Roman Catholic Church?

[thistle93]

Hi! I guess with the election of a new pope a few questions come to mind.

1) Given all its theological errors would you consider the Roman Catholic church a Christian denomination or a cult in vein of LDS and Jehovah Witness?
2) Can a Roman Catholic be a genuine Christian given their many theological errors?
3) When did the Catholic church go wrong, with things such as worship or Mary, mass, infallibility of pope, indulgences, ect... Was part of it to do with Constantine? Any books on topic?
4) Do you benefit from reading the early church fathers, even though Catholic?
5) Why do so many reformed people have a problem with Roman Catholic church (which I understand why) but still look favorably on individuals like Augustine who was a Catholic?

Thanks!

For His Glory-
Matthew

 

[JML]

1) Given all its theological errors would you consider the Roman Catholic church a Christian denomination or a cult in vein of LDS and Jehovah Witness?

Definitely not a Christian denomination. They do not preach the true gospel.

2) Can a Roman Catholic be a genuine Christian given their many theological errors?

Can a person who attends a Roman Catholic church be a Christian? Yes.
Can a true Roman Catholic who trusts in the Roman gospel be a Christian? No. Unless the Lord regenerates their heart and they believe the true gospel.

3) When did the Catholic church go wrong, with things such as worship or Mary, mass, infallibility of pope, indulgences, ect... Was part of it to do with Constantine? Any books on topic?

A little bit at a time. I will let others more knowledgeable weigh in more here.

4) Do you benefit from reading the early church fathers, even though Catholic?

Not sure I would characterize all of the Early Church fathers as Roman Catholic.

5) Why do so many reformed people have a problem with Roman Catholic church (which I understand why) but still look favorably on individuals like Augustine who was a Catholic?

I don't really like reading Augustine so I can't argue for reading him nor do I know enough to classify him as a Roman Catholic or not. I doubt he would fit in much with the current RCC however.

 

[tyndale]

It seems that when persecution of the church stopped (coinciding with Constantine coming to power), and the Christian religion became an imperial power is when the downfall started and elements of paganism were then slowly infused with orthodox doctrine. I think the persecution of the early church was at its absolute worst when Decius was the Roman Emperor (circa 249), and the bishops were then deciding who could and could not return to the church (because many denied the faith in order to save their hides and then wanted to return after the persecution ended). I think the major influence of the bishops was growing by then.

I believe it was the pope Leo who "stopped" Attila the Hun in his tracks a few centuries later which elevated the papacy to the power that it has sadly become throughout the ages. He may have bribed Attila, who really knows, but that "power" seen by the masses, and has been accepted ever since.

Perhaps others can check the history to keep me honest on that.

What is interesting is that the Catholic Church does not accept schisms of any kind. Which is why all kinds of strange/heretical things just become papal bulls (ie: veneration of dead saints, prayers to Mary, purgatory etc). It all just gets lumped in, even if there are contradictions in their system.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Matthew, Dr. Clark puts this issue in the right perspective I believe. Rev. Jim Cassidy pointed this blog out on Facebook and it is excellent. A Roman Catholic might be... but the Roman Church isn't.

Do Confessional Protestants Have Anything At Stake in the Papacy? | The Heidelblog

“Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man. We shall this day light such a candle, by God’s grace, in England, as I trust shall never be put out.” These were among the last words of Hugh Latimer, as he and Nicholas Ridley stood back to back at the stake to be burned on October 16, 1555. As confessional Protestants reckon with the election of a new Bishop of Rome and Pope, Francis I, we should give thought to how those who still hold to the great achievements of the Protestant Reformation should think of him and his office.

