RCC/Protestant Divisions

[Jac3510]

Thanks for the positive comments. I hope my contributions (what little there are with what little time I have to offer them) are at least as edifying.

[Furstentum Liechtenstein]

Welcome back, Jac! The average IQ of the Forum just went up 10 points.

FL

Until you posted, FL. Then it went back down.

[CallMeDave]

Firstly, this topic is not to bash Catholics nor vice-versa, although given the majority here are non-Catholic I doubt it would be vice-versa. However, this is a topic that has been pressing on me which I'd like others' opinion on.

Now Catholic are orthodox, in the sense they're not really a cult like JWs or Mormons. The RCC traditionally believe Christ died and was resurrected, and through Christ we are saved (depite a seeming watering down of Christ being the only way by some more liberal Catholics). And Protestants also hold to this orthodox belief. Yet, as a Protestant, if I am asked what I disagree with Catholics on, I will state I disagree with the need for priests (since Christ was the final priest and no other can waive sins, especially other sinners), the succession of popes leading the church (given Peter was "Pope"-like, Father of the Church and to have successors, there appears to me obvious breakages in the lineage of Popes given the corruptness and anti-Christian acts condoned and ordered by various Popes throughout history), the veneration of saints and Mary to the point of praying to them by many Catholics (whether it is actually sanctioned by the RCC I know this still happens), and the supremacy of the RCC.

Now in the past, those who disagreed with the RCC may have been hunted down, burnt at the stake, beheaded, tortured and persecuted. Not to say it was always one-sided, as RCCs too were also hated by many Protestants and wrongly so. Yet, in RCC there is something more dire when the Pope who is meant to be Father of the Christian Church, persecute of other Christians who did not agree with every RC doctrine. It seems to be the Church many times throughout history, and still today by many Catholics, takes first priority in RCC theology. Next comes Christ and very closely thereafter Mary. So to not agree with the RCC in the past was to not be Christian and labelled a heretic worthy of death regardless of any belief in Christ.

Today in the 21st century, in the age of political correctness, this has seemingly all been laid aside. Whereas in the past Protestants would be burnt as heretics, or vice-versa Protestants would revolt and tear down RC churches and kill Catholics, today there is somewhat less care about the differences. Even a generation ago, Catholics were being warned against Protestants, and certainly no Catholic likes to see their offspring turn Protestant. But there is so much less care today. I mean my mother-in-law (a devout Catholic) has told me how she found it confusing being warned her whole life against Protestants, and now some priests tell her that being Protestant is nothing to be concerned with.

In all this, I feel the hatchet is being buried. As long as the envelope of acceptance isn't pushed outside of orthodoxy to a form of pluralism where Christ in no longer the at the centre, that is fine. Now I believe there are Catholics that are saved - Byblos, my wife's mother, and many others no doubt. Yet, and this is where my questioning began more-so, my mother-in-law wanted to take my daughter to mass for Ash Wednesday. We told her no, and whether she was just playing naive, she tried ignoring our wishes to continue talking about going on the bus with our daughter and having a day trip out until I was more firm. That night at dinner, she also made some comment about my wife being half Jew-Catholic (her father was Jewish, though by no means relgiously so), when she knows her daughter is Protestant. Whether she was reflecting on it as you belong to the religion you're born with, or just being coy, I don't know but I expect the latter of the two.

Now at the end of the day, while Catholics (at least more conservative ones) still hold to orthodox beliefs, I'm not going to send mixed messages to my kids and put them whether they are aware to it or not. But then, even here at this board -- moderators step in to have your say -- there seems to be a strong willingness to keep the hatchet of differences buried. Don't get me wrong, I accept many Catholics as brothers and sisters in Christ, yet at the same time there were differences that caused people on both sides to refuse to renounciate and die under torture for these differences. Today, if push came to shove, a Protestant might just shrug at a Catholic and vice-versa as long as they don't try to convert them over to their church (except your ultra-conservative Protestants who would not see any Catholic as saved or vice-versa with ultra-conservative Catholics).

I'd be interested to know where others stand in this Catholic/Protestant divide. Should we be harking back and examining the differences a bit more closely? Are you firmly anti-Catholic (if Protestant) or vice-versa if Catholic? What if your child wanted to go over to the other side -- would this be acceptable to you or would you fear for their soul? If you would have any fear then why, considering it is Christ that saves and not any particular church or denomination?

