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

[Rocket_Man]

The question is, however, can they still be called Christian? There are many others with beliefs that are without foundation in the original Church also. I don’t want this thread to be about any particular faith tradition. There just seems to be a tendency among many today to accept whatever anyone chooses to propose as okay. If you say you believe in Jesus, that is enough. I think it is a spiritual danger that can lull one into a false sense of security regarding their salvation. Tolerance is fine from a civil standpoint, but is it fine from a spiritual standpoint? In other words, does the truth matter? I think it does.

I do understand your trying to limit the discussion to whom can be called Christian. But as I see it through Catholic dogma, if I’m understanding correctly, anyone can be called Christian as long as they respond to the light that is given. They do not need to profess Christ or call Jesus Lord as long as they fail to do so unknowingly. So why try to put labels on any religion? Don’t all true paths lead to the same God? Therefore what ever paths are true are Catholic. All one big happy family responding in unison to the true elements of the One Faith with or without Christ?

 

[elvisman]

When I study this problem, I think of the sun and the moon. The sun is like the new day and the brightness of the Godhead in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The moon not having any light can only reflect what is manifested from the sun. So in the old days, before Christ, in some sense Israel worshiped the One God as they understood Him to be through the light of the moon. I’m only speaking comparatively here, not that they actually worshipped the moon. In darkness they walked attesting to the attributes of the One God as best as they could see Him.

But then a new dawn appeared and the new day was born. That being the fullness of God revealed to mankind through Christ Jesus. Today we Christians walk in the brightness of the new day, growing and lifting ourselves to His graces in fullness. In a way comparitively just like a blooming flower. So while we are walking in the day the moon no longer shines for us. Alhough for the unbeliever who walks not by day but by night only the partial light is revealed.

But now having the new day revealed to all mankind, my question is whether the moon’s pull is able to draw the unbeliever to ethernal salvation. For certainly the ultimate purpose of the moonlight was always to get the worshipper to reach the coming dawn where life can only flourish. What if the unbeliever stumbled and did not come to the brightness of the morning light, yet was a real devout Muslim or Jew. Then can he really be saved without the full light of Christ? Can the light of the moon really save or can it only draw one to the living light of the new day?

The doctrine of invincible ignorance teaches that they could be Jews, JW’s, Mormons, Muslims or people who have never even heard of God. The problem with invincible ignorance is that it’s one tough position to prove, especially in today’s world so I wouldn’t put all my eggs in that basket and take that chance.

As the Catechism states, "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace . . ."

 

[SteveVH]

I do understand your trying to limit the discussion to whom can be called Christian. But as I see it through Catholic dogma, if I’m understanding correctly, anyone can be called Christian as long as they respond to the light that is given.

Well, I think there are probably many Muslims who sincerely try to respond to the light that is given. They believe in one God, just as we do, but I would not call them Christian (nor would they). Why? Because they reject the Christian Jesus, do not believe in His resurrection or His saving power. This could be said of any number of non-Christian faiths.

They do not need to profess Christ or call Jesus Lord as long as they fail to do so unknowingly. So why try to put labels on any religion? Don’t all true paths lead to the same God? Therefore what ever paths are true are Catholic. All one big happy family responding in unison to the true elements of the One Faith with or without Christ?

And how many paths do you think there are? Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me.” “Narrow is the path and few there be that find it”.

It is Christ who is the revelation of the One, True, God, not Mohammed, or Buddah or Krishna or whoever. Ignorance is one thing, but no, not all paths lead to truth or there would have been no reason for Christ to come. Why did He go to the trouble of starting a Church if all churches could lead one to the truth?

 

[Rocket_Man]

The doctrine of invincible ignorance teaches that they could be Jews, JW’s, Mormons, Muslims or people who have never even heard of God. The problem with invincible ignorance is that it’s one tough position to prove, especially in today’s world so I wouldn’t put all my eggs in that basket and take that chance.

As the Catechism states, "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace . . ."

This issue was in a question/answer section in the bulletin this last weekend. The answer wasn’t as conservative your opinion above. A liberal understanding whose wind seems to blow around here is that all who adore the “One God” will be saved. I try to drive down this path but the police spikes are thrown out everywhere. I think of the Ethiopian and Philip being called and appearing to baptize, Cornelius the Centurion being devout and baptized, Paul teaching daily in the temples etc. Seems that if there was someone willing to believe that God did know how to find a messenger to be sent and those that would believe heard. Anyway I feel that I’m hijacking this thread so I won’t write about this topic any longer here.

