the non- difference

[Robert_in_SD]

My relationship with God began, started, or commenced at a particular point in time- a time at which He indwelt me for the first time and transformed me from one kind of person to another. And it wasn’t a feeling, either. For 19 years, I had a body and I was the only one in it. It was an unregenerate body, too. Then at a certain point in time, I stopped being the only person in my body because I was joined by another person called the Holy Spirit. He also caused me to stop being the old kind of person and start being a new kind of person, otherwise known as a Christian. It wasn’t just a singular event, though. This person kept up residence within me and started doing other stuff called sanctification. And that’s where we’re at now- an ongoing relationship where it’s me
and a roommate called God living within me.

I think it’s wonderful that you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Every practicing Catholic that I know has a relationship with Him. But your comment is missing the point of the OP. Why is it easier for some non-Catholic christians to label Catholics as non-christians? I think it has more to do with the lack of a clear single workable definition of “christian” among protestants than it does any flaw with Catholic doctrine. And by saying this I’m not making a judgment on any individual. There are, to be sure, many protestants that are better followers of Christ than many Catholics. But that’s really beside the point of the OP.

cooterhein:

Edit- final note: All of this happened over five years after I was baptized and about two after I initially started asking God to do it.

So, at what point did you morph into a christian? And are there objective criteria to apply? Or is it just a “you just know because you know” kind of thing? I’m not trying to be snide. My point is that if your definition of what makes one a christian is completely subjective, as you seem to believe, then it is a definition with no practical application. You are measuring people’s “christianity” with a ruler that has no fixed mark.

If the sacraments of the Catholics church (which Catholics believe were given to the Church by Christ) bring a person closer to Jesus Christ, then who are you to question that person’s christianity? Again, you are applying a set of assumptions - all of which are based upon your subjective conclusions about christianity.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Mikeoffaith]

I think it’s wonderful that you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Every practicing Catholic that I know has a relationship with Him. But your comment is missing the point of the OP. Why is it easier for some non-Catholic christians to label Catholics as non-christians? I think it has more to do with the lack of a clear single workable definition of “christian” among protestants than it does any flaw with Catholic doctrine. And by saying this I’m not making a judgment on any individual. There are, to be sure, many protestants that are better followers of Christ than many Catholics. But that’s really beside the point of the OP.

Hey Robert-

I can’t speak about what other Christians claim as the definition of “christian” but I know for a fact that as Lutheran, I was never taught to believe that Roman Catholics were ever anything but. And isn’t it funny that the Orthodox always get left out of these kinds of conversations?

But a different perspective that Roman Catholics may not have is of how they perceive themselves. Let me share a story from my childhood. I grew up going to a Lutheran grade school. At some point, there was an awareness that not everyone in the world was Lutheran let alone christian. I remember one day after this awareness, it must have had something to do with the religion lesson for the day, everyone on the playground was asking everyone else what religion they were. The distinction of whatever the answers ended up being was unimportant, but being able to identify who and what religion was paramount. So the questions went around, “What religion are you?”…“What religion are you?” For the most part, everyone identified as Christian, and for the few Jews we had in class, they identified as Jewish. And finally, for the kids in the class who went to the Roman Catholic church, when asked what religion they were, they invariably said “Catholic”. And that automatically set them apart into a category that was neither Jewish nor Christian. And not caring about what the distinction was, we just went out and played kick ball.

So some of the attitude of other non-Roman Catholics believing or thinking that Roman Catholics aren’t Christian may come from how people self identify. I guess think about if someone asked “What religion are you?”, how you would answer? Or on Sunday after Mass, ask a bunch a people, “What religion are you?” And see what answer you get.

However, for those that have not had a similar experience that think Roman Catholics aren’t Christians, then I must concede that I can only think of two reasons, ignorance or prejudice.

Mike

 

[cooterhein]

Why is it easier for some non-Catholic christians to label Catholics as non-christians?

