Catholic or "Christian"?

[guanophore]

This just happened to my wife who is Catholic. A friend of hers insisted that Catholics are not Christians. This person belongs to a mega church of some sort as I understand it. It follows that my wife is quite upset by the whole thing. Anyway, can someone tell me why it is that some denominations believe that Catholics are not Christians? As most of you know, I am from the SD tradition (Hindu), but very familiar with Catholicism. I am not very familiar with Protestant religions, so can someone tell me what the reasoning is behind some Christian denominations not considering Catholicism to be Christian? It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me because I know that Catholics are most certainly Christians, so I just want to understand the reasoning behind it. If the answer is already in the thread, my apologies.

Your friend,
Sufjon

At the time of the Protestant Reformation in Europe about 500 years ago there were many “Catholics” who did not live like Christians, including many in positions of power, and supposed holiness (priests and religious monks). In order to find and live a more authentic Christian life, some thought it was necessary to jettison the CC. Those who embraced “reformed” Christianity were considered authentic Christians, while those who clung to allegiance to a corrupt successor of Peter were considered unchristian.

 

[CopticChristian]

At the time of the Protestant Reformation in Europe about 500 years ago there were many “Catholics” who did not live like Christians, including many in positions of power, and supposed holiness (priests and religious monks). In order to find and live a more authentic Christian life, some thought it was necessary to jettison the CC. Those who embraced “reformed” Christianity were considered authentic Christians, while those who clung to allegiance to a corrupt successor of Peter were considered unchristian.

Some thought it was necessary to jettison the CC. The Church is the Body/Head. The body jettisoned the head?

Those who embraced reformed are authentic Christians, those clinging to the Papacy are unchristian. The new Christians are those that started a new religion? Those in the OHCAC are not Christian?

This just put a charley horse in my head.

 

[guanophore]

Protestant thought originated in White Europe, by Catholics like Knox, Zwingli, Calvin and Luther. They started a new religion that denies a Church Authority, states that Believing/Faith is all you need for salvation.

You are misinformed about Protestant beliefs and the Reformation, Coptic. Luther, Zwingli and Calvin did not believe the things you think they did. In fact, they replaced the authority appointed by Christ with other authority BECAUSE they believed in Church authority.

None of these men believed that faith is all one needed for salvation. I think you are confusing the corrupted beliefs of modern American fundamentalists with their spiritual ancestors. The Reformers would not even recognize the bible churches of today.

Next understand that the as you read the original documents produced by these Protestants their goal was not to establish a new religion, however by their intentions and actions this is what they proposed.

If this were true, Coptic, then the Church would not refer to their descendants as “separated brethren”. What you are preaching is contrary to the Catholic Catechism.

It was their proposal that they were the One Holy Catholic Church, They were the Christians and they were going to destroy that from whence they came and in proclaiming themselves as Christian they would be seen as The legitimate Christian Church. If anyone denies it is a new religion, then all one need do is answer the question? Were Protestants by intention trying to break away so that they could proceed on their own in the way they wished or were they trying to destroy the Church. If the latter, then it is indeed a new religion.

You are misled, just as they were. They rejected the authorities that appeared corrupt to them. If you study the Reformation, you will find that most of the grievances were valid.

Protestants wanted to rid the Church of rampant corruption.

The short answer is that judgining who is and who isn’t a Christian is a queer practice of Protestant thought. When you hear this think Protestant and then investigate the history of the church they came from.

No, it is not, Coptic. The Eastern Church also distinguishes those who have b een initiated into the mysteries, and those who have not. Or do you not know the origin of the phrase “the doors! the doors!” during divine liturgy?

It would be rare in my opinion, that a Catholic would judge someone to be Christian. We do recognize the aberrant doctrinal issues as they are novel creations dating to 1600.

Yes, but those moderns who have embraced heresies cannot be charged with the sin of heresy.

 

[guanophore]

Some thought it was necessary to jettison the CC. The Church is the Body/Head.  The body jettisoned the head?

They wanted to divest themselves of the corruption rampant in the leadership and the clergy. Since they believed that Jesus is the Head, and as long as they stayed connected to Jesus they would still be a unified Body.

Those who embraced reformed are authentic Christians, those clinging to the Papacy are unchristian.

Yes, that was their thinking.

The new Christians are those that started a new religion?

No. This statement reflects your own individual erroneous belief.

Those in the OHCAC are not Christian?

This is largely a product of Modern American Evangelicalism.

This just put a charley horse in my head.

Actually, that would not be a bad thing, if it could result in the divesture of some of your erroneous ideas.

 

[CopticChristian]

You are misinformed about Protestant beliefs and the Reformation, Coptic. Luther, Zwingli and Calvin did not believe the things you think they did. In fact, they replaced the authority appointed by Christ with other authority BECAUSE they believed in Church authority.

