Do you say that Mary is not the "co-mediatrix" or "co-redemptrix" with Christ?

Again, the Roman Catholic understanding of Mary, the blessed mother of our Savior Jesus, inhibits many from embracing that particular denomination of Christianity.

[34. Theo K said the following at 2:38 AM on Jul 23:]

34

“1 The Perpetual Virginity of Mary
2 Mary is the Mother of God
3 The Immaculate Conception (which you rightly pointed out means that Mary was preserved, by the grace of God through the merits of Christ, from original sin)
4 The Assumption (which means that Mary, at the end of her earthly life, was taken up to heaven, body and soul, just as Elijah and Enoch were.)”

Only the second point is biblical. Everything else is an addition to scripture, and, in my point of view, it doesn’t make sense to hold on to something that simply isn’t there.

The main problem with RC doctrine is that they just can’t escape the council of Trent. And this council clearly declared that “anyone who says that justification is by faith alone let him anathema”. It couldn’t be clearer than that. And I agree with Luther who said that upon this specific doctrine the church stands or falls.

See for example the following link:
Are We Justified By Faith Alone? - What Still Divides Us: A Protestant & Roman Catholic Debate
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=406

Read what the council of Trent did. Read those horrific ‘canons’. I wholeheartedly agree with the author when he says:
“It was, therefore, not the evangelicals who were condemned in 1564, but the evangel itself. The 'good news,' which alone is 'the power of God unto salvation' was judged by Rome to be so erroneous that anyone who embraced it was to be regarded as condemned.”

Take another example, the idea of ‘purgatory’. It is so blindly obvious that this is unbiblical, but still people choose to give their allegiance to a religious institution and not to the Word of God. But the one thing leads to another. When someone does not accept that justification is by faith alone (and this denial really is equivalent to the belief that the work of Christ isn’t sufficient) then anti-Christian ideas like ‘purgatory’ start making sense. Christ paid for our sins so that we won’t have to. The RC church belittles the perfect work of Christ on the cross by insisting on such absurd doctrines like the purgatory.

In a few words, the RC church teaches *another gospel* (since it does not affirm that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to scripture alone, for the glory of God alone) and thus the stern warning of Ap. Paul in Galatians 1:6-10 is applicable against the official teaching of the RC institution.

Therefore, this isn’t some insignificant difference that we can choose to ignore.
HOWEVER, please note that the above is not an attack against believers found within the RC church. It is a justified criticism against the false gospel the RC institution proclaims, in the light of scripture. Thankfully, God is so merciful that one does not need to believe in justification by faith alone in order to be justified by faith alone. What I am saying is that there are true believers in every ‘denomination’. In the case of the RC church, there exist genuine Christians despite the fact that they belong to the RC church.

What our brothers and sisters that are found within the RC church need to understand is that if they had perfectly affirmed with their hearts and minds *all* of the official teachings of Rome (the canons of the council of Trent included) then they wouldn’t have been saved in the first place.

[35. Patricia said the following at 5:20 AM on Jul 23:]

35

Ted,
There is also a subtle but very important difference between matrix and co-matrix. Co implies equality, matrix only implies that she participated but not necessarily on an equal level. I am not Catholic. However, I think a lot of people are simply misinformed on points of Catholic doctrine. When I went to Mass, I was taken by the centrality of scripture and the Gospel in the service. Scripture is read from three times and people stand for the Gosepl as a sign of respect. While the Catholic Church's position on Mary may seem controversial, the Bible does say that generations shall call her blessed. Denying her unique role in salvation as the Mother of God for the sake of unity is not biblical or glorifying to God.

[36. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 7:06 AM on Jul 23:]

36

Ted, I fail to see what your hangup with the term "mediatrix" is. Anyone who petitions on the behalf of another could be called a "mediatrix". You become a "mediatrix" when you pray for someone else. The title "mediatrix of all graces" connotes the Blessed Virgin's role in revealing the Savior - the source of Salvation - and she becomes in a unique way a special petitioner on our behalf due to this role.

I will agree with you that "co-redemptrix" is a little bit questionable, and the very use of the word "redemptor" in reference to Mary could be understood in a problematic way (perhaps this is your objection to the title "mediatrix" as well?). I gather that it could possibly mean that Mary's participation in the life of Christ bestows this role upon her by sharing in His sufferings (as Simeon said, "that your heart too a sword shall pierce) so that her own life could in a unique way mirror Christ's. It CAN NOT be understood as saying Mary effects Redemption in any way similar to Christ's death and Resurrection.

Again, like I said, I think there is an unfortunate habit to stress Marian devotion in the Roman Church (FYI: I am Roman) at the expense of a singular recognition of Christ, so these articulations can be entirely orthodox just as much as they can be "excessive". Remember, the Pope is not infallible when he is not defining doctrine, and his private theological opinions can be open to criticism.

[37. Jared said the following at 7:16 AM on Jul 23:]

37

I almost became a Catholic once, and there's still a lot of things I like about the Catholic church because of that experience -- however, this experience also taught me that there were certain dogmas of the Catholic church: the perpetual virginity and sinlessness of Mary, and the Supremacy and infallibility of the Pope, which I could not in good conscience accept, since they were not verifiable by scripture in my opinion. I think it's very dumb for Protestants to take a bigoted stand toward the Catholic church. Several things, like community and formal accountability for sins, this church does exceedingly well. If we choose to correct Catholics on the points that their doctrine is failing, and praise them where they excel, then we are performing the proper role of brothers and sisters in Christ.
I for one rather like Benedict's candid stance on many issues of Catholic and Christian doctrine. Reading any one of his addresses confirms in my mind that he was the best choice for the pope the Catholics could have made. He is an intelligent and straight-talking man who will do much to permit candid discussion of Church divisions rather than making wishy-washy and soft statements of mutual understanding and so forth. Better that than suffer the fate of the United Church in Canada, which steadfastly refuses to take a risky, orthodox stand on anything.

[38. Robert J Espe said the following at 7:24 AM on Jul 23:]

38

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/anathemas.htm

That link outlines the anathema issue. In short, it only ever applied to catholics who were converting, it was still just ex-communication, and the whole issue was set aside in 1983.

Ted, usually you are more fair than this. To base your assumptions about RCC on what you experienced in Latin America is as unfair as basing assumptions about evangelicalism on money-grabbing tv preachers. The Vatican knows they have problems in Latin/South America, but it takes time to work stuff like that out without breaking your church. We could learn a lesson from their patience.

As I posted several times last week, the line between Christian and heretic is defined in the ecumenical creeds (apostle's, Nicene, and Athanasian). Any point of doctrine not in those creeds (like Mary, or the Pope, or auto graphical in-errancy) is a minor point, and we should be able to live in love and unity. We should still discuss doctrine to try to discern the truth, but this painting of Catholics with a black brush is exactly what everyone here says they hate when Catholics try to evangelize them.

Read Mere Christianity again. Lewis was Anglican. He believed everything Catholics do about Mary (so did Luther and Calvin) and also believed in purgatory and Papal infallibility. He also believed it didn't matter to that "Mere" Christianity that we all claim to love so much. So chill out, and spend some time praying with your Catholic/Protestant brothers as well as for them (and remember that the Orthodox think we all missed the boat ;-)

PS. Not all evangelicals are hunky-dory. The one thing that unites Calvinist and Armenian Baptists is their agreement that the Charismatic movement should be opposed at all costs. But, I've got some great baptist friends, again, its not in the creed.

[39. Rachel M. said the following at 7:25 AM on Jul 23:]

39

Who says that those in heaven are so enraptured in the love of Christ that they can't hear us? Are they not aware of each other either? Or themselves? Does the "Body of Christ" cease to be united after death, or are the members simply unaware of each other? If my mother died, for example, will she not care about me anymore because she's too busy being in a trance of "love"? Sounds more like a Hindu doctrine than a Christian one. Yes, all are transfixed on Christ, but His eyes are also transfixed on the earth and those still present there. If His desire is to help and save those on earth, are those who are gazing at Him not united to Him enough to be looking also at the earth, with Him and through Him? Our capacity for love expands in heaven, and what greater gift could our Savior give to us than to be united with Him in His work of saving souls, just as a child's joy comes from "working" with his father in his workshop? Just a thought.

