The "Are you Catholic or Christian" Question

[MaryT777]

I was talking about our church in general not specific to a geographical area. I would say that we have become bogged down by following rather than leading. By that I mean that I do not see Jesus as someone using a playbook to follow in his ministry. He was responding to the needs of those he ministered to, particularly the poor. We seem to need a playbook or a judge or a coach to tell us what to do to carry the message of Christ, rather than following what Christ said. Every time I hear a Priest tell us that we must go out and proclaim our religion, I want to respond, “but you want to approve everything I say first???” I think this is one of the reasons Catholics are so poor at speaking about our faith. The book of rules and regulations has gotten to big. I am hopeful that Pope Francis will return us to a more simple and more important message and that will indeed be Christ centered I suspect.

Has a priest or another Catholic told you you need to have everything you say when you proclaim the Catholic Faith approved? I have never heard of such a thing. In fact the entire
Catechism of the Catholic Church CCC is online now free of charge so we’re not really
hiding what we profess in any way. .

The Catholic faith IS Christ centered however we can all learn to better evangelize. I hope
that your hopes is Pope Franacis are brought to fruition.

Mary.

 

[Church_Militant]

Has a priest or another Catholic told you you need to have everything you say when you proclaim the Catholic Faith approved? I have never heard of such a thing. In fact the entire
Catechism of the Catholic Church CCC is online now free of charge so we’re not really
hiding what we profess in any way. .

The Catholic faith IS Christ centered however we can all learn to better evangelize. I hope
that your hopes is Pope Francis are brought to fruition.

Mary.

Here’s the links…
Catechism of the Catholic Church
Compendium of the Catechism of the Catholic Church
Searchable Catechism of the Catholic Church

Also see:
San Juan Catholic Seminars
Top Ten Questions Catholics are Asked
Catholic Tracts
Catholic Answers: Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth
Our Sunday Visitor’s Tracts

I think this is one of the reasons Catholics are so poor at speaking about our faith. The book of rules and regulations has gotten to big. I am hopeful that Pope Francis will return us to a more simple and more important message and that will indeed be Christ centered I suspect.

No, the reason that some Catholics are not good at sharing their faith is that they often mistakenly do not think they can do it effectively. (Download this free Catholic MP3:Apologetics for the Scripturally-Challenged Basic apologetics strategies and techniques.

 

[davidlmartin196]

You’re not being OCD at all. Trust me this a pet peeve of mine too. I’ve been asked this question by Catholics too. I’ve heard them say things like “I’m not Christian, I’m Catholic”

The kids at my school (even the Catholics) think “Christian” means “Protestant”

My girlfriend actually stated this. As a new Catholic, not a cradle Catholic, this really shocked and upset me. Then one Sunday during Mass the priest mentioned we were Christians and I thought her mouth was going to hit the floor.
I even brought this up in RCIA. I did not mention who stated Catholics were not Christians. But there were some Catholics helping with RCIA that were shocked that there were Catholics that stated they were not Christian.

 

[MaryT777]

My girlfriend actually stated this. As a new Catholic, not a cradle Catholic, this really shocked and upset me. Then one Sunday during Mass the priest mentioned we were Christians and I thought her mouth was going to hit the floor.
I even brought this up in RCIA. I did not mention who stated Catholics were not Christians. But there were some Catholics helping with RCIA that were shocked that there were Catholics that stated they were not Christian.

I don’t know why Catholics say that. I might think sometimes it’s simply like
a response to the often heard comment to Catholics that we are not Christians for we have perverted the Gospel, etc; like a profession of Faith. I wish Catholics would say they are Catholic Christians. I actually hope if one says they are Catholic which is the Christian Faith they profess their faith in, one would acknowledge them as Christians.

In my own experience my Lutheran friends will say they are Lutherans, (Not Christian)
when asked; etc with other non Catholic friends to differentiate themselves among
the Protestant/ non Catholic Faiths. I have heard several Lutherans tell me they are different than other Protestants etc.

