Christian or Catholic?

  • Thread starter Thread starter mexolic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mexolic

Guest
Has anyone ever been asked by a Protestant if your a Christian or a Catholic? My response would be “both”. I would then pose the question “are you a Protestant or a Christian”? Do they know where we got the bible from? Can they explain 1 Cor.11:26-30. Perhaps asking (not arguing with)Protestants some challenging questions
that might have them see things differently.
 
mexolic said:
Has anyone ever been asked by a Protestant if your a Christian or a Catholic? My response would be “both”. I would then pose the question “are you a Protestant or a Christian”? Do they know where we got the bible from? Can they explain 1 Cor.11:26-30. Perhaps asking (not arguing with)Protestants some challenging questions
that might have them see things differently.
Click to expand...
I respond that I am a Catholic Christian.

I really like that you pose the question back at them!! 👍 Good one!

Blessings,

CEM
 
I used to think that question was sort of weird. It almost seems like they’re not counting us as Christians or something. Ha. We’re both 🙂
 
I wonder if this false dichotomy isn’t promoted by church schools. If they are Protestant, they call themselves “Christian”; if they are Catholic, they go by “Catholic”. That might encourage people to think of Catholic not being Christian. Just my 2 cents. Personally, I think we should call the schools Protestant and Catholic. That would be more of an apples to apples kind of description.
 
A Protestant is someone who is Christian but in a community that is not within the Catholic Church.

We are Christians, members of the Church, which subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him.
 
Just tell anyone who inquires that you are a ‘Universal Christian,’ that should get them thinking for at least a couple of minutes! 🙂
 
DaddyGirl said:
They respond that they are both Protestant and Christian, right?.
Click to expand...
Most likely they would not, depends upon which church they go to (in my experience). I once told a Baptist (and staunch anti-Catholic) that she (and I) were both Protestants. She emphatically denied and said, “No, if you’re a Baptist you’re something else.” I didn’t bother arguing because she had no concept of history and I was on vacation 🤷
 
I used to say I am a non-denominational christian, as I went to a baptist church with my Nanna, who introduced me to Christ by singing hymns and by teaching me the hymns when I asked her. I soon realised that the hymns were about Jesus, I asked her who Jesus is. Then after she died, I was not well enough to go to church on my own, so I attended an evangelical free church at the end of our road. A friend of mine then asked me to go to a pentecostal church with her, so I went there for a while, until she stopped going as she couldn’t accept that she was loved that much. Then when I moved to the village I live in now, I went to the local church that was joint methodist and united reformed. But I never felt I belonged. I now go to Catholic church and feel welcome there, so should I answer Catholic or Christian! 😉
 
I used to get this question frequently when I lived in Kansas City. I always answered, “yes.”
 
I just say Catholic. If they press the question further I say a Catholic is a Christian.
 
I was offered a ride once by a nice Baptist gentleman. He asked me whether I knew Jesus Christ as my personal savior and I said yes. We talked about the bible a bit. Later he asked me where I attended church services and I told him that I attended St. Joseph Catholic Church. It was a pretty quiet ride after that.
 
I am always wary when I hear that question because it mostly comes from people who are having a bit of a dig at Catholics.
 
Protestants in England insisted on the name “Roman Catholic” to distance themselves from the papists. It stuck. Prior to the Reformation, we were simply “Catholics” all the way back to the 2nd c.AD because the Gnostics hijacked our name “Christian” which we were first called at Antioch. Before that we were simply known as “The Way”, or the “Sect of the Nazarenes” by the Jews. Nevertheless, it’s our One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church in 1Tim3:15.
 
I certainly would not. Their “wisdom” may have REFERRED TO divinely inspired scripture, but their conclusions were way off base because those conclusions were not based on the Apostolic understanding of Christ’s message because of their improper understanding of the mission to evangelize. The early church faced many heresies – and I don’t think we’re quite done with that yet – and some of those heresies were so bizarre that they were quickly defeated. The sects you mentioned were connected with, inspired by, and centered on persons OTHER THAN Christ. Even to this day there are people who claim – and can cite Scripture to prove it – that the Bible teaches reincarnation. Well, I do plan to rise to new life and the End of the Age, but that is resurrection, not reincarnation. When human contrivance attempts to make truth evident by reason rather than revelation, it is bound to be in error. The Judaistic motivations behind such sects went seriously astray from both proper Jewish teaching and the inspired and revelatory teachings of Christ, and thereafter his Apostles, quite simply because The Way was derived from the Trinity through the ministry of the Holy Spirit whereas ALL else was derived through the ministrations invented by misguided earthlings seeking to provide for their own comfort by ensuring their own salvation. That dog won’t hunt.
 