[40. Ted Slater said the following at 7:42 AM on Jul 23:]

40

Robert, you wrote, "To base your assumptions about RCC on what you experienced in Latin America...."

I'm not basing my understanding of the RCC on my experience in Latin America. I'm basing it on my research, which I witnessed played out in Latin America.

[41. Jeffrey Whiting said the following at 8:09 AM on Jul 23:]

41

I notice a trend in this discussion on the part of several Catholics to subtlety dismiss the teaching of the Catholic Church that Protestants must convert to Catholicism under pain of mortal sin with dodges like: simply not "possessing the fullness of Truth", or "the anathemas no longer apply", or other such slight of hand.

Brothers and sisters, lets be straight on this matter: the Catholic Church continues to teach that Protestants have seriously damaged their connection to the body of Christ by their non-adherence to dogmatic teachings of the Apostolic Church such as the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the efficacy of auricular confession to the ordained priesthood, baptismal regeneration, and so on.

I truly think this is a bit dishonest. The Catholic Church still requires Protestants to convert if they wish to be saved - a teaching reinforced by Vatican II (that Council everyone says "changed things"): "Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved." (LG 14)

Guys, no one is done any favors by balking to admit this difficult truth. Not us, not the Protestants, and certainly not Christ.

[42. KMac said the following at 8:35 AM on Jul 23:]

42

This post is distressing to me. I feel like while trying to not upset or offend others, we are compromising the truth.

Ephesians 2:8-9 says, "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast."

The Catholic religion teaches a works-based salvation along with many other doctrines that are in direct contradiction to God's Word (some of which have been mentioned in this post).

Please, while protecting one another's feelings seems kind, let us in love, tell the truth and stop trying to reconcile two stances that are in so many ways in direct opposition to each other. While Jesus always spoke in love, He wasn't afraid to speak the truth, even when it offended others.

Praise the Lord for the salvation I have by faith through His grace alone. How blessed we are that He has paid the price and doesn't require my doing good to gain His favor.

Romans 5:1-2
Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have gained access by faith into this grace in which we now stand. And we rejoice in the hope of the glory of God.

[43. Kevin said the following at 9:54 AM on Jul 23:]

43

Just a quick question regarding people in heaven watching and praying for us. I have read some of the bible, but not all of it. Where does it say that (if we are saved) we go to heaven when we die? I don't remember reading that. I remember reading things that said the saved would be raised up on the last day, and things of that nature. But I don't remember ever reading that the saved go to heaven when they die. The impression I got was that the elect don't get to dwell with God in his kingdom until he builds it here on earth after the events in Revelation. Could someone clarify this for me? Thank you much.

[44. Christine said the following at 10:22 AM on Jul 23:]

44

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states that, “The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 319). My question to our Catholic friends is, how does this fit with the model of salvation found in Scripture? Please don't misunderstand me - I am not saying that these ordinances are not important or that no one in the Roman Catholic church is saved - I'm just curious as to how this can be biblically supported.

I recently wrote a research paper on salvation in Roman Catholic and Protestant traditions and I never was able to find a Scriptural justification for this assertion in the Roman Catholic Catechism.

Also, I wonder why we would need to ask Mary to pray for us. Is there Scriptural support for this also? It seems to me that, since we know that the Holy Spirit intercedes for us, we have no need for Mary to do so as well.

[45. Christine said the following at 10:25 AM on Jul 23:]

45

Jeffery Whiting - I appreciate your candor. However, I think that we are looking at connection to Christ in completely different terms.

My connection to Christ is based upon His justification for my sin by faith alone (Ephesians 2:8-9), not by the list that you mentioned - "their non-adherence to dogmatic teachings of the Apostolic Church such as the Real Presence in the Eucharist, the efficacy of auricular confession to the ordained priesthood, baptismal regeneration."

If you have the time, I would really appreciate any Scriptural support that you can give on the subject of salvation in the Roman Catholic view.

[46. JMarie said the following at 10:37 AM on Jul 23:]

46

I seem to remember reading in a Boundless article some time ago (years, perhaps) that Boundless didn't take positions on Catholic vs. Protestant issues. Perhaps that was under a previous editor. I'm all for people knowing what and why they believe, and that includes understanding differences in doctrines. However, I don't think this post inspires people to know their doctrines so much as it serves to further divide Catholics and Protestants on The Line. It was bad enough reading anti-Catholic stuff from the poster John, but I'm really disappointed that the Boundless staff has taken up such a position.

On a previous thread, Robert J. Espe posted a link for catholicbridge.com. It's a page by a lay-Catholic, not the Pope, but I think it's educational and presented in the right spirit. I may not agree with everything, but having a better idea of where Catholics are coming from does much to dispel misunderstandings.

Mike Theemling had it right in his post: "this is appalling."

[47. Shazia said the following at 10:43 AM on Jul 23:]

47

There's one thing though that I don't understand. Yes, I believe in salvation by faith, but I don't understand one thing: if that is only the case, how come Jesus says in the Gospels how if we do not do certain things, we won't get into the kingdom of heaven? Even though salvation is by faith, Jesus does make it look as if, if you do not do certain things, you are not fit for the kingdom of heaven. (For example, passages like Matthew 25:31-46)...I asked someone this, and their response was that Jesus was saying these things to people who were not Christians at the time, but I would like a little help here...

Is Jesus in any way implying that good works are important to get into the kingdom of heaven? Because I have seen in the Bible that salvation is by faith alone but I don't understand this other stuff too well yet.

[48. Jane said the following at 10:52 AM on Jul 23:]

48

"As the Bible says, I am already saved (Rom. 8:24, Eph. 2:5–8), but I’m also being saved (1 Cor. 1:8, 2 Cor. 2:15, Phil. 2:12), and I have the hope that I will be saved (Rom. 5:9–10, 1 Cor. 3:12–15). Like the apostle Paul I am working out my salvation in fear and trembling (Phil. 2:12), with hopeful confidence in the promises of Christ (Rom. 5:2, 2 Tim. 2:11–13)."

-catholic.com

[49. xeres said the following at 10:59 AM on Jul 23:]

49

Jmarie,

It's thereisonefaithonebaptism, not Mike Theemling, who said,

"this is appalling.

what of church unity? are we no longer willing to speak to our fellow Christ-siblings in humility and love? are we no longer one body? is the left arm satisified as a separate unit? "

[50. luthien said the following at 11:08 AM on Jul 23:]

50

"Any denomination that claims to be the only true church is ridiculous."
Uh, no, actually, it's quite the opposite of ridiculous. The Eastern Orthodox take on the subject (I'm EO)is that there is only one Truth, and as all denominations differ from each other, only one can have the fullness and perfection of that Truth. Which is not to say that every other denomination isn't a church, we do believe that they are churches and all other Christians are our brethren in Christ, but deficient to a greater or lesser degree.

[51. BDB said the following at 11:59 AM on Jul 23:]

51

Shazia wrote:

>>(For example, passages like Matthew 25:31-46)...<<

You are correct, that is one of the biblical passages that lends itself to the importance of "works." See also James 2:14-26. But if you look at 1 Corinthians 3:1-17, especially vs. 15, where the Apostle Paul suggested that someone without much in the way of works would still be saved - barely.

Robert J. Espe wrote:

>>The one thing that unites Calvinist and Armenian Baptists is their agreement that the Charismatic movement should be opposed at all costs.<<

How interesting. So when such a church wants to pray for someone who's sick...what happens? Is it easier to adjust doctrine to allow the Holy Spirit to work for healing, or is it better to just send them to a Charismatic church and keep the doctrine pure?

What's even more interesting is that the Vatican signed off on Charismatic expressions of the Holy Spirit back in the 1970's. Ponder the idea of Nuns who pray in tongues.

See also:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P28.HTM

(You can search the Vatican web site on Charisms and find a lot of stuff. See Acts 10 for an example of how speaking in tongues affected Peter, and Acts 11 to see how it created division in the early church.)

[52. Andrienne said the following at 12:32 PM on Jul 23:]

52

Why exactly was this document put out?

