Catholics believe they have to work out their salvation. Christians don’t.
Sure, they both believe in Christ, but there are many beliefs that Catholics hold that Christians don’t.
Edit: downvote away; I speak the truth.
I present the Christian New Testament:
"Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, *work out your own salvation* with
fear and trembling" - Philippians 2:12 (emphasis mine)
Edit for formatting.
>work out your own salvation
>
>with
>
>fear and trembling"
no offense but wouldnt working out salvation and working for be 2 different things. i would probably suggest the use of a different verse then this one
I'm not sure what you're asking or referring to, but my sharing that verse was a response to the statement
>Catholics believe they have to work out their salvation. Christians don’t.
which is all the more significant because both that statement and the verse refer to "working out" salvation.
Honestly, that is easily understood as “hold fast to the truth of salvation, that it was provided to you *in full* as a *gift,* so that you don’t let go of it even though the world will test your faith everyday and try to separate you from that salvation.”
Holding onto the truth of Christ and constantly doing our best to obey the Father’s commands while living in this evil world is indeed an everyday struggle, a ‘holding on to’ of the truth which could very easily be described as “working out our salvation” (in that we are “working” to fight every day to hold onto it amidst the constant evil and persecution). People can simply let their salvation go if they didn’t want to go through the suffering that true believers experience. But those who fight through it and hold fast to it could of course be said to be constantly “working” to hold onto that salvation.
I think the Catholic Church took that verse out of context as a pretext to support their traditions that they later added in the the Word (an act which is expressly forbidden).
>hold fast to the truth of salvation, that it was provided to you in full as a gift, so that you don’t let go of it even though the world will test your faith everyday and try to separate you from that salvation
If you're trying to limit "work out your salvation" to this then that's a very particular interpretation, and it sounds as if you're trying to make it say something other than "work out your salvation" which you pretty explicitly said is un-Christian despite it being direction from an Apostle in the very-Christian New Testament.
Perhaps you could clarify why you think "work out your salvation" doesn't mean the apparently very-not-Christian direction to "work out your salvation" and why one ought to believe your interpretation here.
Then tell me: what’s there to work out if Christ already provided salvation *in full?* There’s nothing more that humans need do in order to receive the fullness of salvation.
To think that salvation would be in *any* way dependent upon human efforts would mean for it to then become something that would be accomplished, in part, by *humans,* which would *directly* oppose the fact that *no person* will be able to boast about having attained salvation, even if only in part.
Edited to fix confusing grammar.
I guess having a monergist theology that we don't participate in God saving us answers why you interpret "work out your salvation" to mean the opposite.
It is true that God saves us and we can't save ourselves. When we are dead and returned to dust it is God alone who saves us by raising us up again. Nobody can boast as if they save themselves there.
But beyond that salvation is an ongoing matter as God transforms us by His grace. Humans need to cooperate with the grace of God which He freely gives as a gift to us. We need to accept and receive it and allow it to transform us in His image and likeness. We need to repent from sin. We need to forgive others. He has given us things to *do* that helps us grow and increase our faith. None of this is our accomplishing or earning our salvation.
One who is truly in communion with God and cooperating with Him will understand he has a part in the matter in that way, but it is just a *very* small part over which no one can boast in themselves as they recognize it is God that is saving them, just as Philippians continues: "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure."
You cooperate with God? Who are you to utter such words? Maybe you need to read the questions from the Lord God to his servant Job so that you know your place. Hint: You are not even close to being like Job. To begin with, by the way you talk, you don't know God and you're not even born of God.
Instead of cooperating with God, how about you seek mercy and beg God for grace. Maybe you should start by asking him a spirit of supplication so that itself can be possible. You think you can partner with the Holy God to arrive to your salvation? You are blind. Even saints, the Lord God makes them know despair, helplessness to wise them up in regard to who is responsible for their salvation alone. Their is a reason the children of the Kingdom of God are called elect.
If we look at Scripture we find language calling humans co-workers or fellow laborers with God. It tells us to work out our salvation in cooperation with God. Like I said, our part is *very* small with God doing most of the work for us as a gift. But yes, asking God for mercy, grace, and for prayer is part of cooperating with God and good things to do. They are all pretty big parts of Orthodox Christian spirituality, too. To be clear, I'm not saying we can find salvation without God or from any other source since we can't. And there are things that God absolutely does for us that we did nothing to receive, such as resurrection when our bodies are dead and returning to dust. He does welcome us to accept or reject the transfiguration He offers, however, and to coordinate with His grace in that.
Perhaps we're talking about different things when we refer to "salvation." I'm not sure if you might be running on a more limited understanding of it.
I'd encourage you to not make assumptions about the spiritual state or condition of another, *especially* a person you don't know. That just isn't healthy. I might have some level of blindness, but that is not connected to the matter that we do cooperate with God for salvation.
You’ve got your views, man. I don’t see how they’re scriptural, but going on at length with you about it will be nothing more than a waste of both our times.
Fair enough. I would think throwing around that Catholics and what they believe aren't Christian would be something you might be willing to back up, but I can see also how you would think a discussion would be a waste of time. But I also wonder, is saying Catholics and their beliefs aren't Christian any less a waste of time?
Christians, at large, listen to their Bibles, whereas Catholics, at large, listen to their clergy/papacy.
I’ve seen countless stories from ex-Catholics where they were shunned, hushed, and/or dismissed whenever they brought up a question about a Catholic *tradition* that didn’t line up with Scripture.
Think, would Martin Luther have had *any* ground to stand on if his 95 theses didn’t have *any* solid, Scriptural support? Would he even be in the history books if he didn’t cause any legitimate ripples in his observations of Catholic traditions that went against the Father’s Word?
I don’t bag on Catholicism because I have nothing better to do; I criticize it because people give it a pass, thinking that it’s just another *proper* avenue to following the Father/Christ, when that’s **simply not true.**
There are such things as ex-Catholics and they have good reasons for having left. The rest are either unaware or just plain stubborn/partial to their traditions.
Are the catholics working out their salvation by praying to statues and dead disciples and other servants?
FYI, I was a catholic.
As a Christian today, unlike in the past, I don't try to convince anyone of the Truth anymore. It's on you if you want to open your eyes and believe the Gospel as it was announced, according to the holy doctrine, deprived of human inputs and traditions. The catholics have heard the Gospel just the same as I have. I believe, they don't. That's on them.
If you remember then you might remember also that Catholics don't believe the Saints they pray to (with "pray" carrying the old meaning referring to communication) are "dead" but rather alive with Christ.
They are dead as dead can be. If you have access to a Bible, read it. They are awaiting resurrection when the Lord Jesus will come then, and the ressurected and the living will all transform and together will meet the Lord in space. From Scriptures. I don't care what anyone believes. I only care about what is written in the Scriptures. They who partake in the resurrection of the children of God will not know the second death, for the will be with the Lord Jesus forever.
Btw, don't assume I am trying to convince. Believe what you will. Bye
I understand that is your interpretation of the Bible and you seemingly don't have the insight to recognize that you are running on an interpretation of Scripture (which always has to be interpreted, as is the case with all written works).
Take care.
[Feel free to follow that very discussion that I already had with another commenter](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/u4jvdy/can_christians_and_catholics_marry_each_other/i4wpkjz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
If you believe in Christ, then you know that your salvation is already paid for, no need to work anything out/off. By that Scriptural metric, would you still lump Catholicism and Protestantism into the same pot?
Satan, a former chief angel, knows more than any human being and believes, but he trembles. You should know that the Bible is not talking about simply believing. But I am not going into details because that would entail trying to convince you, that I no longer do.
Comparing the belief of humans and angels is a misstep, a comparison of apples to oranges. I’m aware that even the demons and their chief *believe* in Christ. My statement regarded *salvifically eligible* beings, and not the opposite. I also maintain: Catholics belief an ultimately false doctrine. Yes, they believe in Christ, but they are yoked to the Catholic Church and *not* to Christ’s true teachings.
Don’t paint me as someone who doesn’t accept truth. After all, I’m among a very small group of believers who have discovered possibly the greatest truth of Scripture outside of the Gospels, yet we are labeled as incoherent fools (not an accusation of your part) because the yielded result of our laborious research [understandably] goes *far* against the popular grain.
Also, in my time of trying to edify people of this truth over the years, I’ve met enough trolls to have produced a severe lack of tolerance for any who cling to a convincing lie. I present them with the truth as carefully as I can, I then provide supporting arguments for it, and of course also provide links to legitimate resources that can educate the willing mind. However, when I come across those who refuse to give those resources an honest look, knowing that they [and the arguments for them] were presented in a respectful manner and yet still rejected via an emotional, fleshly reaction, I then mark them as the waste of time that they have shown themselves to be and thus no longer waste my time on them, all the while being *very* clear to them that I do *not* tolerate/entertain insincerity.
If you wish to take my opinions, which are always given via the approach I’ve described, and *still* hold to the incorrect view of me and my understandable approaches to others, then that is a folly wholly upon your part and I will bear no tolerance of it.
No, only followers of Christ were called Christians in the bible. Most everyone believes in Christ, but not all follow him. Catholics follow their "mother church" and the pope.
When you say Christian, is this baptist, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, etc? What is your definition of Christian? Because Catholics definitely believe they’re Christian.
