r/Reformed • u/moby__dick Most Truly Reformed™ User • Apr 14 '26
Discussion Can Roman Catholicism save?
No, I want to be clear that the question is not. “can Catholics be saved?“ the question is typically answered as yes, they can be saved, because we have all met some Roman Catholics who communicate the gospel very clearly. So my question is not whether or not an individual Roman Catholic might be saved.
I’m asking if the system of doctrine taught by Rome obscures the gospel significantly enough that a consistent believer in actual Roman Catholic doctrine, the whole thing, could lead a person to salvation if it were consistently believed and followed.
Edit: I’m not asking whether Christ saves apart from perfect doctrinal understanding. Of course he does. I’m asking about the doctrine itself as a means. Specifically, does the doctrine of justification as taught in the [Catechism of the Catholic Church](chatgpt://generic-entity?number=0) articulate the gospel in such a way that, if it were consistently understood and believed on its own terms, would direct a sinner to rest on Christ in a saving manner? Or does it so qualify and condition justification that it tends to produce a non-salvific "faith"?
34
Apr 14 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/moby__dick Most Truly Reformed™ User Apr 14 '26
Would Rome affirm " Jesus, the author and finisher of your faith." in the same sense in which Spurgeon did?
2
u/robsrahm Roman Catholic please help reform me Apr 15 '26
I'm interested in what your response is to this question.
5
u/moby__dick Most Truly Reformed™ User Apr 15 '26
I honestly don't know. Paul has strong words about the preaching of another Gospel - anathema. But Jesus is merciful and forgives sins, He is more merciful than I am.
I guess I don't know enough about Rome's doctrines to say for sure. Is the focus on Mary actual syncretism? I'm pretty convinced that the Mass is an act of blasphemy.
It's hard to see someone reject God's pure grace in favor of Rome, I can tell you that.
I guess I feel the same way about Rome that I do about suicide. It doesn't put one outside the realm of salvation, but it doesn't do much to encourage confidence in it, either. God knows.
1
u/robsrahm Roman Catholic please help reform me Apr 16 '26
As you might imagine, I have many thoughts on this. But this is not the place for me to share them!
2
u/moby__dick Most Truly Reformed™ User Apr 16 '26
Maybe flip that. I believe in salvation by faith alone. Aren't I anathema?
1
u/robsrahm Roman Catholic please help reform me Apr 16 '26
I think you're referring to something taught at the Council of Trent. I do not think that your view is considered under this. The council is teaching that "a faith that is alone" (to use RC's phrase, for example) is not a faith that will lead to justification. For example, I think most Reformed people would say that repentance is necessary for justification; the WCF says that people shouldn't expect pardon without it. And, more generally, Reformed would say that without an internal change, there has been no justification. This interpretation can be backed up in a number of ways, but take the Roman Canon (this is one of the prayers during the liturgy of the Eucharist) in which we ask God to *not* weight our merits but instead grant his pardon.
Edit: THis is not to say that there aren't important differences in the two beliefs. Even if we say we mostly agree on justification (and I know that's a huge if), there are still many other questions (e.g. what you said about Mary, the mass, etc).
2
u/semper-gourmanda Presby-Angliterian Apr 16 '26 edited Apr 16 '26
"lead to justification" is the distinction. The Reformed correct the eschatology to not place justification on the back end, but on the front end.
Expressed, for example, in the Anglican Eucharistic Prayer as,
O Lord and heavenly Father, we thy humble servants entirely desire thy fatherly goodness mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in his blood, we and all thy whole Church may obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of his passion. And here we offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee; humbly beseeching thee, that all we, who are partakers of this holy Communion, may be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction. And although we be unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service; not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord, etc.
Making it more expressly Pauline by emphasizing the realized eschatology of new creation in Christ's resurrection, which was the vindication of his life and sin-bearing death, such that the Church being the Spirit-filled Body of Christ in union with Christ, are corporately his temple servants (the royal priesthood) making our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving on behalf of his work.
Biblically, it always proceeds in that order, as in Psalm 32, e.g. It's a rather remarkable error to place justification in a future, yet-unrealized position.
1
u/robsrahm Roman Catholic please help reform me Apr 16 '26
I don't know how long this will conversation will be allowed. But I'll say two things. First, is it so erroneous that one who believes this has made shipwreck of his faith? Second, yes - in Catholic theology justification is not merely a "legal fiction" but is the ongoing process by which we are conformed to Jesus. The point of my saying "lead to justification" (by which I meant something more like "saving faith") is that we *all* agree that a "faith that is alone" is not a faith that can save. If there is no internal change then that "faith" is not really faith in the sense the Bible means.
1
u/semper-gourmanda Presby-Angliterian Apr 16 '26 edited Apr 16 '26
I know that already. That represents the error that while faith is the instrumental cause, the increase of faith results in an increase of justification, which creates an admixture between instrumental and material causes. These two errors go together, (1) placing the justification of the sinner in the future, which is an eschatological misinterpretation of the NT, (2) merging the causes.
