Are Catholics Christian?

[Church_Militant]

I have a some blog posts that may help you with those guys.

• Refutation: Mike Gendron’s “Why Can’t Born Again Christians Remain in the Catholic Church?”
• Refuting: “Is a Catholic Christian an Oxymoron?”
• Response & Refutation: Mike Gendron’s “Why Can’t Born Again Christians Remain in the Catholic Church?”
• Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

 

[Abu]

DavidFilmer #17
We can doubt any doctrine of the Church (even the existence of God, which necessarily means we doubt every doctrine) and yet remain faithful sons or daughters of the Church, free from sin

False.

CCC 2088:“There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt…involuntary doubt…”

The question of doubt is considered by Fr Thomas Dubay in Faith And Certitude, Ignatius Press, 1995:
“They attain truth who love it. One of the chief immoralities is an indifference to truth. It is worse than sexual perversion, said Jesus Himself. Those who reject His representatives are more guilty than perverted Sodom and Gomorrah (Mt 10:14-15). Indifference to truth is nothing less than and indifference to reality and to the Author of reality…One of the too little noticed traits of the saints is their utter commitment to truth.” (p 189-190).

Objective certitude “has three traits. First it is an enlightened assent. One not only knows something, but he also knows why he knows it, and he sees the objective reasons why it is so….[Second] certitude excludes a reasonable fear of being wrong…[Third] certitude is unchangeable. Because it is based on objective reality it is permanent.

Doubt and Difficulty
“A negative doubt is a close relation to ignorance. An opinion is an assent of the mind but with a well-founded fear that the opposite may be true.” With an unhealthy doubt, “a person suspends judgment even when the evidence is conclusive and completely adequate. This is skepticism, intellectual cowardice……A difficulty is a problem, a not-seeing how two realities fit together….a situation we do not yet understand and perhaps will never understand. It is a limitation on our knowledge, a passing or permanent limitation.” [Op. cit. p 82-3].

Since the Catholic Church has the clear mandate from the Son of God to teach, sanctify and rule, She not only teaches infallibly but develops doctrine infallibly. Questions can, and are, put to the Magisterium through its dicasteries (the official congregations of the Holy See), to help with any difficulties and the Magisterium clarifies those difficulties.

 

[JoeT777]

Well I suppose it comes down to ones definition of Christian. To me a Christian is one who accepts Jesus Christ as their own and universal Savior. A typical Catholic fits this bill. The answer is simple and obvious to me.

I think the answer is simple as well. To be a Christian requires faith. Inherent in faith is fidelity, it’s essential that the one who ‘believes’ has a certain loyalty to the object of that faith, Christ. Knowing therefore that the Body of Christ is the Church how can one be anything but Catholic?

Can you explain how one claims to be “Lutheran,” an adherent or follower of Luther (as an example), and still claim to be “Christian”? How do we follow the man Luther, who broke his vows, and at the same time say we’re of Christ who kept His faith?

JoeT

 

[DavidFilmer]

"DavidFilmer #17:

We can doubt any doctrine of the Church (even the existence of God, which necessarily means we doubt every doctrine) and yet remain faithful sons or daughters of the Church, free from sin

False.
CCC 2088:“There are various ways of sinning against faith:
Voluntary doubt…involuntary doubt…”

Oh, c’mon Abu - seriously??? You’re gonna edit the Catechism to leave out the bits that actually clarify it (but that you don’t happen to agree with)? That’s dishonest. I know you, and I expected more from you than this.

Here is the actual quote. I have boldfaced the bits that you would prefer to overlook:

2088The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

**2089 **Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

The question of doubt is considered by Fr Thomas Dubay in Faith And Certitude, Ignatius Press, 1995:

Maybe so, but I have never heard of Fr Thomas Dubay. I think we can both agree that he does not necessarily speak for the Magesterium of the Catholic Church, and, apart from any such teaching, anything he says is his own (perhaps very well informed) opinion as a private theologian.

And, besides, from the pull-quotes you cited, I find nothing that would disagree with my statement.

Look, I never said it was OK to have doubts. I said we MAY have doubts and not incur sin, under certain circumstances (the first of which is that we must always admit that the Church is right and we are wrong, even if we cannot personally believe the teaching).

If you can find anything in actual Magestrial teaching that contradicts that, please let me know.