Again, I make a call to keep this discussion civil. As in, feel free to be open with your opinions of Catholicism or vice-versa, but this is not to debate who is/isn't correct. This is a touchy subject, but I request everyone to be open with their beliefs in a respectful manner, but bite their tongues from debating or going on the attack.

I am someone who has studied Roman Catholicism very deeply including its Doctrine, Canons, having meals with Priests, attending Catholic Services, watching videod debates , talking to Catholic Scholars, reading the Catechism , and spending time on Forums. In addition, many of my customers are Catholic and have shared the Catholic faith with me. I have painstakingly taken the time to compare R.C. doctrine with what the Bible says ...and based on all of this accumulated knowledge , i conclude with great certainty that the RCC of today is thoroughly apostate as compared to Holy Scripture . In the beginning, it was not so much apostate but with the addition of dozens of teachings , traditions, rituals, etc... as decided on my Councils and Popes over the centuries... the RCC either denies or nullifies many Biblical teachings . And it is not a matter of interpretation, but rather very clear and obvious . Not only do you see this in the formal RC Doctrines, but you see it very clearly in the public prayers of Popes including one of the most revered of all time, John Paul 2 particularly his public prayers to Mary during Marion Years , as well as the various declarations from Marian Apparitions speaking utter heresy as compared to Scripture .

My personal opinion based on objective research has led me to conclude that like Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses who claim to be Christian yet deny/nullify essential orthodox Christian Doctrine thru their teachings....so does the RCC by how it has demoted Christ, made his totally sufficient atonement INsufficient by having its Followers add a plethera of 'meritorious' things to it , and giving Mary elevation to the actual duties and character of God himself. One of the most aggregious heresies ive run across is the RCC's teaching on The Communion of Saints found in their Catechism number 1476-77 where it boldly proclaims that the good works and deeds from dead catholics of all ages have been deposited into a Treasury whereby a living Catholic can make withdrawls and actually apply these deposited good works and deeds toward Ones own salvation as a help. (So much for Jesus' shed blood being the only means of salvation , thus nullifying Gods intended FREE GIFT of salvation to mankind) . Im afraid the Jesus of Roman Catholicism simply isnt enough , and that it must be infused with Ones own 'good' personal contributions in addition to the personal contributions from dead Catholics . So Jesus' redemptive work at Calvary falls far short of the RCC's expectations (to their shame).

[Byblos]

And it is not a matter of interpretation, but rather very clear and obvious.

Okey dokey.

[Kurieuo]

Hi Chris, notice you've been posting here and there. Glad to see you join in.

A few things

1. Whether or not the Catholic Church really engaged in the persecution of Christians, I would argue that violence is never a means of resolving religious conflict between individuals. That being said, we should be very careful in accusing "the other side" of religious violence, because while it is a historical fact that people were burned at the stake for disagreeing with Catholic theology, it is not so clear--once you get into the details of it--that you can just say that the Catholic church persecuted non-Catholics. It's much easier, OTOH, to make that charge against Protestants (e.g., Calvin . . . he was an ugly man . . .)

It is not so much that dirt is being thrown on Catholics, but if the Pope wrongly supported the killing of other men, and Christian men who I would perhaps better identify with in their period of time, then I can't help but feel the RCC is no friend of mine. That is, unless we begin to divide the RCC into different eras, so that what comprises the RCC today detaches from that of the past. Which is perhaps the case... but then the argument based on papal authority becomes negated.

I intend to pass some cases by Byblos privately, to get his input. Much of what I read came from John Foxe's book of martyrs. And while I understand no author is without bias, I am sure much in there is true. And if even one pope is corrupt, then the chain of authority in the RCC going back to Peter and Christ Himself becomes broken, which places the RCC on the same authoritative standing as any other Christian church (Protestant) which orginated from Roman Catholics who took exception with the RCC and desired to bring reformation.

Re: Calvin, I do recall a big exchange on this issue here a few years back. I'm not learned enough to comment either way. However, what is now understood to be Reformed theology, the doctrines alone have many merits. Particularly on grace and what God does, rather than us and what we have to do. I know you see much merit too in reformed theology when it comes your beliefs on salvation, faith and grace. I don't care much about the man, or men behind the reformations or protestant beliefs, except that I believe they influenced Christian theology for the better not to mention humanity.

