Being Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, is not essential to being Christian.

[One_in_Christ_1]

What does it mean to be not Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox?

Our lives are hidden in Jesus Christ first and foremost. Our identity in our traditions and denominations are a very distant second in comparison to our identity of being united to Christ. I don’t think the Apostles boasted in their particular corner of Christianity; the Apostle Paul rebuked those who identified with their particular corner as compared to Christ. Did the Catholic Church, Orthodox Churches, or Protestant churches die for you?

To not be Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox, is being Christian first… and to love those who happen to come from other traditions with very different theological distinctives. Yet, the ecumenical creeds can still unite us as one, regardless of our differences.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

Jesus left sacraments and so as long as you partake then we are all in the same church

To those who have been united to Christ have been baptized into Christ. When we receive this gracious act of infinite love, we become Christians and not Catholics, Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, Orthodox, etc…

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

You get the Bible from the Catholic Church so every single Christian can trace at least some of their beliefs back to the Catholic Church…it’s really impossible to seperate being a Christian and being either a Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox. You either have Protestant beliefs, Catholic beliefs, Orthodox beliefs or a combination of all three but you can’t use the Bible and not share any beliefs with any denomination. It’s impossible. That seems confusing but I don’t know how else to put it lol

Thanks for your thoughts. I believe the Scriptures come from God. If you think the Catholic Church gave us the Bible, how can the Catholic Church give us the Old Testament portion of it since she is only 2,000 years old?

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

I am sorry…but you are wrong. It does matter…and if one truly understood Christ, The Church, and Christianity, they would be Catholic. The following quote is from “Acts of the Martyrs” The first Martyrs of the Eucharist was in 305 AD by Emperor Diocletian…this is what they had to say:

"We cannot omit the celebration of the Divine Mysteries. The Christian cannot live without the Eucharist and the Eucharist without the Christian. Don’t you know that the Christian exists for the Eucharist and the Eucharist for the Christian? Yes, I participated with the brothers in the meeting, I celebrated the mysteries of the Lord and I have here with me, written in my heart, Divine Scripture. The Eucharist is the hope and the salvation of Christians".

You see, to be Catholic and to have The Eucharist is everything

I think you can be Orthodox and receive the Eucharist, correct? Therefore, being Catholic is not essential in regards to the Eucharist. It’s comes across very boastful to say that “if one truly understood Christ, The Church, and Christianity, then [you] would be Catholic”. Do you see why we have to identify of being Christian first and foremost, and Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc a very distant second? It seem you are boasting in Peter in which Paul clearly rebukes in that kind of perspective.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

Dittoes Michael. I’m glad somebody stepped up. I’ll join ya. It does indeed matter. Christ established a visible, tangiable, real ecclesastical body on earth–The Catholic Church. He established the sacraments, apostolic succession, the Eucharist, and life-lines that save our souls. Just calling oneself a Christian, getting baptized, and then following the Bible in the manner of a rogue hanging out with some like-minded folks doesn’t make one a Christian. Following the ecumenical councils, the sacraments, being in communion with the apostles, living according to the deposit of faith, practicing worship in the liturgy, finding forgiveness in the sacrament of reconciliation, and partaking of the most precious Body and Blood of Our Lord is what a Christian does. It does matter a great deal. That’s not to say that a protestant or non-Catholic cannot be saved, it just means there is more doubt and less certainty and more spiritual danger in not being a Catholic.

You appear to be putting theological distinctives and practice first as compared to being Christian. I believe I could debate you on the essential doctrine of justification which from the other perspective, make your faith to appear very non-Christian. I’m not trying to fight and divide us as a body of Christ, but to expose us on how we tend to boast in our traditions as compared to what God has done for us in Christ. Did Christ die only for the Catholic Christian?

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

i would agree. one does not need to be grafted onto a hierarchical body of men practicing certain traditions and teaching certain doctrines in a tradition of Apostolic succession in order to be grafted onto, alive in, and belonging to this historical and eternal Son of God, and Christ.

God certainly can and does work through various churches, and their saints. the EO and OO churches have a wealth of amazing theological material, Biblical commentary, hymns, and prayers. the CC has produced many Godly, pious, and Spirit-lead saints who have done much to represent Christ in the world.

Protestants have also produced many great thinkers and theologians, who have enriched and contributed much to Christian writings and thought. through their preaching and mission work, many have been introduced to Christ, and come to faith in Him.

