Why do some say that Catholic is not Christian?

[Elizium23]

This sounds amazingly like OSAS which by the way I do not subscribe to even though I am a Protestant (I do not like this term.)

No, it simply means that once one is incoporated into the Body of Christ, you cannot be unincorporated from it. A “bad Catholic”, a “sinning Catholic”, a “lapsed Catholic” is not “saved” by any means and may well be destined for the inferno. Yet he is still a member of the Body of Christ, for better or for worse. The same goes for non-Catholic Christians with valid baptisms. Baptism imposes an indelible mark on the soul, just like Confirmation and Holy Orders. The immortal soul feels the effects of baptism which can never be erased or undone.

 

[adamhovey1988]

No, it simply means that once one is incoporated into the Body of Christ, you cannot be unincorporated from it. A “bad Catholic”, a “sinning Catholic”, a “lapsed Catholic” is not “saved” by any means and may well be destined for the inferno. Yet he is still a member of the Body of Christ, for better or for worse. The same goes for non-Catholic Christians with valid baptisms. Baptism imposes an indelible mark on the soul, just like Confirmation and Holy Orders. The immortal soul feels the effects of baptism which can never be erased or undone.

Actually you are correct I was listening to EWTN and dr. David Anders was on there and he was talking about how a priest in hell is still a priest priest in heaven is still a priest. They have that indelible mark on them of Holy Orders just as all Christians that have been validly baptized have the indelible mark from baptism

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I feel like you are attacking us Catholics. Please refrain from doing that I’m not politically conservative or liberal I am Catholic. In fact I was reading Rerum Novarum earlier. Please do not try to pigeonhole Christ’s Church using political terminology

I am not attacking Catholics at all. The people I mentioned are Catholics of the deepest faith and I respect them for their beliefs and practices. I just have not heard any one of them say that they are being embraced fully by all others in their church. Perhaps another word could be used that might be a bit more accurate.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I mean I can understand people saying say Mormons amd Jehovah’s Witnesses not being Christian but how can one say the largest denomination in Christianity amd not to mention arguably the original church which is suppose Eastern Orthodox churches can claim as well is the original church?

But Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are Christians by their own definition. They believe in Jesus Christ. Other churches may disagree, but it’s not up to others, is it?

 

[Wannano]

When I tell people what I am like generally what I say is I am Christian specifically Catholic specifically Latin. All though sometimes I might identify as Catholic immediately but I will mention what I believe about Christianity and use the word Christianity and make sure people know that I apply it to me. By the way my two closest female friends one is Baptist Independent Baptist and very much considers me a Christian my other very close female friend is Anglican Church in North America and also very much considers me a fellow Christian. This is by no means universal in the Protestant world and I thought it would be good to defend that now the reason that I would not consider Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons Christian well Mormon you know we Catholics get accused of adding books to the Bible they really did, in fact they have a couple of other books they consider Scripture and Jehovah’s Witnesses beliefs especially on the Trinity or lack thereof. Conflicts with traditional Christianity

I love your approach, I truly believe that is what Christ desires of all of us in the midst of our different understandings and applications of His message. It is great that your Protestant friends see you as a fellow Christian. I would love to know if you also see them as an equal fellow Christians or are they incomplete or uninformed Christians?

I ask this with sincerity since I a non-Catholic have Catholic friends (one is a priest) who tell me they see me as an equal fellow Christian and we have a deep relationship.

 

[FractalFire]

I have been told before that being Catholic is completely different than being Christian. How is this even possible? I mean I can understand people saying say Mormons amd Jehovah’s Witnesses not being Christian but how can one say the largest denomination in Christianity amd not to mention arguably the original church which is suppose Eastern Orthodox churches can claim as well is the original church?

