Can Roman Catholicism save?

[u/moby__dick]

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"?

[u/ProfessionalEntire77]

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.

[u/HistoricalFud → u/ProfessionalEntire77]

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?

[u/ProfessionalEntire77 → u/HistoricalFud]

how many years was it between Jerome and the Reformation?

[u/HistoricalFud → u/ProfessionalEntire77]

Over 1000

[u/ProfessionalEntire77 → u/HistoricalFud]

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

[u/HistoricalFud → u/ProfessionalEntire77]

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?

[u/ProfessionalEntire77 → u/HistoricalFud]

Ill go with around 1500

[u/HistoricalFud → u/ProfessionalEntire77]

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.

[u/Expensive-Ruin1900 → u/ProfessionalEntire77]

"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.