Catholics - Are They Christians?

[bob]

Michael Howard:

As I studied history and the claims of the Catholic church over a four year period, I could not justify what I believed in light of the overwhelming evidence I was finding to support the Catholic faith. Some have not come to this place and honestly feel they are in the right, are they held accountable to what they truely do not understand? Will God send some to hell if me are honestly seeking Him and pure truth? Maybe I am wrong, I’m open to hearing opposing points of view.

Good for you Michael! There have been many non-Catholic Christians out there searching for truth. The deeper they dig, the closer they get to the truth.

“AND THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE!”

 

[Michael_Howard]

Thanks Bob! Blessings brother

 

[Les_Richardson]

Jordan32404:

It depends. If they’ve experienced true saving faith then yes, if not then no. As a Protestant I believe there will be many Catholics in hell along with many Baptists, Lutherans, Presbyterians, you name it. I also believe there will be many Catholics in heaven. Because I believe that just being a Catholic or whatever does not make you a Christian only faith does.

As a Catholic I agree with you. Praise God.
:clapping:

 

[CD4]

I don’t think that’s just a Catholic thing!!

**You are so right…All denominations have people i them who are not living a Christian life…We all, in fact, fall short of living in God’s perfect will. **

 

[Veronica_Anne]

fix:

Protestants are all heretics. I know The CC frowns on that sort of language in regard to our separated bretheren these days, but it is technically accurate.

The word “heretic” is not a swear word. And no, the Catholic Church does NOT frown on “that sort of language” because it is an accurate term. We (Catholics) are all about Truth.

No “technically” about it. Just plain true that the word heretic means (according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary):

Main Entry: **her·e·tic **

Pronunciation: 'her-&-"tik

Function: noun

1 : a dissenter from established church dogma; especially : a baptized member of the Roman Catholic Church who disavows a revealed truth

2 : one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine

m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=heretic

 

[Veronica_Anne]

Poisson:

I was in a hospital waiting room once and there was a grieving family who had a loved one undergoing emergency surgery. A pastor was being introduced to some of the family members and he said “Nice to meet you are you Christians too?” they said “Oh no, we’re Catholics.” The pastor nodded and said “Oh I see.”

I’m unclear for what you mean to convey, here. At first, I thought you meant when you said the word “pastor” you meant the pastor of a Roman Catholic parish.

Or… on second thought… I’m thinkin’ … did you mean a pastor of some non-Catholic Christian church community, instead?

 

[Veronica_Anne]

picasso_13:

I also found myself correcting some flight attendents when I was in Africa a few years ago. They are talking about Christians and Catholics and I had just happened to be leaving the bathroom and couldn’t get back to my seat and overheard their conversation. The plane had landed and everyone was up and collecting there stuff and I was stuck at the back of the plane. It was one of the first times I felt prompted by the Spirit. I corrected their conversation by telling them that Catholics are christians and I felt like God had made it so I couldn’t get back to my seat right away in order for that to happen.

(that red on your text – I put that there so you can see to which part I’m replying, here)

Ya think?

 

[Veronica_Anne]

trogiah:

So many labels. This reply seems to state the problem most clearly (even if that wasn’t the intention.)

“Christianity is divided into three groups” That right there is a great scandal. One that has polluted all of us to one extent or another. Jesus I am certain never wished for division among those who believe in him. Any time we hear any labels distinguishing between those who believe in Jesus we should remember the words stated by John XXIII and echoed by JPII "That which seperates us as believers in Christ is far less than what unites us.

Pope John Paul II wrote a chapter in his book on lost Christian unity that I think is worth reading for anyone interested in this thread.

Anyone with real faith in Jesus is part of the one true church. I think those raised in the Catholic tradition have an advantage in forming that faith but that advantage can be lost if details of tradition become more important than the real faith.

peace

-Jim

See… that’s the crux (pun intended) of the matter.

We Catholics have our Faith based on (like three legs of a stool), 3 things:

Holy Scripture
Holy Tradition (capital “T”)
Magesterium (the teaching authority of the Catholic Church)

m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=magisterium&x=0&y=0

All 3 of those legs of that “stool” are based on revelation by the Holy Spirit.

 

[Veronica_Anne]

ralopez:

My suspicions were correct. You didn’t know what countries you were talking about…

No need to be nasty, here.

 

[Veronica_Anne]

bob:

Theoretically, you are correct, BUT…

I have always maintained that most of us cradle Catholics grew up with Catholicism as a “culture” or “tradition” rather than a faith.
Reason being, we go to church on Sundays, we do not eat meat on Fridays, we go for the midnight masses, etc all without a second thought about “why”.