 

[ahs]

…
Here is the actual quote[snip]:

2088The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. “Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”

Yes! Involuntary doubt, by it’s very definition, is NOT an act of the will, and therefore isn’t a sin. In fact, it can lead to virtue because, in my involuntary doubt, I can still accept as true, on the merit of “Christ’s Church said so” (an act of the will) something that I don’t otherwise understand. That’s called “faith”.

Back to topic, though, yes, the Catholic Church has the simplest and most complete definition of a Christian. One who has put on Christ through Christian Baptism is a Christian. The protestant understanding (of some, not all) is rather unfortunate and, I would guess, unintended. In their belief that one must confess Christ on their own, and have their own understanding of what they profess before becoming a Christian, they must necessarily believe that babies CANNOT be Christians, and therefore cannot be saved. Obviously most protestants don’t believe that, but their belief about Baptism and Salvation necessarily leads to that unfortunate conclusion.

 

[St_Redemption]

So, according to your definition, a person must attain the “age of reason” (meaning the age at which a person may intellectually consider different belief options and reach an independent opinion) in order to be a “Christian.”

In Catholic theology, a Christian is ANYONE who has received Christian Baptism (even at the hands of a protestant minister).

Which definition is the most simple?

So then if a man is baptized as an infant and goes on a rampant killing spree in the name of Satan, you are prepared to call him a Christian I suppose. In this case the label “Christian” basically becomes void of any real meaning. It means that somebody once told him to love jesus, even if he does not love Jesus. And likewise, a man who was never baptized but loves Jesus with all of his heart and does His works everyday…that man is not a Christian?

Not sure what your simplicity point has to do with anything regarding truth.

 

[JoeT777]

So then if a man is baptized as an infant and goes on a rampant killing spree in the name of Satan, you are prepared to call him a Christian I suppose. In this case the label “Christian” basically becomes void of any real meaning. It means that somebody once told him to love jesus, even if he does not love Jesus. And likewise, a man who was never baptized but loves Jesus with all of his heart and does His works everyday…that man is not a Christian?

Not sure what your simplicity point has to do with anything regarding truth.

Four “Christians” prove the lowest of us sinners remain Christian in our sin. Murdering Thomas Becket four British Knights fled for a year or more holding-up in Knaresborough Castle. They had murdered on the request of King Henry II who wished to be relieved of a ‘burdensome priest’. It’s said that the murder was so brutal that Sir Breton broke his sword attempting to chop off the head of Becket.

Hearing that Pope Alexander III had excommunicated them, they went to Rome for reconciliation. The four, Sir Richard le Breton Sir Reginald FitzUrse, Sir Hugh de Morville, Brito and Sir William de Tracy received forgiveness with relatively light penance, years of service in the Holy Land.

As this little cameo of history demonstrates, even the worst of us Catholic Christians can remain “Christian” with an examination of the conscience, penance and a change of heart. If the murders of Christ can be forgiven, even rest of us have hope of forgiveness, which is the Church’s role, you might recall the Apostles were to forgive sin.

JoeT
.

 

[DavidFilmer]

So then if a man is baptized as an infant and goes on a rampant killing spree in the name of Satan, you are prepared to call him a Christian I suppose.

Correct. He is a bad Christian, but he’s a Christian.

It’s like being an American. Americans can be either good or bad. It would be nice if all Americans were good, but we know that’s not the case.

In this case the label “Christian” basically becomes void of any real meaning.

It means you have received Sanctifying Grace and, if you avoid mortal sin, you are assured salvation. That’s not meaningless. I can’t think of anything more meaningful than that.

It means that somebody once told him to love jesus, even if he does not love Jesus.

Not necessarily. He might have been Baptized as an infant but raised in a non-Christian environment, in which case he might have never even heard of Jesus. You don’t need to know anything about (or love) Jesus to be a Christian.

And likewise, a man who was never baptized but loves Jesus with all of his heart and does His works everyday…that man is not a Christian?

If he is unaware of the need for Baptism, but would promptly receive it if he knew, then he would be covered by Baptism of Desire, which is where the Grace of water Baptism is imparted without actual water. God can do that - he works through the Sacraments but is not limited by them.

 

[Abu]

DavidFilmer #17
We can doubt any doctrine of the Church (even the existence of God, which necessarily means we doubt every doctrine) and yet remain faithful sons or daughters of the Church, free from sin
#23
I never said it was OK to have doubts. I said we MAY have doubts and not incur sin, under certain circumstances

Obviously your statement #23 contradicts your statement in #17, because it adds “certain circumstances”.

