The Roman Catholic Church Is Christian

[Vernon]

The Roman Catholic church is Christian, and most of its adherents are Christian. Having said that with all sincerity, it is then necessary to ask what is meant by the word Christian.

Christian can mean, firstly, "believing or professing the religion of Christ".

If someone says that they believe or that they profess the religion of Christ, then surely their belief or profession that they are Christian must be accepted. It must be accepted as being a legitimate use of what Christian can mean in the English language.

Furthermore, it their belief that they are Christian is not accepted at face-value, then there is a failure to understand what Christ was saying in the Parable of the Tares {1}.

Christian can mean, secondly, "pertaining to Christ or Christianity".

This means that a person is a Christian if they live their life with reference to Christ, as opposed to Mohammed, Confucius, atheism, secularism, Buddha or Hinduism, for examples. And this still applies even if their understanding of Christ and of what he taught is seriously defective.

Christian can mean, thirdly, "following the precepts & example of Christ".

This is not really dissimilar to the first two but, perhaps, it is more practical and less to do with ideas and beliefs than the others. Such a person might consider that they are Christian because they are carrying out some of the things which Christ did and taught. Again, this is regardless of the inadequacy of their understanding of Christianity.

They might think that Christ majored on relieving poverty or healing sickness or giving hope to the dying or living a life separate from society. And they do this or a number of such things in some way conscious that Christ did such things. On this basis, they believe that they are Christian even if they know little or nothing of what Christ taught and believed.

Christian can mean, fourthly & finally, "a civilized human being who lives a decent, respectable and presentable life".

Since Christianity has been and, in my opinion, still is by far and away the most powerful force for good, for civilization, in any human society on the face of the earth, it is not hard to see how someone can perceive himself as Christian on the basis of being a civilized, law-abiding and respectable human being.

Now I might very well be of the opinion that all or most of these definitions of Christian are seriously defective, that they are a gross misunderstanding of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and his teaching, both from his own mouth and from the apostles whom he appointed.

However, that does not entitle me to throw out these definitions, which human society has grown to use and to understand over the centuries since Christ first taught in Palestine. However wrong I may know they are, I must not reject them, because they are full of meaning to many, many other people.

Consequently, to say that the Roman Catholic church is not Christian is not only to rubbish these serious definitions of what Christian means, but also to begin to reject English as a language of communication.

Since spreading the Gospel of Jesus Christ or the best definition of Christian, such as Bible Christian, necessarily requires the use of language, in this case English, it does mean that we should not only understand how others understand the word Christian, but also respect these different understandings.

By all means seek to move someone from their definition of Christian to your own, but do so whilst respecting where they are at the beginning of your conversation with them.




As a Protestant, I am profoundly and deeply grateful to the Catholic church which, up to about 500AD, was so successful in fighting for the Deity of Christ, for the Trinity in which Jesus is also God as is the Holy Spirit, and for the genuine humanness of Jesus Christ, ie that he was a real human being.

At that time, there were at least a half-a-dozen other views of Christ, any one of which could have reigned supreme instead of Catholicism. Arianism denied the deity of Christ so that, if Arianism had won the hearts of the majority of Christians during the 5th century AD and then that of the Emperor Constantine, we would be living in a totally different world now, with a view of Christ similar to that of Islam.

This means that it is not true to say that "practically all the precepts of the Roman Catholic church contradict the Bible". The precepts of this church regarding the person of Christ, his deity & humanity, and his relationship with God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, do not contradict the Bible.

These few precepts may be small in number to the many precepts by which the Roman Catholic church does contradict the Bible, but they are, nevertheless, central, axiomatic, fundamental and crucial to Christianity. And they were won by the Roman Catholic church's predecessor, the Catholic church.




Let's look at the suggestion that the Roman Catholic church is a cult. Cults are new faiths within the context of the relevant society {2}. Therefore, Jesus Christ founded a cult because it was a new faith within the Roman Empire.

Cults start small; they violate previous religious norms (such as the dominant pagan polytheism of the Roman Empire); and they are usually targets of considerable hostility {2}. Clearly then, the Christianity, which lifted the Roman Empire off its feet within three centuries, and which is the most influential world religion of today, started as a cult.

