Thank you

[OneTrueCathApos]

According to the catechism of the catholic church:

1271
**Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, **including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."81 “Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.”

1272
Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, **the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. **No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.83 Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

818
"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church

819
"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity

838
The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.

Im surprised you have to ask such an offensive question, given you must so clearly know what your own catechism says.

I mean, you have read it and studied it - right?

I just let you go on and on about how knowledgable you are on the Catholic church, if this is the case, why aren’t you in it? Even though you are in a “certain imperfect communion with the CC”. The Catechism refers mostly to it’s own faith.

 

[ricko]

Ok, you objected to my describing your definition of “Christian” as “he who agrees with me,” Or “he who is 'saved.”

Please, enlighten me. What IS your definition of “Christian?”

You have a bad habit of not listening or reading in this case what people are saying. Below is my original post where for the second time you have said that I gave a definition of Christian as “he who agrees with me,” Or “he who is 'saved.” I want you to be honest for once and admit that I never said that. In fact I did not give a definition of
“Christian” at all. Can you be honest enough to admit that you were dishonest in ascribing those quotes to me which I never said?

I’ve seen you say this many times. Something like, ‘Who gave YOU the authority to determine who is Christian and who isn’t ?’ It could also be said, 'Who gave you the authority to call YOURSELF Christian? Is there such a thing as a Christian? You seem to say that if someone wants to call themselves Christian then that’s okay, regardless of what they teach. So, the Jehovah Witnessess, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Heavens Gate, Masonic Lodge, Scientology, Unification Church and many others can call themselves Christian and we should just accept what they say. That sounds like anarchy where everything goes. Or how about the new grading system. Everybody gets a passing grade regardless of their lack of progress. Should we just keep our mouths shut and let everyone claim themselves Christian since you imply there is no standard for determining who is a Christian and who isn’t?

 

[ricko]

Q: What does the Catholic Church say about the practices and beliefs of Mormonism?

A: While individual Mormons may be persons of good conscience, Mormonism itself is a belief system that would reduce the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit from being the three Persons of the one, true, and infinite God to being three limited, finite deities among an uncounted multitude of deities, all of whom merely reshaped small parts of a preexisting cosmos.

Mormonism teaches that human beings may, by practicing the tenets of its faith, become gods and goddesses themselves, with their own planets full of people worshiping them.

While the Catholic Church would reject nothing that is true or good in Mormonism or any other world religion, Catholic theology would have to note that there is a tremendous amount in Mormonism that is neither true nor good. Further, because Mormonism presents itself as a form of Christianity yet is incompatible with the historic Christian faith, sound pastoral practice would need to warn the Christian faithful: Mormon theology is b.asphemous, polytheistic, and cannot be considered on par with the theology of other Christian groups.

 

[dianaiad]

You have a bad habit of not listening or reading in this case what people are saying. Below is my original post where for the second time you have said that I gave a definition of Christian as “he who agrees with me,” Or “he who is 'saved.” I want you to be honest for once and admit that I never said that. In fact I did not give a definition of
“Christian” at all. Can you be honest enough to admit that you were dishonest in ascribing those quotes to me which I never said?

No. What you WROTE was a list of qualifications (no matter how short, but you have, in the past, had other qualifications…) for being Christian that just so happens to very closely match your own personal beliefs, beliefs that…oh, by the way, disqualify pretty much everybody but Catholics from being Christian. (Ok, maybe Lutherans…)

Or I could put it another way, meaning the same thing: “he who believes the same things I do.” Or “he who belongs to the same church I do.”

So. Be honest. Is it possible, in your view, to be a Christian and to believe something different than you do about those doctrines you consider vital?

Transubstantiation…Trinity…???

 

[dianaiad]

Q: What does the Catholic Church say about the practices and beliefs of Mormonism?

A: While individual Mormons may be persons of good conscience, Mormonism itself is a belief system that would reduce the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit from being the three Persons of the one, true, and infinite God to being three limited, finite deities among an uncounted multitude of deities, all of whom merely reshaped small parts of a preexisting cosmos.

Mormonism teaches that human beings may, by practicing the tenets of its faith, become gods and goddesses themselves, with their own planets full of people worshiping them.

While the Catholic Church would reject nothing that is true or good in Mormonism or any other world religion, Catholic theology would have to note that there is a tremendous amount in Mormonism that is neither true nor good. Further, because Mormonism presents itself as a form of Christianity yet is incompatible with the historic Christian faith, sound pastoral practice would need to warn the Christian faithful: Mormon theology is b.asphemous, polytheistic, and cannot be considered on par with the theology of other Christian groups.

You forgot the cite for that.