I think I read somewhere that it was to clarify the RCC's beliefs about Protestantism (is that a word?) so that the relationship between the two groups would at least be honest. I've also heard that it was directed at Catholics more so than non-Catholics so that they would be encouraged to stay within the Catholic faith.

Whatever the reasoning, I can honestly say that I was very upset when I first read about the statement. I'm Pentecostal, but for seventeen years (yes, almost two decades) I was a Catholic school girl. I still treasure what I learned about Christianity from those institutions (religion was always my favorite subject) and I enjoyed helping out at mass (singing, reading, lighting candles, conducting lectio divina etc). My Dad had always told me that no matter what denomination you were, you were always part of the body of Christ, and so I always worked toward and valued ecumenism.

However, I won't lie, I think the reason so many people on this blog are upset with the RCC is because of a feeling of rejection. I first felt it in primary school when my best friends were encouraged to go up for communion during mass, but I was told to stay put. I also felt it later in college, as I held the bread plate for the priest at mass and then shook my head to say no when he tried to offer me some (he didn't realize I wasn't Catholic), while, ironically, the cantors sang "One Bread, One Body, One Lord of All".

And now this. I understand that the Catholic Church must be honest about their teachings, but I don't think this does anything to promote a sense of oneness between Catholics and Protestants. Just look at all the posts on this blog! Talk about a can of worms. It seems like bringing up this issue has only divided us more and it grieves me (and I'm sure it grieves God too) that we're so divided.

But what can we do? One group sees it one way and the other has a different view - nobody's budging and so we've been eating at separate tables for around 400 years. The Pope does not see me as being in a "real church" because my Pastor was not officially involved in the apostolic succession. I think I am in a real church since we are a group of people who follow Christ, the Bible, and the Spirit of God lives within us. Protestant and Catholic definitions of "Church" apparently differ, as they have since...well, I guess, the Reformation.

So again, what's to be done?

"And what I have forgiven—if there was anything to forgive—I have forgiven in the sight of Christ for your sake, in order that Satan might not outwit us. For we are not unaware of his schemes."
2 Corinthians 2: 10 - 11
(Paul, the apostle, not the commentator)

I'm not saying that Satan used the Pope to promote discord in the Body of Christ. However, I cannot let this event trigger evil within my heart by resenting the Catholic Church because of yet another disagreement in definitions. I just think it's time to let go and move on, in Jesus' name.

So, Pope B, now that you've said what you had to say, and I've said what I had to say, wanna solve world hunger together?

[53. Rachel said the following at 12:38 PM on Jul 23:]

53

I agree with JMarie. I'm a Roman Catholic. I was under the impression that all Christians were welcome to Boundless. I feel hurt and unwanted in this "Christian" community.

We could argue about our beliefs until we were blue in the face, but if a non-Christian came and read these posts, would they think, "What a loving, faith-filled community!"? ... I think not.

This should never have been posted.

[54. xeres said the following at 2:36 PM on Jul 23:]

54

Wow, some barbs here. Turn the hostility down a couple of notches. That's all I have to say because there's no point participating this volatile issue. As a Wesleyan, I'm staying out of it.

[55. Paul said the following at 3:03 PM on Jul 23:]

55

Yeah, I must admit that I'm rather disappointed in the Boundless staff for their attitudes. I have great respect for you guys, and that's probably why I'm hurt so much by your lack of respect. Perhaps it is you who consider me lost? Because I've done nothing but give Church doctrine that we don't consider Protestants lost, and I've just tried to clarify and correct you when you've said things that are contrary to what we believe. I don't mind if you disagree with Catholicism for what it is, but I have a problem if you disagree with things you think are true about the RCC and are not.

Furthermore, I've never attacked your religion, not once. On the contrary I have a high respect for my Protestant brothers and sisters, and I see no reason for you to attack my beliefs. It's ridiculous, we're all members of Christ's Church, maybe we should start acting like it.

So, I'm sorry if I've contributed to the volatility, but I had some input and I was ticked when it was ignored and then attacked...

[56. Eliana said the following at 3:24 PM on Jul 23:]

56

Catholics do not believe that every doctrinal statement must have a corresponding Bible verse because the Church preceded the completion of the Bible. Jesus started the Church, and that was before the New Testament was written.

[57. Matt. said the following at 4:03 PM on Jul 23:]

57

I have always wanted to know about the
differences between RCC and the Protestant Church. A friend of mine
let me use his Catechism, I read the entire book. Then I went to the Bible, I read it also, then I used
the bible to confirm what was in the
Catechism. What is in the Catechism
is not confirmed by Scripture. I questioned my friend about this, he
simply says "We trust the Pope!" I
knew that I could never become a
Catholic because I question everything. I have a problem with
any religion that does not question
the doctrine of that faith.
I have recently read a book titled "Once A Catholic", by Tony
Coffey. The book was most helpful. It answered all of the questions that I had. I also encourages one to read the Bible for yourself and not to follow the words of man, if what man is saying is inconsistant with
what the Bible teaches, do not follow him, he is not leading you in truth.

In regards to what the Pope said, I'm not losing any sleep over it. What he said is not confirmed by the Word of God.

[58. San Soo said the following at 4:18 PM on Jul 23:]

58

Some of the Boundless writers are not Protestant (Roberto Rivera y Carlo, J. Budzsiziewski, I can't remember the Orthodox girl's name), yet they never slam Protestants. Oh well.

[59. friend said the following at 4:21 PM on Jul 23:]

59

Thank you Ted Slater for stating the truth. Don't be intimidated by those who want to compromise biblical doctrine for a so called peace. Let's get this clear..unless we can agree on a scriptural basis for our faith we cannot join hands in fellowship. There is definate and clear error in RCC doctrine. It is up to each individual to d=face this before an almighty and holy God and stop demanding and playing guilt trips with those who want to follow scriptural doctrines concerning the faith. I hate error and will not mollycoddle error for the sake of so called peace. True peace comes in the truth otherwise it is a false peace and will come to nothing. I detest it when people try to say RCC and protestants should all agree and smooth over differences! It's not only ERROR big time but ABSURD.

[60. Christine said the following at 5:26 PM on Jul 23:]

60

I apologize if my comments were taken as harsh, but the questions that I asked are things that I genuinely would like to know.

This is such a charged issue. I don't think that we should avoid talking about it (as some have suggested), but I do think that we need to keep it a discusson (not an argument) and that we need to remember to respect and love those on both sides.

We need to focus primarily on the importance of Scripture as our basis and judge all of our belief systems by that standard. If any church teaches anything contrary to the Word of God, then we must question that church.

[61. Jonathan said the following at 5:50 PM on Jul 23:]

61

Hmm, interesting post, in my opinion...and one that has obviously brought out some pretty strong feelings! In response to Rachel: This seemed to be a very balanced post with the author asserting that both Protestants and Catholics need to be in prayer actively for each other. After all, there are saved and unsaved people in both sects! It seems that often we hear about praying for the unchurched, but what about those whom Satan is actively attacking within the Church?

It is, however, unfortunate to see so many harsh words flying around between people on this site...why are we tearing each other down? Isn't the world trying hard enough to do that without our help?

[62. xeres said the following at 6:23 PM on Jul 23:]

62

I'm breaking my vow to stay out of it but this is urgent.

Paul,

I'm deeply sadden that you feel that way. However, as much as frustrating as it is, Ted has a more of a bias toward the reformed (?) theology and he has some trouble (rightly) with certain aspect of RCC. I don't blame him for being uneasy with some issues RCC has. I would be uneasy as well. However, he obviously doesn't consider practicing Catholic Christian wannabes at the least or heretics at the worse. If Ted is a reformed follower, I find him extremely generous and compassionate in comparison to many devout reformed followers I'm familiar with. Many of them are not all at sympathatic towards Catholics in general. It's mostly the protestants who are devoted to the Reformed theology that are hostile to Catholics.