Even on the message board people donate they are Lutheran, often with the Synod
(LCMS ELCA to differentiate between other Synods that teach different teachings)
Episcopalian (Catholic Episcopalian, other types etc.)

I myself am frustrated when I say Catholic and someone says but you’re not Christian then.
It gets old.

We could definitely do a better job of somehow addressing succintly and to the point
we are Catholics and Christians. Regretfully many don’t agree we are Christians.
I have never heard a Catholic say “I I am Catholic but not Christian” myself, thankfully.

Peace in Christ this Palm Sunday,
Mary.

 

[Goya]

I don’t know why Catholics say that. I might think sometimes it’s simply like
a response to the often heard comment to Catholics that we are not Christians for we have perverted the Gospel, etc; like a profession of Faith. I wish Catholics would say they are Catholic Christians. I actually hope if one says they are Catholic which is the Christian Faith they profess their faith in, one would acknowledge them as Christians.

In my own experience my Lutheran friends will say they are Lutherans, (Not Christian)
when asked; etc with other non Catholic friends to differentiate themselves among
the Protestant/ non Catholic Faiths. I have heard several Lutherans tell me they are different than other Protestants etc.

Even on the message board people donate they are Lutheran, often with the Synod
(LCMS ELCA to differentiate between other Synods that teach different teachings)
Episcopalian (Catholic Episcopalian, other types etc.)

***I myself am frustrated when I say Catholic and someone says but you’re not Christian then.
It gets old. ***

We could definitely do a better job of somehow addressing succintly and to the point
we are Catholics and Christians. Regretfully many don’t agree we are Christians.
I have never heard a Catholic say “I I am Catholic but not Christian” myself, thankfully.

Peace in Christ this Palm Sunday,
Mary.

Concur.

It’s especially insulting, since they have no real standard by which they ‘define’ Christian, let alone authority. Anyone claiming to believe in Chirst to them, is Christian–especially if they believe in the Trinity…unless that is, they are Catholic. Then, conveniently, and for no god reason, they pretend that such a person isn’t Christian.

Like I posted before–it’s simply rationalization that stems from the protestant pulpit–in order to justify evangelizing Catholics–or, to put it more succinctly–“stealing sheep”–from the Catholic Church–and guiding their financial contributions from the Catholic Church, to their own personal coffers.

It is transparently insulting…and bunk.

…and tragically embarrassing, to hear yet again, misguided/ill-informed Catholics, regurgatating canned protestant apologetics–because it happens to be veiled in Christian terminology.

 

[Bookcat]

We are Christians…have been since the first century.

First members of the Church were called “the disciples”…

Later called followers of “the way” …and it seems “Nazarenes”

then at Antioch we started being called Christians.

Later in the first century the Church started to be called “Catholic” (see St. Ignatius --again at Antioch --use around the year 100)

So in time Christians began to be also called Catholics.

And as various heresies arose in the first centuries…which claimed to be Christian …the word was used to differentiate Christians from the others was Catholic…

We still called ourselves Christians…but also we used the term Catholic.

Now a days we have many sorts of Christians --who are indeed Christians and our brothers…though we are unhappily not yet in full communion.

Catholics are Christians who in full communion with the successor of Peter. We call ourselves Christians all the time…Pope Benedict XVI when addressing the faithful did not usually say “Catholics this or that” but called them Christians…for that is what we are.

Other Christians have various degrees of communion with us (not speaking here of Holy Communion …but of “being in communion with”).

As one early Christian noted (375AD)

“If you want to know who I am,” he said, “Christian is my name, Catholic is my surname.”

St. Pacian

 

[MaryT777]

Concur.

It’s especially insulting, since they have no real standard by which they ‘define’ Christian, let alone authority. Anyone claiming to believe in Chirst to them, is Christian–especially if they believe in the Trinity…unless that is, they are Catholic. Then, conveniently, and for no god reason, they pretend that such a person isn’t Christian.

Like I posted before–it’s simply rationalization that stems from the protestant pulpit–in order to justify evangelizing Catholics–or, to put it more succinctly–“stealing sheep”–from the Catholic Church–and guiding their financial contributions from the Catholic Church, to their own personal coffers.