None of these men believed that faith is all one needed for salvation. I think you are confusing the corrupted beliefs of modern American fundamentalists with their spiritual ancestors. The Reformers would not even recognize the bible churches of today.

If this were true, Coptic, then the Church would not refer to their descendants as “separated brethren”. What you are preaching is contrary to the Catholic Catechism.

You are misled, just as they were. They rejected the authorities that appeared corrupt to them. If you study the Reformation, you will find that most of the grievances were valid.

Protestants wanted to rid the Church of rampant corruption.

No, it is not, Coptic. The Eastern Church also distinguishes those who have b een initiated into the mysteries, and those who have not. Or do you not know the origin of the phrase “the doors! the doors!” during divine liturgy?

Yes, but those moderns who have embraced heresies cannot be charged with the sin of heresy.

I agree that the so called reformers would not recongize their offspring. Separated brethren is related, as you know, to those who through no fault of their own find themselves in ecclesial communities. I never mentioned grievances. Who judges who is led? There was as you know a counter-reformation. Culpability is as you know the aspect of that which is called heresy. I stand with my opinion of aberrant. The doors, the doors, Wisdom, be attentive.

 

[CopticChristian]

They wanted to divest themselves of the corruption rampant in the leadership and the clergy. Since they believed that Jesus is the Head, and as long as they stayed connected to Jesus they would still be a unified Body.

Yes, that was their thinking.

No. This statement reflects your own individual erroneous belief.

This is largely a product of Modern American Evangelicalism.

Actually, that would not be a bad thing, if it could result in the divesture of some of your erroneous ideas.

You may want to add to your post, in your opinion. I asked a question. You embarked on a dialogue. You did not answer my question. That is your peragotive. I like Kempo as it is circular and fluid. I like Judo since it utilizes the strength of others to the Judokas advantage. I enjoyed White Dragon Kung Fu because it developed deception. I disliked Shotokan because in my opinion it was useless.

 

[guanophore]

I agree that the so called reformers would not recongize their offspring. Separated brethren is related, as you know, to those who through no fault of their own find themselves in ecclesial communities. I never mentioned grievances. Who judges who is led? There was as you know a counter-reformation. Culpability is as you know the aspect of that which is called heresy. I stand with my opinion of aberrant. The doors, the doors, Wisdom, be attentive.

Well, your opinion about aberrant is consistent with the Church teaching. All non-Catholic ecclesial communities have aberrant doctrines or practices, or both. That does not make them “a different religion”, just Christians who are poorly catechized, or misled.

 

[CopticChristian]

Well, your opinion about aberrant is consistent with the Church teaching. All non-Catholic ecclesial communities have aberrant doctrines or practices, or both. That does not make them “a different religion”, just Christians who are poorly catechized, or misled.

and I would add in your opinion.

 

[guanophore]

and I would add in your opinion.

Not so. I am not qualified to form an opinon on such matters. After much study and prayer, I have chosen to accept the Teaching of the Church.

 

[CopticChristian]

Not so. I am not qualified to form an opinon on such matters. After much study and prayer, I have chosen to accept the Teaching of the Church.

Then we are different. I believe my Church teaches that I can form an opinion on anything I choose to as long as I do not deny Church teaching.

I can believe in evolution as long as I do not deny the creation of the first souls Adam/Eve, because to do so would be to diminish the work of Christ.

We are different. I believe that I am qualified to form an opinion after much study and prayer as long as I do not deny the Teaching of the Church.

 

[DebChris]

Well, your opinion about aberrant is consistent with the Church teaching. All non-Catholic ecclesial communities have aberrant doctrines or practices, or both. That does not make them “a different religion”, just Christians who are poorly catechized, or misled.

I was taught in elementary school to refer to the different denominations as faiths. We share the same religion which is Christianity. Each of us follows a different faith tradition. I belong to the Catholic Faith. As a member of the Catholic Faith I claim to follow Tradition, the teachings of the Apostles as handed to them directly by Jesus. This Tradition is protected by the magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Bible holds the written Word of God and is to be revered.
Catholics view the Bible, the Church, and Tradition as harmonious pieces of a whole. Scripture is interpreted by the magisterium in light of Tradition. “There are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16).

“It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.” [Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation Ch. 2].

 

[wondrousgnat]

I am going to express and opinion which is mine and many may not agree with. I believe that the church was created by Jesus and founded on Peter. Anti-Catholics who belong to churches founded by peoples’ own decisions have to defend themselves by calling the Catholic church a cult. How else can they justify themselves?

