[rkim291968]

I am not a Christian nor a Catholic but many of my relatives are devout Christians. One is even a minister. Anyway, when I think of a Christian, it includes Catholics and Orthodox Christians, etc.. However, one of my devout "Christian" relatives insisted that Catholic is not a Christian. He and I had a language barrier and we could not really discuss it in detail. Besides, the discussion was getting real passionate and almost confrontational so I stopped (didn't want to offend my in-laws in any way).

The question is, why some Christians think Catholic is not a Christian? What is a likely basis for that?

[nymphetamine]

Sure they have a few differences like the confessional and the rosary beads and they got the pope but they believe in God and Jesus just the same. I always was told they are christian too.

[Fr_Chuck]

In reality there is little that is different

The Catholics and the Orthodox have a lot of tradition ( the Orthodox actually more tradition than the Catholics)

There orgianlly was no denominations, only separate Christian churches lead by individual Apostles. As the Apostles died, the head of the local churches conitnued to lead these churches. The head of these churches were called Bishops.

Normally those Bishops over larger areas and bigger churhes were looked up to for leadership and advice (or they forced their leadership on smaller churches) there was no unity and there were no agreed to written text.

One church may have these letters, other churches had another set of letters.

As time progressed the main leaders of the church meet in Church councils to decide major and sometimes minor church issues, This was the first real denomination since it then forced its teachings upon all Christians and those not accepting were basically thrown out and declared non christian.

*** I am making this over simple so forgive a few liberties

This was not a catholic or an orthodox church,it was merely "the church"

As time went on over the next 900 years two basic leaders came to power, that of the Bishop of Rome "West"and that of the Bishop of East.

In reality the Bishop of Rome was not the leader of this group most of the time since he was normally out voted by those of the east. Later because of military force Rome became very powerful.

About 1100 the Orthodox and the Church of Rome split officially.

Now the Roman church did a lot of bad wrong things. So when churches using political and military force starting breaking away, when they formed their church they often started doing things not as much for bibical reason as it was just to do it different than the catholic church.

There are many, who have no real teaching of their own, will go back to 300 and 500 year old teachings to show how they are bad.

They want to make you think the Catholics pray to Mary for salvation not merely askiing her as a saint to intercede.

They want you to think everything the pope says is this or that.
Msot people, if not all that teach against the Catholic church are merely trouble makers who can't prove their faith better and want to talk against something instead of for something

The catholic Church believes in salvation though faith in Jesus Christ.
They also teach about grace through the sacraments which is different than many faiths.

In general they are all Christian, the ones that don't like to accept others as Christians are normally the ones you need to watch out for.

[rkim291968]

Thanks for your response, Fr_Chuck. It makes a lot of sense. :cool:

[orange]

Really great question rkim, and thanks Fr Chuck for explaining it so well.

I've always wondered about that myself too... I've heard many evangelical Christians saying that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are not true Christians. It's always struck me as a bit weird to say that though, since those two denominations were the First Church, as Fr Chuck says, and the others didn't come along until much later.

[Fr_Chuck]

If I had a 1000 pages I may cover it a lot better. But this is a general start.
.
We have to remember a lot of customs had Jewish / Hewbrew customs that were adapted as Christianty. But as customs go of course pagans had similar customs. In the old testement, both had alters, both burnt offerings to their God/god.

We adapted Baptism by John though Christ from the old purification cleaning. That is why the early Jews was not questioning John, since they knew about the ritual cleanings. This does not take away from our baptism, but others try to use theory because some pagans had some similar practices.

If people want to disucss more specific issues I am always glad to do so.

I am not Roman Catholic of course, so I do not follow the Pope, but respect him as the leader of his faith. I am not the best expect in our Order, we have men who are trained in Church Laws and Cannons and so much more. And some more specific details may take time to do good research.

[RickJ]

This very issue is a passion of mine, hence my construction of www.catholictruths.com

In short, the main difference is about Authority. Non-Roman Catholics adhere to the Bible as the sole authority, and Roman Catholics rely on The Church AND the Bible together.

Thankfully, the division between Catholic Christians and Non-Catholic Christians is becoming shorter and shorter... but there is still quite a way to go.

[talaniman]

History has shown us that every time a people are conquered the first thing to go is their religion.History also teaaches us that many atrocities occur in the name of God.CRUSADES/SPANISH INQUISITION)History also tells us that religion has been used to control people and wealth and for some to keep power.(KINGS?POPES of the middle ages and modern ayatollahs)I have always believed that even though we have different ways of doing things we all believe in just about the same thing as all the books of the world preach tolerance and peace.But I have always been suspicious of anyone who says this is the way the only way,I'm right, your wrong! I see no difference in christians,jews,muslims,catholics,hindi,pagans,or any other name you wish to use,because we are all human,The God of my understanding compells me to love ALL my fellow humans,and give them the dignity and respect that I would want them to give me,to bad as humans we make everything so darned complicated!:cool: :eek: :rolleyes:

[nymphetamine]

:confused: why do we have so many different denominations anyhow? My parents always confused me by taking us from one type of church to the next and I think that's why I'm so curious about wicca and all that stuff. I love God but why do we need denomination. I thought that god didn't care what church you are from as long as you believe in him.

