Define Catholics!

[Robert Pate]

Mary was a sinner just like us.  She said that she trusted in God her savior.

If she was sinless why would she need a savior?

[ann]

God loves Catholics, hates catholicism!

I know people brought up in the catholic church that were not taught holiness and righteousness, they were not taught the Word of God, they were never trained up in ministry to be soldiers in the army of God. All they were taught was religion, a bunch of rules and regulations. They don't even know what relationship with God really is.

There are some who have manage to succeed with the rules and regulations and deepen their relationship with God.  The rules and regulations are not there to hinder or control.  The rules and regulations are there to Help people deepen their relationship with God. 
The Church of England can be accused in the past when it was Law that everyone HAD to attend church.  But now it is up to individual preference whether they attend church.  Attending church services is only a part of having a relationship with God.  Attending Church services is going to God's home to give thanks and praise to God.  Although this can be done anywhere!  I can see that some of you may be confused by this and have more to say.

[Robert Pate]

I met a Catholic priest at a wedding reception some years ago.

I said to him, father please tell me, why is it that the thief on the cross went to be with Christ in paradise having not done any good works or even taking communion? 

He took two steps back from me and acted like I had just kicked him in his shins.  I was hoping for an answer because I had another question about why the woman taken in adultery was forgiven.

He looked past me like he saw someone that knew that he had to go talk to, and left in a hurry. Oh well,  Maybe some good Catholic can answer my questions on this forum

[broach972]

God loves Catholics, hates catholicism!

isn't about bashing catholics, for they are human beings too. Nobody is better than nobody. and we all need the grace of God. But what catholics are into, is not of God. The apostle Paul says in Galatians1:8 that if any preach any other gospel, let them be accursed. False gospels don't sit well with God. I have seen catholics give glory to Mary when the only "ONE" who is worthy of glory is the Lord Jesus Christ. That is idolatry. The first of the 10 commandments is that we have no other god before Him. Only He is God and only He deserves our worship.

J Man, based on this one observation, it is obvious you have no idea what you are talking about when it come to basic Catholicism.  Let me say this one more time...Mary is NOT divine.  She is not a goddess, nor is she part of the Godhead.  She is not a part of the Trinity.  The Catholic Church does not teach this.  Because of her unique relationship with God and her part in the plan of salvation, she is a person who is honored and respected within the faith, as other saints are as well.  Have some Catholics taken this devotion too far, absolutely, and the Church has warned and condemned such devotions.  The Church cannot make this clearer...Jesus is the sole redeemer of man...period!  We are justified by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.  The Church clearly teaches this.  The differences between Catholics and Protestants on this subject center on exactly how do we receive that grace and more importantly, is salvation the same as justification?  Is salvation a one time event that humans go through or an ongoing process.  That is where the differences comes into play.

So, I cannot make the Church's position on Mary any clearer.  She was a human who needed a savior.  (I bet you are scratching your head about now).  The Church teaches she was a human in need of redemption.  The questions is, what was different about her situation as compared to me or you or anyone else.  I will give you a clue...Luke 1:41-45 (start here).  The Marian Doctrines are not for the faint at heart and can be intellectually challenging.

So, you can adhere to your silly and inaccurate notions all you want but I really suggest you get an idea of what true Catholicism is.

[broach972]

I met a Catholic priest at a wedding reception some years ago.

I said to him, father please tell me, why is it that the thief on the cross went to be with Christ in paradise having not done any good works or even taking communion? 

He took two steps back from me and acted like I had just kicked him in his shins.  I was hoping for an answer because I had another question about why the woman taken in adultery was forgiven.

He looked past me like he saw someone that knew that he had to go talk to, and left in a hurry. Oh well,  Maybe some good Catholic can answer my questions on this forum

Yes, I can answer this one.  It is unforunate that the Priest couldn't answer this question (I wasn't there) because it is actually an easy one to answer.  I cannot believe Robert that you posed this one.  You could have actually answered it for yourself.  There are many angles one could take here since we don't know much about the thief to begin with.