It is transparently insulting…and bunk.

…and tragically embarrassing, to hear yet again, misguided/ill-informed Catholics, regurgatating canned protestant apologetics–because it happens to be veiled in Christian terminology.

I concur as well.
It’s like the AntiChrist which the Bible states is one who denies Christ as savior for our sins. That is no Pope although some have been less than desirable behavior wise.
So have some non Catholic/Protestant pastors.

My own experience is converts often hold on to some of their former beliefs where
they professed their faith in some ways.
I do profess the Faith often for those that lurk and also it’s important not to find a
false sense of unity where there is none.
It’s better to come towards a better understanding based on the differences we profess
and go from there.

It can be a difficult balance I’ve noticed on this board where if you state there are differences in real presence in the Eucharist it frustrates those that state there is real presence in their Eucharist. That said many Churches openly REJECT the Catholic understanding of real presence.

Towards a balance between professing the truth of the Faith Catholic and towards
a better understanding of our non Catholic friends…

 

[The_Wizard]

All Catholics are Christians! Not all Christians are Catholic!

 

[Raptureme]

Concur.

It’s especially insulting, since they have no real standard by which they ‘define’ Christian, let alone authority. Anyone claiming to believe in Chirst to them, is Christian–especially if they believe in the Trinity…unless that is, they are Catholic. Then, conveniently, and for no god reason, they pretend that such a person isn’t Christian.

Like I posted before–it’s simply rationalization that stems from the protestant pulpit–in order to justify evangelizing Catholics–or, to put it more succinctly–“stealing sheep”–from the Catholic Church and guiding their financial contributions from the Catholic Church, to their own personal coffers.

It is transparently insulting…and bunk.

…and tragically embarrassing, to hear yet again, misguided/ill-informed Catholics, regurgatating canned protestant apologetics–because it happens to be veiled in Christian terminology.

I heard a preacher at a non-denom church say “We don’t steal sheep but we do plant grass”

 

[Goya]

I heard a preacher at a non-denom church say “We don’t steal sheep but we do plant grass”

I don’t get the grass analolgy–though I do get the denial…and would note that it only applies to other ‘denominations’–not the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that Yeshua Himself founded–somehow, that one is exempt from the self imposed injunction against sheep-theft of other protestant churches (‘honor among thieves?’ ).

IOW: apparently it’s ok to steal from the Church that Christ founded…

…but not from the churches** that Martin Luther founded.

So very…Christian…

 

[JonNC]

I don’t get the grass analolgy–though I do get the denial…and would note that it only applies to other ‘denominations’–not the One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that Yeshua Himself founded–somehow, that one is exempt from the self imposed injunction against sheep-theft of other protestant churches (‘honor among thieves?’ ).

IOW: apparently it’s ok to steal from the Church that Christ founded…

…but not from the churches** that Martin Luther founded.

So very…Christian…

First, Fr. Martin Luther did not “found” a church, and he certainly did not found churches. There is but one Church, the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which we confess and are members of.
Secondly, you make a charge against various communions without validation. If you are to make this charge, please provide a source.
It is not the practice of any Lutheran synod that I know of to raid His sheep that happen to be in other communions, Catholic, Orthodox, or otherwise, though the door is open to those who wish to inquire, just as the door to the Catholic Church is to us.

When Pope Benedict XVI met with the German Lutherans at Erfurt, he alluded to those who seem to have what he called a “missionary dynamism”. The linked article from EWTN states:

The Pope was also candid in his assessment of what threatens Christian unity, pointing to two current challenges. His first concern was about new forms of Christianity that are currently “spreading with overpowering missionary dynamism” and yet have “little institutional depth, little rationality and even less dogmatic content, and with little stability.” The second challenge he warned of was “the secularized context of the world in which we Christians today have to live and bear witness to our faith.”