That said, I do have a respect I guess for Luther (albeit not necessarily his associates), but then I'm more read up on him... notably I find it interesting that he only wanted the RCC to reform. If the RCC chose to reform rather than side against him, then I'm sure he would have remained a devout Catholic Christian.

2. If my main point in (1) is accepted, then whether or not we should examine our differences, we ought not attempt to resolve them by violent means. If that is to be labeled as "burying the hatchet," then so be it.

No doubt. Christ would not agree with violence.

3. It is obviously possible to have Christian fellowship with those with whom we a degree of theological disagreement. That is to say, we do not require 100% doctrinal agreement to have Christian fellowship with someone else.

Yes, although in the case of JWs, given their rejection of Christ's divinity and Trinitarian doctrines, any "Christian" fellowship would be discussions of theology in general. Really, one can still grow spiritually through fellowship (Christian or not) with those we have theological discussions with.

4. If (3) is true, then the question of Christian fellowship between the Catholic and non-Catholic is what degree and on what issues is theological disagreement permissible while still maintaining Christian fellowship. That is obviously a theological question to be answered within the confines of one's own theological perspective. As such, a Catholic may have one answer and a Protestant another (and still another Protestant another). Thus, it may be possible for one man to be willing to extend Christian fellowship and another who is not.

5. In general, I think Protestants ought to be VERY careful with (read, ought to stop using) words like "cult," "unorthodox," and "heretic." The reason is simple. On what basis do we determine someone to be unorthodox? Either (a) because the individual (or group as a whole) disagrees with some teaching of Scripture (e.g., the Trinity), or (b) because the individual (or group as a whole) disagrees with some historically held Christian belief.

Actually, I think it important to not whimsically label another understanding of Christian theology cultish, unorthodox or what-have-you, but nonetheless judge the theologies of others. It is clear to me, someone who rejects Christ's divinity or simply calls Christ a prophet and nothing more, or just a good man we can all be like, is not orthodox and such is a distortion of Christianity -- hence would be classified as a Christian cult or not Christian at all.

Furthermore, many are saved from error through just hearing another group is cultish or unorthodox. I will be teaching my children firstly to beware of certain "Christians" I believe to be in error, along with where they are in error as they are old enough to understand. Labelling another group as distorting Christianity (Christian cult), can be counterproductive in and of itself. But doing so based on an understanding of their beliefs and errors within them, is by no means something I think should be stopped. Nor could it, for it is in human nature to filter and label others (often sadly so). However, such can stop others from erring or at least know to be careful when in dialogue with such groups when they come door knocking or similar.

5a. If (a), then the Protestant accusing the other of heresy is at best question begging, because he is simply claiming that the other does not agree with his own interpretation of Scripture. On that count, the JW could just as easily say he is following Scripture and that I am a heretic because of what I believe.

I see nothing wrong with that. I expect JWs to believe I am wrong and have been led astray by Satan. I am not offended, because they know where we disagree. They believe I'm insulting Jehovah by calling Christ Jehovah, and I believe they're errant in believing Christ to be only a man. So one of us is wrong. What is question begging, is believing none of us are right, or entitled to make a judgement on the matter because we have different interpretations of Scripture. Well, that is not really question begging, but rather a form of pluralism.

Acceptance is one thing, but followers of "The Way" (as early Christians were called) should not be accepting of all points of views, including different (and wrong) Christian theologies. Tolerant and understanding, but not accepting. I believe we can know truth, and I believe I have the truth and that JWs are wrong just as they do vice-versa. Their knowledge however I believe is wrong. But nonetheless I have still had quite respectful discussions with JWs.

5b. If (b), then the Protestant accusing the other of heresy is being inconsistent in his critique, for he himself rejects more than a few teachings that the church has historically taught; if he did not, he would be Catholic!

Just like Christianity is ultimately a Jewish religion, the schism that happened with the RCC and what we now call Protestantism was a schism within Catholicism. Luther never intended to leave the RCC, but was ousted for rebelling against what he saw as the curruptness in the RCC. Thus, it is not a matter of Protestants would be Catholic if they did not reject teaching the church taught, but rather Protestants were Catholic. A schism in the church happened for a reason. And one must determine whether those reasons were valid, who is right and who is wrong. Ultimately, where theology is concerned, I believe the RCC retain orthodoxy as do many Protestant churches. Although I've heard, in Catholic seminary and of bishops even proclaiming that a Muslim would be saved, and perhaps even some Atheists (but then some protestants too lean towards a more universal salvation). If this became the accepted norm within RCC, then I'd have no choice but to say the RCC are no longer orthodox since believing Christ is the only way is a central tenant of Christianity and the Gospel.