However, by the time the Emperor Constantine brought Christianity into the Empire, Christianity was not new and, therefore, it was no longer a cult by then, if not before. Since the Roman Catholic church is one of the two continuations of the Catholic church, which itself was not a cult in Constantine's time, then the Roman Catholic church is not now a cult.

It does not matter how much one may dislike the Roman Catholic church, it is not a new faith and is, therefore, by definition, not a cult. It this is not accepted, then we are back with the problem of not using the English language as the majority of people use it.




Of course, we should debate and talk with Roman Catholics and, maybe, we can persuade some to come over to our view of what is Christian.

However, I would respectfully suggest that we should not even begin to do this by saying, at the outset, that the Roman Catholic church is not Christian.




1 Matthew 13:24-30

2 The Rise of Christianity - How the Obscure, Marginal Jesus Movement Became the Dominant Relgious Force in the Western World in a Few Centuries 1997 p33 Rodney Stark; HarperCollins ISBN 0-06-067701-5

[Paul]

Vernon: > [" it is then necessary to ask what is meant by the word Christian."]

CHRISTIAN?

The genesis of christianty was the Damascus Road Event.

The first people that were called Christians were in Antioch.

"Barnabas departed for Tarus to seek Saul. And when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So it was that for a whole year they assembled with the church and taught a great many people. And the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch." - (Acts 11:26 )

King "Agrippa said to.Paul, 'You almost persude me to become a Christian.' And Paul said, 'I would to God that not only you, but also all who hear me today, might become both and altogether such as I am'" - ( Acts 26:28-29 )

Saul/St.Paul was the very first Christian according to what is written.

Before the Damascus road event there were no christians, but the disciples of Jesus were called the people of The Way.

The people of The Way of The Lord are those that believe that the 'Testimony of Jesus' is 'The Word of God' and is to be followed.

As Jesus has said "If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin, but now they have no excuse for their sin" - (John 15:1-22)

Christians are those that believe in the 'Testimony of Saul/St Paul' to be 'The Word of God'

"Many will sat to Me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, and cast out demons in Your name and done many wonders in Your name? And then I declared to them, 'I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!" ( lawlessness is sin )

Saul/St Paul said, "I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin."

Peace be with you, Paul

[Aaron Spicka]

Its as simple as this - If you believe with your heart that jesus died for your sins and accept him as your savior - your a christian. Catholisism Isn't centerd around jesus and what did. Well not totally at least but a catholic and a chirstian today are not the same. Catholics practicaly worship mary and I will probably never understand why. What the hec makes her worthy of prayer? What is the new testement focus on? Hummm..... lets see aaa.... Jesus Christ. I probably should've read more of your long article but I didn't.
Just a few thoughts.

[Vernon]

Paul,

When "the disciples were first called Christians in Antioch", Christianity was very, very small indeed! Paul, whose conversion on the Road to Damascus was so important for the expansion of the new religion beyond Palestine, was still alive during the period you describe in your post.

Christianity was not only small in numbers at that time, but it was so out of context with the prevailing and long-established religions of Judaism and pagan polytheism, for examples. As a result, there was social and religious pressure upon those who were willing to call themselves Christian. And that pressure was unpleasant to say the least and occasionally life-threatening.

Therefore, it seems to me that it was very likely that those, who called themselves Christian, were truly and genuinely "people of the Way of the Lord", people who believed in the "Testimony of Paul to be the Word of God".

If you were not saved in your soul, if you were not hoping in Jesus Christ for your salvation through his death on the cross, if you were not confident about the resurrection of your body from being dead, then the social and religious pressures on you would have been such, I suggest, to make you want to stay within pagan polytheism or Judaism or Greek philosophy.

At that stage of Christianity, it simply wasn't worthwhile changing sides from your hitherto known religion to something which was new and, well, a cult. The disapproval and rejection of family, friends and neighbours as well as employers, would have been horrendous. It would have been difficult to stand up for the new faith at that time, if you were going to be one of those to whom the Lord would later say, "I never knew you, depart from me!"