Sure enough. And if you look at the non-Pauline Epistles - especially those title James and John - even in the first few decades of The Way, Satan was trying to upset the cart by throwing in all kinds of errors (which you rightly pointed out were later identified as heresies). Paul, Barnabas, Silas, Timothy, Jude, Peter, and many others of that Apostolic era fought vigorously against “reinterpretations” of the Gospel. The works that arose later - after they had for the most part gone to be with Jesus, were “divinely inspired” by human - not Divine sources. You can pain a rock red and call it a white-picket fence, but it’s still nothing more than an artificially colored rock. Vigorous scrutiny discloses the facts about that and about whether a given work is genuinely canonical or just another stone posing as something else. It has to match up with what we know Jesus said and did as related by those who walekd with him.

To paraphrase a familiar quote about fitting: If it doesn’t fit, you must OMIT.
 
I go out of my way to explain that I’m a Catholic. First, last and always…Christians can believe in anything and that’s not us Catholics.

I’ll pass water on Catholics that consider themselves Christians and ID themselves as such…
 
DaddyGirl said:
So I think you agree, then…that there were varied Christian groups around from the early days, not just the group that believed what Catholics believe today.

Keep in mind, of course, that the books the other groups followed weren’t considered “heresy” for the first nearly 400 years–not until the bishops got together in the late 300’s to decide what the doctrines are officially–including the idea of the trilogy.
These books, as per my research, were believed to be divinely inspired, too, same as the other books…and to follow words and stories written and told by apostles and disciples.
But after the canon was finished, these books were ordered to be burned and banned and those following them snuffed out.
That’s a pretty efficient and quick way to “defeat” a group, I’d say!
Click to expand...
This is simply a false historical picture. There were certainly religious groups who tried to graft on Jesus’s teachings and call themselves christian. But we have a very clear picture of the early church and the beliefs and practices.

And these books that did not make the canon (the vast majority were never even considered), were considered heresy much earlier than you claim. We have St Irenaeus’s book, Against Heresies, as absolute documentation.

And you story is inconsistent in and of itself. The “groups” existed for 400 years and the Church, by adopting a canon, the books were ordered burned and snuffed out. That is quick? 400 years is quick and effiecient?
 
mexolic said:
Has anyone ever been asked by a Protestant if your a Christian or a Catholic? My response would be “both”. I would then pose the question “are you a Protestant or a Christian”? Do they know where we got the bible from? Can they explain 1 Cor.11:26-30. Perhaps asking (not arguing with)Protestants some challenging questions
that might have them see things differently.
Click to expand...
CORRECT CATHOLIC ANSWER: “Both, I am a Catholic Christian.”

MY FEAR OF THE TYPICAL CATHOLIC ANSWER: “Catholic!”

CORRECT NON-CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN RESPONSE: “Both, I’m a Protestant Christian”

TYPICAL NON-CATHOLIC CHRISTIAN RESPONSE: “Christian!”

As a Catholic who’s wife is Baptist…

Most non-Catholic Christians will not view themselves as “Protestant” for this is a Catholic-centric term. This is a term created by Catholics to lump ALL non-Catholic Christians together.

To most of them, they are not "protestant’ they are merely “Christians”

However, as a Catholic Christian, this can make it seem like Catholics are NOT Christians, as-if it kinda excludes us. And in fact, many (not all) Protestants won’t even include Catholics as part of this “Christian” category, but instead, as something different and outside. Some will go as far as to consider Catholics more like JW or Mormons… i.e. a cult who claims they are Christian.
Many Protestants will call Catholics “Roman Catholics” but not Christians. Some don’t even know that we ARE Christians, because Catholics don’t fit their cookie-cutter definition.

To a Catholic, the term “Christian” has been kinda hijacked to mean ‘any Christian community BUT Catholicism’ - It is kinda like those who coined the term are now excluded from the club or been voted out of it, entirely.

So "Protestant’ can be offensive to non-Catholics, just as excluding Catholics from Christianity can be offensive to Catholics.
Obviously, I’m talking more about people’s perceptions and emotions then reality. More about how the common person uses the terms, then what they actually mean.
Obviously, Catholics ARE Christians and nothing can change that reality.
So I am just commenting on the state of things, rather then the actual reality and truth of the matter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top