6. Thus, we ought not say that JWs are cultists but we simply have Scriptural disagreements with Catholics. Protestants ought to say that we have severe disagreements with JWs and lesser, but still serious, disagreements with Catholics, etc. The label of unorthodox or heretic or whatever, though, ultimately becomes meaningless.

Yes, I can still agree it is better to understand and discuss such disagreements. I don't think however, based on what I've examined, to warn someone else against a particular group of Christians because they're beliefs distort Christianity. Here, I am not asking for someone to say RCC are this or that, but rather understand the main issues here. They seem to be largely ecclesial in nature, which in my opinion has little bearing on one's salvation. But still, as I personally strongly disagree with the RCC ecclesiology and various practices, I cannot accept or conform to the RCC.

Bottom line: I think that we can and should be willing to examine and state plainly the differences in theologies among Christian groups. We ought not be offended when one group says of us that we are wrong, even if, by that group's theology, we are not "saved." They are being no more and no less offensive than Christians are who lovingly say that Muslims are Hellbound (if the persist in their Islamic beliefs). That is, we can disagree without being disagreeable.

no doubt. I'm not really sure how this all arose, but I couldn't agree more (as my previous words should confirm).

Anyway, welcome back Jac. Just started posting myself again after a bit away...

[CallMeDave]

And it is not a matter of interpretation, but rather very clear and obvious.

Okey dokey.

Heres a free online Book written by a former Catholic , and he compares the major Doctrines of the RCC giving the actual RCC Catechism references .... and compares them to what Scripture actually says (with scripture references quoted) . If you care to read them, see if you can interpret the outcome any differently . http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160cont.asp .

Also, please interpret this official RCC teaching taken from a RC website and see if you come up with something different than i did. Thanks. :

1477 "This treasury includes as well the prayers and good works of the Blessed Virgin Mary. They are truly immense, unfathomable, and even pristine in their value before God. In the treasury, too, are the prayers and good works of all the saints, all those who have followed in the footsteps of Christ the Lord and by his grace have made their lives holy and carried out the mission the Father entrusted to them. In this way they attained their own salvation and at the same time cooperated in saving their brothers in the unity of the Mystical Body".

[Byblos]

And it is not a matter of interpretation, but rather very clear and obvious.

Okey dokey.

Heres a free online Book written by a former Catholic , and he compares the major Doctrines of the RCC giving the actual RCC Catechism references .... and compares them to what Scripture actually says (with scripture references quoted) . If you care to read them, see if you can interpret the outcome any differently . http://www.chick.com/reading/books/160/160cont.asp .

Look we can do this all day, you providing references from former Catholics and me providing references from former Protestants, complete with scripture references. There's a ton of them out there from Peter Kreeft to Scott Hahn and so on. What it actually does prove is that you are mistaken when you state that it is not a matter of interpretation. Heck the link I posted on purgatory is chock full of biblical references but you still disagree with it, you know why? Simply because you arrive at a different interpretation.

[Byblos]

A few points I wanted to address.

I intend to pass some cases by Byblos privately, to get his input.

I don't mind addressing them in an open forum, so long as this doesn't turn into a debate.

Much of what I read came from John Foxe's book of martyrs. And while I understand no author is without bias, I am sure much in there is true. And if even one pope is corrupt, then the chain of authority in the RCC going back to Peter and Christ Himself becomes broken, which places the RCC on the same authoritative standing as any other Christian church (Protestant) which orginated from Roman Catholics who took exception with the RCC and desired to bring reformation.

Absolutely wrong. It is irrelevant to the claim of infallibility if one or more popes were found to be corrupt. Infallibility was never promised to an individual at all times. The Holy Spirit guidance was promised to the Church, and the pope, by virtue of his office as the vicar of Christ, and only when speaking ex-cathtedra on doctrinal pronouncements is when infallibility attaches. So any particular pope can be a sinner (and all of them are), is in need of repentance, and in need of Christ for his salvation.