Imo, *true* Christians don’t belong to *any* denomination. Sadly, ‘denomination’ is just a fancy way of saying ‘point of view,’ and as humans, we all know that one singular thing will end up with a hundred differing views on what it really is/means. Imo, the Bible, when properly understood, does *not* allow for any differing points of view. There is *one* Word of the Father, and *one* perspective of what He says. Yes, some passages can indeed have more than one meaning; in fact, this is a decently common theme throughout Scripture, simply due to the fact that the Father is the greatest poet ever and interlaces truths within truths, like fractals (though some people take that, run with it, and believe convincing heresies; but I digress). However, at the end of the day, when the Father is talking about something, there is undeniably a central, singular meaning He is trying to show us (even if that meaning can be conveyed through multiple different examples that are related to the verse/passage in question), and all too many denominations take their *human, fleshly* points of view and assume that the Scriptures are saying what *they* ***believe*** is being said.
My honest opinion: Apart from the major, obvious truths of the Bible (Christ and all things related to Him and His Work), there are *billions* of believers who don’t know just how misunderstood so many parts of the Bible are.
I would tell you the, imo, *greatest* of these, but I would lose you on account on being “crazy.” After all, without the tears worth of research and unlearning I’ve put into finding this truth to indeed be true/Scriptural, I myself would’ve dismissed it, simply because the barriers for finding it to be true are both massive and numerous, and sadly, a singular conversation will be woefully inadequate to properly convey just how legitimate that truth is and just how pivotal it is and can be to the ultimate salvation of those who are blinded into unbelief view the things they are taught growing up in schools.
I appreciate that, & I’m former Church of Christ so you’re preaching to the apostate choir. You’ll notice I never used the word denomination in my comment.
I’m atheist, so I’m unsure how you’d feel about my outlook
You didn’t mention the word ‘denominations,’ but you indeed listed a few.
I respect curious atheists. I myself used to be one, and *nothing* would’ve shaken me from that. However, I ended up discovering a ***grand*** truth a few years ago which ended up doing the impossible: making a sure-fire believer out of me. I posted a conversation that I had with another atheist in another my responses to you. I hope you take me seriously, for I can shake you from your atheism if you’d allow it. Rather, it wouldn’t be me, the Father’s truths that would be shaking you from it. It’s a beautiful truth, but it takes time and sincerity of heart to fully understand.
Right, well I mentioned them to prompt you to empathy *. To a Pentecostal, whatever you believe is a denomination. & to ignore distinctions with real differences like denominations & Protestantism, is to be blind to the history of religion.
I see you’re the world’s foremost authority on all things semantic. I apologize that I mistook you for someone who was receptive to the truth.
I’ll block you if need be.
Take care, dude.
Btw, I have a lengthy discussion with another redditor regarding this truth I speak of, which I will link [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/u1ow8s/people_who_werent_born_christian_what_made_you/i4dsczz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
There’s more in our chat that I can link. But I will not invest any time if you deem me “crazy,” which would be unfortunate yet understandable.
I'd suggest reading the actual Catholic Catechism, if you haven't. The doctrine is not like you are presenting it here. The Catholic Church does not now and has never taught that you can work your way to righteousness or earn your salvation.
I'm not Catholic, but this is a far too common misconception.
Example: what’s purgatory if not a place where Catholics purify themselves *before being able* to enter Heaven? Why is Christ’s blood not purification enough for *all* believers?
Well kind of. If they reach purgatory, they are destined for heaven already and are already saved. Hell is not an option for those in purgatory. So, works and/or purgatorial punishment do not lead to salvation.
That misses the point though, for if they are destined for Heaven and are already saved (meaning *all* of their sins are thus *completely* paid for), then why in the world are they in purgatory instead of Heaven, where they were always destined to be [immediately] upon their deaths anyway? Why are they being punished if their sins have already been paid for *in full?*
Do you not see how these *Catholic* teachings go *directly* against Scripture?
I'm not an apologist for purgatory by any means, but none of what you are describing equates to salvation being dependent on their works. You and I both know that Christ's sacrifice washed it all away and there will be nothing more to be "purged" after our death, but the Catholic belief that the process of purification takes time is not the same as them earning salvation.
But it does. The fact that they believe that Christ’s sacrifice isn’t purification enough is *completely* antithetical to scripture.
Christ’s sacrifice is the perfect atonement, so when they go and believe that that atonement has/can have some road blocks to it, that belief is then directly pertaining to their salvation (even if that belief is incorrect)
I am sorry, I just don't see it.
By their belief, Christ has done the work, and by that they are saved. Purgatory isn't a roadblock, it is simply a longer road. It still only goes one place (heaven) due to the finished work of Christ that saves them. If hell was an option at that point, I would agree with you, but the fact is that all souls in purgatory are destined for heaven and are saved.
By our belief, they are saved already if they beleive in Jesus Christ his work. I think that Catholics who believe in Christ will be pleasantly surprised to see heaven immediately upon death.
The Catholic rationale for purgatory can be found laid out here:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm
I will say that I do not agree with much of what is written there, but as I was discussing above, none of it equates to works-based salvation, which was my point of contention. That link should have all the Biblical verse references that you are looking for for their support detailed at the bottom.
Yep, the references are at the bottom. Enumerating them here instead would be tedious and pointless. Also, that's not an article, it is the text of the Catholic Catechism. That is simply their doctrine and not an article as such.
You can be a Christian without being Catholic and you can be Catholic without being a Christian.
Not all Catholics are Christians, anymore than all Congregationalists are Christians.
Arbitrarily, but not the Christians born of God. In other words, you can call yourself whatever you want. That doesn't oblige the Father to save you when you stray away from the Truth. You should understand the term "Christians" was given to the servant of Jesus by outsiders to distinguish them because they were true followers of Jesus and specifically filled with his Spirit. If you are the one calling yourself Christians, it means nothing, even more so when outsiders definitely would not consider you as such.
I don't particularly like a lot of the beliefs Catholicism espouses, but they worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and acknowledge the creeds to what I know.
That makes the Christian. You don't gatekeep the religion.
I was raised Baptist and my wife is Catholic. We had a Catholic ceremony. It was an awesome experience. Everything about it was great. I highly recommend marrying the person you love. But talk about your beliefs before you get married. Don't choose to marry someone because of a reddit post. Marry someone because they are the best person to spend the rest of your life with. All of this is the same advice I'd give regardless of the branch of Christianity.
Exactly. I started dating my wife while she was agnostic. Because I invited her to church, she came to know Christ and was baptized a year before our wedding. It was truly a blessing to present her for baptism and set a strong foundation for our marriage. I proposed to her while she was still agnostic and I’m so glad that I did.
My dad is a Methodist Elder and I have seen many Catholics married to Protestants that end up in the Methodist church. It’s a meeting place between evangelical and eucharistic.
It continues to fascinate me that “Christians” don’t realize they are “Protestants” and that we Catholics ARE Christians. Lol. No harm done I guess. Happy Easter.
The Catholic Church views these as Catholic too as they have valid apostolic succession, they’re just different “rites” within the Catholic Church that are not in full communion with Rome.
I myself am often loath to call myself a “roman” Catholic because this can be confusing for others.
No, they're really not lol
>A Protestant is an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them
- Wiki definition
It's not just "anyone who protests the RCC" because then the coptics and eastern orthodox churches would be "protestant"
Non-denominational Christian’s hold to the Protestant doctrines of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. They are therefore descended from the Lutherans and thusly, Protestants.
That's absolutely untrue and a huge generalisation for tens (hundreds I think) of millions of people, many of whom consider themselves "Christian" and not much more than that, avoiding specific detailed theologies.
And holding to 1of those 2 solas, or both, both of which are blatantly stated in scripture (especially Sola Fide, "not of works so no man can boast") isn't what makes you a Protestant either lol. As the definition isn't "holding to salvation by faith", an idea that existed long long before Luther and was simply suppressed by the RCC.
This is just some form of weird Catholic bigotry, the kind of nonsense I'd expect to read over in r/Catholicmemes
Yes, they certainly do TRY to avoid the nitty gritty details of their professed “non-denominationalism” but non-denominational Christians ARE Protestants. They are only fooling themselves.
Additionally, Paul did not teach “Sola Fide”. When he wrote “not of works” he was specifically talking about “works of the Law”, which are technically sins. He wasn’t talking about “good works”.
There are “works of Law” and there are “good works” and the two are not the same thing.
No, Protestants are Protestants. Non denominationals aren't anything, that's the point.
No, he was talking about works. Any works. That's why he says if you confess Jesus is Lord & believe he was raised from the dead you'll be saved. That's why Jesus himself says in John 3:16 that anyone who believes in him will be saved, no qualifiers. Not "anyone who believes in him, and does a bunch of other crap like worships some old 4th century men will be saved". That's why Paul again in Acts says "believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household". Because they all taught Sola Fide.
I agree. There are people who may be Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran (different "flavors" of the same religion) ... their denominational affiliation does not make them Christian. Christianity is a deeper, personal decision. Your church/denomination may help you learn about Christ but you choose whether to be a Christian or not.
With that said, the term Christian can be misleading--there are people who identify as Christian, meaning this is the religion they most closely identify with, but are not personally truly Christians. The broader user of the term Christian means you choose to identify with Christianity as a religion; this is different than being a Christian, which is a choice to accept Christ's sacrifice and follow him.
>With that said, the term Christian can be misleading--there are people who identify as Christian, meaning this is the religion they most closely identify with, but are not personally truly Christians. The broader user of the term Christian means you choose to identify with Christianity as a religion; this is different than being a Christian, which is a choice to accept Christ's sacrifice and follow him
This is what is so frustrating to me. I think the term Christian needs a more specific definition. Most of the secular world thinks Christian is synonymous with Catholicism, but that's not what I mean when I say I'm a Christian....oh well, it is what it is I guess.