[Morganite]

I am not a Christian nor a Catholic but many of my relatives are devout Christians. One is even a minister. Anyway, when I think of a Christian, it includes Catholics and Orthodox Christians, etc.. However, one of my devout "Christian" relatives insisted that Catholic is not a Christian. He and I had a language barrier and we could not really discuss it in detail. Besides, the discussion was getting real passionate and almost confrontational so I stopped (didn't want to offend my in-laws in any way).

The question is, why some Christians think Catholic is not a Christian? What is a likely basis for that?

The simple fact is that "some Christians" imagine that the only Christians are those in their particular sect. Evangelical Christians are foremost in this sense.

Similar problems plague every avenue of human socialisation whether religious or non-religious. It stems from the belief that one's own perception of something is the only correct view, and requires that they hold all who do not fit their Proctrustean bed to be denounced as auslanders.

The result is inevitable separation, stratification, classification, alienation, and persecution. It is hardkly ever pleasant. The sad thing apart from the hurt feelings is that once this type of mind is made up, it is closed to any attempt to discussion, and the sectarian becomes increasingly hostile and emotional in direct proportion to his abandonment of rationale. Some have called Satan the Great crowbar because he separates people. However, Satan's work does not get done unless, like God, he can find human hands, hearts, and tongues to do it for him.





MORGANITE


:)

[rkim291968]

The simple fact is that "some Christians" imagine that the only Christians are those in their particular sect. Evangelical Christians are foremost in this sense.

I think this may be closer to the truth although the person I was referring to picked out Catholics as non-Christians.

Where do people draw the line? I.e. among well known Christian denominations, which do you all consider "non-Christians" and why?

[RickJ]

:confused: why do we have so many different denominations anyhow?

It's because of the many who
1. Believe that the Bible is the sole authority for Christians, and that
2. Any good Christian can interpret it equally well.

So whenever someone thinks he can present the truths of Christianity better than "the church down the street" then he just starts a new church of his own.

[Morganite]

I think this may be closer to the truth although the person I was referring to picked out Catholics as non-Christians.

Where do people draw the line? I.e., among well known Christian denominations, which do you all consider "non-Christians" and why?

Since the Protestant Reformation it has been customary for Protestants to find reasons to exclude Catholics from being Christians solely on grounds of doctrine and paractice.

Where do people draw the line? People draw their lines anywhere that serves to separate themselves from others, but always with themselves on the 'right' or 'Christian' side of the line, and all others occupying a place across the line in 'Non-Christian Land.'

The line can be drawn so that the 'right' posiiton is that of accepting two and two only sacraments, and anyone who holds seven sacraments must, perforce, be on the 'wrong' or heretical side of the line.

That is one of the points of difference and separation between most protestants and Roman Catholics. Another is the question of sola scriptura. This aims at discounting the conciliar traditions of Rome, placing the RCC on the 'wrong' side of the orthodox-heterodox line of separation.

In practice, sola scriptura does not and cannot work for Protestants. The reason for its failure is rooted in Reformers jettisoning any reliance on the historical Councils of the Roman Church and replacing them with the notion that each individual Christian is responsible for interpreting the scriptures for himself by reading them and obtaining the Holy Spirit to determine the intent and meaning of what he reads.

The result of that doctrine has been the fragmentation of Protestantism into more sects, cults, and isms than have ever occurred or could occur in Catholicism, because RCC's Councils were believed to be inspired by the Holy Spirit in setting forth the doctrine and practice of the Church of Christ in faith and morals. It was a system that did not allow such wide variations in ritual and belief as did the Reformers' interpret-it-for-yourself approach to understanding the Holy Scriptures.

The flaw with the Reformers system of arriving at understanding of what the sacred volumes became readily apparent when the major Reformers themselves could not reach agreement on what the Bible taught and what was expected of Christians.

Another, less obvious, flaw is that much of what Protestants held on to in therir flight from Rome was detemrined by historical Roman Councils and edicts, and is not always readily apparent to readers of the Bibloe, nor, it seems, to the Holy Spirit.

The position of Christianity-at-large is that the Holy Spirit, that which Jesus called "the Holy Spirit of Truth," has given so many different explanations and interpretations to so mnay different people, that all that is left is a war of words and a tumult of opinions.