However, here’s the question: those who protested the Catholic church because they thought she went off the rails in some fashion or other; those who think that the church needed, not reformation, but restoration…all these folks think that Catholicism is WRONG in many areas.

Now…why should any of us, who think that Catholicism is wrong enough to leave her, allow her to decide whether we are Christian?

I mean…really?

 

[ricko]

No. What you WROTE was a list of qualifications (no matter how short, but you have, in the past, had other qualifications…) for being Christian that just so happens to very closely match your own personal beliefs, beliefs that…oh, by the way, disqualify pretty much everybody but Catholics from being Christian. (Ok, maybe Lutherans…)

Or I could put it another way, meaning the same thing: “he who believes the same things I do.” Or “he who belongs to the same church I do.”

So. Be honest. Is it possible, in your view, to be a Christian and to believe something different than you do about those doctrines you consider vital?

Transubstantiation…Trinity…???

I think Diana would prefer her own definition of what a Christian is. (anyone can claim to be Christian and believe whatever they want to). Everybody else is wrong about what a Christian is except for you. We should go by what ever you say. I agree. Your definition of Christian goes well with that cult you belong to.

 

[Bill_Pick]

To any who will say that I am condemned because I am catholic or christian, or that I cannot be both catholic and christian, I say THANK YOU. You are helping to apply the beatitudes to me. Blessed am I because of slander and hate on account of Jesus. So when you say that I am going to hell, I am unsaved, I am not a christian, catholics aren’t christian, or that I need to "aceept Jesus as my personal lord and saviour " you bring down blessings upon me for your scorn brings God’s blessing.

I think you are a little confused cathloics are christian and prostantant are christian, if may be the people that are talking to you are confused, and a cathloic or a protestant will NOT sent you to hell we send are self to heaven or hell,hope this helps

 

[dianaiad]

I think Diana would prefer her own definition of what a Christian is. (anyone can claim to be Christian and believe whatever they want to). Everybody else is wrong about what a Christian is except for you. We should go by what ever you say. I agree. Your definition of Christian goes well with that cult you belong to.

I would prefer that, actually. It marches with the DICTIONARY definition, after all. Not to mention, it encompasses the only things that everybody who claims to be a Christian can agree on: they believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ (though what they think those teachings actually are may, and often do, vary) and they claim the name. They claim it instead of any other religious identification; this is Who they identify with.

And yes, my definition is correct; I agree with every English language dictionary there is, y’see. That’s fairly good company–*when one is attempting to define a word.
*
See, the problem with your position is that as soon as you started adding things ‘one must believe’ in order to “be a Christian,” you are taking upon yourself a prescriptive role that you don’t have the right to hold. You are, in fact, taking Christ’s job. HE is the ultimate judge of who is His. You are not. I am not.

Now tell me; which scenario would you rather see yourself in:

Final Judgment:

Christ: I see here that you spend your life guarding My church, and My Name, with zeal and faith. I see that you were very careful to make certain that those you did not consider to be Mine (or Christian) knew about how you felt, and that they felt your words strongly.You were indeed a warrior in fighting those ‘cults’ you didn’t believe were good enough, or believed enough of the correct things, to be called “Christian.” You were wrong about many of them: some of those you turned away because you did not think that they were Christian took much longer to come to Me, because of the bitterness and anger you stirred in their hearts. Some of them ignored your sharp words, but because you could not see them, you lost many opportunities to serve others, Me and to grow yourself. You may want to apologize to them when you see them standing beside Me.
You need to remember; I am your Judge; when you judge, and do so unrighteously, you cause harm to yourself and to your brothers and sisters.

You wanna be on the receiving end of that one? I don’t. How about this, instead:

Christ: I see that you treated everyone with courtesy, and took everyone who claimed to be Christian at his or her word, gently teaching them the truths you know if you thought they were believing incorrectly. I see also that you were wrong sometimes; sometimes one of these who claimed to be Christian didn’t act like one…but because you sought Me in all people, and loved Me in all people, you helped all those who talked to you want to come closer to Me, even those you were wrong about. Well done, thou good and faithful servant.

Goodness; wouldn’t that be a much more pleasant conversation to have?

The idea, in deciding what “Christian” means, is to find out what everybody who claims to be a Christian has in common…and those things are what define the word.

Now if we are going to define what the Truth is, and who has it, that is a very different conversation, indeed.

 

[traillius]

We can and do judge, as long as it is done properly.For example, any parents here, I hope, judge what their children do, while still loving them. What father or mother would say, " because I love you, its okay to do anything you want, or think and believe anyway you choose. " A parent who really loves their child would say " because I love you, I want what is best for you, therefore I will say when you are doing what is wrong, because I want you to be healthy, happy, and safe." Real love requires judgement and correction, as well as mercy and acceptance. Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. People who say " Judge not lest ye be judged " or any words to that effect, are preaching tolerance rather than acceptance. I would rather accept someone and want the best for them, than tolerate them, and let them hurt themselves because they do what is wrong. "

2 choices

1. I am your friend, therefore I will tolerate your choice to damage yourself.
2. I am your friend, therefore I will do my best to help you remain safe, while accepting all of you for who you are.