Might have something to do with the sacraments. Most non-Catholics don’t take sacramental grace very seriously at all.

So, at what point did you morph into a christian?

I have never used the word “morph” to describe it, but it happened when God did it. That was close to a couple years after I started asking Him to, and it was six or seven years after I was baptized.

And are there objective criteria to apply?

The Holy Spirit and the wide variety of things He does within Christians but not within non-Christians. If He does these things to you, you’re aware of it because you’re the one He’s doing the things to. Some of the more specific criteria to apply:

Do you know what it’s like to have just one person within your body? Do you have an experiential knowledge of what it’s like to go from having one person in there to having two people in there, and one of them is the Holy Spirit?

Do you know what it’s like to be “the old man” that’s described at various points in Scripture? Have you ever experienced the activity of the Holy Spirit that caused you to become a different kind of person that thinks differently, acts differently, and is affected differently because God is at work within this person?

In Romans, a situation is described where there are people who belong to Christ and are children of God, provided that they have the Holy Spirit dwelling within them. This same Spirit is also described as one who testifies with your spirit that you are a child of God. While it’s hard to say exactly what this might look like, we at least know that Christians are unique because they have the Spirit within them and that He makes himself known to you in some way. Has the Holy Spirit ever made His presence known to you, specifically from within you?

I don’t care when or where God does all of this, as long as it’s really happening and He’s the one doing it. If it’s associated with the sacraments, that’s fine, I guess. But this kind of stuff has to happen in order for you to have meaningful assurance. This is the process by which God initially makes a person a Christian and then continues to mold them as Christians and assure them of His presence within them. If God has never done any of this to you, it’s pretty straightforward. He’s never done any of this to you, and that’s pretty much it. I am not judging, just pointing out the tools that God has given us so that we can judge ourselves for ourselves. The nice thing is that all these different criteria tend to come as a package deal, so it’s kind of hard to miss it when it all come down on you like that. From what I can tell, it tends to work pretty well, too.

My point is that if your definition of what makes one a christian is completely subjective, as you seem to believe, then it is a definition with no practical application.

I’m curious about why you say it’s subjective, and I submit that the practical application has to do with determining whether or not God indwells you and is doing things to you. That’s what happens to Christians, so if you’re affiliated with Christianity, it seems like a good thing to know about yourself. I can’t determine it about you just by looking at you, though- on the forum wall or anywhere else. I just ask you whether or not God has done these things to you, and then you answer honestly and without evasion. It seems to work well when it happens that way.

You are measuring people’s “christianity” with a ruler that has no fixed mark.

The fixed mark is the presence and activity of God. He’s either done these things or He hasn’t. You figure out whether He has or not based on whether He has or not. If He has, you would be the one that He’s done them to. Has He? If anyone knows, it will be you.

If the sacraments of the Catholics church (which Catholics believe were given to the Church by Christ) bring a person closer to Jesus Christ, then who are you to question that person’s christianity?

Well, they call me cooter, so that’s who I am on these forums. I only question a person’s Christianity if they do the sacraments but (in their own estimation, because really, who am I to determine these things) they are not indwelt by God and He is not doing the kinds of things that God does within Christians. If they dismiss these God-related activities as irrelevant, I can show you where the Bible says God does these things to Christians (all Christians) and not to non-Christians, and the presence vs. absence of these things that are done by God are great ways of knowing whether He’s caused you to become a Christian- which is a process that is largely described by these specific things that God does.

Again, you are applying a set of assumptions - all of which are based upon your subjective conclusions about christianity.

That has definitely not been demonstrated. It’s all very Biblical- where do you think I ever get anything from? I’m a Protestant, for goodness’ sake.

 

[Izdaari]

I was in the habit of buying different protestant Bibles and books that I’d see at Goodwill.

At first, I simply wasn’t aware of all the differences between denominations and I ended up with a box full of various books before realizing they didn’t agree with Catholic Sacraments or our salvation process.

I put a “free ad” in the paper for people to come take a look at what I had available.