Lines of separation are drawn everywhere: Mode of baptism; meaning of baptism; esentiality of baptism; gifts of the spirit; speaking in tongues; interpreting tongues; nature of minijhstry; persons qualified for ministry; christology; nature of God; nature of man; salvation; eschatology; liturgy; clerical garb; which day is the Sabbath; circumcision; marriage; man's origin and destiny; theiosis; the fall of man; heaven and hell; nature of inspiration; interpretation of scripture; celibacy; human sexuality; child rearing; mission; diet; Jewish dietary law; women; and so on ad infinitum.

Among well-known Christian denominations which do I consider 'non-Christian' and 'why?'

If you had asked me what I think a person needs to do to be called a Christian, my answer would have been that if they believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Savior and Redeemer, and if they try to follow him and keep his commandments in the conduct of their lives, enduring to the end, believing that Jesus alone can and will save the obedient, then I would call them Christians without hesitation.

But as your question stands, my answer is that I consider them all Christians, because they bvelieve that Jesus is the Christ. That does not mean that I believe they all have the doctrine quite right, but that is a matter for God to dispose of in his own good time.

That is view. Perhaps it will help you advise those of your relatives who seem bent on engaging in a religious war with the good souls in the RCC.

I sincerely hope that you and your relations find the peace that the gospel of Jesus Christ brings, rather than continuing the war between rival factions that is one of the greatest failures of Christians of all nomenclatures who engage in religious politicking.





MORGANITE


:)

[phildebenham]

Being a Catholic, a Baptist, A Presbyterian, a Luthern, a Methodist, ad infinitum, does not make one a Christian. There are people in all of these denominations who are Christian and who are not Christian but just call themselves Christian.

What, then, is a Christian? A Christian is one who has recognized his/her sin and has repented, believing that Jesus bore his/her sin on the cross, and has committed his/her life to Him. All other titles are insignificant.

[RickJ]

Yes, A Christian is a disciple of Christ [Acts 11:26]

[Morganite]

Really great question rkim, and thanks Fr Chuck for explaining it so well.

I've always wondered about that myself too... I've heard many evangelical Christians saying that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox are not true Christians. It's always struck me as a bit weird to say that though, since those two denominations were the First Church, as Fr Chuck says, and the others didn't come along until much later.

Finding a name for the church founded by Jesus has not been easy, and so we are left to surmise what it was called, if indeed it was called anything other than the name by which it is referred to in the book of Acts, where is it called: The Church, or as in Acts 20 the churhc is called The Church of God.

It was not the church of Rome, Constantinople, or anywhere else. Its headquarters were at Jerusalem, but it was not called the Church of Jerusalem. It had, as Bishop Chuck wrote, branches in various places.

These offshoot branches were usually founded by missionary apostles, but that might not always have been the case. We simply do not know. Because of the traveling and misisonary commission held by apostles it is doubtful that they stayed to supervise the branches they planted. Had they done so, their missionary endeavours would have been seriously curtailed.

Local officers were appointed to oversee local congregations. These are called by a variety of, at times, confusing names, in New Testament letters.

The word "elder" took on a different meaning (though sometimes still evidently used with Old Testament meaning). Writing to Titus in Crete, Paul informs him he was left there to "set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee." Peter spoke of himself as an elder. The elders had priestly authority to anoint the sick with oil and pray over them, and in his first epistle, Peter outlines their duties and directs the young folk to "submit yourselves unto the elder."

The word "bishop" seems not to have been used in the Old Testament, though Peter quotes psalm 109.8 as using the term. However, in the Church presided over by the Apostles, the word is used to designate an office with definite duties. Paul speaking to the Church at Ephesus, calls them "overseers, to feed the church of God."

Writing to Timothy, Paul lays down the qualifications of a bishop: he must be blameless, vigilant, sober, given to hospitality, apt to teach, temperate, not quarrelsome, not greedy for filthy lucre, patient, not a brawler nor covetous, must be the husband of one wife--there was no hint of celibacy in the early Church but this positive command against it--ruling his own family, "having his children in subjection with all gravity; (for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)."

Instructing Titus as to the Cretians, Paul repeated essentially the same qualifications, adding: "Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers." This text somewhat confuses "elders" and "bishops." The instructions given by Paul show that the bishop was of lesser authority than the apostle, for Paul, an apostle, directed the bishop. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of the apostle was Church-wide; the bishop was a local officer.

