I strongly believe that we are saved by grace, not by doctrine, and there is no entrance examination to heaven. We can be wrong about any number of things, because Jesus' work does not require us to be right about anything! It is efficacious on its own.

The other problem with the 'A Christian is someone who believes that...' approach is that folk keep adding to the list. Jesus never said 'believe this', but rather 'follow Me'. I think this is the crux of it.

Funnily enough, I'm working on a bit about this for my website at the moment.
 

Dave Andrews (I think it was) at Greenbelt a few years back compared models. He said that Christianity has traditionaly drawn a line round certain beliefs, and judged people's faith according to where they stood in relation to that line.

He proposed that rather we should put Jesus at the centre of our model, rather than a statement of belief about Him, and judge whether our faith is looking towards Him, or away from Him. Direction more important than distance.

Dave Tomlinson tells a nice parable of the Spring Harvest Speaker and the Liberal Bishop that I'll try to dig up....
 

Having said this, if I was asked by a Muslim or Hindu what I am I would probably then say "Christian" and qualify it with "Catholic".

And excuse me, but Catholics are quite unmistakably Christians: Christ is the central feature of our religion. I would be most interested to know what Amy thought they might be otherwise.
 

It’s almost impossible to answer without resorting to jargon or a statement of faith of some kind. Jargon’s no good as it doesn’t always make sense to other people. Statements of faith don’t always help either as those are set up to include and exclude people. In the end we decided it was someone who had chosen to try and follow Christ and put Him first in their lives. Anything else was just window dressing.

Tubbs
 

quote:

---

judge whether our faith is looking towards Him, or away from Him. Direction more important than distance.

---

But surely part of it is KNOWING whom you are looking at?
A Muslim 'looks to' Mohammed as 'The Prophet', and what the Prophet wrote in the Qu'ran 'helps' the Muslim to look to Allah.
After The Prophet, Jesus himself is, as far as I know, considered the next most important human being. But Islam views him as 'merely' a prophet, and not the greatest one of those. So a Muslim could look in the direction of Jesus and 'see' a very distorted image/nothing like the 'whole picture' (as far as Christians are concerned).

You can't, IMO, look 'at' Jesus very long without looking at His words, as recorded in the Gospels, and there you will find His claims about himself, and about God the Father. And His words stress the importance of having faith/believing. 'Blessed are those who have not seen yet have believed.'
 

quote:

---

When people ask me what I am I say "Catholic".

---

I am sad that you say this rather than identify with your christain brothers and sisters. I think that when Catholics identify themselves as Catholics rather than christians it gives rise to the question "are Catholics christians?"
 

It's not that I don't think that doctrine is important, but I don't think it's of central importance. It is our response to the person of Jesus that matters. but to as many as would receive him he gave power to become Sons of God, I seem to recall.

Just the way I feel my emphasis going these days.
 

However sometimes they try to follow Him and something/one else, thats where the problem occurs. So a Muslim following Mohamed and Isa (Jesus) is a Muslim rather than a Christian - though if Christ is more important to him than Mohamed he may be a closet christian.

In the same way if a Catholic puts Jesus first he is a christian but put the pop first and I wonder ...?

Also apply that to WordFaith followers who put wealth first, LDS who put the teachings of the book of Mormom first etc. But I expect there are christians (i.e. those who put Jesus first) in Word Faith and LDS churches - and also within Hindu temples
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro:
I am sad that you say this rather than identify with your christain brothers and sisters. I think that when Catholics identify themselves as Catholics rather than christians it gives rise to the question "are Catholics christians?"

---

I think you are looking at this from an English perspective where Catholics are a minority and it is not the state religion, and you meet a lot of people of different religions or denominations in a largely secular country. I was brought up in the Irish tradition where Catholicism was a mainstream thing. It was just a fact of life that everyone around you was also Catholic - a few people were Protestant or Jewish but that was as far as it went. There was no need to say "Christian." That was just taken for granted. It is probably much the same in Italy and France and other mainstream Catholic (oops, Christian) countries. If people did say they were Christian, we knew that they meant some kind of evangelical.

In what way do you mean "identify with"? I accept other Christians as Christians. I have been to some ecumenical services and they were fine. I am happy to meet people halfway, but, I really can't identify with extreme sects who want to condemn me to hell because I don't subscribe to their exact version of belief or who ask me to believe things I really can't swallow.
 

Perhaps what we need to do is reword the question and ask:

What is the minimum you must believe to be regarded as a "Christian"
 

A Christian was someone from the church in Antioch and that is the only time the word is mentioned in the Bible.
 

While in Northern Ireland many christians want to be identified only as christians because catholic or protestant has a political meaning. Even Jews have been asked if they are a catholic or protestant Jew.
 

I understand what the question is but I think that the word is mis-leading.

Christ uses the word Disciples. The sad truth is that in churches very few people are discipled.

Maybe we should be looking at what this means rather than understand what the word Christian means.

The church in Antioch only used it as a label for others outside of the church to recognise who they were and what they believed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
A Christian was someone from the church in Antioch and that is the only time the word is mentioned in the Bible.

---

After all your struggles I hate to spoil your point but the term 'Christian' is used another 2 times. In Acts 26 when paul is talking to aggrippa he says 'you almost persudae me to be a Christian' and in 1 Peter 4:15 Paul says 'if you suffer as a Christian'.

Christian is a term that in modern speak means 2 things. Someone who was brought up in a Christian Country. The second is used by a person who has been born again (hence the non-sence term 'born again christian')
This is the true sence of the word Christian that means that the user has accepted that Jesus died for thier sin. If a catholic has accepted this then they are a Christian in the true sense not just because you went to mass once.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Polly:
The church in Antioch only used it as a label for others outside of the church to recognise who they were and what they believed.

---

But Polly, that's the point - if you use the word "Christian" you're using shorthand for a lot of assumed beliefs/practices/etc. Therefore the question on this thread isn't misleading at all - it's asking what this label conveys, and ultimately who should properly use it.

In answer to Amy, are Catholics Christians? Flip the question around - are Protestants Christians? Well, some you could say are, some you could say aren't, because there are certain things about their words and actions that suggest they have inappropriately acquired the word "Christian".

But always bear in mind C S Lewis' wise comment about the church in Antioch - they were called Christians because they followed Christ, not because they were necessarily any good at it.
 

Well, I don't know ... in the three months I've been reading these boards I've come across a lot of swipes at Catholicism (and I still don't understand the reason for it). But if people are even considering the question of whether Catholics are Christians, well, maybe this is not the right place for me. I have enjoyed being on the boards up till now but I had no idea that people could regard Catholics in this way, that they might not accept them as equals but thought of them as non-Christians. I'm just rather bemused and a bit upset by this attitude.

To answer Astro: I am aware of the Northern Ireland situation: I've experienced this myself with colleagues from the North.
 

She replies: "No, I'm an Anglican, thank God!"

And now to throw a wrench (spanner) into the works:

Can one be a Christian and not be "saved"?

Reader Alexis
 

The other role of statements of faith are to define clearly who is and isn't making it into heaven. That way, people don't have to worry about whether they will make it or not. After all, if being a Christian is defined by who is following Jesus, then no one can be sure whether they are a sheep or a goat. After all, being a Christian seems to be about getting the good stuff rather than about loving Jesus.

As far as I know, Christian means Christ-like. Perhaps the term Christian should refer to anyone that is Christ like regardless of religious affiliation.

Sorry if I sound a little heated. This whole topic really annoys me and I really don't know what the proper definition of Christian should be. The whole definition seems to be wrapped up in judging, which, perhaps, should be left to God.

Freehand

ps - In my country, Christian generally refers to people that go to church.
 

Everyone seems to be getting hung up on belief as a measure of christianity... obviously that is pretty key but then I have met people who claim to believe in God, Jesus etc etc but then live their life in a manner far from the teachings of the big JC. Surely behaviour and how one lives one's life is a big determinant of whether one can be referred to as christian or not? you know, love thy neighbour and all that good stuff.

And just to back up carmel - I would also answer "Catholic" if someone asked my what religion I was as I too have met many fleece-wearing tambouriners and it is difficult for me to think of the word "christian" without a silent "born-again" prefix sneaking in.
 

Catholics are followers of Christ and not the Pope.

The Pope is the senior member of the Catholic community, in the same way that the Archbishop of Canterbury is the senior member of the Church of England and as such has the respect of the members of the Church.

The Pope never takes precedence over Christ!
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carmel:
Well, I don't know ... in the three months I've been reading these boards I've come across a lot of swipes at Catholicism (and I still don't understand the reason for it). But if people are even considering the question of whether Catholics are Christians, well, maybe this is not the right place for me. I have enjoyed being on the boards up till now but I had no idea that people could regard Catholics in this way, that they might not accept them as equals but thought of them as non-Christians. I'm just rather bemused and a bit upset by this attitude.

---

Alan
 

We might ask that about individuals within any denomination of Christianity but not of one particular denomination that holds mainstream views especially when that denomination is the largest in the world.

What is about catholicism that would make people think it is unchristian????? You may disagree with such beliefs as the primacy of the Bishop of Rome or the Real Presence or the Immaculate Conception but at the heart of the catholic faith is the profession of the creeds that I think most would best describe core Christian doctrine.

I suspect it is all some form of post-reformation hangover that extreme protestants need to hold on to to justify their break away.

One can still hold with the authority of the Pope and worship and follow Christ.

I say all the above as an Anglican.
 

Alan

Purgtory host
 

Along with Carmel, Septimus, Manx Taffy etc... I'm also concerned about the way so many people question the faith of Catholics. I affiliate myself with the Presbyterian Church but I sometimes wish that I could call myself a Catholic just to avoid the baggage carried by the word 'Christian' (especially in Glasgow where people seem to be very pernickety about it!).

I believe people are a product of past experience (I read too much science fiction) and as such people are always going to fit into a slightly different boat when it comes to faith. (Hopefully without causing offence to people from N. Ireland,) I find it fascinating reading articles about supposed terrorist groups in N. Ireland and thinking about men portrayed as going out to cause upset stopping and praying - there's something there that I cannot understand but it moves me to think more about what faith means to different people.

So what is a ‘Christian’... or is the definition in itself even necessary. Surely it should be something that people who don’t believe in Christ need to debate rather than people who have a faith in Christ?
 