The problem for what is meant by Christian grew after the Pauline era as Christianity became more and more accepted and valued by the society of the Roman Empire.

For example, Christianity became increasingly well thought of because of the care and respect the church gave to women, to infant girls, to the deeply poor and to those who became suddently and dangerously ill because of the frequent and intermittent epidemics of those days.

It became increasingly recognised that Christians did not throw plague victims out of the house into the street to die and, then, themselves, flee into the countryside like the pagans. No, Christians nursed the sick, whether Christian or pagan and, with nursing care, such as replacing lost fluid, people survived.

Even the Emperor Julian, known as the Apostate for his personal paganism, rebuked the pagan priests for failing to do for pagans what the Christians did for their own people and for pagans as well.

This popularity of Christianity, arising from its unique civilisation, resulted in more and more people becoming Christian in centuries one, two and three until, in the fourth century AD, when Constantine became Emperor, the population of the Roman Empire was about 30% Christian.

Now, we have a problem defining what we mean by Christian!

When Christianity, because of its civilized behaviour towards other human beings in the world, became so popular that about one-third of the 60 million inhabitants of the Roman Empire were calling themselves Christian, you do have to allow for more than one definition of Christian

When Paul was alive, there was no need to have more than one definition because Christianity was unpopular and so small. However, when Constantine became Emperor, Christianity was not unpopular but highly popular; it was not small but huge!

If one believes that abouit 30% of 60,000,000 people in the Empire were "the people of the Way of the Lord", that they were all people who believed in the "Testimony of Paul to be the Word of God", then there is no problem. But you and I don't believe that! I know this because you quoted Christ's words at the Last Judgment.

Therefore, the expandingly popular Christianity needed more than the one category of Christian in it compared to those early days of Paul, the Apostle. People were joining the Christian church because it was humane and civilized, good to the poor and underprivileged, caring to women and girls, for examples.

And I have listed various possible definitions of Christian in my initial post to this thread, which you were kind enough, not only to read, but to reply to.

[Aaron Spicka]

How do you know so much information on this topic? Is it all reliable, factual information?

[rockbotle]

The arguement that Catholics aren't Christian predominently orginates from Protestant camps that believe their particular brand of vodka is the only drink in town. Most Protestant churches I have been in treat Mary worship, the Pope, and other tennents of Catholocism like they are jokes.

Unless, of course, you're referring to Christian in the sense of national statistics, then Protestants will include Catholics, Mormons and nearly anything else to "prove" that there is a Christian majority among the American populace.

I've always viewed Catholocism and Protestantism as two halves of Christianity, kind of like the American and National leagues in Major League Baseball.

[Vernon]

Aaron

What do you mean when you write: "Catholicism isn't centred arouind Jesus and what he did. Well, not totally"? First you say that Catholicism is not centred around Jesus, and then you say that it is centred around Jesus, at least partially.

Catholicism is centred around Jesus Christ as being divine, being God, being the Son of God; around Jesus as being fully man, a full human being but not being solely human because he is God as well; around Jesus as being one of the three members of the Trinity, as being the Son of God.

Now, a religion, which does not have that, is not Christian.

So Islam is not Christian! But they have never claimed they are! Judaism is not Christian! Of course, they wouldn't argue with that! Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses are not Christian because, for them, Jesus Christ is not divine, not God in human flesh.

But the Catholic church does believe Jesus is God and Man together. Since Catholicism has identified correctly the person who founded Christianity, then Catholicism is centred around Jesus Christ, whilst Islam, Judaism, Mormonism and Jehovah Witnesses are not.

Since Catholicism has identified Christ correctly, why should it not consider itself to be Christian?

After all, Catholicism is using this word Christian according to how it is defined in the dictionary, according to believing or professing the religion of Christ or pertaining to Christ or Christianity. No one would say that Islam or Judaism believe or profess the religion of Christ. No one would agree that Islam or Judaism pertain to Christ.