The example of the thief on the cross (Luke 23:32–43) is often used to argue that baptism is not necessary. "After all, he didn't have to be baptized," they say.  He certainly wasn't in a position to recieve the Eucharist.  And it certainly wasn't an ideal situation to give an effective confession.

There are several problems with this.  First, he might indeed have been baptized, since the apostles had been administering Christian baptism since the early days of Christ's ministry (John 4:1–2).  Second, his death was before the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ, meaning it was still under the Old Testament economy, where baptism was not required.  Third, this is an exceptional circumstance.

I think that most of us would agree that with God, anything is possible.  It amazes me that Protestants believe that God can walk on water and perform miracles but He cannot transform bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ (that is for another discussion).  The thief on the cross may be an example of what God will do for people who are dying on crosses or kept alone in prison cells or otherwise in situations where they have no ability to receive the ordinary things of the Christian life like baptism.  But the thief does not provide a model for the ordinary course of affairs. If he did, then the fact he was never baptized (assuming he wasn't) would mean that we should never be baptized, either.

But that is clearly false; other scriptural passages state that we should be baptized. If a Protestant is willing to concede that the thief was excused from that rule due to his inability to be baptized, then he must allow the Catholic to say the same thing.  The Catholic Church does recognize the principle of baptism by desire in extraordinary circumstances where one does not have access to the sacraments.

Oh Robert, the ball is now in your court.

[James A. Wyly]

I met a Catholic priest at a wedding reception some years ago.

I said to him, father please tell me, why is it that the thief on the cross went to be with Christ in paradise having not done any good works or even taking communion? 

He took two steps back from me and acted like I had just kicked him in his shins.  I was hoping for an answer because I had another question about why the woman taken in adultery was forgiven.

He looked past me like he saw someone that knew that he had to go talk to, and left in a hurry. Oh well,  Maybe some good Catholic can answer my questions on this forum

Maybe the Priest thought a wedding reception was not an appropriate place to have a noisy, raucous argument about faith vs. works and, when he saw you coming on like gang-busters, retreated in the best way he knew how.  I would suggest that the look on his face and his two steps backwards were shock at the inappropriateness of anyone attempting such a social faux pas.

Happily, the quick thinking and actions of the Priest averted what could have been an unhappy blotch on the reception.

Jim W.

[ann]

I met a Catholic priest at a wedding reception some years ago.

I said to him, father please tell me, why is it that the thief on the cross went to be with Christ in paradise having not done any good works or even taking communion? 

He took two steps back from me and acted like I had just kicked him in his shins.  I was hoping for an answer because I had another question about why the woman taken in adultery was forgiven.

He looked past me like he saw someone that knew that he had to go talk to, and left in a hurry. Oh well,  Maybe some good Catholic can answer my questions on this forum

Maybe the Priest thought a wedding reception was not an appropriate place to have a noisy, raucous argument about faith vs. works and, when he saw you coming on like gang-busters, retreated in the best way he knew how.  I would suggest that the look on his face and his two steps backwards were shock at the inappropriateness of anyone attempting such a social faux pas.

Happily, the quick thinking and actions of the Priest averted what could have been an unhappy blotch on the reception.

Jim W.

I agree

also he may well have thought you were getting at him which he naturally, if intelligent enough (as he was) he would simply walk away from you.  That is what Jesus has taught his disciples to do.  Read LUKE Chapter 9... verse 5  As for those who will not receive you, when you leave and go from their town shake the dust off your feet as a warning to them... If he thought for one split second that you were attacking him, he was politely warning you... It is all there is Luke chapter 9 verse 5.   That line of questioning is normally deemed as attacking.

[ConnieLard]

This is a question for those of you who don't consider Catholics to be Christians:

As someone has pointed out, if you were a Christian before the Reformation, you were Catholic, since that was all there was.  At what historical point did Catholics cease to be Christians?