When I was teaching in universities, I had more than one conversation with Catholic students who distinguished between "Catholics" and "Christians," some of them using "Christian" to mean simply "non-Catholic," but others under the impression that they would be changing religions if they left the Catholic Church and started going to one of the fast-growing non-denominational churches (which are picking up a lot of former Catholics in So Cal). These were all Latino students, and English was a second language for many of them, so that may have been a factor. But a lot of them had been told by the church and/or by their parents that they had to marry Catholics and had been strongly cautioned against worshipping in other churches, especially taking communion, so I thought it was quite understandable that they would see non-Catholic Christians as belonging to a different religion.

On the Protestant side of things, I remember being taught (in my American Baptist Sunday School) "Christian" history as follows: first Jesus, then the early church as discussed in the NT, then the Reformation -- the Catholic Church was mentioned only briefly, which made the point of the Reformation rather unclear, but certainly gave us the idea that Catholics were "dodgy" (wonderful word -- think we should import it).

These are just mild, contemporary examples. If we consider the history of mutual hatred between Protestants and Catholics, it's not at all surprising that some people are still asking whether Catholics are Christians.

One of the great hopes I have for the Ship is that we can do our part to dispel the misunderstanding and suspicion between different groups of Christians that have plagued Christianity for so long.

[edited for sense!]

[ 08 August 2001: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

quote:

---

I generally steer clear of purgatory (too many fundies knocking around.)

---

Host Hat ON

As opposed to too many Anglicans? Or too many Catholics? Or too many liberals?

Septimus, what you posted is a very quiet example of a swipe. I'm not trying to single you out; I'm just trying get to across how easy it is to say something in an off the cuff way that is going to be a blow to someone.

Please handle each other with care, folks. No anti-people comments allowed, as Alan has already pointed out.
 

Am I simplifying it too much?
 

I have come across people before who have raised this matter, and I myself had some very strange views about Catholics before I became curious, and asked some what they beleived. To my surprise, I found that some of them were more evangelical than I was!

In view of the fact that some prejudices exist, it seemed to me natural to discuss this apparently innocently raised question so that the record could be set straight.

It appears to me that the Catholic Church is more rigorous in its defence of the Christian faith than almost any other part of the church.

But there is more than meets the eye to this question, which is why I framed the thread title as "What Is A Christian?" What exactly does this label mean - clearly different things to different people!
 

[grovel mode engaged]

as you astutely spotted an off the cuff remark which was meant wryly rather than as a sweeping statement of disregard... hang on... was that the other way round.

but absolutely DELIGHTED to be described as "a very quiet example of a swipe"... must have that put on a t-shirt.

in fact it was intended as a sort of sotto voce comment on labelling/stereotypes...

getting back to the first question, and to re-iterate my earlier point I think a christian can be discerned from their behaviour, by the way they live their life.

the belief (aside from the central one in the love of Jesus) often ends up as a red herring....

Imagine a vast Venn diagram. there are many circles, catholic, protestant, etc etc and some of them (GASP) overlap but cutting through them all is the big circle of Christianity (ok maybe it's a three dimensional Venn diagram).

Christianity is a way of life, not a badge.

[except for those fundies]
 

Freehand
 

Times have changed and now all of the local churches meet together on occassions. And people are seeing that Catholics are not 'aliens' but neighbours. I think that the former anti-Catholic feeling was because many in the Protestant churches didn't know what went on in a Catholic church and we listened to a few people who like Mr Paisley decided taht Catholics were not Christians.

This idea can still be found in some churches that do not encourage their congregations to think for themselves.

bb
 

Are followers of the Chrisitian Identity movement Christians?

For those of you unfamiliar with Christian Identity, it is a racist sect with often violent members, primarily based on the second incarnation of the Ku Klux Klan. Despite the unconventional racial theorizations, members claim to accept Jesus as their personal savior and consider themselves to be fully Christian. Does this qualify them as Christians? If not, what factors distinguish them from "real" Christians, if we discount doctrine and dogma as disqualifying factors?
 

Of course, it is only God who sees to the heart, and only God who knows exactly how our lives shape up. I think that all we can go on is people's confession, and on the 'fruits' of their faith. I cannot see how the fruits match up to the confession in this case. I cannot see my God in the descriptions given.

bb
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Crœsos:
Does this qualify them as Christians? If not, what factors distinguish them from "real" Christians, if we discount doctrine and dogma as disqualifying factors?

---

quote:

---

Matthew 7:16
By their fruit you will recognise them

---

quote:

---

James 2:17
faith by itself, if it is not accompnied by action is dead

---

A Christian is not defined by beliefs (although some beliefs would probably be outside the bounds of the Christian faith I wouldn't automtically say that people holding such beliefs are not Christian, just probably mistaken). If, however, the actions of people who profess to be Christians run contrary to everything I see as being Christian I would have reason to doubt whether or not they are Christian.

However, at that point we start walking on thin ice. I would say the actions of Christians during the Crusades are contrary to what I believe to be Christian actions, yet at the time they were largely seen as the Christian thing to do. Who am I, or who are we in the 21st century developed world, to judge whether what people in other cultures see as legitimate for Christians to do? Having included that caveat, I do find the Christian Identity people abhorrant in propogating racist views, and within modern times they should have no excuse for not realising that these views are not acceptable Christian values.

Alan
 

The problem a lot of Chrisitans have with catholics being Christians is as follows.
As a Christian I belive that Christ died for my sins as a result I am forgiven, no one else but Christ has the power to do that.
Catholics however have confession, nothing wrong with that but then the Priest offers forgiveness (as I understand). I cannot accept as a Christian that no matter how holy a person acts or is they have no power to forgive sins.

You can't be a Christian by going to Church. It is about a relationship with God. Therefore you could go to a Buddish Temple and be a Christian. (doesn't sound healthy but you could)
 

John 20:

Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you." 22 And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven."

And:

James 5 v16

Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed.

Even so, even if your theology and understanding of Catholicism were both fully correct, why would this little difference make Catholics 'Not Christians'? It seems like people are looking for reasons to be divisive.
 

This is not the priest personally providing forgiveness instead of Christ.

If you don't believe in apostolic authority then simply the view the act as one Christian remeniding another of the the forgiveness available through Christ - harmless surely?
 

Now we have 2 catholic christians on this board saying they prefer to be identified as catholic rather than christian because they perceive that "chriatian" has negative conontations, please I humbly suggest that you consider that by prefering to be indentified as catholics rather than christians you are sending out a message that catholics are somehow different from christians, and hence the question gets asks "can a catholic be a christian?".

I have been an evangelical in the past, and despite the negative images associated with evangelicals, I am happy if I am identified with evangelicals, because have have known (and still know) some wonderful loving evangelical christians, and by identifying with them I hope to project a more positive image of evangelicals - so even though now I am more of a post-evangelical if anyone wants to call me an evangelical I will not take it as an insult.

However if asked my religion even in my most evangelical days I was a christian not an evangelical.

Now to move on to Mormons and JWs etc.
I tend to exclude from the community of Christians those who say that only by following their particular set of beliefs can you be a true follower of "whatever".
I see part of following Jesus is inclusiveness (Those who are not against us are for us).

So any group that says if you do not believe (or in reality do) what we do you are not a christian, probably is not a christian group.
I suppose that cuts out JWs, Mormons, Christian Identity, and several fundie groups, but allows groups who expect you to believe/do certain things but if you do not you can still be a christian e.g. most funadmentalists, those who require apostolic succession, SDAs etc.
 

I would like to thank everyone for their support, especially Septimus. I am just sorry that Amy's question (which I do believe was innocent) needed to be asked in the first place. There is a beauty and richness to the Catholic tradition which I wish I could share - I have no wish to convert anyone as I believe firmly in the individual's right to choose the way they want to worship - it just saddens me that some people are ready to write this off without ever even setting foot in the door of a church.
 

quote:

---

The problem a lot of Chrisitans have with catholics being Christians is as follows.

As a Christian I belive that Christ died for my sins as a result I am forgiven, no one else but Christ has the power to do that.
Catholics however have confession, nothing wrong with that but then the Priest offers forgiveness (as I understand). I cannot accept as a Christian that no matter how holy a person acts or is they have no power to forgive sins.

---

The basic problem is that most Protestants don’t have a clue about Catholic belief and practice. People resort to popular prejudice [they worship Mary you know ..] rather than actually taking the trouble to find out what’s true. [Although this also works the other way around].

BigAl, your comments reveal a common misunderstanding but aren't strictly true.

The Priest offers forgiveness in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit. He doesn't offer you the forgiveness himself.

What happens in Confession [or the Sacrament of Reconcilation] is that you and the Priest talk about what's going on in your life, you will pray together and the Priest will suggest things you can do to put things right. Once all this is done, the Priest will forgive you in God's name.

It’s actually no different to talking stuff over with a trusted friend, praying it through and being assured by them of God’s forgiveness. Sometimes people need that … I can’t be the only one who sometimes wonders if God’s really forgiven me for x and then asked him about it again just to be sure …

If you really want to know what happens and an explanation of why then the following URLs may be useful:

Father Pat - Reconcilation

This includes wordings used and explains the whole process really well.

Catholic FAQs

This gives some useful background.

Ask a Catholic!

An opportunity to ask those questions which you've always wondered about but wouldn't ask a Catholic friend to their face

I can't quite believe that we're seriously discussing if Catholics are Christiansas I bet we'd never have such a discussion about Anglicans, Baptists or the like!

And I agree with everyone who's basically said that as soon as you define what a Christian is you're bound to exclude someone. That is, after all, the whole purpose of definations.

Much as it grieves me to agree with my hubby the word used most commonly to describe a believer in Christ during Biblical times was disciple or follower. Someone who looked at the example that Jesus said and followed it to the best of their ability And that's probably the best defination - it doesn't include or exclude anyone. Which is probably why we uncomfortable with it

Tubbs
 

In France, despite the official separation of church and state, there is still an underlying assumption, even in officialdom, that anything not Catholic is secular (eg Protestant churches are officially classed as secular buildings). And you are not allowed to give your kids names which don't appear on the almanac of saints' names. Friends of mine (a pastor and his wife) ran into this problem when choosing non-traditional, non-French names for their kids and had to supplement them with a trad French saint's name for the sake of bureaucracy. I think this might have relaxed a bit in recent years but when I first met them in the 70s they had been given quite a hard time by the registrar.
 

quote:

---

Now we have 2 catholic christians on this board saying they prefer to be identified as catholic rather than christian because they perceive that "chriatian" has negative conontations,

---

Yyeess [in her best Jeremy Paxman but I know of Baptists and Anglicans who do the same thing. They don't get asked the same question.

