MERGED Why do some say the Catholic Church is not Christian?

[Hadrianus]

The simple answer to the intial question is because they are heretics.

 

[Bob_Crowley]

But our church is not from the Catholic Church…

We base our church on Christ’s direct statement to Peter, “On you I will found my church” and the office Christ was setting up, and the consequent “The proud gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

Which authorative statement of Christ do you base your church on?

 

[StTommyMore]

The simple answer to the intial question is because they are heretics.

not the most charitable way to put it…

 

[guanophore]

90+% of the Catholic Catechism is the same as Protestant doctrine, and the differences are not salvific issues.

By what authority does one determine what are “salvific issues”?

 

[guanophore]

The simple answer to the intial question is because they are heretics.

Not necessarily. You are correct that they think Catholics are not Christian because they have embraced heretical beliefs. Most of them don’t realize it, though, and therefore, cannot be charged with the sin of heresy.

 

[Hadrianus]

not the most charitable way to put it…

Thanks Tommy. In fact I meant my comment to be pointed, as it has been my observation that those who say the Catholic Church is not Christian are not exactly benign. Sometimes a strong offense is the best defense.

 

[StTommyMore]

Thanks Tommy. In fact I meant my comment to be pointed, as it has been my observation that those who say the Catholic Church is not Christian are not exactly benign. Sometimes a strong offense is the best defense.

I see you are a new member, so let me explaim something. All of our posts must exhibit Christian charity. repeated offenses can get you suspended or banned. I admit, that sometimes I fail in this is well, even though I am learning when it is best to walk away and cool down before I respond. Besides labeling all non-Catholic Christians as heretics is simply inaccurate. According to the Catechism, heresy is “the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same.” In other words you have to willfully reject or doubt the authentic teachings of the Church, which many non-Catholics ever hear in an accurate presentation. Before I converted, I hated the Catholic Church, not based on what the Church taught, but on what I was told she taught.

 

[Hadrianus]

I did mean the comment to be pointed, but not uncharitable. If I offended anyone, I apologize. As to the definition of a heretic, what the Catechism says is correct, but there is a little more to it.

Someone who is in error or ignorance through no fault of their own is not guilty of any sin with regard to heresy, but what they profess may still be heresy. In this sense they would be called a “material heretic” though the term isn’t used much.

 

[guanophore]

I did mean the comment to be pointed, but not uncharitable. If I offended anyone, I apologize. As to the definition of a heretic, what the Catechism says is correct, but there is a little more to it.

Someone who is in error or ignorance through no fault of their own is not guilty of any sin with regard to heresy, but what they profess may still be heresy. In this sense they would be called a “material heretic” though the term isn’t used much.

I think the term is not used much because it is not very useful for most evangelical and apologetic goals. If you are trying to reach someone who has embraced a falsehood, it is not often the most helpful approach to put them on the defensive by calling them names or addressing them in a manner they consider demeaning. Many of these “material heretics” are more educated and passionate about their faith than ten times their number of “cafeteria Catholics”.

 

[Hadrianus]

Well, no, in engaging in a conversation with Protestants one wouldn’t begin by pointing out that they were heretics. probably not very useful.

 

[StTommyMore]

Well, no, in engaging in a conversation with Protestants one wouldn’t begin by pointing out that they were heretics. probably not very useful.

But that is precisely what you id in your first post on this thread, in the “Non-Catholic Religions” sub-forum, which is certainly being read by Protestants. Think before you post.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Well, personally I’m not trying to convert anyone. I’m on the path I’m on. And should we cross paths and have an honest dialogue, than thats all well and fine. If not? Oh well.

But I have come across this siutuation in life. My brother married a protestant. So there was the interaction of familys for decades.

And she converted to the Catholic faith maybe 5-years before she passed-on with an un-timely death. My brother bought a home directly across the street from St Augustines here. Maybe that had something to do with it also. I really don’t know what the final thought was that made the conversion. But it was a very long process.

But I’ll tell you this, I was out-of-state while she was in the hospital at the end, and we were conversing 3-4 times a week by letter. I know that decision bought her great relief, and a deep peace in the end. In a tragic situation, I saw Gods work. You could feel Him, and He was present. And I wasn’t even there and I felt it. It confirmed my belief in God.

 

[guanophore]

Well, no, in engaging in a conversation with Protestants one wouldn’t begin by pointing out that they were heretics. probably not very useful.

And in most cases, they cannot be considered heretics, since they were never introduced to the fullness of the faith. They are taught that it is Catholics who are heretics! They have been separated from the Sacred Tradition 500 + years, and have survived by extracting what they can from Scripture. They do not benefit from the paradosis, so they are functioning with a truncated version of the Gospel.

 

[Hadrianus]

And in most cases, they cannot be considered heretics, since they were never introduced to the fullness of the faith. They are taught that it is Catholics who are heretics! They have been separated from the Sacred Tradition 500 + years, and have survived by extracting what they can from Scripture. They do not benefit from the paradosis, so they are functioning with a truncated version of the Gospel.

My impression is that the sort of Protestants who would consider the Catholic Church to be non Christian do not consider us heretics but essentially idolators and pagans. Only Catholicism and the other ancient Churches, such as the Greek Orthodox have a concept of communal truth outside of which there is a particular rejecton of the whole which is what heresy means. For Protestants the truth is what an individual makes based upon his reading of Scripture which is viewed outside of a Tradition and as a kind of proof text from which each individual can draw whatever he can supposedly guided by the inspiration of the Spirit. There is however a division between the old Protestant communions such as the Lutherans and the Calvinists who do value the tradition of their own theologians and even the Church Fathers which they see as aids to understanding, and the more radical kind who dismiss all human thought in favor of the Biblical text alone. My impression of Evangelical Christianity is that it is a very mixed entity, with some approaching an almost Lutheran attitude and others adopting a much more fundamentalist attitude.

Any Protestants following this may of course correct my impressions if they consider them distorted.

 

[JonNC]

My impression is that the sort of Protestants who would consider the Catholic Church to be non Christian do not consider us heretics but essentially idolators and pagans. Only Catholicism and the other ancient Churches, such as the Greek Orthodox have a concept of communal truth outside of which there is a particular rejecton of the whole which is what heresy means. For Protestants the truth is what an individual makes based upon his reading of Scripture which is viewed outside of a Tradition and as a kind of proof text from which each individual can draw whatever he can supposedly guided by the inspiration of the Spirit. There is however a division between the old Protestant communions such as the Lutherans and the Calvinists who do value the tradition of their own theologians and even the Church Fathers which they see as aids to understanding, and the more radical kind who dismiss all human thought in favor of the Biblical text alone. My impression of Evangelical Christianity is that it is a very mixed entity, with some approaching an almost Lutheran attitude and others adopting a much more fundamentalist attitude.

Any Protestants following this may of course correct my impressions if they consider them distorted.

I think you are more or less correct in your evaluation here. I would say that the part I bolded actually shortchanges Lutherans a bit (though not intentionally), in that I would add the early councils (the first 6 - 7 ) as what we would consider Tradition. Regarding the Reformed movement and evangelical communities, I will let them respond as to their views, which I suspect is somewhat different than ours.

Jon