The point of recalling the martyrdom of Ridley and Latimer on the Broad Street, in Oxford, is not to stir the ashes, as it were, of old prejudices but to recall that they died as partisans for an spiritual, theological, and ecclesiastical cause. The same is true for the 12,000 martyrs under the Spanish in the Netherlands and the no-fewer than 30,000 French Huguenot martyrs in the week of St Bartholomew’s Day, 1572. The word “martyr” is Greek for “witness.” Those confessing Protestants who died under Romish tyranny died as martyrs, witnesses to certain basic Christian truths: Scripture is clear enough to be understood where it must be understood and it, not the church (or an unwritten apostolic tradition), is the unique authority for the Christian faith and Christian life. Grace is not a substance but it is God’s free, unconditional favor by which he saves his people and by his credits to them Christ’s righteousness earned for them and those benefits (righteousness with God and salvation) are freely received through faith that rests in Christ and his finished work for his people....

Those are the truths that Rome confessed at Trent (1545–63) and confesses today in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) to be “anathema” (eternally condemned).

...We confess that Rome is a false church. It’s not that we are bigots or that we don’t like Roman Catholics. Rather, it’s about truth. The Roman communion does not servethe Word. She sets herself as master over the Word. She sees herself to be not only the mother of the faithful, but mother of the Word and to that Word she adds man-made commandments and practices.

 

[Andres]

I often say that yes, a professing Roman Catholic could certainly be a true born-again Christian, but if so, then they actually wouldn't be a very good Roman Catholic. Hope that makes sense!

 

[baron]

2) Can a Roman Catholic be a genuine Christian given their many theological errors?

Calvin under Comparison between the False Church and the True says: Therefore, while we are unwilling simply to concede the name of church to the papists, we do not deny that there are churches amoung them. Institute of Christian religion 4,2,12.

 

[Philip]

4) Do you benefit from reading the early church fathers, even though Catholic?
5) Why do so many reformed people have a problem with Roman Catholic church (which I understand why) but still look favorably on individuals like Augustine who was a Catholic?

Calling the early fathers Roman Catholic is anachronistic in the extreme, given that the peculiar features of Roman Catholicism, for the most part, did not appear until later. We're talking a period when the main difference between East and West is what language they speak and the Pope of Rome is one of five (ask a Copt who the Pope is and he'll say Theodoros II).

The other problem here is that there's no part of Reformed theology that you can't trace back to the earlly fathers. The Reformed tradition is a catholic tradition in that sense.

Then too there's the whole notion of the progress of our theology. The questions being asked by the early fathers are often more basic questions than the ones we ask. The nature of Christ is, I would suggest, a more basic question in Christian theology than how Christ saves---because Christ cannot save at all unless He is fully human and fully Divine. When you're trying to deal with a hundred different errors on who saved you, you have little time to worry about whether your soteriology is correct.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Well said, Philip.

Historians are widely varied on the dates surrounding when what we know today and Roman Catholicism began. In my opinion, this did not occur until the 13th century. See the Council of the Fourth Lateran (1215), which make Roman Catholicism a denomination about 800 yrs old, not the 2000+ years they like to claim.

Augustine is claimed by the Catholics and the Reformed. As Sproul often says, whether you disagree or not, the WCF is "thoroughly Augustinian".

I think reading the early church fathers is a worthwhile aspect of anyone's walk of faith. And, as noted above, claiming they are all Catholic is anachronistic. I will go further and say that doing so is probably subconsciously buying into Rome's frequent re-writing of history. The media swallows everything that comes out of Rome whole and we have been fed this stuff for so long that few bother to actually check the facts.

A good source for church history is Ferguson's two volume work. For the early history up to pre-Reformation see volume 1:
Church History, Volume One: From Christ to Pre-Reformation: The Rise and Growth of the Church in Its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context: 1: Everett Ferguson: Amazon.com: Kindle Store

Another recommend in the same vein is Gonzalez's two volume work: The Story of Christianity. The early church and pre-Reformation is covered in volume 1:
Story of Christianity: Volume 1: The Early Church to the Reformation: Justo L. Gonzalez: Amazon.com: Kindle Store


If you prefer history in terms of doctrine then something like Gregg Allison's Historical Theology is a good read:
Amazon.com: Historical Theology: An Introduction to Christian Doctrine eBook: Gregg Allison: Kindle Store

I also like our own Matthew McMahon's Historical Theology Made Easy:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f72/historical-theology-made-easy-mcmahon-hardback-ebook-73297/

 

[Tripel]

These are all good questions. I'll speak to the first two:

1) Given all its theological errors would you consider the Roman Catholic church a Christian denomination or a cult in vein of LDS and Jehovah Witness?