Christian life can be lived out through ecclesial life, and ecclesial life can also be lived out devotedly without a grounded and personal relationship to Christ. for me it is Christ and His Word (the Bible) which matters paramount, and i am willing and thankful to call all who know Him and live for Him brother or sister.

Grace,

Thank you for your wonderful post. Your post and name tells it all. Christians are partakers of His saving and transforming grace which was merited for us by the perfect life and sacrificial death of Jesus Christ… bringing us to God as our eternal Heavenly Father. When we understand this, then our theological distinctives from different traditions which appear to separate us, are put into their proper place. I believe some of our theological differences are very important, yet they should not divide the body of Christ. The universal church can be defined by our shared ecumenical creeds.

 

[michaeldaniels]

That is exactly what the Devil wants you to believe…he has permeated our society, our families, and our churches…and he has led you and others like you into error

i would agree. one does not need to be grafted onto a hierarchical body of men practicing certain traditions and teaching certain doctrines in a tradition of Apostolic succession in order to be grafted onto, alive in, and belonging to this historical and eternal Son of God, and Christ.

.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

While obviously disagreeing with the specifics of Roman Catholicism, I agree with your sentiment, gurney. Therefore, I have to disagree with the OP. It matters greatly whether we believe the doctrines Scripture teaches, Christ and the apostles preached, and whether we receive the sacraments validly. While one may be a true Christian if in a church that is not fully orthodox… no true Christian should associate in fellowship with a church which is not fully orthodox.

The OP can easily be misunderstood. Could you please read all of the postings and reconsider your conclusion. By your screen name, I think we may be much more like minded than you think. I agree that orthodoxy as defined by creeds and the historic traditions of the church are essential in defining the visible body of Christ. In addition, I believe modern day Protestants need to return to the creeds and historic Protestant confessions as a focus and direction of going forward…which I believe would create more unity in the visible body of Christ. I think the Reformers were way more Catholic in theology than the typical 21st century Protestant.

 

[michaeldaniels]

I will not apologize for defending The Catholic Church…defending The Truth…and yes, while the Orthodox enjoy a valid Eucharist, they are still not in complete union with The Catholic Church…and I don’t really care if you think it is boastful, but The Catholic Church is the One, True, Church…how can Truth be boastful? You see, you have things confused…for the majority of Christian history, to be Christian was to be Catholic…there was no need to make a distinction…now it is a heresy to say, oh, it doesn’t matter what type of Christian you are…as long as you are Christian first. It doens’t matter if you are a Catholic…Methodist, etc…that IS A LIE. Every religion is in someway deficient when compared to Catholicism…once again, the truth is neither boastful or rude…just simply the truth. If you are offended, perhaps you should study and learn as to why other faiths, such as your own, are deficient and then possibly you will understand The Catholic Church holds the fullness of Truth…perhaps that fullness of Truth will lead you Home to The Catholic Church.
And if there is but One Truth, One God, One Church, One Baptism…then yes, if one truly understood Christ, then they would be Catholic…since The Catholic Church is Christ’s Church, it is impossible one can truly understand Him and be obedient to His will, yet remain outside of The Church.

I think you can be Orthodox and receive the Eucharist, correct? Therefore, being Catholic is not essential in regards to the Eucharist. It’s comes across very boastful to say that “if one truly understood Christ, The Church, and Christianity, then [you] would be Catholic”. Do you see why we have to identify of being Christian first and foremost, and Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, etc a very distant second? It seem you are boasting in Peter in which Paul clearly rebukes in that kind of perspective.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

That is exactly what the Devil wants you to believe…he has permeated our society, our families, and our churches…and he has led you and others like you into error

I would say orthodoxy does not save us. The demons believe that there is one God and shudder. I would also state that many of the Jewish teachers were very orthodox and knew the Scriptures… but missed that the Scriptures pointed to the living Jesus Christ.

You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder! - James

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

I will not apologize for defending The Catholic Church…defending The Truth…and yes, while the Orthodox enjoy a valid Eucharist, they are still not in complete union with The Catholic Church…and I don’t really care if you think it is boastful, but The Catholic Church is the One, True, Church…how can Truth be boastful? You see, you have things confused…for the majority of Christian history, to be Christian was to be Catholic…there was no need to make a distinction…now it is a heresy to say, oh, it doesn’t matter what type of Christian you are…as long as you are Christian first. It doens’t matter if you are a Catholic…Methodist, etc…that IS A LIE. Every religion is in someway deficient when compared to Catholicism…once again, the truth is neither boastful or rude…just simply the truth. If you are offended, perhaps you should study and learn as to why other faiths, such as your own, are deficient and then possibly you will understand The Catholic Church holds the fullness of Truth…perhaps that fullness of Truth will lead you Home to The Catholic Church.
And if there is but One Truth, One God, One Church, One Baptism…then yes, if one truly understood Christ, then they would be Catholic…since The Catholic Church is Christ’s Church, it is impossible one can truly understand Him and be obedient to His will, yet remain outside of The Church.

