Why do some say that Catholic is not Christian?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jas84173
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s not, a Christian is a follower of Christ, Catholics follow Christ, work it out for yourself !
In the larger picture of world faith traditions, yes, Catholics are Christian. As are many others.

In the scope of non-denominational evangelical churches, as described above, no, Catholics are not considered to be ‘Christian.’
 
In the larger picture of world faith traditions, yes, Catholics are Christian. As are many others.

In the scope of non-denominational evangelical churches, as described above, no, Catholics are not considered to be ‘Christian.’
I think it unwise to paint *all * “non-denominational evangelical churches” with the same stripe, particularly since you yourself admitted that they are not aligned with a specific official viewpoint. An argument could be put forward that it is “common,” but I would like to see at least *some *statistics before I believe even that. Until proven otherwise, it is the best policy to give the benefit of the doubt, I think.

Regardless, it is far too prevalent a belief, particularly online. I suspect it appears most often in those who do not know any actual Catholics. It is thus in my opinion the responsibility of my fellow Protestants to speak up to correct the error and preserve integrity in the Christian community.
 
It’s not, a Christian is a follower of Christ, Catholics follow Christ, work it out for yourself !
Ehh… No. Plenty of people can “follow Christ” as a good teacher; even an atheist is capable of agreeing with him and following his teaching. However, a better litmus test for true Christianity is probably the Nicene Creed.
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, light from light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.

We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father [and the Son],
who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
 
Ehh… No. Plenty of people can “follow Christ” as a good teacher; even an atheist is capable of agreeing with him and following his teaching. However, a better litmus test for true Christianity is probably the Nicene Creed.
Litmus test? I would hesitate to offer any kind of litmus test of faith, much less the very complex Nicene Creed. The Apostles Creed is a little less complex and the creed used at many baptisms in liturgical churches. But still, a faith in Christ is sometimes quite simple.
 
I think it unwise to paint *all * “non-denominational evangelical churches” with the same stripe, particularly since you yourself admitted that they are not aligned with a specific official viewpoint. An argument could be put forward that it is “common,” but I would like to see at least *some *statistics before I believe even that. Until proven otherwise, it is the best policy to give the benefit of the doubt, I think.
.
I don’t think I painted ALL evangelical non-denominational churches with one stripe. I did make the point those who call themselves ‘Christian’ tend to come out of that genre of churches.
 
Actually, no. Christianity has some unique marks that go beyond belief in Christ. Let’s look at sects such as Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses. Mormons believe in Christ, and baptize with the correct form and matter, but still their baptism is invalid, because they believe in henotheism; and they believe that God the Father and God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are separate gods. Jehovah’s Witnesses also believe in Christ, but their concept of Christ is utterly foreign to Christian belief. They adhere to the Arian heresy; they deny the Holy Trinity; they believe Christ is not divine but is the personification of St. Michael the Archangel.

I could go on with other non-Trinitarian sects such as Iglesia ni Cristo and others. Suffice it to say that “belief in Christ” is not the defining characteristic of Christianity, not from a Catholic perspective.
And THAT’S why they’re NOT christian!

You must believe Jesus is THE CHRIST, that He is the messiah, that He died and was resurrected from the dead.

Your explanation above is perfect. JW believe Him to be a prophet. I don’t know Mormonism well enough but you explained it.

§Fran
 
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.
Gosh ComplineSanFran

I know it’s all just words and this is starting to tire me here on CAF,
but your statement up above is translated to OSAS.

We’re kept on whose books??

The Church of Rome
Or God’s Books??

You could be batptized Catholic all you want to, if you don’t FOLLOW Christ at and after the age of reason, you are NOT Christian.

Wannano’s explanation back on post no. 7 is perfect.

Fran
 
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.
Oh for goodness sake.

What does it mean to be CHRISTIAN??

Fran
 
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 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
Compline SF is right adamhovey.

Catholic means Universal
NOT all-embracing.

Long story and I have little time.

Fran
 
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
You’re still a priest even if you’re ex-communicated.

This is such a different story!
 
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?
It IS up to others to define them Compline.

They believe Jesus was a human who walked the earth.

They don’t BELIEVE in Jesus.

“Believe” in the Greek doesn’t mean the same as in English.
It means to follow, to believe with both the mind and the heart, to believe what the person teaches, to adhere to, etc etc.

The two churches you mention above do NOT believe in Jesus.

Fran
 
***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
👍

One of the most reasoned writings I have ever read in my time here at CAF.

Fran
 
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.
I think you’re getting the MARK of baptism, which cannot be removed, ever, mixed up with practicing your faith and being a member of the Body.
 
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.
Catholics say that you receive grace through the sacraments.
You’re correct in how you reasoned this. Interesting and true.
Catholics still believe you have to “live” your faith.

Fran
 
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.
This is not correct Wannano.

Soon,
Fran
 
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.
Would you understand “christian” to just mean that one is a member of the Body of Christ?

This is how I understand it although I know what you’re talking about in your post. It’s a way of letting someone know that you are truly following Christ and are not “just” a member of a church organization.

Fran
 
Whoa!

I apologize for all my posts.

Gone yesterday and this is really moving along!

Fran
 
When did people start talking about Catholic meaning all-embracing? Goodness. I think many would disagree with you - those who are divorced and remarried, married gay and lesbians, non-Romans who are refused the Sacrament at the altar, women who are ordained priests or who are waiting to be ordained priests, politically liberal persons who support abortion and other women’s health rights, theologians like Teilard de Chardin and Matthew Fox.

All-embracing? Hmmm.
All embracing does not mean embracing and condoning all sin. Catholic is universal. I can go to any Catholic church anywhere in the world and go to Mass and receive Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. our teachings are universal. We all hold the same faith, there is no variable in church teachings.
 
All embracing does not mean embracing and condoning all sin. Catholic is universal. I can go to any Catholic church anywhere in the world and go to Mass and receive Jesus in the Holy Eucharist. our teachings are universal. We all hold the same faith, there is no variable in church teachings.
👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top