[Travis]

Is the Roman Catholic Church a true Church of Jesus Christ? Is it really a Christian denomination?

This post will proceed with the assumption that protestant theology is correct (Westminster Confession of Faith standards) and with the assumption that the Papists are wrong in their views. There are other threads in which this can be argued, of course, but the question I’ve had in my mind for some time is whether they can be considered a true Christian denomination while being wrong on the points at which they disagree with Protestants.

Ignoring the elevation of tradition to the level of Scriupture, the sale of indulgences, the distortions of the priesthood, the mass, the doctrine of transubstantiation, the fabrication of purgatory, etc., I would like to focus only on the Roman Catholic view of justification. The Romanist view of justification, I believe, is all that is needed to show that the Roman Catholic Church is not a true Church of Jesus Christ.


The Council of Trent published its decree on justification in 1547 in response to the Reformation, and at that time it was declared “irreformable.”

The Council of Trent teaches that justification means to be made righteous. Not to be declared or accounted righteous, but to be made righteous:

"In that new birth there is bestowed upon them the grace whereby they are made just." Justification is "the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just but that whereby He maketh us just." (Council of Trent Session 6 Chapter 3)

Rome teaches that people earn the merit of Christ as unbelievers by their "good works":

"Congruous merit is the favorable quality associated with the good works done by the unregenerate man before his conversion and by which it is congruous it is fitting for God to be moved to bestow grace on him."

Chapters 5 & 6 Cannon 4 Session 6 The Council of Trent says that man's will "cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of justification" and then goes on to outright teach merit of salvation and salvation by works as well as the eternal damnation of anyone who disagrees:

"If anyone saith that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified, or that the justified man by the good works that he performs does not truly merit increase of grace and eternal life let him be accursed."

"If anyone saith that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ to the exclusion of the grace and charity which is inherent in him, let him be accursed." (Cannon 11)

The Roman Catholic Church teaches salvation by works, pure and simple, and at Trent it was declared that those who disagree with its doctrines were "anathema"--accursed and damned to hell forever. This view of justification was declared irreformable at Trent and confirmed and declared irreformable again at Vatican I and Vatican II. Therefore the Roman Catholic Church still espouses these damnable heresies today and cannot therefore be considered a true Church of Jesus Christ, due simply to their view on justification and without any of their other many problems being considered.

However, this does not mean that I believe everyone within the Roman Catholic Church to be damned. I believe it is possible that someone could be in that organization and be inconsistant in their beliefs in a way that made it possible for them to truly be believers. I am discussing the official position of the system here and its official status.

[MicahB0B]

Anathema does not mean "accursed and damned to hell forever." In context it is a formal ecclesiastical ban, accompanied by excommunication.

The Council of Trent also says "none of those things which precede justification, whether faith, or works, merit the grace of justification." (Session 6, Chapter 8)

The Church also stresses that all merit exists only because of God's free plan to associate man with the work of His grace. And that all our co-operation and reception of grace is itself by His grace.

I'll come back later tonight with more information and quotes and such, but I have to go now.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by MicahB0B

Anathema does not mean "accursed and damned to hell forever." In context it is a formal ecclesiastical ban, accompanied by excommunication.

And excommunication means that someone is seen as not being a believer and is therefore damned unless they repent.

Originally Posted by MicahB0B

The Council of Trent also says "none of those things which precede justification, whether faith, or works, merit the grace of justification." (Session 6, Chapter 8)

Then at best they are contridictory.

I see what you are saying about it all being of God. The problem is that this still amounts to a denial of the atonement. If any works are necessary Christ's atonement was not suffiicient. And to violate my own statement before, I must mention purgatory in conjunction with this. The idea that we must be punished by God for sins which Christ paid for is a denial of the atonement.

[MicahB0B]

And excommunication means that someone is seen as not being a believer and is therefore damned unless they repent.

Anathema itself does not mean damned to hell forever. They are banned from the Church, and if they become damned to hell forever, it would be because of their "grave sin" that caused them to be banned in the first place, not the fact that they were excommunicated.

Then at best they are contridictory.