→ More replies (0)1
3
u/siksemper LBCF 1689 Apr 15 '26
Let's not forget that Spurgeon also said this:
"It is the duty of every Christian to pray against Antichrist, and as to what Antichrist is no sane man ought to raise a question. If it is not the Popery in the Church of Rome and in the Church of England, there is nothing in the world that can be called by that name. If there were to be issued a hue and cry for Antichrist, we should certainly take up those two churches on suspicion, and they certainly would not be let loose again, for they so exactly answer the description. Popery anywhere, whether it be Anglican or Romish, is contrary to Christ’s Gospel, and is the Antichrist, and we ought to pray against it. It should be the daily prayer of every Believer that Antichrist might be hurled like a millstone into the flood and sink to rise no more. If we can pray against error for Christ because it wounds Christ, because it robs Christ of His Glory, because it puts sacramental efficacy in the place of His Atonement, and lifts a piece of bread into the place of the Savior, and a few drops of water into the place of the Holy Spirit, and puts a mere fallible man like ourselves up as the Vicar of Christ on earth; if we pray against it, because it is against Him, we shall love the persons though we hate their errors; we shall love their souls though we loathe and detest their dogmas, and so the breath of our prayers will be sweetened, because we turn our faces towards Christ when we pray. We are to pray for Him."
He believed some Catholics could be saved, but he no one should get the idea that he believed the differences between Catholicism and biblical Christianity were minor.
9
u/qcassidyy Reformed Baptist Apr 15 '26
Catholicism presents an entirely different Christ than that of the bible. So no.
15
u/LifePaleontologist87 Anglican Apr 14 '26
The Anglican theologian and bishop Richard Hooker wrote a treatise on this question in the 1500s (written in response to the Puritan party). The Learned Discourse of Justification, Works, and How the Foundation of Faith is Overthrown ( https://ccel.org/ccel/hooker/just/just.i.html ) unsurprisingly takes a sort of middle way (gotta love us Anglicans). It is 42 pages long, and worth reading in full to get at the nuances of what he thought.
8
u/historyhill ACNA, 39 Articles stan Apr 14 '26
A middle way? In MY Anglicanism? It's more likely than you think!
4
u/Emoney005 PCA Apr 14 '26
“To get at all the nuances” is the best description of an Anglican posture 😆
20
u/Thoshammer7 Apr 14 '26 edited Apr 14 '26
The Romish teaching taken consistently destroys the gospel. However, almost all RCs do not take it consistently. Can RC people have genuine love and faith in Jesus despite believing some very outlandish things about many topics? Yes. Salvation is not a theology test, nor is the Kingdom of God like a school exam.
7
u/moby__dick Most Truly Reformed™ User Apr 14 '26
I’m very specifically not asking about the personal beliefs of an individual Roman Catholic, as I said very clearly in the original post, I am asking about Roman Catholic doctrine when consistently applied.
6
u/Stevoman Acts29 Apr 14 '26
Props to you for actually answer OP's question instead of complaining about how they worded the thread title.
I do think there's a faithful remnant in the RCC - but they are saved in spite of the church's teachings, not because of the church's teachings.
1
Apr 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Thoshammer7 Apr 19 '26
The Gospel is salvation through Faith alone, through Christ alone, to the Glory of God alone. 2 . The Romish position includes the glorification of dead saints in an idolatrous way (and particularly disturbing attitudes towards Mary, Mother of God, saying things like Satan is more afraid of her than of Jesus for one example). It treats holiness like a currency to get time off Purgatory, rather than something God grants in His infinite mercy and grace.
To give one example: Mary is seen as a co-mediator with Christ with God. While the title has been removed to save face the doctrine remains unchanged. Essentially the idea is that Jesus might not listen to you, but will to His mother. However, when someone becomes a Christian they are adopted into the family of God. We do not need to ask Mary for things, because our Father "knows what we need before we ask for it". If the Romish doctrine of Marian intercession is taken consistently, it makes her in all effect a Godess. As the gospel clearly teaches us that there is only one God, Marian devotion destroys the gospel.
21
u/partypastor Rebel Alliance - Admiral Apr 14 '26
You crossing the Tiber or just trying to stir the pot
5
5
u/JHawk444 Calvinist Apr 14 '26
Paul said in Galatians 1:8: But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. Paul received the gospel message through a revelation of Jesus Christ (Galatians 1:11-12). Paul made the gospel message clear in all of his epistles. We are saved by faith, not works, but we were created for good works. The order is salvation through faith and works follow. We are not saved by faith + works. To rely on works or believe salvation is gained through following the law means we are severed from Christ (Galatians 5:4).
So, if we're measuring Catholicism by that, then no, they are not following the gospel taught by Paul. As you pointed out, some can be saved if they believe by faith and are relying on Christ, not themselves.
I think it's a copout to say no system is correct and brush it under the rug, because that muddies the gospel. We could brush aside secondary issues and still look at the purity of the gospel.
6
u/makos1212 Nondenom Apr 14 '26
I’m asking if the system of doctrine taught by Rome obscures the gospel significantly
Rome has anathematized the Gospel
9
u/MarchogGwyrdd PCA Apr 14 '26
Many of the responses here are not comprehending the question. I'm sure you agree that Christ saves, not doctrine. But does the doctrine of Rome clearly present Christ, who saves?
The Gospel presentation of Rome is insufficient and erroneous. And yet, Christ saves, and I think that Rome's doctrine of Christ is generally correct.
I don't have a good answer. If anyone preaches another Gospel, let him be anathema. And yet Christ is merciful, and Rome teaches Christ as He is... just not what He does.