 

[Rocket_Man]

Well, I think there are probably many Muslims who sincerely try to respond to the light that is given. They believe in one God, just as we do, but I would not call them Christian (nor would they). Why? Because they reject the Christian Jesus, do not believe in His resurrection or His saving power. This could be said of any number of non-Christian faiths.

And how many paths do you think there are? Jesus said “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but through Me.” “Narrow is the path and few there be that find it”.

It is Christ who is the revelation of the One, True, God, not Mohammed, or Buddah or Krishna or whoever. Ignorance is one thing, but no, not all paths lead to truth or there would have been no reason for Christ to come. Why did He go to the trouble of starting a Church if all churches could lead one to the truth?

I agree with you whole heartily. Being new to this I’m only trying to understand, notice the many “?”. It seems there are many left to right opinions and I’m trying to line up with what the Church really teaches. If it is as left leaning as I had wrote earlier, then I’m troubled.

 

[elvisman]

This issue was in a question/answer section in the bulletin this last weekend. The answer wasn’t as conservative your opinion above. A liberal understanding whose wind seems to blow around here is that all who adore the “One God” will be saved. I try to drive down this path but the police spikes are thrown out everywhere. I think of the Ethiopian and Philip being called and appearing to baptize, Cornelius the Centurion being devout and baptized, Paul teaching daily in the temples etc. Seems that if there was someone willing to believe that God did know how to find a messenger to be sent and those that would believe heard. Anyway I feel that I’m hijacking this thread so I won’t write about this topic any longer here.

I don’t think you’re hijacking the thread. I was just trying to figure out what your question was.
What exactly was the question and answer given in your bulletin?

 

[SteveVH]

This issue was in a question/answer section in the bulletin this last weekend. The answer wasn’t as conservative your opinion above. A liberal understanding whose wind seems to blow around here is that all who adore the “One God” will be saved. I try to drive down this path but the police spikes are thrown out everywhere. I think of the Ethiopian and Philip being called and appearing to baptize, Cornelius the Centurion being devout and baptized, Paul teaching daily in the temples etc. Seems that if there was someone willing to believe that God did know how to find a messenger to be sent and those that would believe heard. Anyway I feel that I’m hijacking this thread so I won’t write about this topic any longer here.

No, you are not hijacking the thread. Your topic is on point. Be careful of those within the Church who wish to spin Catholic doctrine to suit their purposes. Christ redeemed all of humanity, but redemption is not the same as salvation. Christ came to fully reveal the Father. All religions are an attempt to understand God and all contain some truth. But Christ is that truth and the mission of the Church on earth is to spread that truth to all the world. Some will accept that truth and others will reject it (and do so at their own peril).

This thread, however, is about those who would call themselves “Christian”. When they deviate from the truth that we have received from the Apostles, how far is too far? Some non-Catholics are very close to the Catholic Church in belief and dogma. Others are so far away that one can hardly make the connection. And then we have everything in between. Where should we draw the line? That is the question.

 

[Rocket_Man]

I don’t think you’re hijacking the thread. I was just trying to figure out what your question was.
What exactly was the question and answer given in your bulletin?

I just have an issue with the anti-Christ adoring the One True God. How can that be?

 

[RebeccaJ]

If Christianity is reduced to that of an ideology, where any person of good character who has a positive view of Jesus Christ could be called “Christian”, then much of the world are Christians, including most atheists. Conversely, many people who are of the Christian Faith, would cease to be called Christians when they are discovered to have a fallen character. By this definition, there is not one Christian in the entire world.

This sort of definition of Christian is dependent on how one follows, or lives an idea, and is lacking completely in understanding or belief.

As Christians, we do not follow an idea, we follow a Person, Jesus Christ. There is an understanding of belief, which again is not an ideology but a Person. One Faith, One Baptism.

Those outside the Faith are not Christian, this does not mean they cannot know the Saving grace of Jesus Christ. That judgement is not ours.

Peace.

 

[elvisman]

I just have an issue with the anti-Christ adoring the One True God. How can that be?

Is that what it said in your bulletin? If that’s the case - they are DEAD wrong.