We both know in part as Christians. We both have our presuppositions, theological distinctives and convictions. And yes, we both error and are tainted by sin as Christians. I never meant to imply that it does not matter what kind of Christian that we are, because we both agree that it does matter. We were reconciled to God through Christ to live to the glory of God. We were united to Christ to proclaim Christ. However, it is easy to proclaim theological distinctives and practices as compared to Christ. The Catholic Church is not the 2nd person of the Trinity, and the body of Christ is much more than members of the Catholic Church.

 

[a_priori]

Being Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodox is not essential of being Christian. What are your thoughts with this belief.

“Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” Romans 14:4

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

“Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. And he will stand, for the Lord is able to make him stand.” Romans 14:4

Context is always important when handling Scripture.

 

[michaeldaniels]

No, The Catholic Church is not the 2nd Person of The Most Holy Trinity…however, The Catholic Church is the 2nd Person of The Most Holy Trinity’s Church…It is Christ’s Kingdom on earth…That is what is meant when he said the Kingdom of God is near…It was the Church He was talking about…His Church is here to guide us on our way to Eternal Life in Heaven…to deny His Church and His Sacraments, is to deny Him

We both know in part as Christians. We both have our presuppositions, theological distinctives and convictions. And yes, we both error and are tainted by sin as Christians. I never meant to imply that it does not matter what kind of Christian that we are, because we both agree that it does matter. We were reconciled to God through Christ to live to the glory of God. We were united to Christ to proclaim Christ. However, it is easy to proclaim theological distinctives and practices as compared to Christ. The Catholic Church is not the 2nd person of the Trinity, and the body of Christ is much more than members of the Catholic Church.

 

[a_priori]

Context is always important when handling Scripture.

And who gets to assign the rules for each context?

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

No, The Catholic Church is not the 2nd Person of The Most Holy Trinity…however, The Catholic Church is the 2nd Person of The Most Holy Trinity’s Church…It is Christ’s Kingdom on earth…That is what is meant when he said the Kingdom of God is near…It was the Church He was talking about…His Church is here to guide us on our way to Eternal Life in Heaven…to deny His Church and His Sacraments, is to deny Him

I think the Apostle Peter would disagree with your conclusion. Consider the epistles of Peter.

 

[wmscott]

Don’t you believe that non-Catholic Christians are part of the church in which Christ established here on earth?

Christians or more to the point "Protestants, who profess the Nicene Creed, believe in the Trinity, and baptize in the the name of the father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit are our brothers and sisters in Christ. They are disobedient brothers and sisters, however still a part of the universal Church.

The Catholic Church teaches the following

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church

818 “However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers … All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

819 “Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth” are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: “the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements.” Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him, 275 and are in themselves calls to “Catholic unity.”

 

[wmscott]

i would agree. one does not need to be grafted onto a hierarchical body of men practicing certain traditions and teaching certain doctrines in a tradition of Apostolic succession in order to be grafted onto, alive in, and belonging to this historical and eternal Son of God, and Christ.

God certainly can and does work through various churches, and their saints. the EO and OO churches have a wealth of amazing theological material, Biblical commentary, hymns, and prayers. the CC has produced many Godly, pious, and Spirit-lead saints who have done much to represent Christ in the world.

Protestants have also produced many great thinkers and theologians, who have enriched and contributed much to Christian writings and thought. through their preaching and mission work, many have been introduced to Christ, and come to faith in Him.

Christian life can be lived out through ecclesial life, and ecclesial life can also be lived out devotedly without a grounded and personal relationship to Christ. for me it is Christ and His Word (the Bible) which matters paramount, and i am willing and thankful to call all who know Him and live for Him brother or sister.

Then why did Christ institute a hierarchical body of men practicing certain Sacred Traditions and teaching certain doctrines.

Acts 1:20 - we see in the early Church that successors are immediately chosen for the apostles’ offices. Just as the Church replaced Judas, it also replaced Peter with a successor after Peter’s death.