The truth of the matter is that there is alot of prejudice on both sides of the Protestant / Catholic divide. But just because it's an acceptable prejudice doesn't mean that people should seek to justify it in some way. [They do this ... they say that ... That's why we say these things]

There is a wonderful story about two missionaries - one Catholic and one Protestant - who worked in the same area and met for tea every so often. When one of them got sent home, the conversation went as follows:

Protestant: It's been wonderful working together to serve the Lord. I shall miss it.

Catholic: Yes I shall too. You serving the Lord in your way and me in His.

[Have also heard the story told the other way around].

Tubbs
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro:
I think that the biggest problem Proestant, Orthodox and Pentecostal christians have with accepting Catholics as Christians is that when asked what relgion they are Catholic Christians tend to reply Catholic rather than christian.

---

I do not, and have never, known any Catholics who have a problem accepting Protestants, Orthodox and Pentecostals as Christians.

quote:

---

I see part of following Jesus is inclusiveness (Those who are not against us are for us).

---

If I remember correctly from my A level theology course somewhere else in the Gospels it says exactly the reverse. (Those who are not for us are against us.)

For me a Christian is, simply, a follower of Christ. Someone who tries more than occasionally to follow the teachings and message of the Gospels. I often think that some churches (and I mean in the sense of actual buildings with priests in them) would do well to compare their style with the simple, radical message of the Gospels from time to time and see whether what they say and do is in conflict with this. This can apply just as well to people. It is something of a cliche but "what would Jesus do/say" is not unhelpful. I do not believe that the Christian Identity people qualify as Christians. Anyone can call themself one. It is actually living according to the spirit of the Gospels that makes you one.
 

Whilst at college, a good friend of mine nearly left a CU pryer meeting because someone else (from a strict Baptist church) prayed for the conversion of Catholics to Christianity.

In my old univ town the Anglican church (big, vibrant, charismatic) doesn't join in the March for Jesus anymore. However, it's organised by one of the other churches in the town....the St Winifred's (Roman Catholic) parish church.

It really seems to me that some parts of the Protestant church, particularly those who see nothing good between 100 and 1500 CE except for Tyndale, are still fighting 16th and 17th century battles, not having realised what Trent did, not having noticed Vatican II and not realising where Catholicism sees itself. Ok, we have the occasional official pronouncement like Ratzinger's on the validity of other churches, but the reality of the matter is that on local levels, where people actually talk to each other as equals, people from different denominations know that they have common ground. A wise Orthodox monk (who's name I've forgotten) once said, "We may say where the Spirit is - but we cannot say where the Spirit is not." Pronouncements by one group against another that they are or are not "Christians" need to be viewed with extreme skepticism - church history, if it teaches us only one thing, shows that very often such pronouncements come out of ingorance of the others' position, pride and rivalry.
 

I was influenced by a small amount of anti-Catholic prejudice over the following years, partly because of a relative of mine telling a story of how a Catholic had called her a 'heretic' when she had made a friendly comment (at a Catholic funeral) about how there was little difference between the Mass and (Anglican) Communion.

At University, one of the first friends I made was a Catholic, and through him I became an 'honorary member' of CathSoc, the student Catholic society, going along to their 'pub socials'!

Round about the same time, I was 'finding' evangelical Christianity, and became a regular Christian Union attender. One of the more alcohol-loving CathSoc members thought I was a most unusual phenomenon - a beer-drinking CU member happy to associate with Catholics!

But I also 'got hold of' anti-Catholic writings soon after this (the sort Mr Paisley might approve of), and was definitely influenced by them for a while.

Meanwhile, a friendship was developing with a Catholic who was also a CU member, and a fellow poet. My understanding and acceptance of him as an individual Catholic helped counter the influence of some of the stuff I'd been reading.

I still have problems with 'Catholicism' (rather than with individual Catholics). I look at Mexico, for instance (our Minister and many young people from our church are over there at the moment). In many parts of that country, non-Catholic evangelicals are persecuted, even killed, because they 'witness' and give out Bibles, etc., and will not go along with the local customs,which seem to be a mixture of 'folk' religion, handed down since Aztec days, and Roman Catholicism.

I could think of other countries where Catholic hierarchies greatly oppose non-Catholic Christianity, or at least turn a blind eye to its persecution, whilst being complacent about age-old mixing of 'paganism' with Roman Catholicism.

And in Europe, I read that long-established Protestant churches are regarded as 'sects' in some Catholic countries.

I have just read 'The Principality and Power of Europe', an excellent book, which looks at the way Roman Catholicism is the dominant 'spiritual influence' on the development of the Eurpean Union, and the implications for us non-Catholics. And it leaves me quite concerned.
 

Carmel and others, I certainly hope you are not offended. I think it is a product of environment.

In secondary school I was told by a number of Catholics "Anglicanism" was not true Christianity. I was told I must be a Catholic. These sort of things grated on me, and much like Alaric - I sucked up anti-Catholic literature for a while. Luckily I had the good sense to leave it behind.

In Sydney, the evangelical Sydney diocese is very big on pointing out the errors of Catholicism (from my personal experience). Calls to convert them, convert them, convert them!

I think it is due to people's false perceptions of the Catholic church and their belief that they worship the Pope and Mary above Jesus. Leaping before they bother to look...

I have a good many Catholic friends, and with them, unlike the school colleagues, we can accept each other as Christians without resorting to name calling and low-level swipes. I pray that it could be the same with everybody. But I do feel environment plays a large part in determining people's perceptions.
 

When people move house and look for a new church about 1/3 go to a church of a different denomination, however catholics do tend to stay in catholic churches unless they have an evangelical conversion. So whereas there are AnglicanBaptists like myself around you are unlikely to find, say, a CatholicMethodist, though I do know someone who went from being a Methodist to a catholic to a baptist.

As for Gill's story about France, the catholic rep on our local council of churches (or I should say churches together) was very keen to find a council of churches in or French twin town but there was not one.

Finally, favorite story, from one off the ecumnical projects in a new town, where the catholic and protestant host were hung together in the same "box" with a piece of glass separating the two. The catholic priest would have liked to put up a sign saying:

In case of unity - break glass
 

I go to a MOR (BUGB) Baptist Church, but around here we have really strict Baptist churches (Evangelical Movement of Wales) and really really strict ones.

I've been a Christian for seven years, since uni, and until abou fou years ago, when I went out with a Catholic (who is not now my wife - I started going our with her after) I had no idea that Ctholics could be anything other than dreadful heretics.

Aound here, it's a given among all the non-conformist protestant churches I know (one I don't agree with, btw) that Catholics are somehow 'not proper Christians'.

And this is a view which is not just espoused by the fundies. Many people who are otherwise marvellous fall down on this one point.

Back in September 2000, I did the Rant of the Month, and shortly after it was printed in our church magazine. The only real objection was that I shouldn't have bigged up Mother Theresa because she 'probably wasn't a Christian'. And this was not from a rabid extremist.

People in my church support missions to Spain to save Catholics. It's really common, and among evangelicals, even thinking ones, Catholics at best aren't mentioned, and at worst are condemned.

quote:

---

Dyfrig said:Whilst at college, a good friend of mine nearly left a CU pryer meeting because someone else (from a strict Baptist church) prayed for the conversion of Catholics to Christianity.

---

Which was nothing compared to the wars our CU and Chaplaincy had when I was an undergrad.

Which was a shame. It's calmed down here, but it's still something that people have to be educated in.
 

I think the main problem with defining "Christian" is that there are 2 basic meanings in common use:
1>one who considers himself to be, or is being raised as, a follower of Jesus of Nazereth - that includes heretics and orthodox, good and bad
2>one who will be saved at the last Judgement thru Christ's redeeming sacrifice

This confusion can probably be traced back, in part, to the argument over whether the Church is a visible body in which there are tares as well as wheat or whether it is an invisible body consisting entirely of true believers.

All would consider Roman Catholics Christians<1>. Most would consider some or most Roman Catholics to be Christians<2> (tho it cannot really be known exactly which ones), tho some would say that none of them are Christians<2>.
Considering Mormons, they too would be Christians<1> but most of those who consider them heterodox would say that, while they do not believe Mormonism to be a vehicle capable of delivering Christian<2> status [sorry for the crude and inadequate metaphor], the final status of individual Mormons (as perhaps with members of other religions) is unknown and they may well turn out as Christians<2> despite the perceived inadequacies of their form of faith.

I'm not sure whether my contribution here is of any use but I know that I have thus far managed to miss out two crucial things - faith and agape. I think the relationship between these 2 and right doctrine and right sacraments (beginning to sound a little Buddhist) causes the greatest problems in saying what a Christian is.
Perhaps the most divise issue in that respect is whether one can become a Christian initially by the Spirit coming and dwelling in one at baptism or whether it is always by an initial act of faith that one would become a Christian. Either way, tho, faith has to come about (hence Roman Catholic and Anglican Confirmation) and the relationship with God from there on is affected by the beliefs one holds and, as far as a sacramentalist like me is concerned, by one's participation in the sacraments.

When I say Christian, I tend to mean Christian<1> and I never mean Christian<2>.

Maybe, to answer this question, those of us who consider ourselves Christian should ask why we do so. I see myself as Christian because I feel Christ calling me and respond by having faith in him and following him. But I see this in a sacramental context and consider that having orthodox doctrine is important in the way it shapes the subsequant relationship...
All things flow out into mystery...
 

Plus, I have a question for a catholic brother or sister. I hope it is viewed as innocently as it is posed.

Is it a stance of the Holy See that Jeus is not God? Is it common among Catholics?
I had a friend at work today who was raise catholic say He wasn't and she was raised being told so by folks and priest.

I am really curious. sincerely your ecumenically confused Brother in Christ

joekidd71
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by joekidd71:
Not trying to be a wet blanket but could those of us who are quoting scripture please give book, chapter, verse, and version so we can play along at home.