We did them because our parents brought us or made us.

It is later on in life that we learn the significance of what we did.

However, I am not complaining. I was a practising Catholic before I became a knowlegdeable one.

So, Bob, I take it that you (as you were growing up) were taught only the cultural/traditional practices of living out our Catholic Faith… and not the dogma nor the doctrine at the same time?

If that is the case, then what an empty experience that must have been for you! :crying: For that, I am sorry.

I, too, did the “Catholic things” (whatever that practice is) as I was brought up Catholic. Still practice those “small t” traditional things as an adult.

It’s the capital “T” Tradition that I’m talking about. NOT theoretically. Actually.

Make sense?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Veronica Anne:

See… that’s the crux (pun intended) of the matter.

We Catholics have our Faith based on (like three legs of a stool), 3 things:

Holy Scripture
Holy Tradition (capital “T”)
Magesterium (the teaching authority of the Catholic Church)

m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=magisterium&x=0&y=0

All 3 of those legs of that “stool” are based on revelation by the Holy Spirit.

That’s exactly the illustration given by Gerry Matatics ​

And a very good one too, IMO ##

 

[CARose]

ralopez:

What about a Catholic who once believed and partook in the church’s teachings then freely turned away and rejected the church for the teachings and doctrines of a Protestant church. Would you consider that person and others like them, heretics?

Yes, I would. But I wouldn’t approach them waving this fact in their face, for it is a rare person who would be persuaded by such an approach.

We are called, above all things to Charity, to love our Neighbors as ourselves. And who knows, perhaps we were once there ourselves, or could be there now, but for the Grace of God.

Or, God forbid, we could be there at some time in the future.

But, would I therefore state that such an individual, a Heretic, is destined to burn in the fires of Hell? Oh my, no. I don’t get to judge, that is reserved for God, and God alone.

CARose

 

[CARose]

But, do I agree that “all Protestants” are heretics, as has been stated elsewhere in this thread?

Absolutely not! To be a Heretic one needs to turn ones back on the teachings of the Church. Most Protestant’s were not taught the Churches teachings as the Church presents it. Therefore, they cannot be held accountable for turning their back on something they don’t know. Hence, they don’t meet the criteria for being a heretic.

However, if they desire to know Our Lord, and in this desire, they are called to study and enlightened with the knowledge necessary to profit from this study and the wisdom to discern the Truth as it makes itself known through their reading of His word, they must be willing to go wherever God leads, regardless of the direction.

If they find one teaching after another as understood from the Bible they profess to love in it’s entirety, to be only properly explained within the Catholic Church and they continue to resist, are they following the will of God, if they allow their man-made prejudice to hold them away?

If their prayers are answered in ways that lead them to know that the Lord desires they open their hearts to the Fullness of the Truth which he has made known to man and entrusted to His Church throughout the ages, are they disobedient to Our Lord if they fail to humble themselves before the Lord and consider that there may be more to this “Authority of the Church” than they’d like to admit?

Hmm, might be, might be.

I only ask that we all agree to Pray for the Guidance of the Holy Spirit, accept the authority of God in our lives, as we know it now, in our greatest humility before Our Lord and that we desire to always follow where he leads us.

If we can all agree to this, and treat one another with the Love and Respect we are all due, perhaps we can assist one another in coming to the Lord sooner, rather than later.

May the Lord be with you,

CARose

 

[CARose]

Oh and weighing in on the original question that started this thread (I read it several days ago and was bothered by the tone, but I’ve decided to go ahead and add to things, in the hope that we can get the tone back on track, although I’m not certain my contributions will do anything to help).

But to the question of whether or not Catholics are Christian and if this question is even a valid question -

1.) Yes, I believe that a true Catholic is a Christian. Oh no, you sigh “A true Catholic” what does she mean by that, are we going to split the Catholic Church into a bunch of we’re good and you’re not segments? I hope not. I merely mean that to be a true Catholic, you need to accept that the Church teaches truth. That all the dogma of the Church is infallible truth, every teaching that brings us closer to God, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. That you believe in the sacraments and avail yourself of these opportunities to obtain Grace from God. That you practice the faith according to the requirements of the Church, as you understand them, and you ask God’s forgiveness, through the sacrament of reconciliation when you (again) fail to live up to the mark. And you again and again and again, strive to do better in following Christ.

2.a) Yes, it’s a valid question. I’ve met and taught CCD to Catholics (and their parents) who would incorrectly answer the question, even though they fully understand that the Catholic Church is all about Christ.

