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

[Palaeologos]

What if one was to think and act and love like Jesus, but while knowing all the Gospels, would still deny faith in Jesus as God…? Would someone like this still be considered a Christian…? What I mean is; can someone be a Christian while having works - without faith in Jesus exclusively…?

They go together. You can’t have one without the other.

What is required of us, as Christians? It’s so important that we repeat it at every Mass, at the very beginning : “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it. Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

If we truly love God, then we want to believe the truth about him. And the truth is that God is incarnate in Jesus Christ, his Son; and all the other propositions enunciated in the Creeds. To disbelieve that Jesus is God Incarnate is to disbelieve the truth; to believe something that is not true about God is not to love God with all our mind.

If we truly love our neighbor as ourselves, then we help him when he needs it. And as the parable of the Good Samaritan makes clear, everybody is our neighbor. To neglect this, or to “spiritualize” it by claiming that it refers only to preaching the Gospel, is to neglect an equally important part of our duty as Christians, and to announce to the world that our faith is empty of the fruit that should naturally come from it.

 

[Roblox84]

I would like to hear some opinions of people. This isn’t to start a fight or anything. If you are a person that is living in the backwoods of the country where there isn’t a single Church around for say, 1000 miles and all you have is a bible wouldn’t that be sufficient enough to earn salvation without even being considered any particular denomination. The CC teaches that one can receive salvation without even heard of Christ so why can’t you have heard the name of Christ and be saved? Even if a person picks up the bible alone without the Church, the bible isn’t going to lead them into mischief. Anyone can look at the passages and see that Christ commanded us to follow his commandments, to repent, to forgive others of their sins, and so on… There aren’t any passages that can lead any moral person astray. And this would make you just a “bible reader” that has nothing to do with catholic, protestant or orthodox.

I may even add that the person may even be less prone to false bible interpretation of many churches throughout the years. Therefore they wouldn’t have a multitude of denominational interpretations clogging up their brain. For example, I can pick up the bible and clearly see that Christ say’s that there is more to salvation then just believing in him or letting him into one’s heart.

 

[SSTeacher]

I would like to hear some opinions of people. This isn’t to start a fight or anything. If you are a person that is living in the backwoods of the country where there isn’t a single Church around for say, 1000 miles and all you have is a bible wouldn’t that be sufficient enough to earn salvation without even being considered any particular denomination. The CC teaches that one can receive salvation without even heard of Christ so why can’t you have heard the name of Christ and be saved? Even if a person picks up the bible alone without the Church, the bible isn’t going to lead them into mischief. Anyone can look at the passages and see that Christ commanded us to follow his commandments, to repent, to forgive others of their sins, and so on… There aren’t any passages that can lead any moral person astray. And this just makes you a bible reader that isn’t catholic, protestant or orthodox.

I may even add that the person may even be less prone to false interpretation of people throughout the years. For example, I can pick up the bible and clearly see that Christ say’s that there is more to salvation then just believing in him or letting him into one’s heart.

Are you sure that there aren’t any passages that can lead any moral person astray?

Cautiously,
Mick

 

[Roblox84]

Are you sure that there aren’t any passages that can lead any moral person astray?

Cautiously,
Mick

I’m not sure which ones you have on your mind. But such things as drinking blood or sacraficing things I don’t think would really come into play because if a person of today’s time would read them they most likely wouldn’t do those things. No one explained to me many passages but when I see sacrifices or giant creatures in the bible I just consider them metaphors or just plain weird things that should have never been done in the first place.

 

[SSTeacher]

SSTeacher;6380896:

Are you sure that there aren’t any passages that can lead any moral person astray?

Cautiously,
Mick

I’m not sure which ones you have on your mind. But such things as drinking blood or sacrificing things I don’t think would really come into play because if a person of today’s time would read them they most likely wouldn’t do those things. No one explained to me many passages but when I see sacrifices or giant creatures in the bible I just consider them metaphors or just plain weird things that should have never been done in the first place.

I didn’t have any particular passages in mind. I was thinking only of the doctrinal chaos in Western Christendom that has come about as direct result of elevating the Bible to a position it was clearly never meant to occupy.

But when it comes to thinking about specifics I guess one might reflect upon the difficulties that would naturally present themselves to somebody who didn’t understand how the Bible is put together. The most obvious example that comes to my mind is denying somebody a blood transfusion and letting that person die based upon a Bible verse.

