Is It Necessary To Believe in the Divinity Of Christ To Be A Christian? / Catechism Paragraph 463

[wllmjoseph]

I recently started reading the Catechism in earnest. I love the Catechism. It is not just it’s beauty but also it’s depth of reasoning. I have believed that in order to be a Christian that an individual needed to not only accept Jesus as their Savior but to also believe in the Incarnation of Son of God. In this age of political correctness there are many who believe that in order to be a Christian that an individual is required to accept Jesus and their Savior and to follow Christ.

 I am no longer interested in my personal feelings or beliefs but in the truth of Holy Mother Church as revealed in the Catechism.  To that point paragraph 463 of the Catechism states:

Belief in the true Incarnation of the Son of God is the distinctive sign of the Christian faith.
It is in my reading of the Catechism that I believe it is not only necessary to believe in the Incarnation of the Son of God to be a Catholic Christian but that it is also necessary to believe in the Incarnation of God the Son to be a Christian of any denomination. Am I correct in my understanding?

 

[Padres1969]

That’s an accurate reading of what it means to be Christian in the traditional Trinitarian sense yes. That’s why so many Christian faiths adhere to the Nicene and other historic creeds (or have stated beliefs that mirror those creeds) as they express that triune divinity of Christ quiet clearly.

Academically any faith that follows Christ is often considered Christian so other near Christian religions get folded into that such as Jehovah’s Witnesses, Mormons, Unitarians, etc…

 

[thistle]

No, not necessary–unless that component is part of your definition of a Christian, which today seems to be the general belief, but it wasn’t always so and for some today it is not.
Some call themselves Christian and feel they are Christian simply because they follow some of jesus’ teachings.
And there were many Christians in the early days, during those first 4 centuries or so (the Ebionites, for example, who were a significant group) that did not believe Jesus was born divine.
At the same time, there were groups of Christians in the early centuries who thought Jesus was only divine, and not human at all.
So there exist different definitions of what a “Christian” is.

.

You are wrong. There is only one definition of a Christian.
A Christian is someone baptised with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who believes in the Holy Trinity.

 

[wllmjoseph]

No, not necessary–unless that component is part of your definition of a Christian, which today seems to be the general belief, but it wasn’t always so and for some today it is not.
Some call themselves Christian and feel they are Christian simply because they follow some of jesus’ teachings.
And there were many Christians in the early days, during those first 4 centuries or so (the Ebionites, for example, who were a significant group) that did not believe Jesus was born divine.
At the same time, there were groups of Christians in the early centuries who thought Jesus was only divine, and not human at all.
So there exist different definitions of what a “Christian” is.

.

As I indicated in my post I am not interested in my definition or another person's definition of what is a Christian. I am interested in what is the teaching of the Catholic Church as revealed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. I respect all religions and individuals choice to practice whichever Religion they choose. Respectfully, I don't believe a person is a Christian if they do not believe in the Trinity and do not accept the divinity of Christ. I am not looking to hurt anyone's feelings but rather I am interested in what is the truth.

 

[katy]

Yes is necessary. That is why the Nicene Creed was composed in the first place–to declare what is Christian. The Catechism’s statement is based on that. Mormons, Unitarian, etc. might look Christian, but they are only Christian-wish.

 

[Usige]

That is an accurate reading of Catholic beliefs. Rejecting the divinity of Christ is at the heart of the Arian Heresy which was condemned nearly 1700 years ago. The most basic yardstick for Christianity over the past 16½ - 17 centuries has been the Nicene-Constantinople Creed.

There are obviously non-creedal groups that claim Christianity while rejecting key aspects of the creed, but from a Catholic perspective simply following some aspect of the teachings of Christ is not enough to be in the tent of Christianity. Rejecting the divine nature of the persons of the triune God would put someone outside the tent of Christianity from a Catholic perspective.

Note: I am not talking about those claimed by Christ through valid baptism, but rather from the perspective of those who reject the belief even if validly baptized.

 

[Padres1969]

That is an accurate reading of Catholic beliefs. Rejecting the divinity of Christ is at the heart of the Arian Heresy which was condemned nearly 1700 years ago. The most basic yardstick for Christianity over the past 16½ - 17 centuries has been the Nicene-Constantinople Creed.