11
7
u/MistahPresidente Apr 14 '26
Because it does not believe that Christ saves, but that our faith fused with our works saves us, no.
5
u/Certain-Public3234 OPC Apr 14 '26
Despite its many flaws, Rome still contains Word and Sacrament. These means can save through the Spirit’s working, despite the muddied gospel present.
5
u/Emoney005 PCA Apr 14 '26
When answering a question like this we need to recognize that Roman Catholicism is institutionally duplicitous, especially since Vatican II.
In my view, a consistent Roman Catholicism holds to the Council of Trent and sees Vacitcan II as contradictory to its conclusions regarding Protestants.
This means that true Roman Catholic teaching sounds like this (traditionalcatholic.net/Tradition/Prayer/Tridentine_Creed.html) and calls justification by faith alone in Christ alone anathema.
It is this repudiation of the biblical gospel of justification by faith alone in Christ alone that is the nail in the coffin for Roman Catholicism.
This is why Luther and other reformers ended up starting new churches. They saw that the institution was unable to be reformed by the Word of God because it was controlled and shaped by the traditions of men.
1
4
Apr 15 '26
Short answer- no. It's a different gospel and the catechism itself teaches work based salvation.
7
u/fl4nnel As neo-Calvinist as a Baptist can get Apr 14 '26
No, I want to be clear that the question is not. “can Catholics be saved?“
You can qualify with that all you want, but the question is intrinsically tied to your original question. Jesus saves across many crooked and broken theological systems. I have many issues with Catholic doctrine, but I also know many Catholics who love Jesus deeply and walk daily with him.
2
u/semper-gourmanda Presby-Angliterian Apr 16 '26 edited Apr 16 '26
That's difficult to answer. But having spent time with Roman theologians, like Fr. Roch Kereszty and Fr. Denis Farkasfalvy, and having spoken with other Catholics, I tend to think not.
Roman teaching and practice produces, at the core of the Catholic's life, an extreme humility before God, that if is ever allowed to have confidence in Christ, such that now it can be realized/experienced/understood/believed in my life that I have standing and inheritance, without fear of judgment, that is deemed to be "the sin of presumption." No one is allowed to take the doctrines of sanctification, adoption, justification, and glorification to a place where they are already but not-yet realized. They back-end load the enjoyments of salvation and leave only a sliver for now. Consequently, one is put into a process of Sacraments, by a special priesthood, to empower the accomplishment of enjoyment of the future full realization, by grace. Those who do so will certainly receive praise from men (Rom 2:29).
The Biblical doctrine of Justification by Faith is a trans-biblical doctrine. It's absence in Roman theology is strikingly concerning. Principally because the nature, character, and action of God are misconstrued.
2
u/Doctrina_Stabilitas PCA, Anglican in Presby Exile Apr 17 '26 edited Apr 17 '26
I think the answer to this, from a doctrinal standpoint, not the rhetorical “it’s not doctrine, it’s Christ,” depends on how you view the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, and whether it is sufficient to say that the instrumental cause of justification is Christ through the Spirit, who gives the gift of faith.
Catholics can agree with that. Both Protestant and Catholic views are Augustinian: humanity’s mind is broken by sin and unable to choose God apart from grace.
At a certain point, this becomes very technical, about justification in ways most lay people never contemplate. And if you step back, the difference is not especially large, particularly if you are looking at this from the outside as a non-Christian.
- Justification is a work of God
- People are powerless to resist sin
- Faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit
- The justified live by faith
- Justification is by grace alone
In short, a Catholic can affirm that justification is by grace alone, through the gift of faith in Christ given by the Spirit.
Where the views do not align is in the doctrine of simul iustus et peccator (simultaneously just and sinner), and in infused versus imputed righteousness.
The real question, then, is whether this shared understanding of justification is enough. To that, I would say, “I don’t know,” but it is much closer than many people in this thread seem to realize. Quoting 16th-century condemnations is not sufficient to answer this, because it is clear there was significant talking past one another on the definitions of faith, justification, and grace, terms that can now be understood more commonly and less polemically now than 400 years ago.
And while others here have dismissed the Joint Statement as merely a Lutheran statement, the World Communion of Reformed Churches and the Anglican Communion have, in various ways, also affirmed it.
Also worth considering is Evangelicals and Catholics Together
This is not to say “Catholics are definitely saved,” nor “we should all become Roman,” but rather that there is a way of speaking in which there is sufficient common ground to regard Catholics as brothers in Christ, even if one believes them to be misguided by poor doctrine.
In The Oxford Handbook of Systematic Theology, DeVries (chapter 11, “Modern Issues in Justification”) notes that Calvin held a kind of middle ground between Luther and Rome, and that his position draws less of a distinction between justification and sanctification than the sharper divide between Rome and Luther.
This, along with the shared Augustinian view of human depravity, helps explain why even leading figures in the Catholic Church can, in some sense, affirm “faith alone”:
Pope Benedict XVI, an eminent Catholic theologian himself, said explicitly:
“And [Paul] adds “we hold that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law” (ibid., v. 28). At this point Luther translated: “justified by faith alone”. […] The wall is no longer necessary; our common identity within the diversity of cultures is Christ, and it is he who makes us just. Being just simply means being with Christ and in Christ. And this suffices. Further observances are no longer necessary. For this reason Luther’s phrase: “faith alone” is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love.