He wasn’t talking about Lutherans here, but others. In fact, the tone of the presentation implies he considers Lutherans as allies in this fight against these 20th and 21st century groups. These are the ones who are evangelizing in Catholic areas, and are bleeding off Catholic and Lutheran members.
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=115660

Broad brush, blanket charges without proof do not serve any good purpose. And there are masses of unchurched people we should focus on.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

Here is the issue that Pope Benedict spoke of. Here is the issue of prosyletizing.

sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile/56005907-68/pope-says-catholics-latin.html.csp

Jon

 

[Goya]

First, Fr. Martin Luther did not “found” a church, and he certainly did not found churches. There is but one Church, the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of which we confess and are members of.
Secondly, you make a charge against various communions without validation. If you are to make this charge, please provide a source.
It is not the practice of any Lutheran synod that I know of to raid His sheep that happen to be in other communions, Catholic, Orthodox, or otherwise, though the door is open to those who wish to inquire, just as the door to the Catholic Church is to us.

When Pope Benedict XVI met with the German Lutherans at Erfurt, he alluded to those who seem to have what he called a “missionary dynamism”. The linked article from EWTN states:

He wasn’t talking about Lutherans here, but others. In fact, the tone of the presentation implies he considers Lutherans as allies in this fight against these 20th and 21st century groups. These are the ones who are evangelizing in Catholic areas, and are bleeding off Catholic and Lutheran members.
ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=115660

Broad brush, blanket charges without proof do not serve any good purpose. And there are masses of unchurched people we should focus on.

Jon

“…if the shoe fits…”

Lutherans also don’t distinguish Catholics from Christians. Not in my experience anyway. Perhaps I should have narrowed my use of ‘protestant’ to those who claim the tituler ‘Christian’ for themselves, and to the exclusion of Catholics–but I figured that was implicit, based on the threaad topic.

As for my source for my allegation(s)–I’m wearing them–on either side of my head. As I posted elsewhere, I happen to have been privvy to some behind the scenes dealings with protestants–including many pastors. Besides being brought up in ‘the Bible Belt’…I’ve also had fair amount of dealings with protestants north of the Mason Dixon line, and in metropolitan areas, upon which I based my claims, as well…

Ok, Lutherans are probably the least anti-Catholic protestant denomination–so much so, that they are not only referred to as “Catholic light”, but often boast of such (albeit in jest).
But there are many protestant denominations that cover the other side of the spectrum. And my ‘charges’ stand, as it applies to them.

…and I think it goes without saying, that my posts–as any poster on any messageboard–carry with them, the implicit caveat, that I am sharing my experience, and my opinions, developed there upon.

FWIW: your apparent experience of this uber-ecumenical existence amongst Catholics and protestants, ring as foriegn to me, as my perspective apparently rings with you. That’s simply not what I’ve witnessed in my life.

Lucky for you, I suppose–but I’m not going to pretend I haven’t seen what I’ve seen, heard what I’ve heard, and had my perspective shaped thereby.

 

[JonNC]

“…if the shoe fits…”

Lutherans also don’t distinguish Catholics from Christians. Not in my experience anyway. Perhaps I should have narrowed my use of ‘protestant’ to those who claim the tituler ‘Christian’ for themselves, and to the exclusion of Catholics–but I figured that was implicit, based on the threaad topic.

As for my source for my allegation(s)–I’m wearing them–on either side of my head. As I posted elsewhere, I happen to have been privvy to some behind the scenes dealings with protestants–including many pastors. Besides being brought up in ‘the Bible Belt’…I’ve also had fair amount of dealings with protestants north of the Mason Dixon line, and in metropolitan areas, upon which I based my claims, as well…

Ok, Lutherans are probably the least anti-Catholic protestant denomination–so much so, that they are not only referred to as “Catholic light”, but often boast of such (albeit in jest).
But there are many protestant denominations that cover the other side of the spectrum. And my ‘charges’ stand, as it applies to them.

…and I think it goes without saying, that my posts–as any poster on any messageboard–carry with them, the implicit caveat, that I am sharing my experience, and my opinions, developed there upon.

