Why it doesn't matter what I believe

[MichaelP3]

If one is a Christian, by definition, then one is part of the Church, by definition, and if one is a Christian and part of the Church, by definition, then one is in receipt of grace through the mediation of the Church, even if, such a person is not consciously aware of such a definition.

YUP.

Would be very interesting what kind of “buts” ( An
d from whom, that is always very interesting) with tnat?

 

[James248]

Would you call a person who embraces Christ but is not a Catholic a Christian?

Regards

Depends on your definition of Christian.

 

[reggieM]

I read an interesting story that the first non-Catholics to be considered Christian were from the Novatian schism in 251 a.d.

Novatian is actually considered a Father of the Church and his beliefs were always considered orthodox. He just schismed by becoming an anti-pope with some followers, but they were accepted as part of the Christian communion and one of their bishops participated at Nicea.

It shows that the Catholic Church accepted that the path of salvation was still open to them – they were not condemned as heretics, although what they were doing was against the administrative laws of the Church.

 

[Vonsalza]

…I posed 2 unanswered things there. You chose to focus on the one in a way but we both perfectly know what was meant.

Regards

No, no “we” don’t.

What two “unanswered things” are you referring to?

Catholics don’t hold to “ticket” soteriology, so if you’re looking for something framed in that way, it won’t be provided here.

 

[MichaelP3]

No, no “we” don’t.

What two “unanswered things” are you referring to?

Catholics don’t hold to “ticket” soteriology, so if you’re looking for something framed in that way, it won’t be provided here.

Actually I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about there. If it seems that I meant it that way then I apologise.

Two questions.

1. Would a person who embraces Christ be called a Christian (You or the CC’s opinion, well I guess it should be the same)
2. If you are Catholic, “will” you gain salvation.

Take note, this wasn’t a question to you, you never made comments to make me ask this. However, you chose to respond to this so that is where my point stands. Your fellow Catholic made a very big jammy here yet you chose to respond to the “non-jammy” one and ignoring the other. That is what I found interesting.

My point is, fellow Catholics are “very ready” to point out some “flaw” in a post of a Protestant when two other posters are debating, yet fail to point out the Catholic flaw. I suggest you read our correspondence before you came in and then maybe “we” would know what it means.

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

I read an interesting story that the first non-Catholics to be considered Christian were from the Novatian schism in 251 a.d.

Novatian is actually considered a Father of the Church and his beliefs were always considered orthodox. He just schismed by becoming an anti-pope with some followers, but they were accepted as part of the Christian communion and one of their bishops participated at Nicea.

It shows that the Catholic Church accepted that the path of salvation was still open to them – they were not condemned as heretics, although what they were doing was against the administrative laws of the Church.

Good observation. Thank you!

Regards

 

[MichaelP3]

Depends on your definition of Christian.

Hey James

We both know “my” definition would have no weight for you or anyone else here.

I would rather ask what the CCC says or any other official document? You seem to work by the CCC and like to quote it here. So the question was asked to you. I don’t think my “opinion” of what constitutes a Christian to be relevant?

Side note : I probably shouldn’t but ignoring the other Elephant in the room which was my whole post there isn’t right. Or are you actually agreeing with me?

Regards

 

[reggieM]

Actually I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about there. If it seems that I meant it that way then I apologise.

Two questions.

1. Would a person who embraces Christ be called a Christian (You or the CC’s opinion, well I guess it should be the same)

I think we discussed this. To “embrace” is an ambiguous word. Muslims embrace Christ as a Prophet. So do Mormons.

1. If you are Catholic, “will” you gain salvation.

I don’t understand why you put the word “will” in quotes.
If you are a Catholic, you can gain salvation - yes.
If you are a Catholic, will you necessarily gain salvation based on that alone? No.

My point is, fellow Catholics are “very ready” to point out some “flaw” in a post of a Protestant when two other posters are debating, yet fail to point out the Catholic flaw. I suggest you read our correspondence before you came in and then maybe “we” would know what it means.

I haven’t seen it, but if that happened, then I think you’re making a fair point.
We have important differences in belief and the consequences are significant. We shouldn’t focus on the smallest flaws. That goes for both sides.

 

[po18guy]

A better way to say this is that I no longer take my own beliefs seriously. For example, I admit that right now I don’t think Jesus is God nor do I think he is the messiah. But I know I’m probably wrong, if not about this belief then something else. I can’t actually be without beliefs, but I can avoid attaching too much significance or certainty to them.

Sound confused.