I had several NABs and I put one of the extra NAB Bibles in the box. Protestants avoided the NAB like the plague. Which was really unfortuneate, as most protestant Bibles don’t have an historical explanation of each chapter the way that the NAB does.

Non-Catholic Christian here, and I have an NAB and a Douay-Rheims among my rather extensive Bible collection. And I have an RSV with Apocrypha, not a Catholic edition, but Oxford Annotated. I’ll add a Jerusalem and a New Jerusalem as well, when I can.

Yes, some non-Catholic Christians don’t think of Catholics as “real” Christians. I’m not one of those, and I trust that it’s a minority view. But not all members of any church are real Christians; there will always be tares among us. Church membership may be for any number of reasons (family tradition, social acceptability, networking, etc.), not necessarily a commitment to follow Christ.

 

[ignatius777]

You realize you’re kind of a jerk?

I apologize!! It was NEVER my intention to be a jerk. Its just that I have engaged a number of protestants who wont answer questions and I admit I am weak because that really tries my patience. They demand answers but seem not to like answering questions themselves. So once again my apologies All I was hopinig to ascertain was how do we know that this “indwelling” which you speak of is in place. Thats all.

From a catholic perspective we see this “indwelling” in the way a catholic lives his or her life by their reception of the sacraments. That includes things like weekly attendance at Mass and reconcilliation. While reception of these sacraments in and of themselves does not prove anything you must admit its a lot easier to say you believe something then it is to live it by attending Mass weekly or going to reconciliation.

 

[ignatius777]

There it is. I think this helps answer the OP pretty well, and I can see why Catholics are so prone to be reticent in answering these kinds of questions.

But heres the thing. I have in fact answered the question havent I? I am still awaiting your answer. What sign is there of this “indwelling” which protestants are so proud of?

 

[jmcrae]

Why would it not be? I never understood the “private religion” kind of thing. What purpose is served by treating this as the sort of business that should ever be hidden?

It’s not that people are hiding it, in general - but it’s not a subject of casual conversation with strangers, just like one’s sex life and political preferences.

I haven’t had any euphoric experiences or dreams or visions either. What I did have was no Holy Spirit within me for a long time followed by having the Holy Spirit within me. It wasn’t really euphoric, although I had been waiting for that to happen for quite some time. It was more of a matter of fact- I was an unregenerate person without the Spirit dwelling within him, and now I am. That’s what just happened.

So you believe. I hope it’s true.

It wasn’t really euphoric at all, but I don’t think anyone can actually be a Christian unless God actually makes them a Christian and begins indwelling them.

God does this by means of the Sacraments and through prayer. Those who have no access to the Sacraments (such as Protestants and other non-Catholics) can still have a prayer relationship with God, and it doesn’t have to be all jargon-filled, or “look” any particular certain way.

Here’s a fun question. Let’s say you’ve been baptized and you’re a pretty good person, but God has never indwelt you and God hasn’t caused you to change from an old kind of person into a new kind of person (usually called a Christian). One- do you believe this is possible? Two- is this sort of person a Christian?

It’s a contradiction in terms that someone could be baptized but not have God indwelling in him, because Baptism is how God comes to indwell us.

If the person is baptized and doing his best, then yes, he is certainly a Christian. He doesn’t have to be up to your qualifications of feeling the “right” things or using the “right” kind of jargon (ie: he doesn’t have to know what someone is talking about if they accost him on the street and ask him if he’s been “barn ag’in,”) because fortunately, you’re not the one who’s going to be judging him on the Judgement Day.

 

[jmcrae]

But heres the thing. I have in fact answered the question havent I? I am still awaiting your answer. What sign is there of this “indwelling” which protestants are so proud of?

Right. And if it’s not an emotion or other kind of feeling, and not Christian habits of life such as attending Church and doing one’s best to do as Jesus would have us do, then what is it?

 

[jmcrae]

Romans references the indwelling of the Holy Spirit as our assurance of salvation on a number of occasions. That’s what I was talking about.