2) Can a Roman Catholic be a genuine Christian given their many theological errors?

I definitely wouldn't call it a cult. The RCC is much more "Christian" than LDS or Jehovah Witness, but it obviously has serious flaws on major doctrinal issues. However I think there are many true Christians among its membership, and I can't say the same for the cults.

 

[Jack K]

1) Given all its theological errors would you consider the Roman Catholic church a Christian denomination or a cult in vein of LDS and Jehovah Witness?

Neither. I save "cult" for groups that hold to errors such as denying the Trinity. I use "denomination" for Protestant groups. Catholics are their own, separate entity.

2) Can a Roman Catholic be a genuine Christian given their many theological errors?

Could be. Lots of people are inconsistent.

3) When did the Catholic church go wrong, with things such as worship or Mary, mass, infallibility of pope, indulgences, ect... Was part of it to do with Constantine? Any books on topic?

A long process, wasn't it? But I don't think of the shift taking place until sometime after the completion of the major creeds.

4) Do you benefit from reading the early church fathers, even though Catholic?
5) Why do so many reformed people have a problem with Roman Catholic church (which I understand why) but still look favorably on individuals like Augustine who was a Catholic?

Those guys weren't Catholic as we know Catholicism. I'm sure the Catholics would like to claim them, but I don't think of them as Catholic. The church at that time had neither the trappings nor the troublesome doctrine of the Catholic church today.

 

[tommyb]

I don't really like reading Augustine so I can't argue for reading him nor do I know enough to classify him as a Roman Catholic or not. I doubt he would fit in much with the current RCC however.

Other than the Bible itself, Calvin, in his Institutes, references Augustine more than anyone else.

 

[tyndale]

I came out of the RCC myself about 20+ years ago (as the Lord led me to read the Bible on my own), and thinking back on it, it does have the telltale signs of what a cult is, even if we do not label it as such, namely:

1. the Roman Jesus is a different Jesus, because His blood on the Cross is not sufficient enough to pay for our sins.This is why endless masses are added in (where Christ is crucified over and over again in a bloodless matter like 200,000 times a day) so it's works based and not grace alone.

2. powerful leader who dictates everything and cannot be corrected (you know who)

3. control of the masses, especially with the division of mortal vs venial sins. so if you miss Mass on Sunday, you have just committed a mortal sin, and if you die without confession to a priest, you are going to hell. That is dogma btw...

This is just a few of the many signs that one can see that are absolutely dangerous and lethal and just continues to bind people to a system that is apostate.

Can you be a true Christian in the RCC? I believe so, but I also believe you can no longer stay there.

 

[baron]

Originally Posted by John Lanier
I don't really like reading Augustine so I can't argue for reading him nor do I know enough to classify him as a Roman Catholic or not. I doubt he would fit in much with the current RCC however.
Other than the Bible itself, Calvin, in his Institutes, references Augustine more than anyone else.

You could read C. Matthew McMahon book Augustine's Calvinism.

http://www.amazon.com/Augustines-Ca...3445292&sr=1-2&keywords=Augustine's+calvinism

 

[jawyman]

I just recently attended a RCC funeral mass and I am thoroughly convince the RCC is not a Christian church, but neither are they a cult. As for true believers; I believe God's Elect are everywhere and it is He who will lead them out. It is solely my opinion, but I believe no true believer could stay in RCC.

 

[ThyWord IsTruth]

The erosion of the visible Catholic (universal) Church into what is now known as the "Roman Catholic Church" has been a long process that began, I believe with the reign of the 57th Roman Emperor Constantine in the 4th century and culminated with the "First Vatican Council" of 1869-1870 in which "papal infallibility" became church dogma. This Vatican council was not officially closed until 1960 just prior to Vatican II (of Mel Gibson fame).