Please understand that I am completely opposed to the viewpoint that Catholics are somehow “not Christian.” I disagree with many things Catholics teach, but I do not believe this accusation holds water and I find it unfortunate that so many Christians believe it is true. (I also find it unfortunate that so many Catholics think so little of their Protestant brethren, also calling their salvation into question.) Nevertheless, I do understand some of the reasons *why *people may hold such a belief and I will try to explain it to you here.

A. The Formula of Salvation

Protestants hold to a belief in Sola Fide (“Faith Alone”), whereas Catholics accept works as being essential in some way to salvation. Most Protestants, when they hear this, believe that the Catholics are trying to add something “in addition” to Christ’s love and grace that has the potential to save. Since many Protestants believe it is heretical to believe that salvation is found through any manner save Christ, they interpret this as meaning that the Catholics believe “doing good deeds” will save us. In other words, they see you as believing in the following salvation formula: Good Deed → Salvation. This belief is reinforced somewhat by the obsession of some Catholics (mostly ones suffering from what you call scrupulosity) with sins and whether or not those sins are “mortal,” “venial,” etc. In reality, of course, the Catholic teachings are closer to Faith + Works → Salvation. (Though I’m not sure if Catholics would characterize that as all of the equation; be warned, this is simplifying things according to my limited understanding!)

It’s not like this misunderstanding only goes one way though. Many Catholics misunderstand Sola Fide to mean Faith → Salvation, essentially allowing anyone to do whatever they please so long as they “believe” in a wishy-washy “fairies and leprechauns” sort of way; this understanding is in turn backed up by the actions of many Protestants who apparently do believe this. I would characterize the proper understanding of the Protestant tradition as more accurately: Faith → Salvation + Works. That is, our Faith (through God’s power) transforms our lives, providing us with Salvation and giving us the power to overcome out sin nature in all it’s manifestations. Thus, from the Protestant perspective, Works act as a thermometer of sorts – they do not truly save in and of themselves, but if you don’t have them, the reaction of salvation is not taking place.

Obviously, these two understandings are **very **different, but I think the difference is less than most Catholics and Protestants are aware – both reactions ultimately understand the importance of both faith *and *salvation.

B. Mary and the Saints

Another key difference is Catholic versus Protestant understanding of Mary and the Saints. When Catholics pray “to” the Saints and Mary, Protestants see them as wrongfully worshipping and adoring something other than God – in other words, they see it as idolatry and falsehood. They do not believe we should (or even have need or are capable of) praying through anyone but Jesus Christ.

In all honesty, I think the accusation of idolatry can (or perhaps “could”) be leveled against some Catholics, particularly those during the time of the reformation, who sometimes gave more respect to the venerated bones and toenails of (oftentimes merely alleged) “saints”. (As John Calvin drily comments, the only reason thousands of relics of Mary weren’t similarly venerated was because of a belief in her assumption into heaven, stating that this removed “of all pretext for manufacturing any relics of her remains, which otherwise might have been sufficiently abundant to fill a whole churchyard”).

Nevertheless, though I disagree with Catholics about the necessity of praying to Mary and the saints, I think that, for the most part, any idolatry must fall from a confusion about Catholic essential teachings and thus cannot be used as an argument against the Catholics. Catholics clearly teach that they are only praying through Mary and the Saints by asking them (essentially, their heavenly selves) to pray for God on their behalf; they are attempting to pray with, not to, the saints. Though this belief leads many into confusion, we can hardly blame the Catholic Church for someone else’s misinterpretation.

C. Biblical Differences
Many Non-Catholics are confused by the presence of the Deuterocanonical (or “Apocryphal”) books in the Bible, believing them to not be valid instances of scripture. Catholics, in the meantime, believe the Protestants have deleted a variety of books from their Bible. Understandably, given the importance of the Bible to both groups, the disagreements get a little heated, particularly considering the last several verses of revelation.

