Dear Lili —

Great question!

We would say that one has to believe the teachings of Jesus received from the Apostles (which includes acknowledging Him as Lord and Savior; see John 12:47-50, Luke 10:16).  We'd also have an understanding that "living your life in submission to God" means rejecting sin, either wicked deeds done or good deeds undone (cf. Matthew 25:31-46), living a life of humble (1 Peter 5:5) repentance, and following God's will, which includes abiding in him by eating the flesh of the sacrificed Lamb of God in the Holy Eucharist (John 6:53-60; cf. John 1:29, 1 Corinthians 5:7, Exodus 12:8), and obeying the pastors placed over you (Hebrews 13:17, 1 Thessalonians 5:12, Romans 13:1).

If we fail in this, we have the Sacrament of Reconciliation (John 20:22-23) to restore us to Christ. Also, while we believe as you do that Sacred Scripture is God-breathed and inerrant, and that it is "profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness," we don't use the Bible as the sole rule of our faith, because it does not tell us to do so. We see the Church as the pillar and buttress of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15), and we embrace both Scripture and Tradition (2 Thessalonians 2:15).

Excommunication is rooted in 1 Timothy 1:20, 2 Thessalonians 3:14, and 1 Corinthians 5:5 and is medicinal; it is an attempt to wake the person up and elicit repentance. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 5:5, "you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." That is the goal: their salvation. It has nothing to do with "disliking" them. It's done out of love.

You seem to be referring to heretics. Romans 16:17 says we should avoid those who "cause divisions and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught."

Excommunication is a way of doing that. We need to watch our doctrine, for Scripture has it, “Keep a close watch on yourself and on the teaching. Persist in this, for by so doing you will save both yourself and your hearers.” (1 Timothy 4:16) Therefore, our salvation depends on adhering to right doctrine. See also 1 Timothy 1:10, 2 John 10, 2 John 9, 1 Timothy 6:3-4.

Galatians 1:8-9 seems even more apposite, as the word it uses is "anathema", which is related to certain excommunications: “As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed [anathema].” (Galatians 1:9) So, we declare those Catholics who obstinately proclaim a gospel contrary to what we've received (cf. Jude 3) as accursed. It's as simple as that. So, over the years, the Church has excommunicated those Catholics who persist in denying the essentials of the faith we received from the Apostles, as the Holy Spirit has revealed (John 16:13) and reminded us (John 14:26). We do not excommunicate non-Catholics, as they are outside the Church's purview. Excommunication does not guarantee that a person goes to Hell; rather, it declares to them that if they will continue on the path they are on, they are in grave danger of Hell.

I'd like to touch on Romans 10:9. This is a popular verse among non-denominational Christians, but it's often taken out of context of the rest of the Scriptures.

• Paul is not claiming that confession and belief are the only requirements for salvation.
• Elsewhere in his letters, Paul emphasizes the necessity of Baptism (Romans 6:3-4), perseverance (Romans 2:6-8; Philippians 3:13; Colossians 1:23), charity (Galatians 5:6), and, obedience (Romans 1:5; Romans 16:26).

This means Romans 10:9–10 summarizes the initial response to the Gospel, not the entire life of Christian discipleship.

• Does that make sense to you?
• Did I address your question properly?
• Was the question more from the angle of ecumenism than excommunication of Catholics?
• Do you want to explore any detail in particular?

Lili,

You have a lot of excellent questions that deserve to be answered. I will do my best.

What your friend's family is doing to her is a grave violation of charity. While from our perspective she is forsaking the fullness of faith (and the Eucharist, the true and real Body and Blood of Christ), and indeed putting herself in grave spiritual danger, calling her ugly names and persecuting her is not the solution; it will only drive her away. I suspect her family are people who haven't gone deeply into their faith. They should be encouraging her to read Catholic material that addresses the concerns that are driving her to the Pentecostal church, for example, the material on Catholic Answers at www.catholic.com or writings of saints.