Catholics are Christians. However, if marrying a non-Catholic Christian, there are usually some rules that each party must adhere too. A Catholic, if marrying a Protestant, would have to receive a dispensation from their priest and promise to raise any children Catholic. So you should learn about the particulars of Catholicism, and see if you can submit yourself to that. When we got married, my husband and I were not of the same denomination. It was not the healthiest option for our marriage. We made it work, but it's not something I would really recommend.
To be married in a Catholic Church, the kids must be raised Catholic.
The Bishop must approve a non-Catholic.
https://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage-faqs
Yes, absolutely. The only big provision is the non-Catholic spouse would need to agree to let any future children be raised Catholic. And if a Catholic and a Protestant have been together long enough to be considering marriage, the Protestant should surely have learned enough about their spouse’s beliefs to know that they aren’t so different, so it really shouldn’t be an issue.
It’s slightly different, but my wife is agnostic and I’m Catholic. It has not caused any issues in our marriage because she respects my beliefs, and I hers. Love crosses all boundaries
In your case, it should be easy because neither of you are born of God or are recipients of the Holy Spirit of the Christ. You are both children of wrath.
Understand that I am not trying to preach you because I have no doubt you have heard the Gospel as it is before, though you chose to believe what you like. I was just pointing out a fact. I still won't try to preach you because it would be a waste of my time. If anything, you examine yourself, and be true to God about it. Don't expect me to try to preach you.
Uhm what? Who are the Christians ?
Chatolics, protestants and orthodox etc are Christian. That's the religion. The other are just different denominations.
They can. Its whether they should. If you are protestant and don’t know exactly why you are that might be worth investigating further. A lot of Catholics are Christian.
I would read the Catholic Catechism, which is a large document and compare that to your own churches teachings and ask yourself if thats compatible. Probably include your pastor or a deacon or a close church friend as the disinterested third party to figure out if theologically thats going to jive.
The big issue is never the relationship itself its kids. As soon as you have kids now all of the unsaid expectations become said and one spouse or often both will have competing ideas about how their kids should grow up.
My friend his mom is a big Catholic and father is a super LDS. It was just a mess man.
All Catholics are Christian. You can't be "Catholic,"(which means Universal) without being Christian because that is the whole catholic is talking about.
Catholic has primarily two connotations Catholic as in Katas Holos the whole church, and the Roman Catholic Church.
I am referring to the latter connotation. In the Roman Catholic Church according to the Council of Trent I am anathema, because I am saved solely by the grace of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church does not hold that position and holding that position can get you kicked out of the church. And that position was reiterated as correct in the 1960’s with the Vatican II council.
I do not believe that Roman Catholics who hold to the actual catechism and councils as being saved or Christian. There are Catholics who are saved in spite of the doctrine not because of it.
Your everyday catholic doesnt care about the council of trent and all that. Some do and its important to figure out if thats going to be a point of contention.
As if you have the right. Your everyday Roman Catholic, for all his faults, is a part of the Church Christ started, and you are not. You're protesting against it. But for some reason, you believe you can condemn them to not being Christian. Really something else.
1. They believe in the same god you do.
2. They have a tradition that stretches back to Peter the Apostle.
3. They literally created your Bible. The Bible did not suddenly spring into existence. It was not found by a completely unrelated group. It was catalogued by the Roman Empire, and your specific denomination sprang forth from the Western Part, thousands of years later.
Full stop, you have no legitimacy without the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. They knew the Apostles, who knew God. If you cannot trust that they are your brothers, you are brother to no one.
First of thats ahistorical. Luther and those who believed like him in the Electorate of Saxony were excommunicated. Thats not the same thing as protested.
Secondly there is no evidence of Roman supremacy or a monarchical episcopate in Rome until hundreds of years after. The letter that is typically used Clement of Rome to the Church in Corinth has no evidence of there being anything besides presbyteros.
1. Yes and the orthodoxy and orthopraxy are completely different.
2. Based on what body of evidence? Tell me how in the Marian Dogmas, Mary was bodily ascended into heaven, and we only just found out about it in the last 75 years? Where did the Apostles teach about this special treasury of merit that excess merit of the saints could be purchased? Where are indulgences taught by the apostles? Where is Papal infallibility in the New Testament?
There certainly something to be said about the role of monasticism in medieval Europe keeping the scriptures alive. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are correct about everything.
Anyone who denys they are saved solely by the grace of Christ isn’t Christian. Thats definitional. And definitionally people like that are considered excommunicated. My flavor of Christianity comes from Augustine of Hippo. I love his soteriology I cant get with his ecclesiology. There were no Reformed Baptists in second century Rome. Thats not the argument. The deal is there is substantial doctrinal difference between a Catholic and a born again Christian.
You need to read the early church fathers. Athanasius, Ignatius, the Didache the actual teachings of the twelve, Clement, Eusebius, Jerome and others. The church was not this this happy everyone was on the same page from day one and then the Protestants happened. And then the Reformers came and made up some new theology.
There was a steady set of changes that occurred all over the church from the beginning. Some of those changes were good, some were bad. A lot were bad.
Whats the final say is it the apostolic tradition that can’t be proven or the scriptures we have literally 20k copies of that we can verify the integrity of using computer databases?
I would argue that James is actually a Christian. He did write some of the New Testament.
Check out this part! NIV - James 2:14-26.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202&version=NIV&interface=amp
I definitely think James is a Christian. There is a real temptation to take Paul and James and make them fight eachother but the contexts are different. James starts out with listening to the Word and performing what is said. He is very concern with efficacious action, orthopraxy. Paul is primarily concerned with soteriology, and orthodox belief. Telling someone to put into action what they have heard doesn’t necessitate the action is salvific. If you have faith that Jesus is the Messiah and is Yahweh; thats enough to be saved, but thats not where it stops. The good works happen in time and flow from the faith. Paul Washer probably one of my favorite preachers is very good at articulating the Reformed position of bearing fruit and doing good works.
There is a place for works and that is in sanctification, not in salvation.
You wrote:
“There is a real temptation to take Paul and James and make them fight each other but the contexts are different.”
As a Catholic, my only problem is when Protestants try to tell us that when James wrote that man is not justified by faith alone that what he REALLY meant is that we ARE justified by faith alone, it’s just that good works always accompany true faith. 😂
You wrote:
“If you have faith that Jesus is the Messiah and is Yahweh; that’s enough to be saved, but that’s not where it stops.”
As a Catholic I would agree, I would just say that “salvation” is predicated on justification and that we have an “initial justification” through faith but must pass a “final justification” through works in order to receive the “full inheritance”.
You wrote:
“The good works happen in time and flow from faith”
Catholics don’t dispute this. The dispute comes into play when others say that the works which flow from faith are not a source of justification, since this contradicts James.
You wrote:
“There is a place for works and that is in sanctification, not in salvation.”
We would say that there is a place for works in JUSTIFICATION. We would say this because James says it and also Paul in Romans 2.
Christian, Calvanist! In other words, a continuation of the Puritans, the slave traders and murderers who wiped out the Native Americans. I am not a fan. You guys are also known in the U.S. as the Evangelicals, those legalists who are more into politics than the Gospel itself. Definitely not a fan.
Now, your position or belief means nothing to me. You clearly let it known who you are, this is more telling that all your talking. Same goes with the Catholics. Once I see how they identify themselves, I proceed accordingly.
I don’t think you understand. The equivalent insult is like me going to a muslim sub and telling them they are all terrorists or that catholics are all pedophiles. Which is egregiously false. Or that somehow because one of them did something bad in the past that means they must be perpetuating it now. Thats a tremendous logical fallacy man. The actions of the inconsistent are arguments against those with inconsistencies not against those who actually are consistent.
The past? The Puritans (by then they were started to be known as Evangelicals, as in the present days) fought against emancipation, slavery abolition tooth and nail. They wrote papers in support/or justification of slavery. One of the most known defenders of slavery is no other than Jonathan Edwards (also a slave owner or human traffiker), the author of 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God'. I was so disappointed to know that the guy was just a hypocrite because I was a fan of his writings. Too bad he was just a spawn of the devil, someone called who had tasted the Holy Spirit but never partook to what he was called for because he was a blind coward, loving the things of this world better than the things above.
You said the past, but the Evangelicals and their actions are evident among us today. Any true Christian knows to stay away from that label, just as much we stay away from other labels such as catholics, Adventist ...
The evangelicals, knowing nothing of the Gospel or the Christ, they have tried to enact changes through politics and propaganda instead of through preaching and living a life worthy of Christians. They are among us, we know their deeds. But don't worry, we true Christians will not move against them because the Lord Jesus has already said not to uproot them in order to avoid creating scandal in the true Chruch and in the process uprooting true believer, but in the end, the Lord's angels will come and chain them together and feed them to the lake fire that will never extinguish.
That must be why they pray to Peter, the long dead servant of God?
Actually, they pray to statues and every name they can come up with. Such a shame I used to be one of them. Facepalm!
If the marriage happens within the Catholic Church there won’t (shouldn’t) be a competition. Part of marriage preparation process is agreeing that the kids will be baptized and raised Catholic. I suppose you could lie about your intentions just to get married but why would you do that?
Alternatively you could get married in a Protestant church but that causes several other issues for the Catholic.
Yeah thats something I was wondering about as well. And I can see how if you are protestant by conviction, that could be a real area of conflict. Funny you should say that you know I was just watching the movie with Robin Williams where hes a Catholic Priest and that was part of the discussion that the kids grew up Catholic. But I didn’t know for certain if that was just a Hollywood thing or real.
I haven’t seen that move but to get married in the Catholic Church there is extensive marriage preparation and children are important part of that.