Plus, I have a question for a catholic brother or sister. I hope it is viewed as innocently as it is posed.

Is it a stance of the Holy See that Jeus is not God? Is it common among Catholics?
I had a friend at work today who was raise catholic say He wasn't and she was raised being told so by folks and priest.

I am really curious. sincerely your ecumenically confused Brother in Christ

joekidd71

---

Both my grandparents and my stepmother are Catholic (the latter post-Vatican II); neither of them ever said anything about Jesus' not being God, and the priests at the Masses I used to attend didn't claim that either. The priest at St. Paul's Center here in Madison certainly goes out of his way to show people that Jesus IS God, judging by the hand-painted art and slogans on the doors when major holidays roll around! If the Catholics I've encountered are typical, I'd say that your co-worker (not to mention her family and priest) are heretics from a mainstream Catholic viewpoint.
 

Any "Catholic" claiming that Christ is not God, would most certainly be running against the teachings of the Church.

It is sad that so many non-Catholics have such strange ideas of what Catholics believe.

I have always seen myself as a Christian who happened to be a Catholic. Surely this is true of a member of any other denomination, that they see themslves as Christians first?

The beliefs of Catholics are Bible based, those beliefs which are based on Tradition, are not at odds with the Bible.

This is true of the Orthodox Church and I would imagine the other pre-reformation Churches.

It was only at the time of the Reformation and afterwards, that people required that beliefs should be based on the Bible only.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alaric the Goth:

I still have problems with 'Catholicism' (rather than with individual Catholics). I look at Mexico, for instance (our Minister and many young people from our church are over there at the moment). In many parts of that country, non-Catholic evangelicals are persecuted, even killed, because they 'witness' and give out Bibles, etc., and will not go along with the local customs,which seem to be a mixture of 'folk' religion, handed down since Aztec days, and Roman Catholicism.

I have just read 'The Principality and Power of Europe', an excellent book, which looks at the way Roman Catholicism is the dominant 'spiritual influence' on the development of the Eurpean Union, and the implications for us non-Catholics. And it leaves me quite concerned.

---

Mt Goth I must admit I have problems with a christian church "converting" other christians, presumably into "beter" christians? Surely there are other places where more important work can be done.

I am not surprised at the hostility encountered - though this does not justify killing etc if that is hapenning. Picture the reaction though if a bunch of avid catholics went to the deep South in America stating that unless people converted to the true universal church of Rome, they would be damned and in doing this they employed lots of culturally foreign methods such as parading effigies, kneeling to the host etc - I can imagine the reaction that would cause!

The catholic church from day 1 has had to encompass various cultural norms and stand points from the society into which it is trying to bring the universal message of Christ - this started in 1st century Greece. To my mind this adds to the richness and variety of worship and shades of belief. The alternative is that we expect everyone to adopt a western rational view of the world or forget it. In reality people from South America, Asia etc have different philosophical viewpoints and I am sure Christianity is big enough to absorb such outlooks within a Christian framework.

Are you serious in believing the EU is being inordinately influenced by the catholic Church. It would nice to think there is some Christian spiritual influemce on that body but I doubt there is. If there is then why not the probably the largest denomination within the member states
 

quote:

---

admit I have problems with a christian church "converting" other christians, presumably into "beter" christians?

---

The key question is 'are the people concerned Christians?'

I watched an excellent programme last night about how the Mayan civilisation came to an end, and it showed the modern descendants of Mayas in the Yucatan region of Mexico praying to (I quote) 'the gods' for them to send rain. Th ceremony was a mixture of some Catholic ritual and a lot of pagan stuff from the remote past. All very interesting, you mihght say, but, IMO, not Christian. In South Mexico there's a lot of this sort of thing, with deliberate intoxication a part of a lot of the ceremomies. I think it is necesary to show these people the Gospel - I thought this before the programme and it went some way to confirm it.

As for a Catholic European Union, I cannot remember the detail of the very cogent arguments in 'The Principality and Power of Europe' as to how the Catholic church is working to achieve something like a 21st century equivalent of the Holy Roman Empire. I would recommend you read it. The book is not some 'mad fundie rubbish' - it is well researched, non-sensationalist, and has a foreword by Viscount Tonypandy (George Thomas, the former Speaker of the House of Commons), who is convinced of the significance and seriousness of its conclusions.
 

quote:

---

I'm a bit taken aback by the number of folks gravely explaining how their views on Catholicism date from an ignorant or offensive remark made to them in their youth.

---

This is what I don't "get". I'm sure that the people who use this as a justification for their anti-Catholic sentiments [okay prejudice!] wouldn't say stuff like, "I don't like blacks / women / gays" because of incident x when I was younger or stuff I'd been told and I read books that confirm this. But I've got friends who are Catholic and they're okay. Oh please! Have you any idea how patronising you sound!

It's a bit of a tangent but it does make me wonder why this kind of thing is seen as acceptable / excusable when said about one group but not about another.

Back to the point …

One of the large churches in my locality refused to join Churches Together on theological grounds as they thought the wordings of one of the clauses was too vague to be excused. [Can't remember which bit but it was the bit that enabled Catholics to join CT]. There was a fairly dramatic re-think / large bun fight when the church schools announced a new admission policy - and refused to even consider applications from children whose churches who weren't members of Churches Together.

The popular definations of “a Christian” in the UK is someone who was Christened when they were a baby and may have been Confirmed / had First Communion even if they couldn’t tell you where their local church was and has never darkened its door in living memory. They would probably state they were either CofE or Catholic [lapsed or non-practicing if asked to qualify]. And they would expect the Church to be there for them for the big life events – hatching, batching and despatching.

Someone who goes to Church – even if they have no active faith of their own and only go out of duty or because their parents make them. [And these exist across all demoninations].

The proper defination is someone who follows Christ and tries to live by his teaching.

Tubbs
 

Many people in this country would say that they are christian because their parents were/are.

If your parents brought you up in C of E church you were probably christened and then confirmed and if they were catholics you may have gone through a "formal" proceedure as well.

The point being is that no proceedure makes you a Christian no matter which denomination you are ( yes charismatics have similar traditions etc as well).

So to make a sweeping statement that one denomination or another aren't christians isn't fair.

My wife can take commuinion as a catholic but goes to a baptist church like me but she went to a C of E beforehand and I went to a charasmatic church. So to say that either of our pasts make our faith void now is rather judgemental ( aren't there warnings about that).

Whether you are catholic, raving fundy ( my wife's favourite phrase for me) or a baptist surely it is up to you to get right with God and your responsibility to do this no matter what church commuinty you belong to.
 

Tubbs: I don't think anyone's said they got anti-Catholic (or anti-anyone else) ideas from one remark. One remark in childhood can of course make a big impression, but that generally happens because of the accompanying background. If, for example, you don't as a child know anyone belonging to a certain group of people, and you hear one thing said, it's going to kind of stand out, especially if there are cultural tensions in the background. I think what we're exploring here is how much prejudice is fostered by ignorance.

Alaric: Yes, there is a lot of religious syncretism in southern Mexico (and in Guatemala, where I saw it firsthand in and around Chichicastenango -- hope I'm spelling that right) and yeah, it's pretty weird. I don't think it's grounds for sending missionaries to Mexico, though -- there are plenty of Christians both Protestant (more of these than you might think, with numbers growing) and Catholic in Mexico and Central America who can and do bear witness to the Gospel. I also think there's a big plank-in-the-eye issue here, considering how many of the "religious" practices we ourselves hold dear are purely cultural.

If the RC Church wants to have a renewed version of the Holy Roman Empire, they really need to tell the Pope. I don't think what he's done and preached over the last twenty years or so has in any way pointed toward that sort of thing.
 

In that renunciation of the wordly, is contained the repentance when we know we have failed and the immediate rededication of the self to God.

A Christian is in my opinion, a person who follows the teachings of Christ. The Catholic bashing on this forum is uncalled for. I choose not to be a catholic,being a C of E member, but the Catholic Church is by far the largest Christian movement on earth
and it is unrealistic for any protestant movements to say they have a better grasp of truth.
 

quote:

---

The Pope never takes precedence over Christ!

---

Maybe not Charles but there are more than a few doubful practices in the Roman Catholic church. For example the elevation of the Virgin Mary a co-mediatrix with Christ. The doctrine of the assumption of Mary, the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the whole business of the veneration of Mary that is bordering on worship.

Add to this catalogue of error a few other heretical practices like the Mass and the shrine worship and the "magic charms" and the "holy" water and the images etc., etc and it is no wonder that some people are confused about whether roman Catholics are Christians.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob R:
Maybe not Charles but there are more than a few doubful practices in the Roman Catholic church. For example the elevation of the Virgin Mary a co-mediatrix with Christ. The doctrine of the assumption of Mary, the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the whole business of the veneration of Mary that is bordering on worship.

Add to this catalogue of error a few other heretical practices like the Mass and the shrine worship and the "magic charms" and the "holy" water and the images etc., etc and it is no wonder that some people are confused about whether roman Catholics are Christians.

---

Host hat ON

You're on probation as of right now. This is simply not allowed here. It is very much against the spirit of debate and conversation between people who are mostly Christians for anyone to come in and label a huge number of Christians heretics.

You don't have to agree with Catholic doctrines and practices or like them, but you do have to show respect for the people who hold those doctrines and engage in those practices.

An apology is in order.
 

It's all relative anyway isn't it.
 

The Pope on the other hand has the authority in the Catholic church to decree what people throughout the world should believe about certain things. Very different.

All the catholics I have met are christians. I have more reason to question whether some protestants are christians than most catholics. IMO all who are extremists in a religion by definition have ceased to practice "true religion", because their extremist views have become their religion.

I think I'll jump on the bandwagon and state unequivocally that a Christian is someone who tries to put Christ at the centre of their lives.

What the implications of this are, is up to the individual to realise. Ultimately we should not be attempting to judge whether X Y or Z person is "saved" because the only effective Judge of what goes on in that person's being is the God who made that person.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by joekidd71:
Something just struck me RuthW, not lightening. Could you unpack the "mostly" Christians phrase. Since this kinda fits the subject anyway.

---

Most of the people on these boards call themselves Christians.
 

Joe just split so he could go make some posts on an islamic board.
 