[broach972]

This is a question for those of you who don't consider Catholics to be Christians:

As someone has pointed out, if you were a Christian before the Reformation, you were Catholic, since that was all there was.  At what historical point did Catholics cease to be Christians?

Nicely put Connie.  I cannot wait to hear the answers for this one.  Were the Church Fathers also not Christian?

[James A. Wyly]

This is a question for those of you who don't consider Catholics to be Christians:

As someone has pointed out, if you were a Christian before the Reformation, you were Catholic, since that was all there was.  At what historical point did Catholics cease to be Christians?

As must be obvious from the tenor of my posts, I certainly consider Catholics to be Christian.

Jim W.

[mistergus]

...The Catholic Church does not teach this.  Because of her unique relationship with God and her part in the plan of salvation, she is a person who is honored and respected within the faith, as other saints are as well.  Have some Catholics taken this devotion too far, absolutely, and the Church has warned and condemned such devotions.  The Church cannot make this clearer...Jesus is the sole redeemer of man...period! 

I'm sorry, but your emotions may be blinding you to the reality of Catholic teachings.  According to Roman Catholic church teaching, Mary is a "co-redeemer" with Christ.

This are facts, not opinions.

A partial quote from the link I posted earlier...




POPE JOHN PAUL II HAS STATED THAT MARY IS CO-REDEEMER, MEDIATOR, ADVOCATE

At least five times Pope Paul II has referred to Mary by the title "Co-redemptrix" in his papal teachings. For example, in 1985, in Guayaquil, Ecuador, the pope said: "Mary goes before us and accompanies us. The silent journey that begins with her Immaculate Conception and passes through the 'yes' of Nazareth, which makes her the Mother of God, finds on Calvary a particularly important moment. ... In fact, at Calvary she united herself with the sacrifice of her Son that led to the foundation of the Church; her maternal heart shared to the very depths the will of Christ 'to gather into one all the dispersed children of God' (Jn. 11:52). Having suffered for the Church, Mary deserved to become the Mother of all the disciples of her Son, the Mother of their unity. ... In fact Mary's role as Coredemptrix did not cease with the glorification of her Son" (Inside the Vatican, July 1997, p. 23).

In his general audience address of April 9, 1997, the pope said: "Mary ... co-operated during the event itself [the crucifixion] and in the role of mother; thus her co-operation embraces the whole of Christ's saving work. SHE ALONE WAS ASSOCIATED IN THIS WAY WITH THE REDEMPTIVE SACRIFICE THAT MERITED THE SALVATION OF ALL MANKIND. IN UNION WITH CHRIST AND IN SUBMISSION TO HIM, SHE COLLABORATED IN OBTAINING THE GRACE OF SALVATION FOR ALL HUMANITY. ... In God's plan, Mary is the 'woman' (cf. Jn 2:4; 19:26), the New Eve, united to the New Adam in restoring humanity to its original dignity. Her cooperation with her Son continues for all time in the universal motherhood which she enjoys in the order of grace. Trusting in this maternal cooperation, LET US TURN TO MARY, IMPLORING HER HELP IN ALL OUR NEEDS" (Vatican Information Service).

In his general audience for July 30, the pope continued his theme of talks on Mary, saying: "As the Mother of all the Lord's disciples (cf. Jn 19:26), MARY OFFERS HER INTERCESSION AND AID TO ALL WHO JOURNEY TOWARDS THE FULLNESS OF THE LORD'S KINGDOM. As the Bride and Temple of the Holy Spirit, she encourages us to imitate her openness to the workings of the Spirit and to live in constant, loving communion with the Blessed Trinity."

Pope John Paul II has exalted Mary even in his most official documents. In his encyclical Redemptoris Mater (Mother of the Redeemer), published March 25, 1987, the pope referred to Mary as "Mediatrix" three times, and as "Advocate" twice. The entire third section is dedicated to the theme of "Maternal Mediation."

