For Catholics, who do you personally consider to be Christians?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Padres1969
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

Padres1969

Guest
I know this question may cause some controversy and if it does so I apologize in advance. And yes I understand that the Post Vatican II Catholic officially recognizes other Christians as Christians who are simply separated brethren lacking in the fullness of the truth and thus does recognize trinitarian baptisms of other Christian denominations.

But my question is directed more to individual Catholics. Obviously many believe exactly as the church teaches. But I’ve also run across more traditional Catholics that hold more to the pre-Vatican II idea that there are no Christians outside the Catholic Church. I’ve run into more restrictive Catholics who view only those that believe the creeds to be Christians. I’ve even run into Catholics who take a more expansive view of it than the church officially teaches that anyone who professes to be Christian is so (for example so broadly that even JWs or LDS might be included in that).

My question is which view do you take, and why do you hold that belief about other professed Christians? And if it’s not what the post-VII RCC teaches, why do you disagree with the Church?
 
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God come down from heaven to reconcile mankind to the creator and Father of all. This demanded His death due to the chains of sin on us. He was, is and always will be obedient to the Spirit.

Those who confess their sinfulness and it’s nature within us, are forgiven through Baptism and able to accept His Spirit. We are promised His grace through brotherly love in the Church whom all are joined to through Baptism. This Church Confirms and strengthens us in the Holy Spirit through the Laying on of Hands and feeds us and completes us His Body and Blood of Jesus by the power of God the Holy Spirit. We are able to do the work of the father’s will in our lives and when we fail have recourse to Him and His bride in Reconciliation.

We devote to prayer, Apostolic Teaching, and corporal worship in the Mass of the Lord’s Day.

This is a Christian
 
I hold the minimum is acceptance of the three creeds (Apostles, Nicean-Constantinople, and Athanasian Creeds). Those outside of the Church are still Christian through their baptism, though I beleive they will be called to account for rejecting and fracturing the one true Church.
 
Those who are baptized in a valid Trinitarian baptism, with water and in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
 
Oh, I thought you were asking what I, personally, consider being a Christian is.

Ummm, as for who I think is rightly called a Christian? The same applies. The minimum required is not so easily summed up. It depends on what a person has been revealed. But as for the minimum Christian who has heard the gospel, he must believe and follow the “beckoning” of the Father towards the messenger (the agent of the Bride) to receive Baptismal (Trinitarian) grace to walk in faith and Charity, also knowing that he must rely on God to overcome the adversary of the Spirit and repent when falling into sin.
 
Horton said:
Those who are baptized in a valid Trinitarian baptism, with water and in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
I would go with this answer AND someone who:
  1. Believes or accepts on faith, the divinity of Christ.
  2. Believes or accepts on faith, that Christ is the savior, who died for our sins.
  3. Accepts and tries to live by the 10 commandments.
For those who do not agree, I believe as the Pope has said, that they still may inherit the Kingdom based on the life they strive to live.
 
I consider anyone who has received valid Trinitarian baptism to be Christian. I think that has been a pretty constant teaching of the Church even before Vatican II. I think any Christian, including Catholics, who rejects any aspect of the faith, as taught by the Catholic Church, is a heretic. A key point is to be a heretic you must first be a Christian.

It seems to me the key change in recent times is to not emphasize that some Christians hold to heretical views. The word heretic seems to be frowned upon. This is true even outside of Catholicism. I don’t think the mainline Protestant churches really use the term. I understand people don’t like it applied to them. But it is a perfectly good word. As part of that change the Catholic Church has relaxed its rules about associating with people who reject some element of the Faith. I have no principled objection to the modern approach, but I do think it can be and sometimes is pushed too far.
 
esieffe said:
For those who do not agree, I believe as the Pope has said, that they still may inherit the Kingdom based on the life they strive to live.
Click to expand...
Do you know the reference of this? Was he talking about people who hear the Gospel and “don’t agree”???
 
Padres1969 said:
the Post Vatican II Catholic officially recognizes other Christians as Christians who are simply separated brethren lacking in the fullness of the truth and thus does recognize trinitarian baptisms of other Christian denominations.
Click to expand...
That’s what the pre-Vatican 2 Catholics officially recognized too.
I’ve also run across more traditional Catholics that hold more to the pre-Vatican II idea that there are no Christians outside the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
That’s not a pre-Vatican 2 idea, that’s a heresy. The pre-Vatican 2 Church rejected that idea in its official documents.