 

[FractalFire]

***D. Alleged and Real Corruption

---

Non-Catholics point to many examples of corruption and mistreatment in both the modern and past Catholic Church and see this as representative of a poor relationship with God. You Catholics have your Saints, we Protestants have Martyrs – and I’m sorry to say this, but a rather lot of them were executed by Catholics. These events are not commonly discussed on these forums for obvious reasons, but there were many atrocities. Unfortunately, the issue is not really quite so black and white. Protestants also martyred and mistreated Catholics. Atrocities were committed on both sides and there is corruption in both organizations. Unfortunately, recent crimes committed by Catholic clergy has done nothing to assuage these beliefs, but only made the conflict greater. Nonetheless, I think this criticism is invalid and cannot be applied to the majority of Catholics.

E. Claims of Infallibility

Non-Catholic church’s balk at Church claims of infallibility, for obvious reasons. Some Protestants that this is heretical, stating that only God is truly infallible. All man’s works are fallible and incomplete and the Catholic Church is no exception. For the most part, this is based on misinterpretation of Catholic claims (at least, modern Catholic claims; I have no clue where more traditional Catholics would stand). Papal infallibility, as many have told me, does not apply to everything the Pope says and certainly not to everything the Priests say. Regardless, the way Catholics phrase often leads to unfortunate misunderstandings.

F. Baptismal Teaching

Many Protestants (well, it depends on who you ask, some denominations are different, obviously) , believe that baptism does not save and has no power to do so. Some view it as merely symbolic, others view it as spiritual, but not saving. Some reject its usage on infants, believing it should only be used on those who have accepted Christ as their savior. [From personal experience, my church honestly did not care what you thought. Though they rejected the concept that baptism saves, they allowed infant baptism as a sign of the church and a promise of God’s protection, but also baptized adults and teens when they had passed our inquirers class, if that was their preference.]

Regardless, many reject the concept that you are save by baptism. Physical baptism has nothing to do with salvation in their opinion. It is the power of spiritual baptism that saves and you don’t need water to do this (though obviously, no Christian I know of objects to Baptism by water). This is where I would disagree most strongly with Catholics, particularly because of some of the things I have read on this forum, where some people honestly seem to believe or imply that baptism by water is essential for salvation. I hold that they are very wrong and that this belief is harmful, particularly because it leads some to believe that those who leave the church but don’t commit any mortal sins are still saved. Ultimately, however, I don’t think this is the view of all Catholics and I don’t think that that it is worthy of being called heresy, particularly since Protestants are also of this view.

G. Oddities
There are other reasons for objection, including Transubstantiation, all the gilt and statues in your churches, and some biblical prophecies about Babylon. Most of the ones in this category are just too crazy/misunderstood to deserve a mention.

NOTE: I am NOT trying to attack Catholics or defend Protestants. Please do not get into an argument with me over our doctrinal differences. I am merely trying to explain why some Protestants (in my opinion, mistakenly and due to dis-information) believe what they believe about the Catholic church. If I have misrepresented your Church’s doctrinal statements (I’m sure in all of this you would find something at least poorly worded) please supply a correction.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

FractalFire

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Because most of the people who say this believe that Christianity began in te United States in the eighteenth century. They want nothing to do with history or the truth.

There is a movement within Christianity that is either non-denominational or evangelical and denominational. They refer themselves as ‘Christian’. It is a pretty generic definition, BUT they are clearly non-Catholic and reformed in their theology and beliefs. 18th Century American? Hmmm. Not so sure about that. My guess is that the OP is speaking about people who are a part of this worshipping community. And no, they are not so keen on any churches outside their own belief system. As are a lot of other faith communities, including the Roman or Eastern churches.

 

[FractalFire]

Hi again. I see. I’d tend to disagree. Because of Baptism, we can be bad Catholics, and so bad Christians, but we are still Catholic Christians even when bad ones. When we are sinning, we are sinful Catholic Christians, and if we lapse, we are lapsed Catholics (Catholic Christians). If we are excommunicated Catholic Christians, we are excommunicated Catholic Christians. I think, officially, I’m correct in thinking this. But don’t quote me on it.