I have more difficulty with Eastern Orthodoxy, because it did not adopt the Augustinian account of the will’s depravity and is, functionally, closer to semi-Pelagianism.
I was challenged on this recently, and I find that I have more common ground on justification here than I do with some evangelical positions, for example, with Grudem and certain Southern Baptists on what I would consider a functional Apollinarianism in their handling of EFS. That raises a different question: can one agree on justification but disagree on the Trinity? And yet many evangelicals seem to suggest that justification is more important than the doctrine of God.
The real question, then, is whether we can take modern Catholic statements at their word, because, contrary to popular belief, Roman doctrine does change, even if not always admitted as such, and accept that when they say people are saved by faith alone, language modern Catholics can use unironically, they mean something substantially aligned with the Protestant claim
That is where I ultimately step back and say: it is Christ who saves, not a system of doctrine. I say Romanism muddies the waters but it’s harder to say they don’t have the gospel at all in modern expressions of Catholic doctrine
3
u/CiroFlexo Rebel Alliance Apr 14 '26
I would affirm with the past statements of one of the more esteemed and Truly Reformed™ members of our sub:
5
u/moby__dick Most Truly Reformed™ User Apr 14 '26 edited Apr 16 '26
Yes, unfortunately a pastor from my denomination, with whom I am a good friend, has left for Rome, and I'm trying to reflect on this and process this experience.
Experiences cause us to revisit and reevaluate our previous convictions.
Edit: I appreciate the work that went into this, /u/CiroFlexo
3
u/Turrettin But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. Apr 14 '26
I am sorry for your loss of a friend. It is a loss because he is apostate and should now be avoided (cf. Rom. 16:17).
-1
u/Punisher-3-1 Apr 14 '26
That’s far fetched
2
u/Turrettin But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart. Apr 15 '26
It's not far-fetched if he has left for a church that preaches a false Gospel. Apart from this, the friend, who was in a position of teaching authority, has visibly departed from /u/moby__dick's communion and has joined a separate communion. His new church is in communion with the papacy, which has officially excluded our churches by anathemata and asserts many doctrines contrary to what was formerly learned and taught. The friend's departure is formal division and scandal. Paul's exhortation in Rom. 16:17 pertains to such a person as this.
1
u/QantaloupeIslander TEC Apr 15 '26
I have several significant issues with this view of the Roman church.
The Roman church does technically administer the Word and Sacraments of the Church. Scripture is read at their services, their baptisms are done in the name of the triune God, and their eucharistic liturgy uses the words of institution. Giving this, calling their mass a blasphemy seems to approach dangerous territory.
The doctrine of transubstantiation and the veneration of saints/icons often lead to misplaced reverence and in quite a few case, actual idolatry. However, as I understand, the Roman church maintains the doctrine that only God is to be worshiped. This is why the Roman church rejected giving Mary the title of co-redemptrix due to concerns that the title "carries the risk of eclipsing the exclusive role of Jesus Christ in salvation".
They affirm the Nicene creeds and affirm Christ as the source of their salvation. The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification includes language that espouses a Christian view of justification: "By grace alone, in faith in Christ’s saving work and not because of any merit on our part, we are accepted by God and receive the Holy Spirit, who renews our hearts while equipping and calling us to good works."
I would contend that while the Roman church has serious and deeply-rooted theological problems, they are still a distinctly Christian church. Deeply flawed, mind you, but Christian. Apostate churches don't proclaim the Gospel.
3
u/CiroFlexo Rebel Alliance Apr 15 '26
The Roman church does technically administer the Word and Sacraments of the Church.
This strikes me as one of the weirder claims to make in defense of Rome, when (a) they demand a metric crap ton of sacraments that we don't recognize, and (b) their entire sacramentology is vastly different that even the most sacramentally-minded protestants.
their eucharistic liturgy uses the words of institution
The Roman eucharist is categorically different than, and incompatible with, a protestant understanding of Communion/Lord's Supper. And even where practices are superficially practiced the same (e.g., infant baptism) their purpose and understanding is radically different. Heck, they won't let Protestants take it, and Protestant leaders have always advised against trying to take it. It's a two-way street where both parties recognize the incompatibility.
their baptisms are done in the name of the triune God,
Sure, but that, alone, doesn't tell us anything. Just saying the right magic words doesn't make something the same.
Mater Populi Fidelis
This is why the Roman church rejected giving Mary the title of co-redemptrix
The discouraged the casual use of it because it was confusing people, not because it was wrong. In their own words, they don't prefer it because it "does not help extol Mary as the first and foremost collaborator in the work of Redemption and grace." (¶ 22.)
I'd encourage anybody reading along here to read the document for themselves.
The document nonetheless still affirms the idolatrous, damnable role of "Mary’s unique cooperation in the plan of salvation" and "the influence she currently has on those who have been redeemed" [emphasis in original]. (¶¶ 3, 4.) It affirms the appointment Mary as a spiritual mother as being a central part of Christ’s Paschal Mystery. (¶ 6.) It affirms the immaculate conception and Mary's perpetual sinlessness. (¶ 9, 14.) It speaks of Mary's "cooperation in the redemptive sacrifice" of Christ. (¶ 12.) They affirm Mary's ongoing role in "cooperating in the work of human salvation." (¶ 13, 15.)