You can’t be diametrically opposed to God and reject him - and STILL be saved. The Church has not ever taught this.

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by Rocket_Man
I have known many Protestants that live wholly for Christ and allow Christ to work through them. Yet, they won’t come to the table and eat. I know many Catholics that come to the table and eat but don’t want anything to do with what He says. I get confused when trying to understand which has wandered from the Church further?

I also get confused understanding how one can reject Marian dogma and be denied eternal bliss but yet those that worship the “God of Abraham” can be saved despite rejecting Christ. I’m trying to work through these with prayer but I continally hit a brick wall. So I guess I’m really confused even further when trying to gather how far one can wonder off from the original church.

P.S. Love ya Elvisman

Your opening remarks are RIGHT ON! Fallen away catholics is now the 3 larget “religious group” The reasons are MANY; but the N.O. mass and poor catecheis are at the front of the cause. GOD remains IN CHARGE.

This is Why Pope Benedict XVI recently establised a NEW Curia level department on RE-evangualising countires such as America and Europe, who have slipped SOOOOO Far!

The second point has caused me consideral thought on the matter. You seem to be filmiliar with the CCC. The reason that Muslims can [NOT AUTOMATIC WILL BE] deals with cupability.

**847 *****This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.***

The issue evolves around cupability. True guilt for ones actions justly applied.

Hope this clarifies the issue for you?

God Bless,

Pat

 

[PJM]

Originally Posted by PJM
Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.QUOTE]

**REPLY: **

Those words in CCC remain a huge stumbling block for me. Pronouncing someone can not be saved who at one time might have believed the Catholic Church was necessary but who later had a change of beliefs and did not remain. I know it has been explained to me as simply being similar to telling someone what will be the outcome if they jump off a cliff. But it still smacks of judging another’s salvation to me. In any case God bless you too Pat. And peace.

Allow me to share the Biblical foundation for this Catechism teaching and then add a few comments:

**Heb.6: 4 to 10 “**For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened,[Baptized into the CC] who have tasted the heavenly gift,[Catholic Holy Communion] and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit,[Confirmed …a personal Covenant with God] and have tasted the goodness of the word of God [Had the Bible CORRECTLY explained to them] and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt. For land which has drunk the rain that often falls upon it, and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is cultivated, receives a blessing from God. But if it bears thorns and thistles, it is worthless and near to being cursed; its end is to be burned. Though we speak thus, yet in your case, beloved, we feel sure of better things that belong to salvation. For God is not so unjust as to overlook your work and the love which you showed for his sake in serving the saints, as you still do.”

It is a FACT provable in the Bible that The FULLNESS OF TRUTH on all Faith-Beliefs and Moral Issues RESIDE ONLY in the CC and anyone else that follows her Teaching Fully and Faithfully. [Mt. 16:19;Jn.14:16-17; Jn17: 15-19 and John 20:21-23 AFFIRM THIS.

Therefore one not only abandons the SINGULAR TRUTHS; but Jesus Christ Himself the warranty for these truths. The Only unforgivable sin is Denial of God! … Matt.12: 32
“And whoever says a word against the Son of man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

To make matters worse those who Exodus the CC for ANY REASON either cut off ALL GRACES or GREATLY lessen the flow of Grace needed for salvation. Further they also stop access to the ONLY PLACE where one can have KNOWN FORGIVENESS OF SINS.

** 1John.1 Verses 8 to 10:

"If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us."

** 1John.5 Verses 16 to 17**"If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. ** There is sin which is mortal**; I do not say that one is to pray for that. All wrongdoing is sin, ** but there is sin which is not mortal. **

** John.20 Verses 20 to 23**]" When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. ** Jesus said to them ** again, “Peace be with you. ** As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” ** And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Thee ONLY good news is that through the Sacrament of Confession ALL SINS CAN BE FORGIVEN if repented and Confessed.

So God is ready to forgive; BUT those that abandon God MUST Repent; Convert back to the CC and Confess. ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. This is God’s own Teaching; only articulitated by His Church. As our Creator he has the Right to set the ground rules.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[CMatt25]

Originally Posted by PJM
Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.QUOTE]

Pat, thanks for sharing a rendition of Catholic interpretation. I’m just not ready though to judge a person of crucifying the Son of God and holding Him up to contempt simply because they might have experienced a change in faith and do not remain in full communion with the Catholic Church. God bless you and peace.

