Thank you

To any who will say that I am condemned because I am catholic or christian, or that I cannot be both catholic and christian, I say THANK YOU. You are helping to apply the beatitudes to me. Blessed am I because of slander and hate on account of Jesus. So when you say that I am going to hell, I am unsaved, I am not a christian, catholics aren’t christian, or that I need to "aceept Jesus as my personal lord and saviour " you bring down blessings upon me for your scorn brings God’s blessing.

Well, I would never tell you that you were not a Christian, Traillius.

I wonder though: your church teaches you that I am not a Christian. Should I say thank you in the same manner?

I cannot say for sure what you believe, your standing before God, or the mandates of your moral compass. I do know that the LDS church was founded by Joseph Smith, and has some historical inaccuracies that I find hard to reconcile with fact, and some theological perspectives that differ greatly from my own. The catholic church was founded by Jesus Christ and has no such inaccuracies, and all its theological perspectives are perfectly in line with the Teachings of Jesus.

(wry grin)

I see.

Very…carefully…put, sir. :hmmm:

However, no matter how delicately you couched your language, the substance is…well, that you agree with your church. That’s fine, of course; you should agree with your church, if you identify with it. The problem is, of course, that it also makes a statement, that this sort of name calling “You aren’t a Christian!” is a problem, and persecution, when aimed AT you, but not when it is done BY you.

See, here’s the thing. It doesn’t matter whether I agree with you about your beliefs, or whether you agree with me: this sort of thing is wrong no matter who is doing it, or who it is aimed at.

The recipients, no matter what their beliefs are, take it as persecution, and use it to bolster their own faith…nothing, and I do mean nothing, cements an idea like opposition to it.

The dishers-out of such…stuff…always justify it as ‘defending the faith,’ or 'I’m right and he’s wrong, and so it’s OK."

:shrug:

Never mind, I just wanted to inject a morsel of thought to chew on.

I’ve seen you say this many times. Something like, ‘Who gave YOU the authority to determine who is Christian and who isn’t ?’ It could also be said, 'Who gave you the authority to call YOURSELF Christian? Is there such a thing as a Christian? You seem to say that if someone wants to call themselves Christian then that’s okay, regardless of what they teach. So, the Jehovah Witnessess, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Heavens Gate, Masonic Lodge, Scientology, Unification Church and many others can call themselves Christian and we should just accept what they say. That sounds like anarchy where everything goes. Or how about the new grading system. Everybody gets a passing grade regardless of their lack of progress. Should we just keep our mouths shut and let everyone claim themselves Christian since you imply there is no standard for determining who is a Christian and who isn’t?

Before I go, consider two posts by one of your own:

I don’t recall directing any accusations at you personally. Now I agree that people are usually fond of their religions, and so find it hurtful if somebody speaks evil of it. And as a rule I try not to. But sometimes an organization that masquerades as a religion is so blatantly fraudulent and deceitful that being silent about it amounts to complicity. The Watchtower unfortunately is such an organization.

The theology of their religion and the doctrines that they teach are false in its entirety, and they have no authorization from God, Jehovah, or Jesus Christ to teach or preach it. It is not Their doctrines, but purely a JW invention. I also believe that the Watchtower society is a dangerous, fraudulent, and manipulative organization whose purpose is simply to gain control of the lives and minds of their adherents, and to manipulate them to their own ends.

I ask you, are his statements TRUE or FALSE?

Well, my first knee jerk response was to write…“I did,” or “God did,” or 'the dictionary did…" but none of those are quite right. The true answer is 'all of the above…" or perhaps…nobody…but then you don’t have the right to deny my claim, either.

Pretty much, yeah. If they claim it…(and some of the above folks don’t, y’know) and believe in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth as they see 'em, then, yeah. They are Christians. Their beliefs might be waaaaaay off the reservation,and even be embarrassing to the rest of us–even a real blot on the escutcheon, so to speak… but they are, nevertheless, Christian beliefs–because Christians believe them.

The definition of “Christian” is NOT “he who agrees with me.” It is: someone who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ (as he believes them to be) and calls himself a Christian.

(parenthetical comment mine, for clarity.) .

– Or not; after all, that definition does exclude most of the people on the planet, doesn’t it? That’s the problem with identifying a term that encompasses a huge belief system, including all the varied versions of it. It’s about the only thing that ALL people who call themselves Christian agree on: they believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and they call themselves 'Christian." Everything else is something that differentiates their beliefs from that of some other Christian.

So…let me get this straight; all is anarchy unless everyone agrees with your definition of what a Christian is? There is a word for that attitude, y’know. Several, in fact. “hubris” is an example.

There you go again, deciding that “Christian” means “saved” or “correct.” It doesn’t.

I didn’t see anything in there about JW’s not being Christian. (Looking again…) Nope. This poster was certainly emphatic that they were WRONG, but…'not Christian?"

Nope, not in there.

By the way, it is quite possible to be a Christian…and be completely wrong about just about everything.

Oh…I would not have written those things in that way. Everybody has his or her own style, and that’s not mine. Nobody, for instance, is ALL wrong about everything.

One final comment on this, Ricko…IF “Christian” meant ‘he who is saved," or "he who is correct,’ or “he who believes the same thing I do,” as you seem to think it does, then the only Christian in this one to one conversation…isn’t you.

Isn’t it a good thing, then, that my own beliefs in this matter are different? You should be pleased, after all: no Mormon is ever going to go blasting “Catholics aren’t Christians!” all over the internet. You don’t have to bewail how mean Mormons are to you, telling you that you aren’t His, or Christian.