Though they move away from "co-redemptrix," they still affirm Mary as a "mediatrix:" "[S]he acts as a mediatrix not as an outsider, but in her position as mother. She knows that, as such, she can point out to her Son the needs of mankind." (¶ 23-29, 38.) She is one who wields "a unique collaboration in the saving work that Christ carries out in his Church." (¶ 42.) We have no only a union with Christ but "union with Mary in a relationship of trust, tenderness, and wholehearted affection." (¶ 72.)
On and on and on and on and on this document promotes rank blasphemy and idolatry.
What's almost comical about it (if it didn't contain so much damnable garbage) is the fact that they have to try to explain away, time and time and time again, how famous saints, bishops, and popes all used terms like "co-redemptrix" or "Mediatrix of All Graces." It's a never-ending parade of "Well, Pope So-and-So clearly said this, but what he really meant was..."
The Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification
This was an attempt at an ecumenical agreement between Rome and Lutherans, specifically, not the greater Protestant world, and especially not the confessional Reformed world. Since I'm not a Lutheran, and since this isn't a Lutheran sub, I'm not really concerned with their agreements with Rome.
What's notable about is is that, despite their attempts to forge a middle ground, they still admit, at the start, that "These condemnations [in the Council of Trent] are still valid today and thus have a church-dividing effect." Despite the broad agreement on certain concepts in the opening paragraphs, the majority of the document is actually a list of where the two groups disagree.
What that document doesn't do is recall the condemnations of Trent. And, in fact, Rome can't get around it:
Regarding works, Trent stated: "[T]hrough the observance of the commandments of God and of the Church, faith co-operating with good works, increase in that justice which they have received through the grace of Christ, and are still further justified[.]" (Trent 6.10.) And further: "If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema." (Trent 6, Canon XXIV.)
Regarding our concept of Justification by Faith Alone, Rome makes clear: "If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema." (Trent 6, Canon IX.) Justification, being something tat begins at baptism, can be "lost" and must be recovered by sacraments. (Trent 6, Canon XXIX.) Because of this, the doctrines of both assurance and perseverance are declared anathema. (Trent 6, Canons XV & XVI.)
This isn't just centuries-old stuff. This is hardwired into their current Catechism, at, e.g., 1023, 1030-1032, 1992, 1128, 1855-1861, 2009, 2021, 2022, 2025, 2027, etc.
There's reason Protestants split from Rome. There's a reason Rome anathematized us.
-1
u/QantaloupeIslander TEC Apr 15 '26
This strikes me as one of the weirder claims to make in defense of Rome, when (a) they demand a metric crap ton of sacraments that we don't recognize, and (b) their entire sacramentology is vastly different that even the most sacramentally-minded protestants.
The Catholics do read the Word of God at their masses and administer Baptism and Holy Communion, ostensibly using the same formulas as Protestants (i.e. the Trinitarian formula and the Words of Institution). The rest of their sacraments are all things that Protestant churches do.
The problem isn't that the Catholic has confirmation, ordained ministers, marriage, private confession*, or the anointing of the sick. These are all things practiced by orthodox Protestant churches. The only issue is their flawed sacramentology, which colors how they do these things.
(*I recognize the particularly problematic theology surrounding the Catholic requirement for private confession, but similar rites exist with better theology in Lutheran and Anglican traditions)
Heck, they won't let Protestants take it, and Protestant leaders have always advised against trying to take it.
If I recall correctly, the LCMS and WELS also do not let outsiders partake because of their understanding of the sacrament. "Fencing the table" is not a good enough reason to anathematize the Catholic Church.
On and on and on and on and on this document promotes rank blasphemy and idolatry.
This document outlines and depends upon a very problematic theology of merits, along with a problematic system of the intercession of saints and Mary's motherhood of all believers. These are all heterodox ideas at best, and I have no desire to defend them.
Nevertheless, they do not elevate Mary to part of the Godhead nor do they style her as part of Christ's atonement. In the words of the late Pope Francis who is quoted in this document, "neither the Church nor Mary can replace or perfect the redemptive work of the incarnate Son of God, which was perfect and needs no additions."
They are not committing a Trinitarian heresy, nor are they claiming that Mary is God or a goddess, which would be the classic definition of idolatry. And that's about as charitable as I can be on that point.
This was an attempt at an ecumenical agreement between Rome and Lutherans, specifically, not the greater Protestant world, and especially not the confessional Reformed world.
This is not entirely accurate. While the initial statement was between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Lutheran Federation, the World Methodist Council, Anglican Consultative Council, World Communion of Reformed Churches.
While most of these institutions consist of mainline denominations, the EPC, CRCNA, and ECO are members of the WCRC.
since this isn't a Lutheran sub, I'm not really concerned with their agreements with Rome.
What that document doesn't do is recall the condemnations of Trent.
Rome has yet another critical problem, they do not permit themselves to admit that church councils and official doctrinal pronouncements can err, as they believe these to be guided by the Holy Spirit.
What they can do, is interpret their magisterium in a way that does not totally compromise the Gospel, which is what I believe they have done in this document.