Why, then, shouldn't Catholicism be allowed to differentiate itself from Islam or Judaism when it is correct about who Jesus Christ is. Jesus was not just a prophet like Mohammed! He was not just a rather clever Jewish rabbi, who got himself killed for undermining Judaism!

No, Catholicism is very clear that Jesus Christ was and still is fully God and fully human, and that, as God the Son, he is a member of the Trinity of Father, Son & Holy Spirit.

Many Catholics devote their lives to following the precepts and example of Christ in looking after the poor, caring for the sick, and spreading the Name of Christ within their particular gospel. Surely, to those, who have never heard of Christ previously, the Catholic missionaries will be deemed to be Christians by these primitive people, even if the worship of Mary is included in the Roman Catholic gospel.

Why shouldn't such dedicated Catholic people consider themselves to be Christian, when what they believe and what they do is totally consistent with one or other dictionary definition of the word Christian?





In your reply, you wrote, "If you believe with your heart that Jesus died for your sins and accept him as your Saviour, you are a Christian".

Well, Catholics believe that Jesus was God and a human being; they believe he died on the cross; they believe in sin; they believe that his death on the cross had something to do with sin and with appeasing God for their sin. I suggest that they believe or can believe in all of this.

If they believe in all of this, do you think it is impossible for God to work in a Catholic's heart in such a way that he or she can believe with their heart that Jesus died for their sins and are able to accept him as their Savioiur? The Jew can't do this! The Muslim can't do this! But the Catholic can!

So why can't some Catholics be Christian in the sense you defined as being as simple as this: "If you believe with your heart that Jesus died for your sin and accept him as your Saviour, you are a Christian"?

Sure Catholics worship Mary, and I agree with you that this raises big doubts as to whether they are relying for their salvation on Christ alone by faith in his redeeming work on the cross.

But why can't a Catholic simply go through the motions of Mary worship in public, but privately worship Christ alone with all his or her heart? The Protestant in you and me may well shout out, "Why doesn't he leave the Catholic church?" I suggest that for some people, in certain family, employment and religious circumstances, with an average or less level of intelligence, this may simply not be possible.

And besides, Protestants have an equivalent to Mary worship, don't they?

It is called church membership! What I mean is this that, as Catholics look to Mary for their salvation or to bolster their chances of salvation by Christ, so Protestants look to church membership for their salvation, to bolster their chances of salvation by Christ.

Is a Protestant willing to test his reliance on Christ alone by stopping going to church, say, for a whole year or for five years of his life, and by not taking the bread and wine in his or any other church for the same long period of time?

Can that Protestant get through that year or that five year period without feeling that God has withdrawn the salvation he once had, the salvation he felt sure of when he was attending church regularly?

If he loses his assurance of salvation and sins forgiven, then he was relying on church membership/attendance for salvation in exactly the same way as the Catholic relies on Mary. How, then, can the Protestant say that the Catholic church is not Christian?

He can say this, of course, but I suggest that such a comment arises out of the difference in culture between Protestantism and Catholicism.

To say that Catholicism is not Christian comes from failing to understand that no one, but no one, including the Protestant, stands righteous before God without God taking the initiative first of all.

[Trotsky]

I've read some bullshit here I can tell you that. Catholocism like ALL of the christian sects in entirely focused around Jesus Christ. Mary is not worshipped, she is seen as a saint and is prayed to as the mother of Christ for the quidence or whatever she gave to the young JC, in other words Catholics pray to her for motherly guidence. There is nothing divine about the way Catholics portray Mary...I should know I had to sit out during enough RE classes (a prod in a RC school) but I still listened in every now and then, Mary is just seen as one of the congregation of Saints, whom I'll add that Catholics also pray to, asking for their guidence and strenght in following the path of Christ.

I'm not any way religious, I just find it fuuny to watch and listen to the Prodestant sects belittle the Catholic and Orthodox Catholic churches and vice versa, each side claiming to be closer to Christ and pure etc etc, when If I remember my Sunday school teachings correctly was completely against the teachings of Christ, whom from what I understand taught not to love him or worship him but rather to love and worship God the father, and to treat everybody as if you were treating God himself?

