What is a Catholic?

[andremiguel]

Sometimes we see people saying that they are Catholic with practice (is this the terminology?), relapsed, going into, going out, cradle, converted, half-way, 25%, 75%, Catholic with doubts, desapointed (sic?)Catholic, going to the mass, not going to the mass.

I would like to know your definition of Catholic. Your, means your individual definition.

Now, a Hindu who does works of Charity is a Catholic? Let us remember the Samaritan (who was considered impure) who helped the man robbed and beaten on the was from Jericho to Jerusalem. He was considered Christian, follower of Jesus, more than the Jews, the priest and the other who did not help him.

A Catholic who goes or does not go to mass is or is not a Catholic?

Just asking for thoughts…Thanks.

 

[Tietjen]

Sometimes we see people saying that they are Catholic with practice (is this the terminology?), relapsed, going into, going out, cradle, converted, half-way, 25%, 75%, Catholic with doubts, desapointed (sic?)Catholic, going to the mass, not going to the mass.

I would like to know your definition of Catholic. Your, means your individual definition.

Now, a Hindu who does works of Charity is a Catholic? Let us remember the Samaritan (who was considered impure) who helped the man robbed and beaten on the was from Jericho to Jerusalem. He was considered Christian, follower of Jesus, more than the Jews, the priest and the other who did not help him.

A Catholic who goes or does not go to mass is or is not a Catholic?

Just asking for thoughts…Thanks.

Good question. My opinion… anyone who is baptised within the Church OR who comes into the Church (accepts Church authority) after having been baptised in another Christian Church (recognized by the Catholic Church as using the proper baptismal forumla).

 

[JRKH]

My definition is simple and applies to Adults.

A Catholic (capital “C”) is a person who is loyal to the Spirit Guided teachings of the Church headquartered at the Vatican.

The reason that I use “revert” in my description here is simply to let people know that I was away and have come home.

Peace
James

 

[PJM]

=andremiguel;9372274]Sometimes we see people saying that they are Catholic with practice (is this the terminology?), relapsed, going into, going out, cradle, converted, half-way, 25%, 75%, Catholic with doubts, desapointed (sic?)Catholic, going to the mass, not going to the mass.

I would like to know your definition of Catholic. Your, means your individual definition.

Now, a Hindu who does works of Charity is a Catholic? Let us remember the Samaritan (who was considered impure) who helped the man robbed and beaten on the was from Jericho to Jerusalem. He was considered Christian, follower of Jesus, more than the Jews, the priest and the other who did not help him.

A Catholic who goes or does not go to mass is or is not a Catholic?

Just asking for thoughts…Thanks.

FIRST WELCOME TO THE CAF!

CATHOLISM IS THE THE ONY SET OF FAITH BELIEFS AND THE ONLY “CHURCH” ACTUALLY FOUNDED BY CHRIST [Mt. 15:15-19; Mt. 28:16-20; John 20:19-23] and the only Faith and Church actually Protected from Teaching error by Christ Himself: John 17:15-19]

SO A CATHOLIC IS ONE WHO IS BAPTIZED; AND KNOWS, LOVES, and FULLY - OBEYS’ [WHICH MEANS FOLLOWS ALL DOGMAS AND DOCTRINES; AND THE CHURCH LEADERSHIP]; and the Commandments, Commands, and mandates of Christ AND SERVES GOD THROUGH HIS CHURCH. AMEN

God Bless you,

pat /PJM here on this FORUM

 

[1ke]

Sometimes we see people saying that they are Catholic with practice (is this the terminology?), relapsed, going into, going out, cradle, converted, half-way, 25%, 75%, Catholic with doubts, desapointed (sic?)Catholic, going to the mass, not going to the mass.

Yes, people describe themselves, and others, with all sorts of adjectives.

I would like to know your definition of Catholic. Your, means your individual definition.

Your definition, my definition, anyone else’s definition are completely irrelevant. The Church teaches us the truth of the matter: one who is baptized into the Catholic Church or received into by a profession of faith is a Catholic.

Now, a Hindu who does works of Charity is a Catholic?

If that Hindu is baptized into the Catholic Church, they are not a Hindu but a Catholic. If they are not baptized, they are not a Christian and not a Catholic.

Let us remember the Samaritan (who was considered impure) who helped the man robbed and beaten on the was from Jericho to Jerusalem. He was considered Christian, follower of Jesus, more than the Jews, the priest and the other who did not help him.

This is factually incorrect. The Samaritan in the story was not considered a Christian nor a follower of Christ. The Samaritan was commended for being a neighbor to the injured man.