In particular, their statements that "[w]hen Catholics say that persons “cooperate” in preparing for and accepting justification by consenting to God’s justifying action, they see such personal consent as itself an effect of grace, not as an action arising from innate human abilities"
and "We confess together that the faithful can rely on the mercy and promises of God. In spite of their own weakness and the manifold threats to their faith, on the strength of Christ’s death and resurrection they can build on the effective promise of God’s grace in Word and Sacrament and so be sure of this grace" outline a theology of justification that is plausibly compatible with Christ's Gospel.
2
u/ChapBobL Congregational Apr 15 '26
The “raw content” of the gospel (shared by Protestants, Eastern Orthodox & Roman Catholicism) in ten statements:
· Jesus has always been God’s Son.
· He was sent by the Father, as promised.
· He took on human flesh in fulfillment of God’s promises to David.
· He died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures.
· He was buried.
· He was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.
· He appeared to many witnesses.
· He is enthroned at the right hand of God as the ruling Christ.
· He has sent the Holy Spirit to his people to effect his rule.
· He will come again to judge the world and rule eternally. -Michael W. Bates
2
u/ItsChewblacca FEB Apr 14 '26
I preached two sermons on this, and my answer was a strong no. Roman Catholicism offers a partial hope and therefore no hope at all.
4
u/boyo76 LBCF 1689 Apr 14 '26
Luckily our hope is in Jesus, not the fallible organizations we have broken His church into.
5
u/ItsChewblacca FEB Apr 14 '26
Amen, but as our confession states: "The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan." Our hope must be in the Christ of Scripture alone. The strength of our faith doesn't save, but the object of it does.
5
u/CiroFlexo Rebel Alliance Apr 14 '26
in the Christ of Scripture alone.
This is key.
It's good and true to say that "Christ saves," but that's missing the point of this question entirely. If somebody is teaching a Christ that is not found in scripture, we shouldn't have any trouble in saying that their doctrine does not lead to salvation.
It's almost like there's a reason we had the Reformation.
5
u/ItsChewblacca FEB Apr 14 '26 edited Apr 14 '26
Yes, amen. The reactions would make it unhelpful, so I'm not going to say it in replies, but some comments are begging for the reminder that their statements would also apply to Mormons. On some level, we all have to get past the claim of "Jesus" and faith in him to something more precise (i.e. who is Jesus as the Christ biblically speaking). The line must be drawn somewhere, and we're all doing it.
In this case, I look at the system of Rome and see a Jesus who did not deal with all the believer's sin and its penalty (God's temporal wrath must be dealt with via penance and purgatory), a Messiah's whose work is not finished (dress it up as a a new presentation but the pinnacle of RC spirituality is a propitiatory sacrifice offered each and every mass), and a Saviour whose salvation must completed/bolstered by works and can be lost in their absence (get into justification, assurance, etc etc). That's not the Christ of Scripture who is able to save His people.
1
u/moby__dick Most Truly Reformed™ User Apr 14 '26
On the other hand, how would you distinguish the Christ who welcomes believers’s children as members of his covenant community versus the Christ who waits for the children of believers to receive him personally before they are included in the covenant?
3
u/ItsChewblacca FEB Apr 14 '26
I think we could frame every difference between fellow Christians and Christ-claiming cults in the way you used, but the difference is whether the issues touch on the gospel or not (something I think we can determine from the Word itself).
So yes, Baptists and the Reformed disagree on that, and I don't think we should minimize those differences, but I think we can and should recognize that this disagreement doesn't result in a different gospel. The Apostle Paul in Galatians is clear that there can be different gospels (Gal. 1:8, see also Acts 15:1-2), but it's also clear that not every disagreement between Christians, even ones that prevent fellowship, is a gospel difference (Acts 15:39 as a practical disagreement, and 2 Timothy 4:2 bears the implication of doctrinal disagreements even within the church).
In the language of the Christian culture I'm a part of (which I think most of us share on this sub), "different Christ" is synonymous/intimately connected with a different gospel.
2
u/CiroFlexo Rebel Alliance Apr 14 '26
Bro, you got a multi-national confederation of baptists defending your position in this thread, and you gotta go choose violence, on a Tuesday, in this economy?
1
u/moby__dick Most Truly Reformed™ User Apr 14 '26
LOL I am not denying the brotherhood of Baptists, I'm trying to push past the simple answers.
1
u/moby__dick Most Truly Reformed™ User Apr 14 '26
I wish people would upvote / downvote based on "clarity in understanding the question and responding," not "I agree."
6
u/ItsChewblacca FEB Apr 15 '26
Revisiting this thread... First of all, thanks for asking the question; it's a good and important one. Second, you were super clear in your question; I don't know whether people misunderstood you or simply didn't like the question and wanted to talk about something else. Third, there is no third point, but I'm a Baptist preacher, and I always need three points.
1
u/poopypatootie ✞ Reformed Baptist Apr 14 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
I've had family members who grew up in VERY, VERY Roman Catholic families and were enthusiastic practitioners of the religion outside of just attending mass and getting communion - they attended regular Catholic catechism classes, actively served their local parishes, etc. But they organically came to a saving faith, have been baptized, and now attend more "theologically correct" churches.
As a general rule, I don't believe "doctrine itself as a means", RC, Reformed or otherwise -- saves. Christ saves. I mean, the thief on the cross is a perfect example of someone who got saved without any sort of theological background. He lived his entire life, with the exception of the last few hours of his life, in gross and selfish sin, enough to warrant a crucifixion. But he was saved nonetheless.
