First off, baptism is not a requirement to be saved (the thief on the cross was not baptized), therefore I do not make a big deal about it. Second, are we talking about historic Anabaptists with whom I have no fellowship (since they are all dead) or are we talking about the Amish and Mennonites with whom I also have no fellowship since they generally withdraw from the world?
First of all, most people are not thieves on crosses. Most of us are perfectly capable of learning about the church and perfectly capable of being baptised. Perhaps those who live in countries that censor Christianity, or who would be putting their lives in mortal danger in getting baptised, or who would be dead within a short amount of time after choosing Christ would be excused if they died without receiving a baptism.
But in the Western World, for the most part, if you know Christ to be the Truth, you will also know that He had the disciples baptise in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and that to be born again in Him, baptism is a necessity. There's almost no excuse. If you refuse to be baptised, you refuse to obey Christ even in the smallest of things.
Nonetheless, if someone dies before they can be baptised, and they die or would have died wanting a baptism, they die baptised with a "baptism of desire", and their souls may yet be cleansed in Heaven. Note that the Good Thief died before Christ instituted baptism as a Christian sacrament.
(I've provided Scripture relating to the necessity of baptism below; read it before commenting.)
As for the Mennonites, don't be so sure they are secluded. On the Catholic Answers forums, I've seen at least two Mennonites. Somehow they're getting an Internet hookup.
So you never know who you are called to be a brother and a witness to.
Also a non-salvation issue (the thief is yet again a good example). I think you are mistaken in assuming one must necessarily agree in order to participate. I could participate in communion with my own understanding of the sacrament while remembering Christ and His sacrifice in any church that is offering it.
For your own sake and ours, and out of respect for us and yourself, don't receive the Body and Blood at a Catholic altar if you don't believe it really is Him. Please don't.
When you go up there, by your actions you agree that that is Christ's Body and Blood and that you are supposed to eat and drink Him. Since you don't believe that, you would be lying both to God and to yourself. Lying, as you know, and taking false oaths, are sins.
It is called grace. He may not believe it is necessary to re-baptize (not too sure how many calvinists actually have anabaptist friends) but he is showing grace by not interfering with it.
That is not the theological definition of grace. Perhaps it is polite by worldly standards. But how is withholding the truth from someone else doing them any good? Or, how is believing something that may not be true doing you any good?
It's your and every Christian's job, as commissioned by Christ, to preach the Gospel. And while you don't need to start a war with every Christian at variance with you (that's so incredibly wearying), it's uncharitable to keep the Gospel to yourself, however fine the differences between his and yours. Somehow we must make an effort to teach others the Gospel, even to those who are already a lot like you (or so it seems).
Important - required for salvation
debatable and requiring grace - not required for salvation
That's fine and all; how do you determine what is required and what is debatable?
You keep bringing up baptism and communion. Please show me, from Scripture, how these things are specified that they are to be practiced in one particular form. I think you may find considerably less information on these subjects from the Bible alone than the RCC gives you.
I chose them probably because I am more familiar with them than with most other issues. But really I have no idea.
As for Scripture, I would like you to meet a fellow called the Scripture Catholic.
He has a vast list of passages that deal with the
context and purpose of baptism,
and of the Eucharist, along with many other things.
And
this passage of the Catechism of the Catholic Church details how the Church views Sacred Scripture, and how it is to be interpreted.
Appeal to popularity? Many false religions can claim the same level of support within their singular structure.
It's not so much an appeal to popularity as it is an appeal to diversity. The Catholic Church, in all its forms, has the sort of theological unity
and cultural diversity that is rarely found in Protestant churches. And not just token diversity. We've got thousands of Christians - if not millions - from every single country and culture around the world. They all accept the teachings of the Catholic Church, even though they may practise the faith in many differing but complimentary ways.
You can find Protestant communities in almost every country around the globe, too. But divisive issues like the sacraments, interpretations of some things in Scripture, or more controversially like birth control (none vs. some vs. all), abortion (none vs. rape, genetic defect, and life-of-the-mother vs. more liberal views), economics (communist vs. capitalist vs. third-way) separate and divide even congregations within a country, never mind communities around the world.
The Church? I believe that Christ is the truth.
I once again defer you to the Scripture Catholic.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html
I do not deny that Christ is the foundation of the Church (1 Cor 3:11). However, as Paul writes in Ephesians 2:20, God's house is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone."
Christ teaches us in the Bible. However, He also taught His disciples so they could teach others long before the Bible was even began. Unlike Islam or Mormonism, Christianity is not a religion built on a book. It is built on Christ, who built it on Peter and the other Apostles. He built it on their ability to preach, even without a book.
And according to Saint Paul in his first letter to Timothy, "...God’s household... is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. " (3:15).
But again, that Scripture Catholic site can tell you more about the Church in relation to Scripture than I can. And that section from the Catechism - paragraphs 101 to 141 - can further elucidate how we interpret Scripture.
How many protestant churches have you attended? Or is your information gleaned from the news? Because if we are going strictly from the news I would have the impression that the Catholic church is overrun with child molesters posing as priests. Not that I do believe that, but just saying that we need to be careful where our source of information comes from.
Division between Protestants is not the kind of news that the world finds particularly relevant. Modern secular news would much rather scandalise Protestants by making us think they all think like Jeremiah Wright, or like Westboro Baptist (who I heard, once, maybe getting paid by the gay "rights" movement to look like jackasses).
I learned about the contradictions in the various forms of Protestantism by various means. First, I've heard the arguments of some Christians. My uncle is a non-denom, and he has a friend who I believe is a Pentecostal. I have a friend who is a Lutheran, and a couple of Protestant friends of unknown convictions. I've talked with all of them on matters of faith.
Second, I've looked at Wikipedia and gotten the general gist of what makes certain denominations within Protestantism unique. The Calvinists (including the Reformed and Presbyterian churches) have TULIP. The Arminians (who are can be found throughout the rest of Protestantism) are the exact opposite of Calvinists in terms of justification theory and in that respect are very Catholic. The Baptists do not believe infants should be baptised. The Pentecostals believe that you ought to have charisms such as being able to speak in tongues (or at least that these charisms, including miraculous healings, exist). The Anglicans have the Monarch of England as their head, and are generally the most Catholic-like Protestants. Methodists are a break-off of Anglicanism. Lutherans follow Martin Luther of course, and are sort of proto-Protestants. JWs believe Christ is not the son of God. Mormons believe Jesus is one of many gods. Swedenborgians (of whom Johnny Appleseed is best known) believe only Christ exists as God. And of course, all Protestants believe in the five solas (sola fide, sola scriptura, soli deo gloria, solo Christo, sola gratia).
Remove the "sola", however, and you find that not one of these teachings is at deference with the Catholic Church. In fact, if you remove the "sola" part of all five of the "solas", you get some very basic and embedded Catholic theology.
I realise, of course, it being Wikipedia and me only skimming over the text, there is far more to Protestantism than the things I have listed here. These are just the differences I have noticed that they have between each other, that either are not reconcilable, or make them very distinct from each other. There are other contradictions within Protestantism, and there are other distinctive characteristics between different Protestants. But this is just my general understanding.
Just curious on how you deal with:
Ephesians 2:8-9
For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, 9 not of works, lest anyone should boast.
This would have been much harder without my new go-to site for Biblical apologetics, the Scripture Catholic.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/justification.html#justification-V
Happy Christmas! I've got to go and wrap up some gifts before morning comes!