Prior to Constantine the Catholic (universal) Church was for the most part a persecuted people by the Roman empire. With Constantine and his "conversion" to Christianity came not just peace for the church but a full swing to power backed by the empire. We know what absolute power does.....it corrupts absolutely. This corruption, I believe, started at this point in history.

This time in history gave the church peace to combat heresy which arose within and without the church.
The first seven OEcumenical Church Councils were of great importance to the true church in defining some crucial doctrines.

1. Council of Nicea 325 (Arianism)
2. Constantinople 381
3. Ephesus 431
4. Chalcedon 451 (Euticiyanism)
5. Constantinople II 553
6. Constantinople III 680 to 681
7. Second Council of Nicea 787

Up until Constantinople II 553 AD the church was relatively united. The Eastern church consisting of the four Sees of Eastern Orthodox in
Constantinople
Antioch, Syria
Jerusalem
Alexandria, Egypt did not acknowledge the last three councils.

The final straw between East and West occurs in 1054 because of the "Filioque" clause. The West led by the Roman See, had for centuries said that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, where the East only agreed with the original Nicene creed which stated that the Spirit proceeded only from the Father.

I speak of these things to show that this period of the medieval church although beginning to become corrupted by its power in the world also was important to settle doctrinal issues.

After 1054 with the schism between East and West final. The West comes under full control of the Roman See and the "Roman Catholic Church" and the "Eastern Orthodox Church" we know today is born.
Not until the 16th century with the Protestant Reformation is there a major protest against the RCC from within.

I am not a "Church Historian" so feel free to double check. Hope this helps.

 

[jwithnell]

If you go this route, you could include the mainline denominations as well.

It is important to note that we share the historical creeds. The RCs would affirm that Jesus is God incarnate and that the Bible is the word of God, important distinctions from the LDS and JWs. It's the "ands" that cause problems -- the Bible and Papal authority. Faith and good works. Sadly, this means many get inoculated against the true gospel.

One hope is that the historical liturgies quote a ton of scriptures, so people hear the powerful word of God week after week. I believe some are saved this way, although if they remain, they are poorly nourished in the faith.

 

[au5t1n]

One of the things the Reformed churches have largely lost sight of in the past century or so is the fact that we are the "Catholic Church Continuing". We are the heirs of the historic catholic church that confesses the Christian faith in its purity. The early church fathers are more ours than they are Rome's. Rome is a pretender to the Catholic title. The Reformers considered themselves and their churches properly, historically catholic, and the Papacy and its followers to be apostate Christianity.

 

[jambo]

Whilst I would not put the RC church in the same category as the Mormons, JWs, Moonies etc the RC church does in fact bear the 3 main characteristics of a cult. Namely a human authoritarian leader, extra-biblical revelation and no salvation outwith that group. The Pope is that leader in his usurped role, or perceived position as "vicar of Christ", speaking ex cathedra etc. The use of church tradition and the rulings of the magisterium relegate the scriptures to 2nd place whilst the church still teaches there is no salvation outwith the RC church.

I do believe there are genuine Christians within the RC church but not nearly as many as people think. They are Christians through the grace of God and not by following the teaching of the church. I would say this is more so in RC countries where there are no other churches apart from RC churches.

 

[Gforce9]

3) When did the Catholic church go wrong, with things such as worship or Mary,...

The whole "Mary" phenom is interesting to me. As far as I can tell, the term Theotokos is the lynch pin. From the mid-second century through Chalcedon, the church was trying to get a handle on who this Christ was (is). From Theotokos (God-bearer) to Christotokos (Christ-Bearer) and back again, this point is clear. What began as who Christ was/is (vere homo, vere deus) was turned on it's head to manufacture a doctrine of a quasi-divine Mary. From the perspective of history, it makes sense how they got there, albeit wrong....

 

[Bill The Baptist]

3) When did the Catholic church go wrong, with things such as worship or Mary,...