A bishop, sometimes called a pastor, is a shepherd of a flock; an overseer. It is from the Greek for 'overseer' that the word bishop has come into English usage. It was used in Britain before AD 900 in its Middle an old English form bisc(e)op and was derived from the vulgar Latin ebiscopus, which was a lazy attempt at the late Latin word, episcopus , which was derived directly from the Greek epískopos which means overseer , a compound of two Greek words, = epi- which means (among other things) "on, upon, at" + skopós which means 'watcher.' Hence 'one at watch' or 'on watch,' or 'the one having oversight,' 'bishop' or 'pastor' more commonly.

We would epxect all bishops wherever they are situated to be uinder the direction of the apostolic college. A huge problem arose with the death of all those who were called to apostalcy. Wisely, the church looked for ways forward without the giants who had founded them. With their deaths, and the deaths of the hearers, and the deaths of the hearers of the hearers, sound doctrine became a disputed commodity. From surviving documents were find that Clement bishop oif Rome took it upon himself to caution other branches of the church. He did so as a brother in faith, not as one having greater authority.

The ensuing struggle for control between the bishops of the great metropolitan cities of the Roman empire is high drama and sowed the seeds of later schisms, eventually to the Great Schism between East and West.



M:)RGANITE

[orange]

Well that's all very interesting and informative, Morganite. You sure seem to know a lot about the background of various churches, etc. Are you by any chance a college lecturer? You sound a lot like my old religious studies professor from university! :p

I guess what the whole thing boils down to for me is... why do people of different denominations feel the need to judge each other so harshly? Doesn't Jesus say somewhere in the NT about not judging others lest you be judged yourself? And I understand the earlier statement made by phildebenham, that not all people in the Christian church are Christians, but... how does anyone have the right to judge who individually is a Christian and who isn't? Isn't that incredibly arrogant? After all, none of us are God and you can't see what's in a person's heart.

[Starman]

We can disagree on doctrinal matters and we are allowed to classify conduct as wicked or righteous and say that people who continue stubbornly in sin will not gain life. What we are not qualified or assigned to do is to assume that we know any given person's, or group of persons' eternal destiny. That knowledge only God can possess.

Psalm 9:8
He shall judge the world in righteousness,And He shall administer judgment for the peoples in uprightness. NKJV

BTW
Doctrinal accuracy is not the litmus test for salvation. Furthermore, prophecy tells us that the present situation of differences of opinion will be remedied by God himself when he erstablishes his kingdom on earth.

Luke 11:2
So He said to them, “When you pray, say: Our Father in heaven, Hallowed be Your name. Your kingdom come. Your will be done On earth as it is in heaven.

Isaiah 11:9
They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD As the waters cover the sea.


Habakkuk 2:14
For the earth will be filled With the knowledge of the glory of the LORD, As the waters cover the sea.
NKJV

[Fr_Chuck]

And sadly I forgot to address part of the original question.

Yes there are some groups ( much smaller groups in over all Christianity) that teaches that Catholics are not Christian. They will actually go as far and claim that the Catholic Church is the anti-christ of the bible.

You can hear their slander all the time on some of the more funalmental christian radio stations. There are other groups such as "chick publications" that go out of their way to show how catholics are not saved and that they are not christians. They even print tracts designed for no other purpose than to "save" catholics from their sinful religion.

Personally they have either been taught incorrect things, won't understand that yes there were issues 1000 years ago and even some problems today but that any denomination lead and operated by men will at times have problems. Look at the more liberal churches in America today, I would challenge many of them is they are really christian.

[jduke44]

First of all, forgive me if I repeat anything anyone has said already or misunderstood anyone's post but I am kind of tired and tried to read everything.

Coming from my point of view of Catholics I think has been very skewed. Let me explain why.I grew up Catholic. I went to Sunday School, went to church every once in awhile but from my memory of this this is where I would get the fact that Catholics are not Christians. I am NOT saying that catholics are not Christians, just saying if I did this is where I would have derived this viewpoint. I did get anything from the Catholic church I went to so when I got saved I knew I didn't want to be associated with the Catholics. I felt they focused too much on the materialistic rituals instead of being close to God. Again, this is how the Catholic Church I went to made it seem.

In my maturing years I have realized that there are Catholics that are Christians and ones that are not. It is much the same with Christian denominations. I, as a Christan, have matured to realize that just because a person is of a denomination doesn't mean they believe a certain way. My wife and I are going to a Baptist church. I don't consider myself a Baptist. Mainly, because I don't like labels. I think it puts us in a box.

Once again, I have found myself learning more and more of not labeling people and faiths. I have learned a lot these past few months reading the posts of this forum with people of different faiths and am glad for it. To name a few Rick, Fr Chuck, Orange, and Millie. There are others, these are just ones that stick out.

I hope this all makes sense.

Fr Chuck -- You are right, this is a subject that couldn't be summed up quickly

Rick, someday I will get the time to read your links. I think it would be an enlightening read.