And one might take that line of thinking a little further. Consider, for example, how forcibly American Evangelicals argue for putting the Ten Commandments up on walls in schools and courthouses. Do not the Ten Commandments reflect the moral values to which all people should aspire? Many moralists, regardless of their religious affiliation, might agree. But the Decalogue is found in the Old Testament (cf. Exodus 20). So why is it that Evangelicals argue only for that particular part of the Old Testament to be extolled? Why do they not argue for the restoration of the death penalty for cursing one’s parents (cf. Exodus 21:17)? They would be quite logical to do so – and in doing so to insist that not only were they adopting a moral stance but also that what they were advocating was “biblical.”

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Follow my drift?

Morally,
Mick

 

[Nine_Two]

Do you believe that non-Catholics and non-Orthodox Christians are not members of the church in which Christ is the head? Did Christ only die for the Catholic and Orthodox believer?

Christ died for all mankind, that does not make Hindu’s proper Christians any more than it makes Calvinists part of Christ’s Church.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

I would like to hear some opinions of people. This isn’t to start a fight or anything. If you are a person that is living in the backwoods of the country where there isn’t a single Church around for say, 1000 miles and all you have is a bible wouldn’t that be sufficient enough to earn salvation without even being considered any particular denomination. The CC teaches that one can receive salvation without even heard of Christ so why can’t you have heard the name of Christ and be saved? Even if a person picks up the bible alone without the Church, the bible isn’t going to lead them into mischief. Anyone can look at the passages and see that Christ commanded us to follow his commandments, to repent, to forgive others of their sins, and so on… There aren’t any passages that can lead any moral person astray. And this would make you just a “bible reader” that has nothing to do with catholic, protestant or orthodox.

I may even add that the person may even be less prone to false bible interpretation of many churches throughout the years. Therefore they wouldn’t have a multitude of denominational interpretations clogging up their brain. For example, I can pick up the bible and clearly see that Christ say’s that there is more to salvation then just believing in him or letting him into one’s heart.

Jn 6:53 “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.”

In your words… “If you are a person that is living in the backwoods of the country where there isn’t a single Church around for say, 1000 miles”, then how can you have eternal life without partaking in the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist?

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

I didn’t have any particular passages in mind. I was thinking only of the doctrinal chaos in Western Christendom that has come about as direct result of elevating the Bible to a position it was clearly never meant to occupy.

But when it comes to thinking about specifics I guess one might reflect upon the difficulties that would naturally present themselves to somebody who didn’t understand how the Bible is put together. The most obvious example that comes to my mind is denying somebody a blood transfusion and letting that person die based upon a Bible verse.

And one might take that line of thinking a little further. Consider, for example, how forcibly American Evangelicals argue for putting the Ten Commandments up on walls in schools and courthouses. Do not the Ten Commandments reflect the moral values to which all people should aspire? Many moralists, regardless of their religious affiliation, might agree. But the Decalogue is found in the Old Testament (cf. Exodus 20). So why is it that Evangelicals argue only for that particular part of the Old Testament to be extolled? Why do they not argue for the restoration of the death penalty for cursing one’s parents (cf. Exodus 21:17)? They would be quite logical to do so – and in doing so to insist that not only were they adopting a moral stance but also that what they were advocating was “biblical.”

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Follow my drift?

Morally,
Mick

I have issues too with the fundamental right moral agenda of Republican Christians that are quite common in America.

 

[dzheremi]

Mick! Just couldn’t stay away, eh? Good to see you, my friend.

This topic is ridiculous. Of course these things matter. You think we divide ourselves over nothing? Come now…it is OBVIOUS the next guy is a heretic, isn’t it?

Look, if you don’t want to have to have any sort of consistent theology or practice, that’s on you. I will say the same sort of thing I always say when this topic comes up: The martyrs did and do not die for nothing. Nobody died in periods of iconoclasm, for instance, because they just love pictures so much. These things that separate us, as silly as they may seem to universalist types, actually matter quite a lot to the people on either side of the fight. I am not particularly in communion with anyone at the moment, but if anyone were to try to take away the icon of Christ and the Virgin and Child that I keep on my night stand because of their own misunderstanding of what I’m doing with it, you bet we’d have a problem. Same thing with my copy of the Liturgy of St. Basil, the Introduction to the Philokalia, or any other thing I am using to try to figure out my path to salvation. They are not just so much extra-Biblical paraphernalia to be discarded in order to join hands and sing kumbaya with someone who has no idea of their centrality to Christian worship and the understanding of it. In past centuries, before this Reformation idea of “Sola Scriptura”, there was agreement across the Christian world as to the proper place of the Bible as part of sacred tradition, not to be set outside of it in its own special category where it can consulted for self-evident answers to anything and everything a Christian might wonder about their faith.