Yes, and the reason it’s an assurance is because of the physical signs - the Sacrament - that accompanies this - which is Baptism, Confirmation and First Holy Communion.

The early Christians were in no way and no how relying on their feelings, because most of what they were feeling was sheer terror. Not exactly “peaceful.” But they had the assurance of their salvation by means of the Sacraments, so that when they were feeling afraid, they knew they could take courage and rely on Jesus to get them through, to face the lions and the persecution, knowing they’d come out on the other side face to face with Jesus.

 

[ignatius777]

Right. And if it’s not an emotion or other kind of feeling, and not Christian habits of life such as attending Church and doing one’s best to do as Jesus would have us do, then what is it?

I think we have a long wait on our hands

 

[jmcrae]

I can’t say for certain about the Catholic Church, but the Early Church had a long list of preferences for Baptism, if one isn’t available you go to the next one down. The last one on the list was sand.

Source? The Teaching of the Apostles (Didache) which was compiled in approximately 50 AD (and predates most of the New Testament), tells us, fresh running water, or if not running, then still, and if not by immersion, then by pouring.

There are no choices of salt water or sand.

 

[ignatius777]

Amen Ignatius! Me too!

Amen!!!

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Might have something to do with the sacraments. Most non-Catholics don’t take sacramental grace very seriously at all.

Maybe where you live that is true. But globally, there are more christians living a sacramental life then there are non-catholic christians living within a non-sacramental christian community. So, by the weight of numbers, on a worldwide scale, that is no argument at all.

cooterhein:

I have never used the word “morph” to describe it, but it happened when God did it.

I used the term to describe the transformation from old to new set forth in your earlier post. What you described was a real change in your person, as a result of your encounter with the Holy Spirit. I’m accepting your statement at face value. My response, however, is that this deeply personal and subjective experience, as strong as it may be, is not an objective measure of whether or one is a follower of Christ.

cooterhein:

The Holy Spirit and the wide variety of things He does within Christians but not within non-Christians. If He does these things to you, you’re aware of it because you’re the one He’s doing the things to.

Precisely. YOU are aware, but I am not. I cannot look at a person (you for example) and see the Holy Spirit indwelling. So, all I have is your statement to that effect. You may be telling me what you believe to be the truth, and I may be inclined to believe what you tell me, but there is no objective measurement of whether or not you have accepted the grace that Christ has offered. You are fallible and human and you may be mistaking an emotional response for supernatural grace. How does one measure this? They cannot.

cooterhein:

Do you know what it’s like to have just one person within your body?

Yes. I’ve had - on several occasions - deep awareness of the Holy Spirit present in my life, leading me to repentence, and the presence of Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior reconciling me to the Father. So, yes, I think I have an idea of what you experienced. Catholics are not bereft of such experiences. I would suggest that living a sacramental life even gives one the opportunity to have the kind of “come to Jesus” experience you had once… but on a regular basis. Sacraments like the Eucharist are powerful moments in which Jesus is present and the Holy Spirit indwelling us responds to that - sometimes vigorously.

cooterhein:

Do you know what it’s like to be “the old man” …

Yes. Particularly during the sacrament of reconciliation, when Jesus Christ is present with me and the priest, who in the name of Jesus Christ forgives my sins. The grace of Jesus Christ restores my relationship with God in that moment. A very powerful moment there too! Much like what you described happened to you once.
cooternhein:

In Romans, … Has the Holy Spirit ever made His presence known to you, …

Yes. Most powerfully at my confirmation, where the bishop - by the laying on of hands - asks the Lord to send down the Holy Spirit in a special way to confirm my identity as an adult member of His Church. A VERY powerful moment in which the Holy Spirit present in me from my baptism made Himself known to me in a very personal way. I have also feel His presence at other times, including during the mass, and at the baptism of my children. But I don’t lean on my personal experiences as proof of my christianity. And I don’t understand why you can reject my experiences, or the experiences of other Catholics, simply because you reject the sacramental life that remains central in the most ancient Christian church communities.

cooterhein:

I’m curious about why you say it’s subjective, and I submit that the practical application has to do with determining whether or not God indwells you and is doing things to you. That’s what happens to Christians, so if you’re affiliated with Christianity, it seems like a good thing to know about yourself.