John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus’ creation of Peter’s office as chief shepherd with the keys passed to Linus, Cletus, Clement I, all the way to our current Holy Father.

Matt. 23:2 - this shows that the Jews understood the importance of succession to the chair and its attendant authority. Here, Jesus respects Moses’ seat (“cathedra”) of authority which was preserved by succession. In the Church, Peter’s seat is called the “cathedra,” and when Peter’s successor speaks officially on a matter of faith or morals, it may rise to the level of an “ex cathedra” (from the chair) teaching.

Eph. 3:21 - this divine word tells us that Jesus Christ’s Church will exist in all generations. Only the Catholic Church can prove by succession such existence. Our Protestant brothers and sisters become uncomfortable with this passage because it requires them to look for a Church that has existed for over 2,000 years. This means that all the other Christian denominations (some of which have been around even less than one year!) cannot be the church that Christ built upon the rock of Peter.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You could indeed debate me. Winning the debate would be another matter…

I am merely telling you the truth–and that truth is that scripture does not exist in a vacuum as you might like it to exist. The Bible didn’t fall out of the sky completed and ready to read. The doctrine of the Trinity as it exists today didn’t just fall off a tree either. The natures of Christ, misconceptions about His will or humanity or godhead, made or begotten, on and on…Christological understandings you as a protestant (I assume you’re Protestant?) inherit from the ecumenical councils that consisted of the Eastern and Western bishops of the Church. This isn’t about boasting in traditions. These are more than traditions. This the THE CHURCH. Christ built a visible, tangiable, real Church. To say it doesn’t matter to which body we hold shows a moral relativist slant on your part. It would also ignore the Lord’s commission to Peter not once but twice, the power to bind and loose that He gave the apostles, the sacramental theology of the early Church, and many other things.

I resent your calling my faith non-Christian a great deal. I am justified in Christ Jesus by the blood of the Cross and my faith in Him. But unlike yourself, I don’t believe that mere intellectual assent to Christ’s salvific act and His divinity makes me eternally secure. The Scriptures themselves and the Church have always told us that faith must be actively demonstrated in our lives, our actions, a living faith that’s not a stagnant statement of belief we made at one time during a Billy Graham revival.

Your statement of traditions vs. the salvific act of Our Lord on the Cross shows a person who thinks we as humans cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. I can (and do) believe in justification by faith in Christ and walk in His ways and also recognize the visible Church Christ gave us grounded upon Peter to send us sacraments to help us preserve, strengthen, and activate our faith in our daily lives. I can walk and chew gum. You can, too.

And your statement that you’re not trying to divide but expose us as boastful, shallow types without a real understanding of our salvation seems oxymoronic.

You appear to be putting theological distinctives and practice first as compared to being Christian. I believe I could debate you on the essential doctrine of justification which from the other perspective, make your faith to appear very non-Christian. I’m not trying to fight and divide us as a body of Christ, but to expose us on how we tend to boast in our traditions as compared to what God has done for us in Christ. Did Christ die only for the Catholic Christian?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Great post, WM. Christianity didn’t come with an owner’s manual day one and no one at the helm. And the Scriptures, as you point out, show us the development of the visible, authoritative Church Christ meant for us to have…a body, His body, in which the Gates of Hell and error couldn’t prevail. Great post.

Then why did Christ institute a hierarchical body of men practicing certain Sacred Traditions and teaching certain doctrines.

Acts 1:20 - we see in the early Church that successors are immediately chosen for the apostles’ offices. Just as the Church replaced Judas, it also replaced Peter with a successor after Peter’s death.

John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus’ creation of Peter’s office as chief shepherd with the keys passed to Linus, Cletus, Clement I, all the way to our current Holy Father.

Matt. 23:2 - this shows that the Jews understood the importance of succession to the chair and its attendant authority. Here, Jesus respects Moses’ seat (“cathedra”) of authority which was preserved by succession. In the Church, Peter’s seat is called the “cathedra,” and when Peter’s successor speaks officially on a matter of faith or morals, it may rise to the level of an “ex cathedra” (from the chair) teaching.

Eph. 3:21 - this divine word tells us that Jesus Christ’s Church will exist in all generations. Only the Catholic Church can prove by succession such existence. Our Protestant brothers and sisters become uncomfortable with this passage because it requires them to look for a Church that has existed for over 2,000 years. This means that all the other Christian denominations (some of which have been around even less than one year!) cannot be the church that Christ built upon the rock of Peter.