As an example, consider the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent called Protestant groups “the faithful of Christ…by whatsoever name designated” (Session 15 and Session 18) and noted that “[we] all acknowledge the same God and Redeemer.” (Session 13)

It called Protestants “sons of [the Church’s] womb,” “our common mother” (Session 18) and declared “that [their delegates] shall not be punished under pretence of religion.” (Session 15 and Session 18)

It gave Protestants who attended the Council the right “to confer in charity…with those who have been selected by the Council” (Session 15 and Session 18) and promised “to receive them kindly, and to listen to them favourably.” (Session 15)

It called for “all opprobrious, railing, and contumelious language [to be] utterly discarded” on the part of Protestants (Session 15 and Session 18) and said the Protestant delegates could dispute “without any abuse or contumely” with the Catholics. (Session 13)

Furthermore, it made this solemn invitation: “[The Synod] invites and exhorts, by the bowels of the mercy of our same God and Lord, all who hold not communion with us, unto concord and reconciliation, and to come unto this holy Synod; to embrace charity, which is the bond of perfection, and to show forth the peace of Christ rejoicing in their hearts, whereunto they are called, in one body.” (Session 18)

The Pre-Vatican 2 Church was much more ecumenical than some people make it out to be. As just one further example, Pope Leo 13 was pope in 1895 A.D. and referred to Protestants as Christians in one of his encyclicals, Amantissima Voluntatis. That encyclical, also known as his letter to the english nation, was largely about promoting unity among Christian denominations, and it includes these words: “[we] have not ceased to pray, and still humbly pray, for the return of Christian nations now divided from Us to the unity of former days.” So the pre-Vatican 2 Church, just like the Church of today, referred to Protestants as “Christian,” “the faithful of Christ,” and “sons of [the Church’s] womb,” “our common mother.” These were official documents of the Magisterium, not just the private opinion of a few theologians. And that language is basically identical to the language we use today. Thus, if any Catholic thinks that all non-Catholics are non-Christians, he is not being traditional or “pre-Vatican 2,” he’s being pre-Trent.
 
If you believe Jesus Christ is God, and your savior I won’t doubt your faith and consider you a brother in Christ
 
dmar198 said:
if any Catholic thinks that all non-Catholics are non-Christians, he is not being traditional or “pre-Vatican 2,” he’s being pre-Trent.
Click to expand...
Actually they are being more like Anti-Trent. Trent acknowledged Protestants as Christians, and even before it was convened the earliest Protestants were recognized as Christians by the most influential Catholic responders. As one example, Catholic apologist Johann Eck wrote one of the first Catholic responses to Martin Luther in 1525 A.D., known as the Handbook of Common Arguments (source), and he referred to Protestants as “new Christians.” (source; see Section III titled “Objections of the New Christians.”) This title was polemical and was meant to rhetorically indicate that Protestants weren’t really the Ancient Church, but even that early anti-Protestant rhetoric acknowledges that Protestants were still Christians. And this was 1525!

You can’t get much earlier than 1525 as far as answering Protestants goes, but you can get a bit earlier: 1518 was one year after Protestantism started, and three years before Martin Luther advised breaking with the Catholic Church in his Letter to the Princes of Germany. In that year, 1518, Johann Tetzel, who was probably the first person to respond to Luther’s ideas, wrote an essay answering some of Luther’s writings. He mentions in it that he has written previous ones, but I’m not sure if they’ve been translated. Anyway, in this one, which is a super early Catholic response to Lutheranism, Johann Tetzel says: “I write this as true Christian fraternal admonition.” “Fraternal” is a word for brothers. Thus, this passage already suggests that Luther and his followers remained both Christians and brothers.

So there – right from the beginning, and ever since, Catholics have recognized that Protestants are Christians, mistaken Christians but Christians nonetheless.
 
Those who believe Christ is the Son of God and revere him as such.
 
If you believe in the Holy Trinity, you are a Christian. Being a Christian is the bare minimum.

Then you have different levels of fullness. Baptized Christian, practicing Christian, Confirmed Catholic, devout/orthodox Catholic, etc.
 
I don’t pigeon hole people into my categories. All I should be concerned about is that Christ recognises the slightly stupid looking fat one waving frantically is one of His.
I assume anyone who accepts Jesus as our God and Saviour; the second person of the Triune God is a Christian. I follow the teachings of the Church in any further definition that may be required for its purposes.
 
So, Trinitarian Baptism and belief in what’s in the early creeds for sure … But I think a Christian really is a disciple of Christ more than just a believer. I mean, even the demons believe right? So being a follower of Jesus not merely an admirer. Love Him, worship Him, keep His Commandments. Have His Life in you and strive to do His will. I think that’s what is to truly be a Christian.
 