Everyone has to make a choice as to what they believe. This “denominations don’t matter” talk is in effect making the choice that whatever the individual believes is sufficient guidance so long as they say it is “biblical”, conveniently forgetting parts of the very same Bible that warn against this sort of thing (Jeremiah 17:9, most famously). For myself, I can barely interpret hook up a home stereo, and those instructions are very straight-forward!

 

[Roblox84]

I didn’t have any particular passages in mind. I was thinking only of the doctrinal chaos in Western Christendom that has come about as direct result of elevating the Bible to a position it was clearly never meant to occupy.

But when it comes to thinking about specifics I guess one might reflect upon the difficulties that would naturally present themselves to somebody who didn’t understand how the Bible is put together. The most obvious example that comes to my mind is denying somebody a blood transfusion and letting that person die based upon a Bible verse.

And one might take that line of thinking a little further. Consider, for example, how forcibly American Evangelicals argue for putting the Ten Commandments up on walls in schools and courthouses. Do not the Ten Commandments reflect the moral values to which all people should aspire? Many moralists, regardless of their religious affiliation, might agree. But the Decalogue is found in the Old Testament (cf. Exodus 20). So why is it that Evangelicals argue only for that particular part of the Old Testament to be extolled? Why do they not argue for the restoration of the death penalty for cursing one’s parents (cf. Exodus 21:17)? They would be quite logical to do so – and in doing so to insist that not only were they adopting a moral stance but also that what they were advocating was “biblical.”

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

Follow my drift?

Morally,
Mick

I follow your drift. In my situation I don’t know much what the bible means and have never heard translations for most of the passages, but just because the bible told me to let someone die or restore the death penalty, I don’t think I would be able to take that seriously because life is too precious. I read some of it now and I just think it sounds foolish. Also I wouldn’t do anything in the bible that went against Government laws or natural laws. I know that is why the Church is today is to prevent things like that, but I always thought that the bible would always lead one to believe that there is a higher power in this world and that he is watching us.

 

[SonofMonica]

I would love to debate my Catholic brothers and sisters on essential doctrine without dividing over it. Let’s debate the doctrine of justification on this thread since you believe that it won’t be much of a debate. If a debate on justification is one sided, then all us non-Catholics will become Catholics in a blink of an eye. So, why have you been reconciled to God? Why is the Catholic view of justification the right one?

1. Each thread on Catholic Answers forum should be devoted to a single topic. If you’d like to start a thread on justification, you are free to do so, but…
2. This site is not (or at least should not be) principally about debate. If you would like to know the Catholic view about a particular aspect of justification, you are welcome to start a thread and ask it.
3. As with each Catholic doctrine, we believe our view of justification is right because we believe that Christ specifically taught it to the apostles, who passed it on to us, to be simplistic about it. It is not open to “debate,” because we are not free to change it in any respect.
4. We are all reconciled to God because he loves us so much and because we are willing to cooperate with God’s grace and love and humble ourselves, submitting to his authority. That’s why. We are able to be reconciled because God alone is truly good and he longs to give himself to us in the fullness of a loving relationship.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

Mick! Just couldn’t stay away, eh? Good to see you, my friend.

This topic is ridiculous. Of course these things matter. You think we divide ourselves over nothing? Come now…it is OBVIOUS the next guy is a heretic, isn’t it?

Look, if you don’t want to have to have any sort of consistent theology or practice, that’s on you. I will say the same sort of thing I always say when this topic comes up: The martyrs did and do not die for nothing. Nobody died in periods of iconoclasm, for instance, because they just love pictures so much. These things that separate us, as silly as they may seem to universalist types, actually matter quite a lot to the people on either side of the fight. I am not particularly in communion with anyone at the moment, but if anyone were to try to take away the icon of Christ and the Virgin and Child that I keep on my night stand because of their own misunderstanding of what I’m doing with it, you bet we’d have a problem. Same thing with my copy of the Liturgy of St. Basil, the Introduction to the Philokalia, or any other thing I am using to try to figure out my path to salvation. They are not just so much extra-Biblical paraphernalia to be discarded in order to join hands and sing kumbaya with someone who has no idea of their centrality to Christian worship and the understanding of it. In past centuries, before this Reformation idea of “Sola Scriptura”, there was agreement across the Christian world as to the proper place of the Bible as part of sacred tradition, not to be set outside of it in its own special category where it can consulted for self-evident answers to anything and everything a Christian might wonder about their faith.