I don’t have a problem with a person examining their own relationship with God. But I have a problem with someone who applies their own subjective experiences to someone else, who as - by definition - their own *personal *relationship with God. Personal implies differences. Some people may not have a “knock-down” experience like yours. Some people slowly grow in their faith in ways perhaps only they can discern. Some come to Jesus late in life, some earlier. What you have shown is that you have no real objective criteria - like e.g. baptism - to identify one as a follower of Christ (i.e. Christian).

cooterhein:

I only question a person’s Christianity if they do the sacraments but (in their own estimation, because really, who am I to determine these things) they are not indwelt by God and He is not doing the kinds of things that God does within Christians.

And this comment brings me full circle back to my original point. Your position offers no objective way to measure a person’s soul to determine if they are indwelt by the Holy Spirit. Even if the individual person is responding to your question - in the end it is only subjective human experience. That is no standard at all.

Peace,
Robert

 

[PJM]

=Mikeoffaith;7271538]Hey Robert-

I can’t speak about what other Christians claim as the definition of “christian” but I know for a fact that as Lutheran, I was never taught to believe that Roman Catholics were ever anything but.** And isn’t it funny that the Orthodox always get left out of these kinds of conversations? **But a different perspective that Roman Catholics may not have is of how they perceive themselves. Let me share a story from my childhood. I grew up going to a Lutheran grade school. At some point, there was an awareness that not everyone in the world was Lutheran let alone christian. I remember one day after this awareness, it must have had something to do with the religion lesson for the day, everyone on the playground was asking everyone else what religion they were. The distinction of whatever the answers ended up being was unimportant, but being able to identify who and what religion was paramount. So the questions went around, “What religion are you?”…“What religion are you?” For the most part, everyone identified as Christian, and for the few Jews we had in class, they identified as Jewish. And finally, for the kids in the class who went to the Roman Catholic church, when asked what religion they were, they invariably said “Catholic”. And that automatically set them apart into a category that was neither Jewish nor Christian. And not caring about what the distinction was, we just went out and played kick ball.

So some of the attitude of other non-Roman Catholics believing or thinking that Roman Catholics aren’t Christian may come from how people self identify. I guess think about if someone asked “What religion are you?”, how you would answer? Or on Sunday after Mass, ask a bunch a people, “What religion are you?” And see what answer you get.

However, for those that have not had a similar experience that think Roman Catholics aren’t Christians, then I must concede that I can only think of two reasons, ignorance or prejudice.

Mike

Hi Mike Great post!

Just a thught to share on your highligted Orthodox comment.

I’m just speakig for myself, but would not be surprised if some other Catholics hold a similar view.

When I use the term “Catholic”, in my mind and heart, I include everyone who has valid and licit Sacraments. This of course includes our Orthodox Brethern

Love and prayers, again GRAT POST!

 

[Barbkw]

The Holy Spirit and the wide variety of things He does within Christians but not within non-Christians.

That’s short changing the Holy Spirit.

 

[jmcrae]

That’s short changing the Holy Spirit.

No kidding. If the Holy Spirit could work through Naaman the Leper, or Xerxes the King, then how is it that He cannot work through modern-day non-Christians?

 

[Robert_in_SD]

Hey Robert-

I can’t speak about what other Christians claim as the definition of “christian” but I know for a fact that as Lutheran, I was never taught to believe that Roman Catholics were ever anything but. And isn’t it funny that the Orthodox always get left out of these kinds of conversations?

It is interesting that some seem to forget that they make up a large number of christians living sacramental lives in the world today. I’m guessing the Orthodox are not forgotten by our brothers and sisters in Russia, Greece, and the middle-east.