If Catholicism taught that justification is a one time event as Protestants do, then it would be contradictory. However, the Church teaches that justification is a process. The initial grace of justification and conversion cannot be merited, however merits (which are, as the Church teaches, "pure grace") can further increase our justification and sanctification. The Catechism says it best:

"Since the initiative belongs to God inthe order of grace, no one can merit the initial grace of forgiveness and justification, at the beginning of conversion. Moved by the Holy Spirit and by charity, we can then merit for ourselves and for others the graces needed for our sanctification, for the increase of grace and charity, and for the attainment of eternal life. Even temporal goods like health and friendship can be merited in accordance with God's wisdom. These graces and goods are the object of Christian prayer. Prayer attends to the grace we need for meritorious actions." (CCC 2010)

I see what you are saying about it all being of God. The problem is that this still amounts to a denial of the atonement. If any works are necessary Christ's atonement was not suffiicient. And to violate my own statement before, I must mention purgatory in conjunction with this. The idea that we must be punished by God for sins which Christ paid for is a denial of the atonement.

I'm glad that you see that it is all of God, most non-Catholics cannot see this much. It does amount to a denial of the Protestant conception of the atonement. Catholics do not believe that Christ payed the penalty of our sins on the cross. Instead we believe that Christ's sacrifice was a propitiation, or appeasement, to God. Because of this God is appeased, and we are reconciled to Him. We are entered into a familial relationship, or a "system of grace," where He looks at us (including our merits and our sins) through His eyes of grace. In this system we can then merit increased justification, or more grace. This is only possible in this system (under God's eyes of grace, or under the auspices of grace), which is why we can never merit the initial grace of justification before we enter this system, and this system (adoption into a familial relationship) is only possible through Christ's sacrifice.

So, if this view is outside of the pale of orthodoxy according to Protestants, then you may proceed to view us as un-Christian, I cannot make this choice for anyone. I certainly believe that we are a truly Christian Church, as I believe mainstream Protestants to be as well.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by MicahBOB

Catholics do not believe that Christ payed the penalty of our sins on the cross.

Shouldn't this end the entire debate?

Grace & Peace
Luke

[Pennypacker11]

Originally Posted by Travis

And excommunication means that someone is seen as not being a believer and is therefore damned unless they repent.

Excommunicated does not mean damned, it simply means that one cannot take Holy Communion, and that they are not in full communion with the RCC. Their salvation is only known by God.

As for a fuller understanding of the Catholic doctrine of Justification, I recommend that you read Justification by Faith edited by H. George Anderson, T. Austin Murphy, Joseph A. Burgess

Now, to understand irreformable...
This can be best understood in the context of Vatican II and an encyclical by Paul VI Mysterium Ecclesiae - Definitions of doctrine can be seen to be at one and the same time true and still in need of constant refomulation. Mysterium Ecclesiae mentions a fourfold historical conditioning due to 1) Limited state of human knowledge at the time of definition, 2) changeable conceptions and though patterns that belong to a certain period in time 3) specific conserns that motivated the definition 4) limited expressive power of the language used. What then becomes irreformable cannot be the words of the definition, which are open to improvement, but its meaning (and the statement may only capture a very small part of the meaning). Thus, a conciliar statement can be developed, it can be incomplete.

Now with this in mind, and this usage of the word irreformable...I think it would be wise to use documents from Vatican II, the Catechism, or recent papal encyclicals in order to declare that the RCC is not Christian. All you say is that this happens again at Vatican II. Council of Trent was a very important council, but, in the Tradition of the Church, it is not the end all for everything. Also, conciliar statements are not to be treated as biblical statements for the RCC.

I have a question for you too. Is an Arminian church Christian? Because, when you Calvinists push it to what you see as a logical conclusion, it is man saving himself, through a work. Not through faith alone, not through grace alone. Is such a church Christian?

I'll try to be around tomorrow, but Wednesday morning I get 4 wisdom teeth pulled so I will be at home and off the computer for awhile then. I have lots to do tomorrow but i will try.