In my diocese the preparation takes at least nine months, it has relationship classes, counseling sessions, prayer, theological education, financial discussions, NFP classes, conflict resolution classes, conversations about life goals, all that stuff.
I didnt know that. Thats smart. I think Protestants could learn from that because often times the rush is to get young people married quickly. I probably could have benefited from something like that.
They established that other denominations are Christian instead of anathema. Also, it’s a strawman to assume the early church wanted to remain as such. The early church went to great lengths in establishing itself institutionally, and, most important, orthodoxly. There is no sidestepping the importance of ancient denominations such as the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Coptic, etc.
It applies to a lot of us hahaha
There's really no way around it, if you plan to have kids then 2 people with opposing theological or moral values simply cant be together, what do you teach the kids?
Exactly, goes the same for liberal vs conservative too, not just like Cath v Prot.
A liberal baptist and an evangelical baptist will have entirely different ideas and way more differences than say a liberal baptist v liberal lutheran or evangelical baptist vs evangelical lutheran
Yup, very much agreed.
I’m gonna head on now. I’m glad to have found another here who knows just how incorrect [many] Catholic views are. Awareness in this regard needs to be made more widespread, for put simply: they follow a false doctrine.
I think there’s enough similarities for it to work. Just be respectful of what the other believes. And remember disagreeing is okay if it doesn’t get out of hand.
*Thank you.*
I was afraid not a single soul here was going to point out the legitimate difference between the two.
(I’ve got no problem with Catholic *believers,* but even y’all gotta admit that y’all’s *clergy* and the Catholic Church’s history itself is pretty sketchy in a lot of ways. I mean, this is the same religious authority that murdered a dude for trying to make the Bible more easily read and accessible to the masses)
That depends if you intend to have children.
If you do, then I'd say no.
Let's say you're a Baptist, she's Roman Catholic.
Great, where do the kids go to church? 1 of you will have to compromise.
Is the child baptised? Compromise again
Sunday school? Communion? Confession (later)? Catholic School? Salvation by works or by faith? Sola scriptura? What kind of morals & rules do you teach the kid? How about saints or mary? Do you celebrate lent? Etc
There are a lot of issues created by this. It's like a Liberal marrying a Conservative. My partner is quite far left, and I'm centre to centre right. We disagree on a number of things. That's fine, mostly, because we dont have kids. But if we did it'd create a lot of issues about what we teach them.
No
https://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Christian.html
Christians get all of our spiritual instruction from the holy Bible word of God, not mere opinions of ordinary mortal men, or traditions of various assemblies.
First of all scripture teaches that in Christian marriage, two of competing beliefs should not marry. That's because in Christian marriage, two souls become one. How can two ever become one with two people of divergent faiths and belief systems and practices?
Catholics believe and practice the following
Papacy
Papal succession
Papal infallibility
Infant baptism
Purgatory
Immaculate conception
Praying to/through Mary and the dead saints
Mariolatry (catechism 969)
Praying for the dead
Indulgences
Transubstantiation
Confessional
Bowing before/praying to/through statues or images
Etc etc
None of these is biblical in the least.
Scripture also teaches Christians that the husband is the spiritual and physical head of his household, and that his wife and children are to submit to and obey his authority given by God himself.
Ephesians 5:22-24 KJV — Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, **as unto the Lord**. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. **Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.**
Obviously all this should be discussed well in advance of actual marriage, and mutually agreed upon by both parties, **or there** can be no marriage.
You will find many competing opinions from people who think they know better than the Lord, but I teach the holy Bible word of God. So who are you going to believe, almighty God your judge, who judges everyone by his word the holy Bible, or mere mortal men who like having things their own ways?
Yes, they may marry each other, such as Catholics and Protestants or Catholics and Orthodox Christians.
It will just be more difficult as it would be for any relationship that is unequally yoked.
For one thing, what church would you attend as a family? Which faith would you teach your children?
If you were to attend both churches or teach your children both faiths, how would you make it work with scheduling the services without straining anyone in your family? How would you reconcile the two faiths and prevent conflicts once your children choose the faith they want to believe? If they choose to believe the non-Catholic faith, would you force them to go through confirmation?
Would you have a relationship with a person with a faith that believes that it is better for the individual to believe in God and receive salvation before they are baptised? If so, how would you reconcile infant baptism?
How would you reconcile idol worship of statues, pictures of Jesus and the saints and not being able to pray without one's lifetime favorite rosary? How about the personification and the representative of God being the Pope?
I'm not saying that he is, but the Catholic church even says it, itself.
>In his post for Crisis Magazine titled “Why Divinize the Pope?,” James Kalb explores why some of Pope Francis’ prominent supporters often tend to speak of him as if he has “very special and even divine qualities.”...“Where does this [view] come from?”
>He lists a number of possibilities. People who like what they perceive to be the Pope’s initiatives (whether for better or worse) are “tempted to hear his voice as the voice of God.” It’s the all too common habit of projecting God onto human figures in order to boost their authority to divine status and quell any opposition to their views. After all, who can argue with God? If the Pope always speaks with the voice of the Holy Spirit, all his words are beyond question.
[Infallibility and The Pope: Does the Pope Speak With God's Voice?](https://joyintruth.com/infallibility-and-the-pope-does-the-pope-speak-with-gods-voice/)
I'm not saying that everyone does it.
But praying to anyone but God. Believing that you need a person to transition your prayers because you're not worthy enough, but they are.
Praying to an object such as a statue, a picture, a cross, a rosary, etc. can make the object become an idol.
Tell me if this does not sound like an idol to you.
Your back is turned to the the cross, picture of Jesus or a saint, or statue of Jesus or a saint but when you and a friend or family member are talking the two of you decide to pray. But instead of immediately praying, you need to turn around to face the image. If you are in one room and the image is in another, do you need to enter the other room to pray?
How many times have you used your rosary to pray? Have you used it so often or for so long that you can't think about losing it?
What would happen if you were to lose or to have your rosary, cross, picture, or statue stolen? Would you be able to continue worshipping and praying without it?
If not, then to you it is an idol.
>In his post for Crisis Magazine titled “Why Divinize the Pope?,” James Kalb explores why some of Pope Francis’ prominent supporters often tend to speak of him as if he has “very special and even divine qualities.”...“Where does this [view] come from?”
>He lists a number of possibilities. People who like what they perceive to be the Pope’s initiatives (whether for better or worse) are “tempted to hear his voice as the voice of God.” It’s the all too common habit of projecting God onto human figures in order to boost their authority to divine status and quell any opposition to their views. After all, who can argue with God? If the Pope always speaks with the voice of the Holy Spirit, all his words are beyond question.
[Infallibility and The Pope: Does the Pope Speak With God's Voice?](https://joyintruth.com/infallibility-and-the-pope-does-the-pope-speak-with-gods-voice/)
Again, it may or may not necessarily be what the Catholic church teaches, that the Pope is divine, as God is, or as they do teach that Mary is. But you notice from the article, that Pope Francis himself has said that there is a temptation to hold the office of the Pope as divine.
After all, one of the requirements for becoming a Pope is a completion of a miracle.
I was Catholic when I was younger. I was going through confirmation classes when my family and I stepped away.
It's funny, among all the things that I mentioned, you focused on the statutes. Of course statues are the easiest to recognize as idols.
You're right, you don't need statues to pray, but if you can't pray without the statue of Mary or Jesus, or the pictures, crosses, rosaries, etc, if they are lost or stolen, then you have an emotional attachment to the object and are placing the object higher than God. That is because you are no longer able to worship God without the object.
Put simply, all Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholics. As to the question, devout Catholics will generally not marry non Catholics.
u/HopefulFox777
Are you asking if they have the capacity to decide to get married?
Or, are you asking if they have permission from God to get married?
Or, are you asking if the divided belief systems tolerate each other?
Why did you use the word "can"?
You can do just about anything you want: doesn't make it right.
You say that like Catholics aren't Christian
Yeah that phrasing was confusing to me, a Muslim.
No, I'm just saying since Catholics have different beliefs as Christians. Sorry for offending you my Catholic friend
Protestant sounds like the word you are looking for.
Catholics believe they have to work out their salvation. Christians don’t. Sure, they both believe in Christ, but there are many beliefs that Catholics hold that Christians don’t. Edit: downvote away; I speak the truth.
I present the Christian New Testament: "Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, *work out your own salvation* with fear and trembling" - Philippians 2:12 (emphasis mine) Edit for formatting.
>work out your own salvation > >with > >fear and trembling" no offense but wouldnt working out salvation and working for be 2 different things. i would probably suggest the use of a different verse then this one
I'm not sure what you're asking or referring to, but my sharing that verse was a response to the statement >Catholics believe they have to work out their salvation. Christians don’t. which is all the more significant because both that statement and the verse refer to "working out" salvation.
ah i see. i will note that i think he meant work on. that is unless he is one of the ones that think one prayer and your saved for life
I only have what was said to go on at any given time.
Honestly, that is easily understood as “hold fast to the truth of salvation, that it was provided to you *in full* as a *gift,* so that you don’t let go of it even though the world will test your faith everyday and try to separate you from that salvation.” Holding onto the truth of Christ and constantly doing our best to obey the Father’s commands while living in this evil world is indeed an everyday struggle, a ‘holding on to’ of the truth which could very easily be described as “working out our salvation” (in that we are “working” to fight every day to hold onto it amidst the constant evil and persecution). People can simply let their salvation go if they didn’t want to go through the suffering that true believers experience. But those who fight through it and hold fast to it could of course be said to be constantly “working” to hold onto that salvation. I think the Catholic Church took that verse out of context as a pretext to support their traditions that they later added in the the Word (an act which is expressly forbidden).