The whole "Mary" phenom is interesting to me. As far as I can tell, the term Theotokos is the lynch pin. From the mid-second century through Chalcedon, the church was trying to get a handle on who this Christ was (is). From Theotokos (God-bearer) to Christotokos (Christ-Bearer) and back again, this point is clear. What began as who Christ was/is (vere homo, vere deus) was turned on it's head to manufacture a doctrine of a quasi-divine Mary. From the perspective of history, it makes sense how they got there, albeit wrong....

I have had discussions with Catholics and they assert that just as Christ is the second Adam, Mary is the second eve. Beyond the obvious creepiness of comparing one man's mother with another man's wife, I believe they are missing the obvious point that Christ is in all ways superior to Adam and does not need a helpmate.

 

[Pilgrim Pastor]

Those guys weren't Catholic as we know Catholicism. I'm sure the Catholics would like to claim them, but I don't think of them as Catholic. The church at that time had neither the trappings nor the troublesome doctrine of the Catholic church today.

That's really at the core of this discussion I think. We've got to parse out what we mean by Catholic if we are going to have a very robust discussion of what it means to be Catholic. Its interesting, I've got some family that is Catholic and I have every reason to believe that they do believe that salvation is the result of God's grace alone. Now, they remain engaged in the trappings, but many non-Catholic churches have some golden calves in them.

Of course, Catholic doctrine has some serious error but, as my friend the late Dr. Ken Gangel once told me, the separation between most non-catholic Christians and many Catholics in practice and personal understanding is not as vast as is the doctrine of the Church when examined. There is a significant gap in what many Catholics in the pews understand and what Catholic scholars teach.

 

[DMcFadden]

1) Given all its theological errors would you consider the Roman Catholic church a Christian denomination or a cult in vein of LDS and Jehovah Witness?
2) Can a Roman Catholic be a genuine Christian given their many theological errors?
3) When did the Catholic church go wrong, with things such as worship or Mary, mass, infallibility of pope, indulgences, ect... Was part of it to do with Constantine? Any books on topic?
4) Do you benefit from reading the early church fathers, even though Catholic?
5) Why do so many reformed people have a problem with Roman Catholic church (which I understand why) but still look favorably on individuals like Augustine who was a Catholic?

1. Church, but currently full of many serious errors. Would you accept the baptism of one baptized as a member of a cult?
2. I expect to see RC believers in heaven. However, it would be in spite of their RC affiliation, not because of it.
3. They accumulated a lot of errors by the time of the Reformation, hence the Reformation. However, for me the show-stopper is Trent and the anathemas.
4-5. I don't consider the early fathers Catholic. And, to this day we call Calvinism the Augustinian-Calvinist position.

An additional problem relates to the fact that NO theologian is 100% perfect. Augustine said lots of dumb things (as did Luther and Calvin, etc.).

 

[tyndale]

The over adoration of Mary came about due to the pagan influence getting into the church after it was "imperialized" and tolerance/acceptance for the "pax romana". It is the whole balance thing that is seen in paganism where the "goddess" balances out the "god". So we now have the Mother balancing the Father/Son in this system.

There is a lot in common with Ishtar (the "Queen of Heaven") that Jeremiah was battling in the final days of Judah's kingdom, with what become of the worship of Mary and I believe the roots are there for what we see today.

The saddest part of the RCC system is they believe that the Father/Son are unapproachable, but because they can ask the Mother for requests, her son cannot say no, which is the main reason why Mary is the mediatrix because a son can never refuse their mother which is the key to whole movement.

The main question for us I thnk as Evangelicals, is the RCC a missions field? Or we just let them go and do their thing?

 

[Tripel]

The main question for us I thnk as Evangelicals, is the RCC a missions field? Or we just let them go and do their thing?

Of course they are a mission field. They need the gospel.

 

[tyndale]

I agree with you wholeheartedly, the problem is that the Evanglical world is no longer united in this sadly thanks to the ecumenical movement and leading figures like Packer agreeing to the ECT accords in the 90's to treat them as brothers/sisters...

 

[Rangerus]

My dear brothers and sisters. While we do not agree with the doctrine of the RCC, they undeniably have helped define crucial doctrine as well as done much good missionary work in the world and throughout history. Because they confess to "believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:" and as stated by an earlier poster "we share the historical creeds". When I reconcile it with Luke 9:50, I do not think they are in great opposition to us. Luke 9:50 (ESV) But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.”