Your perspective that the Church as a whole should depend on the Bible for theology has some truth to it; the Catholic Church does depend on the Bible for theology and is rooted in Scripture.

We consider it inspired and inerrant. St. Jerome, the greatest biblical scholar of all time, said

"ignorance of Scripture is ignorance of Christ."

In more modern times (in the 1960s in the Second Vatican Council), the Church has taught:

There is a principle called the "material sufficiency of Scripture" which some theologians advocate (which has never been denied or confirmed by the Church) that all revelation must be contained at least implicitly in Scripture.

However, I think what you are referring to is the Protestant Reformation slogan, "sola scriptura" (Scripture alone), that is, that the Church should depend alone on the bible for theology. This sounds high-minded, but you will not find it in Scripture. The passage often adduced is the one the sacred council cites above, 2 Timothy 3:16, but that only says it is suitable for teaching truth and refuting error, not that no other sources are suitable for teaching truth and refuting error.

We, however, believe that it is the Church which is the pillar and foundation of the truth (1 Timothy 3:15). We follow the principle of “So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15, NRSVCE or RSV2CE) The faith was handed on to the saints (Jude 3), not to Scripture alone, and comes orally (see Romans 10:14-18, Romans 16:17).

There is an Old Testament prophecy we believe is fulfilled in the New Covenant:

In fact, there was a first century saint, St. Papias of Hierapolis, who was suspicious of the written word, because it cannot answer questions. His perspective was prescient, because if you look at the fruit of the Reformation, if Scripture's meaning is clear and understandable to everyone, as the Reformers maintained, then all the Protestants would agree on what it said, but there is a wild divergence of opinion on how to interpret Scripture.

• Some think infants should be baptized; some only believers.
• Some believe that baptism regenerates; some do not.
• Some believe once you are saved, you're always saved;
• Some believe you can fall from grace by loss of faith, others by that or sin.
• Some believe in predestination; others do not.

And these are not just on minor matters; these matters touch often on how we are saved and conduct our lives.

What the Catholic Church provides is a living voice that can interpret the Scriptures rightly (See 2 Timothy 2:15).

"But when he, the Spirit of Truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth"

(John 16:13)

"But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you"

(John 14:26)

Only a living human authority can interpret Scripture. The idea of "scripture interpreting scripture", while true, is insufficient, as not all Scriptures we have questions about have an interpretation that is confirmed by another Scripture, and then you have to interpret that Scripture.

For example, take this Scripture:

“Otherwise, what do people mean by being baptized on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?”

(1 Corinthians 15:29, NRSVCE or RSV2CE)

• What are we to make of it?

There are no other passages by which we can interpret this verse. It sounds like it could be an important practice. But we have no clue what it means for sure (except for the Mormons!). That is where a Holy Spirit-guided teaching office comes in handy.

Divine Revelation has been entrusted, not to individuals, but to the Church as a whole (Jude 3, 2 Timothy 1:13f). So the Church as a whole, inhabited by the Holy Spirit, should interpret it, not individuals in isolation, as is common among Pentecostals and other Protestants.

Do a thought experiment. Suppose I am a sincere believer, filled, I am convinced, with the Holy Spirit, loving Jesus with all my heart. I read Scripture and come to a conclusion about what it means. Then I encounter another sincere believer who is convinced he has the Holy Spirit, who loves Jesus with all HER heart, but comes to opposite conclusions than me on what Scripture teaches. This is not uncommon.

• How do you adjudicate the dispute?
• Who is right?
• What is the truth (John 16:13)?
• What if it's on the essentials of the faith?
• What if we can't even agree on what the essentials of the faith are?
• Are we stuck?

In Catholicism, we are not, because:

1. we have Tradition to shed light on the question;
2. if it becomes contentious, we have a definitive way of resolving the problem of interpretation.

I intend to answer your remaining questions, but I need to go now; I wanted to get this to you while it was on my heart, and because it may take me some time to pick this up again.