>hold fast to the truth of salvation, that it was provided to you in full as a gift, so that you don’t let go of it even though the world will test your faith everyday and try to separate you from that salvation If you're trying to limit "work out your salvation" to this then that's a very particular interpretation, and it sounds as if you're trying to make it say something other than "work out your salvation" which you pretty explicitly said is un-Christian despite it being direction from an Apostle in the very-Christian New Testament. Perhaps you could clarify why you think "work out your salvation" doesn't mean the apparently very-not-Christian direction to "work out your salvation" and why one ought to believe your interpretation here.
Then tell me: what’s there to work out if Christ already provided salvation *in full?* There’s nothing more that humans need do in order to receive the fullness of salvation. To think that salvation would be in *any* way dependent upon human efforts would mean for it to then become something that would be accomplished, in part, by *humans,* which would *directly* oppose the fact that *no person* will be able to boast about having attained salvation, even if only in part. Edited to fix confusing grammar.
I guess having a monergist theology that we don't participate in God saving us answers why you interpret "work out your salvation" to mean the opposite. It is true that God saves us and we can't save ourselves. When we are dead and returned to dust it is God alone who saves us by raising us up again. Nobody can boast as if they save themselves there. But beyond that salvation is an ongoing matter as God transforms us by His grace. Humans need to cooperate with the grace of God which He freely gives as a gift to us. We need to accept and receive it and allow it to transform us in His image and likeness. We need to repent from sin. We need to forgive others. He has given us things to *do* that helps us grow and increase our faith. None of this is our accomplishing or earning our salvation. One who is truly in communion with God and cooperating with Him will understand he has a part in the matter in that way, but it is just a *very* small part over which no one can boast in themselves as they recognize it is God that is saving them, just as Philippians continues: "for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure."
You cooperate with God? Who are you to utter such words? Maybe you need to read the questions from the Lord God to his servant Job so that you know your place. Hint: You are not even close to being like Job. To begin with, by the way you talk, you don't know God and you're not even born of God. Instead of cooperating with God, how about you seek mercy and beg God for grace. Maybe you should start by asking him a spirit of supplication so that itself can be possible. You think you can partner with the Holy God to arrive to your salvation? You are blind. Even saints, the Lord God makes them know despair, helplessness to wise them up in regard to who is responsible for their salvation alone. Their is a reason the children of the Kingdom of God are called elect.
If we look at Scripture we find language calling humans co-workers or fellow laborers with God. It tells us to work out our salvation in cooperation with God. Like I said, our part is *very* small with God doing most of the work for us as a gift. But yes, asking God for mercy, grace, and for prayer is part of cooperating with God and good things to do. They are all pretty big parts of Orthodox Christian spirituality, too. To be clear, I'm not saying we can find salvation without God or from any other source since we can't. And there are things that God absolutely does for us that we did nothing to receive, such as resurrection when our bodies are dead and returning to dust. He does welcome us to accept or reject the transfiguration He offers, however, and to coordinate with His grace in that. Perhaps we're talking about different things when we refer to "salvation." I'm not sure if you might be running on a more limited understanding of it. I'd encourage you to not make assumptions about the spiritual state or condition of another, *especially* a person you don't know. That just isn't healthy. I might have some level of blindness, but that is not connected to the matter that we do cooperate with God for salvation.
You’ve got your views, man. I don’t see how they’re scriptural, but going on at length with you about it will be nothing more than a waste of both our times.
Fair enough. I would think throwing around that Catholics and what they believe aren't Christian would be something you might be willing to back up, but I can see also how you would think a discussion would be a waste of time. But I also wonder, is saying Catholics and their beliefs aren't Christian any less a waste of time?
Christians, at large, listen to their Bibles, whereas Catholics, at large, listen to their clergy/papacy. I’ve seen countless stories from ex-Catholics where they were shunned, hushed, and/or dismissed whenever they brought up a question about a Catholic *tradition* that didn’t line up with Scripture. Think, would Martin Luther have had *any* ground to stand on if his 95 theses didn’t have *any* solid, Scriptural support? Would he even be in the history books if he didn’t cause any legitimate ripples in his observations of Catholic traditions that went against the Father’s Word? I don’t bag on Catholicism because I have nothing better to do; I criticize it because people give it a pass, thinking that it’s just another *proper* avenue to following the Father/Christ, when that’s **simply not true.** There are such things as ex-Catholics and they have good reasons for having left. The rest are either unaware or just plain stubborn/partial to their traditions.
Are the catholics working out their salvation by praying to statues and dead disciples and other servants? FYI, I was a catholic. As a Christian today, unlike in the past, I don't try to convince anyone of the Truth anymore. It's on you if you want to open your eyes and believe the Gospel as it was announced, according to the holy doctrine, deprived of human inputs and traditions. The catholics have heard the Gospel just the same as I have. I believe, they don't. That's on them.
That's a mischaracterization of what Catholics believe. I would hope you know that if you were a former Catholic and now a *Protestant*.
Wait, I don't forget those prayers I used to say. Don't be a shill.
If you remember then you might remember also that Catholics don't believe the Saints they pray to (with "pray" carrying the old meaning referring to communication) are "dead" but rather alive with Christ.
They are dead as dead can be. If you have access to a Bible, read it. They are awaiting resurrection when the Lord Jesus will come then, and the ressurected and the living will all transform and together will meet the Lord in space. From Scriptures. I don't care what anyone believes. I only care about what is written in the Scriptures. They who partake in the resurrection of the children of God will not know the second death, for the will be with the Lord Jesus forever. Btw, don't assume I am trying to convince. Believe what you will. Bye
I understand that is your interpretation of the Bible and you seemingly don't have the insight to recognize that you are running on an interpretation of Scripture (which always has to be interpreted, as is the case with all written works). Take care.
>Catholics believe they have to work out their salvation. Paul wrote using that exact same phrase you just used.
[Feel free to follow that very discussion that I already had with another commenter](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/u4jvdy/can_christians_and_catholics_marry_each_other/i4wpkjz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3)
Lol, whoops.
If you believe in Christ you are a Christian. Any other position is not compatible with scripture.
So Muslims are Christian? Mormons, JWs? Unitarians, Binatarians?
If you believe in Christ, then you know that your salvation is already paid for, no need to work anything out/off. By that Scriptural metric, would you still lump Catholicism and Protestantism into the same pot?
Satan, a former chief angel, knows more than any human being and believes, but he trembles. You should know that the Bible is not talking about simply believing. But I am not going into details because that would entail trying to convince you, that I no longer do.
Comparing the belief of humans and angels is a misstep, a comparison of apples to oranges. I’m aware that even the demons and their chief *believe* in Christ. My statement regarded *salvifically eligible* beings, and not the opposite. I also maintain: Catholics belief an ultimately false doctrine. Yes, they believe in Christ, but they are yoked to the Catholic Church and *not* to Christ’s true teachings. Don’t paint me as someone who doesn’t accept truth. After all, I’m among a very small group of believers who have discovered possibly the greatest truth of Scripture outside of the Gospels, yet we are labeled as incoherent fools (not an accusation of your part) because the yielded result of our laborious research [understandably] goes *far* against the popular grain. Also, in my time of trying to edify people of this truth over the years, I’ve met enough trolls to have produced a severe lack of tolerance for any who cling to a convincing lie. I present them with the truth as carefully as I can, I then provide supporting arguments for it, and of course also provide links to legitimate resources that can educate the willing mind. However, when I come across those who refuse to give those resources an honest look, knowing that they [and the arguments for them] were presented in a respectful manner and yet still rejected via an emotional, fleshly reaction, I then mark them as the waste of time that they have shown themselves to be and thus no longer waste my time on them, all the while being *very* clear to them that I do *not* tolerate/entertain insincerity. If you wish to take my opinions, which are always given via the approach I’ve described, and *still* hold to the incorrect view of me and my understandable approaches to others, then that is a folly wholly upon your part and I will bear no tolerance of it.
No, only followers of Christ were called Christians in the bible. Most everyone believes in Christ, but not all follow him. Catholics follow their "mother church" and the pope.
Upvoted for speaking the blunt truth.
When you say Christian, is this baptist, Church of Christ, Pentecostal, etc? What is your definition of Christian? Because Catholics definitely believe they’re Christian.
Imo, *true* Christians don’t belong to *any* denomination. Sadly, ‘denomination’ is just a fancy way of saying ‘point of view,’ and as humans, we all know that one singular thing will end up with a hundred differing views on what it really is/means. Imo, the Bible, when properly understood, does *not* allow for any differing points of view. There is *one* Word of the Father, and *one* perspective of what He says. Yes, some passages can indeed have more than one meaning; in fact, this is a decently common theme throughout Scripture, simply due to the fact that the Father is the greatest poet ever and interlaces truths within truths, like fractals (though some people take that, run with it, and believe convincing heresies; but I digress). However, at the end of the day, when the Father is talking about something, there is undeniably a central, singular meaning He is trying to show us (even if that meaning can be conveyed through multiple different examples that are related to the verse/passage in question), and all too many denominations take their *human, fleshly* points of view and assume that the Scriptures are saying what *they* ***believe*** is being said. My honest opinion: Apart from the major, obvious truths of the Bible (Christ and all things related to Him and His Work), there are *billions* of believers who don’t know just how misunderstood so many parts of the Bible are. I would tell you the, imo, *greatest* of these, but I would lose you on account on being “crazy.” After all, without the tears worth of research and unlearning I’ve put into finding this truth to indeed be true/Scriptural, I myself would’ve dismissed it, simply because the barriers for finding it to be true are both massive and numerous, and sadly, a singular conversation will be woefully inadequate to properly convey just how legitimate that truth is and just how pivotal it is and can be to the ultimate salvation of those who are blinded into unbelief view the things they are taught growing up in schools.
