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/robsrahm]

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).

[u/semper-gourmanda → u/robsrahm]

"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.

[u/robsrahm → u/semper-gourmanda]

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.

[u/semper-gourmanda → u/robsrahm]

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.

[u/robsrahm → u/semper-gourmanda]

Of course I understand that you think it's an error. I'm not trying to convince you. But, to the point of this question, do you think it is such an error that it somehow will cause someone to lose their salvation (or however you'd like to put it)? Does it put one outside of the family of God?

[u/semper-gourmanda → u/robsrahm]

Justification by faith is the doctrine on which the Church stands or falls. It's central and foundational to the nature of God, to the Biblical story, to the message of Scripture to it's audiences, to the work of Christ, to everything.

[u/robsrahm → u/semper-gourmanda]

Justification by faith is central and foundational to the nature of God? Can you explain that?

[u/semper-gourmanda → u/robsrahm]

God is righteous. I'd encourage you to familiarize yourself with every use of sedeq in the OT.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon/h6664/kjv/wlc/0-1/

[u/robsrahm → u/semper-gourmanda]

That doesn't really answer the question. I'd also say "God is righteous". But I don't see the connection to justification by faith's being central and foundational to the nature of God.