How far can one wander from the original Church and still claim to be Christian?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SteveVH
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SteveVH

Guest
There are many who claim the title “Christian”. I am curious as to how far one can depart from the teachings of the original Church before you would consider them not Christian. Where do we draw the line? Does rejection of the Trinity matter? Does rejection of the true presence in the Eucharist matter? How about Jesus as true God and true man?

Anyone who has been on this forum for even a short time has certainly run across a variety of beliefs, all of which, for the most part, are stated by those who call themselves Christian. Does just claiming to believe in Christ suffice? What is the minimum required in order to hold the title “Christian”?
 
You certainly have to believe in Christ. However, belief requires more than it appears.

If you believe in Christ, then you will follow what He teaches. Consider, He established a Church upon Peter, the Rock. You have to support this Church then, and no other.

In the early days of this Church, heresy started popping up. The heresy ran from the need for circumcision, to doubt of the resurrection, to the nature of Christ as both God and man. It went on and on. These notions were corrected with declaration of doctrine. The church thus evolved over time with a more developed revelation.

Today however, we have complete communities that thrive apart from the one true faith. This started with what is called the reformation. Reformation however is a misnomer. It was not a reformation at all. It was a revolt or revolution. The magisterium of the church was rejected altogether and the result was a community that continued to evolve but was separated from the original Church.

The trajectory of evolution in these off-shoots was predictably wild (without a magisterium) and many denominations grew, in an attempt to correct errors of existing or previous denominations. We have about 30,000 denominations now in the protestant category. I would call this the revolt category.

In summary, you have to stay connected to the Rock, or the magisterium if you want to declare you are Christian. Any other path is not correct and a deception or trap from the start. These paths lead away from critical sacraments that gain men access to their salvation. These are of course Sacrament of Penance and the Eucharist - for the most part.

God bless you all!
 
This is a question I have been considering as I have been considering coming into the Catholic Church. The Church has granted Protestants with the status “separated brethren,” and accepts Protestant baptism. I believe the two most essential criteria is Trinitarian Baptism and serving of the Lord’s Supper, though I’m sure those aren’t the only two that should be considered. Most people in Protestant Churches have their hearts in the right places, but they have been hammered with Protestant theology all their lives and the thought that the Catholic Church is the true Church that Jesus founded is a very difficult thing to accept, despite all the evidence.

What has been hard to wrap my head around is if the Eucharist in a Protestant church can be considered in anyway valid, since Protestant ministers are not ordained by the Apostolic authority, and most do not accept Christ’s presence in the elements.
 
Samuel63 said:
You certainly have to believe in Christ. However, belief requires more than it appears.

If you believe in Christ, then you will follow what He teaches. Consider, He established a Church upon Peter, the Rock. You have to support this Church then, and no other.

In the early days of this Church, heresy started popping up. The heresy ran from the need for circumcision, to doubt of the resurrection, to the nature of Christ as both God and man. It went on and on. These notions were corrected with declaration of doctrine. The church thus evolved over time with a more developed revelation.

Today however, we have complete communities that thrive apart from the one true faith. This started with what is called the reformation. Reformation however is a misnomer. It was not a reformation at all. It was a revolt or revolution. The magisterium of the church was rejected altogether and the result was a community that continued to evolve but was separated from the original Church.

The trajectory of evolution in these off-shoots was predictably wild (without a magisterium) and many denominations grew, in an attempt to correct errors of existing or previous denominations. We have about 30,000 denominations now in the protestant category. I would call this the revolt category.

In summary, you have to stay connected to the Rock, or the magisterium if you want to declare you are Christian. Any other path is not correct and a deception or trap from the start. These paths lead away from critical sacraments that gain men access to their salvation. These are of course Sacrament of Penance and the Eucharist - for the most part.

God bless you all!
Click to expand...
Are you then saying that the only Christians are Catholics? Not even our Church makes this claim. I agree that there is a point at which the departure crosses the line. I am just trying to define that line. Both Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses, for instance, claim the title “Christian”, while their theology is directly oppossed to Catholic teaching. Then you have the Anglicans and Lutherans who are much closer, and then everyone in between to varying degrees. You seem to be drawing the line at Rome. Am I correct in understanding you?
 