San soo,

the name of the Orthodox girl is Jenny Schroedel

[63. EKB said the following at 7:10 PM on Jul 23:]

63

As someone who is in the process of becoming Catholic having been raised as an Evangelical Protestant, I have researched and prayed over this issue extensively. I am encouraged to see so many Catholics reading Boundless- it is a great website that all Christians can learn from. I don't think blog comments are the best place to get into drawn-out debates, so I am not going to address any particular issue such as the role of Mary, how salvation works, the sacraments, etc. If anyone wants to know what the Church actually teaches, I suggest Catholic.com. So many people have misconceptions about what the Catholic Faith really teaches. As the late Archbishop Fulton Sheen said, "There are not more than 100 people in the world who truly hate the Catholic Church, but there are millions who hate what they perceive to be the Catholic Church."

A side note: It would be awesome if Boundless provided message boards so that we could discuss this and many other issues raised on the blog and in the articles in more depth. Is there any possibility of this happening?

[64. BDB said the following at 7:23 PM on Jul 23:]

64

Eliana wrote:

>>Catholics do not believe that every doctrinal statement must have a corresponding Bible verse because the Church preceded the completion of the Bible.<<

Oooh...that's a pretty good answer, particularly when combined with the emphasis on the "creeds," and how most of the contentious stuff is outside those creeds.

But it would seem like some of them could also find ground in the Old Testament. For example, right at the moment I'm trying to figure out how Mary could have an immaculate conception and Jesus still be in the line and lineage of David. It would seem like to be an effective sacrifice, Jesus needed the physical part to include Adam's original sin so that his divine part could conquer it. There's probably a dozen books on the subject that I've never heard of.

[65. Paul said the following at 7:55 PM on Jul 23:]

65

Hm. Well I must say that my comments were a bit harsh. This is just such an emotionally charged issue for me, and for everyone, and I really feel like this isn't the best arena for such discussion.

It's too difficult to truly get into some of the meat and potatoes differences between our respective faiths. True, these differences are substantial, but we should be able to look past them, and realize that we worship the same God and should be building each other up rather than bringing us down. So I'm sorry for contributing to that latter aspect.

Just wanted to reply to Matt and friend's posts. Actually Matt, every Catholic doctrine is supported by Scripture. However, the key difference is that we also use Sacred Tradition, handed down from the apostles and early church fathers. (Read the writings of St. Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, or St. Augustine). However, nothing in Tradition is not at least supported in the Bible if not explicitly stated. The Bible never states that it is the only source of Faith. And if it were, Doctrines such as the concept of the Trinity wouldn't be around.

[66. San Soo said the following at 7:56 PM on Jul 23:]

66

friend,

You believe peace comes from Truth...so do I: Jesus. There are many different Christians from many churches. I do not claim that all believe the same things. I simply claim that one can be a good Christian while being Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. I have met amazing Christians in all three. Like the Trinity, somehow the three are one.

[67. Paul said the following at 8:24 PM on Jul 23:]

67

Just to clarify, I meant that an online blog isn't the best arena for me at least to get into the "meat and potatoes" of our respective faiths.
:)

perhaps a messageboard would do better? (hint, hint...)

[68. Ted Slater said the following at 8:37 PM on Jul 23:]

68

Some of the Roman Catholics here take offense at some of the comments, including mine. I'm frankly not sure why, since (at least in my case) I've merely illuminated particular Roman Catholic doctrines that Protestants have problems with. I've tried to keep it at the level of a discussion of doctrine, not stooping to the level of personal attacks.

I've never said Roman Catholics can't be "saved." Not sure where that idea came from. Of course, if you place your trust in Jesus, and have repented of your sin, then He's happy to save you, regardless of your "denomination." And regardless of a doctrine or two that you've got "off" a bit.

Rachel wrote, "I was under the impression that all Christians were welcome to Boundless. I feel hurt and unwanted in this 'Christian' community." Of course you're welcome, Rachel. I understand you to be a Christian who's part of a Roman Catholic church. And that's fine. You're welcome here. Even those who have no faith are welcome here. Big Tent Boundless.

I'm not sure I understand your next paragraph. Of course, it's extremely important to discuss doctrine, what we believe about Jesus and salvation and such. Even if it is unsettling to some.

Paul wrote that the Boundless staff have "attitudes," that we have a "lack of respect." Hm. I don't see that. I see myself bringing to light some Roman Catholic doctrines that Protestants/Evangelicals find troubling. That's not disrespectful. That's simply identifying troublesome doctrines and presenting them for discussion. If you've sensed any disrespect from me, please do point it out so that I might evaluate how I'm communicating my thoughts. Seriously.

You've written that we've "said things that are contrary to what we believe." Not sure what that might be. Again, please identify where we've repeated fallacies about RC doctrine.

San Soo -- it's true that Roberto Rivera y Carlo and J. Budzsiziewski are Roman Catholic, and that Jenny Schroedel is Eastern Orthodox. I concur that they've never (to my knowledged) "slammed" Protestants. To my knowledge, nobody here has "slammed" Roman Catholics; they've merely identified troublesome doctrines. Have you felt "slammed" by anything in particular?

Xeres -- you're exactly right. I'd consider my theology to be "Reformed," and I also consider "sound doctrine" not a necessary part of salvation. Only simple repentance and faith in Jesus are necessary for salvation (and even those are a gift from our Savior).

Here's a secret: My doctrine is imperfect. And yet the Lord has saved me. Those whose doctrine is different from mine may very well be saved from the consequences of their sin, if they've surrendered their lives to the Author and Perfector of our faith, Jesus. Correct doctrine doesn't save us; Jesus saves us.

One of my favorite professors in undergrad was Roman Catholic. One of my best friends in undergrad was Roman Catholic. One of my favorite singers is Roman Catholic. One of my favorite authors is Roman Catholic. Two of our authors at Boundless are Roman Catholic. I have no problem with "Roman Catholics," though I do have problems with some of their doctrines. But that doesn't prohibit me from fellowship with them! :-)

[69. Ted Slater said the following at 8:54 PM on Jul 23:]

69

Some of you may not have read Al Mohler's blog post (referenced in the Original Post). Near the end he writes:

"I actually appreciate the Pope's concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Of course, I am convinced that he is not right -- not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right on the church."

This is the position of many Protestants. And yet most of us have no issues enjoying fellowship with our Christian brothers and sisters in the Roman church.

We have doctrinal differences. This is absolutely true. But as fellow believers in Christ, with concerns about marriage and the life of the preborn and so on, it's important that we retain our comradery. Or is is camaraderie?

[70. Melody said the following at 1:53 AM on Jul 24:]

70

>>>luthien :

"Any denomination that claims to be the only true church is ridiculous."
Uh, no, actually, it's quite the opposite of ridiculous. The Eastern Orthodox take on the subject (I'm EO)is that there is only one Truth, and as all denominations differ from each other, only one can have the fullness and perfection of that Truth. Which is not to say that every other denomination isn't a church, we do believe that they are churches and all other Christians are our brethren in Christ, but deficient to a greater or lesser degree.<<<

It's semantics I guess. Because "the church" is the people not the organization or even theological doctrine. It is the people who believe in salvation through Jesus Christ.
If you talk about a church in regards to doctrine, then I can see how you'd think it's not ridiculous.

The Apostle Paul said not to pass judgment on someone over disputable issues. It seems to me to be wholly judgmental to call ones denomination the "only true" and saying the others are deficient esp. on issues that are disputable.

You know what... Chapter 14 of Romans is a good thing to read in light of all this discussion.

Paul says that we each will believe some different things on how to live (what to eat and not to eat) but that our lives are lived for the Lord. In the end, each of us give an account to God.

I think that one denomination claiming to the one true church and calling others deficient is not only a slam on fellow Christians but ignores the message of Romans 14.
What I mean is I don't think the designation of "one true church" is necessary or helpful.

Finally, I'd like to say that I've appreciated all the comments here and the discussion between Protestant and Catholics especially Ted's.
I think open discussion is indespensible especially on issues of faith. So long as at the end of the day we agree on the core of salvation through faith in Christ, I think debate will only aid in coming to a full understanding of our faith... push us towards the "fullness of truth" maybe?

People should never shy away from debate but must always remember to do so in love.
etc.

[71. Brad K said the following at 8:19 AM on Jul 24:]

71

Ted, I'm well aware of what the Catholic Church teaches about Mary.