Hmmm… I disagree, because I hold that no one church has all of its members “saved.” I honestly think that their are many who call themselves Catholic (and Protestant, whatever), who will be among the goats in the end times (and the Bible seems to back this up). If Richard Dawkins had been a Catholic who was baptized and then went away and become a raging Atheist like he is now, he would *not * be a Christian, regardless of whether he once was baptized (which he probably was, btw, just in an Anglican church, if I remember correctly).

 

[FractalFire]

No, it simply means that once one is incoporated into the Body of Christ, you cannot be unincorporated from it. A “bad Catholic”, a “sinning Catholic”, a “lapsed Catholic” is not “saved” by any means and may well be destined for the inferno. Yet he is still a member of the Body of Christ, for better or for worse. The same goes for non-Catholic Christians with valid baptisms. Baptism imposes an indelible mark on the soul, just like Confirmation and Holy Orders. The immortal soul feels the effects of baptism which can never be erased or undone.

Oops… Should have finished reading the comments before I posted that last one.

Even if true, to say that they are still Christians is still very easily misinterpreted, because most Christians only use the term to refer to the saved. If you are going to say what Friardchips said, you ought to phrase your terms more carefully to make sure you aren’t misunderstood…

 

[ComplineSanFran]

If Richard Dawkins had been a Catholic who was baptized and then went away and become a raging Atheist like he is now, he would *not * be a Christian, regardless of whether he once was baptized (which he probably was, btw, just in an Anglican church, if I remember correctly).

But I believe that Roman Catholics say that if one is baptized Catholic, that sacrament is efficacious. One can be practicing or non-practicing, but it still holds. And they keep you on the books.

 

[Wannano]

***D. Alleged and Real Corruption

---

Non-Catholics point to many examples of corruption and mistreatment in both the modern and past Catholic Church and see this as representative of a poor relationship with God. You Catholics have your Saints, we Protestants have Martyrs – and I’m sorry to say this, but a rather lot of them were executed by Catholics. These events are not commonly discussed on these forums for obvious reasons, but there were many atrocities. Unfortunately, the issue is not really quite so black and white. Protestants also martyred and mistreated Catholics. Atrocities were committed on both sides and there is corruption in both organizations. Unfortunately, recent crimes committed by Catholic clergy has done nothing to assuage these beliefs, but only made the conflict greater. Nonetheless, I think this criticism is invalid and cannot be applied to the majority of Catholics.

E. Claims of Infallibility

Non-Catholic church’s balk at Church claims of infallibility, for obvious reasons. Some Protestants that this is heretical, stating that only God is truly infallible. All man’s works are fallible and incomplete and the Catholic Church is no exception. For the most part, this is based on misinterpretation of Catholic claims (at least, modern Catholic claims; I have no clue where more traditional Catholics would stand). Papal infallibility, as many have told me, does not apply to everything the Pope says and certainly not to everything the Priests say. Regardless, the way Catholics phrase often leads to unfortunate misunderstandings.

F. Baptismal Teaching

Many Protestants (well, it depends on who you ask, some denominations are different, obviously) , believe that baptism does not save and has no power to do so. Some view it as merely symbolic, others view it as spiritual, but not saving. Some reject its usage on infants, believing it should only be used on those who have accepted Christ as their savior. [From personal experience, my church honestly did not care what you thought. Though they rejected the concept that baptism saves, they allowed infant baptism as a sign of the church and a promise of God’s protection, but also baptized adults and teens when they had passed our inquirers class, if that was their preference.]

Regardless, many reject the concept that you are save by baptism. Physical baptism has nothing to do with salvation in their opinion. It is the power of spiritual baptism that saves and you don’t need water to do this (though obviously, no Christian I know of objects to Baptism by water). This is where I would disagree most strongly with Catholics, particularly because of some of the things I have read on this forum, where some people honestly seem to believe or imply that baptism by water is essential for salvation. I hold that they are very wrong and that this belief is harmful, particularly because it leads some to believe that those who leave the church but don’t commit any mortal sins are still saved. Ultimately, however, I don’t think this is the view of all Catholics and I don’t think that that it is worthy of being called heresy, particularly since Protestants are also of this view.