FWIW: your apparent experience of this uber-ecumenical existence amongst Catholics and protestants, ring as foriegn to me, as my perspective apparently rings with you. That’s simply not what I’ve witnessed in my life.

Lucky for you, I suppose–but I’m not going to pretend I haven’t seen what I’ve seen, heard what I’ve heard, and had my perspective shaped thereby.

Agreed, there certainly are those who seem to target Catholics (and some who target us, as well). but you brought Luther into the conversation. Those folks in the article are not “of Luther”, and never have been.

I don’t know about “uber-ecumenical”, but I would encourage those who are interested to check out the USCCB website, and the list of completed and ongoing dialogue between Lutherans (and Anglicans for that matter) and Catholics, the current movement amongst confessional Lutherans and Catholics on the issues of morals, the HHS mandate, and the ministerial exemption. It may not be “uber”, but it certainly is a step far away from 100 years ago. And I for one welcome it.

Jon

 

[Goya]

Agreed, there certainly are those who seem to target Catholics (and some who target us, as well). but you brought Luther into the conversation. Those folks in the article are not “of Luther”, and never have been.

I don’t know about “uber-ecumenical”, but I would encourage those who are interested to check out the USCCB website, and the list of completed and ongoing dialogue between Lutherans (and Anglicans for that matter) and Catholics, the current movement amongst confessional Lutherans and Catholics on the issues of morals, the HHS mandate, and the ministerial exemption. It may not be “uber”, but it certainly is a step far away from 100 years ago. And I for one welcome it.

Jon

I brought Luther into the conversation, because he was the impetus for the multitude of denominations, via the doctrine he championed–sola scriptura–hence ‘founder’. He is the founder of portestantism, and therefore I attribute his most wayard offspring, to him–even if they have in turn, ‘protested’ against his view of Christianity. What authority could Luther site, to prevent anyone else from interpretting the Bible in such a way as he did not approve? He himself, breached the walls of authority. He cannot then turn around, and claim to be indignant over others following in his footsteps…even if they proceed to trample right over him…

I’ll give the Lutherans due credit for exercising restraint where others have not–but I don’t see that restraint as credit to Luther, as much as I see the lack thereof by other denominations, as directly attributable to him, by following the precedent that he himself, set.

As for ‘the alliance’ to which you refer–sadly, there is probably greater resistence to the HHS mandate (and the like) from many anit-catholic denominations, than from Catholics themselves (not including the Church), as so many US Catholics are social liberals. And so we see the Catholic Church, alligning with Evangelicals, and the like, to combat liberalism…and fighting against many of her own members–‘catholics’.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows indeed…

…and nothing binds us like a common foes.

And so against the atheists, secularists, meterialists, modernists, radical muslims, neo-liberals and so many other philosophies against Christian values…

Why then, we’re all CHRISTIAN.

Kumbaya, baby!

 

[JamesCaruso]

All Catholics are Christians! Not all Christians are Catholic!

But it’s not a point of pride (I’m not saying you’re saying it is). I wish all Catholics acted Christian. Many non-Catholics act more Christian than the average Catholic.

 

[JonNC]

=Goya;10538683]I brought Luther into the conversation, because he was the impetus for the multitude of denominations, via the doctrine he championed–sola scriptura–hence ‘founder’. He is the founder of portestantism, and therefore I attribute his most wayard offspring, to him–even if they have in turn, ‘protested’ against his view of Christianity. What authority could Luther site, to prevent anyone else from interpretting the Bible in such a way as he did not approve? He himself, breached the walls of authority. He cannot then turn around, and claim to be indignant over others following in his footsteps…even if they proceed to trample right over him…

Then you must also blame the Catholic Church of that era, as well, since they came, not from Lutheranism, not from Orthodoxy, but from Catholicism. As a result, they are the wayward offspring of the Catholic Church. What authority can the Catholic Church claim without ecumenical council, other than claiming for itself something early Church Tradition does not provide it?
Had Calvin and Zwingli, the Anabaptists and others followed in his footsteps, they would be Lutheran. They made their own footsteps. I have little time for Calvin’s theology, but he was an intelligent man, and not a lemming.