Mikeoffaith:

But a different perspective that Roman Catholics may not have is of how they perceive themselves. Let me share a story from my childhood. I grew up going to a Lutheran grade school. At some point, there was an awareness that not everyone in the world was Lutheran let alone christian. I remember one day after this awareness, it must have had something to do with the religion lesson for the day, everyone on the playground was asking everyone else what religion they were. The distinction of whatever the answers ended up being was unimportant, but being able to identify who and what religion was paramount. So the questions went around, “What religion are you?”…“What religion are you?” For the most part, everyone identified as Christian, and for the few Jews we had in class, they identified as Jewish. And finally, for the kids in the class who went to the Roman Catholic church, when asked what religion they were, they invariably said “Catholic”. And that automatically set them apart into a category that was neither Jewish nor Christian. And not caring about what the distinction was, we just went out and played kick ball.

Isn’t this true! Very similar to my experience growing up. It was just understood that Catholics and Protestants were both christian. Very few people defined christians to exclude practicing Catholics. Sometimes, it’s the children who see the issue (or non-issue) more clearly than we adults.

Mikeoffaith:

So some of the attitude of other non-Roman Catholics believing or thinking that Roman Catholics aren’t Christian may come from how people self identify. I guess think about if someone asked “What religion are you?”, how you would answer? Or on Sunday after Mass, ask a bunch a people, “What religion are you?” And see what answer you get.

Probably, some would say Catholic, some would say Catholic christian, others would say christian or christian Catholic. It seems to me it has not been until recently that some began to see the terms Catholic and Christian as mutually exclusive. It’s happened on both the Catholic and non-Catholic side. It’s a pet-peeve of mine that some Catholics have - to some degree - ceded the term “christian” as applying only to non-Catholics. We should ALL identify as christian; Catholic christian, Orthodox christian, Protestant christian, Non-Denominational christian, etc., etc.

Mikeoffaith:

However, for those that have not had a similar experience that think Roman Catholics aren’t Christians, then I must concede that I can only think of two reasons, ignorance or prejudice.

And I suppose that fora like this exist to address both problems - in charity I hope.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

That has definitely not been demonstrated. It’s all very Biblical- where do you think I ever get anything from? I’m a Protestant, for goodness’ sake.

I think you see the bible through your Protestant lenses - a tradition that you don’t even seem to be aware of - but that’s part of the Protestant tradition - a tradition of “no tradition.” so to speak. Despite what you may have been taught to believe when reading the bible, there is certainly room to differ on matters of interpretation, especially regarding the sacraments. I’m Catholic and nothing I believe is contradicted by the bible. Indeed, it is all supported by what Scripture teaches - when read from the Catholic Tradition. But I suppose this is a topic for another thread.

Peace,
Robert

 

[Bluegoat]

Isn’t this true! Very similar to my experience growing up. It was just understood that Catholics and Protestants were both christian. Very few people defined christians to exclude practicing Catholics. Sometimes, it’s the children who see the issue (or non-issue) more clearly than we adults.

Probably, some would say Catholic, some would say Catholic christian, others would say christian or christian Catholic. It seems to me it has not been until recently that some began to see the terms Catholic and Christian as mutually exclusive. It’s happened on both the Catholic and non-Catholic side. It’s a pet-peeve of mine that some Catholics have - to some degree - ceded the term “christian” as applying only to non-Catholics. We should ALL identify as christian; Catholic christian, Orthodox christian, Protestant christian, Non-Denominational christian, etc., etc.

There was a thread asking Catholics about this very question recently. The last time I looked, a large portion were saying they would identify as Catholic rather than Christian, because the term Christian is in some way inadequate.

 

[fbl9]

There was a thread asking Catholics about this very question recently. The last time I looked, a large portion were saying they would identify as Catholic rather than Christian, because the term Christian is in some way inadequate.

To me Catholic is synomous with christian.