Replies

First reply got lost, here goes again.

1. Catholics who say "I'm Catholic, not Chirstian" often has to do with semantics. If people are talking about evangelicals, then it's natural to say this...meaning "I'm not an evangelical Chirstian." It goes without saying in some conversations.

2. There's nothing wrong with spirited discussion about doctrine...it's healthy and I agree it often promotes better understanding of various faiths. I was referring to the vitriol sometimes displayed on FR towards many faiths, not just Catholics. Frankly, freepers can do better. For example, we don't need to be told we're going to hell and that we're heritics along with Jews, traditional Protestants, Hindus, etc. because we haven't become 'born again' the way a particular freeper defines 'born again'. (Please don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that only evangelicals bash other faiths...I've seen supposed Catholics bash other faiths here on FR...it's all wrong. You're correct, we do have loopy Catholics...every faith has them.) I love a spirited discussion as much as the next person, but if the person on the other side wants to treat me as the scum of the earth, I've got better things to do. My point is that there are some freepers (albeit a tiny minority) that love to bash one faith or another, and it's a waste of bandwidth and people's time. It's also wrong.

3. The 'exclusive franchise on salvation' was written by a controversial cardinal. He doesn't have the final say, just as Al Haig didn't have the final say for Reagan and O'Neil didn't have it for Bush. There are people in every institution that don't tow the 'party line.' Personally I don't personally know any Catholics that espouse that view (obviously I can't read people's minds). Obviously there are some who believe it (heck there are people in nearly every religion who believe that outsiders can't attain salvation). I certainly don't and every Catholic I've ever spoken to thinks that Cardinal was wrongheaded.

3. The 'exclusive franchise on salvation' was written by a controversial cardinal.

Reread Dominie Iesus. The bishop of Rome seems to differ with you in this matter. Those misguided non-Roman evangelicals who signed ECT eventually discovered this as well. If you think it through, Rome really cannot hold any other position. Their doctrinal system really does require it. Rome has many times described itself as "always the same". For those who read the history of the various churches, we know this and don't expect anything else. Given their doctrine, Rome isn't free to change their claim.

Actually, much as I disagree with the doctrine of the Roman church, I don't believe anything can stand in the way of the Father if He has determined to extend His grace to save any man, whether he attends no church or a Roman church or any other. We Calvinists are pretty big on God's sovereignty that way.

If we more doctrinally-rabid Baptists/evangelicals/Protestants were to succeed in more or less imposing every doctrinal correction we might wish upon the church of Rome, that alone could not save a single soul. Sometimes in an FR debate, even some Calvinists seem to believe that correct doctrine suffices to salvation. But it can't. It is God's own Holy Spirit that draws men to Him, not the particular reading of any man's reading of the Word.

Salvation always remains in God's hands and that should be sufficient cause for any of us to reflect that however strongly we may feel we have discovered an ancient and universal truth of Christian belief or practice or sacrament, that God remains sovereign and He saves who He wills, at His discretion. Whether we like it or not or whether we think any particular person or organization is worthy of His effort. It's funny how that works. God is no respecter of men. Especially of those who claim to be His spokesmen. He seems able to speak well enough for Himself through His Word and His Spirit to those to whom He has given ears to hear and eyes to see.