The arguments you raise really go against the whole practice of Christians asking for each others' prayers, and are, in fact, commonly used against prayer itself. (You've heard the objection: "If God knows what I need already, why do I need to ask him about it?")

Yet asking another Christian to pray for you is straight from the Bible. The Christians who are glorified in heaven are no less real, no less alive, and much more capable of loving us, since they are in the presence of God and perfectly united to him in the glory of heaven.

Jeffrey Whiting wrote that the Catholic Church requires Protestants to convert to be saved, and quoted LG 14: ""Whosoever, therefore, knowing that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ, would refuse to enter or to remain in it, could not be saved."

Jeffrey, please read that citation carefully. Its caution is restricted to those who know "that the Catholic Church was made necessary by Christ". IOW, if you believe that the Catholic Church is who and what she says she is, but remain outside it, you are -- according to *your own* understanding and conscience -- rejecting God's will for you and thus endangering your salvation.

[72. Robert J Espe said the following at 9:09 AM on Jul 24:]

72

Some of you may want to check out http://lcms.org

Follow the links, read the original Book of Concord, it summarizes everything Luther taught, and is still followed by the LCMS. Luther agreed with Catholics about most of the issues people here complain about, as do the Orthodox (http://oca.org, and as did the Anglicans before their church fell into heresy. About the only uniquely Roman Catholic doctrine is the authority of the Papacy. All these other denominations accept the sacraments, Mary, purgatory, faith and works cooperating, etc.

When you realize just how recently American churches came to view things the way they do, you should at least be humbled by how small we are compared to 2000 years of very smart people from all denominations. I don't have all the answers, and I continue to study, but it must be done with the attitude that you could be wrong. And that includes "show me a Bible verse" dogmatism. Better theologians than me believe that the Bible is to be held accountable to the Holy Spirit embodied in the church. They could be right. They could be wrong as well, but there is never any excuse for any Christian to call other creedal Christians anything other than brother or sister.

"In essentials unity, In non-essentials diversity, in all things, charity." ~St Augustine of Hippo

"They will know you are my disciples by your love for one another."
~Jesus of Nazareth.

[73. Ted Slater said the following at 9:13 AM on Jul 24:]

73

BradK -- can you provide any biblical support for the act of speaking with dead people, asking them to do something for you? That strikes me as a form of necromancy, something condemned in Scripture.

Yes, we're surrounded by a "great cloud of witnesses," but we're to look to Jesus, not to them for help.

Besides, why communicate with the dead when you can communicate with the living? Is the mediation of the Risen Savior insufficient? 1 Tim. 2:5 says that "there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" -- so He is indeed sufficient. Is His compassion insufficient? Is His loving interest insufficient that we need some other person to be a "co-whatever"? What kind of faith is that when Jesus is insufficient?

You wrote, "The Christians who are glorified in heaven are no less real, no less alive, and much more capable of loving us, since they are in the presence of God and perfectly united to him in the glory of heaven." That really is disturbing, BradK. Please cite specific biblical support for that contention, that we are to petition those who've died for something. Isaiah 8:19 addresses -- and condemns -- communicating with the dead. 1 Sam. 28:7 and 1 Chron. 10:13 show Saul attempting to communicate with the dead -- and being punished for having done so.

And show, biblically or otherwise, how dead people can love us more than those around us who can provide a meal, hold our hand, listen to our complaints, give us a ride, or provide us counsel. It's true that Jesus, the resurrected Savior, does love us more than anyone else, but dead people cannot love us more than living people.

Yes, the RC doctrines about an omniscient, omnipresent, co-mediatrix/co-redemptrix Mary really disturb me. Jesus, and Jesus alone, is sufficient.

[74. nikki said the following at 10:04 AM on Jul 24:]

74

I echo Ted's most recent comment about praying to dead people. Mary sinned; she is a regular person, albeit blessed, but a sinner in need of grace and saving power just like the rest of us. No where in Scripture are we told Mary has any kind of super powers of prayer or anything. We pray for others on earth, yes, because we can communicate with them. We are never told to attempt communication with dead folks; on the contrary, it appears that we are commanded not to do so. This includes the so-called "saints."

Isaiah 8:19: When men tell you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?

Deuteronomy 18:10-12: Let no one be found among you who sacrifices his son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the LORD...

I don't know if the people in heaven pray for us. I am pretty sure Scripture tells us they watch, or can see us. Perhaps they intercede for us; but whatever that case may be, we are never told to pray *to* them. Why would we, when we can pray to the God that created them and us??! This is totally absurd as well as unscriptural.

Since we are talking about Roman Catholicism, the same thing goes for confession to priests. I don't know enough about RC to know if every catholic practices this, but we are told to confess our sins to one another (for accountability) and to God (for forgiveness). There is no accountability in the privacy screen of a confession box, and no forgiveness except from God himself. Anyone except Christ who claims to grant forgiveness, or even awareness thereof, is a phony and should be expelled immediately. "There is no mediator between God and man except Christ", and anything diminishing Christ's power or "status" is at best ignorant, and at worse blasphemous.

Bring on the lively debate! I think this is good for us all.

[75. Heather B said the following at 10:43 AM on Jul 24:]

75

Ted, you wrote:

"Paul wrote that the Boundless staff have "attitudes," that we have a "lack of respect." Hm. I don't see that. I see myself bringing to light some Roman Catholic doctrines that Protestants/Evangelicals find troubling. That's not disrespectful. That's simply identifying troublesome doctrines and presenting them for discussion. If you've sensed any disrespect from me, please do point it out so that I might evaluate how I'm communicating my thoughts. Seriously."

First, I would like to register my disagreement with Paul's statement, in regard to your comments on this post. Reviewing all of your responses in order, I have found your tone to be basically respectful, your words carefully chosen, and your loving embrace of our Catholic brothers and sisters in fellowship sincere. Your responses have been consistantly of a higher caliber than many responses trivially dismissing doctrines with condescending adjectives such as "absurd."

However, I did want to point out a couple of sentences from your largely unobjectionable comments in the interests of living at peace with everyone.

"Brad -- Mary is considered by the Roman Catholic Church as the "co-mediatrix with Christ" and "co-redemptrix"; they believe she is aware of millions of prayers and passes those petitions along to Jesus (since He is apparently unaware of the prayers, or needs convincing from His mother)."

This quote struck me, on my first-read through, as somewhat patronizing. I do not think very many Catholics appreciated this joke. If you had wished to lighten the mood in this discussion, a joke about a less controversial topic might have been in order.

"I'm confident that as people consider Scripture vs. some of these Roman Catholic doctrines, they'll be able to make wise decisions about which denomination to align themselves with."

The juxtaposition of "Scripture vs. ...Roman Catholic doctrines," I felt, was underhandedly insulting in its insinuations. The implication would be that "these Roman Catholic doctrines" are in opposition to Scripture, not an extension. I apologize for my word choice in "extension"; I don't know the best word to use. I am not trying to offend.

"BradK -- can you provide any biblical support for the act of speaking with dead people, asking them to do something for you? That strikes me as a form of necromancy, something condemned in Scripture."

You applied the harsh label "necromancy" to, fundamentally, what? Intercession, though of a type recognized by neither of us as effective or mentioned in Scripture. I think that is a huge jump. There might have been a more respectful way to state your disagreement than however indirectly accusing someone with such pure motives of witchcraft.

I hope this is helpful. Again, I want to thank you for the consistant level of respect demonstrated in your posts. Though I am disturbed by a few comments from certain participants, I am encouraged by how largely civil this discussion has remained. I do not think there is anything wrong per se with Boundless hosting discussions on such controversial topics, but I feel strongly that fair voice must be given to all sides. As an author for Boundless, your post is interpreted as the position of Boundless, and this may have caused offense.

[76. Patricia said the following at 11:06 AM on Jul 24:]

76

I don't pray to saints or the dead. However, I think there is a difference between necromancy and the Catholic doctrine of the saints. It seems that the purpose of necromancy is to circumvent God, his power and authority by relying on other spirits. Saints only get their ability from God-and the idea is the petition them. I agree that because of Jesus's death we don't have to pray to saints. But I don't see it as the same as black magic. Also, my understanding is that people are still living after dead. So praying to the saints is not the same as praying to the dead under the Jewish law. The dead only inherited eternal life after Jesus arose-and now those who die are no longer dead. I hope that is clear.