Although I've heard, in Catholic seminary and of bishops even proclaiming that a Muslim would be saved, and perhaps even some Atheists (but then some protestants too lean towards a more universal salvation). If this became the accepted norm within RCC, then I'd have no choice but to say the RCC are no longer orthodox since believing Christ is the only way is a central tenant of Christianity and the Gospel.

I've addressed this many times. The Church most certainly does NOT teach that anyone can be saved apart from Christ. However, the church does recognize that some people who are unable to come to Christ for whatever reason, but who lead a life of virtue (since everyone can know God through the natural light of reason), MAY attain salvation through the mercy of God. This is called invincible ignorance. Given that, I'd like to know who disagrees with this and why.

[Jac3510]

Hi Chris, notice you've been posting here and there. Glad to see you join in.

Thanks for the welcome (back). Hopefully time will continue to allow . . .

It is not so much that dirt is being thrown on Catholics, but if the Pope wrongly supported the killing of other men, and Christian men who I would perhaps better identify with in their period of time, then I can't help but feel the RCC is no friend of mine. That is, unless we begin to divide the RCC into different eras, so that what comprises the RCC today detaches from that of the past. Which is perhaps the case... but then the argument based on papal authority becomes negated.

Again, I'd just be really careful about trying to make an argument against the RCC on the basis of their treatment of heretics. Their position is far more nuanced than Protestants as a whole have been taught. There is a middle ground between the two positions you've suggested here . . .

I intend to pass some cases by Byblos privately, to get his input. Much of what I read came from John Foxe's book of martyrs. And while I understand no author is without bias, I am sure much in there is true. And if even one pope is corrupt, then the chain of authority in the RCC going back to Peter and Christ Himself becomes broken, which places the RCC on the same authoritative standing as any other Christian church (Protestant) which orginated from Roman Catholics who took exception with the RCC and desired to bring reformation.

With all due respect, this is just not a fair representation of Catholic claims. I'll leave it to the Catholics on this board to defend their church, but even a deeply corrupted pope who engaged in a life of licentiousness and privately violated the teachings of the RCC would offer no evidence against their argument for papal authority.

I'm obviously not a Catholic, but I do believe in being fair . . .

Yes, although in the case of JWs, given their rejection of Christ's divinity and Trinitarian doctrines, any "Christian" fellowship would be discussions of theology in general. Really, one can still grow spiritually through fellowship (Christian or not) with those we have theological discussions with.

Careful not to fall into question begging here. The moment you agree that 100% doctrinal fellowship is not necessary, you necessarily agree that someone may disagree with you on some doctrines and still be Christian. No doubt, some would hold that doctrines you find essential another might not, so this ultimately comes down to an issue of personal belief, which is why I stated further in my comments that it is absolutely possible for one man to be willing to offer Christian fellowship to someone with whom he disagrees and another not be able to offer that same man Christian fellowship (or would label it "Christian" fellowship, as you do here). Just to emphasize, I'm not saying that you are question begging . . . I'm just saying be careful.

Actually, I think it important to not whimsically label another understanding of Christian theology cultish, unorthodox or what-have-you, but nonetheless judge the theologies of others. It is clear to me, someone who rejects Christ's divinity or simply calls Christ a prophet and nothing more, or just a good man we can all be like, is not orthodox and such is a distortion of Christianity -- hence would be classified as a Christian cult or not Christian at all.

Furthermore, many are saved from error through just hearing another group is cultish or unorthodox. I will be teaching my children firstly to beware of certain "Christians" I believe to be in error, along with where they are in error as they are old enough to understand. Labelling another group as distorting Christianity (Christian cult), can be counterproductive in and of itself. But doing so based on an understanding of their beliefs and errors within them, is by no means something I think should be stopped. Nor could it, for it is in human nature to filter and label others (often sadly so). However, such can stop others from erring or at least know to be careful when in dialogue with such groups when they come door knocking or similar.

I didn't say we shouldn't challenge beliefs with which we disagree. I said we shouldn't label them unorthodox or cults. You say, for instance, that those who reject "Christ's divinity" or call "Christ simply a prophet and nothing more . . . [are] not orthodox." But I then point to my comments labeled 5a and 5b. What is your definition of "orthodox" here? If by the word you only mean, that which does not align with Scripture, then the word is rather meaningless, because you're just assuming your definition is correct. The practical result is that you define orthodoxy by your interpretation of Scripture.