There is no question that Pope John Paul II believes that Mary is co-redeemer with Christ, mediator of all grace, and advocate who intercedes for the saints. While it is uncertain whether or not he will make a papal proclamation of this as official dogma (most reports coming out of the Vatican say he will not do this), the fact remains that he accepts and promotes these false doctrines about Mary.

OTHER POPES HAVE SAID THAT MARY IS CO-REDEEMER, MEDIATOR, ADVOCATE

Many popes have exalted Mary as mediator and advocate. Examples are Leo XIII (1878-1903), Pope Pius X (1903-1914), and Pius XII (1939-1958). During a radio message concluding the Jubilee of the Redemption, April 28, 1935, Pius XI (1922-1939) gave the title Co-redemptrix to Mary.




My experience has been that Catholics are more difficult to talk to regarding the Bible than any other "mainstream" group.  They always get emotional and defensive.  I believe it is because they are bound up with ritual rather than knowledge to the point where they have come to emotionally depend on it, rather than actually studying the Bible.

Robert G

[mistergus]

This is a question for those of you who don't consider Catholics to be Christians:

As someone has pointed out, if you were a Christian before the Reformation, you were Catholic, since that was all there was.  At what historical point did Catholics cease to be Christians?

And how do you know that at any point in history, "that was all there was"?

And regarding when did "Catholics cease to be Christians", I don't know.  But one who is sprinkled rather than immersed certainly isn't.  And reducing the role of Jesus Christ to being a "partner" with Mary would certainly not help.

Robert G

[Robert Pate]

broach972

To say that the thief was baptised is really reaching.

According to Catholic doctrine the thief went to hell.  I think that you had a lot of trouble trying to justify why the thief went to paradise with Christ.

He was saved by the goodness of God,  He demonstrated faith, and it was his faith that saved him.  Certainly not works because he didn't have any.

Catholicism is a works religion, but it is very deceptive because it is not really the person that is doing the work, It is the Spirit working in the person that causes them to be Christ like and saved.  

In this doctrine they are not really saved by the work of Christ, but rather by the Spirit.

Romans 4:5 Says, that God justifies the ungodly. Sinners.
Romans 4:6 says, that God imputes righteousness without works.
Galations 3:8 says, that God would justify the heathen through faith.
Romans 3:21 says, We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Catholic doctrine is so contrary to what the bible says, I don't know why anyone would want to be a Catholic.

The gospel is that Christ is the new Adam and representative of the human race.

By his sinless life he fulfilled God's Holy Law. He did this in our name and on our behalf.  He is our righteousness. We don't have any because we are sinners.  We are still in our Adamic bodies.  John said, If we say we have no sin we decieve ourselves.

In his death he embraced our humanity (The old Adam) and put it to death. Paul said, "I have been crucified with Christ nevertheless I live."  

When Christ came out of the grave our new humanity came out with him.
"If any man be in Christ he is a new creation"  In the death of Christ sin. death and Satan have been defeated.  It is not a reality just yet.

When Christ ascended into heaven we ascended with him.  We are now in heaven at the right hand of God in Christ.  "For you are dead and your life is hid with Christ in God."  

By the work of Christ we have been made perfect and complete in him.

[janine]

Yes, fine, Robert, the Holy Spirit didn't die on the Cross for me.  I have addressed that myself, before, when it seemed the one I was speaking with was overboard focused on his desired interactions with what he saw as the Holy Spirit.

But... What purpose is served by getting out the tweezers and magnifying glasses to pick apart the Aspects of God, to declare exactly which does exactly what?

And broach972, you don't get far pontificating (any pun you can get out of that gleefully intended) about what Catholics believe and don't believe, when so many Catholics are out there living and performing exactly what you deny they espouse.

[Robert Pate]

Janine

It is important to have correct doctrine.  If you don't have correct doctrine the bible will not make sense.

Since the gospel is the heart and center of the bible everything must be tried in the light of it, even scripture. Scripture does not interpret scripture, the gospel interprets scripture.  If you don't know the gospel you cannot properly interpret scripture. When it comes to the gospel you should know every aspect of it.  What did Christ really accomplish for us?  When you know that the bible comes to life.