Eric

Dear Lili,

You said:

• Do you think that any person outside the Catholic church can be saved?
  

I will let the Catechism of the Catholic Church, our official teaching document and summary of faith, take first crack at this:

While it is technically possible for those who are not formal, visible members of the Catholic Church to be saved, I think it is much more difficult and the hazards are much greater.

I compare it to someone who turns down a seat at a daily banquet in favor of foraging in the forest for food.

• Sure you can try it, and maybe it will work, but it's hard and difficult, and what's the point?
• Why would you turn down such rich food and choice wines (cf. Isaiah 25:6) in favor of foraging in the forest?

Eric

Hi, Lili —

One thing I omitted from my previous response on Scripture alone; it is a quote from St. Vincent of Lerins, who wrote in A.D. 434, just about thirty years after the New Testament canon was finalized:

So being "Scriptural" is insufficient to guarantee right belief and doctrine (orthodoxy). He writes earlier:

The real problem is that Scripture can be twisted (see 2 Peter 3:16) by heretics to mean things that are erroneous and which jeopardize our salvation.

This work is worth reading at length.

Continuing on with your other questions:

You said:
We use the Church tradition to identify the author too. . . i guess. : ) There are a few that are a little dicey (like 2 Peter), but other than that, they are pretty consistently verified by other historical documents from the first century or after (the Letters of Clement the First, Roman Reports, stone tablets or engravings.)

• Would you say the Catholic Church goes through a similar process to verify books from Church tradition?

Your question comes from a perspective of someone who assumes that these books, whether of the Bible or of Tradition, are being recovered from a long period of being lost or forgotten, as if we were doing an archeological dig of a dead civilization. The Church has been a Living Organism since the first century, in dwelt by the Holy Spirit, and has constantly used these works and borne witness to their authenticity. "Proving" the Bible is verifiable is a nice exercise for atheist scholars but for we, who are of faith, it is superfluous. It's sort of like someone who wants to do a DNA check on you to ensure you really are the person you claim to be. You know you're that person; the proof is not for you but for someone who distrusts or doubts.

• Do you think that the Church traditions align with a biblical perspective?

Yes, I do; I worked through this many years ago, and would be happy to answer any questions. This is not to say that all Traditions are clearly established from Scripture; some are implicit or only hinted at in principle. But I'd argue that none contradict Scripture.

• Do you think they may go too far sometimes to where the Catholic Church holds "the traditions of man" above the "commands of God?" (Mark 7:8)

There are Traditions, and there are traditions. We make a distinction between "Tradition" handed down by the Apostles, and those that are man made, "traditions". "Traditions" cannot be reformed and constitute Traditions of God, not traditions of men. Maybe some "traditions" go too far, but let's remember what was happening that made Jesus so mad: Men were shafting their parents in their old age. I don't think there are any Catholic traditions that are as bad as that. Largely I think Protestant claims in this regard are picayune. Do you really think Jesus is mad that we call priests "Father"?

• Do you believe that ONLY the sacraments within the Catholic church are valid as the body and the blood of Christ Jesus?

The Roman Catholic Church believes that any priest validly ordained by a validly ordained bishop that has valid succession from the Apostles (i.e. he can trace the lineage of his episcopal consecration back to the Apostles) can confect a valid Eucharist. This means that we recognize, as valid, the Eucharist of the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, the Assyrian Church of the East, and some Old Catholic churches.

• If yes, can anyone in an isolated environment (say an isolated tribe) away from the Catholic Church still be saved?

We are bound by the sacraments, but God is not. He can confer his grace to whomever he wishes.

• Firstly, who it the pope, and how does he come into leadership?