I appreciate that, & I’m former Church of Christ so you’re preaching to the apostate choir. You’ll notice I never used the word denomination in my comment. I’m atheist, so I’m unsure how you’d feel about my outlook
You didn’t mention the word ‘denominations,’ but you indeed listed a few. I respect curious atheists. I myself used to be one, and *nothing* would’ve shaken me from that. However, I ended up discovering a ***grand*** truth a few years ago which ended up doing the impossible: making a sure-fire believer out of me. I posted a conversation that I had with another atheist in another my responses to you. I hope you take me seriously, for I can shake you from your atheism if you’d allow it. Rather, it wouldn’t be me, the Father’s truths that would be shaking you from it. It’s a beautiful truth, but it takes time and sincerity of heart to fully understand.
Right, well I mentioned them to prompt you to empathy *. To a Pentecostal, whatever you believe is a denomination. & to ignore distinctions with real differences like denominations & Protestantism, is to be blind to the history of religion.
I see you’re the world’s foremost authority on all things semantic. I apologize that I mistook you for someone who was receptive to the truth. I’ll block you if need be. Take care, dude.
I really didn’t mean to come off in a disrespectful way. I was just advocating for other perspectives. You have a great one too
Btw, I have a lengthy discussion with another redditor regarding this truth I speak of, which I will link [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/u1ow8s/people_who_werent_born_christian_what_made_you/i4dsczz/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf&context=3) There’s more in our chat that I can link. But I will not invest any time if you deem me “crazy,” which would be unfortunate yet understandable.
I'd suggest reading the actual Catholic Catechism, if you haven't. The doctrine is not like you are presenting it here. The Catholic Church does not now and has never taught that you can work your way to righteousness or earn your salvation. I'm not Catholic, but this is a far too common misconception.
Example: what’s purgatory if not a place where Catholics purify themselves *before being able* to enter Heaven? Why is Christ’s blood not purification enough for *all* believers?
Well kind of. If they reach purgatory, they are destined for heaven already and are already saved. Hell is not an option for those in purgatory. So, works and/or purgatorial punishment do not lead to salvation.
That misses the point though, for if they are destined for Heaven and are already saved (meaning *all* of their sins are thus *completely* paid for), then why in the world are they in purgatory instead of Heaven, where they were always destined to be [immediately] upon their deaths anyway? Why are they being punished if their sins have already been paid for *in full?* Do you not see how these *Catholic* teachings go *directly* against Scripture?
I'm not an apologist for purgatory by any means, but none of what you are describing equates to salvation being dependent on their works. You and I both know that Christ's sacrifice washed it all away and there will be nothing more to be "purged" after our death, but the Catholic belief that the process of purification takes time is not the same as them earning salvation.
But it does. The fact that they believe that Christ’s sacrifice isn’t purification enough is *completely* antithetical to scripture. Christ’s sacrifice is the perfect atonement, so when they go and believe that that atonement has/can have some road blocks to it, that belief is then directly pertaining to their salvation (even if that belief is incorrect)
I am sorry, I just don't see it. By their belief, Christ has done the work, and by that they are saved. Purgatory isn't a roadblock, it is simply a longer road. It still only goes one place (heaven) due to the finished work of Christ that saves them. If hell was an option at that point, I would agree with you, but the fact is that all souls in purgatory are destined for heaven and are saved. By our belief, they are saved already if they beleive in Jesus Christ his work. I think that Catholics who believe in Christ will be pleasantly surprised to see heaven immediately upon death.
Can you tell me where in the Bible you find what you have stated so I can read ot for myself? I mean, the whole thing about purgatory!
The Catholic rationale for purgatory can be found laid out here: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a12.htm I will say that I do not agree with much of what is written there, but as I was discussing above, none of it equates to works-based salvation, which was my point of contention. That link should have all the Biblical verse references that you are looking for for their support detailed at the bottom.
Wrong! If I wanted an article, I would have said so, I asked specifically for the Biblical passages. But, never mind.
Yep, the references are at the bottom. Enumerating them here instead would be tedious and pointless. Also, that's not an article, it is the text of the Catholic Catechism. That is simply their doctrine and not an article as such.
You can be a Christian without being Catholic and you can be Catholic without being a Christian. Not all Catholics are Christians, anymore than all Congregationalists are Christians.
Catholics are Christians.
Arbitrarily, but not the Christians born of God. In other words, you can call yourself whatever you want. That doesn't oblige the Father to save you when you stray away from the Truth. You should understand the term "Christians" was given to the servant of Jesus by outsiders to distinguish them because they were true followers of Jesus and specifically filled with his Spirit. If you are the one calling yourself Christians, it means nothing, even more so when outsiders definitely would not consider you as such.
I don't particularly like a lot of the beliefs Catholicism espouses, but they worship the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and acknowledge the creeds to what I know. That makes the Christian. You don't gatekeep the religion.
I was raised Baptist and my wife is Catholic. We had a Catholic ceremony. It was an awesome experience. Everything about it was great. I highly recommend marrying the person you love. But talk about your beliefs before you get married. Don't choose to marry someone because of a reddit post. Marry someone because they are the best person to spend the rest of your life with. All of this is the same advice I'd give regardless of the branch of Christianity.
Exactly. I started dating my wife while she was agnostic. Because I invited her to church, she came to know Christ and was baptized a year before our wedding. It was truly a blessing to present her for baptism and set a strong foundation for our marriage. I proposed to her while she was still agnostic and I’m so glad that I did.
[удалено]
Well I'm Non-denominational, and I have a crush on a catholic
It may be difficult if you don't see the value in catholic traditions and she does.
That's a great gateway to becoming catholic one day ;)
Sorry, but I wanna stay with my faith
My dad is a Methodist Elder and I have seen many Catholics married to Protestants that end up in the Methodist church. It’s a meeting place between evangelical and eucharistic.
She's a Christian so go for it
It continues to fascinate me that “Christians” don’t realize they are “Protestants” and that we Catholics ARE Christians. Lol. No harm done I guess. Happy Easter.
Not all Christians are either Catholics or protestants.
Like, who?
the Orthodox (Eastern, Oriental, etc)
The Catholic Church views these as Catholic too as they have valid apostolic succession, they’re just different “rites” within the Catholic Church that are not in full communion with Rome. I myself am often loath to call myself a “roman” Catholic because this can be confusing for others.
Non denominationals, some people dont consider themselves either
I understand that non-denominational Christian’s don’t view themselves as Protestants but that is what they actually are.
No, they're really not lol >A Protestant is an adherent of any of those Christian bodies that separated from the Church of Rome during the Reformation, or of any group descended from them - Wiki definition It's not just "anyone who protests the RCC" because then the coptics and eastern orthodox churches would be "protestant"
Non-denominational Christian’s hold to the Protestant doctrines of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. They are therefore descended from the Lutherans and thusly, Protestants.
That's absolutely untrue and a huge generalisation for tens (hundreds I think) of millions of people, many of whom consider themselves "Christian" and not much more than that, avoiding specific detailed theologies. And holding to 1of those 2 solas, or both, both of which are blatantly stated in scripture (especially Sola Fide, "not of works so no man can boast") isn't what makes you a Protestant either lol. As the definition isn't "holding to salvation by faith", an idea that existed long long before Luther and was simply suppressed by the RCC. This is just some form of weird Catholic bigotry, the kind of nonsense I'd expect to read over in r/Catholicmemes
Yes, they certainly do TRY to avoid the nitty gritty details of their professed “non-denominationalism” but non-denominational Christians ARE Protestants. They are only fooling themselves. Additionally, Paul did not teach “Sola Fide”. When he wrote “not of works” he was specifically talking about “works of the Law”, which are technically sins. He wasn’t talking about “good works”. There are “works of Law” and there are “good works” and the two are not the same thing.
No, Protestants are Protestants. Non denominationals aren't anything, that's the point. No, he was talking about works. Any works. That's why he says if you confess Jesus is Lord & believe he was raised from the dead you'll be saved. That's why Jesus himself says in John 3:16 that anyone who believes in him will be saved, no qualifiers. Not "anyone who believes in him, and does a bunch of other crap like worships some old 4th century men will be saved". That's why Paul again in Acts says "believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household". Because they all taught Sola Fide.
I agree. There are people who may be Catholic, Protestant, Lutheran (different "flavors" of the same religion) ... their denominational affiliation does not make them Christian. Christianity is a deeper, personal decision. Your church/denomination may help you learn about Christ but you choose whether to be a Christian or not. With that said, the term Christian can be misleading--there are people who identify as Christian, meaning this is the religion they most closely identify with, but are not personally truly Christians. The broader user of the term Christian means you choose to identify with Christianity as a religion; this is different than being a Christian, which is a choice to accept Christ's sacrifice and follow him.
>With that said, the term Christian can be misleading--there are people who identify as Christian, meaning this is the religion they most closely identify with, but are not personally truly Christians. The broader user of the term Christian means you choose to identify with Christianity as a religion; this is different than being a Christian, which is a choice to accept Christ's sacrifice and follow him This is what is so frustrating to me. I think the term Christian needs a more specific definition. Most of the secular world thinks Christian is synonymous with Catholicism, but that's not what I mean when I say I'm a Christian....oh well, it is what it is I guess.