I will agree a WHOLE bunch of evangelical thought needs reconstructed. But there is a lot of people, a lot whom I call friend, who want to knock it all down and replace it. Not with a new structure but with legos so we can tear it apart and make it look like what we want when it suits us.

This is not neccesarily a slam on anyone here. It is merely a rant. I spent two years deconstructing and then an entire year reconstrucing. I am beyond it. I love you all as fellow humans and those who call themselves christians even if I disagree with your beliefs I call you brother and sister because I have no basis to do otherwise. Please do as I do and keep seeking. God loves sincerity and I think honors it. Look for truth it is out there and it is not in the eye of the beholder.

God Bless

JESUS KICKS BOOOTAY!
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by joekidd71:
Sorry I just assumed we all called ourselves christians. WOOOOOSH!.

Joe just split so he could go make some posts on an islamic board.

---

I know of at least two non-Christians here other than myself; their usual screen names should make it clear which two people I mean. However, I am still interested in reasonable, civilized theological debate: I don't have to follow a given religion to discuss its teachings on that level.

In general, I agree with the broadest definitions of "Christian" given here: someone who professes to follow Jesus' teachings. Whether self-styled Christians actually practice what they preach is another thread, however. (For the sake of preventing a flame war, I won't criticize any particular sect as "not following Jesus".)
 

Bob, I am sure you know that the co-mediatrix issue is not orthodox Catholic teaching.

Mary, as with the saints, is held in great respect as a worthy example to us all as she is in the Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican and other Churches.
 

quote:

---

You don't have to agree with Catholic doctrines and practices or like them, but you do have to show respect for the people who hold those doctrines and engage in those practices.

An apology is in order.

---

I am at a loss to understand why I need to apologise for having an opinion, after all is that not the whole point of a discussion board?

It is my honest and carefully considered opinion that the Roman Catholic Mass is heresy. I also think that many of their other practices are at best unecessary acretions and at worst have a tendency to detract from the centricity of Christ.

If I were to stifle these honestly held opinions for the sake of political correctness I would not be showing any respect for the readers of this forum. We are all surely adult and can take criticism of our views without resorting to banning each other?

I am not alone in holding these views. Many Godly men and women have also held similar views and have been persecuted to the point of martyrdom in defence of those views. We forget our history at our peril!

That is not to say that I do not love Roman Catholics. If Christ has loved me, even me, enough to suffer on my behalf and to take the ridicule and beating and scourging and worse, the spiritual torture of separation from His Father, then it behoves me well to show the same kind of self-sacrificing love to all.

Loving someone how3ver is not the same thing as avoiding offence. We are called to speak the truth in love. If I tell an addict that it is OK to continue to drink or snort or whatever so as to avoid upsetting him am I doing him a service or a disservice?

Of course I do not want to deliberately cause pain. I recognise that to some people such outspoken views are both a shock and the cause of pain to them. If you are feeling pain at my remarks then I am truly sorry to be the cause of that pain and wish that I could share it with you.

I am quite prepared to debate these views with anybody, after all that is why we visit this forum is it not?

I know that this is a bit off the subject of the thread and for that I do apologise.

YIC

Bob R
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob R:
I am at a loss to understand why I need to apologise for having an opinion, after all is that not the whole point of a discussion board?

---

You don't have to apologize for having an opinion. This is, however, a debate board -- you are not allowed to make controversial assertions of opinion that are bound to give offense without making any effort to back up those assertions.

quote:

---

It is my honest and carefully considered opinion that the Roman Catholic Mass is heresy. I also think that many of their other practices are at best unecessary acretions and at worst have a tendency to detract from the centricity of Christ.

---

Again, these are simply assertions. You have offered no argument or evidence to support your claims.

quote:

---

If I were to stifle these honestly held opinions for the sake of political correctness I would not be showing any respect for the readers of this forum. We are all surely adult and can take criticism of our views without resorting to banning each other?

---

You haven't offered any criticism. You've offered name-calling.

quote:

---

I am not alone in holding these views. Many Godly men and women have also held similar views and have been persecuted to the point of martyrdom in defence of those views. We forget our history at our peril!

---

And many Catholics have likewise been persecuted to the point of martyrdom in defense of their beliefs. This is hardly evidence that you are right and they are wrong.

quote:

---

That is not to say that I do not love Roman Catholics. If Christ has loved me, even me, enough to suffer on my behalf and to take the ridicule and beating and scourging and worse, the spiritual torture of separation from His Father, then it behoves me well to show the same kind of self-sacrificing love to all.

Loving someone how3ver is not the same thing as avoiding offence. We are called to speak the truth in love. If I tell an addict that it is OK to continue to drink or snort or whatever so as to avoid upsetting him am I doing him a service or a disservice?

---

So Catholicism is like an addiction? No, you didn't say that, but what you're saying is they need help and you're in a position to give it. This is still nothing but name-calling, even if you do couch it in terms of love.

quote:

---

Of course I do not want to deliberately cause pain. I recognise that to some people such outspoken views are both a shock and the cause of pain to them. If you are feeling pain at my remarks then I am truly sorry to be the cause of that pain and wish that I could share it with you.

---

I'll take this as an apology. But if you recognize that such views give pain to others when expressed, it behooves you to take that into consideration before you express them.

quote:

---

I am quite prepared to debate these views with anybody, after all that is why we visit this forum is it not?

I know that this is a bit off the subject of the thread and for that I do apologise.

---

If you would like to debate whether or not certain practices of the Roman Catholic Church are heretical, please do start a new thread. If you start such a thread, present the reasons for your views in your opening post, or else the thread will quickly be a candidate for Hell.
 

When I see Christ face to face, i doubt he's going to congratualtly me on the points I scored theologically , but rather how i treated my brother and sisters.

oh by the way.
The word Christian mean literly Christ-one.
One who is like Christ.

[inserted 'not' into first sentance at posters' request]

[ 13 August 2001: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]
 

All this squabbling about which denomination holds the truth is just a complete waste of time. I am glad there are differences because it gives us new perspectives: God is too great to be defined by any one denomination or religion, but to say that anyone is a heretic because they do not believe exactly what you believe is, frankly, childish. We ought to be working towards a common ground and defining what does make us Christians, not focusing on the negative aspects of what we dislike most about each other's faiths. I would rather hear about what people like and regard as the best points of their faiths, not what they think the negative points of other people's are. I am willing to listen to any reasonable and verifiable logical argument, but I'm not interested in unsubstantiated abuse.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BigEd:
A christian should be defined by their denomination.

---

What on earth makes you think that? Is there anyone here who can honestly say that they agree with every part of their denomination's ritual or dogma?

bb
 

quote:

---

Tubbs: I don't think anyone's said they got anti-Catholic (or anti-anyone else) ideas from one remark. One remark in childhood can of course make a big impression, but that generally happens because of the accompanying background. If, for example, you don't as a child know anyone belonging to a certain group of people, and you hear one thing said, it's going to kind of stand out, especially if there are cultural tensions in the background. I think what we're exploring here is how much prejudice is fostered by ignorance.

---

Hi RuthW ...

Suspect that we've demonstrated the answer to that question is lots and lots.

What I can't see is why one group of Christians sees nothing wrong in holding such negative opionions about another group of Christians in the 21st Century?!

For every example of dodgy belief, practice and behaviour within one demonination there's an equally valid example of the same in the others

Tubbs
 

I have grown up in a Charasmatic church background so I sort of understand why some people hae reservations about some of the more established church denominations.

I don't always agree with them however a sort of explanation from what I have observed.

Traditions are everywhere including the church. Some are good some are bad. Both the Catholic church and C of E have heaps of traditions and some people assume that all these traditions and practices are ok and we should protect them others want to change things on a regular basis.

If a practice or tradition becomes a distrcation then maybe we should consider whether it is still benficial to have it but this has to be done by the church concerned rather than someone else who disagrees with it.

To me the position of Mary in the Catholic church seems to take the focus from Christ but that is because I don't understand and so I am not going to slag this off.

Perhaps we should take the plank out our own eye before we publically criticise other practices.

PS

Is anyone else embarassed of teh evangelical bop??
 

I am personally embarrassed (sometimes) to be a Sydney Anglican when I hear them carrying on - especially about other denominations.

I have had many an experience where fellow Christians from my church have come up to me and said, "Can you pray for my friend I am sharing the Bible with...s/he is a Catholic." I just want to choke.

I think what is needed in many places (Sydney esp.) is for people to think for themselves rather than lap up anti-Catholic propaganda. It is very easy to be sucked in, especially when you are being told each week fallacies about what other denominations do - and as you trust these people, you accept it without question.

I always follow the advice of the Archdeacon who used to preach at our church when we were between ministers: "Never simply accept what I say...go and look and find out for yourself." It was in reference to the Bible but I think we can equally apply it to slanderous gossip doing the rounds under the pretence of "true" Christianity.
 

It helps to have some sort of happy chorus (anything from Graham Kendrick will do!!)

Then making sure you do it out of time you bounce on one foot then on the other. This can be done on the spot or over an area.

Ps

No I don't take drugs and yes I am sober!
 

Isn't there always some twit who notices if you aren't dancing and wonders aloud if you are truly 'released' in your worship?

[shudders]
 

It wasn't until university that I realised these Catholics did have a real faith, and a lot of the stuff we Protestants focus on as being 'Catholic' in negative ways is in many ways fairly peripheral to Catholics too: the focus being the saving grace of Christ.

Anyway, since then I have looked on as most of my close Protestant friends from college have ended up with Catholic spouses... including one who is an Anglican clergyman.

Whoever said we should be focussing on what we share, not where we differ, is spot on. "It's the same God" gets "I suppose" appended and is used as a grudging admission, where it should be the glory of it all. Unfortunately, too often (as Christians as in many other things) we seek to bolster our own position by doing down that of others.

Ian
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bob R:
Originally posted by Charles
Maybe not Charles but there are more than a few doubful practices in the Roman Catholic church. For example the elevation of the Virgin Mary a co-mediatrix with Christ. The doctrine of the assumption of Mary, the doctrine of the perpetual virginity of Mary, the whole business of the veneration of Mary that is bordering on worship.

Add to this catalogue of error a few other heretical practices like the Mass and the shrine worship and the "magic charms" and the "holy" water and the images etc., etc and it is no wonder that some people are confused about whether roman Catholics are Christians.