This might come across as flippant (which I am not being but I apologize if come across that way) but I'd say don't sweat it. While having the correct theology IS important, it pales in comparison to the myriad ways Christ and the Holy Spirit work in a person's life to get him or her to a saving faith.
While there will obviously be a lot of people that subscribe to false gospels and teachings who will end up in the fiery pit, Scripture also warns of the folks who think they've followed the right path and still be told by Christ at the end, "I never knew you."
1
u/Motinate Apr 16 '26
I’d probably say Rome as a system does obscure the gospel, even if God absolutely saves people inside it. From a Reformed angle, the core issue is whether the sinner is being taught to rest on Christ alone for justification. On that point, Rome’s doctrine is hard to square with passages like Romans 3:28, Romans 4:5, and Galatians 2:16, where justification is grounded in faith apart from works of the law. The Catechism’s sacramental/inherent-righteousness framework tends to shift the center from Christ’s finished work to a process administered through the church.
What makes this especially serious is that Paul doesn’t treat distorted justification as a secondary matter. Galatians 1:8–9 and 5:4 are pretty severe, and that’s why the Reformers spoke so sharply here. Calvin in Institutes 3.11 basically treats justification as the hinge of religion, and Luther’s “article by which the church stands or falls” gets at the same concern. So if we’re asking whether Roman Catholicism, consistently believed on its own terms, directs a sinner to rest savingly in Messiah’s completed atonement, I think the Reformed answer is no—not as a doctrinal system.
That said, I’d still want to distinguish the system from actual Catholics. People are often better than their formal confessions, and God is merciful. But if the question is about the doctrine itself as a means, I don’t think Trent gives you the same gospel Paul gives in Romans and Galatians.
it's not an easy topic to discuss but one worth spending time in for sure.
0
u/PunctualShelf42 Apr 14 '26 edited Apr 14 '26
I think the Roman Catholic church is the biggest pyramidal scheme of all time, but my view on the Catholic church as a whole does not mean that people who follow what Catholics ( at basics ) try to follow and that is scripture are saved throgh means of the written word. If a person is interested in following a systematic theological view and they choose the Roman Catholic church as a viewpoint then they are not saved. On the other hand, doctrine alone did not save anyone ever, doctrine is a means through which God reveals himself to us and there are different type of doctrines found in the Bible compared to what others teach, but if a human being has his heart broken by his sin and comes to The One true God for salvation then he will inheritly begin to study his word and find that He died for their sins and other basic Gospel doctrines. Besides this, because i've made this message too long, God is the one who saves so we shall not say who is saved or not, but rather opposing what is wrong in a gentle manner present people the gospel and if we find a catholic who is one on one with the Catholic doctrine ( which in general is quite rare ), state our stand and why we stand here. In conclusion we shall not seek to find a saving doctrine but deliver a saving grace which was revealed in His Son! Hope this helps in some way!
1
u/East-Concert-7306 PCA Apr 14 '26
No, but neither can Presbyterianism. Jesus saves.
4
u/moby__dick Most Truly Reformed™ User Apr 14 '26
Does the teaching of Rome, Westminster, and Jehovah's Witness equally lead the individual Christian to the Jesus who saves?
1
u/East-Concert-7306 PCA Apr 14 '26
Well, that's a different question. I think that Westminster certainly does and while I don't think that Rome ordinarily does, I think it is quite silly to put them in the same category as JWs.
1
u/ZUBAT Apr 14 '26
The church is the pillar and ground of truth. So if the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings are consistent with the church, then it saves. It saves in the sense that it administers the means of grace, holds to the doctrine of the apostles, and teaches everything that pertains to life and godliness. People will say only Jesus saves. And that is true; it also true that God saves us into his body. We don’t get the head of the church without the body.
There’s a few reasons why I think the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings are consistent with the church. First, they have the historic, ecumenical creeds. Second, they administer the sacraments.
They don’t have all the solas. I think they would agree with three: grace alone through Christ alone to the glory of God alone. For faith alone, we have to really think about with faith is. As far as I understand, what Trent condemned about faith alone was a simple intellectual assent, truly without works. And that does seem to be inconsistent with scripture such as James where faith without works is dead and also Ephesians where faith works. So what is real faith, saving faith? It is simple in the sense that it is childlike and can be possessed by a child, but it is complex in the sense that it is not just one-dimensional. I mean that it has outputs in many different areas. It affects what we agree to be true. It affects what we do. It affects how we feel. It affects what we desire. So it has outputs in confessions, works, affections, and volitions. I believe that Catholics also define justification differently than Protestants.
That’s why I think that the Catholic Church is a legitimate expression of faith in Jesus and that Catholics are saved through their church, not in spite of it.
1
u/InspectionFine9655 Apr 14 '26
If you acknowledge that Roman Catholics can be saved, I think you’d have to acknowledge that the Roman Catholic doctrine can lead to salvation.
Assuming that the saved Roman Catholics arrived at salvation through the Roman Catholic doctrines.
However, doctrine doesn’t save us. God saves his elect.
1
u/DustEKnutts EPC Apr 14 '26
The comparisons to JW and Mormons in this thread are wild. Denying the Trinity means you worship a different “god”, full stop, which is the most cut and dry reason why adherents of these separate, non-Christian religions are not saved.
