Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Keilani Ludlow's avatar

We get that in our faith a lot too. We believe in becoming more like Christ thru emulating him, we love him therefore we seek to be like him - but in no way can we buy our way to heaven with works. Salvation comes only through Christ.

Expand full comment
Kay's avatar

First, I’m married to a lifelong Catholic, and my sister converted to Catholicism seven years ago. During a difficult period with my current Anglican church I attended a Catholic church with my husband for more than two years. And I’ve attended Catholic Churches in various locations. By no stretch could I be termed anti-Catholic. I have even considered becoming a Catholic, but I’d have to sign on to beliefs about Mary that have no Biblical support. The one that makes no sense at all is her immaculate conception. We know from the Bible that Jesus led a sinless life because He was both fully God and fully human, and that His divinity came from the Holy Spirit who impregnated Mary. He had no human father so escaped the sin nature that passes through Adam. But Mary’s parents were both human, which means that she had a sin nature. All indications are that she led an exemplary life, but an exemplary human life, which means that she was subject to sin and needed salvation too.

The works accusation against Catholics I believe to be a misunderstanding of what Catholics actually mean when they use what for Protestants are trigger words, such as merit. I have trouble with the quote about Purgatory you included because it does sound awfully like the process is the source of purification, rather than the blood of Jesus cleansing us from all sin. Perhaps if it were worded to indicate not a process of purification but a time of adjustment for those whose salvation occurred so late in life that they had no opportunity to learn about holy living? Tolkien wrote a novella called “Leaf by Niggle” that contains such an idea. It’s not Biblical but could be a belief worthy of speculation, rather than of doctrine.

My most serious reservation about Catholicism is something I recently learned that disturbs me very much. I believe in the real presence of Jesus in communion, but not in transubstantiation. That belief was proposed by a monk named Radaburt in the 10th century, I believe, and was subsequently adopted as a doctrine of the Church. Various beliefs became attached to this new doctrine: that priests performed this miracle in the mass; that this power gave them special authority; that this change of substance was a sacrifice of Jesus every time it was performed; that performing this miracle in the mass was a meritorious act; and that by it the Church ministered grace to those who received it. The doctrine of transubstantiation gave priests tremendous power over the laity and, in effect, taught the latter to focus on the Mass instead of on the finished work of Jesus Christ. It’s not that the Roman Church teaches wrong doctrine about the Gospel of Jesus Christ; it’s that the added layer of transubstantiation prevents many Catholics from grasping the actual teachings of the Church.

Expand full comment
10 more comments...

No posts