The pope (the word means "father") is the bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter the Apostle with all those rights and privileges, and the visible head of Christ's church on earth. He is the chief steward who gives the servants their food in due time (Luke 12:42-48; cf. John 21:15-18). He is the prime minister who has the keys to the kingdom (Matthew 16:19, Isaiah 22:22-23), who has the power of binding and loosing, that is, to set regulations for the People of God, to forbid and permit, to set sacred times and places, to authoritatively interpret the Scriptures. He is the source of unity of the Church.

He comes into leadership by a secret vote in a conclave. You may have noticed that we just went through a conclave, so you may want to review media reports of that. The people who vote for him are the cardinals of the church under the age of 80. The cardinals, in turn, are selected by previous popes. While any baptized man can be elected pope, in practice it is always a cardinal.

• What is the structure of leadership for the Catholic Church?

The Catholic Church is a federation of 24 individual churches sui iuris (according to the law). One is the Roman Church, headed by the Pope, and the others are Eastern churches, headed by a patriarch, major archbishop, or archbishop. They are in communion with each other, meaning that they recognize each other and permit sharing of sacraments, in particular the Eucharist (communion), between them.

By definition, any Catholic can receive communion freely in any Catholic church sui iuris. I belong to the Ukrainian Greek-Catholic Church, and I attend a Melkite Greek-Catholic Church parish, and I can receive Communion there and in Roman Catholic parishes. We do not admit non-Catholics as a rule to Communion, because Communion has historically been seen as a profound sign of unity in leadership and doctrine.

The Catholic Church has three major degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders: deacon, priest, and bishop. There are various titles and positions for bishops and priests and deacons, but ultimately all bishops, from the lowly auxiliary (assistant) bishop up to the pope, have the same degree of orders. Likewise with priests and deacons.

I asked <An Anonymous App (AAA)> to answer the remainder of this question since it's pretty stock:

1. The Pope: Bishop of Rome

• Role: The Pope is the spiritual head of the Roman Catholic Church, much like a presiding bishop or archbishop in some Protestant traditions—but with unique and authoritative roles.
• Titles: He is called the Supreme Pontiff, Vicar of Christ, and Successor of St. Peter.
• Authority:
• Final say on doctrinal matters.
• Appoints bishops and convenes church-wide councils.
• Exercises papal infallibility only under specific, defined circumstances (e.g., when proclaiming dogma “ex cathedra”).
• Analogy: Think of the Pope as combining elements of a national bishop, theologian-in-chief, and spiritual symbol of unity—akin to a denominational president in a highly centralized Protestant denomination (like the ELCA or UMC), but with broader and deeper authority.

2. Cardinals: Senior Advisors and Papal Electors

• Who They Are: Cardinals are senior bishops or priests appointed by the Pope, often serving as archbishops of major dioceses or heads of Vatican departments.
• Duties:
• Advise the Pope.
• Govern key areas of the universal Church.
• Elect a new Pope in a conclave when the papacy is vacant.
• Analogy: Like a council of senior elders or a denominational cabinet—but with the power to elect the global leader.

3. Bishops: Shepherds of Dioceses

• Role: A bishop oversees a diocese (a geographic region of local churches, or “parishes”).
• Apostolic Succession: Catholics believe bishops are part of an unbroken line going back to the apostles, through the laying on of hands.
• Responsibilities:
• Ordain priests and deacons.
• Teach, govern, and sanctify the faithful in their region.
• Archbishops: Bishops who oversee an archdiocese (a more prominent or historical diocese), sometimes supervising nearby dioceses (a province).

4. Priests: Parish Leaders and Sacramental Ministers

• Role: A priest is the primary pastor of a parish, a local congregation.
• Duties:
• Celebrate the Mass (especially the Eucharist).
• Hear confessions, perform baptisms, marriages, anointings.
• Preach and provide pastoral care.
• Relationship to Bishop: A priest is under the authority of a bishop, somewhat like an associate or local pastor in a connectional Protestant system (e.g., Methodism).