A Catholic who goes or does not go to mass is or is not a Catholic?

A person baptized into the Catholic Church, or received into it by a profession of faith, is a Catholic whether or not they attend Mass.

 

[andremiguel]

FIRST WELCOME TO THE CAF!

CATHOLISM IS THE THE ONY SET OF FAITH BELIEFS AND THE ONLY “CHURCH” ACTUALLY FOUNDED BY CHRIST [Mt. 15:15-19; Mt. 28:16-20; John 20:19-23] and the only Faith and Church actually Protected from Teaching error by Christ Himself: John 17:15-19]

SO A CATHOLIC IS ONE WHO IS BAPTIZED; AND KNOWS, LOVES, and FULLY - OBEYS’ [WHICH MEANS FOLLOWS ALL DOGMAS AND DOCTRINES; AND THE CHURCH LEADERSHIP]; and the Commandments, Commands, and mandates of Christ AND SERVES GOD THROUGH HIS CHURCH. AMEN

God Bless you,

pat /PJM here on this FORUM

Thanks for the welcome and the answer.

 

[PJM]

=andremiguel;9375579]Thanks for the welcome and the answer.

your VERY welocme

If you have any unanswered Faith questions feel free to send me a private message and we can discuss them.

God Bless you,
Pat

 

[andremiguel]

your VERY welocme

If you have any unanswered Faith questions feel free to send me a private message and we can discuss them.

God Bless you,
Pat

I think I have got answered faith questions that could maintain a discussion for centuries.

 

[andremiguel]

Yes, people describe themselves, and others, with all sorts of adjectives.

Your definition, my definition, anyone else’s definition are completely irrelevant. The Church teaches us the truth of the matter: one who is baptized into the Catholic Church or received into by a profession of faith is a Catholic.

If that Hindu is baptized into the Catholic Church, they are not a Hindu but a Catholic. If they are not baptized, they are not a Christian and not a Catholic.

This is factually incorrect. The Samaritan in the story was not considered a Christian nor a follower of Christ. The Samaritan was commended for being a neighbor to the injured man.

A person baptized into the Catholic Church, or received into it by a profession of faith, is a Catholic whether or not they attend Mass.

The question is who is the Christian: the baptized who does not follow God’s Commands or the non-baptized who follows God’s commands. I am exaggerating black and white.

I think that the Samaritan was called the one who follows God’s commands, so a Christian. The question is that it was asked to Jesus was were the 2 biggest commandments and he said that the second was to Love Your neighbor. And Jesus was asked who was one’s neighbor. And Jesus said that someone like the Samaritan. so, if he was following Christ’s commands, though he might not know Jesus, he was a Christian,.

 

[Tietjen]

The question is who is the Christian: the baptized who does not follow God’s Commands or the non-baptized who follows God’s commands. I am exaggerating black and white.

Have you ever met a kind non-baptized atheist? I have. I know of none that love God; yet many have gone out of their way to help family, neighbors, strangers. Would you then say that they are Christians? Could they really be Christians if at the same time they deny God?

John 3:3-5 shows us Christ saying, “Truly, truly, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God.” He was speaking of baptism here. If He were kidding, would He say, “Truly, Truly”?

In John 3:22 we see that after Christ taught this, the disciples went into Judea and were baptized. Why? because Christ just told them (John 3:3-5) that baptism was needed if they wished to enter the Kingdom of God.

The point I am trying to make isn’t that everyone who is baptized will go to Heaven. However, baptism is one of the prerequisites. A Christian isn’t made based on only works (the Samaritan) but also on faith in and love of Christ, and the place one goes to hear and learn about Christ (one must have knowledge about someone before they can have faith in and love for someone) is the Church (the pillar & foundation of the Truth). See 1 Tim 3:15. When that person learns of God’s laws he follows them because he loves God. So, rather than say it is one or the other, the fact is it is both obeying God AND being baptized (which was also commanded by Jesus to his Apostles in Matt 28:19-20) that are required. See also Mark 16:16.

 

[PJM]

=andremiguel;9379774]I think I have got answered faith questions that could maintain a discussion for centuries.

I’m avaialable if you wish to discuss any Faith issues?

God Bless,
pat /PJM

 

[JRKH]

The question is who is the Christian: the baptized who does not follow God’s Commands or the non-baptized who follows God’s commands. I am exaggerating black and white.

I think that the Samaritan was called the one who follows God’s commands, so a Christian. The question is that it was asked to Jesus was were the 2 biggest commandments and he said that the second was to Love Your neighbor. And Jesus was asked who was one’s neighbor. And Jesus said that someone like the Samaritan. so, if he was following Christ’s commands, though he might not know Jesus, he was a Christian,.