Everyone has to make a choice as to what they believe. This “denominations don’t matter” talk is in effect making the choice that whatever the individual believes is sufficient guidance so long as they say it is “biblical”, conveniently forgetting parts of the very same Bible that warn against this sort of thing (Jeremiah 17:9, most famously). For myself, I can barely interpret hook up a home stereo, and those instructions are very straight-forward!

When you get to the bottom line, if you are not in union with Jesus Christ, than you are without hope. So, your union with the Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, or Reformation churches without a true union with Jesus Christ will be meaningless from an eternal perspective.

 

[Roblox84]

Jn 6:53 “Unless you eat the Flesh of the Son of man and drink His Blood, you have no life in you; he who eats My Flesh and drinks My Blood has eternal life.”

In your words… “If you are a person that is living in the backwoods of the country where there isn’t a single Church around for say, 1000 miles”, then how can you have eternal life without partaking in the Catholic understanding of the Eucharist?

In this situation I would expect Gods love to come into play and not expect these people to drive the long trip. Christ didn’t come to this world to punish us, but to save us. So in my opinion God looks at everyone’s situations differently. He might judge us later, but he won’t not let us into heaven.

 

[SonofMonica]

When you get to the bottom line, if you are not in union with Jesus Christ, than you are without hope. So, your union with the Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, or Reformation churches without a true union with Jesus Christ will be meaningless from an eternal perspective.

When you get to the bottom line, you are missing the point, from a Catholic perspective. For a Catholic, the way that you have a true union with Jesus Christ is through the Catholic Church. You see, we believe that the reason that he started the Catholic Church is that he wanted to be able to have a full, spiritual, mental, physical and real relationship with us in every aspect, and the Church is the way that he accomplishes it. The Church is the way that Jesus comes to us. There is no dichotomy between being in true union with the Catholic Church and being in true union with Christ. If you are false in one, you will be false in the other.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

1. Each thread on Catholic Answers forum should be devoted to a single topic. If you’d like to start a thread on justification, you are free to do so, but…
2. This site is not (or at least should not be) principally about debate. If you would like to know the Catholic view about a particular aspect of justification, you are welcome to start a thread and ask it.
3. As with each Catholic doctrine, we believe our view of justification is right because we believe that Christ specifically taught it to the apostles, who passed it on to us, to be simplistic about it. It is not open to “debate,” because we are not free to change it in any respect.
4. We are all reconciled to God because he loves us so much and because we are willing to cooperate with God’s grace and love and humble ourselves, submitting to his authority. That’s why. We are able to be reconciled because God alone is truly good and he longs to give himself to us in the fullness of a loving relationship.

Are you sure the current Pope has not had some recent teachings on justification, putting Martin Luther in a very good light?

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

In this situation I would expect Gods love to come into play and not expect these people to drive the long trip. Christ didn’t come to this world to punish us, but to save us. So in my opinion God looks at everyone’s situations differently. He might judge us later, but he won’t not let us into heaven.

I thought Catholics did not go by opinions, but only what the Catholic church teaches?

 

[SonofMonica]

Are you sure the current Pope has not had some recent teachings on justification, putting Martin Luther in a very good light?

I know exactly what the Pope said about “faith alone,” and if you are implying that it changes Catholic doctrine one iota, you are sorely mistaken.

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

When you get to the bottom line, you are missing the point, from a Catholic perspective. For a Catholic, the way that you have a true union with Jesus Christ is through the Catholic Church. You see, we believe that the reason that he started the Catholic Church is that he wanted to be able to have a full, spiritual, mental, physical and real relationship with us in every aspect, and the Church is the way that he accomplishes it. The Church is the way that Jesus comes to us. There is no dichotomy between being in true union with the Catholic Church and being in true union with Christ. If you are false in one, you will be false in the other.

Do you believe all members of the Catholic Church will be in Heaven?

 

[One_in_Christ_1]

I know exactly what the Pope said about “faith alone,” and if you are implying that it changes Catholic doctrine one iota, you are sorely mistaken.

What did the Pope say about faith alone?

 

[SonofMonica]

Do you believe all members of the Catholic Church will be in Heaven?

No. Not all “members” of the Catholic Church are in true union with the Church, and therefore, with Christ. “Membership” means nothing. It is the individual’s soul that matters. To be in true union with the Church (and therefore with Christ) is not simply to be a member of the Catholic Church.