---

RuthW - I haven't quoted your response to this, but anyway....

When I was in poland at the Taizé European meeting I wandered into a fair few RC churches. If I hadn't known better, I'd have thought they were worshipping Mary. From talking to the Eastern Europeans present, there were some seriously "dodgy" views being propounded by their priests.

At the same time though, the RC church was doing a huge amount of good with the poor, and any doubt about their christian faith as evidenced by the way they lived was misplaced.

Having read "the death cookie" and Why is mary crying? you start to see where some of the views come from in the more extreme protestant end about Christianity and catholicism.

Thing is that, sadly Chick has a valid point in there, about how attending to ritual and other things can get in the way of a relationship with Christ. But equally we can get so hung up on this "relationship" thing, we can forget about others.

Imagine this situation.

A son raves on about how much he loves his mother, and how wonderful she is. But over the course of 3 years doesn't notice how ill she has become. They talk on the phone every week, but they have no idea of what is really going on in each other's lives. Yet they are apparently a model family. Then she gets cancer, and he gets a serious mental health problem.
And they can't accept that they didn't really know each other, so they attack those that did notice first. And they keep on affirming their relationship as if they're trying to convince themselves.

In the same way, this is the relationship people on both sides have with God. And it makes them spiritually sick, such they have to attack outside.

In both cases ritual has taken the place of a relationship with God.

I'm not saying all are like this. But I thought it served as an illustration.
 

What kind of ritual you go for depends firstly on your upbringing, then on temperament: your parents bring you up in a certain way, maybe not to believe in God at all, but eventually you find a path that suits you. Religion is and should be a personal experience. People have different temperaments. Perhaps if I had been brought up a Protestant I would have found that satisfactory, but I think I would still have wandered. I've tried Buddhism, New Age thought, even wondered about Islam, but Catholicism is probably always going to be my home and I'm happy with that.

So for me there is no such thing as a heretic. Everybody has their own journey. The important thing is to make that journey in a spirit of sincerity and to be open to whatever experiences it brings. That includes listening to other people not only from other denominations but other religions. All the great mystical works of the major religions bear a striking similarity to each other which suggests that most of the time the only thing dividing us is language and small details.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carmel:

So for me there is no such thing as a heretic. Everybody has their own journey. The important thing is to make that journey in a spirit of sincerity and to be open to whatever experiences it brings. That includes listening to other people not only from other denominations but other religions. All the great mystical works of the major religions bear a striking similarity to each other which suggests that most of the time the only thing dividing us is language and small details.

---

My view is that there are heretical catholics, protestants, pentecostals, orthodox, but seldom heretical christians. (I have problems with christianity-lite, when the teachings are followed but the divinity of Christ is questioned, but even there I can think of none off-hand I would call heretical)

I agree with you about world religions though.
 

Carys
 

You know - as in "God loves you" while they're burning you at the stake. Bound to make you a heretic. Or selling indulgences; or supporting slavery/racism/homophobia while saying that God came to save the world - all things that both Catholic and Protestant (and probably Orthodox) Christians have supported.

"Heresy of practice" is far more damaging, in my opinion, than "heresy of belief."
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tubbs:

[A] believer in Christ during Biblical times was [called a] disciple or follower. Someone who looked at the example that Jesus said and followed it to the best of their ability And that's probably the best definition - it doesn't include or exclude anyone. Which is probably why we uncomfortable with it

Tubbs

---

I am not at all uncomfortable with it. In fact, that is the preferred name for members of my denomination, we call ourselves "Disciples". Please see www.disciples.org

BTW, am I the only "Disciple" here?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
That 'box' must have been a poignant reminder of our divisions. The Host - Christ's body, divided.

---

No, no, no, a thouand times NO!

The Body of Christ is NOT divided. The unity of the Church of Jesus Christ is a given.

It is us, prideful and sinful humans, who are divided.
 

I am a 64 year old cradle Catholic (RC if you prefer). I went to a Catholic school and was brought up in my faith. At no time have I hated Protestants. At no time have I met Catholics who hate Protestants. Nor was I taught to hate Protestants.

When I did my National Service, I met Protestants, of different denominations, for the first time. I was amazed at how well versed these Protestants were in anti-Catholic propaganda. It seemed obvious to me that they had been taught these things either at school or at church. This propaganda consisted of the usual chestnuts that appear on this board and elsewhere.

Since then I have taken part in ecumenical activities in which, the members of different denominations discussed their various standpoints.

The Mass is the centre of Catholic worship, as it is with the Orthodox Church.
The Eucharistic services of the Episcopalian and Church of England, which I have experienced, are the same as the Mass as to make no real difference.
Maybe someone can explain to me in what way the Mass is heresy.

 

The two things that would make some Protestants consider the Mass a heresy are the theology of transubstantiation
and that the mass was considered to be an actual re-enactment (or re-presentation) of the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.

Now these doctrines in the modern RC thought are in many ways no longer that important (as I understand it)but because it is part of the tradition of the church they are retained.

Charles you say the difference between the Anglican eucharist (the official one!) and the Catholic Mass is minimal but there are differences and they are quite fundemental doctrinally.

For instance the words said by the priest before the liturgy of the Eucharist usggest the idea of a re-presentation of the sacrifice of Jesus (see above) which protestants find difficult

quote:

---

Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father. the reponse of the people beingMay the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all his Church.

---

Another area which some protestants find difficult is the applied idea that receiving bread and wine is the means of salvation
as expressed in these words towards the end of the liturgy of the Mass

quote:

---

May this mingling of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ bring eternal life to us who receive it.

---

To be honest I can not see the problem with the use of the word 'mass' it simply means celebration and we use it a christmas quite happily.

(my apologies if i have upset anyone just trying to put a protestnat view with out upsetting people)
 

The words of distribution of BCP(1662)are
"The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.Eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart with faith and thanksgiving"

I suspect two strands of Anglican Eucharistic theology are about to surface!
My own understanding is that in the Eucharist we receive our Lord in with and under bread and wine as Luther described.There is a real presence of our Lord there but this presence is a spiritual one "given taken and eaten only in an heavenly and spiritual manner"(39 Articles)

I am not happy with transubstantiation;as to how our Lord is present is something I don't know.I would also maintain that the Presence is given to us for one reason only:that of reception.I feel uneasy with extra-liturgical use of the Sacrament - yes,I've been to them and very impressive services they are - it's just that they go beyond our Lord's command.Are we doing the right thing, I ask myself.I'm aware that many Anglicans of more lofty churchmanship than myself go further.Although I treat the elements with respect if some wine is spilt and gets on a blouse or a shirt...well my instinct is to put it in a washing-machine,not consume it with fire.(I'm not being sarcastic here BTW)

With the Eucharistic sacrifice,I find myself again between two views.I do not feel myself that we offer Christ again to the Father;and I dislike masses of private intentino.The Mass is for us all

Yet.....as we receive Holy Communion and are taken into Christ's presence,I feel that we do, in some way partake of the heavenly banquet.

Or let me quote from the C-i-W BCP(1984)
"And we pray that all we,who are partakers of this holy Communion,may be fulfilled with Thy grace and heavenly benediction and be numbered in the glorious company of Thy saints"
As far as the rest of this thread goes....of course Roman Catholics are Christians.And if I'm asked what I am I nearly always reply "Anglican",unless I'm in a situation where the difference is between Christian and atheist or agnostic,in which case I reply "Christian".But usually it's the former as in
"Oh...you go to church, then?"
"Yes"
"which one?"
Quite often it's as innocent as that!

 

The two things that would make some Protestants consider the Mass a heresy are the theology of transubstantiation
and that the mass was considered to be an actual re-enactment (or re-presentation) of the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross.
----------------------------------------

Two points: The question of transubstantiation has been covered many times before on this web site and on others. In general it boils down to which passages of the Bible you wish to quote.
John chapter 6 verses 35 to 58
Starting from verse 52
Then the Jews started arguing with one another: ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’ they said.
Jesus replied ‘ I tell you most solemnly, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you will not have life in you. Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink. Etc

Second point: The Mass is not a re-enactment of the sacrifice of Jesus on the Cross, rather, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church puts it ‘A memorial of His sacrifice’. 'In so doing, we offer to the Father what He has Himself given us: the gifts of his creation, bread and wine which, by the power of the Holy Spirit and by the words of Christ, have become the body and blood of Christ.'
 

The use of the word memorial (anamesis)can mean re-enactment and that was the sense in what it was used in the medieval church but
that now is untrue. It is unfortunate that that the phrases that the Priest utters before the liturgy of the Eucharist would still imply that.

Out of Interest why are these words used if actually that is not official Catholic doctrine?
The phrase 'Eucharistic sacrifice' (not a memorial of the sacrifice of Jesus) is made in various readings I have made on Roman Catholic doctrine what does this mean?

I suspect the answers will be theologically quite subtle hence it is confusing to protestants who effectively harken back to an image of the medieval church.
 

One of the reasons why I have not written much on the RC thread is that I could be misunderstood .
 

As a Catholic, I believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist. I do not see the Eucharist as a re-enactment only. Nor do I see the elements changing their chemical composition.

The penny catechism definition of a sacrament is "An outward sign with an inward grace."
This I think says it all.
 

quote:

---

Charles said As a Catholic, I believe in the Real Presence in the Eucharist

---

From reading your posts they hint that formal Roman Catholic doctrine and what most Roman Catholics believe are different. It probably explains why ARCIC got on well but when they took there conclusions to the Roman Catholic and Anglican leaderships it vanished in to the long grass.

So to the issue of heresy it is a shame that some protestants don't discuss the theological concepts with Roman Catholics themselves and discover that they are not that different theologically.

Slight aside
I once attended a very high Anglo catholic church on a feast of the Virgin mary where the words from the Roman Missal where used. My mate then took me to across the road to the Local RC where all words about Sacrifice where ommitted and no angelus. But hey that's life .
 

All this sniping seems rather petty to me. I never experienced any anti-Catholic sentiments before coming to this website, and I have never hated Protestants. I would strongly urge people to try to look past labels. I don't have a problem with you having doctrinal differences to me. It is interesting and a different perspective. It makes me think. I may not necessarily adopt them but at least I can learn more about how other people approach God.