 

[Rocket_Man]

Is that what it said in your bulletin? If that’s the case - they are DEAD wrong.

You can’t be diametrically opposed to God and reject him - and STILL be saved. The Church has not ever taught this.

I just can’t grasp the following. If one is diametrically opposed to Christ Jesus, then wouldn’t they also be anti-Christ? Wouldn’t this be the case with the other religions that claim to adore the God of Abraham? How can the anti-Christ adore God?

“Who is a liar, but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denies the Father, and the Son” (1 John 2:22)

“And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God; and this is Antichrist” (1 John 4:3)

“For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an Antichrist” (2 John 7).

 

[SteveVH]

I just can’t grasp the following. If one is diametrically opposed to Christ Jesus, then wouldn’t they also be anti-Christ? Wouldn’t this be the case with the other religions that claim to adore the God of Abraham? How can the anti-Christ adore God?

“Who is a liar, but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denies the Father, and the Son” (1 John 2:22)

“And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God; and this is Antichrist” (1 John 4:3)

“For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an Antichrist” (2 John 7).

I’ve never met a non-Catholic yet that is diametrically opposed to Jesus Christ. I have met many who put most of us to shame as far as living out our faith. God reads our hearts and desires all to be saved. The danger lies in departing from the teachings handed down to us by the Apostles, having no access to the sacraments, relying on one’s own interpretation of scripture, etc… When this occurs, error enters in. As an example, doctrines such as “once saved, always saved” become the norm and place people’s souls in danger as they feel no real need to ask for forgiveness. The Eucharist, the source and summit of our faith becomes nothing more than a symbol while we pass around crackers and grape juice.

All of this division is certainly the work of the evil one, but this does not mean that any of them are the “anti-Christ”. Most truly love our Lord and practice their faith with all sincerity. But they have been led away from the fullness of truth and it can be spiritually very dangerous.

God bless.

 

[anp1215]

Well, not to dwell on the Mormons, but they also believe God was once a man who progressed to his divine state. There is no “One, True, God”, but rather many gods. “Heavenly Father” happens to be our God, but there are many other gods who rule over other worlds. Wanna be baptized in his name? Jesus is Michael the Archangel, according to their beliefs. So how far do we go?

JWs are the ones who believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel.

 

[SteveVH]

JWs are the ones who believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel.

You’re correct, but Mormons believe this as well. It has been stated by Mormons more than a few times on this forum.

 

[JeanMichel]

You’re correct, but Mormons believe this as well. It has been stated by Mormons more than a few times on this forum.

That is not a belief that I have ever heard a Mormon say. They say that Michael and Adam are the same individual. The only other name than Jesus that I heard them use is Jehovah.

 

[elvisman]

I just can’t grasp the following. If one is diametrically opposed to Christ Jesus, then wouldn’t they also be anti-Christ? Wouldn’t this be the case with the other religions that claim to adore the God of Abraham? How can the anti-Christ adore God?

“Who is a liar, but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is Antichrist, who denies the Father, and the Son” (1 John 2:22)

“And every spirit that dissolveth Jesus, is not of God; and this is Antichrist” (1 John 4:3)

“For many seducers are gone out into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh: this is a seducer and an Antichrist” (2 John 7).

I totally agree with you. You cannot be anti-Christ and be saved. The Church doesn’t teach that you can. Who is telling you this?

As I stated earlier, the Church teaches that some outside the Church (the Body of Christ) may be saved due to invincible ignorance. However, as the Catechism states, they must "seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience."

 

[SteveVH]

That is not a belief that I have ever heard a Mormon say. They say that Michael and Adam are the same individual. The only other name than Jesus that I heard them use is Jehovah.

It is quite possible that I’ve mixed this up. I’ll try and find the posts where this has been stated. Of course, you are aware that they also believe, or it has been stated by one preident or another, that Adam is also God, meaning that we have a being that transforms from angelic to human to divine. Maybe we can get a Mormon poster to come on and straighten it out. In any event it doesn’t change the point I was trying to make. Mormon beliefs are so far removed from early (and current) Church teachings that they are a great example of the topic of this thread. They claim to be Christian, yet their doctrines are nowhere to be found in the history of the Church.