We now come to the third in this series of articles that address those who are inclined to convert to Roman Catholicism. Here are questions 11-16.

(11) Do you believe it is biblically correct to withhold the communion cup from the laity? If so, why? Where does the Bible teach this? Are you prepared when taking communion to receive only the bread and not the cup? On what basis does the RCC say that the “whole Christ” is present in both elements? And why would they even make this distinction and ever have withheld the cup from the laity in the first place?

(12) As you know, Roman Catholics must believe and live in accordance with the “revelation” that was embodied in the official councils of the church throughout history. So, are you prepared to affirm the truth of the following statement which was affirmed at Trent in the 16th century?

“If any one shall deny that the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and, therefore, entire Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained in the Sacrament of the most holy Eucharist; and shall say that He is only in it as in a sign or in a figure, or virtually, let him be accursed. . . . If anyone shall say that the substance of the bread and wine remains in the Sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ; and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, the outward forms of the bread and wine still remaining, which conversion the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation, let him be accursed” (Session 13, Canons 1-2).

As I mentioned above, are you prepared to declare your family and friends all “accursed” or “anathema” because they deny transubstantiation?

And are you prepared to affirm the following of what happens in the Eucharist?

“And since in this divine sacrifice, which is performed in the Mass, the same Christ is contained, and is bloodlessly immolated, who once offered Himself bloodily upon the Cross; and the holy council teaches that this sacrifice is propitiatory [emphasis mine], and that by its means, if we approach God contrite and penitent, with a true heart, and a right faith, and with fear and reverence, we may obtain mercy, and grow in seasonable succour. For the Lord, appeased by the oblation of this sacrifice [emphasis mine], granting grace and the gift of repentance, remits even great crimes and sins. There is one and the same victim, and the same person, who now offers by the ministry of the priests, who then offered Himself upon the Cross; the mode of offering only being different. And the fruits of that bloody offering are truly most abundantly received through this offering, so far is it from derogating in any way from the former. Wherefore, it is properly offered according to the tradition of the Apostles, not only for the sins, punishments, satisfactions, and other wants of the living, but also for the dead in Christ, who are not yet fully purged” (Session 22, chp. 2).

“If any one shall say that the sacrifice of the Mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, or a bare commemoration of the sacrifice made upon the Cross, and that it is not propitiatory, or that it profits only the receiver, and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for their sins, pains, satisfactions, and other wants – let him be accursed” (Session 22, Canon 3).

So, again, are you now going to say that all of us, including your family and friends, are “accursed” because they don’t embrace transubstantiation or the sacrifice of the Eucharist?

Do you sincerely believe that when you partake of the elements that you can somehow “profit” or bring benefits to dead believers in purgatory, reducing the degree of their pains and thereby make “satisfaction” for them?

Again, are you prepared to believe and teach others that “The Eucharistic sacrifice is also offered for the faithful departed who ‘have died in Christ but are not yet wholly purified,’ so that they may be able to enter into the light and peace of Christ” (CC, 1371).

And I assume also that you will observe the following in regard to any of the elements left over from the celebration of the Eucharist:

“The Catholic Church has always offered and still offers to the sacrament of the Eucharist the cult of adoration, not only during Mass, but also outside of it, reserving the consecrated hosts with the utmost care, exposing them to the solemn veneration of the faithful, and carrying them in procession” (CC, 1378).

And do you believe that the Eucharist not only unites us to Christ but also cleanses “us from past sins” and preserves us from future sins” (CC, 1393)?

Do you now believe that “the Eucharist preserves us from future mortal sins?” (CC, 1395) Do you believe that another sacrament, penance, secures for us the “forgiveness of mortal sins” (CC, 1395)?

(13) Do you truly believe that a believer must do acts of penance, since it supposedly exists for those “who, since Baptism, have fallen into grave sin, and have thus lost their baptismal grace and wounded ecclesial communion. It is to them that the sacrament of Penance offers a new possibility to convert and to recover the grace of justification” (CC, 1446). So do you believe that any time you sin you lose “baptismal grace” and that you must “convert” anew and “recover the grace of justification”?

According to the doctrine of penance, the Christian “must ‘make satisfaction for’ or ‘expiate’ his sins. This satisfaction is also called ‘penance’” (CC, 1459). Is that what you believe? Why?

If you become a Catholic you must affirm that “this sacrament of Penance is necessary for salvation . . . just as Baptism is necessary for salvation for those who have not yet been reborn” (CC, 980).

Again, “the Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation” (CC, 1129).

(14) Do you genuinely and sincerely now believe that the true church of Jesus Christ “subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops in communion with him” (CC, 816). Do you believe that,

“it is through Christ’s Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained. It was to the apostolic college alone, of which Peter is the head, that we believe that our Lord entrusted all the blessings of the New Covenant, in order to establish on earth the one Body of Christ into which all those should be fully incorporated who belong in any way to the People of God” (CC, 816).

So, you must now believe that it is through the RCC “alone” that “fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained”. But why? Why would you believe that?

(15) Do I understand that now you are an inclusivist and believe that people can come to salvation without an explicit knowledge of Christ and personal faith in him? I assume you believe the following:

“Those also can attain to everlasting salvation who through no fault of their own do not know the gospel of Christ or His church, yet sincerely seek God and, moved by grace, strive by their deeds to do His will as it is known to them through the dictates of conscience. Nor does divine Providence deny the help necessary for salvation to those who, without blame on their part, have not yet arrived at an explicit knowledge of God, but who strive to live a good life, thanks to His grace. Whatever goodness or truth is found among them is looked upon by the church as a preparation for the gospel” (“Dogmatic Constitution on the Church”). See also CC, 839-848.

Are you prepared to live according to the dictates of a recent papal declaration that says Roman Catholics will not evangelize Jews because they have no need of conscious faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ to be saved? Here are two statements from that declaration.

“From the Christian confession that there can be only one path to salvation, however, it does not in any way follow that the Jews are excluded from God’s salvation because they do not believe in Jesus Christ as the Messiah of Israel and the Son of God. . . . That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery.”

“It is easy to understand that the so-called ‘mission to the Jews’ is a very delicate and sensitive matter for Jews because, in their eyes, it involves the very existence of the Jewish people. . . . The Church is therefore obliged to view evangelization to Jews . . . in a different manner from that to people of other religions and worldviews. In concrete terms this means that the Catholic Church neither conducts nor supports any specific institutional mission work directed toward Jews.”

Is that now your own personal theological conviction that you derived from a study of the Bible?

(16) What reason do you have for believing this about the authority of bishops:

“By the imposition of hands and through the words of consecration, the grace of the Holy Spirit is given and the sacred character is impressed in such wise that bishops in a resplendent and visible manner take the place of Christ himself, teacher, shepherd and priest, and act as his representative” (Lumen Gentium, 21).

Are you prepared to bind your conscience and belief and behavior to the infallible authority of the whole college of bishops? You must, if you choose to be a Catholic. Note the following:

“Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively. This authority is even more clearly verified when, gathered together in an ecumenical council, they are teachers and judges of faith and morals for the universal Church. Their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith” (Lumen Gentium, 25).

Notice: “their definitions must then be adhered to with the submission of faith.” Is that how you think God wants us to live? Why? Are you actually prepared to live and believe precisely as these men tell you to, regardless of what you might think the Bible actually teaches?

In relation to this, why would you change your beliefs about local church government? Does not the NT consistently and without exception speak of each local church as governed by a plurality of male Elders? Are you prepared to turn from this and embrace the RC view, for which there is not a syllable of evidence in the NT? How can you justify that?

To be continued . . .