A recent thread asked this question and many of the responders were amazed that anyone would not consider Catholics Christians. Several people did note some pockets of fundamentalist believers, mainly in the South, who did make such a distinction. Well, today I ran across a presumably highly-educated writer who makes a distinction between the two. In today’s **The Washington Post **art critic Blake Gopnik in his discussion of a controversial exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery writes “…some Christians and Catholics might be…offended” by this exhibit.
You can find unexpected beliefs at all levels of society.
Christianity is defined as a religion where adherents believe in Jesus Christ the son of God being their saviour
Catholics believe in Jesus Christ the son of God being their saviour
Ergo, Catholics are Christians. Is this really so hard?
If it’s the article I’m thinking of, they make the distinction because it was specific Evangelical and Catholic groups. They paint the brush very broad, as the only one they quote is Bill Donohue. And that’s a bit like getting Sarah Palin’s opinion, and then passing it off as that of every Alaskan.
I was surprised to find that, although LDS (Mormons) would seem to be Christians by this definition, they’re not considered Christians by Cathloics and many Protestant groups. I always thought that was drawing the line in an odd place. So you might reflect that evidently not everyone shares your definition.
Agreed. I know most Southern Baptists do not consider LDS Christians. I mean, there was a huge evangelism push in Utah by the SBC at one point. But most I know do consider Catholics to be Christians.
Me? That’s between the person and God. Denominational differences mean nothing. If a person says he/she is Christian, that’s good enough for me.
Right. They were THE Christians, as in the ones being thrown to the lions and such. Nearly all non-Catholic Christians are some variety of Protestant, which came later.
This was discussed in a recent thread: What Christian denominations consider Mormons as Christians too? It seemed to me that you’d have to be pretty narrow in your definition of Christianity to exclude people whose beliefs focus on the life, teachings, divinity, and resurrection of Jesus and who believe that he is the saviour of our immortal souls. Anyone who believes that stuff should have the right to call himself a Christian.
Well, I don’t know. I would be concerned if someone in a comparative religion class was teaching that Catholics aren’t Christians, but as a practicing Catholic myself, I have answered the question “are you Christian?” with “no, I’m Catholic” many times in a conversational setting. I’m not sure if it’s regional, or generational, or what, but it’s intended to convey a cultural, not a doctrinal, self-identification.
I know exactly what you mean. All the same, I’d probably answer with “yes, I’m Catholic.” Therefore, you’re still making the differentiation, but at the same time reinforcing that the “big-C” Christians don’t have a monopoly on Christianity.
Wouldn’t a better answer be, “Yes, I’m Catholic?” How different is your answer from one that went “no, I’m Lutheran,” or “No, I’m Baptist?” Those seem odd, your answer sounds odd also.
I’m not Lutheran or Baptist, so I don’t know if people who are might answer that way, or why or why not.
This is one of those things where I realize it might sound odd to other people, but it’s fairly typical and not at all odd in the community in which I grew up (working class, Irish-American Catholic). We simply use “Christian” as shorthand for “Protestant” or even “non-denominational Christian.”
The only example I can think of that might be similar is if you asked someone “Are you American?” and they responded “No, I’m Canadian.” They might have answered “Yes, I’m Canadian” because after all, Canada is part of North America, but for right or for wrong, to most people, “American” has come to mean “of the United States.” So “Yes” a right answer, but “No” is probably more in keeping with the context of the conversation and the intent of the asker.
Yep, this is pretty much my experience as well. Growing up in Kansas, expressions of religion in daily life were almost as ubiquitous as wheat fields, and it was not uncommon, during some of the many, many discussions that touched on religion, for someone to say “I’m not Catholic, I’m a Christian.” This was probably just a distinction, but it wasn’t until sometime in my teens that I realized that Catholics were also Christians.
I believe in the right to self-definition. It doesn’t matter whether another group thinks your group’s self-description is legitimate. Unless you’re a scientologist, in which case you’re just nuts.
I used to think that Catholics were the ultimate Christians. Like they were Orthodox Christians. They preached burning hell, too. So in my mind, as a kid, there was *definitely *a burning, real and tortuous and everlasting hell, because the ultimate church said so!
Wasn’t until joining this board that I learned that hell wasn’t biblical and certainly not something that all Christians believed in.