Here, we can begin to get into issues of “semantics”. I would say that the term “Christian” is a follower of “Christ”, that is, Jesus of Nazareth. Thus the person would “know Him” and would have been baptized.
This does not exclude others from being children of God and being saved…The Good Samaritan being an example of this.

But as I say - it begins to become a question of semantics…

Peace
James

 

[andremiguel]

Here, we can begin to get into issues of “semantics”. I would say that the term “Christian” is a follower of “Christ”, that is, Jesus of Nazareth. Thus the person would “know Him” and would have been baptized.
This does not exclude others from being children of God and being saved…The Good Samaritan being an example of this.

But as I say - it begins to become a question of semantics…

Peace
James

It is a deep question: Karl Rahner called them the “unknown christians”, meaning, those are the people who follow their conscience so well that had they known Jesus Christ, they would follow Him, “till the end of the world” (as a friend of mine spoke seeing the Turin Shroud.)

 

[tskrobacz]

Are you asking about the institutional church or the mystical body of Christ? In the later case all of creation is included, nothing is excluded. The institutional church is a means to understanding the mystical reality of all creation. To be Catholic (universal) is to be able to accept all of creation, including those objectionable elements, as through Him, with Him and in Him and to both love and forgive reality for being exactly what it is.

 

[JRKH]

It is a deep question: Karl Rahner called them the “unknown christians”, meaning, those are the people who follow their conscience so well that had they known Jesus Christ, they would follow Him, “till the end of the world” (as a friend of mine spoke seeing the Turin Shroud.)

Yes -

Karl Rahner’s comment above is a good example of trying to work around and through the matter of semantics.

We sometimes see the same thing among the evangelical Christians who speak of “Being Saved” but then - when pressed - there seems that not every one who claims to be “Christian” or a member of the “Church” is actually “Saved”…
It can all become very confusing…:hypno:

My solution is to try to kkep the faith as simple as possible.



Peace
James

 

[PJM]

=andremiguel;9384093]It is a deep question: Karl Rahner called them the “unknown christians”, meaning, those are the people who follow their conscience so well that had they known Jesus Christ, they would follow Him, “till the end of the world” (as a friend of mine spoke seeing the Turin Shroud.)

Going from memory here but is C.R. still a “Catholic” of the RCC?

God Bless,
pat /PJM

 

[andremiguel]

Going from memory here but is C.R. still a “Catholic” of the RCC?

God Bless,
pat /PJM

Karl Rahner was (I think he already passed away) a great German Jesuit Theologian.
Link, click to see:
Karl Rahner in wikipedia

 

[Pinoycat]

If you may allow, let me paste and share this to you to answer your question:

One Hundred Fifty Reasons I’m Catholic

And You Should Be Too!