Please note that I'm saying that is necessarily a bad thing. Obviously, I believe that truth is exclusive, and I think that we do decide for ourselves what is the proper interpretation of Scripture. I am just saying that to label someone "unorthodox" because they disagree with you dilutes the meaning of the word.

If, though, you take the word to refer to that which has been historically held, then your claim that JWs are unorthodox cuts both ways, for you yourself are thereby unorthodox. There are lots of teachings that have been historically held that you reject. So now the argument is just who is MORE unorthodox. On that ground, you can easily say the JW is more unorthodox than you, but then Byblos can rightly claim you are more unorthodox than him.

I see nothing wrong with that. I expect JWs to believe I am wrong and have been led astray by Satan. I am not offended, because they know where we disagree. They believe I'm insulting Jehovah by calling Christ Jehovah, and I believe they're errant in believing Christ to be only a man. So one of us is wrong. What is question begging, is believing none of us are right, or entitled to make a judgement on the matter because we have different interpretations of Scripture. Well, that is not really question begging, but rather a form of pluralism.

Acceptance is one thing, but followers of "The Way" (as early Christians were called) should not be accepting of all points of views, including different (and wrong) Christian theologies. Tolerant and understanding, but not accepting. I believe we can know truth, and I believe I have the truth and that JWs are wrong just as they do vice-versa. Their knowledge however I believe is wrong. But nonetheless I have still had quite respectful discussions with JWs.

I'm not advocating tolerance of views with which we disagree. I'm advocating for (1) respectful disagreement, and (2) for being intellectually honest enough to refrain from using words like "heretic," "unorthodox," and "cult" to label someone with whom you merely have a (severe) disagreement in doctrine. If you are going to use the words, you should use them according to their historical usage. But I wouldn't do that, because on their historical usage, you and I are both unorthodox and heretical--perhaps less so than the JW, but much more so than Byblos.

For me, I just don't feel the need to come up with mean sounding terms to describe people I think have erred in their understanding of Scripture. I don't have to call them "unorthodox." I'll just say what I'm really saying: they've misunderstood Scripture and hold to false doctrine. It just muddies the water and makes conversation more difficult to introduce those other terms.

In short, I'm making an argument for humility, clarity, and respect for words in debate.

Just like Christianity is ultimately a Jewish religion, the schism that happened with the RCC and what we now call Protestantism was a schism within Catholicism. Luther never intended to leave the RCC, but was ousted for rebelling against what he saw as the curruptness in the RCC. Thus, it is not a matter of Protestants would be Catholic if they did not reject teaching the church taught, but rather Protestants were Catholic. A schism in the church happened for a reason. And one must determine whether those reasons were valid, who is right and who is wrong. Ultimately, where theology is concerned, I believe the RCC retain orthodoxy as do many Protestant churches. Although I've heard, in Catholic seminary and of bishops even proclaiming that a Muslim would be saved, and perhaps even some Atheists (but then some protestants too lean towards a more universal salvation). If this became the accepted norm within RCC, then I'd have no choice but to say the RCC are no longer orthodox since believing Christ is the only way is a central tenant of Christianity and the Gospel.

Of course a Catholic would agree that Luther was excommunicated, but Luther himself would have rejected that claim (on strictly theological grounds). Rather, he saw the RCC itself as having been so corrupted that it had lost the Gospel. In that sense, Luther was not ousted. He left the RCC. I would say to Luther just what I said to you. He had no basis to call the Pople a heretic. At best, he could say that the Pope had misunderstood Scripture. But there is no doubt that the Pope held to what had been historically taught up to that point far more so than Luther himself did. After all, that was Luther's point: the RCC had come to the point where what it was teaching was not in line with Scripture. So Luther had no appeal to tradition, thus, he would have had no way to call the Pope a heretic on the basis of tradition.

Yes, I can still agree it is better to understand and discuss such disagreements. I don't think however, based on what I've examined, to warn someone else against a particular group of Christians because they're beliefs distort Christianity. Here, I am not asking for someone to say RCC are this or that, but rather understand the main issues here. They seem to be largely ecclesial in nature, which in my opinion has little bearing on one's salvation. But still, as I personally strongly disagree with the RCC ecclesiology and various practices, I cannot accept or conform to the RCC.

