Modern Roman Catholicism: Why This Site Treats Them Separately
By modern Roman Catholicism, I mean the Roman Catholic Church since after the time of the Reformation; say, since 1550. (Of course, the Council of Trent, which lasted 18 years, was going on during that time. So perhaps 1564 would be a better starting point.)
The basic reason I am treating them separately is obvious. They're separate.
Times have changed. It's not so simple to say everyone is Catholic or Protestant any more. Now there's a broad spectrum. Is the Church of England more Protestant? Or more Catholic? How about the American Episcopal Church?
Shoot, even the Lutherans—the ultimate Protestants—seem very close to Catholicism when compared to other Evangelical churches.
Nonetheless, there remains the Roman Catholic Church, subject to the Pope—and everyone else, not subject to him.
But Let's Get More To the Point …
I'm not ready to acknowledge the Roman Catholic Church as a Christian Church.
While the early churches did not have a "Bible" per se, they did have most Scriptures that we have—and more. They treated them with great authority.
One of those Scriptures says, "Contend earnestly for the faith once for all delivered to the saints." This is Christian-history.org. History says that the faith once for all delivered to the saints is something quite other than what is taught and preached by the Roman Catholics.
That faith "once for all delivered to the saints" is described in the Early Christianity section of this web site.
One early Christian described "the faith delivered to the saints" in these words:
But the path of those belonging to the Church circles the whole world, as possessing the sure tradition from the apostles, and allows us to see that the faith of all is one and the same … And undoubtedly the preaching of the Church is true and stedfast, in which one and the same way of salvation is shown throughout the whole world. For to her is entrusted the light of God. (Irenaeus, Against Heresies V:20:1, c. A.D. 185)
That faith has changed over the years, and there's a sense in which most (yeah, unfortunately, most) Evangelical churches have lost that faith, too.
If you are offended by that, I'm sorry. It doesn't change the fact that it's true. If you need help believing that, read through this site or try The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience by Ronald Sider. There's a reason that a man can write a book like that about Evangelicals, and it has everything to do with losing the faith once for all delivered to the saints.
The Scriptures say to contend earnestly for the faith once delivered to the saints. Contend earnestly means to fight hard. Fighting hard doesn't mean writing sweet things on a web site about churches teaching things contrary to that faith. I will not apologize for fighting for the faith the apostles originally handed to the churches and its leaders—once for all.
This Christian history site is meant to let you observe—if I can paint a picture with words well enough—the faith that was delivered to the saints, so that you can know what you should be fighting for!
So Why Write a Page Like This About Roman Catholicism and Not Evangelicalism?
An emphasis on the authority of the Scriptures and on being born again—which is how I am defining evangelical—is part of the historic Christian faith. That emphasis provides a freedom to discover Christ, to come under his headship, and to be saved by him.
When that happens, Jesus—who is the Lord of every man (Rom. 14:9), who is risen and alive, and who has the power to save and to lead his children (Rom. 8:14)—can take care of leading a Christian into the true faith.
Evangelicals allow that to happen, even if—due to a host of false, anti-scriptural traditions—they often stand in the way of it happening.
The fact is, many born again and empowered evangelicals walk out of their traditional churches in search of something more. Revolution by George Barna says they number in the millions. Although they rarely realize it, that "something more" is the faith that the apostles transmitted to the churches.
Only it will satisfy their soul.
Roman Catholicism, however, does not emphasize being born again, nor do they emphasize the authority of the Scriptures. They allow both, but they emphasize neither. Therefore—from my experience as a person raised Catholic in three countries and two states—Catholics who are real Christians are as rare as $2 bills in 2009.
There may be exceptions—places where committed, born-again Catholics abound—but I haven't run across any. Just the rare individual. Most everyone else, including me, decided it was necessary to leave Roman Catholicism to continue with Christ.
When I was a young Christian, I read a Catholic Digest that had an article entitled "My Teenager Got Saved! What Do I Do Now?" No kidding! Like it was some kind of disease or something!
So I'm going to make a Roman Catholicism section for the modern era of Christian history, but I'm not rushing. I want to stick to the Christian movements for now.
Then Why Did I Cover Roman Catholicism in Early Christianity Already?
To prove it didn't exist then.