IMHO. The second choice is far more caring, and more christ like.
Jesus never said " I love you. Now go do whatever you want. "
He said " if you love me obey my commands. "
And The triune God knows more than we do about what is best for us.

" Friends don’t let friends drive themselves to Hell. "

 

[kalt]

You forgot the cite for that.

However, here’s the question: those who protested the Catholic church because they thought she went off the rails in some fashion or other; those who think that the church needed, not reformation, but restoration…all these folks think that Catholicism is WRONG in many areas.

Now…why should any of us, who think that Catholicism is wrong enough to leave her, allow her to decide whether we are Christian?

I mean…really?

If they disagreed with selling indulgences or some other abuse, then there is no problem. If they want to change doctrine, there is a problem.

Before you go off in another direction, be clear that my response is to your question about disagreement over someting that the Church is doing, not over something that the Church is. There is a huge difference. This is answering the question of disagreement only.

Christianity. Do you believe that there is a clear defintion of “Christian”–one that can be used to differentiate between those who claim to be Christian and those who are? If so, can you post it here?

 

[dianaiad]

We can and do judge, as long as it is done properly.For example, any parents here, I hope, judge what their children do, while still loving them. What father or mother would say, " because I love you, its okay to do anything you want, or think and believe anyway you choose. " A parent who really loves their child would say " because I love you, I want what is best for you, therefore I will say when you are doing what is wrong, because I want you to be healthy, happy, and safe." Real love requires judgement and correction, as well as mercy and acceptance. Tolerance and acceptance are two different things. People who say " Judge not lest ye be judged " or any words to that effect, are preaching tolerance rather than acceptance. I would rather accept someone and want the best for them, than tolerate them, and let them hurt themselves because they do what is wrong. "

(edited insert) I posted this, and realized that the tone of it is very abrupt, and could be seen to be an attack upon you personally because of your post. It’s not meant to be, so I’m sorry if it’s going to read like that. I tried to reword it, but the point didn’t come across as well. Please, though, take it, not as a heated response to your post, but rather as a pointed statement at the idea behind it. The thing is, Traillus, that it is not your right to judge those with whom you disagree. It simply isn’t. It is your right to judge whether the teachings they believe in are right, and it is not only your right, but your obligation, to teach us truth if you don’t believe we have it. But it is NOT your right to judge the state of our salvation, or whether we are Christ’s, or whether you can treat us as errant children. For one thing, m’friend, remember that if you feel that you can do this to others, you are giving them permission to do it to you. None of us like that idea a whole lot. (end edited comment)

I hate to break this to you, but you are not my mother, my father, my pastor or my teacher, and frankly, I believe that much of what you believe regarding religion is just plain wrong.

So why in the world would I allow you to declare whether or not I am a Christian?

2 choices

1. I am your friend, therefore I will tolerate your choice to damage yourself.
2. I am your friend, therefore I will do my best to help you remain safe, while accepting all of you for who you are.

IMHO. The second choice is far more caring, and more christ like.
Jesus never said " I love you. Now go do whatever you want. "
He said " if you love me obey my commands. "
And The triune God knows more than we do about what is best for us.

" Friends don’t let friends drive themselves to Hell. "

We are not drunk, that you have the right to take the keys away from us. We are not children, that you have the right to guide our lives and choices. We are your brothers and sisters. If you believe that we are going the wrong direction, you have the right and obligation to show us the map with the correct route marked.

You might consider that the more time you take yelling at us for being on the wrong road, the less time you have to show us the right one.

…and you don’t have the right to push us out of the car.

 

[dianaiad]

If they disagreed with selling indulgences or some other abuse, then there is no problem. If they want to change doctrine, there is a problem.

Before you go off in another direction, be clear that my response is to your question about disagreement over someting that the Church is doing, not over something that the Church is. There is a huge difference. This is answering the question of disagreement only.

Christianity. Do you believe that there is a clear defintion of “Christian”–one that can be used to differentiate between those who claim to be Christian and those who are? If so, can you post it here?

I do believe that there is, and I have posted it, frequently.

One can find it in almost every dictionary. It is the list of attributes that everybody who claims to be a Christian can agree on; and because the beliefs of Christians vary so widely, this list is rather short:

A Christian is someone who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and who claims to be one. One COULD, I suppose, add…and who tries to live according to those teachings, but I’m afraid that that last qualification might well disqualify pretty much everybody.