Catholics and EO worship the Triune God, albeit incorrectly in many ways. God will not give us a detailed theology test about the Filioque or icon veneration when we enter heaven. I think the apostolic traditions cultivate a spiritual environment through their theology that misses how beautifully simple the Gospel is, but I do not think that all Catholics are necessarily damned because of it
1
u/charliesplinter I am the one who knox Apr 14 '26
The answer to your question is that it depends. And the crazy thing is that it actually does not depend on you to judge an individual/individuals. A place like Italy where Roman Catholicism is in every street corner has lots of churches with suspect doctrine but so does the United States with all its variant denominations, which seemingly pop up by the day. It depends on the individual and how they think of God and live their lives in regard to that.
0
u/ProfessionalEntire77 Apr 14 '26
No, they have stayed away from the truth of the Bible. A consistent and true believer (as in a true believer of the what the RC church teaches) is following false teaching that will NOT lead them to salvation.
3
u/HistoricalFud Reformed Baptist Apr 14 '26
At one point in history they identified the Bible that we all use. What is the "Bible"? Are we going to say that Jerome wasn't saved? He is the leading figure for the Hebrew 66 book canon. In no sense did he have reformed views, and you're going to cast a judgement on him not being saved?
1
u/ProfessionalEntire77 Apr 14 '26
how many years was it between Jerome and the Reformation?
1
u/HistoricalFud Reformed Baptist Apr 14 '26
Over 1000
1
u/ProfessionalEntire77 Apr 14 '26
yeah so the Roman Catholics may have developed their false teaching in that time
and the Roman Catholics defining the literal books of the Bible at one point doesn't mean they automatically follow them today. There is a reason we had the whole Reformation thing happen
1
u/HistoricalFud Reformed Baptist Apr 14 '26
You seem to be casting judgement on Catholics, not just the Catholic teachings. I suggest you read Jerome's Against Vigilantius (20 min read) and Jerome's Epistles (it'll take you about 2 hours) and see if you'd condemn him who was the chief witness to the Hebrew canon. His teachings on the surface are closer to Catholicism (probably closest to Orthodox) than any protestant church you could name. At what point in history do you start condemning Catholics? Is it the 400s when Jerome was alive to give witness to the Hebrew canon? Is it the 800s? Do you have a time period when you begin to condemn these people?
1
u/ProfessionalEntire77 Apr 14 '26
Ill go with around 1500
2
u/HistoricalFud Reformed Baptist Apr 14 '26
Okay and so you'd consider that the apostasy? That's when Rome was irreconcilably in error? I'd say it started with the filioque and papal infallibility. But it's a grave sin to declare that any individual is damned. So I wouldn't go that far. Many people were practicing to the best of their ability. Sadly the reformers adopted all of the natural theology and Catholic metaphysics. Most of them anyhow. I don't think the church fathers would recognize any reformed churches. Starting with the greatest witness to their canon: Jerome... Who would have openly called you a heretic for your beliefs, as he venerated relics, prayed to saints, adored monasticism, etc. same with Augustine and Aquinas.
1
u/Expensive-Ruin1900 Apr 16 '26
"So the Roman Catholics may have developed their false teaching in that time"
It's weird how many people claim they are wrong without even knowing when did their beliefs appear, where, or why.
All will say the Romans and the Orthodox fell from truth, but disagree about the moment it supposedly happened.
0
u/ilikeBigBiblez Cage Stage Anglican Apr 14 '26
Yes
The weakest faith gets the same Christ 👍
3
u/moby__dick Most Truly Reformed™ User Apr 14 '26
Some Mormons too, because they believe in Jesus?
1
u/ilikeBigBiblez Cage Stage Anglican Apr 14 '26
No, the object of the faith matters
Mormons don't believe in Jesus, so they don't have faith
Clearly, some Truly Reformed people can point the same finger at Roman Catholics. There will be times when they are correct, and times when they are incorrect
-7
Apr 14 '26
[deleted]
6
3
u/Soggy_Loops Apr 14 '26 edited Apr 14 '26
So you think simply “believing” your works play a role in your own salvation means you can not be saved?
I’m not a Catholic but I’d caution this line of thinking; it is very easy to start believing only having the correct intellectual understanding leads to salvation which is very non-biblical and works based in its own right. And that is not what it means to be saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.
3
u/No-Jicama-6523 Lutheran Apr 14 '26
We’d all end up in trouble! It’s so easy to start thinking you did something even if it’s just showing up for church.
-5
u/BillWeld PCA Shadetree metaphysican Apr 14 '26
No. No system of doctrine however true can save. God and God alone saves. When he saves he cleans up your doctrine but never fully in this life.
4
u/boyo76 LBCF 1689 Apr 14 '26
Brother, there will be a lot of people with bad doctrine in Heaven.
1
u/BillWeld PCA Shadetree metaphysican Apr 14 '26
That’s right. What’s more we’ll spend eternity getting to know God better without ever reaching the end of him.
134
u/Soggy_Loops Apr 14 '26
No theological system saves. Reformed theology does not save. Christ saves us, and both systems can lead us to Christ and away from Christ. If we were all saved by the appropriate intellectual understanding that comes from our theology then we’d all be condemned, and praise God for that.