SteveVH said:
There are many who claim the title “Christian”. I am curious as to how far one can depart from the teachings of the original Church before you would consider them not Christian. Where do we draw the line? Does rejection of the Trinity matter? Does rejection of the true presence in the Eucharist matter? How about Jesus as true God and true man?

Anyone who has been on this forum for even a short time has certainly run across a variety of beliefs, all of which, for the most part, are stated by those who call themselves Christian. Does just claiming to believe in Christ suffice? What is the minimum required in order to hold the title “Christian”?
Click to expand...
To be a Christian, theologically speaking, you need to believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and the reality of the Trinity (i.e. that God is God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit).

Therefore, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals are not Christians. Even mainstream society puts them in an isolated group of their own.

Anyone who claims that non-Catholics are not Christians are lying to you. That is not what the Church teaches. What the Church teaches is that Christians of other denominations are Catholics, but not in full communion with the Church.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
 
Bohm_Bawerk said:
What the Church teaches is that Christians of other denominations are Catholics, but not in full communion with the Church.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
Click to expand...
That doesn’t make sense. How can you be a Catholic if you’re not in full communion with the Church?
 
I’ve seen groups who deny Christ’s divinity but still claim to be Christian.

The secular understanding of the term Christian means someone who follows Christ’s teachings which is on the Bible. It doesn’t matter how you interpret those teachings.

But I believe that one should profess the Nicene Creed to be Christian. That is why the Nicene Creed was drafted, to define the belief of a true Christian.
 
ConstantineTG said:
I’ve seen groups who deny Christ’s divinity but still claim to be Christian.

The secular understanding of the term Christian means someone who follows Christ’s teachings which is on the Bible. It doesn’t matter how you interpret those teachings.

But I believe that one should profess the Nicene Creed to be Christian. That is why the Nicene Creed was drafted, to define the belief of a true Christian.
Click to expand...
that begs the question, which version of the Creed
 
The Church is a spiritual family.
Childreen can wonder from a family. How do we know they have left?
One of the things to consider is age before considering what they are doing.

A Muslim who tries to be like Jesus and Mary as she knows them could be more in the Church than a Catholic who is actively supporting the pro-abortion cause.

God bless
 
Adam95 said:
This is a question I have been considering as I have been considering coming into the Catholic Church. The Church has granted Protestants with the status “separated brethren,” and accepts Protestant baptism. I believe the two most essential criteria is Trinitarian Baptism and serving of the Lord’s Supper, though I’m sure those aren’t the only two that should be considered. Most people in Protestant Churches have their hearts in the right places, but they have been hammered with Protestant theology all their lives and the thought that the Catholic Church is the true Church that Jesus founded is a very difficult thing to accept, despite all the evidence.

What has been hard to wrap my head around is if the Eucharist in a Protestant church can be considered in anyway valid, since Protestant ministers are not ordained by the Apostolic authority, and most do not accept Christ’s presence in the elements.
Click to expand...
Our Lutheran Confessions disagree with you from Luther’s Augsburg Confession at the Diet of Worms 1521.
Article VII - The Church
1 Our churches teach that one holy Church is to remain forever. The Church is the congregation of saints [Psalm 149:1] in which the Gospel is purely taught and the Sacraments are correctly administered. 2 For the true unity of the Church it is enough to agree about the doctrine of the Gospel and the administration of the Sacraments. 3 It is not necessary that human traditions, that is, rites or ceremonies instituted by men, should be the same everywhere. 4 As Paul says, “One Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all” (Ephesians 4:5–6). and:

Article VIII - What the Church is.
1 Strictly speaking, the Church is the congregation of saints and true believers. However, because many hypocrites and evil persons are mingled within them in this life [Matthew 13:24–30], it is lawful to use Sacraments administered by evil men, according to the saying of Christ, “The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat” (Matthew 23:2). 2 Both the Sacraments and Word are effective because of Christ’s institution and command, even if they are administered by evil men.
3 Our churches condemn the Donatists, and others like them, who deny that it is lawful to use the ministry of evil men in the Church, and who think that the ministry of evil men is not useful and is ineffective.:signofcross:
 
Adam95 said:
This is a question I have been considering as I have been considering coming into the Catholic Church. The Church has granted Protestants with the status “separated brethren,” and accepts Protestant baptism. I believe the two most essential criteria is Trinitarian Baptism and serving of the Lord’s Supper, though I’m sure those aren’t the only two that should be considered. Most people in Protestant Churches have their hearts in the right places, but they have been hammered with Protestant theology all their lives and the thought that the Catholic Church is the true Church that Jesus founded is a very difficult thing to accept, despite all the evidence.