1. b) My daughter had to answer this question for the first time at school when she was only in the 3rd Grade. I was amazed by the answer she later shared with me, and she continues to astound me with her gift for apologetics. Would you believe I started learning after I needed to know how to guide her in some of what she was coming home with. I needed to decide if I agreed with where her faith was taking her, or if I needed to change the course of her progress. But I chose to first exercise caution and inform myself before doing harm to her spiritual growth. The more I learned, the more I grew in my understanding of Christ and the glorious Church he has given us.
2. c) I had never heard of anyone questioning whether Catholics are Christian until I was in my early 30’s (ok, that was 15 yrs ago, now I’m giving away my age, something a lady is never supposed to do ). I was at work and my office partner found out I was Catholic and insisted that I couldn’t be Christian if I was Catholic. He’d grown up in China, so I figured he must have encountered some strange teaching either there or after moving to the US. But I again was faced with this believe when talking to an acquaintance only about 8 yrs ago.

So, thank you for starting the thread. I think it is a good question, based on my own personal experience. I hope we can move forward on a positive tone. Perhaps I should have started a new thread with the same question, rather than keeping the history of the tone of the posts here alive and fresh.

Sorry all,

CARose

 

[mtr01]

luckyirishguy14:

Indeed, we are Christians. I was reading an article put on the CA Forums not too long ago, “Do Catholics Hear the Gospel?” by Gary Michuta. (By the way, great article, gotta read it!) Anyways, There were, I believe, four necessary topics needed to be “a Christian” and “to be saved”.
One, you need to see that you are a sinner and in need of God’s forgiveness.
Two, you need to see that only God can save you.
Three, that Jesus Christ died on the Cross for our sins.
Four, accepting Christ as your personal Lord and Savior.
(I would assume this applies to most Fundamentalist sects, and very similar to the Left Behind theology)

I have to say, I tend to be pretty offended by this Prostestent (mostly Fundamental/Evangelical, I believe) formulation that Christ is one’s personal Lord and Savior. To me, such a statement seemingly minimizes Jesus’ perfect redemptive sacfrice on the cross. Jesus didn’t die just for my sins, he died for everybody’s sins…yours, mine, the guy down the street, the Jews, the Muslims, and so on. Christ redeemed us all, and to focus on the “personal” aspect of it is almost to dishonor the act.

It also makes one focus more on “me me me” as opposed to “us us us”. It seems obvious to me that Christ intended for us to be saved through the Church (or else why set one up at all?). Paul himself was most unabashedly a churchman. All this emphasis on “personal” is in direct contrast to our Lord’s intentions, and promotes division instead of unity. Little wonder there are 30,000 Protestant denominations…and growing.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

mtr01:

I have to say, I tend to be pretty offended by this Prostestent (mostly Fundamental/Evangelical, I believe) formulation that Christ is one’s personal Lord and Savior. To me, such a statement seemingly minimizes Jesus’ perfect redemptive sacfrice on the cross. Jesus didn’t die just for my sins, he died for everybody’s sins…yours, mine, the guy down the street, the Jews, the Muslims, and so on. Christ redeemed us all, and to focus on the “personal” aspect of it is almost to dishonor the act.

It also makes one focus more on “me me me” as opposed to “us us us”. It seems obvious to me that Christ intended for us to be saved through the Church (or else why set one up at all?). Paul himself was most unabashedly a churchman. All this emphasis on “personal” is in direct contrast to our Lord’s intentions, and promotes division instead of unity. Little wonder there are 30,000 Protestant denominations…and growing.

Christians don’t, on the whole, make a point of choosing their language so that Christians outside their own group won’t on any accont be mistaken about its meaning ​

They know what they mean by “accepting Christ as personal Lord & Saviour”

We know what we mean by calling Mary “life”, “hope”, “joy”, “source of our bliss”, “mother of God”, “much holier than the seraphim, far wiser than the cherubim”, “Queen of Heaven”, “Destroyer of heresies”, and the rest.

In neither case is the set of Christians using a particular phrase or set of phrases doing so with other Christians in mind.

Protestants may need to translate from “Protestantese” to “Catholicese” - we may need to translate from “Catholicese” into “Protestantese”.

All that “accepting Christ as personal Lord & Saviour” means is, appropriating to oneself the saving work of Christ - or, as Paul put it, “…the Son of God gave Himself for me…” - Christ is not the Saviour-Creator of an organism only; He is also, and every bit as much, the Saviour-Creator of every single member in it. Catholicism tends to emphasise the former half of that - much of Protestantism, tends to emphasise the latter half of it. Both are essential - the conviction that Christ redeems a Body, is a protection against “solo Christianity”; the conviction that He is the redeemer of each single one of us, is a protection against the temptation to sacrificing the individual for the good of the collectivity.