[janine]

The Bible is its own best dictionary, true.

But I fear there will never be a correctness of doctrine that will make you happy.

[Robert Pate]

Janine

Paul spent most of his time trying to keep heresy out of the church.

It's like trying to keep fleas off of a dog.

[Jimbob]

This is a question for those of you who don't consider Catholics to be Christians:

As someone has pointed out, if you were a Christian before the Reformation, you were Catholic, since that was all there was.  At what historical point did Catholics cease to be Christians?

The Orthodox are going to take serious issue the premise of your question.

[janine]

Define "Christian".

[ConnieLard]

This is a question for those of you who don't consider Catholics to be Christians:

As someone has pointed out, if you were a Christian before the Reformation, you were Catholic, since that was all there was.  At what historical point did Catholics cease to be Christians?

The Orthodox are going to take serious issue the premise of your question.

True.  I was oversimplifying to make a point.  The point is that most of the churches those of us on this board are members of didn't exist until the Reformation (or even long after that!).  So, were there no Christians before the Reformation?

[broach972]

And broach972, you don't get far pontificating (any pun you can get out of that gleefully intended) about what Catholics believe and don't believe, when so many Catholics are out there living and performing exactly what you deny they espouse.

Oh my goodness Janine, are you telling me that there are bad Catholics out there?  I am shocked!  I did not know that other denominations were spared this problem.  Wow, what is it like to belong to a denomination where its members toe the doctrinal line at all times?

Oh Janine, you are so right!  How dare I correct those with warped and inaccurate views on Catholicism.  I should just keep my mouth shut.

[broach972]

To say that the thief was baptised is really reaching.

Actually, it was given only as a possibility.  We do not know for sure.

According to Catholic doctrine the thief went to hell.  I think that you had a lot of trouble trying to justify why the thief went to paradise with Christ.

And what doctrine would that be?  Where has the Catholic Church stated that he had gone to hell?  I didn't have any trouble at all making that justification.  I actually presented an argument as to why he did make it into Paradise despite your notion that he had not been baptized or had access to any of the other sacraments.  As a matter of fact, you haven't presented much of a counterargument.  It is interesting that you did not comment on "baptism of desire."

[broach972]

The major stumbling block for most Protestants concerns the Catholic view on justification.  Not only is Catholic dotrine on justification sound, it is also biblical.  I offer the following as a starting point in an effort to correct some serious misconceptions on this point.

Paul tells us: "For [God] will reward every man according to his works: to those who by perseverance in working good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. There will be . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality" (Rom. 2:6–11; cf. Gal. 6:6–10).

In the second century, the technical Latin term for "merit" was introduced as a synonym for the Greek word for "reward." Thus merit and reward are two sides of the same coin.

Protestants often misunderstand the Catholic teaching on merit, thinking that Catholics believe that one must do good works to come to God and be saved. This is exactly the opposite of what the Church teaches. The Council of Trent stressed: "[N]one of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace" (Decree on Justification 8, citing Rom. 11:6).

The Catholic Church teaches only Christ is capable of meriting in the strict sense—mere man cannot (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2007). The most merit humans can have is condign—when, under the impetus of God's grace, they perform acts which please him and which he has promised to reward (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10). Thus God's grace and his promise form the foundation for all human merit (CCC 2008).

Virtually all of this is agreed to by Protestants, who recognize that, under the impetus of God's grace, Christians do perform acts which are pleasing to God and which God has promised to reward, meaning that they fit the definition of merit. When faced with this, Protestants are forced to admit the truth of the Catholic position—although, contrary to Paul's command (2 Tim. 2:14), they may still dispute the terminology.

Thus the Lutheran Book of Concord admits: "We are not putting forward an empty quibble about the term 'reward.' . . . We grant that eternal life is a reward because it is something that is owed—not because of our merits [in the strict sense] but because of the promise [of God]. We have shown above that justification is strictly a gift of God; it is a thing promised. To this gift the promise of eternal life has been added" (p. 162).