But even here, CCC 2087 teaches:
Our moral life has its source in faith in God who reveals his love to us. St. Paul speaks of the “obedience of faith” as our first obligation. He shows that “ignorance of God” is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations. Our duty toward God is to believe in him and to bear witness to him.

So why this false assumption that “We can doubt any doctrine of the Church and yet remain faithful sons or daughters of the Church, free from sin”?

But further, pick and choose “Catholics” need to listen to Christ Himself: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17). Even theologians have no authority to dissent from any teaching, and thus no real Catholics will try to place themselves above the Magisterium.

So,
Since conscience is not a god, but a judgment of the practical reason as Msgr Cormac P Burke (Law and Dissent, 1985) points out, "for the Catholic, there is never a conflict between the authority of the Church and conscience, because belief that Christ has given His Church authority to teach without error is part of his conscience, freely accepted. According to Canon 205, Catholics are those in full communion with the Church through the bonds of profession of faith, the sacraments and ecclesiastical governance.

"If one holds a personal opinion that a particular course of action seems licit – contrary to the Church’s teaching – he has a conflict within his own conscience. This is doubt or rejection of the divine guarantees of the certainty of the truths already present in his mind, to accommodate a contrary opinion. We now have a house divided against itself. [My emphases].

"He cannot escape the conclusion that his contrary opinion must be mistaken, as he would be acknowledging the accepted fact of the fallibility of conscience – it does not make truth. He then has to see where he has been mistaken, to reflect more deeply on the arguments for the Church’s teaching. If he feels that he is not mistaken, then he must conclude that Christ’s Church is mistaken and naturally his faith in Christ and His Church has started to collapse.

“He has no grounds then to believe in any truths – the sacraments (especially the Eucharist), or in Her worship or any other aspect of Her life. Such a Catholic needs the counsel of a faithful priest.”

Thus no one can in good conscience deny Christ’s authority as taught by His Magisterium in dogma or doctrine. That mandate from Christ means that those that do have tarnished their Catholicity and lost the respect of real Catholics.

 

[808Catholic]

So then if a man is baptized as an infant and goes on a rampant killing spree in the name of Satan, you are prepared to call him a Christian I suppose. In this case the label “Christian” basically becomes void of any real meaning. It means that somebody once told him to love jesus, even if he does not love Jesus. And likewise, a man who was never baptized but loves Jesus with all of his heart and does His works everyday…that man is not a Christian?

Not sure what your simplicity point has to do with anything regarding truth.

A murderer who is baptized is still a Christian. A person who follows Christ is a Christian even if he’s not baptized; he’s just an unbaptized Christian. For Catholics, we believe the Sacrament of Baptism removes original sin and initiates the person into the church so he can receive more Sacraments like Reconciliation, the Eucharist, Confirmation, Anointing of the Sick, Marriage, and, sometimes Holy Orders.

 

[DavidFilmer]

Obviously your statement #23 contradicts your statement in #17, because it adds “certain circumstances”.

No contradiction. #23 has more info than #17. Entire BOOKS have been written about this, which have more info than #23.

So why this false assumption that “We can doubt any doctrine of the Church and yet remain faithful sons or daughters of the Church, free from sin”?

Unintentional disbelief is not a sin. NOTHING that is unintentional is sinful (no matter what it is). Even venial sin requires some degree of freewill consent.

Unintentional disbelief is called a “crisis of faith.” Great Saints and Doctors of the Church have experienced this. Read about it in the writings of St. Theresa of Avila and St. John of the Cross (both Doctors of the Church).

Unintentional disbelief is not OK (it is a problem that needs to be corrected) but it is not a sin and does not remove us from communion with the Church (we remain faithful sons and daughters of the Church).

 

[Darryl_B]

I’m starting a discussion with some people online who state that Catholics are not Christian and that they can’t see how Catholics stay catholic. Here’s my response.

“Let me try to shed some light on why good Catholics stay Catholic. A catholic uses three tools when examining the validity of the Church: the bible, reason, and history. If we look at the bible in context we find theres not a single scripture that goes against Catholic teaching. All the scripture passages protestants like to bring up that they think disproves Catholicism really doesn’t at all when taken in context. This answers bornforbattle74’s comment about his mom being told to study the catechism and not the bible. Now they shouldn’t have used the term “not intelligent enough” rather “not prepared yet” as the bible can easily be taken out of context to mean almost anything. The bible itself tells us this in the epistles of St. Peter states that the writings of St. Paul are confusing and some will twist them to their own destruction. next we look at reason. If the bible can be taken and twisted in such ways then clearly reason would lead us to conclude that an authoritative interpreter is needed. Otherwise whose to say who’s right and who’s wrong amount the thousands of different protestant denominations out there teaching contradictory ideas. Finally we look at history. The simple fact is that the teachings of the catholic church have been what Christians have held all the way since the time of Christ. And not until more than a thousand years later do we see Christians coming up with novel protestant ideas. So are Catholics Christian? Yes in fact they’re Christian in the truest sense.”