I’ll give the Lutherans due credit for exercising restraint where others have not–but I don’t see that restraint as credit to Luther, as much as I see the lack thereof by other denominations, as directly attributable to him, by following the precedent that he himself, set.

Perhaps the “restraint” has to do with the fact that the Lutheran Reformers had no intention at all of division and schism, but of reform within the Church. And on that score - division and schism - there was plenty of precedent prior to 1500.

As for ‘the alliance’ to which you refer–sadly, there is probably greater resistence to the HHS mandate (and the like) from many anit-catholic denominations, than from Catholics themselves (not including the Church), as so many US Catholics are social liberals. And so we see the Catholic Church, alligning with Evangelicals, and the like, to combat liberalism…and fighting against many of her own members–‘catholics’.

Politics makes for strange bedfellows indeed…

…and nothing binds us like a common foes.

Indeed. Perhaps the work of the Spirit, to take this world’s evil and turn it for His good.

Jon

 

[Goya]

JonNC;10538760]

Then you must also blame the Catholic Church of that era, as well, since they came, not from Lutheranism, not from Orthodoxy, but from Catholicism. As a result, they are the wayward offspring of the Catholic Church. What authority can the Catholic Church claim without ecumenical council, other than claiming for itself something early Church Tradition does not provide it?
Had Calvin and Zwingli, the Anabaptists and others followed in his footsteps, they would be Lutheran. They made their own footsteps. I have little time for Calvin’s theology, but he was an intelligent man, and not a lemming.

Calvin, Zwingli, et. al., may have ‘made thier own footsteps’, but they followed the breach in the stuctural integrity of the Church, opened by Luther.

They could have achieved reform from within, as St’s Francis, Dominic, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, et. al., did, if ‘reform’ was their actual intent. Alas, I don’t beleive it was.

(and sure, Calvin was a smart guy–his sin was pride, not stupidity–I never suggested he was dumb).

Perhaps the “restraint” has to do with the fact that the Lutheran Reformers had no intention at all of division and schism, but of reform within the Church. And on that score - division and schism - there was plenty of precedent prior to 1500.

I respectfully disagree with your assertion here (bolded).

As to the latter part–the schismatics didn’t re-engineer the theology/sotoriology… theirs remains largely a consistent with the Latin/Roman rite.

Indeed. Perhaps the work of the Spirit, to take this world’s evil and turn it for His good.

Jon

Amen.

 

[JonNC]

=Goya;10539484]

Calvin, Zwingli, et. al., may have ‘made thier own footsteps’, but they followed the breach in the stuctural integrity of the Church, opened by Luther.

See, I consider that a “lemming argument”. It assumes they followed him, but didn’t follow him. We’ll have to disagree on that. The Anabaptists, additionally, were a completely separate movement, not following Luther in any way.

They could have achieved reform from within, as St’s Francis, Dominic, Ignatius of Loyola, Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, et. al., did, if ‘reform’ was their actual intent. Alas, I don’t beleive it was.

Actually, that’s exactly what the 95 Theses were: an attempt to raise discussion within the Church about the need for reform - Tetzel and all.

(and sure, Calvin was a smart guy–his sin was pride, not stupidity–I never suggested he was dumb).

I didn’t say you did, and I frankly don’t know if his sin was pride. That’s between him and God. My point is he was smart enough to make his own decisions, and didn’t need Luther or Zwingli or Karlstadt.

As to the latter part–the schismatics didn’t re-engineer the theology/sotoriology… theirs remains largely a consistent with the Latin/Roman rite.

Of course, they would say Rome was schismatic, and re-engineered the primacy of the pope, and the Nicene Creed, but that’s another thread.

Jon

 

[Goya]

…

Of course, they would say Rome was schismatic, and re-engineered the primacy of the pope, and the Nicene Creed, but that’s another thread.

Jon

Touche’.

…and with that, I’ll simply yield the last [substantive] word on this little exchange, to you, sir.