[Travis]

Originally Posted by MicahB0B

Anathema itself does not mean damned to hell forever. They are banned from the Church, and if they become damned to hell forever, it would be because of their "grave sin" that caused them to be banned in the first place, not the fact that they were excommunicated.

Haha, you're going around in circles on this point. The bottom line is that according to the Roman Catholic Church all Protestants (or at least all Calvinists) are damned. Whether the word anathema means that or whether excommunication signifies it--either way it is held to be so.

Originally Posted by MicahB0B

Catholics do not believe that Christ payed the penalty of our sins on the cross.

Yeah, that's pretty much the end of the road for Roman Catholicism being a Christian denomination as far as Protestants (at least Calvinists) are concerned, I'm sorry to say...

[Travis]

Originally Posted by Pennypacker11

I have a question for you too. Is an Arminian church Christian?

The argument could certainly be made against it, but that's a topic for another thread. The difference is that one is an inconsistancy due to confusion (at least usually) and one is outright damnable heresy.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by MicahB0B

The initial grace of justification and conversion cannot be merited, however merits (which are, as the Church teaches, "pure grace") can further increase our justification and sanctification.

Any rudimentary understanding of justification would tell one that this is a plainly absurd concept. One is either justified (in legal good standing with God) or one is not. You cannot be "half justified" or "more justified", it's a there or not there thing.

Justification is a legal term, it's the declaration of not guilty. You can't be partially not guilty or more not guilty...you're guilty or you aren't. Sanctification exists in degrees, justification does not.

Grace & Peace
Luke

[Pennypacker11]

Originally Posted by MicahB0B

Catholics do not believe that Christ payed the penalty of our sins on the cross.

Not so sure about that.

[Pennypacker11]

I have also never heard of the process of justification. The process of salvation, yes. And this is even more terminology than anything. For protestants, justification=salvation, being made right w/ God. For Catholics, Salvation is being made holy. This means it is justification + sanctification, certainly a process.

[Dr. Doom]

Originally Posted by Luke

Shouldn't this end the entire debate?

Totally. However, how about posting some scripture to show why that is an incorrect view?

[MicahB0B]

Haha, you're going around in circles on this point. The bottom line is that according to the Roman Catholic Church all Protestants (or at least all Calvinists) are damned. Whether the word anathema means that or whether excommunication signifies it--either way it is held to be so.

This is not true, the Catholic Church views Protestants as Christians. As Pennypacker said, excommunicated simply means they are banned from the Church and partaking in Sacraments. Their salvation is still completely up to God, and they are not considered damned.

Justification is a legal term, it's the declaration of not guilty. You can't be partially not guilty or more not guilty...you're guilty or you aren't. Sanctification exists in degrees, justification does not.

This is the Protestant understanding of it, not the Catholic. To Catholics, justification is a process, ending only on judgement day. It is not simply a legal declaration, although it has legal aspects to it, it is a familial adoption.

Not so sure about that.

I am. Read the Catechism, it explains Christ's sacrifice well, and never says anything about him paying a penalty for our sins. You could also read Not by Faith Alone by Robert A. Sungenis, or one of many Catholic books about Christ's sacrifice that should explain it well. Christ's sacrifice was not a payment, it was an appeasement, or a propitiation, bringing the result of reconciliation with God.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Euchre0

Totally. However, how about posting some scripture to show why that is an incorrect view?

He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness. By his wounds you have been healed. (1 Peter 2:24, ESV)

Grace & Peace
Luke

[Luke]

Originally Posted by MicahB0B

This is not true, the Catholic Church views Protestants as Christians. As Pennypacker said, excommunicated simply means they are banned from the Church and partaking in Sacraments. Their salvation is still completely up to God, and they are not considered damned.

When did this change? Don't try to tell me it was always like this, because I know better, but if this is a relatively new thing (last 100 years or so) I might believe you...

Originally Posted by MicahBOB

This is the Protestant understanding of it, not the Catholic. To Catholics, justification is a process, ending only on judgement day. It is not simply a legal declaration, although it has legal aspects to it, it is a familial adoption.

That's all well and good except it's not what the freaking word means.

Grace & Peace
Luke