G. Oddities
There are other reasons for objection, including Transubstantiation, all the gilt and statues in your churches, and some biblical prophecies about Babylon. Most of the ones in this category are just too crazy/misunderstood to deserve a mention.

NOTE: I am NOT trying to attack Catholics or defend Protestants. Please do not get into an argument with me over our doctrinal differences. I am merely trying to explain why some Protestants (in my opinion, mistakenly and due to dis-information) believe what they believe about the Catholic church. If I have misrepresented your Church’s doctrinal statements (I’m sure in all of this you would find something at least poorly worded) please supply a correction.

Sincerely yours in Christ,

FractalFire

I have just read this through word for word and am left wishing I could summarize as efficent ly and eloquently as you have done here.

Under the heading Baptismal Teaching: I do not grasp what your last sentence is saying for sure.

 

[FractalFire]

I have just read this through word for word and am left wishing I could summarize as efficent ly and eloquently as you have done here.

Under the heading Baptismal Teaching: I do not grasp what your last sentence is saying for sure.

Thank you! You are so kind!

Regarding my last sentence, I said, rather ineloquently: “Ultimately, however, I don’t think this is the view of all Catholics and I don’t think that that it is worthy of being called heresy, particularly since Protestants are also of this view.”

By this, I was referring to the belief that Baptism by water provides salvation (or at least, somehow initiates or is required for salvation). I disagree with this, but I don’t think it is heretical in the form the Catholic church or other Protestant churches teach it. (Rethinking my last paragraph, it is probably heretical to say it is the only thing needed for salvation, but I’ve yet to meet a church that says that.)

Also, there was a typo. The sentence should have said that *some *Protestants are in agreement with the Roman Catholics on this issue. It took me three readings of that sentence to notice the typo, though. Oops.

Does this clarify?

 

[eazyduzit]

One reason is that you are looking at two different systems. Of course we believe in the same definition of God and the Gospel, but the basic difference is in how we respond to the information. Catholicism is a sacrimental system in which you respond and receive from God through traditional rituals established by the Church. On the other hand, Evangelicals receive everything from God simply by faith in God’s promises in the Bible.

Which is the “real” is still very much a subject of debate.

I hope this brings some clarity.

 

[Crusaderbear]

I always look at it this way - there are those in this world who can’t feel right unless they make someone else feel wrong. They will never be changed by words, only actions. Just smile and pray for them.

 

[Wannano]

Thank you! You are so kind!

Regarding my last sentence, I said, rather ineloquently: “Ultimately, however, I don’t think this is the view of all Catholics and I don’t think that that it is worthy of being called heresy, particularly since Protestants are also of this view.”

By this, I was referring to the belief that Baptism by water provides salvation (or at least, somehow initiates or is required for salvation). I disagree with this, but I don’t think it is heretical in the form the Catholic church or other Protestant churches teach it. (Rethinking my last paragraph, it is probably heretical to say it is the only thing needed for salvation, but I’ve yet to meet a church that says that.)

Also, there was a typo. The sentence should have said that *some *Protestants are in agreement with the Roman Catholics on this issue. It took me three readings of that sentence to notice the typo, though. Oops.

Does this clarify?

The typo got me now it makes sense!

I believe what I am understanding from previous posts is that Catholics believe there is more to being saved than just baptism, however, if one gives all else spiritual away in life they are still saved in the end by the mark of baptism. Not sure that is real church teaching or hopeful thinking.

 

[Wannano]

There is a movement within Christianity that is either non-denominational or evangelical and denominational. They refer themselves as ‘Christian’. It is a pretty generic definition, BUT they are clearly non-Catholic and reformed in their theology and beliefs. 18th Century American? Hmmm. Not so sure about that. My guess is that the OP is speaking about people who are a part of this worshipping community. And no, they are not so keen on any churches outside their own belief system. As are a lot of other faith communities, including the Roman or Eastern churches.