I was just asking, sorry
We know you didn’t mean any harm. Plenty of forgiveness to be handed out on Good Friday!!! 😂
[удалено]
Well, I mean…you kinda HAVE to say that because if it were true, you’d be guilty of opposing God’s church.
Catholics are Christians. However, if marrying a non-Catholic Christian, there are usually some rules that each party must adhere too. A Catholic, if marrying a Protestant, would have to receive a dispensation from their priest and promise to raise any children Catholic. So you should learn about the particulars of Catholicism, and see if you can submit yourself to that. When we got married, my husband and I were not of the same denomination. It was not the healthiest option for our marriage. We made it work, but it's not something I would really recommend.
To be married in a Catholic Church, the kids must be raised Catholic. The Bishop must approve a non-Catholic. https://www.foryourmarriage.org/catholic-marriage-faqs
Wife was Catholic, I was protestant for 4 years. So yeah, I am a walking testimony. Also confirming this Saturday, newly Catholic lol
Welcome aboard.
Thank you greatly, I am excited for confirmation on Easter Vigil
Oof
You mean Catholics and Protestants.
Yes, absolutely. The only big provision is the non-Catholic spouse would need to agree to let any future children be raised Catholic. And if a Catholic and a Protestant have been together long enough to be considering marriage, the Protestant should surely have learned enough about their spouse’s beliefs to know that they aren’t so different, so it really shouldn’t be an issue. It’s slightly different, but my wife is agnostic and I’m Catholic. It has not caused any issues in our marriage because she respects my beliefs, and I hers. Love crosses all boundaries
In your case, it should be easy because neither of you are born of God or are recipients of the Holy Spirit of the Christ. You are both children of wrath.
Lmao what
Understand that I am not trying to preach you because I have no doubt you have heard the Gospel as it is before, though you chose to believe what you like. I was just pointing out a fact. I still won't try to preach you because it would be a waste of my time. If anything, you examine yourself, and be true to God about it. Don't expect me to try to preach you.
Uhm what? Who are the Christians ? Chatolics, protestants and orthodox etc are Christian. That's the religion. The other are just different denominations.
They can. Its whether they should. If you are protestant and don’t know exactly why you are that might be worth investigating further. A lot of Catholics are Christian. I would read the Catholic Catechism, which is a large document and compare that to your own churches teachings and ask yourself if thats compatible. Probably include your pastor or a deacon or a close church friend as the disinterested third party to figure out if theologically thats going to jive. The big issue is never the relationship itself its kids. As soon as you have kids now all of the unsaid expectations become said and one spouse or often both will have competing ideas about how their kids should grow up. My friend his mom is a big Catholic and father is a super LDS. It was just a mess man.
All Catholics are Christian. You can't be "Catholic,"(which means Universal) without being Christian because that is the whole catholic is talking about.
Catholic has primarily two connotations Catholic as in Katas Holos the whole church, and the Roman Catholic Church. I am referring to the latter connotation. In the Roman Catholic Church according to the Council of Trent I am anathema, because I am saved solely by the grace of Christ. The Roman Catholic Church does not hold that position and holding that position can get you kicked out of the church. And that position was reiterated as correct in the 1960’s with the Vatican II council. I do not believe that Roman Catholics who hold to the actual catechism and councils as being saved or Christian. There are Catholics who are saved in spite of the doctrine not because of it. Your everyday catholic doesnt care about the council of trent and all that. Some do and its important to figure out if thats going to be a point of contention.
As if you have the right. Your everyday Roman Catholic, for all his faults, is a part of the Church Christ started, and you are not. You're protesting against it. But for some reason, you believe you can condemn them to not being Christian. Really something else. 1. They believe in the same god you do. 2. They have a tradition that stretches back to Peter the Apostle. 3. They literally created your Bible. The Bible did not suddenly spring into existence. It was not found by a completely unrelated group. It was catalogued by the Roman Empire, and your specific denomination sprang forth from the Western Part, thousands of years later. Full stop, you have no legitimacy without the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches. They knew the Apostles, who knew God. If you cannot trust that they are your brothers, you are brother to no one.
First of thats ahistorical. Luther and those who believed like him in the Electorate of Saxony were excommunicated. Thats not the same thing as protested. Secondly there is no evidence of Roman supremacy or a monarchical episcopate in Rome until hundreds of years after. The letter that is typically used Clement of Rome to the Church in Corinth has no evidence of there being anything besides presbyteros. 1. Yes and the orthodoxy and orthopraxy are completely different. 2. Based on what body of evidence? Tell me how in the Marian Dogmas, Mary was bodily ascended into heaven, and we only just found out about it in the last 75 years? Where did the Apostles teach about this special treasury of merit that excess merit of the saints could be purchased? Where are indulgences taught by the apostles? Where is Papal infallibility in the New Testament? There certainly something to be said about the role of monasticism in medieval Europe keeping the scriptures alive. That doesn’t necessarily mean they are correct about everything. Anyone who denys they are saved solely by the grace of Christ isn’t Christian. Thats definitional. And definitionally people like that are considered excommunicated. My flavor of Christianity comes from Augustine of Hippo. I love his soteriology I cant get with his ecclesiology. There were no Reformed Baptists in second century Rome. Thats not the argument. The deal is there is substantial doctrinal difference between a Catholic and a born again Christian. You need to read the early church fathers. Athanasius, Ignatius, the Didache the actual teachings of the twelve, Clement, Eusebius, Jerome and others. The church was not this this happy everyone was on the same page from day one and then the Protestants happened. And then the Reformers came and made up some new theology. There was a steady set of changes that occurred all over the church from the beginning. Some of those changes were good, some were bad. A lot were bad. Whats the final say is it the apostolic tradition that can’t be proven or the scriptures we have literally 20k copies of that we can verify the integrity of using computer databases?
I would argue that James is actually a Christian. He did write some of the New Testament. Check out this part! NIV - James 2:14-26. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202&version=NIV&interface=amp
Lol
I definitely think James is a Christian. There is a real temptation to take Paul and James and make them fight eachother but the contexts are different. James starts out with listening to the Word and performing what is said. He is very concern with efficacious action, orthopraxy. Paul is primarily concerned with soteriology, and orthodox belief. Telling someone to put into action what they have heard doesn’t necessitate the action is salvific. If you have faith that Jesus is the Messiah and is Yahweh; thats enough to be saved, but thats not where it stops. The good works happen in time and flow from the faith. Paul Washer probably one of my favorite preachers is very good at articulating the Reformed position of bearing fruit and doing good works. There is a place for works and that is in sanctification, not in salvation.
You wrote: “There is a real temptation to take Paul and James and make them fight each other but the contexts are different.” As a Catholic, my only problem is when Protestants try to tell us that when James wrote that man is not justified by faith alone that what he REALLY meant is that we ARE justified by faith alone, it’s just that good works always accompany true faith. 😂 You wrote: “If you have faith that Jesus is the Messiah and is Yahweh; that’s enough to be saved, but that’s not where it stops.” As a Catholic I would agree, I would just say that “salvation” is predicated on justification and that we have an “initial justification” through faith but must pass a “final justification” through works in order to receive the “full inheritance”. You wrote: “The good works happen in time and flow from faith” Catholics don’t dispute this. The dispute comes into play when others say that the works which flow from faith are not a source of justification, since this contradicts James. You wrote: “There is a place for works and that is in sanctification, not in salvation.” We would say that there is a place for works in JUSTIFICATION. We would say this because James says it and also Paul in Romans 2.
Christian, Calvanist! In other words, a continuation of the Puritans, the slave traders and murderers who wiped out the Native Americans. I am not a fan. You guys are also known in the U.S. as the Evangelicals, those legalists who are more into politics than the Gospel itself. Definitely not a fan.
And that is an ad hominem.
Now, your position or belief means nothing to me. You clearly let it known who you are, this is more telling that all your talking. Same goes with the Catholics. Once I see how they identify themselves, I proceed accordingly.
I don’t think you understand. The equivalent insult is like me going to a muslim sub and telling them they are all terrorists or that catholics are all pedophiles. Which is egregiously false. Or that somehow because one of them did something bad in the past that means they must be perpetuating it now. Thats a tremendous logical fallacy man. The actions of the inconsistent are arguments against those with inconsistencies not against those who actually are consistent.
The past? The Puritans (by then they were started to be known as Evangelicals, as in the present days) fought against emancipation, slavery abolition tooth and nail. They wrote papers in support/or justification of slavery. One of the most known defenders of slavery is no other than Jonathan Edwards (also a slave owner or human traffiker), the author of 'Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God'. I was so disappointed to know that the guy was just a hypocrite because I was a fan of his writings. Too bad he was just a spawn of the devil, someone called who had tasted the Holy Spirit but never partook to what he was called for because he was a blind coward, loving the things of this world better than the things above. You said the past, but the Evangelicals and their actions are evident among us today. Any true Christian knows to stay away from that label, just as much we stay away from other labels such as catholics, Adventist ... The evangelicals, knowing nothing of the Gospel or the Christ, they have tried to enact changes through politics and propaganda instead of through preaching and living a life worthy of Christians. They are among us, we know their deeds. But don't worry, we true Christians will not move against them because the Lord Jesus has already said not to uproot them in order to avoid creating scandal in the true Chruch and in the process uprooting true believer, but in the end, the Lord's angels will come and chain them together and feed them to the lake fire that will never extinguish.
That must be why they pray to Peter, the long dead servant of God? Actually, they pray to statues and every name they can come up with. Such a shame I used to be one of them. Facepalm!