**There are obviously non-creedal groups that claim Christianity while rejecting key aspects of the creed, but from a Catholic perspective simply following some aspect of the teachings of Christ is not enough to be in the tent of Christianity. **Rejecting the divine nature of the persons of the triune God would put someone outside the tent of Christianity from a Catholic perspective.

Note: I am not talking about those claimed by Christ through valid baptism, but rather from the perspective of those who reject the belief even if validly baptized.

And most other Christians would agree with that assessment as well so it’s not a uniquely Catholic position either. The Nicene Creed (and the Apostles Creed) are the basic statement of core Christian belief. Regardless of our differences all the generally accepted Christian faiths (by other Christians) adhere to the Creeds or at least to the tenants of the creeds.

Conversely most Christians who do adhere to the creeds or the ideas contained in the creeds, don’t accept that other groups that call themselves Christian such as the Mormons, JWs, or Unitarians, are Christians.

That said, the internal assessment that Creedal/Trinitarian Christians make regarding who is truly Christian is not the only definition out there. There’s a broader definition that is often used academically and otherwise that lumps any followers of Christ into Christianity without regard for specifics like the divinity of Christ or any of the other creedal ideals.

 

[wllmjoseph]

Thank you for your responses.

 

[Usige]

And most other Christians would agree with that assessment as well so it’s not a uniquely Catholic position either. The Nicene Creed (and the Apostles Creed) are the basic statement of core Christian belief. Regardless of our differences all the generally accepted Christian faiths (by other Christians) adhere to the Creeds or at least to the tenants of the creeds.

Conversely most Christians who do adhere to the creeds or the ideas contained in the creeds, don’t accept that other groups that call themselves Christian such as the Mormons, JWs, or Unitarians, are Christians.

That said, the internal assessment that Creedal/Trinitarian Christians make regarding who is truly Christian is not the only definition out there. There’s a broader definition that is often used academically and otherwise that lumps any followers of Christ into Christianity without regard for specifics like the divinity of Christ or any of the other creedal ideals.

Oh, I would agree, but was really answering it from the OP’s question of a purely Catholic understanding.

 

[Bookcat]

I recently started reading the Catechism in earnest. I love the Catechism. It is not just it’s beauty but also it’s depth of reasoning. I have believed that in order to be a Christian that an individual needed to not only accept Jesus as their Savior but to also believe in the Incarnation of Son of God. In this age of political correctness there are many who believe that in order to be a Christian that an individual is required to accept Jesus and their Savior and to follow Christ.

 I am no longer interested in my personal feelings or beliefs but in the truth of Holy Mother Church as revealed in the Catechism.  To that point paragraph 463 of the Catechism states:

Belief in the true Incarnation of the Son of God is the distinctive sign of the Christian faith.

 It is in my reading of the Catechism that I believe it is not only necessary to believe in the Incarnation of the Son of God to be a Catholic Christian but that it is also necessary to believe in the Incarnation of God the Son to be a Christian of any denomination.  Am I correct in my understanding?

If a person denies Jesus is the Son of God and that he became a man - that is contrary to what Christians believe.

1 John 4:2-3 will be of interest.

 

[jmcrae]

I recently started reading the Catechism in earnest. I love the Catechism. It is not just it’s beauty but also it’s depth of reasoning. I have believed that in order to be a Christian that an individual needed to not only accept Jesus as their Savior but to also believe in the Incarnation of Son of God. In this age of political correctness there are many who believe that in order to be a Christian that an individual is required to accept Jesus and their Savior and to follow Christ.

 I am no longer interested in my personal feelings or beliefs but in the truth of Holy Mother Church as revealed in the Catechism.  To that point paragraph 463 of the Catechism states:

Belief in the true Incarnation of the Son of God is the distinctive sign of the Christian faith.

 It is in my reading of the Catechism that I believe it is not only necessary to believe in the Incarnation of the Son of God to be a Catholic Christian but that it is also necessary to believe in the Incarnation of God the Son to be a Christian of any denomination.  Am I correct in my understanding?

Yes. Not only to be a Christian, but also because it is true. Otherwise the entire New Testament makes no sense whatsoever.