As for believing that denominations other than your own are "heretics" - this is a dangerous concept and one that should not be pursued.
 

From reading your posts they hint that formal Roman Catholic doctrine and what most Roman Catholics believe is different.

To the best of my knowledge, I am an orthodox Catholic.

The confusion, as I see it,lies between what is formal Roman Catholic doctrine and what is thought to be formal Roman Catholic doctrine.

If you are interested in the formal Catholic doctrine, it is to be found in “The Catechism of the Catholic Church”.

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carmel:
most of the time the only thing dividing us is language and small details.

---

Carmel,

I hope that you and all other Christians who worship in the Catholic tradition feel welcome on these boards, and that we can all learn from each other. The Ship is a better place for having many traditions represented.

It seems to me that the Catholic tradition is not immune from the extremism and fundamentalism that is (in the English-speaking world) more commonly associated with the protestant tradition. I suspect that none of us wants to be judged by the extremists we tolerate.

All Christians are supposed to be as brothers and sisters to each other. But then, aren't all mankind supposed to be as brothers and sisters to each other ?

Anyone who has brothers and sisters will know that they can be quite infuriatingly and unrepentantly wrong about all sorts of things.

Human institutions can appear very threatening things (cf Ronald Reagan's "evil empire" speech) from a distance, and also very reassuring if we've grown up with them close by and are used to having them around.

Jesus doesn't say much about institutions; he seems to relate to people as people rather than as symbols (of empire, nation, priesthood or whatever).

It is probably an inescapable facet of human nature that, perceiving value in the words of Jesus, we wish to divide the world into "Christians" and "non-Christians" with more status given to the former than the latter. But it's not obvious whether such an activity achieves anything worthwhile.

Is there an unwritten commandment of the Ship that says "Thou shalt not doubt whether shipmates are Christian" ? Is it offensive to call other shipmates unChristian ?

Having said that I'm all for mutual acceptance, I have a niggling doubt. Do we consider it acceptable behaviour for someone to deny that anyone from other denominations is Christian ? is saved ?

What about Ratzinger-style doctrine - the view that there is only one Christian church (whose head is the Pope) and other churches aren't churches at all, just collections of individual heretics ?

Can tolerance tolerate intolerance, or must we draw a line ?

Trying to sum up a rather rambling post, I don't find much difficulty in writing off KKK-type "Christians" in far-off places as extremist loonies. But I have difficulty in knowing how to respond to reasonable and
reverent Christians of the largest Christian denomination who implicitly (by their apparently unquestioning acceptance of their church's doctrine) seem to be signing up to unacceptably intolerant attitudes.

Is it just a case of if we all distance ourselves from the extremists in our respective denominations we'll all get along fine ?

Russ
 

I have looked the The Catechism of the Catholic Church up on the net.

With regards to the Mass being a reenactment of the sacrifice of Jesus after reference to 1364-1368 it appears to mean that the Eucharist is a participation in the Sacrifice of Jesus as opposed to an re-enactment.

para 1367

[

quote:

---

The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: "The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different." "In this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner."[188]

---

Catechism of the catholic church -Eucharist

The concept of transubstantiation as expressed by myself seems to be the belief of the Roman Catholic church. It certinly seems to be going further than An outward sign with an inward grace.

para 1367

quote:

---

The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."[204]

---

reference page

Hence to the earlier question some protestants will consider the above believes to be heresy. The former because it suggests that the Mass is needed to make the sacrifice of Jesus's death complete and the latter because it seems to ask for several miracles at once and Jesus's body to be on earth in a piece of bread as opposed to in heaven.

I am trying not offend anyone and if I have done so I am sorry. I do not consider it to be heresy just different to what I consider to be correct
 

quote:

---

But I have difficulty in knowing how to respond to reasonable and
reverent Christians of the largest Christian denomination who implicitly (by their apparently unquestioning acceptance of their church's doctrine) seem to be signing up to unacceptably intolerant attitudes.

---

Can I have an example of what you would consider an unacceptably intolerant attitude?
 

I think this thread is rather depressing; i hve to agree with those who've said they've seen too much anti-catholic prejudice here.

So to get back to the original point, can we work out what doesn't make a christian and see what we're left with?

MadKaren
 

I say people are not Christians who:

1. Deny the divinity of Christ.

2. Deny that salvation depends on believing in Him and obeying His teachings.

These two things assume the existence of God, heaven and hell, and divine revelation.

I don't think that any of the Christian religions, Catholic, Protestant, or whatever, deny these things. Maybe I'm wrong.

Anyway, I agree that going after the details of the Catholic Mass and other practices is kind of depressing.
 

quote:

---

Deny that salvation depends on believing in Him and obeying His teachings.

---

That's me out then.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
I agree.

I say people are not Christians who:

1. Deny the divinity of Christ.

2. Deny that salvation depends on believing in Him and obeying His teachings.

---

I would adjust 2. to 'Deny that salvation depends on believing in Him, and accepting him as your saviour' - obeying his teaching is something we strive for, and do because we love him and want to serve him, but it is not our deeds which get us into heaven.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
Sparkle - may I ask you where 'accepting him as your saviour' comes from?

---

... and exactly what does it mean?

I believe it is through Him we are redeemed, including me personally but along the lines that Karl quotes.

So that's me out - especially if you start introducing an unshakeable belief in hell as an additional criteria.

So is that me out too
 

Might the answer be: Anyone who knows the answer to Jesus' question: "Who do you say that I am?"

Just a thought.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl:
That's me out then.

---

Ha-ha! I knew this line of thought would bear fruit!

Now having said all that, I should add that I don't believe that you have to be a Christian to be saved. I think everyone is saved who loves God and lives a good life - however they understand those concepts.

But Karl said:
John's gospel says that the judgement works on how we respond to 'the Light', not whether we have this personal Lord and saviour theology sorted out.

That sounds Christian to me.

Sparkle writes:
obeying his teaching is something we strive for, and do because we love him and want to serve him, but it is not our deeds which get us into heaven.

I knew someone would say this!

Jesus clearly said that if we did not obey Him we would not be saved.

And don't pull that stuff about whoever disobeys the least of His commands breaks them all.

Of course we have no strength whatsoever to do His will - that's why we need Him. But we need to try just as if we did have the strength, and He will help us. How could someone be a Christian who didn't even try to obey God?

[fixed code]

[ 29 August 2001: Message edited by: RuthW ]
 

2. Deny that salvation depends on believing in Him and obeying His teachings./quote]

Definitely non-Christian here, even if I had not chosen a different faith instead: I believe that Jesus was only human, and that salvation is not even necessary or relevant (so that it can't depend on anything).
 

The Nearly Infallable Version renders Pauls reply to the Phillipian jailor's question "Sirs, what must I do to be saved?" as "Believe in the Lord Jesus and you will be saved". How is this irrelevant to the jailor's salvation?
 

That is different than what it is to be saved.

Or do you think that ALL Christians and ONLY Christians are saved? I don't believe either of these is true.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ingeborg S. Nordén:
I too would like to apologize for being blunt about my beliefs in the previous message; the administrators may delete that post if they choose. (Although I've mentioned my own beliefs elsewhere on the board, I still enjoy discussing other people's religions whether or not I agree with them!)

---

Host hat on
Ingeborg, there is no need for you to apologize for being blunt about your beliefs.
Host hat off
 

It is kind of interesting to probe around as to what people think Christianity is all about.

In the end, though, it does tend to head in directions that are not very Christian.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ham'n'Eggs:
Which part of "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved" do you have problems with?

---

For a start, Jesus himself didn't say it.
What part of the story of the Good Samaritan do you have problems with? What part of Matthew Chap.25 vv31-46 do you have problems with?

I suppose I shouldn't have said belief is irrelevant. I just think it's not the deciding factor. Belief can be helpful, but not if you spend all your time doing mental gymnastics trying to get your head around theological concepts.
 

Sorry if I seem to be banging on about the same old stuff; I'm going to have another go at trying to formulate what I want to say, both to get it straighter in my own mind and in the hope that it might strike a chord with somebody else.

From what you've posted on this thread, I feel I can communicate with you and Charles in the same way as with anyone else on these boards. As one person to another, accepting that we're both in the same boat, trying to make sense of things, to understand where other people are coming from while staying true to the values we hold. (Does StPaul say somewhere something like "Come, let us reason together..." ?)

However, if you truly believe the doctrine expounded by Cardinal Ratzinger - that there is only one Christian church, i.e. the Roman Catholic church, and that all other Christians are simply heretics who reject that church - then that changes the relationship between us. You can't then talk to me on equal terms. You have to talk down to me as one with knowledge of the Truth to one who is in ignorance of that truth. As (if you'll pardon the analogy) a club member in good standing to someone who claims some of the benefits of membership but hasn't paid his dues. I am no longer your brother in Christ, I am someone who lapsed fifteen generations ago, who follows the error of his ancestors who wilfully turned their back on the church.

[The Catholic church once believed that heretics should be punished. Has it ever officially renounced this view?]

That's what I mean by an intolerant attitude; no doubt it was and still is badly expressed, for which I'm sorry. [Some Protestants seem to hold a similar sort of attitude to Catholics, regarding them as targets for evangelisation rather than Christians in a different tradition with different emphasis].

Nothing that you or Charles (or anyone else on this thread) has said suggests that you hold Ratzinger's view of other Christians. But if this is the official Vatican view, then is it surprising if Catholics who don't in some way distance themselves from official doctrine are suspected of holding it ?

I was hoping that you or Charles would come back and say that you regard Ratzinger as an extremist who interprets the tradition of the RC church in a particularly intolerant and unhelpful way. And that your interpretation of the same doctrinal point is only that Catholics believe that the Catholic church has got it broadly right, just like every other denomination.

Any thoughts ?

Russ
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Qlib:
For a start, Jesus himself didn't say it.

---

What Jesus said was, "Preach the Gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved. But he who does not believe will be condemned." Mark 16.15,16

This requires, I think, some interpretation.

Believing and being baptized, in this context, means something going on in a person's mind and heart. It would be absurd to think that everyone who says, "I believe", and is literaly baptized, is saved.

Jesus is speaking of people who are in harmony with the teachings of the Gospel, who put away their sins, and who follow Him in their life.