Could you tell us more? I like to say my religion is Christian rather than (denominational name) because of the stereotyped images people have of different denominations which is a hindrance. Even to say Catholic means different things in different locations.

I am not part of any movement that I am aware of, am a non-Catholic that is true but find some of the Catholic thought to be in line with my own on some things, and not so much on others.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Could you tell us more? I like to say my religion is Christian rather than (denominational name) because of the stereotyped images people have of different denominations which is a hindrance. Even to say Catholic means different things in different locations.

I am not part of any movement that I am aware of, am a non-Catholic that is true but find some of the Catholic thought to be in line with my own on some things, and not so much on others.

You ask very good questions. It used to be, back in the mid-20th century, and in North America, that if you were part of a religious tradition, it was sectarian. You were Jewish, Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative. Or you were Roman Catholic. Or Christian Scientist. That defined you and your practices.

Within Christianity, it was denominational and usually Mainline. If you were Presbyterian, that pretty much defined you also. Or Methodist, or Baptist (Southern or American). When you got down to the small non-mainline churches, then it was a bit more confusing for those inside the mainlines.

But a few decades ago, denominations began declining and alternative churches began to emerge. Think mega-churches and the rise of TV evangelists.Soon, they just called themselves ‘Christian.’ No Presbyterian labels or anything else. Just Christian.

Now this is a very different label than one would say if one were in China, for instance. If you were asked if you were religious, you would say, ‘Yes, I am Christian’, as opposed to Buddhist or Jewish or Taoist.

In this country (US) and in the 21st C, many times ‘Christian’ is a very specific TYPE of evangelical Protestant. It is not an inclusive label that means any denomination which worships Jesus Christ.

Now if you want to be a general Christian that doesn’t really align with a denomination (Catholic or Mormon or Methodist, etc), then I would recommend qualifying it. ‘I’m a Christian, but no specific church.’ It will take you out of that specific non-denominational evangelical category.

Let me know if you have any questions or if I haven’t been clear. I’m happy to help - this is an area I know.

 

[Wannano]

You ask very good questions. It used to be, back in the mid-20th century, and in North America, that if you were part of a religious tradition, it was sectarian. You were Jewish, Orthodox, Reform, or Conservative. Or you were Roman Catholic. Or Christian Scientist. That defined you and your practices.

Within Christianity, it was denominational and usually Mainline. If you were Presbyterian, that pretty much defined you also. Or Methodist, or Baptist (Southern or American). When you got down to the small non-mainline churches, then it was a bit more confusing for those inside the mainlines.

But a few decades ago, denominations began declining and alternative churches began to emerge. Think mega-churches and the rise of TV evangelists.Soon, they just called themselves ‘Christian.’ No Presbyterian labels or anything else. Just Christian.

Now this is a very different label than one would say if one were in China, for instance. If you were asked if you were religious, you would say, ‘Yes, I am Christian’, as opposed to Buddhist or Jewish or Taoist.

In this country (US) and in the 21st C, many times ‘Christian’ is a very specific TYPE of evangelical Protestant. It is not an inclusive label that means any denomination which worships Jesus Christ.

Now if you want to be a general Christian that doesn’t really align with a denomination (Catholic or Mormon or Methodist, etc), then I would recommend qualifying it. ‘I’m a Christian, but no specific church.’ It will take you out of that specific non-denominational evangelical category.

Let me know if you have any questions or if I haven’t been clear. I’m happy to help - this is an area I know.

So very interesting, I never knew…glad you informed me, I will have to think on that for CAF

 

[Smfm]

I have been told before that being Catholic is completely different than being Christian. How is this even possible?

It’s not, a Christian is a follower of Christ, Catholics follow Christ, work it out for yourself !