 

[MichaelP3]

I think we discussed this. To “embrace” is an ambiguous word. Muslims embrace Christ as a Prophet. So do Mormons.

That is true which I pointed out in one of the replies here. Yet it seems to be more of a purposeful play on the words. I have a problem with this when posters seem to use “believe”, “know” and “understand” as meaning the same thing.

But then again, what does the CCC or official documents state? It is really a fair question? Would I be considered a Christian to you?

I don’t understand why you put the word “will” in quotes.
If you are a Catholic, you can gain salvation - yes.
If you are a Catholic, will you necessarily gain salvation based on that alone? No.

This you will see is a very specific question to James who very eagerly quoted the CCC that stated Protestants “May” be saved after saying we are very few to be saved (in his opinion) and went from the extreme to not even being saved with a few buts and then again to maybe.

So I stated back but the CCC states I “may” (Go and check back, I actually said this on purpose as the CCC stated it and it already refuted his point at the time) be saved.

He again very eagerly stated “may” does not equal “will”. = Whih is why I ask this unanswered question. It is not a general question as I assume most Catholics know the answer. Just a flaw on that side that went “unnoticed”.

I haven’t seen it, but if that happened, then I think you’re making a fair point.
We have important differences in belief and the consequences are significant. We shouldn’t focus on the smallest flaws. That goes for both sides.

Well this very posts is where you can see that. And not just once. Of the top of my head I can think of three others.

It goes for both sides and I commend you as I can’t think of a time where you fell in that category. But it happens so much here and considering the amount of Catholics compared to Protestants I do think it is a fair point.

Regards

 

[Vonsalza]

Two questions.

1. Would a person who embraces Christ be called a Christian (You or the CC’s opinion, well I guess it should be the same)
2. If you are Catholic, “will” you gain salvation.

For the first:

From CCC 818 “All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Ergo, a person who generically “embraces Christ” with no other qualifier cannot be correctly called a Christian.

For the second:

From CCC 1023 “Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they “see him as he is,” face to face”

Ergo, “probably”.
Keep in mind that this statement is extremely loaded. Simple literalists and Christian minimalists are likely to be disappointed.

Take note, this wasn’t a question to you

If you make it on a public forum, then its a public question.

My point is, fellow Catholics are “very ready” to point out some “flaw” in a post of a Protestant when two other posters are debating, yet fail to point out the Catholic flaw.

I think Reggie, fhansen and others got onto me pretty good and they’re Catholic.

I suggest you read our correspondence before you came in and then maybe “we” would know what it means.

 

[MichaelP3]

For the first:

From CCC 818 “All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church.”

Ergo, a person who generically “embraces Christ” with no other qualifier cannot be correctly called a Christian.

Fair enough. So according to the CCC I am a Christian. So How do I reject Christ while His name is basically what I am called according to the CCC. (If this confuses you, well that was part of the original post I responded to.)

Let’s be honest, it doesn’t matter what other word I could have chosen, some problem would have been brought up.

For the second:

From CCC 1023 “Those who die in God’s grace and friendship and are perfectly purified live for ever with Christ. They are like God for ever, for they “see him as he is,” face to face”

Ergo, “probably”.
Keep in mind that this statement is extremely loaded. Simple literalists and Christian minimalists are likely to be disappointed.

Point taken. The question was towards a specific statement that was very contradictory. That CCC point can be broken up in many threads and I understand that. But that was never the point.

If you make it on a public forum, then its a public question.

True. But then I would also expect you to know the entire context and not respond as if it was a “new” question for the sake of it. Which was the point of my statement there.

I think Reggie, fhansen and others got onto me pretty good and they’re Catholic.

So you say they pointed out the flaws in your statements/posts?

Glad you will have a look

 

[Vonsalza]

Fair enough. So according to the CCC I am a Christian.

If validly baptized, yes. And a “separated brother”.

So How do I reject Christ while His name is basically what I am called according to the CCC.

You reject the Catholic Church, which is, according to CCC 846, “…his body which is the Church.”

Now I will differ here with my Catholic brother on how “knowing” your obstinance is. If you’ve been told the RCC is “the whore of Babylon” your whole life by your social group, to me that puts you in a place akin to “invincible ignorance”.

Let’s be honest, it doesn’t matter what other word I could have chosen, some problem would have been brought up.

Ugh… If you say so?

So you say they pointed out the flaws in your statements/posts?

Yup. :yup:

Glad you will have a look

 

[reggieM]

That is true which I pointed out in one of the replies here. Yet it seems to be more of a purposeful play on the words. I have a problem with this when posters seem to use “believe”, “know” and “understand” as meaning the same thing.