When I was a Protestant I heard that the church is the Whore of Babylon but could never see how they could relate one to another. Yet I could see a similarity between the Tower of Babel and the Protestant Reformation.

I believe that many Protestants are better followers of Jesus than many Catholics and. of course. many will get to Heaven. But what exactly IS a Christian? The term can be very broad. In one site I am in one believes Jesus is Lord but denies He was man. Others believe Jeus rose spiritually from the dead. Is baptism necessasry and at what age? Where and how do we draw the line at what is a Christian and what is not?

 

[Little_One0307]

I have always referred to as the other denominations excepting the Orthodox as ecclesial communities. Did this term come from Vatican III or was it pre-Vatican II?

God bless.

 

[LinuxUser]

There is no Vatican 3 the term came from Pope b16

 

[CopticChristian]

There is no Vatican 3 the term came from Pope b16

I believe that this information came from Vatican II and subsequent documents.

DECREE ON ECUMENISM
UNITATIS REDINTEGRATIO

CHAPTER III
CHURCHES AND ECCLESIAL COMMUNITIES SEPARATED FROM THE ROMAN APOSTOLIC SEE

II. Separated Churches and Ecclesial Communities in the West
19. In the great upheaval which began in the West toward the end of the Middle Ages, and in later times too, Churches and ecclesial Communities came to be separated from the Apostolic See of Rome. Yet they have retained a particularly close affinity with the Catholic Church as a result of the long centuries in which all Christendom lived together in ecclesiastical communion.

However, since these Churches and ecclesial Communities, on account of their different origins, and different teachings in matters of doctrine on the spiritual life, vary considerably not only with us, but also among themselves, the task of describing them at all adequately is extremely difficult; and we have no intention of making such an attempt here.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
RESPONSES TO SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING CERTAIN ASPECTS
OF THE DOCTRINE ON THE CHURCH

FIFTH QUESTION
Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?
RESPONSE
According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense.

 

[guanophore]

Then we are different. I believe my Church teaches that I can form an opinion on anything I choose to as long as I do not deny Church teaching.

I can believe in evolution as long as I do not deny the creation of the first souls Adam/Eve, because to do so would be to diminish the work of Christ.

We are different. I believe that I am qualified to form an opinion after much study and prayer as long as I do not deny the Teaching of the Church.

No, we are the same in this. However, the examples you give are those which are not defined as doctrine, and therefore, may be explored by theological speculation.

This does not apply to the topic of this thread, though, and the statement I made about what the Church teaches. The Catechism (which you appear to have read, based upon your comments) is clear that validly baptized members of non-Catholic ecclesial communities are to be considered our “brethren”, and have the right to be called “Christian”. That means the Church teaches they are not members of “a different religion” as you keep asserting. This is not open for “opinion”. When your “opinion” departs from the Teaching of the Church, you have lost Catholicity.

 

[TruthRevealed]

Isn’t anyone else annoyed by the question “Are you Catholic or Christian?”

I’ve been asked this several times by both Protestants and shockingly Catholics. It’s been especially annoying when I tell them “Catholic is Christian” and they say “No! Christians sing and have bands and pastors” :doh2:

:dts: Anyone else encountered this problem or was asked this question?

Well catholic talks about Mary alot. Where as christians only talks about jesus. By the way what is Protestants I know they are alot in England.

 

[perro_sarnoso]

Isn’t anyone else annoyed by the question “Are you Catholic or Christian?”

I’ve been asked this several times by both Protestants and shockingly Catholics. It’s been especially annoying when I tell them “Catholic is Christian” and they say “No! Christians sing and have bands and pastors” :doh2:

:dts: Anyone else encountered this problem or was asked this question?

I have standard answers for these type of repetitive, redundant and moot questions.

Catholics are the original Christians from where all true Christians came from. Are you a true Christian?
The answers is always a yes. Then you my friend came from the Catholic faith.

 

[T_More]

Mormons and Jehovah witness have fruits, do you believe that they are believers?

That would depend on what the agreed upon definition of “fruit” is. How can JW’s be believers if the deny the idenity of Christ, Hell and the immortality of the soul? What’s left then?

 

[CopticChristian]

That would depend on what the agreed upon definition of “fruit” is. How can JW’s be believers if the deny the idenity of Christ, Hell and the immortality of the soul? What’s left then?

I am not sure I understand your approach. You ask a question as to the definition of “fruit” and without any discussion you draw a conclusion. It is impossible to discuss anything beyond this. It would be appropriate in my opinion to hold all conclusions until there is some sort of common understanding of fruit. Since I did not raise this as a point of reference I defer definition and ask for those that contributed to explain what is meant by fruits prior to drawing a conclusion. I would reserve my comment as to your JW denials after that discussion.