People are condemned who are the opposite of this - rejecting any concept of good and evil, living only to serve themselves, with no thought of benefiting others.

Qlib, I agree with you when you say:
I suppose I shouldn't have said belief is irrelevant. I just think it's not the deciding factor.

The deciding factor is what a person genuinely believes in their heart, and what they therefore love, and the way that they therefore live their life.

And just to comment on what Russ just said about Cardinal Ratzinger - Are you asking the Catholic Church to reverse its position and declare all Christian churches equal? I think that is asking a little much, since the Catholic church was the original one (apart from Orthodox) and we all broke away.

Doesn't everyone think that their church has some kind of edge on interpeting the truth?

Most people tend to think that all churches have a part of the truth, not just their own. But the churches themselves seldom officially teach that they are not necessarily right.

Why single out Catholics, except perhaps for asserting this with more certaintly than other Christian churches?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Why single out Catholics, except perhaps for asserting this with more certaintly than other Christian churches?

---

I have been wondering this myself. Nobody has so far had a go at the Orthodox or other denominations. We just happen to be close at hand and so more visible. I am not here as an apologist for the faith that I was baptized into. I am not a theologian or anything to do with the clergy. I do not know the ins and outs and finer details of doctrine. Half the questions raised on this and other threads would puzzle most of the ordinary Catholics I know. In the course of day to day life most of us never even stop to think about whether people we meet are or are not heretics. I've never even heard anyone use the word in real life.

It is clear from the postings I have read that many Protestants perceive far more of a difference between Catholics and Protestants than I do or the other Catholics I know do. If you have difficulty accepting aspects of our faith let me make this clear to you: you are not obliged to.

From the number of times that this topic has recurred, the Catholic/Protestant differences are clearly an issue for some people. I think we must have had at least three threads on it so far ranging from questions framed in a spirit of genuine inquiry to statements condemning Catholics out of hand. Life is full of people who think differently. Sadly, life is also full of people who just can't accept this fact.

Now let's get back to discussing what makes a Christian.
 

Although the original post is worded in such a way as to include discussion of Catholicism per se, since there is now a Catholic Beliefs thread, it would be better to discuss Catholic doctrine about the status of other Christians there.

Host hat off
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Doesn't everyone think that their church has some kind of edge on interpeting the truth?

---

Well, actually, no we don't. In fact, we make a point of saying that we DON'T have an edge on the truth.

quote:

---

Most people tend to think that all churches have a part of the truth, not just their own. But the churches themselves seldom officially teach that they are not necessarily right.

---

We feel that the truth is shared by the WHOLE of the Body of Christ, of which we are only part. No one, including our own denomination, has a monopoly on the truth.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Campbellite:
No one, including our own denomination, has a monopoly on the truth.

---

And is this the correct position to take? Or is it quite possibly wrong?

What denomination is this, by the way?
 

I think it was Cardinal Ratzinger who objected to the phrase 'Sister Churches'.

'The Catechism of the Catholic Church' speaks warmly of the other Churches.
To quote:

'The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honoured by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter'.

And again:

With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so prfound 'that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord's Eucharist'.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
Believing and being baptized, in this context, means something going on in a person's mind and heart.

---

Believing in what though? I'm not going to re-run the 'I am not a Christian' thread here, but Jesus did not preach the Virgin Birth or (obviously) the redemptive sacrifice. He spoke of God as Father and the Holy Spirit, but didn't preach the doctrine of the Trinity, and responded to both 'Son of Man' and 'Son of David' (and, yes, I know there are many layers of meaning to both these appellations).

I think we partly agree that there is a complex relationship between faith and works, but that passage from Matthew that I referred to suggests to me that service to others counts as service to God. Whether you believe in Him or not. And faith without works is dead.

However Quakers don't believe they have a monopoly of the truth either. So I'm gonna shut up now.
 

quote:

---

I think it was Cardinal Ratzinger who objected to the phrase 'Sister Churches'.

'The Catechism of the Catholic Church' speaks warmly of the other Churches

---

It was in fact "Dominus Iesus", issued last September, which put official catholic teaching back before Vatican II and caused quite an uproar - at least here in Germany - because it denied that there are churches outside the Catholic Church. We others are merely ecclesiastical communities lacking the full characteristics of a church.

Practically all Catholics I know were as aghast about that backslide as Protestants, and in general I would say that that Catholicism I meet when I talk to friends, visit a Benedictine abbey or just the church opposite my house is decidedly different from the "official version" - and a lot more accessible in theory and practice.

Abo
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
We're talking about what it is to be a Christian.

That is different than what it is to be saved.

Or do you think that ALL Christians and ONLY Christians are saved? I don't believe either of these is true.

---

Only people who are saved are Christians....

Peoples stance in this subject is highly puzzling and makes no sense.
Why would people want to be Christians if they don't feel they want or need to be saved. Why are people making such a simple and easy thing so complicated.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by strathclydezero:
BigAL - sorry to say I'm with Freddy on that one.

---

Me too. Big Al your comments might make more sense if I understood what 'to be saved' means to you?
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BigAL:
Only people who are saved are Christians....Why would people want to be Christians if they don't feel they want or need to be saved.

---

The point is that to be saved you need to love God and love your neighbor, as Jesus commanded.

Many people do this without ever even having heard of Jesus.

Still, doing as Jesus said is the only way to salvation. He is the way, the truth and the life. If you hear His sayings and do them you will be like a wise man. These sayings teach the way of salvation more clearly and truly than any other on earth. There is, in fact, only one way of salvation, which is the way that Jesus taught: love God and love your neighbor.

This doesn't mean that non-Christians aren't saved. It means that those who fail to do as Jesus taught are not saved. Non-Christians who live as Jesus taught are in unity with true Christians, whether they have ever heard of Jesus or not.

Everyone needs to be saved from the power of evil. Becoming a Christian is learning the right path, which Jesus taught, and following it. This is why we should become Christians.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by BigAL:
Why are people making such a simple and easy thing so complicated.

---

Because the last 2,000 years have shown that this is not a simple and easy thing.

The early church started off by saying that anyone who believed in their heart and confessed with their lips that Jesus was Lord would be saved - yet Christian history has shown that many people who did both were not exactly paragons of the Christian life - by their fruit one could reasonably conclude that they weren't Christians at all.

The point has to be made that there is a difference between formally identifying oneself with the word "Christian" - for example, is as used by the far right organisaation "Christian Identity" - and the actuality of living up to that identifier. Calling yourself Christian doesn't make you one. And this is particularly true in the light of several centuries of "Christian(ised)" culture, which has the Christian story in its consciousness and therefore assumes it is Christian.
 

Seems to me that if a hypothetical non-believing Robinson Crusoe on a desert island were to find a Bible washed up on the beach one day, and reading it, decide that for the sake of being more like Jesus he would be more forgiving to Man Friday, then I'd be happy to include said Crusoe as a Christian - a follower of Christ. At least until the next book washed up on the shore...

My previous doubt related to a different question, which might be phrased as "who should the worldwide community of Christians recognize as being Christian". In which case willingness to recognize other Christians as Christians might in principle be considered a requirement (if it could be implemented in a way that didn't result in circular reasoning).

Abo - thanks for the reassurance.

Carmel - sorry; I had no intention of trying to make you justify the Catholic position on anything and everything, still less of attacking your beliefs. I suppose I'm interested in the relationship between the beliefs of Catholics (what they think inside their own heads) and the official doctrine of the Catholic institution - the process of belief rather than the content.

Peace be with you.

Russ
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:
Attempting to address the original question:
"who should the worldwide community of Christians recognize as being Christian". In which case willingness to recognize other Christians as Christians might in principle be considered a requirement (if it could be implemented in a way that didn't result in circular reasoning).

Russ

---

Obviously, anyone who agrees with ME!

Seriously, I tend to err on the side of being open to all who call themselves Christian, unless by their own actions or words they show themselves to be completely at odds with Scripture and Tradition. After all, we are not authorized to pass judgement on anyone.

A little heresy never hurt anyone, a LOT of heresy OTOH...
 

Amen!
 

As my journey through life crosses the paths of many genuine believers who's stance on some issues are quite different to mine. I become bewildered and ask my creator "Whats it all about?" He replies " It's all about knowing Me Jesus and the One who sent me. When you turned to Me I came and lived with you." (Something like that anyway) The question is not so much is a Catholic a Christian because that's to general, rather is the individual a follower of Christ and does Christ dwell with them. I cannot live without my Lord, I am nothing and without identity other than that which Christ has given me. If a man can say that, who can judge, only God who knows all things. Beware of labels, sometimes there on the wrong box.

over and out
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Freddy:
The point is that to be saved you need to love God and love your neighbor, as Jesus commanded.

---

quote:

---

This doesn't mean that non-Christians aren't saved. It means that those who fail to do as Jesus taught are not saved. Non-Christians who live as Jesus taught are in unity with true Christians, whether they have ever heard of Jesus or not.

---

There is a difference which must be addressed between being a christian and having a christian lifestyle.
There is only one way to be saved and that is through Christ (John 14:6). Works by themselves are no good (paul.. somewhere)..

We can walk the walk but unless we are saved there is no point it will not get us anywhere. So yes people can be nice people and do good things but it will not get you anywhere in the long run, praise from man in the short term but thats worth nothing once you are dead and it holds no favour with God.

Anyone who is saved is also a Christian ...
By saved I mean " will not face gods judgement at the great white throne and have their names written in the lambs book of life. They have done this by accepting Christ as Saviour(John 3:16)"

Splitting being Saved and being a Christian is sheer madness. I can see no justification for doing so.
 

If it means that you believe that someone could live opposite to the way that Christ taught and still be saved, the answer is no. You can't be a Christian and think that way.

But if it means that those are saved who live as Christ taught, whether they know about Christ or not, then the answer, in my book, is yes.

So I disagree with BigAl when he says:
There is a difference which must be addressed between being a christian and having a christian lifestyle.

I think the two are one and the same in essence, assuming that by lifestyle you mean a genuine and sincere life from a true love and God and of the neighbor.

The trick, however, which I think is at the root of the power of Christianity, is that you are handy-capped in acquiring this "lifestyle" unless you know God as He revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. Without knowing who God is, how can you know what true goodness is? Jesus is the way the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by Him.