Oh my, will you look at that, I am actually citing Bible verses to support Catholic doctrine.  Tackle that Ladies and Gentlemen.

[saved]

Not only is Catholic dotrine on justification sound, it is also biblical.

broach972,

i am sure you are familiar with the catechism of the catholic church.

and from the catechism we find that the catholic teaching on justification is far different than the bible's.

from the catechism:

1260
"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.


from the bible:

Jhn 14:6  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

catholic church teaches salvation outside of christ.

the bible teaches salvation unto christ.

big difference!

[trifecta_3]

This is a question for those of you who don't consider Catholics to be Christians:

As someone has pointed out, if you were a Christian before the Reformation, you were Catholic, since that was all there was.  At what historical point did Catholics cease to be Christians?

The Orthodox are going to take serious issue the premise of your question.

Thanks, jmg!  (and Connie for the self-correction).

They don't call it the GREAT schism for nothing. 

Sometimes Orthodox say: "Orthodoxy.  The best kept secret of Christianity."


trifecta
(see below for my theological tendencies)

[broach972]

Not only is Catholic dotrine on justification sound, it is also biblical.

broach972,

i am sure you are familiar with the catechism of the catholic church.

and from the catechism we find that the catholic teaching on justification is far different than the bible's.

from the catechism:

1260
"Since Christ died for all, and since all men are in fact called to one and the same destiny, which is divine, we must hold that the Holy Spirit offers to all the possibility of being made partakers, in a way known to God, of the Paschal mystery."63 Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.


from the bible:

Jhn 14:6  Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

catholic church teaches salvation outside of christ.

the bible teaches salvation unto christ.

big difference!

Saved, I think you may be providing an oversimplificiation here.  You seem to gloss over the significance of "ignorance."  Are you telling me that a person who is completely isolated from civilization and does not have access to general knowledge of Jesus is automcatically condemned through no fault of his own?  The Church makes it very clear that a person with knowlege of the Truth and chooses to reject it does put his soul in jeopardy.  I think another problem is the role of the sacraments within the faith, such as baptism, which is necessary for salvation.  From a Catholic viewpoint, the above qoute from the Catechism also addresses this problem.  There is much more to that teaching that you may realize.

Besides, you also ignore the other words "can be."  In other words, God makes that final determination.  Wouldn't you agree?  Humans do not decide who goes to heaven or to hell....God does.

[broach972]

There is something that is puzzling me.  There isn't that much difference between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, both are certainly sacramental in a nature and adhere to many of the original doctrines (pre-Reformation).  Why is it that Catholics are always demonized while Orthodox Christians recieve a "pass" from fundamentalists?

[charlie]

There is something that is puzzling me.  There isn't that much difference between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, both are certainly sacramental in a nature and adhere to many of the original doctrines (pre-Reformation).  Why is it that Catholics are always demonized while Orthodox Christians recieve a "pass" from fundamentalists?

Orthodox Christians often get both barrels from Catholics. It just doesn't happen much here in the Bible Belt and its American suburbs. Geographically, if the church were institutionally one, we would either be under Rome or under some New World patriarchate. As it is, you've got Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Other.

Hey! Anyone wanna have a go at the Nestorians?

[charlie]

FWIW, discussions like these awaken the rebel in me and make me wish I were Catholic.

Honestly, if the local parish nearest me had a really good (i.e. as good as a community church) children's program for my little kitten, I'd do everything I could to go home to Mother.

[Machaira]

The major stumbling block for most Protestants concerns the Catholic view on justification.  Not only is Catholic dotrine on justification sound, it is also biblical.  I offer the following as a starting point in an effort to correct some serious misconceptions on this point.

Paul tells us: "For [God] will reward every man according to his works: to those who by perseverance in working good seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. There will be . . . glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality" (Rom. 2:6–11; cf. Gal. 6:6–10).