What has been hard to wrap my head around is if the Eucharist in a Protestant church can be considered in anyway valid, since Protestant ministers are not ordained by the Apostolic authority, and most do not accept Christ’s presence in the elements.
Click to expand...
Adam, other than the few liturgical churches, the Protestant denominations do not even claim to believe what Catholics believe about the Eucharist (true presence). In fact, they are correct that it is only a symbol because, as you say, they do not have valid authority to concecrate the Eucharist, so a symbol is the best for which they can hope. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church recognizes the sincerity of their faith and considers most denominations to be Christian, though not in communion with the one, true Church.
Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons, and I’m sure there are many more unkown sects, reject even the most basic of Christian beliefs and are not considered in the same category.

Are you attending RCIA?
 
Montalo said:
that begs the question, which version of the Creed
Click to expand...
The Latin and the Greek versions do not contradict nor oppose each other. It just reflects the theology of the East and the West and how they understand the procession of the Holy Spirit.
 
ConstantineTG said:
The Latin and the Greek versions do not contradict nor oppose each other. It just reflects the theology of the East and the West and how they understand the procession of the Holy Spirit.
Click to expand...
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong…but isn’t the difference in the two creeds one of the main reasons for the Great Schism? I don’t think the greatest split in the history of the church would have occurred if they versions did not oppose each other!
 
To answer the OP’s question I’d say belief in the trinity and that Jesus died on the cross for our sins is all that is needed to call oneself Christian, unless of course one is a satanist, I imagine they’d believe in the trinity and in Jesus’ saving act…they just don’t want any part of it. So maybe the answer is that they call themselves Christian, believe in the trinity, and that Jesus died on the cross for our sins.
 
Bohm_Bawerk said:
To be a Christian, theologically speaking, you need to believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ and the reality of the Trinity (i.e. that God is God the Father, God the Son (Jesus) and God the Holy Spirit).

**Therefore, Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons and Oneness Pentecostals are not Christians. Even mainstream society puts them in an isolated group of their own. **

Anyone who claims that non-Catholics are not Christians are lying to you. That is not what the Church teaches. What the Church teaches is that Christians of other denominations are Catholics, but not in full communion with the Church.

Thank you,
Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk
Click to expand...
Mainstream society puts then aside because of their evangelic tactics of walking to your door and bothering you. Or because of the shunning of family who leave their church, funny underwear, no tranfusions for emergency medical treatment… not because of any theological test and definitions
 
Elsport1 said:
Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong…but isn’t the difference in the two creeds one of the main reasons for the Great Schism? I don’t think the greatest split in the history of the church would have occurred if they versions did not oppose each other!
Click to expand...
The Great Schism is a complicated issue. To say that one or a handful of beliefs led to the split isn’t even beginning to explain the Great Schism. Some believe it was a long time coming.

The Greeks of course cannot understand why the Latins need to introduce the Filioque. Of course from the Greek perspective the wording was correct and understandable. From the Latin perspective of the Latin translation, it was lacking. There was nothing opposing there, just refusal from both sides to open to the explanation of the other. You may say its sounds petty, but like I said, centuries of banging heads about theology, they’re not about to give an inch to the other side.
 
SteveVH said:
Are you attending RCIA?
Click to expand...
I’m not yet. I’m looking into some local parishes, and plan to attend them to see where I would like to be involved. My girlfriend is Catholic, but her family hasn’t been happy with their local parish, so we will start attending mass together at some of the other nearby options.

My whole extended family is protestant, so I do fear that there may be some minor fireworks when they find out that I am planning on ‘going’ Catholic. I worry that they will think I am doing it for my girlfriend, but I have spent the past three years trying to show her the light of protestantism, only to find that I have been misled about Catholic theology and the history of the Church. The work of Michael Cumbie and Tim Staples have been instrumental in my change of heart.
 
kimbari said:
That doesn’t make sense. How can you be a Catholic if you’re not in full communion with the Church?
Click to expand...
You might have to ask the Church that one. Lots of Baptized Catholics are not in full communion yet the Church claims them and considers them to be Catholics.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top