“Christian” doesn’t mean 'saved."
It doesn’t mean “right.”
It doesn’t mean “Christ’s”

It simply means that there is this classification of all those beliefs that encompass all religions and beliefs that put Christ at the center, however they view Him, and Whoever they think He is. That meta-classification is; Christian. What ELSE would it be? It is a sub-classification of all those beliefs that include the God of Abraham and the promise of a Messiah, called “Judeo-Christian” thought.

Now, if you are going to talk about the 'True Church of Christ," Well now, that’s a very different conversation, indeed.

 

[josie_L]

You forgot the cite for that.

However, here’s the question: those who protested the Catholic church because they thought she went off the rails in some fashion or other; those who think that the church needed, not reformation, but restoration…all these folks think that Catholicism is WRONG in many areas.

Now…why should any of us, who think that Catholicism is wrong enough to leave her, allow her to decide whether we are Christian?

I mean…really?

It shouldn’t matter to you if the CC doesn’t recognize mormon baptism we are an “apostate” Church, so what’s the real issue here?

 

[dianaiad]

It shouldn’t matter to you if the CC doesn’t recognize mormon baptism we are an “apostate” Church, so what’s the real issue here?

The real issue is that since we believe that we are Christians, we don’t appreciate having others insist that we agree with them that we are not.

When Catholics went after heretics, first they declared them to be 'not Christian." When Protestants went after Catholics, either verbally or physically, the first thing they did was to declare them to be 'not Christian."

Y’see, you just can’t kill, imprison, burn, torture, discriminate against or so much as picket fellow Christians; first you have to kick 'em out of the club. It is shunning.

Or, as the old saying goes: "he whom one would persecute must first be made ‘other.’ "

…and THAT is what happens when one Christian religion looks at another belief system that also puts Christ at the center if its beliefs, and declares it to be 'not Christian." It is making that faith 'other."

It is as simple, and as bald, as that.

 

[josie_L]

The real issue is that since we believe that we are Christians, we don’t appreciate having others insist that we agree with them that we are not.

When Catholics went after heretics, first they declared them to be 'not Christian." When Protestants went after Catholics, either verbally or physically, the first thing they did was to declare them to be 'not Christian."

Y’see, you just can’t kill, imprison, burn, torture, discriminate against or so much as picket fellow Christians; first you have to kick 'em out of the club. It is shunning.

Or, as the old saying goes: "he whom one would persecute must first be made ‘other.’ "

…and THAT is what happens when one Christian religion looks at another belief system that also puts Christ at the center if its beliefs, and declares it to be 'not Christian." It is making that faith 'other."

It is as simple, and as bald, as that.

Being that the Catholic Church believes itself to be the Church of Christ it has every right to declare that mormon baptism is invalid, just like your Church has every right to believe that we are all apostates.

 

[dianaiad]

Being that the Catholic Church believes itself to be the Church of Christ it has every right to declare that mormon baptism is invalid, just like your Church has every right to believe that we are all apostates.

Of course you do. After all, we believe that the Catholic baptism is invalid (and in the case of infant baptism, not required anyway)

But that isn’t the same thing as declaring that Catholics are not Christian, and it is CERTAINLY not the same thing as insisting that Catholics agree with us that they are not Christian.

 

[Eucharisted]

To any who will say that I am condemned because I am catholic or christian, or that I cannot be both catholic and christian, I say THANK YOU. You are helping to apply the beatitudes to me. Blessed am I because of slander and hate on account of Jesus. So when you say that I am going to hell, I am unsaved, I am not a christian, catholics aren’t christian, or that I need to "aceept Jesus as my personal lord and saviour " you bring down blessings upon me for your scorn brings God’s blessing.

Isn’t God’s Mercy and Wisdom and Providence AWESOME?!

 

[josie_L]

Of course you do. After all, we believe that the Catholic baptism is invalid (and in the case of infant baptism, not required anyway)

But that isn’t the same thing as declaring that Catholics are not Christian, and it is CERTAINLY not the same thing as insisting that Catholics agree with us that they are not Christian.

Did the Catholic Church declare Mormons non-Christians?

 

[Guyonthestreet]

Did the Catholic Church declare Mormons non-Christians?

I dont know what the catholic church has officially stated, bit this article would seem to be suggesting not:

Still, it isn’t correct to call Mormons Protestants, because doing so implies they hold to the essentials of Christianity—what C. S. Lewis termed “mere Christianity.” The fact is, they don’t.

catholic.com/library/Distinctive_Beliefs_of_Mormon.asp

 

[dianaiad]

Did the Catholic Church declare Mormons non-Christians?

yep.