5. Deacons: Ministers of Service

• Two Types:
• Transitional deacons: Men on their way to priesthood.
• Permanent deacons: Often married men ordained to serve in charitable, liturgical, and pastoral roles.
• Duties:
• Preach, baptize, officiate weddings, assist at Mass, and lead charitable outreach.
• Analogy: Similar to deacons in Baptist or Methodist contexts, though formally ordained and part of the clergy.

6. Religious Orders: Monks, Nuns, and Friars

• Distinct but Connected: Members of religious orders (like the Benedictines, Franciscans, Jesuits) live under vows (poverty, chastity, obedience) and have their own internal structures, but remain under the Pope’s authority.
• Roles:
• Vary by charism: teaching, contemplation, mission work, health care, etc.
• Analogy: Similar to denominational mission societies or communal ministries, but with lifelong vows and church-sanctioned rules.

7. The Laity: The People of God

• Role: Lay people are called to holiness in the world—through family life, work, civic responsibility, and witness.
• Ministry:
• Can teach, evangelize, serve, lead prayer, and assist in liturgy.
• Not ordained, but deeply involved in the Church's mission.
• Synods & Councils: Increasing lay involvement in advisory roles within diocesan and national structures.

Key Structural Units

For a deeper dive, I'd refer you to the book:

• "Catholicism for Dummies" – great visual and structural overview.

• Do you think that the way that the leadership is structured is in alignment with good doctrine and scripture?

I think it comports with Scripture, although at that early point there wasn't a clear distinction between a bishop and a presbyter (priest; the term comes from presbyter). Other than the leadership role of the pope, I don't think there is much doctrinal implication to the structure of leadership.

• Do you believe that a leader should be followed even if they don't lead you in the right doctrine?

We should always believe and cleave to the doctrine of the church. We should always refuse to obey a command that violates our conscience, formed as it is by Christian morality. Other than that, obedience is held in very high regard in the Catholic tradition, even to the point of obeying someone you know is wrong, sinful, misinformed, unfair, etc., unless they directly command you to do something your conscience tells you is immoral. Obedience, especially obedience in the face of your own willfulness, is regarded as putting to death selfishness (Romans 8:13), crucifying the flesh (Galatians 5:24), and cultivating the virtue of humility (cf. James 4:6-7, Hebrews 5:8, Philippians 2:5-8). Satan can be very crafty in his justifications for the deadly sin of pride. We have many examples of saints who willingly obeyed unjust commands (not meaning commands to do something immoral, but commands issued with bad intent or based on bad information) and were ultimately vindicated, or rewarded by God for their obedience. There is a story from the desert fathers:

In the Egyptian desert, a certain elder (abba) was training a young monk in the way of obedience. To test and cultivate this virtue, the elder gave the novice an unusual and seemingly absurd command:

“Take this dry stick, plant it in the ground, and water it every day.”

The monk, without questioning, took the stick, planted it, and began watering it—even though the stick was clearly lifeless.

But there was more: the nearest water source was several miles away, and the monk had to make the difficult journey daily, in the hot desert sun, carrying water with great effort. Still, he obeyed without complaint or curiosity, for three years.

Then—miraculously—the stick sprouted, grew leaves, and eventually bore fruit.

The elder gathered the other monks and said, “Behold the fruit of obedience!”

There is a principle in canon law that a heretic incurs automatic excommunication and loses his ecclesiastical office as a result. But in general, thinking that someone's doctrine is off is no justification for disobeying them if their authority is legitimate. For all you know, it is your doctrine that is off, or you may be misunderstanding their teaching. We do not believe it is right for individuals to take ecclesiastical judgment into their own hands. If there is a problem with the doctrine of someone you are subject to, you take it up the chain of command, until you reach the pope. There are people to adjudicate doctrinal disputes; disobedience is not justified.

• Do you appreciate the leadership system personally?

It is what it is; most of it we received it from the Apostles (Cardinals and titles came later, but Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and the role of the Bishop of Rome are all apostolic) . . .

— Who am I to form an opinion?

Eric