 

[ThyWord IsTruth]

My dear brothers and sisters. While we do not agree with the doctrine of the RCC, they undeniably have helped define crucial doctrine as well as done much good missionary work in the world and throughout history. Because they confess to "believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:" and as stated by an earlier poster "we share the historical creeds". When I reconcile it with Luke 9:50, I do not think they are in great opposition to us. Luke 9:50 (ESV) But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.”

Lets not forget that the Roman Catholic Church is not the Catholic Church of old that gave us the great creeds and ecumenical councils that helped define crucial doctrine and combat heresy.

If you look at the dogma of the Roman Catholic Church today you would see that they stand against us Biblical,Protestant, Reformed brethren in more ways than one.
They say anathema to anyone outside the RCC, and that salvation is only through the RCC and the receiving of the sacraments given through them.

I do not see that as being for salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone as taught in the scriptures to the glory of God alone.

The teachings of the Roman Catholic Church stand in opposition to true saving faith and thus we must call anathema on the ones pushing this false anti-Christ system just as we do any other enemy of the true gospel of Christ.

 

[jambo]

My dear brothers and sisters. While we do not agree with the doctrine of the RCC, they undeniably have helped define crucial doctrine as well as done much good missionary work in the world and throughout history. Because they confess to "believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth and in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:" and as stated by an earlier poster "we share the historical creeds". When I reconcile it with Luke 9:50, I do not think they are in great opposition to us. Luke 9:50 (ESV) But Jesus said to him, “Do not stop him, for the one who is not against you is for you.”

I was somewhat surprised by this. I recall someone saying the distance between truth and error is not a chasm but a razor's edge. Just as Paul criticised the Galatians for adding law to gospel, so the RC church has added law (acceptance of and adherence to the traditions of counsels down through the centuries) One has to look at the position given to Mary as co-redemptrix, immaculate conception, sinless, life, ascension into heaven, her intercessory role etc all positions that are uniquely Christs. (Christ's human ancestry was sinful, unlike Mary's as they would claim)

The church may not be in great opposition to us in the sense of burning Christians at the stake but it is in great opposition in a much more subtle way. It is not what it once was but in a much more subtle way it is as big an opponent as it always was. It is best illustrated by the wise and foolish builders of Mat 7. The houses may on the outside look the same too the untrained eye. But the foundations were totally different. The wise heard and obeyed, the foolish heard and did his own thing. And doing its own thing is what the RC church has been doing for centuries and still so today.

 

[Herald]

Any "church" (and I use the word loosely) that eviscerates the gospel is Satan's agent, no matter what they call themselves or which heritage they claim hold to.

Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD

 

[crimsonleaf]

One problem is that the RCC places its internal workings above the workings of civil and criminal law in matters of criminal activity.

Last Friday a BBC Radio 5-Live programme held and interview with Wilfrid Cardinal Napier OFM, Archbishop of Durban, in which he clearly stated that he felt many cases of priestly child abuse were not criminal per se, but were something for which the priests should receive treatment rather than criminal prosecution. Although this was bad enough in itself, I found the subsequently issued apology worse in some ways. It can be found here, but the salient paragraph is:

c. Accordingly once the existence of an offence has been verified by thorough investigation by independent investigators engaged by the Professional Conduct Committee, the matter is reported to the civil authorities, either the police, a Child Welfare Officer or a Social Worker, so that civil criminal action may take its course.

Note please that the first investigating authority in these cases is the Church itself (the PCC) and only once the Church is satisfied can a criminal complaint be investigated. How long such an internal investigation can take, the Lord only knows, but every second it takes may enable a further abuse.

As such I find the very arrogance of this approach to be contrary to God's will, particularly in the knowledge that many of these referred cases have never seen the light of day, and the fact that despite the intense scrutiny the RCC is under regarding sexual scandal it can still see a statement of the attitude that got it into this mess as a valid apology.