[77. Heather B said the following at 11:45 AM on Jul 24:]

77

I agree with Patricia. Error is error, but the black and white of Truth is underlaid by shades of gray. Their efforts in praying to saints are, according to my interpretation of Scripture, misguided, but their motives are pure. Clearly they are not intending to practice necromancy.

The truth is that most of us here have put our faith in Christ, and in faith we strive to love others as we love Him. The shades of gray are that there will never be an end to doctrinal differences outside of the kingdom of God, but the ultimate condition of loving devotion to Christ, the essential doctrine of our salvation, be it by faith or by works, is met.

Also, to those (numerous) individuals who smugly trivialize arguments by dashing the label "absurd" on the points of disagreement debated here, I ask you to consider them as the product of hundreds of years of contemplation and reasoning by giants of faith and extraordinary minds. (I'm now waiting to hear Romans 3:4 and 1 Corinthians 1:25 quoted in response to the preceeding assertion; but even as I believe in sola scriptura, I'm only asking you to consider that they are not arbitrary constructs or the reckless product of naive whims, so perhaps this word could be dropped.)

[78. John said the following at 12:13 PM on Jul 24:]

78

Just a point of fact: I am not anti-Catholic. I am Christian. And as such, I am required by God to defend His word against false philosophies. The Roman Catholic religion being one of them. Some "denominations" being other examples of false philosophies and still some doctrines of some denominations being false as well.

And people please stop trying to classify everyone as "Protestant" that points out the obvious heresies of the Roman Catholic church. We're not all Luther worshipers. Again, I'm Christian. I don't know everything and I am not right about everything. I don't have perfect doctrine. But I recognize the heresy of the Roman Catholic church, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican (Catholic with divorce), etc.

If you are saved, you recognize false beliefs that go against His word. (Of course time saved and level of relationship with the Lord will determine how much you know, but a quick study can catch up fast)

To answer Kevin's questions: 2 Cor. 5:8.

We do not have brothers and sisters in the RC church, unless they are there knowing what the church teaches is false, but trying to save those being led to hell.

For if someone affirms Roman Catholicism they deny the gospel and are not saved.

And everyone needs to get off Ted's back. Focus on the Family considers Roman Catholics as "christian brothers". He's one of the few pointing out the inconsistencies even if he contradicts himself by calling them "sisters and brothers". Even when Dr. Mohler points out that the pope is wrong about the Gospel.

Just like the Wrong Chruch post, you will not find a perfect church, denomination nor parachurch organization, BUT you should be able to identify non-Christian groups, especially when they're as abvious as Roman Catholicism.

Again, check out these links:

http://www.carm.org/catholic.htm

http://christiananswers.net/q-sum/sum-r005a.html

[79. xeres said the following at 12:49 PM on Jul 24:]

79

wow, John, you sounded like someone who is a Reformed folk.

[80. another Heather said the following at 12:51 PM on Jul 24:]

80

I just want to say thank you to Heather B, Patricia, and Robert J. Espe, who, while not Catholic, have been very gracious in their replies and in recognition of the fact that the Roman Catholic Church is indeed a Christian Church.

I used to be, for lack of a better term, an evangelical Christian. I am now a member of the Catholic Church, and I do not see that I have left the Christian faith in any way. Rather, I understand it more fully, deeply, and completely. My love for Jesus and my trust in Him for salvation is not diminished by knowing that the saints in heaven are praying for us, see Revelation 5:7-9, or by any other concern raised by non-Catholics in this discussion.

I have stayed out of this conversation, though, because the attitudes of several of the posters. This is not the place where anyone will convinced to change their views on such significant issues. But again, I just wanted to say that I am grateful to the non-Catholics who have defended us Catholics against the accusations of necromancy, etc. I am glad to recognize you as my brothers and sisters in Christ, separated though we may be.

[81. Ted Slater said the following at 1:28 PM on Jul 24:]

81

Xeres -- you seem to have something against Reformed Theology in this thread, but over here you wrote that you "have respect for the Reformed folks."

Has something changed in the past few weeks?

[82. Michele said the following at 1:31 PM on Jul 24:]

82

It's like some kind of new physics law - the Catholic Church will release a document and over a period of time the likelihood that Protestants will take offense, argue, and pray for the souls of Catholics increase.

I'm a former Catholic. I flirted with being a Pentecostal and a Baptist before coming home to....Christian.

That document Mohler's post refers to basically came to the conclusion that - gasp - Protestants aren't Catholics. And vice versa.

It is impossible to get everyone on this page, but for me it comes down to us believing the same things and expressing/practicing them differently. We all believe in the same sequence of events, and it all comes back to the same conclusion, no matter the route.

It was offensive to me, in more than one old church of mine, that Catholics were treated as a criminal cousin in need of severe rehabilitation. It was offensive to me in the Catholic churches I knew growing up, that dating or marrying a Protestant was a offense tantamount to Pilate's handing Christ over to the mob crowd. Things are different these days, but not by much - some lifelong Southern Baptists I've encountered get rather uncomfortable when I admit to having been confirmed in the Catholic Church (and if I slip and perform the Sign of the Cross?? Wow, that clears a room!), and my family doesn't quite accept the idea that I am seriously considering marriage to a Protestant.

My point, really, is that the core mistake is judging another person's faith and making assumptions about whether they are saved just based on which church they call home. There are more obvious and much deeper signs, and I think it's far more important to concentrate on the sleeping-around Baptist and the beats-his-kids Catholic than the devout of either denomination.

[83. nikki said the following at 1:57 PM on Jul 24:]

83

I'm sorry some were upset by my use of the word "absurd." Perhaps there is a better word I could have used instead. But I stand by my point that praying to anyone -- dead saints or otherwise -- instead of only to God is just plain wrong. Any word will do.

[84. Christine said the following at 2:23 PM on Jul 24:]

84

Xeres - I find it interesting that you speak of those who hold to Reformed theology in the same manner with which you criticize those who disagree with Roman Catholic theology.

I think it sounds as if the main dilemma between the posters is a question of the primacy of Scripture versus traditions of the Roman Catholic Church. I don't mean this to be disrespectful, but even if the church came first, why isn't the very Word of God to be held to a higher standard than church tradition?

[85. xeres said the following at 2:42 PM on Jul 24:]

85

Ted,

Sorry that I gave off that I'm have "issues" with the Reformed theology. It's not the theology itself so much (though I disagree some of it). It's really more of their followers nowadays and their "my theology is surpreme" attitude as demostated in comments on Tim Challies' The Appeal to Roman Catholicism.

Here's food for thought: Although I'm generally a Wesleyan, I don't necessarily agree with the Arminian view of free will. So I'm not blind

[86. Matt. said the following at 10:20 PM on Jul 24:]

86

Man Oh Man!
This topics is indeed a hot one, I'm
kinda scared to comment on it. (joking)However, I must.

Paul, it is true that the RCC upholds
and supports the use of Tradition, in
comparison, the word Trinity may not appear in scripture, but it is clearly supported by Scripture. Because it is supported by Scripture, that does not mean that
Tradition is supported or implied
by Scripture. If anything, I see the very opposite.

"This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far away from Me. But in vain do they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men. Mark 7:6,7
The Scribes and Pharisees appeared devout in their zeal for proper observance of Tradition, but the Lord knew it was a pious deception. Their worship was vain, worthless in the sight of God. The Lord accused the Pharisees of "teaching as doctrine the precepts of men" Mark 7:7. The Scriptures said nothing about washing one's hands before eating. Nonetheless, the Pharisees enforced ceremonial washing as if God Himself had ordained it. They had elevated the teachings of men to the same level of authority as God's inspired word.

Jesus accused them of putting men's words before God's Word: "Neglecting the commandment of God, you hold to your own tradition of men...You nicely set aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition" Mark 7:9. By their Traditions, Jesus said they were "invalidating the word of God" Mark 7:13, stamping the Scriptures null and void.
Jesus rejected the manmade authority structure of the first-century Jews. He refused to submit to Tradition.
What Jesus rejected the RCC has now restored. It has elevated Tradition to the same level of authority as God's inspired Scriptures.