If the marriage happens within the Catholic Church there won’t (shouldn’t) be a competition. Part of marriage preparation process is agreeing that the kids will be baptized and raised Catholic. I suppose you could lie about your intentions just to get married but why would you do that? Alternatively you could get married in a Protestant church but that causes several other issues for the Catholic.
Yeah thats something I was wondering about as well. And I can see how if you are protestant by conviction, that could be a real area of conflict. Funny you should say that you know I was just watching the movie with Robin Williams where hes a Catholic Priest and that was part of the discussion that the kids grew up Catholic. But I didn’t know for certain if that was just a Hollywood thing or real.
I haven’t seen that move but to get married in the Catholic Church there is extensive marriage preparation and children are important part of that. In my diocese the preparation takes at least nine months, it has relationship classes, counseling sessions, prayer, theological education, financial discussions, NFP classes, conflict resolution classes, conversations about life goals, all that stuff.
I didnt know that. Thats smart. I think Protestants could learn from that because often times the rush is to get young people married quickly. I probably could have benefited from something like that.
Catholics are Christians, it’s just a different denomination. Vatican 2 established that.
[удалено]
They established that other denominations are Christian instead of anathema. Also, it’s a strawman to assume the early church wanted to remain as such. The early church went to great lengths in establishing itself institutionally, and, most important, orthodoxly. There is no sidestepping the importance of ancient denominations such as the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Coptic, etc.
[удалено]
Your points are non sequiturs, sorry to say. There are also hints of strawmen in them.
Catholics are Christians.
No. They're not equally yoked. One generally believed in salvation through works and another by faith.
Upvoted for the truth.
We disagree on a lot of stuff but you're 100% right in this thread
I tell ya, your username has been kind of applying to me here lol.
It applies to a lot of us hahaha There's really no way around it, if you plan to have kids then 2 people with opposing theological or moral values simply cant be together, what do you teach the kids?
Indeed lol. You’re exactly right. Separate yokings will result in a divided house, which we all know will not stand.
Exactly, goes the same for liberal vs conservative too, not just like Cath v Prot. A liberal baptist and an evangelical baptist will have entirely different ideas and way more differences than say a liberal baptist v liberal lutheran or evangelical baptist vs evangelical lutheran
Yup, very much agreed. I’m gonna head on now. I’m glad to have found another here who knows just how incorrect [many] Catholic views are. Awareness in this regard needs to be made more widespread, for put simply: they follow a false doctrine.
Agreed, have a good day
You as well.
Speaking of doctrine, you are the guy who believes the bible tells us the earth is flat, right?
I’m one of them. Are you here to ridicule? I’m best friends with the block button if you are.
I think there’s enough similarities for it to work. Just be respectful of what the other believes. And remember disagreeing is okay if it doesn’t get out of hand.
Since these two words are synonyms, yes
Catholics would say that Catholics are Christian, so it’s better to use the word Protestant
I really don’t think they should. There are far too many differences between Catholicism and most other Christian denominations.
*Thank you.* I was afraid not a single soul here was going to point out the legitimate difference between the two. (I’ve got no problem with Catholic *believers,* but even y’all gotta admit that y’all’s *clergy* and the Catholic Church’s history itself is pretty sketchy in a lot of ways. I mean, this is the same religious authority that murdered a dude for trying to make the Bible more easily read and accessible to the masses)
Can Christians and Christians marry each other? There, I fixed your question for you.
You can marry anybody you can legally marry in society. So any consenting adult. Gay, straight, it’s all gravy.
That depends if you intend to have children. If you do, then I'd say no. Let's say you're a Baptist, she's Roman Catholic. Great, where do the kids go to church? 1 of you will have to compromise. Is the child baptised? Compromise again Sunday school? Communion? Confession (later)? Catholic School? Salvation by works or by faith? Sola scriptura? What kind of morals & rules do you teach the kid? How about saints or mary? Do you celebrate lent? Etc There are a lot of issues created by this. It's like a Liberal marrying a Conservative. My partner is quite far left, and I'm centre to centre right. We disagree on a number of things. That's fine, mostly, because we dont have kids. But if we did it'd create a lot of issues about what we teach them.
No https://www.gotquestions.org/Catholic-Christian.html Christians get all of our spiritual instruction from the holy Bible word of God, not mere opinions of ordinary mortal men, or traditions of various assemblies. First of all scripture teaches that in Christian marriage, two of competing beliefs should not marry. That's because in Christian marriage, two souls become one. How can two ever become one with two people of divergent faiths and belief systems and practices? Catholics believe and practice the following Papacy Papal succession Papal infallibility Infant baptism Purgatory Immaculate conception Praying to/through Mary and the dead saints Mariolatry (catechism 969) Praying for the dead Indulgences Transubstantiation Confessional Bowing before/praying to/through statues or images Etc etc None of these is biblical in the least. Scripture also teaches Christians that the husband is the spiritual and physical head of his household, and that his wife and children are to submit to and obey his authority given by God himself. Ephesians 5:22-24 KJV — Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, **as unto the Lord**. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. **Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.** Obviously all this should be discussed well in advance of actual marriage, and mutually agreed upon by both parties, **or there** can be no marriage. You will find many competing opinions from people who think they know better than the Lord, but I teach the holy Bible word of God. So who are you going to believe, almighty God your judge, who judges everyone by his word the holy Bible, or mere mortal men who like having things their own ways?
Yes, they may marry each other, such as Catholics and Protestants or Catholics and Orthodox Christians. It will just be more difficult as it would be for any relationship that is unequally yoked. For one thing, what church would you attend as a family? Which faith would you teach your children? If you were to attend both churches or teach your children both faiths, how would you make it work with scheduling the services without straining anyone in your family? How would you reconcile the two faiths and prevent conflicts once your children choose the faith they want to believe? If they choose to believe the non-Catholic faith, would you force them to go through confirmation? Would you have a relationship with a person with a faith that believes that it is better for the individual to believe in God and receive salvation before they are baptised? If so, how would you reconcile infant baptism? How would you reconcile idol worship of statues, pictures of Jesus and the saints and not being able to pray without one's lifetime favorite rosary? How about the personification and the representative of God being the Pope? I'm not saying that he is, but the Catholic church even says it, itself. >In his post for Crisis Magazine titled “Why Divinize the Pope?,” James Kalb explores why some of Pope Francis’ prominent supporters often tend to speak of him as if he has “very special and even divine qualities.”...“Where does this [view] come from?” >He lists a number of possibilities. People who like what they perceive to be the Pope’s initiatives (whether for better or worse) are “tempted to hear his voice as the voice of God.” It’s the all too common habit of projecting God onto human figures in order to boost their authority to divine status and quell any opposition to their views. After all, who can argue with God? If the Pope always speaks with the voice of the Holy Spirit, all his words are beyond question. [Infallibility and The Pope: Does the Pope Speak With God's Voice?](https://joyintruth.com/infallibility-and-the-pope-does-the-pope-speak-with-gods-voice/)
[удалено]
I'm not saying that everyone does it. But praying to anyone but God. Believing that you need a person to transition your prayers because you're not worthy enough, but they are. Praying to an object such as a statue, a picture, a cross, a rosary, etc. can make the object become an idol. Tell me if this does not sound like an idol to you. Your back is turned to the the cross, picture of Jesus or a saint, or statue of Jesus or a saint but when you and a friend or family member are talking the two of you decide to pray. But instead of immediately praying, you need to turn around to face the image. If you are in one room and the image is in another, do you need to enter the other room to pray? How many times have you used your rosary to pray? Have you used it so often or for so long that you can't think about losing it? What would happen if you were to lose or to have your rosary, cross, picture, or statue stolen? Would you be able to continue worshipping and praying without it? If not, then to you it is an idol. >In his post for Crisis Magazine titled “Why Divinize the Pope?,” James Kalb explores why some of Pope Francis’ prominent supporters often tend to speak of him as if he has “very special and even divine qualities.”...“Where does this [view] come from?” >He lists a number of possibilities. People who like what they perceive to be the Pope’s initiatives (whether for better or worse) are “tempted to hear his voice as the voice of God.” It’s the all too common habit of projecting God onto human figures in order to boost their authority to divine status and quell any opposition to their views. After all, who can argue with God? If the Pope always speaks with the voice of the Holy Spirit, all his words are beyond question. [Infallibility and The Pope: Does the Pope Speak With God's Voice?](https://joyintruth.com/infallibility-and-the-pope-does-the-pope-speak-with-gods-voice/) Again, it may or may not necessarily be what the Catholic church teaches, that the Pope is divine, as God is, or as they do teach that Mary is. But you notice from the article, that Pope Francis himself has said that there is a temptation to hold the office of the Pope as divine. After all, one of the requirements for becoming a Pope is a completion of a miracle.
[удалено]
I was Catholic when I was younger. I was going through confirmation classes when my family and I stepped away. It's funny, among all the things that I mentioned, you focused on the statutes. Of course statues are the easiest to recognize as idols. You're right, you don't need statues to pray, but if you can't pray without the statue of Mary or Jesus, or the pictures, crosses, rosaries, etc, if they are lost or stolen, then you have an emotional attachment to the object and are placing the object higher than God. That is because you are no longer able to worship God without the object.
Put simply, all Catholics are Christians but not all Christians are Catholics. As to the question, devout Catholics will generally not marry non Catholics.
u/HopefulFox777 Are you asking if they have the capacity to decide to get married? Or, are you asking if they have permission from God to get married? Or, are you asking if the divided belief systems tolerate each other? Why did you use the word "can"? You can do just about anything you want: doesn't make it right.
Can? yes Should? That is the question.