But the RCC wouldn't separate ecclesiology fro soteriology, and would condemn you for doing as much. So you aren't taking their ecclesiology on its own merits. You are, in effect, "weighing" a version of their theology of your own making. It's fine to reject the RCC, but if you are going to do so, reject what they actually teach.

Again, I'll just emphasize, I'm not arguing for general tolerance. If people make contrary claims, one or both are wrong. You have a rational right to say as much. But if you are going to say someone is wrong, say what they say is wrong, and do so respectfully, without appealing to needless name calling.

no doubt. I'm not really sure how this all arose, but I couldn't agree more (as my previous words should confirm).

Anyway, welcome back Jac. Just started posting myself again after a bit away...

I think we're in far more agreement than disagreement. Perhaps my comments have just been misconstrued in terms of intent. I took your OP to be a general question about an appropriate relationship with a Catholic with whom you both love but profoundly disagree. I intended to demonstrate that you can have Christian fellowship with them (if your theology allows that) without being in complete agreement, that you can disagree strongly, but that you can do so respectfully without labeling them by terms like "unorthodox" or "heretic."

As far as your kid goes, by the way, I take a stronger stance. As dad, you have the right over how to raise your child--particularly on religious matters--and if someone refuses to respect that, you are well within your rights to take much stronger actions than you have suggested even here you would. If someone were attempting to actively teach my daughter things I thought were spiritually incorrect, no matter how close they were to me, I would disallow them any association with Elly. In fact, I've threatened a couple of people in my own family with just as much. And they know I mean it.

[Kurieuo]

A few points I wanted to address.

I intend to pass some cases by Byblos privately, to get his input.

I don't mind addressing them in an open forum, so long as this doesn't turn into a debate.

It is more for an open and more focussed dialogue rather than thinking you could not publicly defend. However, you say this would have no impact upon papal authority... so maybe it is better for me to understand why not first.

Much of what I read came from John Foxe's book of martyrs. And while I understand no author is without bias, I am sure much in there is true. And if even one pope is corrupt, then the chain of authority in the RCC going back to Peter and Christ Himself becomes broken, which places the RCC on the same authoritative standing as any other Christian church (Protestant) which orginated from Roman Catholics who took exception with the RCC and desired to bring reformation.

Absolutely wrong. It is irrelevant to the claim of infallibility if one or more popes were found to be corrupt. Infallibility was never promised to an individual at all times. The Holy Spirit guidance was promised to the Church, and the pope, by virtue of his office as the vicar of Christ, and only when speaking ex-cathtedra on doctrinal pronouncements is when infallibility attaches. So any particular pope can be a sinner (and all of them are), is in need of repentance, and in need of Christ for his salvation.

I did not really mean to make it a matter of papal infallibility, as I understand you do not believe popes are fallible except when speaking ex-cathedra.

Yet, in Matthew 7:15-20 we read:

• 15“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16“You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17“So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18“A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19“Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20“So then, you will know them by their fruits.

One of the claims for the RCC is that they can trace themselves back to Peter through succession, and as such correct doctrine will be faithfully kept and passed on from one generation to the next through the Chuch. And yet, if one Pope is corrupt (not simply fallible as we all area), then what sustains the RCC as the one true church we should should follow during the period the RCC is lead astray? Given the corruption of even one Pope, the RCC must release its claim of authority based on succession. 2 Peter 2 is clear we are to not just follow our teachers bilnding. Furthermore, the RCC today may have correctly reformed itself, and still carry the title of the "RCC", but it would have no more claim to spiritual authority than say a Protestant church.

I am here simply elaborating upon why I do not see that RCC has any sole claim authority as the one true church. To some extent, I suppose the fact that many Protestant churches are looked upon as a good thing from within the RCC, is an indirect (?) acknowledgement that such churches still carry some authority.

Although I've heard, in Catholic seminary and of bishops even proclaiming that a Muslim would be saved, and perhaps even some Atheists (but then some protestants too lean towards a more universal salvation). If this became the accepted norm within RCC, then I'd have no choice but to say the RCC are no longer orthodox since believing Christ is the only way is a central tenant of Christianity and the Gospel.

I've addressed this many times. The Church most certainly does NOT teach that anyone can be saved apart from Christ. However, the church does recognize that some people who are unable to come to Christ for whatever reason, but who lead a life of virtue (since everyone can know God through the natural light of reason), MAY attain salvation through the mercy of God. This is called invincible ignorance. Given that, I'd like to know who disagrees with this and why.