[87. Erin said the following at 12:50 AM on Jul 25:]

87

Could someonje please give me a Scriptural justification for sola scriptura?

And please...not that one from Timothy that says "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work."

This is of course true, but it says ALL SCRIPTURE--not ONLY SCRIPTURE.

Thanks.

[88. Theo K said the following at 2:03 AM on Jul 25:]

88

"I actually appreciate the Pope's concern. If he is right, we are endangering our souls and the souls of our church members. Of course, I am convinced that he is not right -- not right on the papacy, not right on the sacraments, not right on the priesthood, not right on the Gospel, not right on the church."

If that is true, it really is an issue of “Roman Catholicism” against scripture. The church’s goal should be to live always reforming to the Word of God. Not the other way around. This was the issue 500 years ago, and it still remains the same. These aren’t small differences of opinion; they cannot be ignored by calling on Romans 14 for example. These differences go down to the core of scripture, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Anyone who proclaims a false gospel is to be opposed. This is the point of the letter to Galatians.

I will not apologize for using the word ‘absurd’ when speaking about ideas such as ‘purgatory’. As I stated, the idea of the need of purgatory for born again children of God is an offence against the perfect work of Christ on the cross. And thus, this expression should be considered rather mild.

If anyone thinks that the loving thing to do is to let people believe ‘doctrines’ that are unscriptural, and even worse, offending against God, I am sorry I am not one of them.

And once again, we are commanded to judge the various teachings in the light of scripture, to ‘test the spirits’. None of the above is an attack against Christians found within RCC. In my opinion, it is a mistake to take personal offence when what you believe to be true is labelled otherwise.

Finally, we should not try to build artificial unity when such core issues as the Gospel itself are at stake. Unity is built when people affirm the fundamental truths of the Bible (the Gospel, I hope you would all agree, being one of them).

“They have healed also the hurt of my people superficially, saying, ‘Peace, peace!’ when there is no peace.” – Jeremiah 6:14

[89. Patricia said the following at 5:41 AM on Jul 25:]

89

Christine, I think the point in not that tradition is higher than scripture. They are equal. Tradition, then, cannot contradict scripture-it simply expands on themes already present. It's a symbiotic relationship in a way, they both feed off each other.

[90. Robert J Espe said the following at 7:31 AM on Jul 25:]

90

I would say that most of you should really check out catholicbridge.com and learn from a Catholic what they really believe. Most of your concerns are based on misunderstanding.

Take the saints thing. Catholics believe the difference between necromancy (like Saul calling up Samuel in the OT) and asking a Christian who has gone to heaven to pray for you is that the former was dead. In the OT, when people died, they went to sheol. When Jesus died, He descended into hell (this is why it is in the creed, it is critical that He fully died) and released from death all the Godly who had died before and He brought them to heaven. Now when Christians die, they go to heaven. We all agree on that. Catholics would say they make a short stop in purgatory first, but it doesn't really matter because the fork in the road that leads to Hell occurs before purgatory not after (all who go to purgatory do go to heaven). So, Catholics are not praying TO the saints, but they might ask one (or even their grandfather) to pray FOR them, just as I might ask my pastor to pray for me. I'm not Catholic, and don't feel any need to do this, but since we all agree that anyone in heaven is more alive than they were here on earth and the Bible says that saints pray in heaven, there is nothing sinful about the practice. Of course God doesn't need this, any more than He needs us to pray in the first place. That is simply commanded. It is also commanded that we pray for eachother. Catholics just don't believe that praying for each other goes away when we die. Personally, I think that is a good reminder that as Christians, dying isn't that big a deal.

Just to point out, you could even ask the prophet Samuel to pray for you now. One, he is no longer dead, two, necromancy would be calling up his spirit for two way communication.

And I'm really tired of this "I'm just defending the Bible against Catholic heresy" non-sense. I feel like a broken record. To be heresy, it has to violate an article of one of the 3 creeds (i.e. Jesus wasn't fully God, or fully man, or He didn't die, or the Holy Spirit isn't God, or you only have to worship Jesus), not your personal understanding of the "Gospel". Everyone thinks they are interpreting the Bible correctly. That is why we have the creeds. They broadly define the only critical issues so that we can be unified even when we disagree on non-essentials. It is what allows me be to be friends with Calvinists, what keeps Baptists from burning me at the stake for speaking in tongues, and so on and so forth. Lose the arrogance of assuming that because you have read a translation of the Bible a couple times you are automatically able to understand everything better than 2000 years worth of Christian theologians from all denominations who are wise enough to agree to disagree and then go spread the Gospel and feed the hungry.

[91. Christine said the following at 8:15 AM on Jul 25:]

91

Erin - Sola Scriptura doesn't mean that nothing besides Scripture has truth - just that everything is judged by Scripture. For Biblical justification of the primacy of Scripture, I would point to all of the times that Scripture itself claims to be the Word of God ("Thus saith the Lord," etc.).

Patricia - I think that the difference between your view and mine is that I consider tradition, but do not place it on the same level as Scripture. I believe that tradition and church leaders are subject to fallibility, but that the Word of God is not.

[92. Christine said the following at 9:27 AM on Jul 25:]

92

Robert J. Espe - Though I agree that we need to focus primarily on the gospel, I think that discussing issues of salvation are critical to that focus. There are many things that can be overlooked (such as speaking in tongues) because they do not relate to this, but other issues (such as the relationship of the sacraments to salvation) cannot be ignored.

Also, not all Christians affirm that Christ descended to hell. I've had a few seminary profs (and my current pastor) disagree with that statement. I'm not disagreeing, just saying that you can't assume that all Christians affirm that portion of the creed.

Further more, I think that it's safe to say that there have been plenty of theologians in the last 2,000 years who have been off base. Just because a theology is old doesn't make it true. We still have to be discerning and analyze everything with Scripture.

[93. Mark Willard said the following at 12:33 PM on Jul 25:]

93

Just wanted to support what Christine said about Christ descending into hell -- there's actually a lot of evidence that that line is not original to the Apostles' Creed and was in fact added later. Wayne Grudem has written about this extensively in his Systematic Theology as well as an article he wrote entitled He Did Not Descend into Hell.

[94. Paul said the following at 5:28 PM on Jul 25:]

94

Theo K. I agree with you about the crying for "Peace, Peace, when there is no peace."

I'm saddened that the Christian community as a whole cannot seem to come together as you say. You'll never convince me, and I'll never convince you. However, in the end, we're fighting together a great spiritual battle against the evil one, and we're all fighting on the side of Christ. I for one love to see Catholics and Protestants come together as a united force (such as in the Pro-Life mission and others). What amazing things we could accomplish for our country and our world if we could do this more often and more effectively.

Robert J. Espe, I believe that Christ did not "descend into hell" as stated in the Creed, but rather to the "spirits in prison" of 1 Peter 3:19, or the "Bosom of Abraham" from the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus. This "state" different from Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory, I believe was where the devout Old Testament souls awaited their salvation through Christ's Passion.

Also, I wanted to state that the traditions of the Pharisees were quite different from the Tradition of the Church. Christ wanted the Pharisees to look past their futile squabbles over how long to wash your hands and the like, and lose their pride and recognize that He was the Messiah. Sacred Tradition, on the other hand, deals with Doctrines and mysteries, and despite what you say, the Trinity is never explicitly defined as we know it from the Bible. Sure it's referenced, but so are the doctrines of Purgatory or devotion to Christ through the intercession of his mother Mary. Meanwhile, things like the supremacy of Peter and the institution of the Eucharist seem to me to be quite explicitly stated in the Bible and are yet not believed. Where do you draw the line? Without the authority of the magisterium, through the power of the Holy Spirit, promised by Christ to be indwelling within the Church (Matthew 16), there will never be true harmony of doctrine, in my opinion and the opinion of the Church.