Just a point really but if you ask me none of the Christian sects are anything like the definitions of "Christian" as outlined in the first post, they are so full of their own righteous indignation and doctorine they seem to have forgotten the teachings and sacrifices of a man who in essense was the first communist, a man whose life was far more important than his death, he may have died for our sins....but he lived to show us not to sin...which is more important?

[Lilith]

I could care less who is more Christian. Protestant, Catholic, who gives a shit. I don't. I know I sound like I'm fixing to go on a rant, I'm not, I promise. To me Christianity simply means the belief in Jesus as your lord and saviour, he forgives you of your sins and when you die you go to heaven. Albeit, there are alot of good little guidelines in the Bible for living a better life and being a better person, but I'm not swallowing the belief in Jesus as "lord and saviour". If it works for you fine, but it's not my cup of tea. And this constant battle over who's religion is the better.....it's getting really old really fast.

[Starboy]

Quote by: Vernon Christian can mean, fourthly & finally, "a civilized human being who lives a decent, respectable and presentable life". Since Christianity has been and, in my opinion, still is by far and away the most powerful force for good, for civilization, in any human society on the face of the earth, it is not hard to see how someone can perceive himself as Christian on the basis of being a civilized, law-abiding and respectable human being.

Such bald faced hubris. I am not a Buddhist but if you look at history you will find that Buddhism is older than Christianity and percentage wise has had just a tiny fraction of all the misery, wars, prejudice and intolerance practiced in the name of Jesus as has been practiced in the name of Buddha. In fact historically Christianity has not been all that much better than no religion at all whereas a very good case could be made that Buddhism contains some sort of active ingredient that actually has the ability to make men more peaceful and kinder to their fellow man. Not to say that Buddhist have not been and are not currently intolerant or violent, it is just that historically they are far less so than Christians.

As for the rest of it I agree that Catholics have more reason to call themselves Christians than any other group that does so except perhaps for the Gnostics. As much as Christians would like to think that their religion represents some sort of exemplar of kindness and love many are clueless as to how it came to be. That the bible was the result of a power struggle among all the variants of the purported teachings of Jesus and the victor of that struggle got to make the bible. That at the time of Jesus there was no such thing as a Christian and that Jesus said in his own words that he was not here for the gentile but for the Jew. The various forms of the religion that calls itself Catholic or Christian was not created by Jesus but by Saul. If Jesus were alive today he would be very angry and when he calmed down he would laugh his ass off.

Starboy

[Paul]

Before the Damascus road event there were no one called christians, but the disciples of Jesus were called the people of 'The Way'. The founder of the christian movement was and is Saul/St.Paul.

Vernon! Can you show this forum the scriptural events that there were people that called themselves Christians before the Damascus road event.

Peace be with you, Paul

[Paul]

Also, Saul/St.Paul, the founder of Christianty, is the Chief Apostle of Christianty.

Peace be with you, Paul

[Starboy]

Quote by: Paul Can you show this forum the scriptural events that there were people that called themselves Christians before the Damascus road event.

The purported Damascus road event. It has as much credibility as the purported visits from the angel moroni.

Starboy

[Paul]

Starboy: > ["The purported Damascus road event. It has as much credibility as the purported visits from the angel moroni."]

Yes, I know!

Peace be with you, Paul

[Aaron Spicka]

Jesus a communist? No.

[Trotsky]

"everybody is equal before the eyes of the lord" "easier for a camel to pass throught the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter heaven", "love thy neighbour as thyself"...now I'm not saying he was a communist as in the manifestation of communism in the world today, i.e the former Soviet Union, China, South East Asia, Cuba etc, but in the actual true meaning of communism, brotherhood, equality, justice, kindness etc.

[Paul]

Vernon! Can you show this forum the scriptural events that there were people that called themselves Christians before the Damascus road event.

May the Spirit of Love and Truth be within you and you deeds be accordingly.

Peace with you, Paul

[Paul]

Can anyone show this forum, from scriptural events that there were people that called themselves Christians before the Damascus road event.

May the Spirit of Love and Truth be within you and you deeds be accordingly.

Peace with you, Paul