Nope, we’ll leave that stuff to you. Just be aware that when you perform rants like this, the reaction is more likely to be a raised eyebrow than a 'you’re right, you’re right, how dare we claim to be Christians!"

I will admit, however, that reading your post was fun; and answering it even more so.

I thought that my Church taught that LDS *baptism *could not be recognized by the Catholic Church as valid because LDS theology regarding the trinity was so far removed from the traditional position of the Catholic, Orthodox, and mainline protestant traditions. I don’t recall any teaching about not referring to members of the LDS church as followers of Jesus Christ.

If you are trying to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ according to the dictates of your conscience, then you are by definition christian as far as I understand (even if your baptism would not be recognized by the Catholic Church as a valid sacrament.

Whether your baptism is going to be recognized as valid by the Catholic Church is a different question altogether from whether or not one is a christian (follower of Jesus Christ). Baptism is simply the sacrament by which one enters the Catholic Church. But one can be outside of the Catholic Church and still profess to be a Christian, right? I won’t take that away from any LDS member who wants to call himself or herself a christian.

Peace,
Robert

You have just posted a wonderful post that is filled with love and mercy. Thank you…:slight_smile:

It is interesting how you have put words in my mouth (see red above) that I never said.

I was trying to see how you believe Christian should be defined. Now I know that you don’t know what a Christian really is because you say

The definition of “Christian” is NOT “he who agrees with me.” It is: someone who believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ (as he believes them to be

) and calls himself a Christian.

With your definition “as he believes them to be” that would encompass any conflicting belief as long as the individual or group claims they are Christians. So in your world, there is no standard for being a Christian, anything goes as long as you claim to be a Christian. Sounds like anarchy to me.

I do like it when people agree with me. :wink:

Ok, you objected to my describing your definition of “Christian” as “he who agrees with me,” Or “he who is 'saved.”

Please, enlighten me. What IS your definition of “Christian?”

Catholics were the first Christians. 2,000 years ago they taught the early church what is still being taught today. Apostolic. One. Holy. Catholic. :thumbsup:
To be a Christian is to believe in Jesus Christ. But wait…When Jesus said “Why do you call me Lord, Lord when you do not do as I say?” In other words, it takes more than just to believe in Christ. Anyone can just say they are a believer, but what do they do for Christ? The Eucharist is the center of all Christian faith. But Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence, even though it so clearly states this in the bible, so are Protestants Christians?

Yes, on this point we do agree. I believe you are honestly following Christ as best as you know how, just like me.

Peace,
Robert

I do.

Jon

:):thumbsup:

I see.

So for you, the definition of “Christian” is “someone who agrees with me about the literal nature of the Eucharist; transubstantiation.”

That sorta leaves out a huge chunk of the Christian world. What WOULD you call those who don’t agree with you, if they believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ?

Oh, by the way, yes, I believe that Protestants are Christian. Remember…I’m not the one who is attempting to deny sincere people attempting to have a true relationship with Christ Jesus the right to call themselves by His name.

One question; where does it say, anywhere in any lexicon or dictionary, that one must believe in the transubstantive nature of the Eucharist in order to be a Christian?

According to the catechism of the catholic church:

1271
**Baptism constitutes the foundation of communion among all Christians, **including those who are not yet in full communion with the Catholic Church: "For men who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in some, though imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church. Justified by faith in Baptism, [they] are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers by the children of the Catholic Church."81 “Baptism therefore constitutes the sacramental bond of unity existing among all who through it are reborn.”

1272
Incorporated into Christ by Baptism, **the person baptized is configured to Christ. Baptism seals the Christian with the indelible spiritual mark (character) of his belonging to Christ. **No sin can erase this mark, even if sin prevents Baptism from bearing the fruits of salvation.83 Given once for all, Baptism cannot be repeated.

818
"However, one cannot charge with the sin of the separation those who at present are born into these communities [that resulted from such separation] and in them are brought up in the faith of Christ, and the Catholic Church accepts them with respect and affection as brothers . . . . All who have been justified by faith in Baptism are incorporated into Christ; they therefore have a right to be called Christians, and with good reason are accepted as brothers in the Lord by the children of the Catholic Church

819
"Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity

838
The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored 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."322 Those "who believe in Christ and have been properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect, communion with the Catholic Church."323 With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound "that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.

Im surprised you have to ask such an offensive question, given you must so clearly know what your own catechism says.

I mean, you have read it and studied it - right? :rolleyes:

Actually, transubstantiation, (though not mentioned by OTCA; she simply said real presence) leaves out vitually all of the rest of Christianity, as few others than Catholics describe the real presence as transub.

Interestingly, the Catholic Catechism says:

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 I]]Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church.

All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."276

ISTM this is saying that non-Catholic Christian Churches are used by the Holy Spirit as a means of salvation. That it claims the Catholic Church is the source for these means of salvation is fine by me.

Jon

:smiley: Diana, you have convinced me that you are a messianic pagan. hehehehe. My friend tlou says Mormons are Christians.

I think, mormons are serious in their intent to be Christian. I don’t think this is a bad thing.

“Messianic pagan?”

(grin)

I like it.

Mind you, I’m a little odd, but…I like it.

It’s just that, well…I’m still a Christian. (shrug)

But dang. I LIKE 'Messianic Pagan!!" It sounds…philosophically intense. :wink:

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.