[95. Theo K said the following at 2:14 AM on Jul 26:]

95

Robert J Espe:
“Lose the arrogance of assuming that because you have read a translation of the Bible a couple times you are automatically able to understand everything better than 2000 years worth of Christian theologians from all denominations who are wise enough to agree to disagree and then go spread the Gospel and feed the hungry.”

But this is what I am saying. *Which gospel* are we going to spread? The Good News that Christ died so that God may justify the ungodly through faith alone in Christ alone? Or the RCC faith + works + sacraments “gospel”?

Start questioning the teachings of fallible men in the light of scripture. Not the other way around. For what is worth, I know ancient Greek and thus I am not dependant on any translation, although I have to say that there are many good and faithful English translations (such as the ESV, for instance). Some people think it is wise to rely on a “Magisterium” to explain to them what God wanted to communicate to us. I am so thankful that God gave His Word for all to study. And, by the way, according to the link I gave above
Are We Justified By Faith Alone? - What Still Divides Us: A Protestant & Roman Catholic Debate
http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/etc/printer-friendly.asp?ID=406
even Catholic scholars agree that the bible teaches justification by faith alone. But they are tied by the mistakes of their forefathers and thus unable to overrule their erroneous understanding. So everyone has to ask himself, where do I give my allegiance to? To the erroneous teachings of an institution that is unable to correct them in light of scripture, because of the burden of its past, or to the Word of God?

Christine said:
“Robert J. Espe - Though I agree that we need to focus primarily on the gospel, I think that discussing issues of salvation are critical to that focus. There are many things that can be overlooked (such as speaking in tongues) because they do not relate to this, but other issues (such as the relationship of the sacraments to salvation) cannot be ignored. “

That is exactly it. We are not talking about some doctrine of secondary importance. The Gospel is all about salvation. So, which gospel are we to spread? Err on this and you have lost everything.

[96. Robert J Espe said the following at 10:07 AM on Jul 27:]

96

We are to preach Jesus Christ crucified and make disciples of those who listen. Details will look different. My point is that when we disagree on details we don't need to disavow someone's Christianity over them.

For example, if we worry about what details of the Gospel we preach, we not only need to look at traditional doctrines, but consider that some charismatics would say you have to speak in tongues to be saved (they are wrong in my opinion, but they are Christians none the less.) Then there is the whole Calvinist/Armenian debate. Aside from TULIP, John Calvin's teachings that we can reach moral perfection in this life is of greater concern to me than the papacy. But it is not a key issue, so I love my baptist neighbors and move on.

We agree with Catholics on all the important stuff, or we wouldn't argue this much (when was the last time you had such and impassioned debate with a Hindu or Muslim?)

Just because we disagree about what exactly baptism or communion does, what form accountability takes, and exactly how much weight to give faith/works doesn't mean that either of us aren't Christians. The effect these teachings should have on our lives are essentially the same.

We all agree we NEED to be baptized and take communion, be accountable to SOMEONE in the body of Christ, that WE can't save ourselves, and that we DO need to do good works. We also all PRAY to the same person, the only difference is who we ask to pray for us.

Teachings about Mary have no impact on our daily lives whether she remained a virgin or was bodily assumed or not. Whether or not we stop in purgatory on the way to Heaven makes no difference in the way we live now.

Just don't look for ways to divide the body of Christ. Remember that when Jesus disciples asked about people casting out demons in His name who weren't part of their following, He replies that anyone not against Him was for Him. No one says Jesus is Son of God except by the Holy Spirit. We can disagree and discuss, but do it in respect and love as to a brother who could be right. That is the whole point of Ecumenism. The parts of the body do need each other, no matter how hard the devil wants to convince us that a certain denomination might be an appendix or a toenail to be cut off.

[97. Ted Slater said the following at 10:22 AM on Jul 27:]

97

Robert, you wrote, "Aside from TULIP, John Calvin's teachings that we can reach moral perfection in this life is of greater concern to me than the papacy."

Whoa! That is *EXACTLY* opposite of what Calvin believed. Where did you get that impression? Much of Calvin's belief system was that we *CANNOT* "reach moral perfection" this side of death, and for that reason we're daily needful and grateful for God's grace.

Do a bit of research before promoting untruths about Calvin. Google is your friend.

[98. Mark Willard said the following at 11:00 AM on Jul 27:]

98

Robert,

"Aside from TULIP, John Calvin's teachings that we can reach moral perfection in this life is of greater concern to me than the papacy. But it is not a key issue, so I love my baptist neighbors and move on."

Aside from what Ted said, I just wanted to point out that:

(1) "Calvinism" is a nickname for the doctrines of grace -- Calvin didn't invent it, he merely rediscovered and repopularized it. Therefore, believing that the 5 points are true doesn't necessitate that you believe everything Calvin taught or embrace him as faultless. I'm very strongly Calvinist, but I certainly don't agree with everything Calvin wrote/preached/did. Even if he had argued for moral perfection in this life, that wouldn't really make me rethink my acceptance of the doctrines of grace.

(2) The majority of Baptists today (I'm pretty sure) are Arminian. There are some reformed Baptists (Mohler, Piper, Dever, and Grudem come to mind) and while they might be the most vocal, they're certainly not the majority in say, the SBC for instance (regrettably, I would add with respect).

[99. Christine said the following at 11:04 AM on Jul 27:]

99

Robert J. Espe - You said, "We all agree we NEED to be baptized and take communion, be accountable to SOMEONE in the body of Christ, that WE can't save ourselves, and that we DO need to do good works. We also all PRAY to the same person, the only difference is who we ask to pray for us."

I don't disagree with a word of this. The problem that I has is that the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that, “The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 319). I do believe that the Lord's Supper and baptism are important, but I cannot affirm that they are necessary for salvation. That simply doesn't fit with Ephesians 2:8-9, Romans 10:9-11, etc.

I firmly believe that there are Christians in the Roman Catholic just, just as much as I believe that there are non-Christians in every Protestant denomination. After researching views of salvation, I just can't affirm the Catechism of the Roman Catholic church.

[100. Jonathan Hasey said the following at 2:53 PM on Jul 28:]

100

Re: Mohler's article

I appreciated Mohler's article and, as a Catholic, I found it a fair response. However, I noticed a few things in his article in which he seems to misunderstand Catholic theology.

He correctly recognizes that the Vatican document "brings to attention the crucial issues of ecclesiology". The issues of Ecclesiology (the study of what the church is) are indeed crucial, because they involve these questions: What does it mean to be the Body of Christ? What does it mean to be a part of the Body of Christ, that is, a Christian?

I would break Mohler's response into two main areas: First, his comments on the significance of calling the protestant churches "not true churches" but only "ecclesial communities. Second, his comments on what Catholics believe are essential elements of the Church. I will make my response to the second area as a separate post.

1) He writes: "The true church, in other words, is that church identified through the recognition of the papacy. Those churches that deny or fail to recognize the papacy are 'ecclesial Communities,' not churches 'in the proper sense.'"

This is a surprising conclusion, because just 4 paragraphs prior, he acknowledges that the Vatican document in question recognizes the Orthodox churches as true Churches, and the Orthodox very clearly reject the papacy. I will visit this again when I examine the second aspect of his article.

Protestants in general seem upset by the fact that Rome does not consider them to be true Churches. I've observed this both in the many articles that have been written and in conversations with my own family, none of whom are Catholic. This part of Catholic theology really should not be troubling to Protestants at all. Here's why:

The Catholic Church is saying that the protestant churches are not churches, according to what the Catholic Church understands a Church to be. I would expect most Protestants to agree with this, even welcome this, since Protestants believe that the Church is *not* what the Catholic Church says it is. As Mohler says later in his article, "he [the Pope] is. . . not right on the church."

As well, it is important to note what the Catholic Church *does* call the Protestant churches: "ecclesial communities". This means that the Church considers the Protestant churches, while not "true Churches" in their own right, to be a part of the Church in some way. I can sum it up like this:

Protestant churches are effectively communities of Catholics that are not in full union with the rest of the Church, lack some of the sacraments, and hold to deficient theologies (in greater or lesser degrees depending on the group.)

I've run out of time for today, but I will try to post on the second aspect of Mohler's article soon.

In Christ's Love,
Jonathan