by Dave Armstrong

1. Best One-Sentence Summary: I am convinced that the Catholic Church conforms much more closely to all of the biblical data, offers the only coherent view of the history of Christianity (i.e., Christian, apostolic Tradition), and possesses the most profound and sublime Christian morality, spirituality, social ethic, and philosophy.
2. Alternate: I am a Catholic because I sincerely believe, by virtue of much cumulative evidence, that Catholicism is true, and that the Catholic Church is the visible Church divinely-established by our Lord Jesus, against which the gates of hell cannot and will not prevail (Mt 16:18), thereby possessing an authority to which I feel bound in Christian duty to submit.
3. 2nd Alternate: I left Protestantism because it was seriously deficient in its interpretation of the Bible (e.g., “faith alone” and many other “Catholic” doctrines - see evidences below), inconsistently selective in its espousal of various Catholic Traditions (e.g., the Canon of the Bible), inadequate in its ecclesiology, lacking a sensible view of Christian history (e.g., “Scripture alone”), compromised morally (e.g., contraception, divorce), and unbiblically schismatic, anarchical, and relativistic. I don’t therefore believe that Protestantism is all bad (not by a long shot), but these are some of the major deficiencies I eventually saw as fatal to the “theory” of Protestantism, over against Catholicism. All Catholics must regard baptized, Nicene, Chalcedonian Protestants as Christians.
4. Catholicism isn’t formally divided and sectarian (Jn 17:20-23; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10-13).
5. Catholic unity makes Christianity and Jesus more believable to the world (Jn 17:23).
6. Catholicism, because of its unified, complete, fully supernatural Christian vision, mitigates against secularization and humanism.
7. Catholicism avoids an unbiblical individualism which undermines Christian community (e.g., 1 Cor 12:25-26).
8. Catholicism avoids theological relativism, by means of dogmatic certainty and the centrality of the papacy.
9. Catholicism avoids ecclesiological anarchism - one cannot merely jump to another denomination when some disciplinary measure or censure is called for.
10. Catholicism formally (although, sadly, not always in practice) prevents the theological relativism which leads to the uncertainties within the Protestant system among laypeople.
11. Catholicism rejects the “State Church,” which has led to governments dominating Christianity rather than vice-versa.
12. Protestant State Churches greatly influenced the rise of nationalism, which mitigated against universal equality and Christian universalism (i.e., Catholicism).
13. Unified Catholic Christendom (before the 16th century) had not been plagued by the tragic religious wars which in turn led to the “Enlightenment,” in which men rejected the hypocrisy of inter-Christian warfare and decided to become indifferent to religion rather than letting it guide their lives.
14. Catholicism retains the elements of mystery, supernatural, and the sacred in Christianity, thus opposing itself to secularization, where the sphere of the religious in life becomes greatly limited.
15. Protestant individualism led to the privatization of Christianity, whereby it is little respected in societal and political life, leaving the “public square” barren of Christian influence.
16. The secular false dichotomy of “church vs. world” has led committed orthodox Christians, by and large, to withdraw from politics, leaving a void filled by pagans, cynics, unscrupulous, and power-hungry. Catholicism offers a framework in which to approach the state and civic responsibility.
17. Protestantism leans too much on mere traditions of men (every denomination stems from one Founder’s vision. As soon as two or more of these contradict each other, error is necessarily present).
18. Protestant churches (esp. evangelicals), are far too often guilty of putting their pastors on too high of a pedestal. In effect, every pastor becomes a “pope,” to varying degrees (some are “super-popes”). Because of this, evangelical congregations often experience a severe crisis and/or split up when a pastor leaves, thus proving that their philosophy is overly man-centered, rather than God-centered.
19. Protestantism, due to lack of real authority and dogmatic structure, is tragically prone to accommodation to the spirit of the age, and moral faddism.
20. Catholicism retains apostolic succession, necessary to know what is true Christian apostolic Tradition. It was the criterion of Christian truth used by the early Christians.
21. Many Protestants take a dim view towards Christian history in general, esp. the years from 313 (Constantine’s conversion) to 1517 (Luther’s arrival). This ignorance and hostility to Catholic Tradition leads to theological relativism, anti-Catholicism, and a constant, unnecessary process of “reinventing the wheel.”
22. Protestantism from its inception was anti-Catholic, and remains so to this day (esp. evangelicalism). This is obviously wrong and unbiblical if Catholicism is indeed Christian (if it isn’t, then - logically - neither is Protestantism, which inherited the bulk of its theology from Catholicism). The Catholic Church, on the other hand, is not anti-Protestant.
23. The Catholic Church accepts the authority of the great Ecumenical Councils (see, e.g., Acts 15) which defined and developed Christian doctrine (much of which Protestantism also accepts).
24. Most Protestants do not have bishops, a Christian office which is biblical (1 Tim 3:1-2) and which has existed from the earliest Christian history and Tradition.
25. Protestantism has no way of settling doctrinal issues definitively. At best, the individual Protestant can only take a head count of how many Protestant scholars, commentators, etc. take such-and-such a view on Doctrine X, Y, or Z. There is no unified Protestant Tradition.

please read the continuation at One Hundred Fifty Reasons I’m Catholic

 

[PJM]

=andremiguel;9387503]Karl Rahner was (I think he already passed away) a great German Jesuit Theologian.
Link, click to see:
Karl Rahner in wikipedia

Be that as it may

I do recall that he was a “progressive” “liberal” theologian who was a member of the CC.

IF I’m wrong please direct me to where I can certify it. I certainly DO NOT wnat to be just spreading gossip

God Bless,
Pat

 

[andremiguel]

Be that as it may

I do recall that he was a “progressive” “liberal” theologian who was a member of the CC.

IF I’m wrong please direct me to where I can certify it. I certainly DO NOT wnat to be just spreading gossip

God Bless,
Pat

Labels like progrssive and liberal do more harm than good.
We have to define that in the first place.
He was a deep and outstanding theologian of the XX century. If you are an investigator, you are in the forefront of humanity as he was. Yet, he was a Jesuit and had the 4th vow of Obedience to the Pope.
I do not see him like a Pop Theologican but a profound and deep Thinker with some powerful insights on several matters.