I consider anyone who truly believes in the Holy Trinity to be a Christian. They may be extremely lukewarm, but I’ll consider them a Christian if they claim to be. However, that doesn’t mean I think they’re correct.
 
dmar198 said:
That’s what the pre-Vatican 2 Catholics officially recognized too. That’s not a pre-Vatican 2 idea, that’s a heresy. The pre-Vatican 2 Church rejected that idea in its official documents.

As an example, consider the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent called Protestant groups “the faithful of Christ…by whatsoever name designated” (Session 15 and Session 18) and noted that “[we] all acknowledge the same God and Redeemer.” (Session 13)

It called Protestants “sons of [the Church’s] womb,” “our common mother” (Session 18) and declared “that [their delegates] shall not be punished under pretence of religion.” (Session 15 and Session 18)

It gave Protestants who attended the Council the right “to confer in charity…with those who have been selected by the Council” (Session 15 and Session 18) and promised “to receive them kindly, and to listen to them favourably.” (Session 15)

It called for “all opprobrious, railing, and contumelious language [to be] utterly discarded” on the part of Protestants (Session 15 and Session 18) and said the Protestant delegates could dispute “without any abuse or contumely” with the Catholics. (Session 13)

Furthermore, it made this solemn invitation: “[The Synod] invites and exhorts, by the bowels of the mercy of our same God and Lord, all who hold not communion with us, unto concord and reconciliation, and to come unto this holy Synod; to embrace charity, which is the bond of perfection, and to show forth the peace of Christ rejoicing in their hearts, whereunto they are called, in one body.” (Session 18)

The Pre-Vatican 2 Church was much more ecumenical than some people make it out to be. As just one further example, Pope Leo 13 was pope in 1895 A.D. and referred to Protestants as Christians in one of his encyclicals, Amantissima Voluntatis. That encyclical, also known as his letter to the english nation, was largely about promoting unity among Christian denominations, and it includes these words: “[we] have not ceased to pray, and still humbly pray, for the return of Christian nations now divided from Us to the unity of former days.” So the pre-Vatican 2 Church, just like the Church of today, referred to Protestants as “Christian,” “the faithful of Christ,” and “sons of [the Church’s] womb,” “our common mother.” These were official documents of the Magisterium, not just the private opinion of a few theologians. And that language is basically identical to the language we use today. Thus, if any Catholic thinks that all non-Catholics are non-Christians, he is not being traditional or “pre-Vatican 2,” he’s being pre-Trent.
Click to expand...

I have wondered about the Council of Trent declaring anathemas to many including those who do not believe in transubstantiation. Can someone who is anathematized according to the Council of Trent be separated brethren? Do the later councils make the other councils ruling invalid? Or are they combined somehow?
 
dmar198 said:
As an example, consider the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent called Protestant groups “the faithful of Christ…by whatsoever name designated” (Session 15 and Session 18) and noted that “[we] all acknowledge the same God and Redeemer.” (Session 13)

It called Protestants “sons of [the Church’s] womb,” “our common mother” (Session 18) and declared “that [their delegates] shall not be punished under pretence of religion.” (Session 15 and Session 18)
Click to expand...
Right. It seems to me the Church has always had as a goal reconciliation. It has always recognized commonalities. It has had its greatest condemnation for those lead others away from the Church and those more closely tied to the Church who reject her teaching.
susanlo said:
I have wondered about the Council of Trent declaring anathemas to many including those who do not believe in transubstantiation. Can someone who is anathematized according to the Council of Trent be separated brethren? Do the later councils make the other councils ruling invalid? Or are they combined somehow?
Click to expand...
I’m not sure an anathema is an automatic thing. For instance if you have an abortion you are excommunicated automatically or latae sententiae. Are anathemas automatic? Furthermore it would seem to me they only apply to those who are Catholic. Once excommunicated I would think they become precisely separated brethren.
 
i would call christian any and all who believe that the only path for a human being to enter heaven is through Jesus of Nazareth. i would be extremely reluctant to deny the title christian to any and all who acknowledge Jesus of Nazareth as the sole path to the Father. what follows after that belief can fill volumes, but i am not inclined to repudiate as unchristian those who have that belief.

am i open to discussion of this? of course, the OP asked for our personal definition, not a dogmatic statement.

also, if there is a dogmatic statement that contradicts my opinion of who is a christian, i yield to the Lord’s magisterium without hesitation or qualification.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top