What do you guys think?

The really big question is are protestants Christian? Or is the whole enterprise merely a usurpation.

 

[DavidFilmer]

The really big question is are protestants Christian? Or is the whole enterprise merely a usurpation.

Heh heh heh.

Well, I suppose if protestants are Christian (and Catholics are not) then Catholics could not be Christian. I suppose this applies to the guys that invented the protestant faith.

So, obviously, Martin Luther and John Calvin could not have been Catholic.

Oh, wait…

 

[St_Redemption]

Correct. He is a bad Christian, but he’s a Christian.

It’s like being an American. Americans can be either good or bad. It would be nice if all Americans were good, but we know that’s not the case.

It means you have received Sanctifying Grace and, if you avoid mortal sin, you are assured salvation. That’s not meaningless. I can’t think of anything more meaningful than that.

Not necessarily. He might have been Baptized as an infant but raised in a non-Christian environment, in which case he might have never even heard of Jesus. You don’t need to know anything about (or love) Jesus to be a Christian.

If he is unaware of the need for Baptism, but would promptly receive it if he knew, then he would be covered by Baptism of Desire, which is where the Grace of water Baptism is imparted without actual water. God can do that - he works through the Sacraments but is not limited by them.

I can see the correct mathematical logic in that train of thought. I just don’t find it useful or practical for everyday discussion in what is typical conversation. You can see how it could become very confusing.

Say my neighbor Bob was baptized as an infant, but now is a Satan worshipper. My friend who is over to watch the game asks me if my neighbor is a Christian, I am much more inclined to say “no” than to say, “yes, yes he is. He is a Christian who worships Satan.”

Or I could say that “he is a Christian but not a believing Christian.” But that sounds almost equally confusing. So, while you may be TECHNICALLY correct with your definition, in my everyday language and dealings with people I find it much more practical to simply label anyone Christian who accepts Jesus as his/her personal savior. It’s much more practical, simple, and straight forward in a human communicatory sort of way.

I appreciate your thoughts though and am glad that I now understand your definition.

 

[Memaw]

So then if a man is baptized as an infant and goes on a rampant killing spree in the name of Satan, you are prepared to call him a Christian I suppose. In this case the label “Christian” basically becomes void of any real meaning. It means that somebody once told him to love jesus, even if he does not love Jesus. And likewise, a man who was never baptized but loves Jesus with all of his heart and does His works everyday…that man is not a Christian?

Not sure what your simplicity point has to do with anything regarding truth.

To be Baptized a Christian does not guarantee a Holy life. It is just the beginning. What we do with our life is up to us. If we grow in our love and understanding of what God wants us to do with our life and we follow Jesus Christ and what HE taught us, we’re off to a good start. Each person must make that choice for himself. If a man loves Jesus with all his heart, he would surely want to do as Jesus said and be Baptized, (if he knows Jesus requires it) as one cannot get into Heaven without it. Jesus said “No one can enter the Kingdom of Heaven without being born again of water and the Spirit.” I am not about to argue with HIM about it. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Memaw]

I can see the correct mathematical logic in that train of thought. I just don’t find it useful or practical for everyday discussion in what is typical conversation. You can see how it could become very confusing.

Say my neighbor Bob was baptized as an infant, but now is a Satan worshipper. My friend who is over to watch the game asks me if my neighbor is a Christian, I am much more inclined to say “no” than to say, “yes, yes he is. He is a Christian who worships Satan.”

Or I could say that “he is a Christian but not a believing Christian.” But that sounds almost equally confusing. So, while you may be TECHNICALLY correct with your definition, in my everyday language and dealings with people I find it much more practical to simply label anyone Christian who accepts Jesus as his/her personal savior. It’s much more practical, simple, and straight forward in a human communicatory sort of way.

I appreciate your thoughts though and am glad that I now understand your definition.