Both emphases, not only the one or the other, are well-founded in Scripture, and valid - neither need negate the other, neither can safely be ignored. Take away the personal aspect of Christ’s life in the individual, and He becomes an Unknown God, not someone Whom one can know and love. But God’s love is intensely personal, in both Testaments - is that of the Christian to be different ? “Personal” does not mean “private”, still less does it mean “privatised” or “monopolised”. We love individuals - not our families-in-general, but those in them; we don’t love our friends-in-general, but as individuals. Why should we think that God loves only the Body-in-general, and the individual parts as well ?..[continue]…

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

…

Excessive individualism is bad for the Body: the hand needs the foot, and the foot needs the hand, each needs the other, the rest of the Body needs both, and both need the rest of the Body - equally, all and each of the parts of the Body are dear to Christ; He is not the Saviour-Creator of a collectivity or an amorphous crowd, but of a Body with individual parts. Neglect any, and in the human body “dis-ease” results - but Christ neglects no part of His Body the Church.

In fact, even on earth, we look after the whole body, by looking after the parts; we don’t leave the body-in-general to look after itself, on the plea that looking after a fractured spine “dishonours” the right hand, or that looking after a broken thumb promotes division between the left knee-cap and the rest of the body. The bowels may not be as “noble” as the right hand, but bowel cancer is not going to make the right hand any healthier.

“You alone have I loved, of all the nations of the earth” is part of the Bible - so is “Save me, oh God, for the waters have come up to my neck”. If the OT could contain both emphases, corporate and personal - why can’t Christians ? ##

 

[mtr01]

## Christians don’t, on the whole, make a point of choosing their language so that Christians outside their own group won’t on any accont be mistaken about its meaning

They know what they mean by “accepting Christ as personal Lord & Saviour”

We know what we mean by calling Mary “life”, “hope”, “joy”, “source of our bliss”, “mother of God”, “much holier than the seraphim, far wiser than the cherubim”, “Queen of Heaven”, “Destroyer of heresies”, and the rest.

In neither case is the set of Christians using a particular phrase or set of phrases doing so with other Christians in mind.

Protestants may need to translate from “Protestantese” to “Catholicese” - we may need to translate from “Catholicese” into “Protestantese”.

All that “accepting Christ as personal Lord & Saviour” means is, appropriating to oneself the saving work of Christ - or, as Paul put it, “…the Son of God gave Himself for me…” - Christ is not the Saviour-Creator of an organism only; He is also, and every bit as much, the Saviour-Creator of every single member in it. Catholicism tends to emphasise the former half of that - much of Protestantism, tends to emphasise the latter half of it. Both are essential - the conviction that Christ redeems a Body, is a protection against “solo Christianity”; the conviction that He is the redeemer of each single one of us, is a protection against the temptation to sacrificing the individual for the good of the collectivity.

Perhaps some of my distaste for that phrase does stem from language. I just don’t see where one need make use of “personal”. I certainly believe that Jesus Christ is my savior, as well as I rocognize that he is *our *savior. Yes, Paul did say that “the Son of God gave himself for me”. However, I’ve wfound that that’s a pretty unique verse…he is far more apt to say “we” and “us”.
Gotle of Geer:

Both emphases, not only the one or the other, are well-founded in Scripture, and valid - neither need negate the other, neither can safely be ignored. Take away the personal aspect of Christ’s life in the individual, and He becomes an Unknown God, not someone Whom one can know and love. But God’s love is intensely personal, in both Testaments - is that of the Christian to be different ? “Personal” does not mean “private”, still less does it mean “privatised” or “monopolised”. We love individuals - not our families-in-general, but those in them; we don’t love our friends-in-general, but as individuals. Why should we think that God loves only the Body-in-general, and the individual parts as well ?..[continue]…

Perhaps that is my main concern, that this type of personalization will lead to privatization. To me, it stresses disunity over unity.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

mtr01:

Perhaps some of my distaste for that phrase does stem from language. I just don’t see where one need make use of “personal”. I certainly believe that Jesus Christ is my savior, as well as I rocognize that he is *our *savior. Yes, Paul did say that “the Son of God gave himself for me”. However, I’ve wfound that that’s a pretty unique verse…he is far more apt to say “we” and “us”.

Perhaps that is my main concern, that this type of personalization will lead to privatization. To me, it stresses disunity over unity.

What I find interesting is the insistence of sola Scripturists using this phrase that isn’t in scripture.

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[Redeemerslove]

It is only the exclusion of community and unity, that causes problems. Not the inclusion of individuality.