Fair enough. I intended to look into the exact claims from the respective Bishops further (which I heard via Koukl at STR -- so for me its just hearsay right now), but certainly how you put it appears more acceptible and understandable.

[Byblos]

I did not really mean to make it a matter of papal infallibility, as I understand you do not believe popes are fallible except when speaking ex-cathedra.

Just to clarify, you mean we do not believe popes are INfallible except when speaking ex-cathedra.

Yet, in Matthew 7:15-20 we read:

• 15“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. 16“You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? 17“So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. 18“A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. 19“Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20“So then, you will know them by their fruits.

One of the claims for the RCC is that they can trace themselves back to Peter through succession, and as such correct doctrine will be faithfully kept and passed on from one generation to the next through the Chuch. And yet, if one Pope is corrupt (not simply fallible as we all area), then what sustains the RCC as the one true church we should should follow during the period the RCC is lead astray? Given the corruption of even one Pope, the RCC must release its claim of authority based on succession. 2 Peter 2 is clear we are to not just follow our teachers bilnding. Furthermore, the RCC today may have correctly reformed itself, and still carry the title of the "RCC", but it would have no more claim to spiritual authority than say a Protestant church.

That's just it K, we do not believe that the RCC was lead astray even if there were one or 2 popes who were corrupt. If Christ has given authority to the church and promised that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then any pope, personally and privately corrupt or otherwise, who makes ex-cathedra pronouncements cannot possibly be leading the church astray because he would have the protection of the Holy Spirit when doing so. This is the key point that everyone keeps missing with papal infallibility. It is not some personal effort that every pope magically has. It is by virtue of Christ's proclamation that the church is the pillar of truth so no official doctrinal teaching can be 'astray'.

I am here simply elaborating upon why I do not see that RCC has any sole claim authority as the one true church. To some extent, I suppose the fact that many Protestant churches are looked upon as a good thing from within the RCC, is an indirect (?) acknowledgement that such churches still carry some authority.

The way I see it if the RCC is not who she claims to be then we have already been lead astray.

[RickD]

Byblos wrote:

The way I see it if the RCC is not who she claims to be then we have already been lead astray.

Light dawns on Marblehead!

[Byblos]

Byblos wrote:

The way I see it if the RCC is not who she claims to be then we have already been lead astray.

Light dawns on Marblehead!

Lol, how did I know you would hone in on that one.

By the way, the 'we' in there refers to 'all', not just 'we' Catholics. Just clarifyin'.

[RickD]

Byblos wrote:

The way I see it if the RCC is not who she claims to be then we have already been lead astray.

Light dawns on Marblehead!

Lol, how did I know you would hone in on that one.

By the way, the 'we' in there refers to 'all', not just 'we' Catholics. Just clarifyin'.

As soon as you posted, my spidey senses were tingling.
And, I knew what you meant. And I agree, we all have been led astray by the Catholic Church.

[jlay]

If Christ has given authority to the church and promised that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, then any pope, personally and privately corrupt or otherwise, who makes ex-cathedra pronouncements cannot possibly be leading the church astray because he would have the protection of the Holy Spirit when doing so.

Obviuosly that is a matter of interpretation, whether the institution known as the RCC is officially this 'church.' I think ultimately one needs to ask, where does that church authority lie. Is it in lineages, or buildings, or blowing smoke up a chimney?

Peter Himself tore down the presumptions about earthly assemblies, and that the church authority was in heanvenly places. Acts 7:48 And Paul confirmed in 2 Co. 5:1. There is very little in the scripture to hold to idea of legislative church per se, unless you are a Judiazer. In fact that is a major difference in God's earthly covenant people (Israel) and the Church the Body of Christ.
Christ Himself said to proud Pharisees who boasted on such things, "And do not think you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father.' I tell you that out of these stones God can raise up children for Abraham." And we saw how the nation of Israel was cut off.

I'm trying to best figure out how to address some other objections, and want to be careful not to come across as attacks on the RCC. It just seems that most of the arguments regarding ex-cathedra seem like having your cake and eating it too. Obviously there are fundemental differences in how protestants and Catholics define, "The church," and just where such authority lies here on this earth.