Just tell your friend to ask Bob himself as he doesn’t seem to live a christian life. No need to go into all that detail. Pray for him and leave it up to God to judge. God Bless, Memaw

 

[Shaolen]

So rather than giving a response with a valid argument he replied to me just saying I’m a Heretic. I found this very interesting. I asked him:

“on what basis can you even claim someone a heretic? Unless you believe you’re interpretation of Christianity is somehow authoritative?”

He then replied:

“Of course my version is authoritive, im not gonna to bow down to any man or Babylonian system of religion which doesn’t preach the gospel of Jesus Christ.”

Any suggestions on what a good response to this would be? Should I ask him by what authority does he know he is the true interpretation? Should I ask how he knows it’s not the Presbyterians, or the Episcopalians, or the Lutherans who are right? Any and all suggestions are welcome

 

[Church_Militant]

You are probably wasting your time since this guy’s elevator seems to stop several floors lower than the top.:shrug:

However, I have a response that you can use if you like.

Who REALLY Preaches “A Different Gospel”?

12/10/2007

                       ** Who REALLY  Preaches "A Different Gospel"? **

It is my own opinion that the majority of non-Catholic salvation messages actually present a different and deficient gospel than that of the New Testament, the early church and the Catholic Church for the last 2,000 years.

I believe that the essential “way of salvation” verses that are used in a great many non-Catholic evangelistic messages have been ripped from the pages of the Word of God and bandied about in the last 500 years to further a different and oversimplified deficient Gospel that anyone who sits down and reads the New Testament for themselves without some non-Catholic preacher breathing down their neck every Sunday and Wednesday will soon discover is not the same Gospel of salvation.

I have read the Word of God many times and that is why I am a Catholic. The salvation message of the Catholic Church is in line with the teachings of the New Testament, and I believe that the salvation message of the majority of non-Catholics is some different gospel, condemned by St. Paul and leads to something that I have dubbed “Christianity Lite”.

This is the result of much internet discussion with a variety of non-Catholics which spawned the following post here on Apocalypsis. How Is A Catholic Saved?
Read your New Testament from cover to cover and see what the teachings are concerning salvation and then compare the various non-Catholic “ways” and “plans” of salvation with what you have read and see if the Holy Spirit does not show you the deficiencies and differences between the two.

They stop far short of what the New Testament Gospel is while the teachings of the Catholic Church are in fact right in line with it.
I would suggest that the context of the New Testament does not teach the Reformed doctrine and that (as I have stated before) their’s is a different and deficient gospel.

If no works are involved in our salvation, then how do you explain the Gospel message preached on the day of Pentecost (under the influence of the fullness of the Holy Spirit no less!) in Acts 2:37-38.
[37] Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
[38] And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

How do you explain the message delivered to St. Paul himself (especially since you assert that it is his teachings that convince you of the reformed position) in Acts 22:16
[16] And now why do you wait? Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on his name.’

Obviously, from the message there, baptism is key to salvation and does indeed wash away and forgive sins. The reformed teachings contradict this in spite of the plain sense of the scriptures.

 

[Church_Militant]

If our works have no merit with regard to our salvation, why then does Our Lord plainly tell us that we will be judged and either welcomed into the Kingdom of God or cast into hell based upon them in Matthew 25: 31-46
[31] “When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne.
[32] Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats,
[33] and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left.
[34] Then the King will say to those at his right hand, Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; [35] for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, [36] I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' [37] Then the righteous will answer him, Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink?
[38] And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee?
[39] And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?’
[40] And the King will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' [41] Then he will say to those at his left hand, Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels;
[42] for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink,
[43] I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’
[44] Then they also will answer, Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' [45] Then he will answer them, Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.’
[46] And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
The Gospel today is (and should be!) the same as that preached by the apostles in the New Testament. (See Acts 2:37-38 and 22:16 as well as John 3:5) If what is preached is not the same then that (IMO) would qualify as “a different gospel”.

I, like many many Catholics, have heard and seen allegations that ours is a different gospel, but having read the Word of God carefully and prayerfully many times over many years, and comparing the messages of those who make those allegations to the salvation message of the Catholic Church alongside the New Testament, I have found that just the opposite is true.

If, as I suspect, you have read the New Testament all the way through, (more than likely many times over) you can understand what I mean when I say that the Gospel of salvation is actually the topic throughout and I submit that it is the Gospel that is preached by the Catholic Church that accurately aligns with that and not the one of the reformers or their modern step children.
Galatians 1:8] But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we preached to you, let him be accursed.
9] As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed.

God bless!

 

[Shaolen]

You’re probably right about this guy. But I would at least like to plant a seed. And wow thanks for that post!