But then again, what does the CCC or official documents state? It is really a fair question? Would I be considered a Christian to you?

I accept what you’re saying and we’re tossing words around.
But here’s a key thing. It seems that for you, the term Christian carries a certain meaning and weight that it does not carry for us. The CCC calls people who are heretics and/or schismatics “Christian”. It’s saying that they have been incorporated into the Body of Christ - but it says nothing about their status in the Body, and nothing about their moral standing.
But yes, if you were validly Baptised, then you are a Christian.
Keep in mind, in the Catholic view, Baptism retains and indelible mark – so it’s possible even to say that an atheist is “a Christian” to that degree. A person cannot erase his Baptism. The same with Catholic sacraments. We believe they cannot be removed from the soul, even if a person renounces the Faith.
But obviously, a person who renounces God, even though technically having the name Christian, is in a much different situation as one who seeks to serve God.

So I stated back but the CCC states I “may” (Go and check back, I actually said this on purpose as the CCC stated it and it already refuted his point at the time) be saved.

I apologize that I have not read the back-and-forth. I would prefer some more crystal clarity from all sides. For example, what are you seeking to prove or defend?

It goes for both sides and I commend you as I can’t think of a time where you fell in that category. But it happens so much here and considering the amount of Catholics compared to Protestants I do think it is a fair point.

Well, thank you but I shouldn’t take much credit because I didn’t participate or pay attention so I avoided the conflicts.

Here’s a thought that might help though. You’re from South Africa – I’m guessing you are an Anglican (I apologize if you already said that), from a traditionally mainstream Protestant country. So, you’re in the majority there. It’s your culture.

Here in the US, it’s much different. We have many people who live in areas where not only is Catholicism a minority, but people are shunned and persecuted (at least subtly) for their belief in the Catholic Faith.

Yes, when we come here we are a majority - but we also have to deal with a lot of false teaching from Evangelicals and Protestants who are quite aggressive and are not open to any of our arguments.

I’m not excusing rudeness, but we are often fighting a battle here and sometimes that makes our point of view come across more harshly than would be the best.

 

[reggieM]

So you say they pointed out the flaws in your statements/posts?

I didn’t see any.

 

[reggieM]

I
Now I will differ here with my Catholic brother on how “knowing” your obstinance is. If you’ve been told the RCC is “the whore of Babylon” your whole life by your social group, to me that puts you in a place akin to “invincible ignorance”.

That’s a very good point - I would agree. It can take a long time for a person to get rid of a false idea like that.

 

[Vonsalza]

I didn’t see any.

The swift row over catechisms.

 

[MichaelP3]

If validly baptized, yes. And a “separated brother”.

Okay so then I AM a Christian. (Maybe still a heretic or an offspring of a heretic or a schismatic or an offspring of a schismatic it all depends who I am talking to here but I get your point.)

You reject the Catholic Church, which is, according to CCC 846, “…his body which is the Church.”

Yes I do for various reasons which I have discussed on CAF many times.

But more to the point which I originally responded to. How does “Rejecting the (Catholic(inserted for reference)) Church, is to reject Christ” be explained while I am officially (according to the CCC) bearing His name as a “Title”.?
Vonsalza;14805565:

Now I will differ here with my Catholic brother on how “knowing” your obstinance is. If you’ve been told the RCC is “the whore of Babylon” your whole life by your social group, to me that puts you in a place akin to “invincible ignorance”.

Fair point. I have been wondering while I’m into my research (for some years now) when I will be crossing the “invincible ignorance” line. Yet, as in another thread I started, I got the idea it is assumed as long as I am not Catholic, “I am ignorant”. It is maybe the invincible part that would make the cut then.

Regards

 

[Vonsalza]

But more to the point which I originally responded to. How does “Rejecting the (Catholic(inserted for reference)) Church, is to reject Christ” be explained while I am officially (according to the CCC) bearing His name as a “Title”.?

A difference in understanding what the label “Christian” entitles you to. Reggie covered it rather well a handful of posts back.

Very likely, there are validly baptized “Christians” in hell, I’m sad to say. There are probably people there who also called themselves “Catholic”.

Fair point. I have been wondering while I’m into my research (for some years now) when I will be crossing the “invincible ignorance” line.

The guy that makes that call doesn’t post on the message boards.

 

[reggieM]

The swift row over catechisms.

Ah yes. I hope Michael forgot that as quickly as I did.