In the second century, the technical Latin term for "merit" was introduced as a synonym for the Greek word for "reward." Thus merit and reward are two sides of the same coin.

Protestants often misunderstand the Catholic teaching on merit, thinking that Catholics believe that one must do good works to come to God and be saved. This is exactly the opposite of what the Church teaches. The Council of Trent stressed: "[N]one of those things which precede justification, whether faith or works, merit the grace of justification; for if it is by grace, it is not now by works; otherwise, as the Apostle [Paul] says, grace is no more grace" (Decree on Justification 8, citing Rom. 11:6).

The Catholic Church teaches only Christ is capable of meriting in the strict sense—mere man cannot (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2007). The most merit humans can have is condign—when, under the impetus of God's grace, they perform acts which please him and which he has promised to reward (Rom. 2:6–11, Gal. 6:6–10). Thus God's grace and his promise form the foundation for all human merit (CCC 2008).

Virtually all of this is agreed to by Protestants, who recognize that, under the impetus of God's grace, Christians do perform acts which are pleasing to God and which God has promised to reward, meaning that they fit the definition of merit. When faced with this, Protestants are forced to admit the truth of the Catholic position—although, contrary to Paul's command (2 Tim. 2:14), they may still dispute the terminology.

Thus the Lutheran Book of Concord admits: "We are not putting forward an empty quibble about the term 'reward.' . . . We grant that eternal life is a reward because it is something that is owed—not because of our merits [in the strict sense] but because of the promise [of God]. We have shown above that justification is strictly a gift of God; it is a thing promised. To this gift the promise of eternal life has been added" (p. 162).

Oh my, will you look at that, I am actually citing Bible verses to support Catholic doctrine.  Tackle that Ladies and Gentlemen.

Your Scripture quotes pertain to sanctification, not justification. This is a distinction which Rome fails to make and in doing so, sets up Biblical contradictions between those passages that speak of "reward" for faithfulness, post justification, and those that speak of justification by faith apart from works.

Likewise, your quotation of Trent pertains to God's initial act of justifcation, whereas the following quote demonstrates what Rome believes happens after one is justified:

TRENT - SESSION 6, CANON XXXII.-If any one 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 said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

It's easy to see that what Rome gives with one hand it takes away with the other. This is a clear contradiction in Catholic theology. Like I said before in anther post, Roman Catholic theology teaches that through justication one one is infused with righteousness leading to good works that merit eternal life. Session 6, canon 32, which I quoted above, says this explicitly.

[ConnieLard]

This is a question for those of you who don't consider Catholics to be Christians:

As someone has pointed out, if you were a Christian before the Reformation, you were Catholic, since that was all there was.  At what historical point did Catholics cease to be Christians?

The Orthodox are going to take serious issue the premise of your question.

True.  I was oversimplifying to make a point.  The point is that most of the churches those of us on this board are members of didn't exist until the Reformation (or even long after that!).  So, were there no Christians before the Reformation?

Still waiting for an answer.

[Jimbob]

From whom?  If you mean me, my beef is with the renegade bishop claiming an authority God never gave him, not the people in the pews.

[don has a plan]

I'm very happy to call Roman Catholics my friends and brethren (and sistren) in Christ. 

[Less-of-Me]

This is a question for those of you who don't consider Catholics to be Christians:

As someone has pointed out, if you were a Christian before the Reformation, you were Catholic, since that was all there was.  At what historical point did Catholics cease to be Christians?

The Orthodox are going to take serious issue the premise of your question.

True.  I was oversimplifying to make a point.  The point is that most of the churches those of us on this board are members of didn't exist until the Reformation (or even long after that!).  So, were there no Christians before the Reformation?

Still waiting for an answer.

I too would appreciate an answer to that one.....

[Less-of-Me]

I'm very happy to call Roman Catholics my friends and brethren (and sistren) in Christ. 

Too bad most of 'em wouldn't say the same of you or me.  :oS